e man
to boil the pot, and another to roast the meat, and a third to stew the
fish, and a fourth to fry it, while some one else must bake the bread,
and not all of it either, for the loaves must be of different kinds,
and it will be quite enough if the baker can serve up one kind to
perfection--it is obvious, I think, that in this way a far higher
standard of excellence will be attained in every branch of the work.

[7] Thus it is easy to see how Cyrus could outdo all competitors in the
grace of hospitality, and I will now explain how he came to triumph
in all other services. Far as he excelled mankind in the scale of his
revenues, he excelled them even more in the grandeur of his gifts. It
was Cyrus who set the fashion; and we are familiar to this day with the
open-handedness of Oriental kings. [8] There is no one, indeed, in all
the world whose friends are seen to be as wealthy as the friends of the
Persian monarch: no one adorns his followers in such splendour of
rich attire, no gifts are so well known as his, the bracelets, and the
necklaces, and the chargers with the golden bridles. For in that country
no one can have such treasures unless the king has given them. [9] And
of whom but the Great King could it be said that through the splendour
of his presents he could steal the hearts of men and turn them to
himself, away from brothers, fathers, sons? Who but he could stretch out
an arm and take vengeance on his enemies when yet they were months and
months away? Who but Cyrus ever won an empire in war, and when he died
was called father by the people he overcame?--a title that proclaims the
benefactor and not the robber. [10] Indeed, we are led to think that the
offices called "the king's eyes" and "the king's ears" came into being
through this system of gifts and honours. Cyrus' munificence toward
all who told him what it was well for him to know set countless people
listening with all their ears and watching with all their eyes for news
that might be of service to him. [11] Thus there sprang up a host of
"king's eyes" and "king's ears," as they were called, known and reputed
to be such. But it is a mistake to suppose that the king has one chosen
"eye." It is little that one man can see or one man hear, and to hand
over the office to one single person would be to bid all others go to
sleep. Moreover, his subjects would feel they must be on their guard
before the man they knew was "the king's eye." The contrary is the