This text is part of:
φαρμακεύσαντες: Hdt. seems to treat the Magi as mere ‘medicinemen,’ and not really good at that; cp. c. 191 infra.
τὸν Στρυμόνα εὑρόντες ἐξευγμένον: according to order: cp. c. 24 supra. Hdt. appears to know nothing of a bridge across Strymon in his own time, nor does he make mention of Amphipolis, cp. 9. 75 infra: an important point in its bearing upon the date of composition; cp. c. 113. The bridge here in question Hdt. seems to locate at ‘Nine ways’: it was possibly higher up the river. He speaks here indeed of ‘Bridges’: perhaps conceiving one for the Army, and one for the Train, as at the Hellespont. Probably several pontoons were thrown across the Strymon.
ζώοντας κατώρυσσον. Περσικόν: perhaps Hdt. was not aware, when he wrote this passage, that the horrible human immolation here described was more in accord with the religion and custom of the Thracians (ἐπιχώριοι) than with Persian ideas and practices. Cp. 4. 93 (Getae), 63 (Skyths), 72 (id.). Nor is the argument by which he seeks to establish the Persian observance of the practice of ‘live-burial’ conclusive. Even if the fact was correctly reported, Amestris in her old age may have been no very good exponent of the ‘Persian’ religion. Hdt. here makes no reference to the perlormance of Kambyses, who on one occasion, as elsewhere, and probably afterwards, recorded, Περσέων ὁμοίους τοῖσι πρώτοισι δυώδεκα ἐπ᾽ οὐδεμιῇ αἰπίῃ ἀξιόχρεῳ ἑλὼν ζώοντας ἐπὶ κεφαλὴν κατώρυξε 3. 35. Amestris was not content with a dozen: but then, she had a good reason. Brutal punishments, and for political offences, were ‘Persian’ enough (cp. Duncker, E. T. vi. 340 f.), but it is not clear that human sacrifice was any part of the religion of the Achaimenidai; and if Amestris (c. 61 supra) ever put it in practice as a religious act, she was conforming to some primitive and savage revivalism. Ktesias, indeed, records her to have tortured Apollonides, a Koan physician, for two months, and then had him buried alive on the death of Amytis; but that was an act of vengeance for a gross outrage, and abnse of his position (Ktes. Pers. 42).
πυνθάνομαι γηράσασαν: the item looks like an addition, from a fresh source, doubtless oial, by the author himself. Ktesias (l.c.) appears to date the death of Amestris, κάρτα γραῦς γενομένη, shortly before the death of Artaxerxes himself (425 B.C.), and after the death of the younger Zopyros; cp. 3. 160 (written perhaps before Zopyros' death, though after his desertion). This passage then belongs to the very latest additions by the author to his work, and may be dated after the outbreak of the Archidamian War. Cp. Introduction, § 9.
τῷ ὑπὸ γῆν λεγομένῳ εἶναι θεῷ: what god was that? In Thrace it might have been Salmoxis (4. 94), in Hellas, Pluton, or Haides; in Egypt, perhaps, Osiris: but in Persia? and at this time? It can hardly be Arimanes (Agria manu), whom a Persian would not have worshipped, nor have located thus. Rawlinson thinks Hdt. here speaks as a Greek. Stein thinks Amestris' act was a thankoffering for the great age she had attained: that can hardly be sound. If the act was ‘religious’ it was probably propitiatory: but the religious motive may be a gloss. The exchange, or return, implied in ἀντιχαρίζεσθαι may surely be prospective: in such cases, at least, gratitude is an expectation of favours to come.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.