previous next


γένεα. H. states his belief in the Egyptian caste system still more clearly in vi. 60, and it was generally believed among the Greeks, though the actual divisions vary, e. g. Plato (Tim. 24) gives three, ἱερεῖς, δημιουργοί, and μάχιμοι, of whom the δημιουργοί are divided into νομεῖς, θηρευταί, and γεωργοί; Diodorus (i. 73-4) gives the same division, putting τεχνῖται for the θηρευταί (cf. also Isoc. Bus. 15-16; Strabo 787; all, however, make the priests and the military the two first). The Greek belief was too systematized; as a matter of fact there was no strict division of hereditary castes; members of the same family could belong to different classes. But it is true that certain functions were hereditary (e. g. Brugsch enumerates fourteen royal architects in succession from one family at this period), and that the ‘soldiers’ and the ‘priests’ were separated from the mass of the people; so too were certain degraded callings, e. g. that of swineherd (47. 1). Possibly the hereditary tendency grew stronger in the last days of Egyptian independence, under the Saite reaction (Meyer, i.1 470-1).


οἱ μάχιμοι. Maspero (iii. 499 seq.) thinks that this organization was the work of Psammetichus after the desertion of his warriors (30 n.); also that the Hermotybies represented his hereditary supporters, and were perhaps of Libyan origin, while the Calasiries were pure Egyptians and had been supporters of the rival house in the Egyptian Delta. The names given by H., however, do not altogether bear out this division, e. g. that of Nathos is placed by Stein in the Egyptian Delta. It is impossible to settle the question, for several of the nomes are differently identified, e.g. those of Chemmis and Papremis (63. 1 n. and iii. 12), and some names in the second list are otherwise unknown.

Three points as to the division are probable: (1) it did not include the Greek mercenaries. Hence Gutschmid's view must be rejected that the name Λαβαρεῖς, given by Aristagoras (Steph. Byz. s. v.) to the Hermotybies, is connected with Labara in Caria; (2) that it lasted till Persian times, cf. ix. 32. 1 for the divisions in Mardonius' army; (3) the organization was, at least mainly, for Northern Egypt. ‘Thebes’ (166. 1) alone represents Upper Egypt. The strength and the danger of the Saites alike lay in the Delta.

Spiegelberg (Z. A. S. 1906, xliii. 87-90) says both Καλασίριες and Ἑρμοτύβιες are Egyptian words and = ‘young men’ and ‘riders’ respectively; Καλασίριες was used originally of Nubian troops; but in H.'s day the old sense was forgotten, and both names were applied to infantry. From the Καλασίριες the ‘fringed robe’ (81. 1) derived its name, but ἡμιτύβιον (‘apron’, Aristoph. Plut. 729) is a Greek word, not Egyptian (as Poll. vii. 71 wrongly says).

νομῶν. This division dates from a very early period, Breasted (p. 30) says from pre-dynastic times; it lasted till Roman times. ‘The nomes were sharply distinguished by religion, customs, and historical development’, Meyer, i. 177. Under the Old and the Middle Kingdoms, the power of the nomarchs had become largely hereditary. For a list of the nomes and an account of their organization cf. Maspero, pp. 25 seq., or B. M. G. pp. 16-17, but H.'s lists correspond to neither. The number is variously given by Greek writers; the Egyptians sometimes fix it at forty-four, twenty-two for each part of Egypt. For the nomes cf. Steindorf, Die ägyptischen Gaue (1909), who thinks the divisions varied greatly at different periods (cf. C. R. xxv. 56).

Creative Commons License
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.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: