This text is part of:
μέγα δὲ καὶ τόδε μαρτύριον: the point here made is a convincing one, the fact being admitted. τόδε is not merely the exact position of the town, nor the fact that Xerxes reached it on his return; for neither of these by itself would prove the point; but more generally the whole argument which comprises both items.
φαίνεται ... ἀπικόμενος. No real proof is given that the visit of Xerxes to Abdera was ἐν τῇ ὀπίσω κομιδῇ (cp. c. 108 supra); the ξεινίη might have been established, and the gifts presented, on the outward journey, 7. 109 supra; cp. 7. 120.
ἀκινάκῃ: Περσικὸν ξίφος τὸν ἀκινάκην καλέουσι 7. 54 supra. τιήρῃ: cp. 7. 61 supra. For χρυσόπαστος cp. Aischyl. Ag. 776 (769) τὰ χρυσόπαστα δ᾽ ἔδεθλα.
ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσι Ἀβδηρῖται: they must have been the ultimate authority for the previous statement which Hdt. accepts, as much as for the subsequent statement which he rejects (λέγοντες ἔμοιγε οὐδαμῶς πιστά). The argument and sentence are incomplete without the insertion of ἐς Ἄβδηρα or παρὰ σφέας ἀπικόμενος or αὐτοῦ: cp. App. Crit. The statement would be entirely inconsistent with Hdt.'s own previous narrative (e.g. c. 114 supra), as well as improbable in itself; it illustrates the growth of the legend of Xerxes' flight (φεύγων). The story of Artabazos also contradicts it; but Hdt. takes no heed of that.
ἐλύσατο τὴν ζώνην: i.e. changed his raiment. Stein well cps. the vow of Histiaios 5. 106 supra. ζώνη was not an exclusively male article of dress (cp. L. & S. and 1. 51). It has been regarded as emblematic of virility in the one sex, and of chastity in the other (cp. Sir R. Temple in the Cambridge Review, vol. xxvi. No. 643, p. xxix.).
μᾶλλον ἤδη τοῦ Στρυμόνος. Hdt. must certainly have meant to say that Abdera was nearer than Eion to the Hellespont, not that it was nearer to the Hellespont than to the Strymon. The point is necessary to the argument, but it is only obtained by an emendation. The substitution of the Strymon for Eion in the comparison is awkward, and perhaps led to the corruption. Blakesley, who obelizes cc. 118, 119 on account of the weakness of the argument in c. 119, regards this sentence as a mere gloss; i.e. a fraud within the fraud. Cp. App. Crit.
φασί: the authors of the story in c. 118 supra.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.