BOOK II
The following have been used especially for the notes on this book and on iii. 1. 38; references are made by the titles in brackets. Baedeker. Guide-book to Egypt. (Baedeker.) Breasted, J. H. History of Egypt. 1906. (Breasted, E.) —Ancient Records of Egypt. 5 vols. 1906-7. (Breasted, R.) British Museum Guide. 1909. (B. M. G.) Brugsch. History of Egypt under the Pharaohs. 2 vols. (English translation). 1881. (Brugsch.) Budge. The Egyptian Sûdâ. 1907. (Budge, S.) —The Mummy. (Budge, M.) Egypt Exploration Fund Reports. (E. E. F.) Erman, A. Life in Ancient Egypt (English translation). 1894. (Erman, E.) —Handbook of Egyptian Religion (English translation). 1907. (Erman, R.) Lepsius. Denkmäler aus Ägypten. 12 vols. 1848-50. (L. D.) Maspero. Contes Populaires. (Maspero, C.P.) —Études de Mythologie Égyptienne. 2 vols. 1893. (Maspero, E.M.) Murray. Handbook for Egypt and the Sûdân. (11th edit. by H. R. Hall.) 1907. Petrie, Flinders. History of Egypt. Vols. I-III. (Petrie.) Sourdille, C. Hérodote et la Religion d'Égypte. 1910. (Sourdille, R.) —La Duration et l'Étendue du Voyage d'Hérodote en Égypte. 1910. (Sourdille, H. E.) Wiedemann, A. Herodots Zweites Buch. 1890. (Wiedemann.) Wilkinson, Sir J. G. Manners of the Ancient Egyptians. New ed. 1878. (Wilkinson.) Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache. (Z. A. S.)Pharnaspes was an Achaemenid, though not of the direct royal line; it was usual for Persian kings to marry members of their own family (e.g. Darius and Atossa, daughter of Cyrus). H. lays stress on the name and lineage of the mother of Cambyses, because the Egyptians made him the son of an Egyptian princess (iii. 1 n.).
The mention of Ionians connects this book with i. 141-76; cf. the mention of Amasis (iii. 1), which links together Bks. II and III. H.'s custom is to give some account of the manners and the past history of each new people, as he brings it on the stage of his history; but this account of Egypt, even more than that of Scythia in Bk. IV, is out of all proportion to the rest of his history. Hence the idea that it was composed separately, probably after the rest, and only later incorporated in his general scheme (cf. Introd. § 11).
That the Egyptians were the oldest race in the world was a general belief; cf. Arist. Pol. vii. 10. 8, 1329 b, and Diod. i. 101, who says the Nile, πολύγονος ὤν, was a special cause of the priority of the Egyptians. Antiquity and nobility of race were supposed to go together.
ἐπιτεχνᾶται. Frederick II of Germany and James IV of Scotland are said to have repeated the experiment of Psammetichus, and to have proved by it that Hebrew was the speech of Paradise. ἐς τὰ ποίμνια: a constructio praegnans, ‘to take to the flocks and rear.’ τροφὴν τοιήνδε (cogn. acc.) is explained by the following participle, ἐντειλάμενος. τὴν ὥρην, ‘at the proper time.’ The dative with ἐν would be more usual; but cf. ἀκμήν, καιρόν.
βεκός: in the Ionian dialect = ‘bread’; cf. Hipponax, fr. 82 Κυπρίων βεκὸς φαγοῦσι κἀμαθουσίων πυρόν. This story is frequently referred to, e.g. in Aristoph. Nub. 398 βεκκεσέληνε (cf. i. 4. 2 n.). Even in ancient times the word βεκός was explained as onomatopoetic, from the cries of the goats. Ramsay has recently found it on a Phrygian inscription (Jahreshefte des Öst. Arch. Inst. in Wien, 1905, Beibl. p. 95 seq.).
The Phrygians were generally considered a recent people; cf. vii. 73 for their immigration from Europe.
The Egyptians certainly attached great importance to the cries of children; but H.'s story sounds like a Greek invention, a protest against the Egyptian claim to priority, which he elsewhere accepts. The Egyptians could have claimed βεκός as evidence for their own antiquity, for it resembles one of their words for ‘oil’. Ἡφαίστου: i.e. Ptah; cf. iii. 37. 2 n. One of the sacred names for Memphis was Het-Ka-Ptah, i.e. ‘temple of the Ka (i.e. the “double”) of Ptah’, from which name some have derived Αἴγυπτος. ‘Memphis’ (= Mennefert, the good place) was only the profane name of the city. For the temple's importance as a source of H.'s information cf. App. X, § 10, and Introd. § 24. μάταια: this is perhaps a hit at Hecataeus; for H.'s critical attitude to his countrymen cf. c. 45 nn. Bury (A. G. H. p. 51) thinks H. would have written Ἴωνες, had he meant to criticize Hecataeus, and that he really is here borrowing a point from that writer. But there is no evidence for the borrowing, and it is not likely in itself. It has been argued that this second version is the original form of the story, which H., as a philo-Egyptian, has softened down; on the other hand, the more brutal story may well be only an attempt to rationalize the older legend.
Memphis, Heliopolis, and Thebes represent the three chief forms of the older Egyptian worship, i.e. of Ptah at Memphis, of Atum or Tumu (the Sun) at Heliopolis, and Amen-Ra at Thebes. Memphis perhaps was founded by Merpeba, the sixth king of the First Dynasty, who was combined with Mena the first king (King and Hall, pp. 91-3). Its age was proverbial in Egypt. Even when, under the ‘new Kingdom’, Thebes became the capital, M. was a second capital. Its ruins were largely used for building Cairo, about fourteen miles to the south of which town it lies, on the left bank of the Nile, under the rubbish heaps of Bedrashēn. Thebes. The usual Egyptian name of the town was Nu, ‘the town’ i.e. of Amen-Ra (cf. Hebrew No, Jer. xlvi. 25, and NoAmon, Nahum iii. 8); the Greek name is from the less common Apet. Thebes first became a royal residence under the eleventh Dynasty. It remained important till the seventh century B.C., when it was sacked by the Assyrians; from this it never recovered. Its most important temple was that of Amen-Ra at Karnak; H. (c. 143 nn.) calls it a temple of Zeus. Heliopolis. Its sacred name was House of Ra, i.e. the Sun-God; it is the Hebrew On. Its ruins are near Matarieh, which is six miles NNE. of Cairo, and about four miles E. of the Nile; when H. speaks (9. 1) of the ἀνάπλοος from Heliopolis to Thebes, he is writing loosely. Heliopolis was important as a religious, and not as a political, centre. H. rightly speaks of its inhabitants as ‘most skilled in tradition’ (λογιώτατοι); from it were said to have come the teachers of Pythagoras, Solon, and Plato. Strabo (806) describes it as a seat of learning, though in his day it was only a show-place.
θεῖα are contrasted with ἀνθρωπήια (4. 1); for similar scruples cf. c. 86—the account of the embalming—and pass. ἴσον . . . ἐπίστασθαι. The meaning of these words has been much disputed. (1) It is clear that αὐτῶν refers to divine things, not merely to the divine names (as Bähr); H. did not think all men knew equally the names of the gods. (2) Wiedemann's explanation, too, must be rejected. He argues that H. means that, since all men agree as to the gods, it is only necessary to mention their names (which differ in different races), and then men will understand each other. But this statement again is not true; H. does not think all men's knowledge of divine things is equal; on the contrary, he thinks Greek knowledge much inferior to that in Egypt (cf. e.g. 43. 2 as to Heracles). (3) The usual explanation (e.g. Stein's) is that ἴσον = just as much, i.e. ‘just as little’; since men really know nothing of divine things (cf. ix. 65) they should not laugh at each other's beliefs. This pessimistic view would be quite in accordance with H.'s general attitude (cf. Introd. § 36), and may be compared to Xenophanes' sentiment (fr. 14, R. and P. p. 80) οὐδέ τισἔσται εἰδὼς ἀμφὶ θεῶν. (4) But this explanation does not take account of the character of the passages where H. lays stress on his silence (v.i.); in view of these Sourdille (R. pp. 2-26), who discusses the whole subject at length, maintains that the reference is to the ‘mysteries’. Since these, H. thinks, are virtually the same in all countries (cf. 81. 2, 123. 2, 3), to describe the Egyptian mysteries would be to reveal the secrets of the Greek ones. Hence H. is careful only to touch on them (cf. 65. 2 αὐτῶν ἐπιψαύσας, ἀναγκαίῃ καταλαμβανόμενος); he will describe details, but not relate the ἱρὸς λόγος which explained them. The following are the passages in Bk. II where H. is religiously silent: 46. 2 (the goat-footed Pan), 47. 2 (the sacrifice of swine), 61. 1, 132. 2 (the sacred mourning at Busiris), 65. 2 (animal worship, the most important passage), 86. 2 (embalming), 170. 1 (the tomb of Osiris at Sais), 171. 1 τὰ δείκηλα τῶν παθέων (of Osiris) τὰ καλέουσι μυστήρια Αἰγύπτιοι. In 48. 3 (the phallic ceremonies for Dionysus), 51. 4 (the Samothracian Hermes), 62. 2 (the feasts of lights at Sais), 81.2 (wearing wool), though he refuses to tell a ἱρὸς λόγος, he does not especially refer to his silence. It will be noticed (vid. nn.) that most of these passages refer to Osiris.
to\n e)niauto/n. I. The Problem of the Calendar. The difficulty of all calendars is to reconcile a lunar and a solar system of reckoning; by the former the year consists of 354 days, by the latter of about 365 1/4. (The exact figures are: days hours min. sec. a lunation ... ... ... ... 29 12 44 3 a lunar year ... ... ... 354 8 48 36 a solar year ... ... ... 365 5 48 48.) The calendar had to be regulated (1) in order to secure the proper recurrence of feasts (hence month-names are often taken from festivals; cf. Curtius, G. H. ii. 23 f. for the connexion of Delphi and the calendar). (2) To regulate civil procedure. Two problems arise: (a) to adjust the civil month to the motions of the moon; (b） to adjust the lunar month and the solar year. II. Greek Solutions. The Greeks adopted a lunar reckoning, making the months alternately of 30 and 29 days; this was arranged by Solon (cf. Plut. Sol. 25, and L. and S. s. v. ἕνος). It is said that he tried further to rectify the error thus arising from the shortness of his year (which was only 30 x 6 + 29 x 6 = 354 days), by inserting an intercalary month every other year (διὰ τρίτου ἔτεος, for which phrase cf. 37. 2 διὰ τρίτης ἡμέρης, and iii. 97. 3). H. here and in i. 32. 3 definitely asserts that this was the Greek system in his day. Others, however (e.g. Stein), argue that H. has misunderstood the system; an intercalary month every other year would give 738 days in two years, instead of 730 1/2. Hence they argue that the real system in H.'s time was to introduce three (not four, as H.) intercalary months in every period of eight years; this would give a fairly accurate result, i.e. 354 x 8 + 90 = 2922 = 8 x 365 1/4. This seems really to have been the arrangement in H.'s own day; but the date of its introduction is uncertain. Unger argues (I. Müller, Handb. der klass. Alt.-Wiss. i. 569-70) that the eight-year period existed from quite early times, at any rate from the eighth century, as is shown by myths and customs (Plut. Mor. 418), and (presumably) that the three intercalary months in each period are also early; Solon may have used this system. The calendar was further adjusted by Meton in Periclean times, who introduced a nineteen-years' cycle. For a brief account of the whole subject cf. Abbott, Outlines of Gk. Hist. pp. 10 seq. III. Egyptian Solutions. The Egyptians were the first people who definitely adopted a solar year of twelve months with thirty days in each; this began July 19 (according to the Julian calendar), i.e. 1st of Thoth according to the Egyptian, which was about a month in advance of the real solar year. On this day Sirius (Sothis) is first visible in the morning, in the latitude of Memphis (cf. ἄστρων). This coincides with the beginning of the rise of the Nile (19. 2 n.). Five days were added (ἐπαγόμεναι) at the end of the year. So far H. is right; but he quite fails to grasp the methods by which the Egyptians tried to reconcile this year of 365 days with the real solar year of 365 1/4 days (roughly) (cf. ὁ κύκλος . . . ἐς τὠυτὸ παραγίνεται). This is not surprising, as scholars are not agreed even now as to their methods. Brugsch says they had anticipated the Julian calendar, and to every fourth year added an extra day, i.e. making it a leap year. Certainly J. Caesar was said to have derived his calendar from Egypt (Dio Cass. xliii. 26). This view seems to be a mistake. Ptolemy Euergetes (238 B.C.), by the decree of Canopus, tried to introduce this (i.e. the Julian) system, but in vain. The Egyptians, however, recognized that their common year and the real year (the ‘Sothic year’) did not agree, and that the ‘common year’ grew later and later; hence the calculation of the ‘Sothic period’ (κυνικὸς κύκλος) of 1,460 years (= 1,461 ‘common years’), at the expiration of which the mistake had rectified itself (1/4 day per year for 1,460 years = a year of 365 days). The first ‘Sothic period’ is said to begin 4241 B.C. (but cf. App. X, § 2). Hence the date of the arrangement of the calendar is fixed for this year, ‘the first certain date in the world's history’ (Meyer, i, §§ 159, 195-7). Cf. also B. M. G. pp. 182 seq. for a short but clear account of the Egyptian calendar. The five ‘extra days’ can be traced on the monuments as far back as the 6th Dynasty.
δυώδεκα θεῶν. For the Egyptian Pantheon in H. cf. c. 145 nn. Here he only means that the names of the twelve chief gods of the Greek Pantheon were Egyptian (c. 52). For the pictures of the Egyptian gods cf. B. M. G. pp. 123 seq. ζῷα (cf. i. 70. 1 n.); not the hieroglyphs (which the Greeks did not borrow), but ‘figures’ of animals, men, plants, &c., e.g. on the scarab, worn as amulets; these were largely exported to Greece. Μῖνα: cf. c. 99 n.
Θηβαϊκοῦ νομοῦ = the southern part of Upper Egypt, the later Thebais. H. is not consistent here with his own statement (c. 99) that Menes founded Memphis; that town lies some way ‘below’ (ἔνερθε), i.e. north of, L. Moeris (for which cf. c. 149 n.). The legend also is exaggerated; but ‘it contains the truth that Lower Egypt remained a land of swamps far later than Upper Egypt’ (Erman, E. p. 16). For νομοῦ cf. 164 n.
The origin (5, 10-14), dimensions (6-9), and boundaries of Egypt (15-18).
δῆλα γὰρ δή. This passage naturally means ‘I should have seen this for myself, even if I had not been told’. The phrase δῶρον τ. π., however, is attributed by Arrian (Anab. v. 6—doubtfully) to Hecataeus; hence some see in it a proof that H. used the work of his predecessor as a guide-book; but cf. Introd. § 20. The Greeks were quick to observe the action of rivers in forming deltas; cf. c. 10 and Thuc. ii. 102. H. is quite right that Egypt is alluvial deposit; this is true of the whole country up to the first cataract; but the process of silting up had taken far longer than he supposes (e.g. some place it at 74,000 years). The elevation of the ground is now very slow—only four inches in one hundred years. ἐς τήν. The words mark off one part of Egypt, i.e. the Delta. τὰ κατύπερθε . . . πλόου. This clause also refers to Αἴγυπτος, being roughly parallel to ἐς τὴν Ἕλληνες ν.; it marks off a second part of the country which is also ‘a gift of the river’. The construction is adverbial. Translate, ‘(this is true) with regard to the parts,’ &c. τριῶν ἡμερέων: see 8. 3 n. for this limit. ἔστι δὲ ἕτερον. This refers to the following sentence.
ἔτι καὶ ἡμέρης. H. calls a day's πλοῦς 540 (9. 1) or 700 stades (iv. 86); either of these figures is far too much here; a depth of eleven fathoms is reached some twelve or fifteen miles from the coast near Aboukir. Both facts in § 2 are quoted to show the effect of the Nile on the coast, viz. the presence of alluvial mud and the small depth of water.
μῆκος. H. (in c. 7. 1 and c. 10) continues his proof that Egypt is alluvial, but digresses here to give its dimensions. σχοῖνοι. Properly a ‘rope’, cp. Eng. ‘cord’ and ‘chain’ as measures. The extent of a σχοῖνος was uncertain, probably because it was a practical measure, not strictly a measure of length (cp. Germ. ‘Stunde’). Strabo (804) says that it varied from 30 to 120 stades. H. gives it a uniform value of 60 stades, and so is inaccurate in his results; here he exaggerates, and makes Egypt, which has really only about 2200 stades of sea-coast, to have ‘3600’. It is noticeable that ‘60 stades’ was the estimate of a σχοῖνος from Thebes to Syene (Artemidorus in Strabo, 804), which confirms H.'s statement that he had been south of Thebes (29 nn.). Lehmann (W. K. P. 1895, pp. 180-2), however, explains more elaborately H.'s errors here and in cc. 9, 149. He argues (1) that the σχοῖνος = the parasang = 30 stades; (2) that H. has taken the figures from his source—probably Hecataeus—and has wrongly doubled the size of the σχοῖνος; (3) that perhaps this mistake is due to the confusion of the smaller and the larger ‘kaspu’—Babylonian measures of one and of two parasangs respectively. His proof may be given in the following table: H. H. corrected. Reality as crow flies. Breadth of Egypt 3,600 st. 1,800 st. = 357.1 km. 355-360 km. From Thebes to Elephantine ... 1,800 ,, 900 ,, = 178.2 ,, 182 km. Heliopolis to Thebes ... 4,860 ,, 2,430 ,, = 482.09 ,, 490.4 km. Lake Moeris (c. 149) 3,600 ,, 1,800 ,, Pliny v. 50, 2,000 st. It is not certain, however, that measurements ‘as the crow flies’ were made before Eratosthenes (circ. 230 B.C.), and the fact that in Egyptian land measurement ‘all angles were treated as though they were right angles’ (Lyons, Survey, p. 48) does not inspire confidence; there is no evidence that Hecataeus or any other Greek before H. had attempted to give measures for Egypt. H. certainly seems to speak in c. 9 as if he were measuring along the river. τοῦ Πλινθινήτεω. Plinthine lay near the later Alexandria, on the Mareotic Lake; H. (18. 2) mentions Marea as one of the border towns towards Libya. Σερβωνίδος. This lake (now dry) lay parallel to the sea on the east side of Egypt (cf. iii. 5. 3 n.). It was much feared for its swampy shores, which were said to be covered with drifted sand, and so to engulf the unwary (cf. Diod. i. 30; Milton, Paradise Lost, ii. 592-4): “A gulf profound as that Serbonian bog
Betwixt Damiata and Mount Casius old,
Where armies whole have sunk.
” The army of Darius Ochus in 350 B.C. was said to have perished thus. It lay under Mount Casius, the real boundary of Egypt and Syria (158. 4); this was a sand dune of no great height, the modern Râs el Kasrûn, crowned with a temple to Baal (cf. the Baal-Zephon of Exodus xiv. 2, 9); Pompey was killed at its foot.
Parasang (cf. v. 53 n.) in H. and Xenophon = 30 stades = 4 Roman miles; thus it corresponds to modern Persian ‘farsang’ = 3 1/2 to 4 English miles. Other writers estimated it variously from 30 to 60 stades (cf. Strabo, 518), while Agathias (sixth century A.D.) made it as small as 21 stades.
ὁδὸς ἐς Ἡλίου πόλιν: i.e. sailing up the Pelusiac arm, which is the natural approach to Heliopolis; like a true Greek, H. went everywhere he could by water; by this route his measurement of 1,500 stades is roughly right. In c. 9 he is found to give the distance from the sea to Heliopolis as 1,260 stades (i.e. from the sea to Thebes ... ... 6,120 less from Heliopolis to Thebes ... ... 4,860 — 1,260); but in that passage he is reckoning directly north and south, in estimating the size of Egypt. The reference to Athens (cf. 156. 6; 177. 2) is one of the passages on which Kirchhoff bases his theory that Bk. II was written at Athens, but of course it proves nothing. (Cf. Introd. § 10.) For the altar and its use as a starting-point for measurements cf. vi. 108. 4 n. The town of Pisa had been destroyed in 572 B.C.; the distance here given by H. is very exact.
The negative μή is due to idea of prevention in διάφορον (quominus pares sint).
ὄρος παρατέταται. H. is quite right in remarking that the mountains begin at Heliopolis, but his conception of them is very vague; he gives them an extension (μακρότατον) from east to west of ‘two months' journey’. ταύτῃ: ‘the mountains cease at the quarries, and bend back to the sea.’ This is the most natural translation of the passage; but others translate ‘ceasing at the parts mentioned (i.e. at the Red Sea), bend back’, i.e. are double. The quarries are still a conspicuous feature in this region. ἀπὸ ἠοῦς. Stein thinks H. says ‘from east to west’, because he is reproducing Phoenician information; cf. ἐπυνθανόμην (but v. i.).
τὸ πρὸς Λιβύης. H. does not accept the name of ‘the Libyan mountain’ (cf. § 3 ad fin. Λ. καλεόμενον); to him it is ‘the Egyptian mountain on the side of Libya’, as opposed to τὸ τῆς Ἀραβίης ὄρος.
