previous next


ἐοῦσα: concessive; for the beasts of Libya cf. iv. 191. Egypt is comparatively free from beasts, owing to the extent of cultivated land and the small amount of waste.

ἐόντα agrees with θήρια understood from θηριώδης. Strictly taken the words mean that all beasts were sacred everywhere in Egypt; but this is absurd, and inconsistent with H.'s own details. The respect paid varied from nome to nome; cf. Juv. xv. 36 ‘numina vicinorum odit uterque locus’. H. quite fails to distinguish the various kinds of animal worship (Sourdille, R. p. 235 seq.): (1) animals worshipped by individuals as fetiches. Of this class there is little evidence, though no doubt such worship was widely spread among the lower classes; (2) individual animals supposed to be gods incarnate. Cf. c. 46 (the goat at Mendes); iii. 27-8 (Apis at Memphis; (3) whole classes of animals sacred to a god. Strabo, 803, distinguishes these clearly, θεοὶ μὲν οὐ νομίζονται ἱεροὶ δέ. Most of H.'s details refer to (3). For animal worship in general cf. 75. 3 n.

ἀνεῖται: properly ‘are let go’; hence ἀνίημι is used either with ἱρός (as here) or without (cf. Plato, Leg. 761 C ἄλσος ἀνειμένον = ‘consecrated’).

φεύγω: cf. for this reserve 3. 2 n.


The office of ‘caretaker’ of the beasts was certainly not always hereditary: H. is too absolute.


εὐχάς. The ‘vows’ are obviously for the restoration of children's health; so Diodorus (i. 83) understood this passage; he mentions the various kinds (not ‘fish’ only) of food given to the beasts, and that land was set apart for their maintenance. Rob. Smith (Kinship2, p. 179; Rel. Sem. p. 330) compares the Arabian sacrifice (‘acica’) at birth of a child, when its head was shaved and a sheep sacrificed for it; by devoting its hair it was admitted into the family.


τὸ δ᾽. The antecedent for this is τούτου understood with ζημίη.

ἶβιν. Cic. Tusc. v. 27, 78 implies that it was a capital offence to kill an ibis, a snake, a cat, a dog, or a crocodile. Diodorus (i. 83 ad fin.), who was himself present, relates that Ptolemy Auletes was unable to save from death a Roman who had unintentionally killed a cat, although he and his people alike were at the time most anxious for Roman friendship.

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: