He expresses himself very strongly as to the facility with which the Persians imbibed foreign customs, and especially foreign luxuries (i, 135),—ξεινικὰ δὲ νόμαια Πέρσαι προσίενται ἀνδρῶν μάλιστα,—καὶ εὐπαθείας τε παντοδαπὰς πυνθανόμενοι ἐπιτηδεύουσι.
That rigid tenacity of customs and exclusiveness of tastes, which mark the modern Orientals, appear to be of the growth of Mohammedanism, and to distinguish them greatly from the old Zoroastrian Persians.
[387] Herodot. ix, 76; Plutarch, Artaxerx. c. 26.
[388] Herodot. i, 210; iii, 159.
[389] Herodot. iii, 1-4.
[390] Herodot. iii, 1, 19, 44.
[391] The narrative of Ktêsias is, in respect both to the Egyptian expedition and to the other incidents of Persian history, quite different in its details from that of Herodotus, agreeing only in the main events (Ktêsias, Persica, c. 7). To blend the two together is impossible.
Tacitus (Histor. i, 11) notes the difficulty of approach for an invading army to Egypt: “Egyptum, provinciam aditu difficilem, annonæ fecundam, superstitione ac lasciviâ discordem et mobilem,” etc.
[392] Herodot. iii, 10-16. About the Arabians, between Judæa and Egypt, see iii, c. 5, 88-91.
[393] Herodot. iii, 19.