[78] Ἐπὶ πέλτης ἐπὶ ξύλου.] So stands the passage in Dindorf's text; but most editors, from Schneider downwards, consider ἐπὶ ξύλου to be a mere interpretation of ἐπὶ πέλτης, that has crept by some accident into the text, and either enclose it in brackets or wholly omit it. Πέλτη is said by Hesychius and Suidas to be the same as δόρυ or λόγχη: and Krüger refers to Philostratus, Icon. ii. 82, ἐπὶ τῆς πέλτης ἀετός. In Cyrop. vii. 1, 4, the insigne of Cyrus the elder is said to have been a golden eagle, ἐπὶ δόρατος μακροῦ ἀνατεταμένος. Πέλτη accordingly being taken in this sense, all is clear, and ἐπὶ ξύλου is superfluous. Kühner gives great praise to the conjecture of Hutchinson, ἐπὶ πέλτης ἐπὶ ξυστοῦ, who, taking πέλτη in the sense of a shield, supposed that the eagle was mounted on a shield, and the shield on a spear. But the shield would surely have been a mere encumbrance, and we had better be rid of it. Yet to take πέλτη in the sense of a spear, unusual in Xenophon, is not altogether satisfactory; and it would be well if we could fairly admit into the text Leunclavius's conjecture, ἐπὶ παλτοῦ.
[79] Ἀνατεταμένον.] This word is generally understood to signify that the eagle's wings were expanded. See Liddell and Scott's Lexicon; and Dr. Smith's Dict. of G. and R. Ant. sub Signa Militaria.
[80] Πυνθανόμενοι.] Schneider and others would omit this word, as an apparent interpolation. I have followed Kühner's interpretation.
[81] Φέρεσθαι ἔρημοι.] Before Φέρεσθαι is to be understood ὥστε, as Zeune and Weiske observe. Kühner remarks that ἔρημοι should properly be referred to both πέλται and ἅμαξαι: the shields were without owners, and the waggons without their contents, as having been plundered by the enemy.
[82] Περὶ πλήθουσαν ἀγοράν.] See [i. 8. 1].
[84] Θεόπομπος.] This is the reading of six manuscripts; others have Ξενοφῶν. The passage has greatly exercised the ingenuity of the learned, some endeavouring to support one reading, some the other. If we follow manuscript authority, it cannot be doubted that Θεόπομπος is genuine. Weiske thinks "Xenophon" inadmissible, because the officers only of the Greeks were called to a conference, and Xenophon, as appears from [iii. 1. 4], was not then in the service: as for the other arguments that he has offered, they are of no weight. Krüger (Quæstt. de Xen. Vit. p. 12) attempts to refute Weiske, and to defend the name of Xenophon, conjecturing that some scholiast may have written in the margin Θεοπόμπος δὲ Πρόξενον τοῦτο εἰπεῖν φησι, whence the name of Theopompus may have crept into the text, as Diod. Sic., xiv. 25, attributes those words to Proxenus. But as this notion rests on conjecture alone, I have thought it safest, with Weiske, Schneider, Poppo, and Dindorf, to adhere to the reading of the best manuscripts. * * * Who this Theopompus was, however, is unknown; for he is nowhere else mentioned in the Anabasis. Kühner.
[85] As Xenophon, in the first book, has enumerated only 84 days' march, 517 parasangs, which make but 15,510 stadia, Zeune thinks that the 9 days' march, and 18 parasangs, here added, are to be understood as forming the route from Ephesus to Sardis. Krüger is inclined to think the passage an interpolation.
[86] Εἰς τὸν πρῶτον σταθμόν.] This is the σταθμός mentioned in [i. 10. 1], being that from which the army of Cyrus started on the day when the battle took place.
[87] Bornemann observes that the sacrifice of the wolf seems to have been the act of the Persians, referring to Plutarch de Is. et Os., where it is said that it was a custom with them to sacrifice that animal. "They thought the wolf," he adds, "the son and image of Ahrimanes, as appears from Kleuker in Append. ad Zendavestam, T. II. P. iii. pp. 78, 84; see also Brisson, p. 388."