The persons known by the name of Cambyses belong to the Achaemenian line of Persian kings. It is thought that the great-grandfather of Cyrus the Great was thus called. The evidence, however, for the existence of this Cambyses, though strong, is constructive rather than direct (see Rawlinson’s Herodotus, vol. iv. p. 259). It is certain that the father of Cyrus was named Cambyses. He is called by Herodotus (i. 107) “a Persian of good family,” but by Xenophon (Cyrop., i. 11, 1) he is denominated “king of the Persians.” The justness of this title is proved by an inscription on a brick found at Senkereh, in which Cyrus calls himself “the son of Cambyses, the powerful king,” as well as by the statement of Darius Hystaspis, in the Behistun inscription (col. i. 4), that eight of his Achaemenian ancestors had been kings. During the reign of this Cambyses the Persian nation was included in the Median empire, and he is represented as the vassal of the Median king Astyages. At the same time he is said to have married Mandane, the daughter of Astyages, by whom he became the father of Cyrus. Such, at least, is the account of Herodotus, Xenophon, Diodorus, and Trogus Pompeius. Ctesias and Nicolaus Damascenus give a different representation.

It is stated by Loftus (Chaldoea and Susιαna, p. 224) that he found at Warka “bricks inscribed in slightly relieved cuneiform characters of Cambyses, the brother of Cyrus, a personage of whom we possess no historical notice whatsoever.”

The only other, and the best known, king of this name is the elder son and successor of Cyrus, who reigned over the Persian empire, according to Herodotus, for seven years and five months—from 529 to 521 b.c. Of his proceedings before his famous invasion of Egypt little is known. 'To this period we must now, on the authority of the Behistun inscription (i. 10), in opposition to Herodotus (iii. 30), assign the secret murder of his brother, Bardiya (the Smerdis, Merdis, Mardus, or Mergis of the Greeks,— called Tanyoxarces by Ctesias, and Tanyoxares by Xenophon). Egypt at this time lay on the borders of the Persian empire; its subjugation had long been an object of ambition to the great Asiatic conquerors; it had recently provoked reprisals from Persia by sending help to Lydia against Cyrus; and in resolving to attack that country Cambyses was both carrying out the settled policy of his predecessors and accomplishing the purpose of his own father. If therefore, as is not unlikely, there was such an occasion given for the enterprise as that which Herodotus relates, it is not necessary to suppose that this was more than a pretext. A year or two were spent in collecting the forces of the empire, and the preparatory measures taken seem to have been marked by prudence and skill. A fleet of Phoenician and Greek ships was collected to operate against the vessels of the Egyptians; and the help of an Arabian chief was secured to provide water for the army in crossing the desert on the south and west of Palestine. The old king of Egypt, Amasis, under whom the country had enjoyed a long period of peace and prosperity, died a few months before the invasion, and was succeeded by his son Psammenitus, under whom the measures of defence proved unsuccessful. An obstinately contested but decisive victory was gained by the Persian arms near Pelusium, and this was speedily followed up by the siege and capture of the capital, Memphis, and by the subjugation of the whole country. The date of this conquest is commonly regarded as 525 b.c. (see Rawlinson, Anc. Mon., vol. i. p. 385), though some find cause to place it one or even two years earlier (cf. v. Gumpach, Zeitrechnung d. Ass. u. Bab., pp. 165, f. ; Lauth, op. cit., pp. 13, f. ; Brugsch, Hist. d’Egypte, L p. 267; Duncker, Gesell. d. Altei'tlιums, vol. ii. p. 792, n.; Lepsius, Königsbuck, p. 89).

Henceforward the life and activity of Cambyses centred iu his new dominion. We know from an important hieroglyphic inscription proceeding from a priest of Neith at Sais, that he assumed the responsibilities and titles proper to a king of Egypt, taking’ as his throne-name that of Ramesut. Moreover, it is evident that for a time at least he cultivated the good-will of his new subjects. We learn that he took Egyptians who had been officers of Psam-r.ιenitus into his immediate service; that he sought instruction in regard to the rites of their religion, and was initiated into certain of its mysteries; that he listened to complaints in regard to the profanation of the temples by Persian and other foreign soldiers, and gave orders for their removal from the sacred precincts; that he secured the priests in the receipt of the temple*revenues, and arranged for the due and continued celebration of the customary ceremonies and festivals. A monument is still extant on which he is represented adoring, on bended knee, the god Apis. (See De Rougé, Mémoire sur la statue naopliore du Vatican, passim; Brugsch, op. dt. , vol. i. pp. 266,∕.; Lauth, op. cit., pp. 17,∕.) One act, indeed, of a different complexion is reported by Herodotus (iii. 16), viz., his outraging and finally consuming by fire the embalmed body of Amasis,—an act, the historian assures us, which shocked the feelings alike of Egyptians and of Persians, and which strongly attests the same jealous and resentful temper which prompted the murder of his brother.

After having established himself in his new possession, Cambyses, Herodotus (iii. 17, ∕.) informs us, planned three expeditions. One was against Carthage, in regard to which, however, he was thwarted by the refusal of his Phoenician mariners, who formed the principal portion of his sea-forces, to operate against their kindred. Another was directed against the Oasis and temple of Jupiter Ammon in the desert west of Egypt (see Heeren, D. afrikan. Völker, i. p. 416), the issue of which was that the whole of the force sent on this enterprise, numbering, it is said, 50,000 men, perished in the sand. The third was intended for the subjugation of the Ethiopians on the south of Egypt (regarding whose locality see Heeren, op. cit., i. pp. 337, ∕.; Rawlinson, Herod., vol. ii. p. 421; Maspero, Histoire ancienne, pp. 533, ∕.), and of this Cambyses himself took the command. The army, however, had marched less than a fifth of the distance when their provisions failed, and they were reduced to the utmost straits,—even, it is said, to cannibalism. Cambyses was thus forced to retrace his steps and to lead back the remnant of his army to Egypt in disappointment and disgrace.

Under the smart of this threefold discomfiture the conduct of Cambyses towards the Egyptians assumed a new and much more stern and cruel aspect. The people of Memphis were rejoicing on occasion of the discovery of a calf bearing the marks of their god Apis, when he arrived there on his return from his unfortunate expedition. Irritated by their apparent lack of sympathy, and misconstruing their joy, he ordered some of the magistrates of the city to be put to death; and what was still more fatal to his popularity, he commanded the newly-found god to be led into his presence, and inflicted upon it with his dagger a mortal wound. The epitaph of this unfortunate god “has been found by Μ. Mariette in the Serapeum, and is now in the museum of the Louvre” (Lenormant, Manual of Anc. Hist., vol. ii. p. 99). We hear also of his violating the sepulchres of the Egyptians, and of his penetrating into the sanctuaries of their gods, and making sport of the more grotesque images. According to Herodotus, it seemed to the Egyptians that he had gone mad; and it is certain that they retained the most gloomy recollections of this period of their history. In the inscription already mentioned, drawn up while the Persians were still supreme in the country, and therefore with due reserve and caution, reference is made to the procedure of Cambyses in such language as the following :—“There happened a calamity in this district along with the very great calamity which befell the whole land;” “a frightful misfortune befell Egypt, the like of which never occurred in this land” (Brugsch, op. dt., i. p. 271; Lauth, op. cit., p. 19, cf. p. 49). It is, in all probability, the sense of this “frightful misfortune ”—the keenness of feeling excited by the outrageous deeds of Cambyses towards their gods—which led the Egyptians to allege that he was smitten with frenzy, and to put in circulation some at least of the many stories relating to his cruelty towards his own countrymen and relatives which Herodotus and others report.

After an absence from Persia of several years, Cambyses, having appointed Aryandes, a Persian, governor of Egypt, set out on his homeward march. He was met, according to Herodotus (iii. 64), at a place in Syria called Agbatana, supposed by some to be Batanaea, or Bashan, by others to be Hamath, by the tidings of the Median revolution, the usurpation of the sovereignty by Gomates, the Magian, and the impersonation by the usurper of his own brother whom, as has been noticed, he had caused to be secretly murdered. Springing hastily upon his horse, his sword fell from the sheath and wounded him mortally in the thigh. According to Ctesias (Exc. Pers., § 12) he died at Babylon, of a wound accidentally inflicted while carving a piece of wood for his amusement These accounts agree in representing his death as accidental A somewhat different impression is conveyed by the statement of Darius on the point in the Behistun inscription (i. 11), who says that “killing himself he died’ (Of. Oppert, Les inscriptions cles Aclièmé aides, p. 54.) It may be, as Spiegel believes (Erαn. Alterthum., ii. p. 302), that the phrase expresses nothing more than the Greek tradition reports. Rawlinson, however (Anc. Mon., iv. p. 394), and Duncker (op. cit., ii. p. 801) understand it as meaning that he committed suicide. The character of this king is sufficiently obvious. It is evident that he was an impulsive, self-willed, reckless, ambitious despot, of the peculiarly Oriental type, possessed of considerable ability as a general, but with passions so strong and uncontrolled as to render the powers he possessed worthless for good. It was reported that from his childhood he was liable to epilepsy and also, what is probably more trustworthy, that he came to be much given to wine. By the Egyptians he made himself utterly abhorred. By the Persians also, while they acknowledged his success in enlarging their empire, his memory was held in evil repute. While they called Cyrus a father, they called his son a despot or master; and while they said the one was “gentle, and procured them all manner of goods,” they called the other “harsh and reckless” (see Herodotus, iii. 33, 34, 89). In the Hebrew Scriptures, Cambyses appears once under the name of Ahasuerus, in Ezra iv. 6 (see Artaxerxes). Some suppose that he is the “cruel lord” and “fierce king,” to whose hands the Egyptians were to be given over, according to Isa. xix. 4 His name occurs in Babylonian contract-tablets found at Warka, with the title “Cambyses, king of Babylon.” (See Loftus, op. cit., p. 222; Bosanquet, Trans. Bib. Archaeology, i. pp. 210, ∕.) He is usually regarded as the Lohrasp of Persian traditional history (Malcom, Hist, of Persia, i. p. 334); but another of the heroes of that cycle of romance, Kaus, appears both from the name and from the exploits ascribed to him to be the true representative of Cambyses. (Of. Spiegel, op. cit., vol.i. p. 594; Gobineau, Hist, des Perses, vol. i. p. 523.) (w.τu.)