The ghost of Darius provides a versified history of the Persian kingship, from the beginning down to the reign of his luckless son Xerxes, that starts out as follows in Martin West's Teubner text :Mῆδος γὰρ ἦν ὁ πρῶτος ἡγεμὼν στρατοῦ, 765ἄλλος δ’ ἐκείνου παῖς τόδ’ ἔργον ἥνυσεν·ϕρένες γὰρ αὐτοῦ θυμὸν ᾠακοστρόϕουν·τρίτος δ’ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ Κῦρος, εὐδαίμων ἀνήρ,ἄρξας ἔθηκε πᾶσιν εἰρήνην ϕίλοις,Λυδῶν δὲ λαὸν καὶ Φρυγῶν ἐκτήσατο 770Ἰωνίαν τε πᾶσαν ἤλασεν βίᾳ·θεὸς γὰρ οὐκ ἤχθηρεν, ὡς εὔϕρων ἔϕυ.Κύρου δὲ παῖς τέταρτος (...) ηὔθυνε στρατόν·πέμπτος δὲ Mάρδος ἦρξεν, αἰσχύνη πάτρᾳθρόνοισί τ’ ἀρχαίοισι· 775First comes ‘the Mede Cyaxares, whom A[eschylus] probably saw as the first king of a united Media and Persia, and therefore the right person to begin his list’. Unless ἄλλος is corrupt, the first two members of the dynasty are anonymous. This is not perhaps surprising, given Aeschylus’ limited knowledge of early Median and Persian history and given his use of these rulers as foils to the blest Cyrus. Each of them is, like the equally anonymous Cambyses, accorded only one or two lines, in contrast to the five lines devoted to Cyrus the Great. What is surprising is that the second of these is singled out for his good sense and his restraint. Further, it is not clear what point is being made by attributing ‘this deed’ to the good sense and restraint of the son of the Mede, particularly since it is not immediately apparent to what deed reference is being made. As Alexander Garvie notes in his recent commentary on the play, ‘That this line [767] is out of place in the codd. is highly likely’. (shrink)