previous next


τροφήν. This general payment in kind is not mentioned in iii. 90-5; the only corn contribution there (91. 3) is that of Egypt. The omission of the corn-tax in Bk. III goes to show (what is antecedently probable) that H. is there quoting an official document, drawn up for one special purpose, not giving an account of the whole revenue system. The corn contribution here mentioned corresponds to the Roman (1) frumentum in cellam (for the governor and his suite); but this was paid for; (2) annona militaris (for the soldiers in the province); (3) annona civica, i. e. for Rome, from Egypt and Africa (Marquardt, Staats-V. ii. 189, 232-3). For contributions in kind in Persia cf. Theop. frs. 124-5 (F. H. G. i. 298) and Meyer, iii. 51.


For the use of Ἀσσυρίη cf. 178. 1 n. For σατραπηίην cf. iii. 89. 1 n.

This Tritantaechmes, who was clearly satrap of Babylon when H. was there, is to be distinguished from the nephew of Darius (vii. 82); for his father Artabazus cf. viii. 126 and ix. pass.


As the μέδιμνος held 48 χοίνικες, the ‘artaba’ held 51, i. e. about 13 gallons. Α χοῖνιξ of wheat was a man's daily allowance, vii. 187. 2. For its size cf. vi. 57 n.


For the hunting dogs see Rawlinson, ad loc. (with illustration).

Ctesias (Ind. 5, p. 248) says they were able to cope with a lion, a characteristic exaggeration. M. Polo (ii. 19; i. 400) says the Great Khan had about 10,000 hunting dogs.

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: