Product Code Database
Cyaxares II () was a king of the Medes whose reign is described by the Greek historian Xenophon. Some theories have equated this figure with the "Darius the Mede" named in the Book of Daniel. He is not mentioned in the histories of Herodotus or Ctesias, and many scholars doubt that he actually existed. The question of his existence impacts on whether the kingdom of the Medes merged peacefully with that of the Persians in about 537 BC, as narrated by Xenophon (8.6.22, 8.7.1), or was subjugated in the rebellion of the Persians against Cyrus' grandfather in 559 BC, a date derived from Herodotus (1.214) and almost universally accepted by current scholarship.
From at least the time of JeromeGleason L. Archer, Jr., ed. and trans., Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), p. 55. until the 19th century, many writers, both Jewish and Christian, accepted the existence of Cyaxares II. He was regarded as the king of Media at the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in the biblical commentaries of John Calvin, Adam Clarke, Keil and Delitzsch, and Lange. In Lange's commentary, Otto Zöckler named Gesenius, Hengestenberg, and other more recent writers who equated Cyaxares II with Daniel's Darius the Mede.Otto Zöckler, “The Book of the Prophet Daniel” in John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and Ethical, tr. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960) Vol. 7, p. 36. These commentaries noted similarities between Cyaxares II as portrayed by Xenophon and what may be inferred about Darius the Mede from the sparse statements about him in the Book of Daniel. In their view, the difference in name could be explained by the fact that kings at that time—including Artaxerxes I, Darius II, Artaxerxes III, and Darius III—had a throne name in addition to their personal name. In the case of Cyaxares II, Harpocration and Berossus were cited as evidence showing that the throne name of Cyaxares II was Darius the Mede.Johann F. K. Keil, in Keil and Delitzsch Old Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors, n.d.), Vol. 6, p. 542.Zöckler in Lange’s Commentary, p. 36. Regarding correlations between Cyaxares II and Darius the Mede, Zöckler wrote, "the account given by Xenophon regarding Cyaxares II so fully agrees with the narrative of Daniel regarding Darius the Mede, that, as Hitzig confesses, 'the identity of the two is beyond a doubt.'"Keil in Keil and Delitzsch, p. 542.
For the Mede was the first leader of our host;In Herodotus' history, the two Median kings who preceded Cyrus were Cyaxares I and his son Astyages. But also according to Herodotus, Cyaxares I did not establish a Medo-Persian confederacy, and Astyages did not "complete this work"; instead he lost his throne after initiating a war against Cyrus. The conflict of Aeschylus with Herodotus regarding the basic history of the Medes and Persians is so obvious that Walther Kranz stated, "Certainly one could complain, that thus Aeschylus (like his hearers) knew nothing about the enormous revolution in the East regarding the changeover of the dominion to the Persians." Steven Anderson writes, "The attempt to reconcile Aeschylus with Herodotus thus breaks down, not only because of the problem of correlating the Median kings, but also because of the problem of a Medo-Persian confederacy. Aeschylus presents the Medes and Persians as a united host right from the first Median king in the list, and does not indicate that there was a violent conquest of Media by Cyrus, as Herodotus claims there was."
And another, his son, completed this work,
For his mind directed his passion.
And third from him was Cyrus, a fortunate man;
When he ruled, he established peace for all his own.
In the past, the interpretation taken by many classicists was that the two Median kings preceding Cyrus in this reference were Astyages and Xenophon's Cyaxares II. This was the position of Thomas Stanley, who edited what became the standard edition of the works of Aeschylus from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries. That the Medes under Astyages began a confederacy with the Persians, as indicated by Aeschylus, is evidenced by Astyages giving his daughter Mandane in marriage to Cambyses, the father of Cyrus by Mandane. This marriage alliance is attested in the histories of both Herodotus and Xenophon. "In the ancient Near Eastern context, such marriages signified the formation of political alliances, and it seems that Astyages made just such an alliance with Persia with a view toward checking Babylonian hegemony. The work which he began of opposing Babylonian hegemony through the confederation with Persia was completed by his son Darius/Cyaxares II, who occupied the Median throne when Babylon fell to the Medo-Persian army."Anderson Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal, p. 117. Aeschylus in these few lines presents a picture of the early days of the Medo-Persian confederacy that is in harmony with Xenophon's succession of Median kings, including Cyaxares II.
When Xenophon wrote his Cyropaedia (the Education of Cyrus) several years later, the Histories of Herodotus had already been published. Regarding the upbringing of Cyrus the Great, Herodotus said that he was choosing one of the stories he had heard, but that there were three other stories he did not choose to relate (1.95). The story he chose is adapted from myths that were current at the time. An integral part of Herodotus' story was his explanation of how Cyrus came to the throne of Persia. This was after he led a successful rebellion against his maternal grandfather Astyages, king of the Medes. Xenophon would have known this story from Herodotus, but he did not believe it, because his history of Cyrus' early years is quite different. Herodotus and Xenophon agree that Cyrus' mother was Mandane, daughter of Astyages, but Herodotus says that Cyrus' father, Cambyses I, was not of "suitable rank" to be a king or the father of a king (1.07); however, Xenophon says that Cambyses was king of Persia. In contrast to Herodotus' having Cyrus lead a rebellion against his grandfather and seizing the throne of Media, Xenophon says Astyages died and was succeeded on the throne of Media by his son Cyaxares (II) some time before Cyrus—as prince regent of Persia and leader of their armies—began his campaign of conquest.
The discovery of the Cyrus Cylinder gave evidence that Herodotus was wrong regarding the ancestors of Cyrus and especially the rank of his father, Cambyses. Therein, Cyrus states that he is "son of Cambyses, great king, king of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus, great king, king of Anshan, descendant of Teispes, great king, king of Anshan, of a family (which) always (exercised) kingship" (Pritchard, p. 316).
Berossus' statement mentions a king named Darius contemporary with Nabonidus. This might support a King Darius ruling at the time Cyrus conquered Babylon but it might also refer to Darius the Great (reigned 522–486), who might have reduced Nabonidus's province later on. This reference to the name Darius was used in the 19th century commentaries of Keil, Delitzsch, and Lange to assert that "Darius the Mede" in the Book of Daniel was attested in an ancient source.
According to the Cyropaedia (8.5.1,17), it was only after affairs were settled in Babylon that Cyrus went to Media and invited Cyaxares to come to Babylon, where he had prepared a palace for him. If that is the case, then the people of Babylon would have recognized Cyrus as their conqueror, not the distant Cyaxares. Steven Anderson, who advocates the basic outline of Xenophon, writes that Cyrus "was evidently hailed as the new king when he entered the city in a carefully choreographed procession, and his entrance was preceded and followed by a heavy propaganda campaign."Anderson, Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal, p. 100. Anderson also states, "It is not impossible that there may be cuneiform texts which mention Darius the Mede that have been mistakenly identified by modern scholars with one of the three Persian kings called 'Darius.' Any reference to Darius the Mede would have to be very explicit and otherwise unexplainable to be recognized as such by a conventional scholar."Anderson, Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal, p. 98, n. 118.
(British Museum)]] Modern scholarship recognizes the cylinder as a propaganda piece designed to manipulate public opinion against the Babylonian king Nabonidus and to legitimatize Cyrus' conquest of Babylon.Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus p. 143.Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, trans. Peter T. Daniels (Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), pp. 41-43).A. Kuhrt, "The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaeminid Imperial Policy" in Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 25 (1983) pp. 83-94. It describes Cyrus as a liberator of the Babylonian people who restored the worship of Marduk after the neglect of such worship by Nabonidus, who is vilified throughout.
The Cyrus Cylinder states that Cyrus "made the land of Gutium and all the Umman-Manda bow in submission at his feet." Umman Manda is taken by some authorities as a reference to Cyrus' subjugation of the Medes. However, according to Steven Anderson, this may be the means by which Cyrus gained the allegiance of the Median army after the successful campaign against the Lydians and their allies, upstaging Cyaxares II while still pledging allegiance to him. Regarding the "submission" of the Gutians and Umman-Manda, Anderson writes, "In order to justify these false propaganda claims, as well as to provide another opportunity for Cyrus to glorify himself, it became necessary to portray Cyrus as having actually conquered the Medes, rather than gradually appropriating control over the confederated Medo-Persian army, and finally succeeding the last Median king. ... If Cyrus was given lordship over the Median army before the fall of Babylon, this would fit with either Herodotus or Xenophon."Anderson, Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal, pp. 69-70.
According to Xenophon's Cyropaedia (4.6.1-11), Gobryas, governor of Gutium under the suzerainty of the Babylonians, had a long-standing grudge against the Babylonian king. After Cyrus defeated Croesus, Gobryas came to Cyrus and indicated his allegiance. Gobryas figures prominently in events that follow, giving his advice about how to proceed in the capture of Babylon, and then leading the forces that took the city (5.4.41-50; 7.5.8-33). Although the basic outline of this account might be called into question because of Xenophon's desire to portray Cyrus as a master of tact and diplomacy, there is simply no other account that has survived explaining how the Gutians became followers of Cyrus and were in submission to him, as stated in the Cyrus Cylinder. Xenophon has support from the Nabonidus Chronicle, where Gobryas (Ugbaru), in agreement with the Cyropaedia, is called the governor of Gutium and the leader of the army of Cyrus in the capture of Babylon. Steven Hirsch concludes, "So Xenophon is right to claim that Cyrus enlisted the support of one Gobryas, a Babylonian vassal who was instrumental in the capture of Bablon. This detail is absent from Herodotus' account and from the extant portions of Ctesias' Persica."
In regard to the historicity Cyaxares II, the Chronicle agrees with Herodotus that the army of Ishtumegu of Agamantu (considered to be Astyages of Ectabana) revolted against him, whereupon "Cyrus, king of Anshan" conquered and pillaged Agamantu/Ectabana. This has been taken as supporting Herodotus with regard to the succession of kings in which Cyrus the Great immediately followed Astyages as king of both Media and Persia, with no intervening Cyaxares II. Although the agreement between the Nabonidus Chronicle and Herodotus, that Cyrus conquered Astyages and put an end to the Median kingdom, has seemed conclusive to most modern scholars, there remain some difficulties. One of these is the consideration that Herodotus and the Nabonidus Chronicle may not be independent witnesses. Herodotus said he had four versions of the upbringing of Cyrus and how he came to be king available to him, and he chose to present only one of them ( Histories 1.95). The agreement of Herodotus with the Nabonidus Chronicle in this matter should not be regarded as two independent testimonies. The Nabonidus Chronicle supports Xenophon in relating that it was Ugbaru/Gobryas, governor of Gutium, who was general of the armies that conquered Babylon.
In a section that is partially defective, the Nabonidus Chronicle reports the death of the "wife of the king". This happened at some time before the end of the month in which the forces of Cyrus captured Babylon. If the king was Cyrus, as seems most probable, then the one who died was his first wife, Cassandane, mother of Cambyses II. Cambyses II was old enough to be prince regent when his father entered Babylon. If Cassandane had died at this time, it would shed light on the passage in the Cyropaedia (8.5.19) where Cyaxares II, maternal uncle of Cyrus, gave his daughter as bride to the recently bereaved Cyrus, with the kingdom of Media as her dowry. The death of the king's wife in the Nabonidus Chronicle would then explain why Cyrus would take a new queen in his middle years, as stated in the Cyropaedia. Most historians do not make any connection between the death of the king's wife in the Nabonidus Chronicle and Cyrus's taking a new wife shortly thereafter ( Cyropaedia) because to do so would lend credence to the existence of Cyaxares II. One writer who makes the connection is William Shea.
|
|
