Note 84 — Chapter I

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.