P. 1
Herrman (2009) - Hyperides Funeral Oration

Herrman (2009) - Hyperides Funeral Oration

|Views: 433|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Bajnokné Kiss Gyöngyvér on Oct 21, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/28/2013

pdf

text

original

Sections

  • Introduction
  • 1. The Historical Background
  • 2. The Rhetorical Background
  • 3. Hyperides’ Funeral Oration
  • 4. The Text and Translation
  • Text and Translation
  • Commentary
  • Appendix A: Papyrological Notes
  • Appendix B: Critical Conjectures
  • Bibliography
  • General Index
  • Index of Greek Words

HYPERIDES

AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
AMERICAN CLASSICAL STUDIES
VOLUME 53
Series Editor
Kathryn J. Gutzwiller
Studies in Classical History and Society
Meyer Reinhold
Sextus Empiricus
The Transmission and Recovery of Pyrrhonism
Luciano Floridi
The Augustan Succession
An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman History Books
55–56 (9 B.C.–A.D. 14)
Peter Michael Swan
Greek Mythography in the Roman World
Alan Cameron
Virgil Recomposed
The Mythological and Secular Centos in Antiquity
Scott McGill
Representing Agrippina
Constructions of Female Power in the Early Roman Empire
Judith Ginsburg
Figuring Genre in Roman Satire
Catherine Keane
Homer’s Cosmic Fabrication
Choice and Design in the Iliad
Bruce Heiden
Hyperides
Funeral Oration
Judson Herrman
HYPERIDES
Funeral Oration
Edited with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary by
Judson Herrman
2009
Oxford University Press, Inc. publishes works that further
Oxford University’s objective of excellence
in research, scholarship, and education.
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Copyright © 2009 by the American Philological Association
Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.
198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
www.oup.com
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Hyperides.
[Epitaphios. English & Greek]
Funeral oration / Hyperides ; edited with introduction, translation,
and commentary by Judson Herrman.
p. cm.—(American classical studies ; no. 53)
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 978-0-19-538865-7
1. Hyperides—Translations into English. 2. Funeral orations—Translations
into English. 3. Funeral rites and ceremonies, Ancient—Greek—Athens.
I. Herrman, Judson. II. Title.
PA4212.A36 2009
885’.01—dc22 2008045141
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
Preface
Hyperides’ Funeral Oration is arguably the most important surviving
example of anAthenian epitaphios logos both because of its fine quality
as an epideictic composition, and because it reveals that a state funeral
oration could transform the standard content of the genre and adapt it
to the immediate historical context. This volume presents a newcritical
edition of the text, accompanied by an extensive commentary aimed at
an audience of scholars and graduate students in classics and ancient
history. The commentary is both historical and philological; the notes
are designed to demonstrate the timeliness of the speech, and to empha-
size the difference between it and other funeral orations. I also include
an introduction, which situates the speech in its historical and rhetorical
context, and a translation.
Recent work—now further accelerated by the discovery of
extensive and previously unknown fragments of Hyperides in the
Archimedes Palimpsest—has reestablished Hyperides’ importance as
an orator and as a political figure. Most notably, David Whitehead’s
excellent commentary on the forensic speeches (Whitehead 2000)
has done much to satisfy a long-standing need for a detailed guide
to the Hyperidean corpus. I hope that the present book will suitably
fill a conspicuous gap arising from Professor Whitehead’s decision to
concentrate on the surviving courtroom speeches.
This book has grown out of a doctoral dissertation. The revisions
have sometimes been slowed by work on other projects, but I hope the
present volume has benefited from those parerga. I have designed and
typeset the book myself using open source software. I am grateful to
Stephanie Attia at Oxford University Press for expert advice on the
design, and to the creators and the community of support for X
E
T
E
X,
v
vi Preface
a unicode-based version of T
E
X, and for the edmac and Eplain macros
packages, which I have adapted and extended to produce camera-ready
copy of this volume.
It is a pleasure to acknowledge the generous help I’ve received in
the course of writing this book. I would like to thank John Duffy, An-
drew Wolpert, and Harvey Yunis for helpful comments on early drafts
of this material. I am also grateful to the editorial board of of the APA
Publication Committee and especially to the editor of the APA Mono-
graph Series, Kathryn Gutzwiller, for encouragement and constructive
advice on the manuscript at a later stage. The book has benefited im-
mensely from the suggestions of two anonymous external referees, and
from the comments of Adele Scafuro and David Whitehead, who also
read the manuscript for theAPA. I amparticularly indebted to Professor
Scafuro for devoting an extraordinary amount of time to reading and
commenting on my manuscript. I am also grateful to Peter Hunt and
the students in his spring 2008 seminar on Greek oratory at the Uni-
versity of Colorado for their useful comments. These readers and those
named below may not agree with all of my arguments and conclusions
here; they have saved me from many mistakes and misunderstandings,
but I have not always followed their advice. Any remaining errors or
omissions are entirely my own.
I would like also to acknowledge and thank several institutions for
their financial support. Harvard University’s Graduate School of Arts
and Sciences awarded me a dissertation completion fellowship to finish
the first full version of this material in spring 1999. A Fletcher Fam-
ily Research Grant from Bowdoin College enabled me to study the
papyrus for the first time in person during the summer of 2003. Two
awards from the academic support committee of Allegheny College,
supplemented by an award from the Jonathan E. and Nancy L. Helm-
reich Research and Book Grant Fund, supported study at the Institute of
Classical Studies in London in 2005 and at Harvard’s Widener Library
in 2006. I am grateful to the librarians and staff at those institutions and
to the British Library. I completed final revisions of this manuscript at
the National Humanities Center, where I held the Robert F. and Mar-
garet S. Goheen Fellowship during the academic year 2006/2007. My
time at the National Humanities Center was co-funded by a sabbatical
grant from the Loeb Classical Library Foundation. I am particularly
grateful to everyone at the Center for making my time there so produc-
tive and comfortable.
My greatest academic debts are to Albert Henrichs, who advised
Preface vii
the dissertation and has continued to be supportive and inspiring, and
to Edward Harris, who, as an outside reader on the dissertation commit-
tee, essentially served as a second advisor, and who has been selflessly
helpful at every stage of writing and revision. My final thanks go to my
wife, Robin Orttung, for all of her love and support as this book was
born and matured.
This page intentionally left blank
Contents
Abbreviations
1. General xi
2. Editions of Fragments xii
3. In the Critical Apparatus xii
Introduction
1. The Historical Background 3
2. The Rhetorical Background 14
3. Hyperides’ Funeral Oration 20
4. The Text and Translation 27
Text and Translation 35
Commentary 57
Appendix A: Papyrological Notes 111
Appendix B: Critical Conjectures 115
Bibliography 121
General Index 141
Index of Greek Words 147
This page intentionally left blank
Abbreviations
Ancient authors are cited according to the abbreviations in the LSJ and
OLD, except that Demosthenes is abbreviated as “Dem.” and Plutarch
as “Plut.” Sections of Hyperides’ Funeral Oration are referred to with
a section sign only, e.g., “§1” rather than “Hyp. Epit. 1.” References to
all modern works by author and year of publication may be found in
the comprehensive bibliography below on pp. 121–139.
1. General
The following special abbreviations are used throughout the work.
Barrington atlas Talbert 2000.
CAH Cambridge ancient history, 2d edition (1970–2005).
FGrHist Jacoby 1923–1958.
IG Inscriptiones graecae. Berlin (1873–).
LSJ Liddell and Scott 1925–1940.
OLD Glare 1982.
Smyth Smyth 1920. References are to section numbers.
TLG Thesaurus linguae graecae electronic data bank
of ancient Greek literature, available online at
<http://www.tlg.uci.edu/>. A printed catalogue
of the contents may be found in Berkowitz and
Squitier 1990.
xi
xii Abbreviations
2. Editions of Fragments
In references to ancient authors which depend upon particular editions,
because editors order speeches or fragments differently, or because the
reference is to a particular edition’s pagination, the numbering systems
of the following are employed in this work:
Aristides The pagination is that of Jebb 1722, which is also
indicated in Dindorf 1829.
Alcaeus Lobel and Page 1955, 111–291.
Alcmaeon Diels and Kranz 1952, vol. I: 210–216 no. 24.
Epicharmus Kaibel 1899, 88–147.
Euripides Snell et al. 1971–, vol. V (Kannicht).
Galen Kühn 1821–1833.
Gorgias Diels and Kranz 1952, vol. II: 271–307 no. 82.
Hecataeus FGrHist, vol. IIIa: 11–64 no. 264.
Hyperides References to the older fragments use the enu-
meration of Jensen 1917 and Blass 1894. The
first edition of the new fragments of the Against
Diondas has now appeared (Carey et al. 2008);
I refer to the page numbers of the bifolia of the
Euchologion. For further information on these
new fragments see Tchernetska 2005 (the editio
princeps of the fragments of Hyperides’ Against
Timandros, also preserved in the palimpsest) and
<http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org/>.
Lysias Carey 2007b.
Maximus Migne 1857–1866 vol. 91.
Philemo Kassel and Austin 1983–, vol. VII: 221–317.
Pseudo-Dionysius Usener and Radermacher 1885–1929, vol. 6
(Opuscula vol. 2). Russell and Wilson (1981,
362–381) provide a convenient translation.
Sophocles Snell et al. 1971–, vol. IV (Radt).
3. In the Critical Apparatus
In the critical apparatus and appendix B, and also textual discussion in
the commentary, the following abbreviations are used for the publica-
tions of modern scholars. For a history of editions of the text, see pp.
29–31. In the case of editors who have published more than one edi-
Abbreviations xiii
tion (e.g., Babington and Blass), I usually refer only to the most recent
publication, unless there is something noteworthy in the earlier work
not included in the later edition. In one instance I have been unable to
locate the original publication for some editorial suggestions, and the
editor’s name is enclosed in brackets (viz. [Fuhr]).
p The papyrus, P. Lit. Lond. 133 = Brit. Mus. inv. 98
(Pack 1965, 1236).
Babington Babington 1859.
Blass Blass 1894.
Bücheler Bücheler 1875, 308–309.
Bursian Bursian and Müller 1858.
Caesar Caesar 1857.
Caffiaux Caffiaux 1866.
Cobet Cobet 1858; Cobet 1873, 343 on §43.
Colin Colin 1946.
Comparetti Comparetti 1864. Many of his suggestions were
originally published in Comparetti 1858.
Desrousseaux Desrousseaux 1949.
Fritzsche Fritzsche 1861–1862.
[Fuhr] The reference is from Jensen 1917. His bibliogra-
phy lists seven items. I have checked six of those
and not been able to locate Fuhr’s comments on the
Funeral Oration. The other reference, to Wochen-
schrift für klassiche Philologie 1902 p. 1543, is in
error. Cited on pages xiii, 54, 75, 115, 116.
Graindor Graindor 1898.
van Herwerden van Herwerden 1895.
Hess Hess 1938.
Jensen Jensen 1917.
Kaibel Kaibel 1893, 56 n. 1.
Kayser Kayser 1858; Kayser 1868 on §6 and §31.
Kenyon Kenyon 1906.
Leopardi Leopardi 1835, 11.
Levi Levi 1892.
Maehly Maehly 1872.
Müller Bursian and Müller 1858.
Piccolomini Piccolomini 1882.
Post L. A. Post’s conjectures are reported in Burtt 1954.
Radermacher Radermacher 1896.
Ruhnken Toup and Ruhnken 1806, 312–313.
xiv Abbreviations
Sandys Sandys 1895 on §10. The §12 suggestion is re-
ported in Blass 1894 and I have not been able to
verify it elsewhere.
Sauppe Sauppe 1860.
Schäfer Originally in Babington 1858, not fully repeated in
Schäfer 1860.
Schenkl Schenkl 1877.
Schroeder Schroeder 1922.
Shilleto Shilleto 1860.
Sitzler Sitzler 1883.
Spengel Spengel 1858.
Stahl Stahl 1907, 476.
Sudhaus All readings reported in Jensen 1917.
Tarrant Tarrant 1930.
Tell Tell 1861.
Thalheim Thalheim 1918.
Toup Toup and Ruhnken 1806, 312–313.
Volckmar Volckmar 1860.
Weil Weil 1858.
HYPERIDES
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction
1. The Historical Background
Hyperides (born in 390/389) delivered the Funeral Oration in Athens
in early 322. For more than twenty years he had been one of the leading
opponents of Macedonian involvement in Greek affairs,
1
and the Fu-
neral Oration marks the pinnacle of the Athenian policy of resistance
to Macedon. Philip defeated the Greek allies at Chaeronea in August
338 and afterward instituted a league of Greek states under Macedonian
control. Fifteen years later, after the death of Philip’s son Alexander in
323, the Greeks revolted. The rebellion was initially successful, and the
Funeral Oration evinces the optimistic mood of Hyperides and other
Athenians at the time. We will nowcontextualize that optimism, first by
examining Hyperides’ role in the decades-long Athenian debate over
relations with Macedon, and then by considering the events that led to
the Lamian War in 323.
2
Hyperides first came to prominence as an opponent of Macedon in
343 when he prosecuted Philocrates in a case of treason (eisangelia) for
accepting bribes from Philip.
3
Philocrates was one of the ten Athenian
1
Hansen (1989, 60) gives an outline of Hyperides’ political activity and Engels
(1989) has produced an exhaustive political biography; Cooper (Worthington et al.
2001, 61–66) provides a shorter summary of his life. For further biographical refer-
ences see Whitehead 2000, 1 n. 2.
2
For more comprehensive treatments of the period, see Rhodes 2006, 328–346
and Habicht 1997, 6–42.
3
On the case see Hansen 1975, 102–103 no. 109, MacDowell 2000, 207, and
3
4 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
ambassadors who negotiated peace terms with Philip in early 346.
4
The
so-called Peace of Philocrates became an embarrassment for Athens
when Philip gained a foothold in central Greece by replacing Phocis,
Athens’ ally, on the Amphictyonic Council at the end of the third Sa-
cred War in late 346.
5
Hyperides convinced the court that Philocrates
accepted bribes from Philip and acted against the interest of Athens.
6
Philocrates was sentenced to death in absentia and his property was
confiscated.
Hyperides’ successful attack on Philocrates and the Peace brought
him into partnership with Demosthenes, who prosecuted Aeschines
soon afterward on similar grounds.
7
In anticipation of the upcoming
conflict with Philip, Demosthenes and other leading Athenian oppo-
nents of Macedon began reaching out to potential allies. In the late
340s Demosthenes himself made repeated diplomatic trips to the Pelo-
ponnese and elsewhere, while Hyperides went to the island of Rhodes.
8
Hyperides helped prepare the fleet to face the Macedonians at Euboea
in 340, and after Philip laid siege to Byzantium and captured the Athe-
nian grain fleet later that year, Hyperides served as trierarch and par-
ticipated in the expedition to Byzantium.
9
In 339 the lines were drawn for war with Philip in Greece. The
Macedonian king entered central Greece as the hgemn of the Am-
phictyonic League in the fourth Sacred War against Amphissa, while
Athens formed an opposing coalition with Thebes and several other
Greek states.
10
Demosthenes was proud of engineering this alliance
Whitehead 2000, 235.
4
Harris (1995, 53–56) considers the Athenian motives for a treaty with Philip
at this point.
5
It is first labeled “the peace of Philocrates” at Dem. 19.150. MacDowell
(2000, 14) explains why Demosthenes, one of the ambassadors in 346, sought to
distance himself from the Peace by prosecuting Aeschines in 343. For relations
between Athens and Phocis see the note on §13 under Θ]ετταλοὺς δὲ καὶ Φωκέας
κτλ.
6
See also the note on §10 under κατεφθαρμένη ὑπὸ [τῶν] δωροδο‹κ›ούντων.
7
For the sequence of the two trials see Dem. 19.116 and Aesch. 2.6.
8
The evidence for these missions is collected by Develin (1989, 334–335). Hy-
perides may also have visited Chios and/or Thasos on this trip; see Engels 1989,
87–88.
9
[Plu.] Vit. X or. 848e and 849e.
10
For a narrative of these events see Ellis 1976, 186–193 and CAH VI
2
, 778–781.
Harris (1995, 126–130) demonstrates the complete implausibility of Demosthenes’
later allegations that Aeschines deliberately precipitated the fourth Sacred War as
an opportunity for Philip to invade central Greece. Dem. 18.237 lists Athens’ allies
Introduction 5
and he was among the Athenian troops who fought at the battle of
Chaeronea in 338.
11
The battle was a complete failure for the Greeks.
More than one thousand Athenians died and two thousand more were
taken hostage; the other Greek allies also suffered heavy losses.
12
In the
aftermath Athens, along with the other Greek states, lost its autonomy
in foreign policy and was forced to follow Philip’s, and then Alexan-
der’s, lead in the so-called League of Corinth.
13
Hyperides was a staunch supporter of Demosthenes before and af-
ter the battle. He proposed an honorary crown to award Demosthenes
for his good service to the city of Athens in the days leading up to
the confrontation.
14
As a member of the boul in 338/337 he remained
in the city during the battle,
15
and when news of the disaster reached
Athens, he put forward an emergency measure enfranchising slaves,
metics, and Athenians whose citizenship had been revoked.
16
At the
end of the campaign season the boul initiated the selection process
for the orator at the state funeral oration, and Hyperides likely had a
role in the presentation of Demosthenes as a candidate before the As-
before the battle. Sealey (1993, 196–198) discusses the terms of the coalition (Athens
paid two-thirds of the expense according to Aesch. 3.143 and Dem. 18.238, and that
detail is now also found at Hyp. Dion. 145v/144r ll. 9–12).
11
On the alliance, see Dem. 18.153, 211–226. Demosthenes’ enemies charged
him with cowardice in battle (a charge that could be leveled at any of the survivors),
but he was never prosecuted for lipotaxion: Aesch. 3.152, 159, 175–176, 187, Din.
1.12, Plut. Dem. 20.2.
12
Diod. Sic. 16.86.5 provides figures for Athenian losses; Plut. Pel. 18.5 observes
the destruction of the entire Theban Sacred Band.
13
On the settlements with the individual Greek states after the battle see Ham-
mond et al. 1972–1988, II: 604–623 and Roebuck 1948. Ryder (1965, 102–105 and
150–162) discusses the League of Corinth as a koin eirn and Hammond et al.
(1972–1988, II: 623–646) provides a detailed overview.
14
Dem. 18.57, 223–224 seems to place the proposal for a crown by Demomeles
and Hyperides before the battle. The proposal was indicted by Diondas in a graph
paranomn (Hansen 1974, 36 no. 26), but references to Theban exiles at Athens in the
fragments of Hyperides’ defense speech (Hyp. Dion. 176r/173v ll. 25–26; cf. Aesch.
3.156 and Harp. s.v. ἰσοτελής on the exiles in Athens) indicate that the case did not
come to trial until after 335.
15
Luc. Par. 42 offers late and unspecific evidence for his membership on the
boul (which is accepted by, e.g., Develin (1989, 345)), which is now perhaps con-
firmed by the new text of the Against Diondas (Hyp. Dion. 145r/144v l. 25), which
uses the verb probouleuein in a non-technical sense (LSJ s.v. προβουλεύω III, not I.2)
to describe Hyperides’ activity at the time of battle.
16
Osborne 1983, 67–68 (T67); the measure was challenged for illegality and
never put into effect (Hansen 1974, 36–37 no. 27).
6 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
sembly.
17
The people selected Demosthenes to give the funeral oration
in late 338, and we will consider the content of the speech in the next
section of the introduction.
In the years after the battle of Chaeronea, much of the Athenian de-
bate over Macedon took place in the courts. Some time before Philip’s
death in autumn of 336, Hyperides prosecuted Demades, an Athenian
politician who helped negotiate with Philip after the battle, for propos-
ing a decree to honor Euthycrates of Olynthus.
18
He alleged that Eu-
thycrates colluded with Philip and was a traitor to his own city, and
that he failed to support Athens after its defeat.
19
Another case at about
the same time indicates how divisive the Macedonian question was
in Athens, and where Hyperides stood. He prosecuted Philippides for
proposing honors for the proedroi of the Assembly, who presided when
that body approved honors for leading Macedonians and/or their sup-
porters in Athens.
20
The outcome of both trials is unknown, but in both
cases we find Hyperides firmly opposed to Athenian appeasement of
Macedon.
The Athenian opponents of Macedon were encouraged by the
murder of Philip in October 336. When the news reached Athens,
Demosthenes celebrated publicly and the city awarded crowns to the
assassins.
21
Demosthenes also made secret contact with Attalus, a
Macedonian commander in Asia and Alexander’s chief rival for the
throne, and encouraged the other Greek states to rebel.
22
The League
of Corinth now appeared to be a dead letter and agitations arose
throughout Greece. But Alexander rose to the occasion. He reconciled
some with his promises and others by show of force. By the end of 336
the League of Corinth was reinstated and Alexander was recognized
as the new hgemn of the Greeks.
23
The League was designed to support first Philip’s, and then Alexan-
17
The probouleuma probably suggested a few suitable candidates for the elec-
tion in the Assembly (perhaps implied at Pl. Mx. 234b). Gomme (1956, 102) asserts
that the boul appointed the speaker, but Dem. 18.285 describes an election in the
Assembly with alternative candidates (on the procedure for electing magistrates see
Hansen 1991, 233–235).
18
Hansen 1974, 37 no. 28.
19
Hyp. fr. 76.
20
Hansen 1974, 39 no. 32. Whitehead (2000, 29–30 and 32) discusses the date
and those honored by the proedroi.
21
Plut. Dem. 22.1–2, Aesch. 3.77, 160.
22
Plut. Dem. 23.2, Diod. Sic. 17.5.1 and 17.3.2.
23
Diod. Sic. 17.3.2–4.6, with discussion by Bosworth (1988, 188–189).
Introduction 7
der’s, campaign against the Persian Empire, which was portrayed as
a panhellenic war of revenge for the invasion of 480.
24
With Greece
pacified, Alexander returned to the north to make final preparations. In
spring of 335 he traveled to quell a revolt in Illyria, and in the course
of that action a rumor of his death reached Thebes. Enemies of Philip,
exiled after the battle of Chaeronea, had recently returned to the city,
and they were quick to provoke a rebellion against the garrison sta-
tioned there to maintain Macedonian hegemony.
25
Demosthenes him-
self sent arms, and convinced the Athenian Assembly to support the
Theban cause, but that support did not materialize in time.
26
Before
Athens could join the rebellion, Alexander arrived with his army. In
autumn of 335 the Macedonian army, with the support of Thebes’ en-
emies in Greece, razed the city and killed or enslaved its inhabitants.
After the destruction of Thebes the enemies of Macedon were re-
luctant to risk further rebellion. Alexander demanded the surrender of
his most prominent opponents in Athens, and only the diplomacy of
Demades, Hyperides’ recent opponent in court, saved them.
27
Despite
the ineffectiveness of military resistance, Athenian politicians contin-
ued to debate policy toward Macedon in the courts. Hyperides had pro-
posed an honorary crown for Demosthenes before Chaeronea and was
indicted by Diondas (see p. 5 above), who waited until after the de-
struction of Thebes to bring the case to court. As in the prosecution of
Philippides, we continue to see sharp divisions over attitudes toward
Macedon. Hyperides refers to some fifty unsuccessful indictments of
anti-Macedonian politicians by Diondas, and in this case the court up-
held his award for Demosthenes.
28
The citizen judges supported the anti-Macedonian stance of
24
Diod. Sic. 16.89.2, cf. Arr. An. 2.14.4 and 3.18.12. On Alexander’s panhel-
lenism see Flower 2000.
25
For narratives of the Theban revolt and destruction see Arr. An. 1.7–8 and Diod.
Sic. 17.8–14, with the note on §17 under τὴν π]όλιν τῶν Θηβαίων. On the garrison
see note on §17 under τ[ὴν δὲ ἀ]κρόπολιν φρουρουμ[έ]ν[ην]. Worthington (2003a)
suggests that Alexander’s treatment of Thebes was connected with Theban support
of a rival (Amyntas son of Perdiccas III) for the Macedonian throne.
26
See Diod. Sic. 17.8.6–7 and Plut. Dem. 23.1–2 with discussion by Worthington
(1992, 164–165).
27
On Demades’ role see Diod. Sic. 17.15.3–4. Some sources put Hyperides on
the list of Athenians demanded, but Bosworth (1980, 93–95) demonstrates that these
later accounts wrongly include Hyperides because of his activity during the Lamian
War.
28
Hyp. Dion. 145r/144v ll. 9–10 and 175r/174v ll. 31–32 (on the speech see be-
low p. 18); [Plu.] Vit. X or. 848f.
8 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
Demosthenes and Hyperides, but there is little sign of concerted
resistance in Athens as Alexander marched east into Asia for his
twelve-year campaign beginning in 334. Athens and other Greek
states sent ambassadors to Persia in 333 to request support for a
Greek rebellion,
29
but any prospects for an alliance of Greeks and
Persians collapsed soon afterward with Alexander’s victory at Issus.
30
When Agis III of Sparta led a huge army of Greeks and mercenaries
in revolt in 331,
31
Athenian politicians were divided. Some saw the
revolt as an opportunity to fight for freedom, but others were more
cautious. Demades convinced the city not to antagonize Macedon, and
Demosthenes, despite his initial support for the revolt, did not press
the issue.
32
Hyperides and Lycurgus probably did urge the Athenians
to join the fight, but to no avail.
33
Without the support of the Athenian
navy, Agis’ revolt was easily defeated by Antipater, Alexander’s
regent in Macedonia, at Megalopolis in early 330.
34
The following year Aeschines called Demosthenes to account for
his failed policy of resistance.
35
In his speech On the Crown Demos-
thenes focuses on the events leading to the battle of Chaeronea and
he has next to nothing to say about more recent history. He diverts
attention from Athens’ tardy response to Thebes in 335 and the fail-
29
Arr. An. 2.15.2 and Curt. 3.13.15.
30
Badian (1967, 175–176) considers howstartling the news fromIssus must have
been for the Greeks.
31
On the date see Badian 1994, 268–271.
32
Demades: Plut. Mor. 818e; Demosthenes: Plut. Dem. 24.1 and Aesch.
3.165–166. Badian (1967, 181–183) and Cawkwell (1969, 178–180) suggest that
Demosthenes failed to appreciate the revolt’s potential. Worthington (2000, 97–98)
is more sceptical of Agis’ chances and defends Demosthenes’ inactivity (cf. also
Harris 1995, 173).
33
Libanius’ summary of Dem. 17 attributes the speech to Hyperides (Lib. Arg.D.
or. 17), and the context is probably the debate in the Athenian Assembly over join-
ing Agis’ revolt; see Sealey 1993, 240 for references. Rhodes (2006, 342) suggests
that the mention of a contribution to this war in an honorary inscription proposed by
Lycurgus (IG II
2
351 = Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 474–477 no. 94) “indicates that
Lycurgus would have liked Athens to take part.”
34
On the date see Badian 1994, 277.
35
Ctesiphon proposed a crown for Demosthenes in 337/336, and was indicted
soon afterward by Aeschines in a graph paranomn, but the case did not come to
trial until 330/329. Demosthenes delivered the main defense speech as Ctesiphon’s
syngoros, and by shorthand I refer to him as the defendant in this account. Hansen
(1974, 37–39 no. 30) catalogues the testimonia for these events and Wankel (1976,
13–37) provides a thorough analysis of the dates of Ctesiphon’s proposal, Aeschines’
indictment, and the trial.
Introduction 9
ure to act in 331 by emphasizing his earlier leadership.
36
Since Philip’s
death the Macedonians had repeatedly suppressed every Greek rebel-
lion, and by 330 it would have seemed increasingly unrealistic and fu-
tile to continue advocating resistance. The court overwhelmingly re-
jected Aeschines’ prosecution and in doing so endorsed Demosthenes’
nostalgic depiction of Athenian opposition to Philip in the years lead-
ing up to Chaeronea.
37
Demosthenes was the most prominent opponent of Alexander in
Athens, and after his victory against Aeschines he appears to have
abandoned, or at least postponed, the fight against Macedon.
38
In 330
Athenians looked back at the Demosthenic policy of the early 330s
with approval, but at the same time, as we saw in the reaction to Agis’
revolt, other leaders such as Hyperides and Lycurgus were unable to
convince their fellow citizens to pursue an active policy of confronta-
tion in 331. As the debate over Macedon grew quieter, the city pur-
sued internal reforms. The city’s revenues, under the administration of
Lycurgus, increased dramatically, and Lycurgus also recruited private
donors.
39
These funds underwrote the construction of several public
buildings and fortifications, and were also used to increase the size of
the fleet.
40
While the city was building its strength, the opponents of
Macedon waited for their opportunity.
41
Several factors severely aggravated relations between Athens and
36
Admittedly, the case only concerns Ctesiphon’s decree of 336, and later events
are not strictly relevant. Still, Aeschines brings up the revolts of the 330s and Demos-
thenes does not respond; see the discussion on pp. 19–20.
37
Harris (2000, 59–67) demonstrates that Aeschines’ case was weak, and that the
judges voted in support of Demosthenes’ interpretation of the legal issue.
38
Worthington (2000, 101) summarizes the slight evidence for Demosthenes’
activity between 330 and 324.
39
Rhodes (1993, 515–516) provides a concise sketch of Lycurgus’ financial ad-
ministration; Lambert (1997, 280–291) offers a more full account with references
to recent discussion (most importantly, Faraguna 1992, 171–194). On private con-
tributions see Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 474–477 no. 94 on IG II
2
351 + 624 and
Heisserer and Moysey (1986) on a similar honorary decree.
40
Habicht (1997, 23–26) and Bosworth (1988, 204–211) provide useful brief
summaries of Lycurgus’ programs. For a more detailed account see Faraguna 1992,
257–267 and Humphreys 2004, 77–129 (a reprint of Humphreys 1985 with updated
notes and an extensive new “afterword”).
41
We have two forensic speeches of Hyperides from the period of 330 to 324 (he
spoke as a syngoros for Euxenippus, probably in 330 or not long afterward, and he
wrote a speech for a client in prosecution of Athenogenes), neither of which addresses
foreign policy.
10 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
Alexander beginning in early 324. First, Alexander abandoned the for-
mal terms of the League of Corinth and decreed that all Greek ex-
iles must be allowed to repatriate in their native cities.
42
Thousands of
Greek mercenaries served in the Persian army, and in the wake of the
Macedonian conquest, many of these troops were discharged (others
were incorporated into Alexander’s army).
43
The Exiles Decree caused
great anxiety throughout Greece, but especially for Athens and the Ae-
tolian League, who would soon ally in revolt.
44
Not only would they be
affected by the return of long-absent mercenaries to Greece, but also
the Exiles Decree required Athens to abandon Samos, which it had oc-
cupied since 365, and repatriate thousands of cleruchs, who would need
homes and livelihoods in Athens,
45
while the Aetolians were ordered
to quit Oeniadae.
46
The next source of friction between Athens and Alexander was the
arrival of Harpalus, Alexander’s former treasurer, who came as a fugi-
tive seeking asylum at Athens in spring of 324, at the same time as
news of the Exiles Decree began to reach the Greeks.
47
After station-
ing his private army and most of his fleet at Taenarum, Harpalus was
admitted to the city and then, almost immediately, he was demanded
by various Macedonian envoys.
48
Athens was nervous about the Ex-
iles Decree and reluctant to surrender Harpalus too quickly. Demo-
sthenes proposed that Harpalus be confined and that his assets be safe-
guarded on the Acropolis while Demosthenes himself would negoti-
ate with Alexander’s agent (Nicanor, who came to Olympia in early
August 324 to announce formally the Exiles Decree).
49
But Harpalus
slipped out of the city in late summer, before he could be surrendered,
42
Diod. Sic. 17.109.1 and 18.8; cf. Dem. 17.16. Bosworth (1988, 220–228) offers
a useful discussion.
43
Badian 1961, 26–27.
44
See §13 with note under Θ]ετταλοὺς δὲ καὶ Φωκέας καὶ [Αἰ]τωλοὺς κτλ.
45
Shipley (1987, 165–166) discusses Alexander’s Exiles Decree and Samos. His
estimate of between 6,000 and 12,000 cleruchs (14) seems to be confirmed by a re-
cently discovered council list of the cleruchy (Habicht 1996, 401).
46
Diod. Sic. 18.8.6.
47
Hyp. Dem. 18, discussed by Bosworth (1988, 215–216). The standard study
of the Harpalus scandal is Badian 1961; Whitehead (2000, 357 n. 246) lists more
recent work (add Blackwell 1999, 13–17 and 134–136 to his list). Worthington (1987,
41–77) also provides a detailed discussion of the events and questions Demosthenes’
guilt.
48
Diod. Sic. 17.108.7; [Plu.] Vit. X or. 846a–b.
49
Hyp. Dem. 8–9; Din. 1.81, 103.
Introduction 11
and was murdered soon afterward in Crete.
50
Demosthenes was a central figure in all these events and he became
embroiled in the scandal that Harpalus left in his wake. There were
widespread allegations that Harpalus won his exit from Athens with
bribes, and Demosthenes admitted to accepting funds for public use.
51
When half of the 700 talents deposited by Harpalus were found miss-
ing, Demosthenes was confident of his innocence and called for an in-
vestigation by the Areopagus.
52
After that council declared its findings
six months later, in spring of 323, Demosthenes and others were put
on trial, and eventually found guilty.
53
The procedure must have been
influenced by political considerations, such as the debate over Alexan-
der’s divinity (see the next paragraph), the negotiations with Macedon
on the exiles, or Demosthenes’ reluctance to join the fiercest advocates
of war.
54
After the trial Demosthenes fledAthens and lived in exile until
he was recalled at the end of the year to help the Lamian War effort.
55
The third factor accelerating the war came in late 324, as the Are-
opagus was investigating the Harpalus incident, when the Athenian as-
sembly hotly debated an award of divine honors for Alexander and
heroic cult for his recently deceased associate Hephaestion.
56
Alexan-
der himself, following the oracle at Ammon, requested this treatment
for Hephaestion, while others voluntarily proposed similar honors for
Alexander in Athens.
57
The Macedonian king had already begun to dis-
play a more autocratic attitude toward the Greeks with the Exiles De-
cree, and now the Athenian debate on Alexander’s divinity further gal-
vanized his opponents. Hyperides would soon attack Demosthenes for
his acquiescence on this issue and in the Funeral Oration he singles it
50
Diod. Sic. 17.108.8 and 18.19.2. For further details on all these events see
Badian 1961, 31–32 and Bosworth 1988, 216–217.
51
Diod. Sic. 17.108.8, Plut. Dem. 25, Hyp. Dem. 12–13 with Whitehead’s (2000,
400–402) note.
52
See Hyp. Dem. 10 and [Plu.] Vit. X or. 846b on the missing gold, and Hyp.
Dem. 2 and Din. 1.4 on the Areopagus.
53
[Plu.] Vit. X or. 846c, Plut. Dem. 26.1. The prosecution speeches by Hyperides
and Dinarchus survive (Hyp. Dem. and Din. 1).
54
Badian 1961, 32–36, Bosworth 1988, 218–220, Worthington 2000, 104–105.
55
Plut. Dem. 27.4–5.
56
See the notes to §21 under ἐξ ὧν ἀναγκαζόμεθα κτλ and [τ]οὺς ‹τού›των
οἰκ‹έ›τας ὥσπερ ἥρωας τιμᾶν.
57
Cawkwell (1994, 299–302) explains that the Greeks were compelled to follow
the oracle, and that Demades proposed a cult for Alexander on his own initiative. Cf.
Bosworth 1988, 288.
12 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
out as a particularly goading incitement to the Greeks.
58
The Athenians resolved to go to war against Macedon before the
death of Alexander on June 10, 323.
59
Earlier that year the boul com-
missioned the Athenian Leosthenes to levy a mercenary army, and he
was elected general for the year 323/322.
60
He had ferried a large body
of mercenaries fromAsia to Cape Taenarum in the Peloponnese, prob-
ably in 325/324, and their numbers were increased by Harpalus’ men
and other exiles.
61
Alexander’s death came as a surprise, and at that
point Athens seized the opportunity. They openly moved toward war
with the support of Harpalus’ gold.
62
The Assembly, under the guid-
ance of Hyperides, approved provisions for a large Athenian army and
fleet to join the mercenaries.
63
Leosthenes was in contact with the Aetolian League prior to
Alexander’s death, and a formal alliance was concluded at the start
of the war.
64
The Locrians and the Phocians and many of the other
neighboring Greeks soon joined the coalition.
65
Euboea and Boeotia
sided with Macedon, and the Athenians joined Leosthenes and his
58
Hyp. Dem. 31; §21. The religious motivation for the war may be emphasized
over the other factors because of the ceremonial context of the Funeral Oration.
59
Worthington (1994) has convincingly refuted Ashton’s (1983) suggestion that
the revolt was already in preparation before Harpalus arrived in Athens.
60
Diod. Sic. 17.111.3 (on his confused chronology here, see Worthington 1984,
142); Rhodes (1972, 42) notes that the “secret” (ἐν ἀπορρήτοις) arrangement must
have been approved by the Assembly. Badian (1961, 37 n. 164) infers that Leos-
thenes was the hoplite general. On his earlier career see the note on §1 under περί τε]
Λεωσθένους τοῦ στ[ρατη]γοῦ.
61
Paus. 1.25.5, 8.52.5. On Taenarum as a “recognised mercenary center” see Ba-
dian 1961, 27–28.
62
Diod. Sic. 18.9.4. Badian (1961, 37–40) suggests that Demosthenes used the
twenty talents he received from Harpalus to retain these soldiers in summer of 324;
see Whitehead 2000, 401 for references to further discussion of this hypothesis.
63
On Hyperides’ role see Plut. Phoc. 23.2 and Plut. Mor. 486d; P. Hib. 15 =
FGrHist 105 F6 may preserve a rhetorical piece purporting to be a speech by Leos-
thenes at this debate. Diod. Sic. 18.10.2 and 18.11.3 enumerate the Athenian forces.
Morrison (1987, 89–93) discusses these passages and concludes that Athens, in the
hope of forming a new thalassocracy, immediately began developing “a compara-
tively long-term programme of expanding the number of ships that could be sent to
sea by a newly organised Hellenic League” (90).
64
Diod. Sic. 17.111.3, 18.9.5. A fragment of the stele survives: IG II
2
370. Wor-
thington (1984) discusses the chronology of the alliance.
65
Diod. Sic. 18.9.5 and 18.11.1–2. IG II
2
367 = Schwenk 1985, 394–401 no. 81
records honors for the Athenian ambassador to Phocis (see Oikonomides 1982).
Introduction 13
allied forces to defeat them near Plataea.
66
The Greek forces then
occupied Thermopylae, where they planned to meet the Macedonian
army. The Macedonian commander Antipater requested reinforce-
ments fromAsia as he marched south to meet the Greeks.
67
He enlisted
the Thessalians en route, but they defected and joined the other
Greeks. After the Greeks defeated Antipater north of Thermopylae,
the Macedonians were forced to take refuge in Lamia and await
reinforcements.
68
As the winter approached the Greeks were confident of success.
Antipater offered to surrender, but would not agree to Leosthenes’
unconditional terms.
69
In Athens the deme of Collytus voted a thank
offering to Agathe Tyche for the recent victories.
70
Hyperides was
busy recruiting allies in the Peloponnese, and Demosthenes supported
him there (and was consequently recalled from exile).
71
But as
the siege dragged on into the winter, misfortune struck when the
general Leosthenes was killed in a minor engagement.
72
In early 322
Antiphilus, Leosthenes’ replacement in command, lifted the siege and
led the Greeks in victory against the Macedonian reinforcements. The
Macedonian general Leonnatus was killed, but Antipater escaped in
retreat with his entire army.
73
Hyperides delivered the Funeral Oration in early 322,
74
when the
Greeks had every reason to be optimistic about defeating Macedon. The
speech was presented after the initial victory in Boeotia, the siege at
Lamia, and the defeat of Leonnatus (§§12–14) and before the setbacks
later that year. The Athenian fleet suffered two major losses at Abydus
and Amorgus in July of 322, and the army was defeated soon afterward
66
Diod. Sic. 18.11.5. See also the notes on §11 under Βοιωτούς and Εὐβοέας.
67
Diod. Sic. 18.11.5–12.2.
68
§§12–13, Diod. Sic. 18.12.3–4. Tracy (1995, 29) emphasizes the critical con-
tribution of the Thessalian cavalry; see also the note on §13 under Θ]ετταλοὺς δὲ καὶ
Φωκέας καὶ [Αἰ]τωλοὺς κτλ.
69
Diod. Sic. 18.18.3, Plut. Phoc. 26.4.
70
See Tracy’s (1994, 242) discussion of an augmented text (Walbank 1994) of
IG II
2
1195 (lines 28–30).
71
Just. 13.5.10–11, Plut. Dem. 27.2–4. IG II
2
448 (9–12, 45–49) refers to an al-
liance with Sicyon in late 323.
72
Diod. Sic. 18.13.4–5, Just. 13.5.12; see also the note on §1 under περί τε]
Λεωσθένους τοῦ στ[ρατη]γοῦ. §23 describes the difficulties of the winter siege.
73
Diod. Sic. 18.15.1–7; see also the note on §14 under τῆς ὕστερον [γενομέ]νης
μάχης.
74
There was not a fixed calendar date for the ceremony; see Loraux 1986, 37–38.
14 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
at Crannon.
75
Athens was forced to submit to the Macedonian terms,
which included a garrison in the Piraeus. Demosthenes and Hyperides
were condemned to death by the Assembly, under the leadership of
Demades, and subsequently arrested and killed by agents of Antipater,
who cut out Hyperides’ tongue.
76
2. The Rhetorical Background
Hyperides’ Funeral Oration was addressed to a large audience of Athe-
nians and foreigners at the public ceremony for the burial of the war
dead in early 322. We will now consider the institutional setting of the
speech and the characteristic elements found in Athenian state funeral
orations. We will then focus on the Demosthenic Funeral Oration and
examine the coexistence of traditional motifs and current attitudes to-
ward Macedon in that speech. We will see that Demosthenes defends
the decision to fight the Macedonians at Chaeronea by invoking pa-
triotic models from Athenian history, and at the same time his speech
reflects its historical context in 338. From there we will turn to other
speeches of the 330s and find a similar attitude of nostalgic patriotism
alongside acknowledgment of the Macedonian hegemony. This discus-
sion of the rhetorical background to Hyperides’ speech will help illumi-
nate the innovative techniques and newfound optimism of Hyperides’
Funeral Oration, on which we will concentrate in the following sec-
tion.
In the years after the Persian Wars, Athens institutionalized state
burials for those who died in service each year.
77
The ceremony took
place in the winter (or whenever the campaign season came to a close)
and included a mourning period (prothesis) in the agora, a proces-
sion (ekphora) to the Ceramicus, and burial of the cremated remains
75
Habicht (1997, 39 n. 7) and Tracy (1995, 28 n. 34) list the epigraphic sources for
the naval battles (Diodorus’ version (18.15.8–9) is highly compressed). For Crannon
see Diod. Sic. 18.16.4–17.5.
76
Plut. Phoc. 28.1, Plut. Dem. 28.2–4.
77
The date at which the institution was first introduced is notoriously controver-
sial and not relevant for my present purpose. Parker (1996, 134–135) sensibly sug-
gests that it “developed by stages” and assumed its full formwith an oration “after the
defeat of the Persians.” Others have argued for specific dates in the late 470s or 460s
(see Jacoby 1944, 55; Gomme 1956, 94–101; Stupperich 1977, 1.235–238; Clair-
mont 1983, 13–15; Loraux 1986, 56–76). The fullest recent summary of the problem
is Pritchett 1971–1991, IV: 112–124.
Introduction 15
in the public tomb (dmosion sma) followed by the funeral oration
(epitaphios logos) and games (epitaphios agn).
78
The remains were
divided into ten coffins, one for each of the Cleisthenic tribes, and the
monument featured sepulchral epigrams, sculptural decoration, and ca-
sualty lists inscribed with the names of the dead, who were again classi-
fied according to their tribes.
79
The Assembly selected an orator to give
a public speech of praise for the dead and consolation for the living.
80
The ceremony was attended by a large audience of Athenian citizens,
including female family members and foreign guests.
81
Before considering the typical elements of Athenian funeral ora-
tions, it is necessary to note that only a handful of speeches survive
from a period of approximately 150 years, and the few speeches that
we have contain several unique passages.
82
The best known funeral
oration, the Periclean oration in Thucydides’ history, differs from the
others (except that of Hyperides) in its omission of the typical account
of Athenian history, which is replaced by an extended description of
the Athenian politeia.
83
Demosthenes’ speech is the only one we have
that was delivered after a serious defeat, and in a passage without paral-
lel in Attic literature, it features a lengthy catalogue of the Eponymous
78
Thuc. 2.34; Dem. 20.141 describes the oration as a uniquely Athenian custom.
Patterson (2006, 53–56) argues against the common interpretation of dmosion sma
as “national cemetery” (cf. Rusten 1989, 137). Pritchett (1971–1991, IV: 102–106)
discusses representations of the the prothesis and the ekphora in vase painting and
drama. Carey (2007a, 241) observes that the games “take us into the world not just
of the early aristocrat . . . but also that of the hero”; for the testimonia see Lys. 2.80,
Pl. Mx. 249b and Dem. 60.13 with Pritchett 1971–1991, IV: 107.
79
Stupperich (1977, 1.4–31) and Clairmont (1983, 60–73) describe the polyan-
dria. For the epigrams see Peek 1955, nos. 1–37. On the iconography, Stupperich
1994. Bradeen’s work on the casualty lists is synthesized in Bradeen 1969, and
Tsirigoti-Drakotou (2000) describes a recently discovered casualty list fragment (I
am grateful to Adele Scafuro for this reference). A funeral monument with cremated
remains of several men, dated to the third quarter of the fifth century, has recently
been discovered; see Blackman et al. 1997–1998, 8–11.
80
On the selection of the orator see Thuc. 2.34.6 and note 17 on p. 6.
81
Thuc. 2.34.6, Dem. 60.13. Bosworth (2000, 2) emphasizes the size of the au-
dience described in Thucydides’ introduction to Pericles’ speech.
82
Thuc. 2.35–46 (cf. Plut. Per. 8 on an earlier Periclean speech), Gorg. fr. 5–6,
Lys. 2, Pl. Mx. 236d–249c, Dem. 60, Hyp. 6. See Herrman 2004 for translations of
all of these with notes emphasizing their individual differences.
83
Thuc. 2.37–42. Bosworth (2000) persuasively argues that Thucydides gives an
accurate reproduction of what Pericles actually said, and that the speech addresses
the audience’s specific concerns in 431/430.
16 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
Heroes.
84
Hyperides’ speech is the only one that focuses on an individ-
ual and provides a detailed narrative of the recent campaign season.
85
But despite these idiosyncrasies, the surviving speeches share a
similar structure and many of the same topics and motifs recur in sev-
eral speeches. Ancient rhetorical handbooks discuss the standard for-
mat of an epitaphios logos.
86
A speech for the war dead should have
an extended section of praise (the epainos), followed by a consolatory
address (paramythia) to the families of the dead.
87
Lamentation should
be avoided in a speech exhorting the listeners to continue fighting. All
of the speeches have an introduction (prooimion) with commonplaces
regarding earlier speakers and the impossibility of praising the dead
sufficiently, due to the abundance of worthy material.
88
The closing
words of the speeches are also often formulaic: Thucydides, Plato, and
Demosthenes conclude with slight variations on the same theme.
89
The praise section occupies the bulk of the funeral orations, and
it, too, is full of standard material. The usual topics are the city, the
ancestors of the dead, and their nature, education, and accomplish-
ments.
90
The orators often assert that their Athenian ancestors were
autochthonous (“born of the earth”) and that this shared local origin
was responsible for the state’s unity and advanced civilization.
91
This
section of the speech regularly contains an idealized history of Athens,
extending from mythological times to the Persian Wars and beyond.
92
This narrative emphasizes Athens as the savior of the other Greeks,
84
Dem. 60.27–31.
85
§6 and §15; §§11–18.
86
Men. Rh. 418.5–422.4; [D.H.] 277.6–283.19. These accounts intermix discus-
sion of private and public funeral orations.
87
Ziolkowski (1981, 57) and Herrman (2004, 6) chart these divisions in the sur-
viving speeches.
88
Thuc. 2.35.1–2, Lys. 2.1–2, Pl. Mx. 236d–e, Dem. 60.1, §§1–2 (with the note
to §1 under τῶν μὲν λόγων τ[ῶν μελ]λόντων ῥηθήσεσ[θαι κτλ). Carey (2007a,
245) observes that the self-referentiality of the speeches is “reminiscent of verse
panegyric.”
89
“Now that you have lamented these men as each of you should, depart,” Thuc.
2.46; cf. Pl. Mx. 249c and Dem. 60.37.
90
Men. Rh. 420.11–12; [D.H.] 278.15–18.
91
Thuc. 2.36.1, Lys. 2.17, Pl. Mx. 237c, Dem. 60.4, §7 with note under οἷς ἡ
κοινὴ γένεσις α[ὐτόχ]θοσιν οὖσιν ἀνυπέρβλητ[ον] τὴν εὐγένειαν ἔχει.
92
Lys. 2.3–66 and Pl. Mx. 239a–246b offer the most extensive narratives; cf.
also Dem. 60.6–11. Thomas (1989, 196–236) discusses these accounts as examples
of an “official tradition.” Burgess (1902, 150–153) provides a detailed catalogue of
the elements in these narratives.
Introduction 17
from Theseus’ expeditions against the Amazons and Eumolpus to the
battle of Marathon, and as a refuge for suppliants such as the children
of Heracles.
93
Demosthenes’ Funeral Oration, delivered in autumn of 338, em-
ploys many of these standard elements, but it also provides a view to
Athenian attitudes immediately after the defeat at Chaeronea.
94
Demo-
sthenes presents the recent conflict with Philip as the latest in a long
series of Athenian efforts to protect the other Greeks from foreign in-
vaders. His narrative of Athenian history begins with an account of
how the ancestors of the dead drove Eumolpus and the Amazons out
of Greece and ends with a similar description of the Greek victory in
the Persian Wars.
95
Alater section of the speech, which relates inspiring
tales about each of the Eponymous Heroes of Athens, further associates
those who died at Chaeronea with the Athenian historical tradition.
96
The speech acknowledges that the Greeks lost the battle, but De-
mosthenes does not repudiate the policy that led them there; he instead
praises the Athenians for their foresight in following his guidance, and
he faults the Theban commanders for their performance in the field.
97
In the end he attributes the defeat to misfortune (tych), or the will
of a god (a daimn), and he praises the citizen soldiers for their brav-
ery.
98
But amid these words of praise, he also offers a vision of the
immediate reaction to defeat in Athens. Even before the creation of the
League of Corinth, Demosthenes observes that Greece has lost its free-
dom(eleutheria) and dignity (axima) and fallen into darkness (skotos)
and disgrace (dyskleia).
99
93
Amazons: Lys. 2.4–6, Pl. Mx. 239b, Dem. 60.8; Eumolpus: Pl. Mx. 239b;
Marathon: Lys. 2.21, Pl. Mx. 240c–e; Heraclidae: Lys. 2.11–16, Pl. Mx. 239b,
Dem. 60.8.
94
Dionysius of Halicarnassus denied the authenticity of Dem. 60 because its lan-
guage and sentiment seem uncharacteristic of Demosthenes (D.H. Dem. 44), and
many ancient and modern critics have followed his judgment. But the style and atti-
tude of the speech can be readily explained by the genre and the historical situation,
and there is no compelling reason to doubt that the speech is Demosthenic. McCabe
(1981, 169–172) confirms that the prosody is statistically consistent with genuine
speeches. For recent discussion see Herrman 2008 and Worthington 2003b.
95
Dem. 60.8–11. Walters (1980, 14–16) observes that the epitaphioi cast Eumol-
pus and the Amazons as aggressive invaders to serve as a precedent for the Persian
invasions.
96
Dem. 60.27–31.
97
Dem. 60.18, 22.
98
Dem. 60.19.
99
Dem. 60.24. Section 20 refers to the peace negotiations between Philip and
18 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
The Athenians were unable to challenge the Macedonian hege-
mony in the years after the battle of Chaeronea, and especially after
the destruction of Thebes in 335.
100
A handful of important speeches,
delivered not as formal funeral orations but rather in political court
cases in the 330s, continue to illustrate the Athenian mood toward
Macedonia. Fragments of a newly discovered speech of Hyperides,
Against Diondas, show that the leading enemies of the Macedonians in
Athens continued to use historical precedent to defend the policy that
led to Chaeronea.
101
Demosthenes’ speech of 338, as a funeral oration,
avoided specific discussion of policy, but Hyperides’ is primarily
concerned with a defense of the political decisions leading to battle.
Like Demosthenes, he praises the Athenian dmos for following
a policy aimed at the freedom of the Greeks “just as [Athens did]
before,”
102
and then makes a more explicit analogy between the cam-
paign of 338 and the Persian Wars. When his accuser alleges that the
terms of the alliance with Thebes were unfair for Athens, Hyperides
answers with an account of the Athenian contribution to the allied
forces at the battles of Artemisium and Salamis.
103
He describes the
effort as “noble” (chrstos) and, just as Demosthenes did, he blames
the defeat on misfortune (tych).
104
Demosthenes’ Funeral Oration
and Hyperides’ Against Diondas both concentrate on Chaeronea and
neither offers any prospect of renewed resistance to Macedon. Taken
together, they suggest that in the years after Chaeronea the Athenian
enemies of Macedon focused on the past as they grew resigned to the
Macedonian hegemony.
Lycurgus’ prosecution of Leocrates in 331, delivered after the erup-
tion of Agis’ revolt, continues to dwell on the loss at Chaeronea seven
years before.
105
In one brief passage he closely echoes Demosthenes’
Funeral Oration as he laments that “the liberty of the Greeks” perished
Athens immediately after the battle, not the creation of the League in early 337.
100
For a narrative of these events see above pp. 6–7.
101
See above note 14 on p. 5 on the date of the Against Diondas.
102
Hyp. Dion. 137v/136r ll. 1–2.
103
Hyp. Dion. 145v/144r ll. 9–22. Cf. Dem. 18.238, and see below note 112 on
p. 19 on the relation of these two speeches.
104
Hyp. Dion. 137r/136v l. 32–137v/136r l. 8. See below note 115 on p. 20 for the
Demosthenic parallels.
105
On the date of the trial see Harris (in Worthington et al. 2001, 159 n. 1). See
above p. 8 on Agis’ revolt. For details on the trial of Leocrates see Hansen 1975,
108 no. 121. He was charged with fleeing Athens immediately after the battle of
Chaeronea, which explains why the speech concentrates on that period.
Introduction 19
along with the soldiers who died on the field.
106
Like Demosthenes and
other funeral orators, he compares the campaign against Philip with
patriotic episodes fromAthenian myth, such as the sacrifice of the Hy-
acinthidae to save Athens from Eumolpus.
107
From myth he moves to
the Persian Wars, singling out the two standard examples of Athenian
heroism, the battles of Marathon and Salamis.
108
Lycurgus may have
hoped the Athenians would join Agis’ revolt in 331 and put the defeat
of 338 behind them(see note 33 on p. 8), but his persuasive appeal to the
court in Athens in his prosecution of Leocrates, like earlier speeches of
Demosthenes and Hyperides, uses models from myth and the Persian
Wars to heroize the Athenian effort at Chaeronea.
109
A year after Lycurgus’ prosecution, Demosthenes delivered his
masterpiece On the Crown. As we have already observed (see p. 8),
his defense speech focuses on the period leading up to the battle
of Chaeronea, and avoids discussion of more recent events. In his
prosecution speech Aeschines blames Demosthenes for missing the
opportunity of Philip’s death in 336 and for failing to support Thebes
in 335 and Agis in 331.
110
But Demosthenes does not take the bait.
Early in the speech he makes a brief mention of the destruction of
Thebes, and promises to return to the topic later in his defense.
111
But
the promise is left unfulfilled: Demosthenes does not return to the
subject of the Theban revolt, nor does he mention the recent defeat of
Agis. Instead, he defends the policy that led to Chaeronea, by using
many of the same arguments that appeared in his Funeral Oration in
338, and also in Hyperides’ Against Diondas and Lycurgus’ Against
Leocrates.
112
Demosthenes shows no regret for his policy. He argues that con-
frontation with Philip was inevitable, and that the alliance with Thebes
106
Lycurg. 50; cf. Dem. 60.24, quoted above. Maas (1928) lists several other close
parallels and suggests that Lycurgus deliberately alludes to the (genuine, he believes)
Demosthenic speech.
107
Lycurg. 98–100; cf. Dem. 60.27. Lycurg. 101 recalls Dem. 60.29 (on the
Leontidae).
108
Lycurg. 104 and 70.
109
Although his case was weak (on the legal issues see Harris 2000, 67–75), Ly-
curgus lost by only a single vote (Aesch. 3.252).
110
Aesch. 3.160–161, 156–157, 165.
111
Dem. 18.41–42; cf. Worthington 2000, 99.
112
Indeed, there are many close verbal echoes between On the Crown and Against
Diondas, as Eusebius had already noted (Eus. PE 10.3.14–15 = Hyp. fr. 95).
20 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
was the best alternative for Athens.
113
Not only was this policy sensible,
according to Demosthenes, but it also lived up to the Athenian tradi-
tion. As we sawabove (p. 17) when considering Demosthenes’ Funeral
Oration, the war with Philip was compared to earlier Athenian efforts
against foreign invaders, especially the Persians. In On the Crown he
again invokes the model of those earlier heroes and presents Chaeronea
as a modern-day Marathon.
114
As before, he blames misfortune, or a
divine spirit, for the loss at Chaeronea.
115
This speech, like each of the
others considered in this section, demonstrates that the leading advo-
cates for Greek freedom preferred to dwell on the glorious fight for
freedom at Chaeronea, rather than more recent events that only con-
firmed their impotence against Alexander.
3. Hyperides’ Funeral Oration
As we have just seen, the speeches of the 330s focus on the defeat
at Chaeronea, which they present as the most recent event in a long
tradition of Athenian accomplishments. These orations pay little atten-
tion to subsequent developments, as Philip and Alexander consolidated
their control of Greece. But in the 320s Athenian prospects improved
dramatically, and the death of Alexander in 323 provided an ideal op-
portunity to renew the fight for the freedom lost at Chaeronea.
116
Hy-
perides’ speech reflects the changed situation. With its focus on recent
events, it stands apart from Athenian speeches of the 330s and from
earlier funeral orations. The Athenians had finally put Chaeronea be-
hind them, and Hyperides shows them that the current campaign was
more important than any of their ancestors’ achievements.
Earlier funeral orations present an idealized history of Athens
that begins in the mythological past and culminates with the Persian
Wars.
117
They do sometimes describe more recent events, but only
briefly, as if to emphasize that the current honorands play but a
small part in a great tradition. Lysias, for example, devotes nearly his
whole speech to “the deeds of the dead” (3), presenting an extensive
account of the Persian Wars as the centerpiece, while the Corinthian
113
Dem. 18.195.
114
Dem. 18.208, with discussion by Yunis (2000, 108–109).
115
Dem. 18.192–194, cf. Dem. 60.19–20.
116
On these events see above pp. 9–12.
117
For details and references see above p. 16.
Introduction 21
War receives only a moment’s attention.
118
Demosthenes’ speech
nicely illustrates the typical emphasis on the past found in earlier
funeral orations. He presents an extended description of each of the
Eponymous Heroes of Athens, and in each instance adds the refrain
that the members of the tribe were inspired by their distant ancestors.
119
Hyperides refuses to narrate the past deeds of the city at all, explain-
ing that “there is not enough time now to survey individually its earlier
[accomplishments]” (§4). He offers instead a simile comparing the city
of Athens with the sun, and this short comparison encompasses many
of the standard topoi found in the longer narratives of other speeches.
120
The narrative that follows does not append recent accomplishments to
a long catalogue of older achievements, but instead focuses exclusively
on recent events.
121
He begins with the general Leosthenes, who played
a leading role in the revolt and was killed in the field,
122
and then nar-
rates the events of the year: the initial success in Boeotia, the siege
of Antipater at Lamia, and the defeat of Leonnatus.
123
Whereas De-
mosthenes had emphasized the tribal heroes as inspirational models,
Hyperides points to the current situation in Thebes and emphasizes the
future meetings of the Amphictyonic Council as stimuli for the sol-
diers’ efforts.
124
Although his narrative focuses exclusively on the most recent
campaign season, Hyperides concludes his praise of Leosthenes
and his men with an account of the reception that the general will
receive in Hades. He first compares Leosthenes with the Greek heroes
of the Trojan War, then with the Athenian generals Miltiades and
Themistocles, and finally with the tyrant-slayers Harmodius and
Aristogiton. Other epitaphioi praise the dead for matching the deeds of
118
Lys. 2.20–47 and 66–70. Similarly, in the Menexenus the Persian Wars receive
much more attention than the Corinthian War; see Pl. Mx. 239d–241d and 244b–245c.
119
Dem. 60.27–31; cf. above p. 17. On the Eponymous Heroes, see Kearns 1989,
80–92, with the individual entries in her appendix 1.
120
See §5 with the commentary notes.
121
As discussed above (pp. 15–17), each of the funeral orations is idiosyncratic
in some way, and there may well have been earlier epitaphioi that also focused on
recent events; Bosworth (2000, 3–4) suggests that Pericles’ oration in 439 may have
been similar to Hyperides’ in this regard.
122
§§9–10. On Leosthenes see pp. 12–13 and the note on section §1 under περί
τε] Λεωσθένους τοῦ στ[ρατη]γοῦ. For discussion of this speech’s unusual focus on
the general, see the note on §3 under ἐπαινεῖν . . . τὸν δὲ στρατηγὸν Λεωσθένη.
123
§§12–14 with the commentary notes; see also above pp. 12–13.
124
§§17–18 with the commentary notes.
22 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
their ancestors,
125
but Hyperides emphatically argues that Leosthenes
deserved more praise than his predecessors. He “greatly excelled”
those who attacked Troy because the stakes were higher for Greece in
322; he was more courageous and foresighted than the generals of the
Persian Wars because he prevented the foreign invaders from reaching
Athens; and Harmodius and Aristogiton would prefer his company
because he accomplished “even more” than they by liberating all of
Greece.
126
Hyperides highlights the primacy of the Lamian War elsewhere
throughout the speech. He begins with the standard description of the
dead as andres agathoi (“brave men”) and then goes on to add that there
have never been “[better] men than those who have died or more gen-
erous achievements.”
127
Again at the end of his introduction he repeats
that recent accomplishments were “more honorable and noble” than
those of the ancestors (§3). At the end of the narrative of the campaign
season he boldly makes an explicit claimthat no earlier effort was more
important: “None of those who came before ever fought for more noble
goals or against stronger adversaries, or with fewer allies.”
128
And later
he adds that the Lamian War displayed the soldiers’ virtue better than
any earlier campaigns had (§23).
Statements such as these do not occur in earlier funeral orations;
in his Funeral Oration of 338 Demosthenes lamented that the freedom
and dignity of Greece died along with the souls of the fallen soldiers
at Chaeronea.
129
Hyperides’ positive attitude also stands in contrast to
the courtroom speeches delivered after the battle of Chaeronea; in 330
Lycurgus echoed Demosthenes’ tone of despondency, and added that
the souls of those who died in 338 were a “crown for the fatherland.”
130
125
For example, Lysias concludes his narrative by stating that the soldiers of
the Corinthian War “preserved the glory” of their ancestors (69: τήν . . . δόξαν
διασώσαντες) and although Demosthenes argues that the soldiers of the Persian War
were superior to those of the Trojan War (Dem. 60.10), he makes no comparable
statement regarding the dead from Chaeronea. Currie (2005, 116–118) lists passages
that describe the accomplishments of the war dead as being “worthy” (axios) of
comparison to the deeds of the epic heroes.
126
§35, §38, §39. See also the note on §35 under δ]ιήνεγκε.
127
§1; see the note there under [ἀμείνους] on the restoration of the word. On an-
dres agathoi see the note on §8 under ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί γ[ίγνων]ται.
128
§19. See the note there under τὴν ἀρετὴν ἰσχὺν καὶ τὴν ἀνδρείαν πλῆθος . . .
κρίνοντες on the hyperbole.
129
Dem. 60.23–24. See above p. 17.
130
Lycurg. 50.
Introduction 23
Hyperides responded in 322 that the soldiers in the Lamian war “made
freedompublic property for all” and that it was not the souls of the dead
at Chaeronea, but rather the glorious achievements of the Athenians in
the recent campaign that were a “a crown for the fatherland.”
131
His
clams for the excellence of those who fought in the first season of the
Lamian War reveal a newfound optimism in Athenian prospects.
Hyperides also appropriates the language typically used for the Per-
sian Wars and applies it to the Lamian War. For example, his descrip-
tion of the courage of the Lamian War soldiers echoes Lycurgus’ praise
for the fighters at Marathon.
132
Similarly, Plato’s description of the
Persian offensive at Marathon as “the insolence of all Asia” becomes
the “insolence of Macedon” for Hyperides.
133
Hyperides further links
the two wars when he emphasizes that Miltiades and Themistocles
freed Greece, alluding to the Lamian War slogan of “freedom for the
Greeks.”
134
The circumstances of the war, with an alliance of Greek
states fighting a foreign monarch, and significant battles near Ther-
mopylae and Plataea, invite such a comparison.
135
But Hyperides is not
content just to observe the parallels between the two conflicts. His allu-
sions underline the fact that the typical epitaphic account of the Persian
Wars has been replaced by a narrative of recent events,
136
and they an-
ticipate the oration’s vivid final scene of Leosthenes and his men in
the underworld, where they will be praised for their superiority to the
legendary generals of the Persian Wars.
137
Hyperides’ speech illustrates the Athenian attitude to the Macedo-
nian leadership of the League of Corinth in the 320s. The speech con-
stantly calls for the “freedom of the Greeks” and the overthrow of the
Macedonian rule. In one key passage Hyperides defines this concept
in constitutional terms, as he laments the Athenians’ loss, not just of
external freedom, but also of the basic right to determine their own do-
mestic politics within the city. He praises autonomia, the city’s right
to govern itself, and the rule of law, which he sharply contrasts with
131
§19. See the note there under στέφανον τῆι πατρίδ[ι.
132
§19, Lycurg. 108; see the note on §19 under τὴν ἀρετὴν ἰσχὺν καὶ τὴν ἀνδρείαν
πλῆθος . . . κρίνοντες.
133
§20, Pl. Mx. 240d; see the note on §20 under τὴν Μακεδόνων ὑπερηφανίαν.
134
§37. On freedom as a Lamian War slogan see the note on §16 under τῆ[ς τῶ]ν
Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας.
135
Cf. Loraux 1986, 127–129.
136
See the note on §5 under κολάζο[υσα.
137
§§37–38, with the note on §37 under Μιλτιάδην καὶ Θεμιστοκλέα.
24 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
the tyrannical rule of Alexander.
138
He decries the pernicious influence
of Athenians who “flatter their masters and slander their fellow citi-
zens” and earlier in the speech he describes a similar state of affairs
throughout Greece, which, he says, has been “destroyed by men work-
ing against their own fatherland and accepting bribes from Philip and
Alexander.”
139
In a passage without parallel in the other epitaphioi, he
asks his listeners to imagine the consequences for Greece if the soldiers
had not fought for freedom. He predicts that the whole world would be
subject to one master, who would overturn all Greek social and reli-
gious norms. Hyperides forecasts widespread assaults on Greek women
and children, and also observes that the Athenians “are compelled . . . to
look . . . upon sacrifices performed for mortals” and “honor their slaves
as heroes” while the “statues, altars, and temples” of the gods receive
less care than those of men.
140
Turning now to stylistic considerations, the great critic Longinus
praised Hyperides’ Funeral Oration as an exemplary epideictic com-
position, singling out the orator’s skill at arousing pity, and his smooth
and flexible phrasing: “He [Hyperides] was most suited to stirring pity,
and he was also extremely flexible in narrating myths extensively and
in presenting a topic with a supple spirit; thus, for instance, his speech
concerning Leto is rather poetic, and he composed his funeral oration
in an epideictic style as no one else could.”
141
Ancient critics distinguished the style of epideictic speeches from
forensic oratory, identifying long sentences with rhyming and paral-
lelism as a trademark of the epideictic style.
142
The long paratactic sen-
tence in §3 well exemplifies this sort of epideictic period. The first four
138
§25 with the notes under τῆς αὐτονομίας and νόμου φωνήν . . . νόμων πίστει.
139
§25 with the note under τοῖς κολακεύουσιν and §10 with the note under
κατεφθαρμένη ὑπὸ [τῶν] δωροδο‹κ›ούντων.
140
§§20–22; for further discussion see the notes on §20 under μήτε γυνα‹ι›κῶν
μήτε παρθένων μηδὲ παίδων ὕβρ‹ε›ις, on §21 under ἀγάλμα[τα δὲ] καὶ βωμοὺς
. . . ἀμελῶς, and on §22 under ὅπου δὲ τὰ πρὸς ‹τοὺς› θεοὺς ὅσια . . . τί τὰ πρὸς
τοὺς ἀνθρώπους χρὴ νομίζειν.
141
Longin. 34: [Ὑπερείδης] οἰκτίσασθαί τε προσφυέστατος, ἔτι δὲ μυθολογῆσαι
κεχυμένως καὶ ἐν ὑγρῶι πνεύματι διεξοδεῦσαι τι εὐκαμπὴς ἄκρως, ὥσπερ ἀμέλει
τὰ μὲν περὶ τὴν Λητὼ ποιητικώτερα, τὸν δ’ Ἐπιτάφιον ἐπιδεικτικῶς, ὡς οὐκ οἶδ’
εἴ τις ἄλλος, διέθετο. For a list of references to other ancient and modern discussions
of the style of the Funeral Oration, see Whitehead 2000, 5 n. 17 and Worthington
1999, 31.
142
See D.H. Isoc. 20, cited and discussed by Dover (1968, 60). Carey (2007a,
245–246) gives a few salient examples of “marked” language in funeral orations and
the conspicuous “verbal craftsmanship” of the genre.
Introduction 25
words (ἄξιον δέ [ἐσ]τιν ἐπαινεῖν, “deserves to be praised”) govern a
series of three parallel objects (“the city,” “the dead,” and Leosthenes),
which are closely connected by μέν and δέ (twice). The first object
is explained with an articular infinitive phrase (τὸ προε[λέσθ]αι, “for
making decisions”), as is the second (τὸ μὴ καταισχῦναι, “for not dis-
honoring”). The third object, Leosthenes, is then introduced and is the
subject of two new verbs (ἐγένετο and κατέστη), which respond to the
previous two objects; he was leader of the city and of the deceased
soldiers. These final two clauses (τῆς τε γὰρ προαιρέσεως εἰσηγητὴς
τῆι πόλ‹ε›ι ἐγένετο, καὶ τῆς στρατείας ἡγεμὼν τοῖς πολίταις κατ-
έστη, “he initiated the policy for the city and he was appointed leader
of the expedition for the citizens”) are closely parallel in their syntax
and word order (objective genitive, nominative subject, dative of ref-
erence, verb) and the last clause of the sentence consists of a pair of
three-word phrases after καί (τῆς στρατείας ἡγεμὼν and τοῖς πολί-
ταις κατέστη) that are parallel in length.
143
The long sentence in §3 is
only one of several such examples of this sort of epideictic sentence
with symmetrical parallel clauses in the Funeral Oration.
144
The speech is replete with short pairs of antithetical phrases that
reinforce the long sentences with their symmetry. For example, the or-
ator pointedly contrasts “the insolence of Macedon” (τὴν Μακεδόνων
ὑπερφανίαν) and “the power of justice” (τὴν τοῦ δικαίου δύναμιν) in
§20, and in §25 he similarly opposes “the threat of a man” (ἀνδρὸς
ἀπειλήν) with “the voice of law” (νόμου φωνήν) and compares the
abstract noun “accusation” (αἰτίαν) with “proof” (ἔλεγχον). The epi-
deictic style is also characterized by other marked constructions that
are uncommon in forensic speeches. For example, the elaborate simile
in §5 strikes a poetic tone, and that tone is maintained by figures such as
the polyptoton in §26 (πόνους πόνων) and the exclamations in §40 (ὢ
καλῆς μὲν . . . τόλμης, . . . ἐνδόξου δὲ . . . προαιρέσεως, . . . ὑπερβαλ-
λούσης δὲ ἀρετῆς καὶ ἀνδραγαθίας . . . ).
145
The epideictic style is also
143
On the rhetorical figure of parisosis see on §13 under καὶ ὧν . . . ἔλαβεν. Both
τῆς στρατείας ἡγεμὼν and τοῖς πολίταις κατέστη follow the same pattern of mono-
syllabic article followed by trisyllabic noun, followed by a trisyllabic noun or verb
that governs the immediately preceding noun as an object.
144
For other examples, see §13 with the note under καὶ ὧν . . . ἔλαβεν, §24 with
the note under διὰ τὴν τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀπόδειξιν . . . ἀτυχεῖς and §42 with the note under
ὅσοι μέν . . . ὅσοι δέ κτλ. Blass (1887–1893, 33–34) comments on the long periods
in this speech and also discusses Hyperides’ tendency to use superfluous verbiage
(auxsis).
145
On less complex similes in oratory, see the end of the introductory note on §5.
26 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
apparent in word usage. The Funeral Oration uses several vocabulary
items that do not appear in his forensic speeches; for example, the ad-
jective ἔνδοξος (“glorious”) and the noun ἡγεμών (“leader”) are used
repeatedly here but not elsewhere in the corpus.
146
In sum, the Funeral
Oration stands apart from the rest of the Hyperidean corpus not only
because of the subject and purpose of the speech, but also because of
its style of composition.
All of the surviving funeral orations follow a similar structure (see
above p. 16) and it may be useful to conclude this section with an out-
line summary of Hyperides’ speech:
• §§1–3: introduction (prooimion)
• §§4–40: praise (epainos)
— §§4–5: the city (πάτρις)
— §§6–7: the Athenian race (γένος) and their nobility (εὐγένεια)
— §8: upbringing (παιδεία)
— §§9–40: the achievements (τὰ πεπραγμένα) of the fallen
* §§10–14: Leosthenes’ deeds in battle
* §15: the virtue (ἀρετή) of the other soldiers
* §§16–17: their service for all of Greece fighting in Boeotia
* §§18–19: the battles in Boeotia and at Lamia
* §§20–23: the importance of their victory
* §§24–26: the sacrifices made by the dead for the living
* §27: the surviving family members
* §§28–29: attainment of nobility in death
* §§30–34: our memory of them as heroes
* §§35–40: their reception in Hades
• §§41–43: consolation (paramythia)
For polyptoton see the note on §26 under πόνους πόνων, and for exclamations see
on §40 under ὢ καλῆς μὲν καὶ παραδόξου τόλμης κτλ.
146
ἔνδοξος: §§18, 27, 37, 40; ἡγεμών: §§3, 11, 35. Of course, the corpus is small
and fragmentary, so many of the words listed in Jensen’s index vocabularum occur
only once. But a number of the items in Dover’s (1968, 65–67) list of “non-forensic”
terms in Lysias’ Funeral Oration are used by Hyperides only in the Epitaphios: e.g.,
ἀγήρατος (§43 and the fragmentum dubium, “ageless”), δεξιοῦσθαι (twice in §35,
“to welcome”), and ἡγεμών (§§3, 11, 35 “leader”).
Introduction 27
4. The Text and Translation
The Funeral Oration was one of the first examples of Greek literature
rediscovered on papyrus in the middle of the nineteenth century.
147
It
was found near Egyptian Thebes and brought to London in late 1856
by H. Stobart.
148
The first editor, Churchill Babington, arranged the fif-
teen fragments into fourteen columns.
149
This arrangement is clearly
confirmed by the texts on both sides of the papyrus, and quickly won
wide assent.
150
Friedrich Blass made one important modification when
he recognized that the fragments Babington had classified as the first
two columns in fact join to form one column.
151
Accepting this join,
the papyrus falls into three physical divisions: col. 1, cols. 2–11, and
cols. 12–13. Hyperides’ text clearly continues directly from column 1
to 2 (§2: τῶν . . . πεπραγμένων, “the deeds”), indicating that no mate-
rial has been lost between the first two divisions of papyrus. The text
is more difficult at the end of the second division, but here, too, there
appears to be continuity. The conditional protasis εἰ δέ (§34, “if”) at
the end of column 11 is nicely completed by the verb γίνεται (“was”)
at the start of column 12, and then answered by the optative question
τίς ἂν λόγος ὠφελήσειεν (“what speech would confer”).
152
One addi-
tional small piece of the papyrus (my fragment 1a) has not been placed;
it must come from the right half of col. 11 or from an additional section
of the papyrus, otherwise lost, that came after col. 13.
153
The first part (cols. 1–10) of the text of the Funeral Oration is writ-
ten against the vertical fibers on the verso of a horoscope and astrolog-
147
P. Lit. Lond. 133 =Brit. Mus. inv. 98; Pack 1965, 1236. Turner (1980, 21) lists
the few literary finds before 1860.
148
Babington 1859, 3.
149
The details in Babington 1858 are summarized by Jensen (1917, xvi n. 2).
150
Blass (1894, xv) observes that neque quicquam fere reliqui ille fecit prox-
imis editoribus, nisi ut duo prima fragmenta ad unam columnam efficiendam con-
iungerentur.
151
See the note on §§1–2.
152
The proposed restorations for the end of col. 11 also support continuity between
cols. 11 and 12: see note on §34 under ὠφελείας ἕνε]κεν.
153
The fragment is torn on all sides. The fibers run parallel to its script, which
indicates that it cannot belong to any of the lacunae in cols. 1–10 (see next paragraph;
the modern mounting of the papyrus obscures the other side of this fragment, which
should presumably be blank, like the piece of papyrus that preserves cols. 11–13).
Cf. Blass 1894, 93 and Jensen 1917, 113.
28 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
ical text in Greek and Coptic.
154
The second part of the papyrus text
(cols. 11–13) comes after a glue-join (a synkollsis) and is written along
the fibers on a separate piece of papyrus with nothing on the other side.
The columns are 18 to 19 cmhigh, and the width varies from6.25 (cols.
1, 10, 12) to 8.5 cm(col. 9), with the majority between 7 and 8 cmwide.
Most columns have 18 to 20 characters per line, but this ranges with the
width of the columns, from as few as 12 characters per line (e.g., cols.
5.40, 6.12) to as many as 31 (9.33 and 9.34). The first three columns
contain only 33 or 34 lines, while most of the other columns have up
to 44 lines of text. The intercolumn divisions are highly unusual: the
scribe uses one or two vertical lines with virtually no blank space on
either side.
155
The top margin (2.5 cm) of the papyrus is well preserved,
but the bottom margin tapers off (1.5 cm for cols. 1–3, then very little).
The script is not cursive; each letter stands by itself. In general,
I would compare P. Oxy. 3.454,
156
although that hand is much more
careful and less cramped than this one. Kenyon (1899, 103–104) de-
scribes our scribe as a private nonliterary hand and compares P. Oxy.
9.1175.
157
Here, the lines are roughly bilinear, with more adherence to
an upper rule. Letters such as γ, ι, φ, and ψ drop below the bottom
rule. β, λ, and φ often project above the upper rule. ξ is especially dis-
tinguished by its height and narrowness. In general, the style seems
somewhat hurried, and the spacing is quite tight. Turner’s (1987, 5)
suggestion that it was written as a school exercise is very attractive.
The scribe seems careless and makes several mistakes (see appendix
A). There are a number of omissions, sometimes of only a character or
two, but in other places whole words or phrases need to be supplied to
make sense of the text. See appendix A for further details on scribal
mistakes, orthography, punctuation, and diacritics. A published fac-
simile of the entire manuscript may be found in Babington 1858; it is a
hand-drawn lithograph, and while it is very accurate for the most part,
it tends to hide physical blemishes in the papyrus and is occasionally
inaccurate.
158
Thompson and Warner (1881, pl. 4) provide an image of
154
The recto text is Neugebauer and Van Hoesen 1959, 28–38 no. 95. Its vertical
orientation is opposite the verso.
155
Turner (1987, 5) comments on the rarity of this technique for column division,
with specific reference to this papyrus.
156
P. Oxy. 3.454 = Turner 1987, no. 62.
157
The same scribe also wrote P. Oxy. 9.1174 (Turner 1987, no. 34) and other
known rolls (Johnson 2004, 64 (scribe B1)).
158
There are instances where fairly clear readings in the facsimile are not apparent
Introduction 29
the right half of col. 6 and cols. 7–11, while Wattenbach (1897, pl. 3),
has a drawing of cols. 8–9.
The horoscope on the recto is important for the dating of the pa-
pyrus. It was prepared for a subject born in AD95, and then the papyrus
was reused for the Funeral Oration in the second century.
159
This dat-
ing is confirmed by the palaeographical parallels cited in the previous
paragraph, which editors assign to the late second century AD.
The Funeral Oration of Hyperides was first edited and published in
England by Churchill Babington (1858). This exciting new text imme-
diately prompted several publications from some of the best Hellenists
on the continent,
160
and Babington reexamined the papyrus in light of
their suggestions and published a second edition in 1859. Within the
next decade four more editions and several short articles appeared,
which differed mainly in their restorations of the lacunose sections of
the speech.
161
The work of these early scholars did much to improve
the text of the speech, and the value and extent of their contributions
can be judged from the frequency of their names in the apparatuses of
all subsequent editions.
The collective work of all of these early scholars was synthesized
by Friedrich Blass, who further added numerous significant improve-
ments of his own to the text, in the first modern edition of the surviving
speeches and fragments of Hyperides, which appeared in the Teubner
series in 1869.
162
As new Hyperides papyri came to light, Blass pre-
pared updated editions of the Teubner volume,
163
and his third edition
remains valuable, not only because of the editor’s excellent skill as a
upon examination of the manuscript. For example, Babington (1858, 3–4) reads τοὺς
παῖδας παιδευθ[ῆναι in §8 and the image of the end of col. 4 line 21 reflects that
reading (the horizontal crossbar of the theta is there in the facsimile, but not on the
papyrus, as Babington (1859, 24) himself agreed a year later in his second edition).
159
On the date of the horoscope, see Neugebauer and Van Hoesen 1959, 28–29.
See Turner 1987, 18–19 on the length of intervals between writing on the verso and
reuse of the recto of a papyrus roll.
160
Babington (1859, 5–6) refers specifically to Kayser (1858), Spengel (1858),
Caesar (1857), Comparetti (1858), and Cobet (1858). Bursian and Müller (1858) and
Weil (1858) also published notes that year.
161
The most valuable editions are those of Sauppe (1860) and Comparetti (1864);
note also Tell (1861) and Caffiaux (1866). Fritzsche (1861–1862), Schäfer (1860),
Shilleto (1860) and Volckmar (1860) published notes.
162
Blass 1869, reviewed by Sandys (1870). Whitehead (2000, 19–23) provides an
excellent survey of the editions of Blass and subsequent editors.
163
Blass 1881 and 1894; for reviews of the third edition see Sandys 1895 and
Radermacher 1896.
30 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
papyrologist and countless ingenious restorations, but also for the vol-
ume’s compendious account of all nineteenth-century work on Hype-
rides’ text.
Two twentieth-century editions of the Funeral Oration illustrate
different approaches to presenting the text. Frederic Kenyon (1906)
produced an Oxford Classical Text of Hyperides that was a marked de-
parture from Blass’ Teubner editions.
164
Kenyon aimed to present as
readable a text as possible; he does not indicate the lineation of the pa-
pyrus, and removes editorial brackets and dots from the text when they
pertain only to a few letters that can be restored with certainty. In the
most damaged sections of the Funeral Oration he follows two differ-
ent approaches. In §1 he prints short phrases separated by dots and does
not record many restorations for the lacunae. In §§31–34 he fills in all
of the lacunae, with square brackets as appropriate, to present a contin-
uous and intelligible text, but he does not record alternative proposals
for the gaps. Christian Jensen (1917) prepared the most recent Teubner
edition,
165
which is widely recognized as the best existing edition of
Hyperides. Jensen was an extremely skilled papyrologist, and his de-
tailed observations in his apparatus with regard to doubtful readings are
an important advance on Blass’ editions. He scrupulously preserves the
layout of the papyrus, printing his text in narrowcolumns that represent
the papyrus line by line.
Before describing my own approach to the text, a few other
twentieth-century editions deserve mention. None of these editions are
based on a fresh collation of the papyrus; they instead adapt Jensen’s
text. Most notably, Gaston Colin (1946) prepared a Budé edition that
features a full translation of the corpus, together with an extensive
introduction and a useful critical apparatus. His text incorporates many
highly speculative restorations, which are noted in my apparatus and
appendix B. Two other bilingual editions of the entire corpus aimed
at general readers have appeared since Colin. Burtt’s (1954) Loeb
provides a good English translation and brief explanatory notes, and
Marzi (1977) provides an Italian translation with very useful critical
notes on several textual cruces.
166
A few brief editions of the Funeral
Oration, with historical notes on the translation or on grammatical
points for students, have also appeared in recent years.
167
A final notice
164
Reviewed by Fuhr (1907).
165
A new Teubner is in preparation by László Horváth.
166
Marzi 1977, 59–82.
167
Worthington 1999, Coppola 1996, and Rolando 1969.
Introduction 31
should be given to Bartolini (1977, 88–101) which is not an edition
of the speech, but rather an invaluable summary of textual and other
work on the Funeral Oration between 1912 and 1972.
The text of the Funeral Oration presented in this volume is based
on my own examination of the papyrus at the British Library in 2003
and 2005. I cannot claim to be as experienced or skilled a papyrologist
as Jensen, but I have carefully double-checked all of his readings, and
I would claim some independent value for the perception of a second
set of eyes. By and large I follow his expert opinions, but there are
several places where I see things slightly differently.
168
Most of these
differences involve adding or, less often, subtracting dots, and occa-
sionally I am not confident that the traces can be read as a particular
letter. Only a few of these adjustments affect the wording of the text or
restorations adopted in the text.
169
But in some other respects I would
suggest that my edition is an improvement upon Jensen’s. First, his text
was produced before the so-called Leiden system standardized edito-
rial markup for papyri and inscriptions, and his idiosyncratic system is
often unclear to modern readers (for example, his frequent usage of dot-
ted letters within square brackets).
170
Second, I have included a fuller
record of nineteenth- and twentieth-century editorial suggestions, and
I provide full bibliographic details for that material. The bulk of the
plausible restorations that are nowgenerally accepted were put forward
during the first decade after the discovery of the papyrus, and after the
subsequent improvements of Blass, Jensen, and Colin there seems to
be little fertile ground left for editorial inventiveness. I do not propose
any new restorations; I have rather endeavored to provide an accurate
account of the papyrus’ readings and of modern editors’ restorations in
my text and apparatus.
In many places the papyrus is damaged and scholars have proposed
conjectural restorations for areas that are lost or illegible. I have clas-
sified these modern supplements into three groups.
• Restorations that seemto me extremely likely, because of their con-
168
I diverge from Jensen’s readings of the papyrus in the following places (refer-
ence to column and line of the papyrus): 1.12, 14, 19, 20, 21; 2.10, 21; 3.5, 6, 9, 13,
20; 4.27; 5.8, 11; 6.19, 24, 32, 33; 7.2, 7, 9, 10, 20; 8.17; 9.21; 10.5, 38, 40; 11.2, 21,
40; 13.30.
169
Viz., §1 ὁ χ]ρόνος . . . π]αντί αἰῶν[ι, §5 τ[ῶν ἀνθρώπ]ων ἐπιμ[ελούμενος
(cf. Jensen 1917, xlvi) and §31 πα]ρὰ τοῖς
.
[
. . . .
.
170
On the Leiden system, see Turner 1980, 187–188 n. 22. For a criticism of Jen-
sen’s system, see Whitehead 2000, 21 n. 80.
32 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
sistency with surviving ink traces, and their physical fit with holes
or damage in the manuscript, and because they seem to convey a
highly appropriate sense in context, are incorporated in the text be-
tween square brackets, and the editors are credited in the apparatus.
In order not to inflate the size of the apparatus, obvious restorations
of only a letter or two, most of which go back to Babington’s first
edition, are not listed in the apparatus.
• Restorations that seem less certain but highly plausible, for the rea-
sons listed in the previous item, are recorded in the apparatus, but
not in the text. In situations where more than one plausible restora-
tion has been suggested, and the criteria of sense and physical fit do
not support the strong likelihood of a single restoration in prefer-
ence to others, I have printed dots in the text and noted the various
restoration in the apparatus.
• Proposals that seem to me least suitable to the physical remains or
the sense are recorded in appendix B. In particularly damaged ar-
eas of the papyrus (e.g., §1, §§31–34), I have tended to print dots
in the text, as noted in the previous item, to indicate the size of the
lacunae and I have listed the most plausible restoration in the appa-
ratus. Appendix B records restorations that I deem most unlikely. It
is important to record them, however, for two reasons: (1) readers
may doubt my judgement, and they should be able to consider all
of the proposed alternatives for themselves, and (2) these records
obviate the need to consult nineteenth-century editions (i.e., Blass
1894, which has a much fuller apparatus than Jensen).
The text is printed as continuous prose with embedded notation of
papyrus column and line breaks.
171
The right margin of the text enu-
merates the lines as printed in this edition, and these line numbers are
used in the apparatus and in appendix B, and appear in the commentary
lemmata. The standard section divisions are indicated by bold numbers
in the outer margin (the left margin of the text and the right margin of
the translation), and the commentary refers to these sections. In lacu-
nae, dots have been gathered into groups of five (except for the last
group of the lacuna) for the reader’s convenience; these groupings are
not intended to signal the length of the individual words missing from
our manuscript. The scribe regularly writes mute iotas, and in the text
171
It is still quite common to encounter references by column and line, rather than
section number, in scholarship, and readers need references for both systems. Most
notably, the TLG refers to the papyrus layout.
Introduction 33
the iota adscript is employed throughout; scribal omissions of mute
iota are indicated by angle brackets. Several basic scribal mistakes of
copying, spelling, or orthography have been corrected without indica-
tion in the text or apparatus; these are listed in appendix A, along with
a comprehensive catalogue of scribal punctuation and diacritics.
The translation is intended primarily to demonstrate my interpreta-
tion of the Greek text, and to serve as minimal annotation on the Greek
text in instances where I may have neglected to provide a full note. I
also hope it will make the entire volume more accessible for historians
who do not read Greek. I have employed a notation system of brackets
and italics, explained below, in an effort to convey the physical state
of the papyrus and the certainty of individual words.
Dots and brackets are employed in accordance with the Leiden sys-
tem, which is summarized here together with an explanation of other
symbols used in the Greek text:
...
Letters for which the papyrus is intact, but com-
pletely unreadable.
[
. . .
] Letters for which the papyrus is lost and which
have not been restored.
[ – – ] An indeterminate amount of lost text.
α
.
β
.
γ
.
Letters that partially survive, but for which alter-
native readings are possible.
[αβγ] Letters that are not now preserved on the papyrus,
but which the editor believes the scribe wrote.
‹αβγ› Letters that the editor believes were mistakenly
omitted by the scribe.
{αβγ} Letters that the editor believes were mistakenly
written by the scribe.
]αβγj Letters that were written and deleted by the scribe.
'αβγ' Letters written by the scribe above the line
(whether over a scribal erasure or as an abbrevia-
tion).
αβγ Letters (in §§7–8) that were seen by Babington
and appear in his facsimile (Babington 1858), but
which have since been lost. See the note on §§7–8
under ἀνυπέρβλητ[ον] . . . ἀλλὰ [πε]ρί.
[ The point at which a new papyrus column begins;
the column number appears as a Roman numeral
in the inner margin.
|
5
The point at which a new line of the papyrus be-
34 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
gins; every fifth line is numbered.
1 Numbered sections of the speech begin at sense
breaks (the start of a new sentence or clause) and
are indicated in the outer margins.
For bibliographic information on the editors listed in the apparatus, see
pp. xii–xiv.
The following notation systemis used to indicate words and phrases
that are in doubt in the translation.
abc Material that is only partially preserved on the pa-
pyrus, the restoration of which is highly likely.
[abc] Material restored by modern conjecture and more
subject to doubt.
[ – – ] Lost text; the reader may consult the Greek text to
determine the length of the lacuna.
1 Numbered sections of the speech begin at sense
breaks (the start of a new sentence or clause) and
are indicated in the outer margins.
Text and Translation
Fragment 1a
[ – – ]αλλοτ
.
[ – – ]|[ – – ]πολλ[ – – ]|[ – – ]γ
.
εν
.
[ – – ]
Fragment 1b
1 [ τῶν μὲν λόγων τ[ῶν μελ]|λ
.
όντων ῥηθήσεσ[θαι ἐπὶ] | τῶιδε I
τῶι τάφω[ι περί τε] | Λεωσθένους τοῦ στ[ρατη]|
5
γοῦ καὶ
περὶ τῶν ἄλ
.
[λων] | τῶν μετ’ ἐκείνου [τετε]|λ
.
ευτηκότων
ἐν τ[ῶι πο|λ]έμωι, ὡς ἦσαν ἄ
.
ν[δρες | ἀ]γαθοί, μάρ
.
τ
.
[υς 5
. . . . .
ὁ |
10
χ]ρόνος ὁ
.
[
. . . . . . . . . .
|
. .
]ωι τὰς πρ
.
[άξεις
. . . . .
|
. .

ἄνθρω[π
. . . . . . . . .
|
. .
]
.
ν πω κα[λλί
. . . . . . .
|
.
ἑ]ώ
.
ρακε ω
.
[
. .
οὐδ’
ἐν τῶι |
15
π]αντὶ αἰῶν
.
[ι νομιστέον | γ]εγενῆ[σθαι
. .
οὔτε] |

.
νδρας [ἀμείνους τῶν] | τετελ
.
ε‹υ›τ
.
[ηκότων] | οὔτε πρ[άξεις
1–257 P. Lit. Lond. 133 = Brit. Mus. inv. 98 (Pack 1965, 1236)
1 fragmentum ponendum est in col. XI aut post col. XIII, cf. p. 27 2 τῶν μελλόν-
των Babington 3 περί τε Cobet et Sauppe 5–6 μάρτυς ἔστω Colin, μάρτυς αὐτὸς
Kenyon 6 ὁ ἰδὼν ἐν τῶι πολέμωι Bücheler, ὁ συνειδὼς ἔργωι Colin τὰς πράξεις
Babington 6–7 ὧν οὐδεὶς ἄνθρωπος οὐδὲν ἔργον πω καλλίον (οὐδεμίαν . . . καλλίω
Colin) καθεόρακεν Bücheler, οὐ γάρ τις ἀνθρώπων προαίρεσίν πω καλλίω τῆσδ’
(πρότερόν πω καλλίονας Jensen ap. Hess) ἑώρακε Sudhaus 7–8 ὥστε οὐδ’ ἐν τῶι
παντὶ αἰῶνι Bücheler, ὧν ἴσμεν οὐδ’ ἐν παντὶ αἰῶνι Sudhaus 8 νομιστέον Bücheler
ποτ’ οὔτε Colin 9 ἀμείνους τῶν Bücheler 9–10 πράξεις μεγαλοπρεπεστέρας Jensen
seq. Blass
Text and Translation 37
Fragment 1a
[ – – ] other [ – – ] many [ – – ]
Fragment 1b
As for the speech that will be be spoken [over] this grave [con- 1
cerning] Leosthenes the general and the others who have died
with him in the war, time is a witness to the fact that they were
noble men. Time, which [ – – ] the deeds [ – – ] men, [ – – ] has
never seen more noble [– – nor in] all eternity [should it be
thought] that there have been [either better] men than those who
38 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
2 μεγα|
20
λ]οπ
.
ρ
.
επεσ
.
τ
.
[έρας. διὸ] | καὶ μάλιστα [νῦν φοβοῦ]|μαι, 10
μή μοι συμ[βῆι τὸν] | λ
.
όγον ἐλάττ[ω φαί]|ν
.
εσθαι τῶν
ἔρ[γων] |
25
τ
.
ῶν γεγενη[μέ]|νων. πλὴν κατ’ [ἐκεῖ]|νό γε
πάλι‹ν› θα[ρρῶ, ὅ]|τι τὰ ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ ‹ἐ›κ[λει]|πόμενα ὑμεῖ‹ς›
οἱ ἀ
.
|
30
κούοντες προ
.
σθή|σετε· οὐ γὰρ
.
ἐ‹ν› τοῖς τυ|χοῦσιν οἱ
λόγοι ῥηθή|σονται, ἀλλ’ ἐν αὐτοῖς | τοῖ‹ς› μάρτυσι τῶν 15
3 ‹ἐκ›είνοις [ [π]ε
.
πραγμένων. ἄξιον δέ | [ἐσ]τ
.
ιν ἐπαινεῖν II
‹τ›ὴν μὲν | [πό]λ
.
‹ι›ν ἡμῶν ‹τ›ῆς προαιρέ|[σε]ω
.
ς ἕνεκεν, τὸ
προε|
5
[λέσθ]αι ὅμοια καὶ ἔτι σε|[μνό]τερα καὶ καλλίω ‹τ›ῶν |
[πρότ]ερον αὐτῆι πεπρα|[γμέ]νων, τοὺς δὲ τετε|[λευ]τηκότας
τῆς ἀνδρεί|
10
[α]ς τῆς ἐν τῶι πολέμωι, | τὸ μὴ καταισχῦναι 20
τὰς | τῶν προγόνων ἀρετάς· | τὸν δὲ στρατηγὸν Λεωσ|θένη
διὰ ἀμφότερα· τῆς |
15
τε γὰρ προαιρέσεως εἰσ|ηγητὴς τῆι
πόλ‹ε›ι ἐγένε|το, καὶ τῆς στρατείας ἡ|γεμὼν τοῖς πολίταις |
κατέστη.
4 περὶ μὲν οὖν |
20
[τ]ῆς πόλεως διεξιέναι | [τ]ὸ καθ’ ἕκαστον 25
τῶν πρό|[τε]ρον ‹ἀνὰ› πᾶσαν τὴν Ἑλλά|[δ]α
.
‹πεπραγμένων›
οὔτε ὁ χρόνος ὁ παρ|[ὼ]ν ἱκανὸς οὔτε ὁ και|
25
[ρὸ]ς
.
ἁρμόττων
τῶ‹ι› μα|[κρ]ολογεῖν, οὔτε ῥάιδι|[ον] ἕνα ὄντα τοσαύ|[τα]ς
.
καὶ τηλικαύτας πρά|[ξεις] ‹διεξ›ελθεῖν καὶ μνη|
30
[μο]νεῦσαι.
ἐπὶ κεφαλαί|[ου δ]ὲ
.
οὐκ ὀκνήσω εἰπεῖν | [περ]ὶ αὐτῆς· 30
5 ὥσπερ | [γὰρ] ὁ ἥλιος πᾶσαν [ τὴν οἰκουμ
.
[ένη]ν
.
ἐπέρ|χεται, III
τὰ[ς μὲν] ὥ
.
ρας δι|ακρίνων [εἰς τὸ] π
.
ρέπον | καὶ καλῶ[ς
πάντα καθ]ι
.
στάς, |
5
τοῖς δὲ σ
.
[ώφροσι καὶ ἐ]π
.
ι|εικέσι τ[ῶν
ἀνθρώπ]ων | ἐπιμ[ελούμενος κ]α
.
ὶ γε|ν
.
[έσεως καὶ τροφῆ]ς
καὶ | [καρπ]ῶ
.
ν κ
.
[αὶ τῶν ἄ]λλων |
10

.
[πά]ντων τῶν ε
.

.
ς τὸν | 35
β[ίο]ν χρησίμων, οὕτως | κα
.
[ὶ] ἡ
.
πόλις ἡμῶν διατε|λε
.
[ῖ το]ὺ
.
ς
μὲν κακοὺ‹ς› κολά|ζο[υσα, τοῖ]ς
.
δὲ δικαίο‹ι›ς |
15
β[οηθοῦσα],
τὸ δὲ ἴσον ἀν|τ
.
[ὶ τῆς ἀδι]κ
.
ίας ἅπασιν | ἀ
.
[πονέμουσα, τ]οῖς
δὲ ἰδί|[οις κινδύνοις κ]α
.
ὶ δαπά|ναι[ς κοινὴν ἄδει]αν τοῖς |
20
10 διὸ Blass νῦν φοβοῦμαι Jensen 11 φαίνεσθαι Cobet 12–13 ἐκεῖνό . . . ὅτι Cobet
13 ἐκλειπόμενα Sudhaus 16 ἐκείνοις Sauppe 26 rest. Cobet, ὧν πρότερον πᾶσαν
τὴν Ἑλλάδα ‹εὐηργέτηκεν› Sauppe 29 tv p, διεξελθεῖν Cobet 30 κεφαλαίου
Babington 31 γὰρ Babington 32 εἰς τὸ πρέπον Blass, καὶ τὸ πρέπον Jensen, κατὰ τὸ
πρέπον Kenyon 33 πάντα καθιστάς Cobet, ἔχον παριστάς Jensen σώφροσι Blass,
σπουδαίοις Sitzler 33–34 τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπιμελούμενος Blass, πλείω παρέχων
ἐπιμέλειαν Jensen 34 γενέσεως καὶ ζωῆς (καὶ τροφῆς van Herwerden) Bücheler,
ὥστε καὶ γενέσθαι σίτων αἴτιος Jensen 35 καρπῶν Blass ἁπάντων Cobet
37 βοηθοῦσα Piccolomini 38 τῆς ἀδικίας Jensen ἀπονέμουσα Kaibel 38–39 τοῖς
δὲ . . . ἄδειαν Blass
Text and Translation 39
have died or more generous achievements. [For this reason] too 2
especially, I [am now anxious] that my speech may appear infe-
rior to their accomplishments. But then again I find confidence
in the fact that you, the audience, will supply whatever details I
omit. For I do not address just any audience, no, I speak before
men who are themselves witnesses to the deeds of those men.
Our city deserves to be praised because of its policy, for making 3
decisions that were similar, and yet even more honorable and
noble than its earlier accomplishments, and the dead deserve
praise for their courage in war, for not dishonoring the virtuous
acts of their ancestors. The general Leosthenes deserves praise
on both counts: he initiated the policy for the city and he was
appointed leader of the expedition for the citizens.
As for the city, there is not enough time now to survey in- 4
dividually its earlier [accomplishments throughout] all Greece
nor does this occasion call for a long speech. And it’s not easy
for one man alone to narrate and call to mind deeds so numer-
ous and so great. But I will not refrain from speaking about the
city summarily. Just as the sun goes over all the world, deter- 5
mining the seasons appropriately and establishing [all] the right
conditions, supplying reasonable and fair-minded humans with
birth and [sustenance] and [crops] and all other things needed
for life, in the same way too our city continuously punishes the
wicked, [gives aid] to the just, [dispenses] equality instead of
injustice to all, and provides [universal safety] to the Greeks at
40 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
Ἕλλη[σιν παρασκε]υ
.
άζου|σα. 40
6 π
.
[ερὶ μὲν οὖ]ν τῶν | κοινῶ[ν ἔργων τῆς πόλ]εως | ὥσπερ
π
.
[ροεῖπον, φρά]σ
.
αι ‹παρ›αλ‹ε›ί|‹ψ›ω, περ
.
[ὶ δὲ Λεωσθέ]ν
.
ους
καὶ |
25
τῶν ἄ[λλων τοὺς λόγ]ους ποι|ήσομ
.
[αι ἤδη. νῦ]ν
δὲ πόθεν | ἄρξωμα[ι λέγει]ν
.
, ἢ τίνος | πρῶτον μνησθῶ;
πότε|ρα περ[ὶ] τοῦ γένους αὐτῶν |
30
ἑκάστ‹ου› διεξέλθω; ἀλλ’ 45
7 εὔ|ηθες εἶναι ὑπολαμβάνω· | τὸ‹ν› μὲν ‹γὰρ› ἄλλους τινὰς
ἀν|θρώπους ἐγκωμιάζοντα, [ οἳ πολλαχόθεν εἰς μίαν | πόλιν IV
συνεληλυθότες | οἰκοῦσι γένος ἴδιον ἕκασ|τος συνεισενεγκά-
μενος, |
5
τούτων μὲν δεῖ κατ’ ἄ
.
νδρα | γενεαλογεῖν ἕκαστον·
| περὶ δὲ Ἀθηναίων ἀνδρῶν
.
| τοὺ‹ς› λόγου‹ς› ποιούμενον, 50
οἷς | ἡ κοινὴ γένεσις α
.
[ὐτόχ]θοσιν |
10
οὖσιν ἀνυπέρβλητ[ον]
τὴν | εὐγένειαν ἔχει, πε[ρ]ίεργον | ἡγοῦμαι εἶναι ἰδία[ι
8 τὰ] γένη | ἐγκωμιάζειν. ἀλλὰ [πε]ρὶ τῆς | παιδείας αὐτῶν
ἐπι[μνη]σθῶ, |
15
καὶ ὡς ἐν πολλῆι σ
.
[ωφρο]|σύνηι παῖδες
ὄντ[ες ἐτρά]|φησαν καὶ ἐπ‹αι›δε
.
[ύθησαν,] | ὅπερ εἰώθασιν 55
[τινες ποι]|εῖν; ἀλλ’ οἶμαι π
.
[άντας] |
20
εἰδέναι ὅτι τούτου
.
[ἕνεκα] | τοὺ‹ς› παῖδας παιδεύομ
.
[εν,] | ἵνα ἄνδρες ἀγαθοὶ
γ[ίγνων]|ται· τοὺς δὲ γεγενημ
.
[ένους] | ἐν τῶι πολέμωι
ἄνδρ[ας] |
25
ὑπερβάλλοντας τῆι ἀρ
.
[ετῆι] | πρόδηλόν ἐστιν
9 ὅτι πα[ῖδες] | ὄντες καλῶς ἐπαιδε[ύθη]|σαν. ἁπλούστατον 60
ο
.
[ὖν ἡ]|γοῦμαι εἶναι τὴν ἐν τ[ῶι] |
30
πολέμωι διεξελθεῖν
ἀ|ρετήν, καὶ ὡς πολλῶν ἀ|γαθῶν αἴτιοι γεγένη‹ν›ται | τῆι
πατρίδι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις Ἕλ|λησιν.
ἄρξομαι δὲ πρῶτον ἀ|
35
πὸ τοῦ στρατηγοῦ· καὶ γὰρ
10 δίκαι|ον. Λεωσθένης γὰρ ὁρῶν | τὴν Ἑλλάδα πᾶ[σ]α
.
ν 65
τεταπει|νωμένην καὶ [ὥσπερ] ἐπτη[[χ]υ
.
ῖαν, κατεφθαρμέ- V
νην ὑπὸ | [τῶν] δωροδο‹κ›ούντων παρὰ Φι|[λίπ]που καὶ
Ἀλεξάνδρου κατὰ | [τῶν] πατρίδων τῶν αὑτῶν, |
5
[καὶ
τ]ὴ
.
ν μὲν πόλιν ἡμῶν | [δεομέ]νην ἀνδρός, τὴν δ’ ‹Ἑ›λλά|[δα
πᾶ]σαν πόλεως, ἥτις προστῆν|[αι δυ]ν
.
ήσεται τῆς ἡγεμονίας, 70
40 παρασκευάζουσα Babington 41 περὶ μὲν οὖν Babington κοινῶν ἔργων τῆς
πόλεως Babington 41–42 ὥσπερ προεῖπον Blass 42 φράσαι Kayser t¡o p,
παραλείψωMüller περὶ δὲ Λεωσθένους Babington 43 ἄλλων τοὺς λόγους Sauppe
43–44 ποιήσομαι νῦν δὲ Babington, ἤδη add. Colin 44 λέγειν Cobet 45 txoc:o
.
p;
ἑκάστου Babington, cf. Dem. 60.12 46 τὸν μὲν γὰρ Schaefer ap. Babington 50 :ou
Xoyou totouμtvov p, τοὺς λόγους ποιούμενος Cobet 52–53 parvula fragmenta deest;
cf. comm. ad §§7–8 55 ἐπαιδεύθησαν rest. Babington, ttt6t p 56 τινες ποιεῖν Jensen,
ἄλλοι ποιεῖν Levi πάντας Babington 57 ἕνεκα Babington 58 y[tvov]:ot p,
corr. Sauppe 61 οὖν Babington 66 ὥσπερ Kenyon 70 δυνήσεται Schäfer
Text and Translation 41
its own [risk] and expense.
As for the public [deeds of the] city as [I said, I will re- 6
frain from detailing them]. Instead I will now focus my speech
on Leosthenes and the [others. Now] where should I begin [my
speech]; what should I bring up first? Should I discuss in detail
the ancestry of each of them? No, I suppose that is facile. If I 7
were praising some other people, who came from many places
to settle one city, each contributing a different heritage to the
mix, then I would need to trace the background of each, man by
man. But since I am speaking about Athenian men, who, thanks
to their common origin in their birth from the land itself, have
unsurpassable nobility, I believe that praising the ancestors in-
dividually is beside the point. Should I mention their education, 8
and how they were raised and educated in great moderation
when they were children, as [some] are accustomed to [do]?
But I suppose [everyone] knows that we educate our children
[with this goal], that they may become brave men. Since these
men were distinguished in wartime virtue, it is obvious that they
were taught well as children. I think therefore it is simplest to 9
narrate their courage in war, and how they were responsible for
many benefits to their fatherland and to the other Greeks.
I will begin first with the general, as is right. Leosthenes saw 10
all of Greece humbled and cowering [so to speak], destroyed by
men working against their own fatherland and accepting bribes
from Philip and Alexander. When he saw that our city needed
a man, and all Greece needed a city that would be able to take
a position as leader, for the sake of freedom he offered himself
42 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
| [ἐπέ]δ
.
ωκεν ἑαυτὸν μὲν τῆι |
10
[πατρί]δι, τὴν δὲ πόλιν τοῖς
11 Ἕλλη|σ
.
[ιν] εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν· καὶ ξε|νικὴν μὲν δύναμιν
‹συ›στησά|μενος, τῆς δὲ πολιτικῆς ἡγε|μὼν καταστὰς τοὺς
πρώτου|
15
ς ἀντιταξαμένους τῆι τῶν | Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίαι
Βοι|ωτοὺς καὶ Μακεδόνας καὶ | Εὐβοέας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους 75
συμ|μάχους αὐτῶν ἐνίκησε μα|
20
χόμενους ἐν τῆι Βοιωτίαι.
12 | ἐντεῦθεν δ’ ἐλθὼν εἰς Πύ|λας καὶ καταλαβὼν τὰς |
[πα]ρ
.
όδους, δι’ ὧν καὶ πρότερον ἐ|[πὶ τ]οὺς Ἕλληνας οἱ βάρ-
βαροι ἐ|
25
[πο]ρεύθησαν, τῆς μὲν ἐπὶ | [τὴν] Ἑλλάδα πορείας
Ἀντί|[π]α
.
τρον ἐκώλυσεν, αὐτὸν δὲ | [κα]τ
.
αλαβὼν ἐν τοῖς τό- 80
ποις τού|[τοι]ς καὶ μάχηι νικήσας ἐπολι|
30
[όρ]κει κατακλείσας
13 εἰς Λαμίαν· | [Θ]ε
.
τταλοὺς δὲ καὶ Φωκέας καὶ | [Α]ἰ
.
τωλοὺς
καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἅπαν|τας τοὺς ἐν τῶι τόπωι συμμάχους
| ἐποιήσατο, καὶ ὧν Φίλιππος |
35
καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος ἀκόντων
ἡγού|μενοι ἐσεμνύνοντο, τούτων Λε|ωσθένης ἑκόντων τὴν 85
ἡγε|μονίαν ἔλαβεν. συνέβη δ’ αὐτῶι | τῶν μὲν πραγμάτων
ὧν προε[ί]|
40
λετο κρατῆσαι, [ τῆς δὲ εἱμ
.
[αρ]μένης οὐ‹κ› ἦν VI
14 | περιγενέ[σθαι.] δίκαιον δ’ ἐσ|τὶν μὴ μ[όνον] ὧν ἔπραξεν
| Λεωσθέν[ης ἀε]ὶ
.
χάριν ἔχειν |
5
αὐτῶι πρ
.
[ώτωι ἀ]λ
.
λὰ
καὶ τῆς | ὕστερον [γενομέ]ν
.
ης μάχης | μετὰ τὸ
.
[ν ἐκείνο]υ 90
θάνατον | καὶ τῶν [ἄλλων ἀγ]α
.
θῶν τῶν | ἐν τῆι στ
.
[ρατείαι
τ]αύτηι συμ|
10
βάντων
.
[τ]ο
.
[ῖς Ἕλ]λησιν· ἐπὶ | γ
.
ὰρ τοῖς ὑπὸ
[Λε]ωσθένους | ‹τε›θεῖσιν θεμελίοις οἰκοδο|μοῦσιν οἱ νῦν τὰς
ὕστερον | πράξεις.
15 καὶ μηδεὶς ὑπολά|
15
βη‹ι› με τῶν ἄλλων πολιτῶν | 95
[μη]δένα λόγον ποιεῖσθαι, | [ἀλλὰ] Λεωσθένη μ‹ό›ν‹ον›
ἐγκω|[μιάζ]ε
.
ιν. συμβαίνει γὰρ | [τὸν Λε]ωσθένους ἔπαινον |
20
[ἐπὶ ταῖ]ς μάχαις ἐγκώμιον | [τῶν ἄλ]λων πολιτῶν εἶναι·
| το[ῦ μὲν] γ
.
ὰρ βουλεύεσθαι | καλ
.
[ῶς ὁ στρα]τηγὸς αἴτιος,
τοῦ | δὲ νι
.
[κᾶν μαχ]ομένους οἱ κιν|
25
δυν[εύειν ἐθ]έ
.
λοντες τοῖς 100
σώ|μασι
.
[ν· ὥστ]ε ὅταν | ἐπαιν[ῶ τὴν γ]εγονυῖαν νίκην, | ἅμα
τ[ῆι Λε]ωσθένους ἡγεμονί|αι καὶ [τὴν τ]ῶ
.
ν ἄλλων ἀρετὴν
16 |
30
ἐγκωμ
.
[ιάζ]ω
.
. τίς γὰρ οὐ|κ ἂν δικα
.
[ίως] ἐπαινοίη τῶν |
πολιτῶν
.
[το]ὺ
.
ς ἐν τῶιδε τῶι | πολέμω
.
[ι τε]λευτήσ
.
αντας, οἳ
| τὰς ἑα[υτῶ]ν ψυχὰς ἔδωκαν |
35
ὑπὲρ τῆ[ς τῶ]ν Ἑλλήνων 105
ἐλευ|θερίας, [φα]νερωτάτην ἀπό|δειξιν τ
.
[αύτ]η
.
ν ἡγούμενοι
71 ἐπέδωκεν Kayser μtv tvou:ov p, corr. Babington 73 συστησάμενος Babington
78 παρόδους Spengel 89 ἀεὶ Jensen πρώτωι Blass 90 γενομένης Babington
ἐκείνου Müller 91 ἄλλων ἀγαθῶν Babington στρατείαι Babington 96 Xtoc0tvg
μtv tyxo p, corr. Sauppe 98 ἐπὶ ταῖς Babington 103 ἐγκωμιάζω Sauppe
Text and Translation 43
to his native city, and his city to the Greeks. After he raised a 11
mercenary force and was appointed general of the city’s troops,
he defeated the first opponents to the freedomof the Greeks, the
Boeotians, Macedonians, and Euboeans and their other allies,
at a battle in Boeotia.
From there he went to Thermopylae and occupied the pass, 12
through which the barbarians had marched against the Greeks
also before. He deniedAntipater entry into Greece, and after the
confrontation and victory there, he shut Antipater in at Lamia
and laid siege to the place. He enlisted the Thessalians, the Pho- 13
cians and the Aetolians and all the others in that region as al-
lies, and over those whom Philip and Alexander proudly com-
manded against their will, over those Leosthenes took com-
mand according to their will. But although he was able to master
any situation he chose, he could not prevail over fate. It is right 14
not only to always thank Leosthenes first for what he did, but
also for the battle which was fought later after his death, and
for the [other] benefits that came out of this campaign for the
Greeks. For on the foundations laid down by Leosthenes the
survivors build their future achievements.
No one should assume that I take no account of the other 15
citizens, [but instead] eulogize Leosthenes alone. My praise of
Leosthenes [in] these battles is also a eulogy for the others citi-
zens. For just as good planning depends on the general, so vic-
tory in the field comes from those willing to risk their lives. As
a result, whenever I praise the victorious outcome, along with
the leadership of Leosthenes I also eulogize the virtue of the
other men. Who would not rightly praise the citizens who died 16
in the war and gave up their lives for the freedomof the Greeks?
They believed that the clearest proof of their willingness to pro-
44 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
εἶ|ναι τοῦ β
.
[ούλ]εσθαι τῆι Ἑλλάδι | [τὴ]ν
.
ἐλε
.
[υθερ]ίαν [VII
περιθεῖναι τὸ μαχομ[ένους] | τελευτῆσαι
.
ὑπὲρ αὐτ‹ῆ›[ς.
17 μ]έ
.
|γα δ’ αὐτοῖς συνεβάλετ[ο εἰ]ς
.
| τὸ προθύμως ὑπὲρ τῆς
[Ἑλλ]ά
.
|
5
δος ἀγωνίσασθαι τὸ ἐν τῆ[ι Βοιω]|τίαι τὴν μάχην 110
τὴν π[ροτέρα]ν
.
| γενέσθαι. ἑώρων γὰ
.
[ρ τὴν π]ό
.
|λιν τῶν
Θηβαίων οἰκτ[ρῶς ἠφα]ν
.
ισ|μένην ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, τ
.
[ὴν δὲ
ἀ]κρό|
10
πολιν αὐτῆς φρουρουμ
.
[έ]ν
.
[ην] ὑ|πὸ τῶν Μακεδόνων,
τὰ ‹δ›ὲ σ
.
ώ
.
μα|τα τῶν ἐνοικούντων ἐξηνδρα|ποδισμένα, τὴν
δὲ χώραν ἄλ|λους διανεμομένους, ὥστε πρὸ ὀ|
15
φθαλμῶν 115
ὁρώμενα αὐτοῖς τὰ δει|νὰ ἄοκνον π[αρ]εῖχε τόλμα‹ν› εἰς τὸ |
κινδυνεύειν [πρ]οχείρως.
18 ἀλλὰ | μὴν τήν γε π[ερὶ] Π
.
ύλας καὶ Λαμί|αν μά-
χην γεν
.
[ομέν]ην οὐχ ἧττον |
20
αὐτοῖς ἔνδο[ξον γε]ν
.
έσθαι
συμ|βέβηκεν ἧς [ἐν Βοιω]τοῖς ἠγωνίσαν|το, οὐ μόνον [τῶι 120
μαχο]μένους νικᾶν | Ἀντίπατρον κ
.
α
.
[ὶ τοὺς σ]υμμάχους
| ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶι τόπω[ι, τῶι ἐ]νταυθοῖ γε|
25
γενῆσθαι τὴν
μ[άχην.] ἀ
.
φ
.
ικνού|μενοι γὰρ οἱ Ἕλλη[νες ἅπ]α
.
ντες | δὶς τοῦ
ἐνιαυτοῦ εἰς [τὴν Π]υ
.
λ
.
αίαν | θεωροὶ γενήσοντ[αι] | τῶν
ἔργων τῶν πε
.
[πρα]γ
.
μένων |
30
αὐτοῖς· ἅμα γὰρ εἰς τὸ
.
[ν 125
τό]πον ἁ|θροισθήσονται καὶ τ[ῆς το]ύτων ἀ|ρετῆς μνησθή-
19 σοντ[αι. ο]ὐ|δέν‹ε›ς γὰρ πώποτε τῶν γεγονότων | οὔτε περὶ
καλλίονων οὔτε πρὸς ἰσ|
35
χυροτέρους οὔτε μετ’ ἐλαττόνων
| ἠγωνίσαντο, τὴν ἀρετὴν ἰσχὺν | καὶ τὴν ἀνδρείαν πλῆθος
ἀλλ’ οὐ | τὸν πολὺν ἀριθμὸν τῶν σωμάτων | εἶναι κρίνοντες. 130
καὶ τὴν μὲν ἐ|
40
λευθερίαν εἰς τὸ κοι
.
νὸν πᾶσιν | κατέθεσαν,
τὴν δ’ εὐδοξίαν ‹τὴν› ἀπὸ | τῶν πράξεων ἴδιον στέφανον |
τῆι πατρίδ
.
[ι περ]ι
.
έθηκαν.
20 ἄξιον [ τοίνυν συλλογίσασθαι καὶ τί ἂν | συμβῆναι νομί- VIII
ζοιμεν μὴ κα|τὰ τρόπον τούτων ἀγωνισα|μένων. ἆρ’ οὐκ ἂν 135
ἑνὸς μὲν δεσ|
5
πότου τὴν οἰκουμένην ὑπήκο|ον ἅπασαν εἶναι,
νόμωι δὲ τῶι | τούτ‹ου› τρόπωι ἐξ ἀνάγκης χρῆσ|θαι τὴν
Ἑλλάδα; συνελόντα | δ’ εἰπεῖν τὴν Μακεδόνων ὑ|
10
περφανί
.
αν
καὶ μὴ τὴν τοῦ | δικαίου δύναμιν ἰσχύειν | παρ’ ἑκάστοις,
ὥστε μήτε | γυνα‹ι›κῶν μήτε παρθένων | μηδὲ παίδων 140
118–125 Harp. s.v. Πύλαι: ὅτι δέ τις ἐγίγνετο σύνοδος τῶν Ἀμφικτυόνων εἰς Πύλας,
Ὑπερείδης τε ἐν ἐπιταφίωι καὶ Θεόπομπος . . . εἰρήκασιν.
107 βούλεσθαι Babington 108 μαχομένους Sauppe 110 Ἑλλάδος Sauppe 111 προ-
τέραν Sauppe τὴν πόλιν Sauppe 118 περὶ Cobet 120 cuvptpgxtt p, corr.
Babington 122 τῶν τόπων Sauppe 127 ou6tvoc p, corr. Babington 132 ‹τὴν› Blass
133 περιέθηκαν Sauppe 140–141 sequor p et Sauppe; μήτε παίδων ‹ἀσφάλειαν εἶναι,
ἀλλ’› ὕβρεις ἀνεκλείπτους καθεστάναι Jensen
Text and Translation 45
vide freedom to Greece was dying for it in battle. The fact that 17
their prior battle took place in Boeotia contributed greatly to
their eagerness to fight for Greece. For they saw the city of
Thebes pitiably obliterated from human society, its acropolis
garrisoned by the Macedonians, the bodies of the inhabitants
enslaved and others parceling out the land. As a result, the pres-
ence of these terrible sights before their eyes provided them
with the unwavering courage to risk their lives readily.
The battle that took place near Thermopylae and Lamia 18
proved to be no less glorious for them than that which they
fought in Boeotia, not only because they defeated Antipater
and his allies, but also because of the place, that is that
the battle happened there. All the Greeks who arrive at the
Amphictyonic meeting twice a year will be observers of the
accomplishments of these men. And as they assemble at that
place they will recall their virtue. None of those who came 19
before ever fought for more noble goals or against stronger
adversaries, or with fewer allies, judging that virtue was
strength and that courage—but not just a great number of
individual bodies—was mass. They made freedom a common
possession for everyone, but they offered the glory that came
from their deeds as a private crown for their fatherland.
Now it is worthwhile to consider also what we suppose 20
would have happened if they had not fought dutifully. Wouldn’t
the whole world be subject to one master and wouldn’t Greece
be forced to treat his whim as law? In short, the insolence of
Macedon, and not the power of justice, would prevail every-
where. As a result, the abuse of each and every woman, maiden,
46 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
21 ὕβρ‹ε›ις ἂν ἐκ|
15
λείπτους ἑκάστοις καθεστά|ναι. φανερὸν δ’
ἐξ ὧν ἀναγ|καζόμεθα καὶ νῦν ἔ
.
[στ]ι
.
· θυσί|ας μὲν ἀνθρώποις
γ[ινο]μ
.
έ|νας ἐφορᾶν, ἀγάλμα
.
[τα δὲ] καὶ |
20
βωμοὺς καὶ ναοὺς
τοῖ[ς μὲν] θεοῖς | ἀμελῶς, τοῖς δὲ ἀνθρώ
.
π
.
ο
.
[ις] ἐπι|μελῶς
συντελούμενα, καὶ [τ]οὺς | ‹τού›των οἰκ‹έ›τας ὥσπερ ἥρωας
.
145
22 τι|μᾶν ἡμᾶς ἀναγκαζομένους. |
25
ὅπου δὲ τὰ πρὸς ‹τοὺς›
θεοὺς ὅσια διὰ | τὴν Μακεδόνων τόλμαν ἀν|ή‹ι›ρηται, τί τὰ
πρὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους | χρὴ νομίζειν; ἆρ’ οὐκ ἂν παν|τελῶς
καταλελύσθαι; ὥστε |
30
ὅσω‹ι› δεινότερα τὰ προ‹σ›δοκώ|μεν’
ἂν γενέσθαι κρίνοιμεν, | τοσούτω‹ι› μειζόνων ἐπαίνων | 150
23 τοὺς τετελευτηκότας ἀξίους | χρὴ νομίζειν. οὐδεμία γὰρ
|
35
στρατεία τὴν ‹τῶν› στρατευομένων ἀρε|τὴν ἐνεφάνισεν
μᾶλλον τῆς νῦν | γεγενημένης, ἐν ἧι ‹γ›ε παρατάτ|τεσθαι μὲν
ὁσημέραι ἀναγκαῖ|ον ἦ‹ν›, πλείους δὲ μάχας ἠγωνίσ|
40
θαι διὰ
μιᾶς στρατ[εία]ς
.
ἢ τοὺς [ ἄλλους πάντας πληγὰς λαμ|βάνειν IX
ἐν τῶι παρεληλυ|θότι χρόνωι, χειμώνων δ’ ὑ|[π]ερβολὰς
καὶ τῶν καθ’ ἡμέ|
5
[ρ]α
.
ν ἀναγκαίων ἐνδείας τοσ|[αύ]τας καὶ
τηλικαύτας οὕτως | [ἐγ]κ
.
ρατῶς ὑπ‹ο›μεμ‹ε›νηκέναι, | [ὥσ]τ
.
ε
καὶ τῶι λόγωι χαλεπὸν | [εἶν]αι φράσαι.
24 τὸν δὴ τοιαύτας |
10
[κ]αρτερίας ἀόκνως ὑπομεῖναι | τοὺ‹ς› 160
πολίτας προτρεψάμενον | Λεωσθένη, καὶ τοὺς τῶι τοιούτωι
| στρατηγῶι προθύμως συναγωνισ|τὰς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς παρα-
σχόντας |
15
ἆρ’ οὐ διὰ τὴν τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀπόδειξιν | εὐτυχεῖς
μᾶλλον ἢ διὰ τὴν τοῦ ζῆν | ἀπόλειψιν ἀτυχεῖς νομιστέον; |
οἵτινες θνητοῦ σώματος ἀθάν
.
[α]|τον δόξαν ἐκτήσαντο καὶ διὰ 165
τὴ
.
[ν] |
20
ἰδίαν ἀρετὴν τὴν κοινὴν ἐλ[ευ]|θερίαν τοῖς Ἕλλη-
25 σιν ἐβεβαίωσα
.
ν. | φέρει γὰρ ‹οὐδὲν› πᾶσαν εὐδαιμονίαν | ἄνευ
τῆς αὐτονομίας. ο‹ὐ› γὰρ ἀνδρὸς | ἀπειλὴν ἀλλὰ νόμου φωνὴν
κυρι|
25
εύειν δεῖ τῶν εὐδαιμόνων, οὐδ’ αἰ|τίαν φοβερὰν εἶναι
τοῖς ἐλευθέροις | ἀλλ’ ἔλεγχον, οὐδ’ ἐπὶ τοῖς κολακεύ|ουσιν 170
τοὺς δυνάστας καὶ διαβάλλου|σιν τοὺ‹ς› πολίτας τὸ τῶν
πολιτῶν ἀσ|
30
φαλές, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῆι τῶν νόμων πίστει |
26 γενέσθαι. ὑπὲρ ὧν ἁπάντων οὗτοι πό|νους πόνων διαδόχους
168–170 Stob. 4.23.35: τοῦ αὐτοῦ [Hyperides]· οὐκ ἀνδρὸς ἀπειλὴν, ἀλλὰ νόμου φω-
νὴν κυριεύειν δεῖ τῶν ἐλευθέρων sub capite γαμικὰ παραγγέλματα.
142 :ov p, corr. Babington ἔστι Cobet, ἤδη Sauppe, ἔτι Kayser 145 τοὺς τούτων
Cobet 146 ‹τοὺς› Cobet 152 ‹τῶν› Babington 153 : p, γε Babington 155 πλη-
γὰς del. Cobet 158 tμμvgxtvot p, corr. Babington 167–168 ‹οὐδὲν› Fritzsche,
φέρει γὰρ πᾶσαν εὐδαιμονίαν ἡ αὐτονομία Jensen, Blass pos. lac. post εὐδαιμονίαν
169 εὐδαιμόνων: ἐλευθέρων Stobaeus
Text and Translation 47
and even every child, would be unceasing. That is clear from 21
what we are compelled to do and what exists even now: to look
not only upon sacrifices performed for mortals, but also upon
statues, altars, and temples hardly celebrated in the case of the
gods while carefully so for men and at the same time we our-
selves are compelled to honor their slaves as heroes. When the 22
rites owed to the gods have been abrogated by the boldness
of the Macedonians, what must we expect for the social cus-
toms of human society? Wouldn’t they have been completely
destroyed? The more frightening we judge these expectations
would be, the more praise we must believe the dead deserve.
No campaign revealed the soldiers’ virtue better than this one, 23
during which it was necessary to go into battle every day, to
fight more battles in one season than the number of blows which
all others had suffered in times gone by, and to endure harsh
storms and such great shortages of daily supplies with so much
self-control that it is difficult to convey even in words.
Considering that Leosthenes persuaded the citizens to en- 24
dure so many hardships without hesitation, and that they of-
fered themselves eagerly as fellow fighters alongside such a
great general, must they not be regarded as fortunate because of
their display of virtue, rather than unfortunate because of their
loss of life? These men acquired immortal glory for the price of
a mortal body and with their own individual virtue they secured
common freedom for the Greeks. [Nothing] provides complete 25
happiness in the absence of independence. For it is not the threat
of a man, but rather the voice of law, that must have authority
over people, if they are to be happy. Nor should an accusation
cause fear among free men, but rather proof. Nor should the
safety of the citizens depend upon those who flatter their mas-
ters and slander their fellowcitizens, but rather upon faith in the
law. For all these reasons they performed labor after labor and 26
48 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
ποιούμενοι | καὶ τοῖς καθ’ ἡμέραν κινδύνοις τοὺ‹ς› εἰς | τὸν
ἅπαντα χρόνον φόβους τ
.
ῶν πολιτῶν |
35
καὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων 175
παραιρούμενοι τὸ | ζῆν ἀνήλωσαν εἰς τὸ τοὺς ἄλλους | καλῶς
27 ζῆν. διὰ τούτους πατέρες | ἔνδοξοι, μητέρες περίβλε‹π›τοι τοῖς
| πολίταις γεγόνασι, ἀδελφαὶ γάμων |
40
τῶν προσηκόντων
ἐννόμως τετυ|χήκασι καὶ τεύξονται, παῖδες ἐφ
.
ό
.
|διον εἰς τὴν
πρὸς τὸν δῆμον ε
.
[ὔνοι]|αν τὴν τῶν οὐκ ἀπολωλότω[ν] [X
ἀρετήν—οὐ γὰρ θεμιτὸν | τούτου τοῦ ὀνόματος τυ|χεῖν τοὺς
οὕτως ὑπὲρ | καλῶν τὸ‹ν› βίον ἐκλιπόν|
5
τας—ἀλλὰ
.
τῶν
τὸ ζῆν | ‹ε›ἰς αἰώ[ν]ι
.
ον τάξιν με|τηλλα[χό]των ἕξουσιν.
28 | εἰ γὰρ [ὁ τοῖ]ς ἄλλοις
.
ὢν | ἀνιαρ[ότ]α
.
τος θάνατος |
10
τούτοις ἀρχηγὸς μ
.
εγά|λων ἀγαθῶν γέγον|ε, πῶς τούτους 185
ο‹ὐ›κ εὐ|τυχεῖς κρίνειν δ
.
ίκαιον, | ἢ πῶς ἐκλελοιπέναι |
15
τὸν
βίον, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐξ ἀρ|χῆς γεγονέναι καλλίω | γένεσιν τῆς
πρώτης ὑ|παρξάσης; τότε μὲν | γὰρ παῖδες ὄντες ἄφρο|
20
νες
29 ἦσαν, νῦν δ’ ἄνδρες | ἀ
.
γαθοὶ γεγόνασι· καὶ | τ
.
ότε μὲν ‹ἐν›
πολλῶ‹ι› χρό|νωι καὶ διὰ πολλῶν | κινδύνων τὴν ἀρετὴ
.
ν |
25
190
ἀπέδειξαν, νῦν δ’ ἀπὸ | ταύτης †αξαθαι γνωρί
.
|μους πᾶσι καὶ
μνημο|νευτ
.
οὺς διὰ ἀνδραγαθί|αν γεγονέναι.
30 τίς ‹γὰρ› κα‹ι›ρὸς ἐν |
30
ὧι τῆς τούτων ἀρετῆς οὐ | μνη-
μονεύσομεν; τίς τό|πος ἐν ὧ‹ι› ζήλου καὶ τῶν | ἐντιμοτά-
των ἐπαίνων | τυγχάνοντας οὐκ ὀψόμ[ε]|
35
θα; πότερον οὐκ 195
ἐν τοῖς τῆς
.
| πόλεως ἀγαθοῖς; ἀλλὰ τὰ
.
| διὰ τούτους γεγονότα
τ[ίν]α
.
ς
.
| ἄλλους ἢ τούτους ἐπαινεῖσθ
.
α
.
ι | καὶ μνήμης τυγχά-
νειν ποι
.
|
40
ήσει; ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐν ταῖς ἰδία
.
ι
.
ς | εὐπραξίαις; ἀλλ’ ἐν
31 τῆ‹ι› τούτω
.
ν
.
| ἀρετῆι βεβαίως αὐτῶν ἀπο|λαύσομεν. παρὰ
ποία‹ι› δὲ τῶν | ἡλικιῶν οὐ μακαριστοὶ
.
[ γενήσο
.
[νται
. . . . . .
XI
πα]|ρὰ τοῖς
.
[
. . . . . . . . . . .
ἄ]|φοβον α[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
] | βίον κα[
. . . . .
. . . . . . .
] |
5
γεγενῆσ
.
[θαι
. . . . . . . . .
] | διὰ τούτ[ους; ἢ παρὰ τοῖς]
| ἡλικιώτ
.
[αις;
. . . . . . . . .
] | τελευτη
.
[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
] | καλῶς
.
[
. . . .
32
. . . . . . . .
] |
10
παρὰ πο
.
[λὺ
. . . . . . . . . .
]|αι γέγον[εν; ἢ παρὰ τοῖς]
180 εὔνοιαν Cobet 183 εἰς αἰώνιον Sauppe 184 ὁ τοῖς Cobet ἀνιαρότατος
Babington 189–190 toov _povot p, corr. Babington 191–192 oçoot p post
corr., oçogv p ante corr.; ὑπάρχει εὐθὺς Cobet, ἄρξασθαι (aut ἀξιωθῆναι) . . . γέγονε
Babington 193 ‹γὰρ› Cobet 200–201 γενήσονται οὗτοι; ἢ παρὰ Sauppe 201 παρὰ
τοῖς γέρουσιν Babington 201–202 ἀλλ’ ἄφοβον αὑτοῖς τὸν λοιπὸν βίον καὶ εὐδαίμονα
γεγενῆσθαι νομίζουσα διὰ τούτους Jensen 202–203 ἢ παρὰ τοῖς ἡλικιώταις Sauppe
203–204 οἷς ἐκείνων ἡ τελευτὴ φθόνον ἐμβέβληκε καλῶς, ὡς ἐπιφανεστάτων παρὰ
πολὺ τῆι αὑτῶν ἀνδρείαι γεγονότων Radermacher 204–205 ἢ παρὰ τοῖς νεωτέροις
Sauppe
Text and Translation 49
with their daily risks they lessened the fears for all time of the
citizens and the Greeks. They gave up their lives so that others
could live well. Because of them their fathers have become fa- 27
mous and their mothers are admired among the citizens. Their
sisters have justly entered into suitable marriages according to
the law and will continue to do so. The children of these men
who have died—no, it is not right to use that term for men who
lost their lives fighting on behalf of such a noble cause—rather,
of men who have exchanged life for a perpetual position, will
have their virtue as an asset for the good will of the people. If 28
death, which is most grievous for others, has been the founda-
tion of great advantages for them, how can we not judge them
fortunate, and how can we say that they have lost their lives,
instead of saying that they have been born anew in a better
birth than than their first? Then they were senseless children,
but now they have become brave men. And then they displayed 29
their virtue over a long period of time and amid many perils,
but now as a result of this [ – – ] become known to everyone
and remembered for their courage.
On what occasion will we not recall the virtue of these men? 30
In what place will we not see them as the object of pride and
esteemed praise? Will they not come to mind if the city does
well? The things that were accomplished because of them will
cause what other men than these to be praised and remembered?
Perhaps they won’t be remembered by those who are individ-
ually prosperous? Well, we will safely enjoy those successes
thanks to the virtue of these men. In the eyes of what genera- 31
tion will they not be blessed? [ – – ] among the [ – – ] fearless
[ – – ] life [ – – ] to have become [ – – ] because of them? [– –
among] their peers? [ – – ] death [ – – ] nobly [ – – ] by far [ – – ]
has [– – among the] youth [ – – ] not the [ – – ] will be eager 32
50 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
| νεωτέρο
.
[ις
. . . . . . . . . .
]|τα οὐ τὸν
.
[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
]|σιν αὐτ
.
[
. . . . . . . .
205
σπου]|
15
δάσουσιν [
. . . . . . . . . .
πα]|ράδειγμ[α
. . . . . . . . . . .
]|ου τὴν
ἀρ
.
[ετὴν
. . . . . . . .
]|πασι οὐκ [
. . . . . . . . . . . .
]|ζειν αὐ[τοὺς
. . . . . . . .
]|
20
μη
33 ἢ τίνε[ς
. . . . . . . . . . . .
]|φοι λε[
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
] | Ἑλλην[
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
]
| τῶν
.
π
.
ε[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
] | παρὰ π
.
ο
.
[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
] |
25
Φρυγῶν κ[
. . . . .
. . .
στρα]|τείας ἐγ[κωμι
. . . . . . . .
] | δὲ τῆς ελ
.
[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
]|τατοις 210
34 ε[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
] | ἅπασιν κα
.
[ὶ λόγοις καὶ ὠι]|
30
δαῖς ἐπα[
. . . . . . . . . .
. .
]|τερα γὰρ ε[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
] | περὶ Λεωσ[θένους
. . . . . .
] | καὶ τῶν
τ[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
] | ἐν τῶι πολ[έμωι.
. . . . . . . .
] |
35
ἡδονῆς ἕν[εκεν
. . . . .
. . .
]|ουσιν τὰς τ[οιαύτας καρ]|τερίας, τί γε[
. . . . . . . . . .
Ἕλ]|λησιν
ἥδι[ον
. . . . . . . . . .
] | τὴν ἐλευθερί
.
[αν
. . . . . . . . . .
]|
40
σάντων ἀ
.
[
. . . . .
215
. . . . . . .
]|νων; εἰ δὲ [ὠφελείας ἕνε]|κεν ἡ τοια[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
] [ γίνε- XII
ται, τίς ἂν λόγος | ὠφελήσειεν μᾶλλον | τὰς τῶν ἀκουσόντων
| ψυχὰς τοῦ τὴν ἀρετὴν |
5
ἐγκωμιάσοντος καὶ τοὺς | ἀγαθοὺς
ἄνδρας;
35 ἀλλὰ μὴν | ὅτι παρ’ ἡμῖν καὶ τοῖς λο|‹ιπ›οῖς πᾶσιν 220
εὐδοκιμεῖν | αὐτοὺς ἀναγκαῖον, ἐκ τού|
10
των φανερόν ἐστιν·
ἐν | Ἅιδου δὲ λογίσασθαι ἄ|ξιον, τίνες οἱ τὸν ἡγεμόν|α
δεξιωσόμενοι τὸν τού|τ
.
ων. ἆρ’ οὐκ ἂν ‹οἰ›όμεθα |
15
ὁ‹ρ›ᾶν
Λεωσθένη δεξιου|μένους καὶ θαυμάζοντας | τῶν ‹ἡμιθέ›ων
κα|λ
.
ουμέν‹ων› τοὺς ἐπὶ ‹Τρο›ίαν | στρα‹τεύ›σαντ[α]ς, ὧν 225
|
20
οὗτος ἀδελφὰς π[ρ]άξεις | ἐ
.
νστησάμενος τοσοῦτον |
[δ]ιήνεγκε, ὥστε οἱ μὲν | μ
.
ετὰ πάσης τῆς Ἑλλάδος | [μ]ίαν
πόλιν εἷλον, ὁ δὲ |
25
μ
.
ετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ πα|[τ]ρίδος μόνης
205 νεωτέροις καὶ παισίν; ἔπειτα οὐ τὸν θάνατον ζηλώσουσν αὐτῶν Blass
205–206 καὶ αὐτοὶ σπουδάσουσιν μιμεῖσθαι Blass 206–207 εἰ γὰρ παράδειγμα
ἐκείνοις τοῦ βίου τὴν ἀρετὴν καταλελοίπασι Jensen 207 οὐκ ἀθανάτωι δεῖ νομίζειν
αὐτοὺς χρήσεσθαι τῆι μνήμηι Jensen 208–210 ἢ τίνες ποιηταὶ καὶ λογογράφοι
λείψονταί ποτε κατὰ τοὺς Ἕλληνας πασῶν εὐλογιῶν παρὶ τῶν πεπραγμένων
ἐκείνοις; παρὰ τίσι δ’ οὐ μᾶλλον αὐτὰ τῆς Φρυγῶν κρατησάσης στρατείας
ἐγκωμιασθήσεται; Colin 210–211 πανταχοῦ δὲ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἐξέσται ταῦτα
τοῖς ἐπιγιγνομένοις ἅπασιν . . . ἐπαινεῖσθαι Kenyon 211 καὶ λόγοις καὶ ὠιδαῖς
Cobet 212–213 δι’ ἀμφότερα γὰρ ἐξέσται αὐτοῖς τὰ περὶ Λεωσθένους ὑμνεῖν καὶ
τῶν τελευτησάντων ἐν τῶι πολέμωι Colin 213–216 εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἡδονῆς ἕνεκεν
ἐγκωμιάσουσιν τὰς τηλικαύτας καρτερίας, τί γένοιτ’ ἂν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἥδιον ἢ
ἔπαινος τῶν τὴν ἐλευθερίαν παρασκευασάντων ἀπὸ τῶν Μακεδόνων; Cobet
216 εἰ δὲ ὠφελείας ἕνεκεν Babington ἡ τοιαύτη μνήμη aut ἡ τοιάδε ἀνάμνησις
Cobet 220 Xoyotc p, emend. Babington 223 ooμt0o p, corr. Shilleto 223–224 o:ov
X. p (νλ in rasura), corr. Shilleto 224–225 6tgyopμtvov xoXouμtvouc p, ἡμιθέων
καλουμένων Cobet 225 ttt c:p'o':ttov c:pocov:[
.
]c p, emend. Babington
Text and Translation 51
[ – – ] example [ – – ] the virtue [ – – ], not [ – – ] to [ – – ] them
[ – – ]. Who [ – – ] Greek [ – – ] of the things [ – – ] among [ – – ] 33
of the Phrygians [ – – ] praise the campaign [ – – ] but of the [ –
– ] to all [with speeches and] songs to praise [ – – ] Both [ – – ] 34
about Leosthenes [ – – ] and of those [ – – ] in war [ – – ] for the
sake of pleasure [ – – ] [such great] feats of daring [ – – ] what
would be sweeter for the Greeks [than – –] of those [ – – ] free-
dom [ – – ]? If such a [ – – ] was [motivated by advantage], what
speech would confer more advantage on the souls of those who
will hear it than one which eulogizes virtue and brave men?
And, while it is clear from these points that they must be 35
honored by us and all who come after us, it’s worthwhile to
consider who will welcome their leader in Hades. Don’t we
suppose that we would see some of the so-called [demi-gods],
the ones who fought in the struggle against Troy, welcoming
and admiring Leosthenes? Although he had accomplished
deeds akin to theirs, he greatly surpassed them, since they,
with the help of all Greece, captured only one city, while he,
with the help of his native city alone, brought down the entire
52 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
πᾶσαν | [τ]ὴν τῆς Εὐρώπης καὶ | [τ]ῆ
.
ς Ἀσίας ἄρχουσαν
36 δύ|[ν]αμιν ἐταπείνωσεν. |
30
[κ]ἀκεῖνοι μὲν ἕνεκα | [μ]ιᾶς 230
γυναικὸς ὑβρισθεί|[σ]η
.
ς ἤμυναν, ὁ δὲ πα|[σ]ῶν τῶν Ἑλλη-
νίδων | [τ]ὰς ἐπιφερομένας |
35
[ὕ]βρεις ἐκώλυσεν με|[τὰ]
τῶν συνθαπτομέ|[ν]ων νῦν αὐτῶι ἀνδρῶν. | [τ]ῶν ‹δὲ›
37 μετ’ ἐκείνους μὲν | [γ]εγενημένων, ἄξια |
40
[δ]ὲ τῆς ἐκείνων
ἀρε|[τ]ῆς διαπεπραγμένων, | [λ]έγω δὴ τοὺς περὶ Μιλ|τ
.
ιάδην 235
καὶ Θεμισ|τ
.
οκλέα καὶ τοὺς ἄλ[λους, οἳ τὴν Ἑλλάδ
.
[α] | XIII
ἐλευθερώσαντες ἔν|τιμον μὲν τὴν πα|τρίδα κατέστησαν,
38 ἔν
.
|
5
δοξον ‹δὲ› τὸν αὑτῶν βίον | ‹ἐ›ποίησαν, ὧν οὗτος
το
.
σ
.
|οῦτον ὑπερέσχεν ἀν|δρείαι καὶ φρονήσει, ὅσ|ον οἱ μὲν
ἐπελθοῦσαν |
10
τὴ‹ν› τῶν βαρβάρων δύνα|μιν ἠμύναντο, ὁ δὲ 240
μη|δ’ ἐπελθεῖν ἐποίησεν. | κἀκεῖνοι μὲν ἐν τῆ‹ι› οἰ|κ‹ε›ίαι τοὺς
ἐχθ‹ρ›οὺς ἐπεῖδον |
15
ἀγωνιζομένους, οὗτος | δὲ ἐν τῆι τῶν
ἐχθρῶν περι|εγένετο τῶν ἀντιπάλων.
39 | οἶμαι δὲ καὶ ‹τοὺς› τὴν πρὸς ἀλλή|λους φιλίαν τῶι
δήμωι βε|
20
βαιότατα ἐνδειξαμένους, | λέγω δὲ Ἁρμόδιον καὶ 245
Ἀρισ|τογείτονα, οὐθέν
.
‹α›ς οὕτως | αὑτοῖς οἰκεί{οτερ}ους
{ὑμῖν} | εἶναι νομίζειν ὡς Λεωσ|
25
θέ‹ν›η καὶ τοὺς ἐκείνωι
συν|αγωνισαμένους, οὐδὲ ἔστι|ν οἷς ἂν μᾶλλον ἢ τούτοις |
πλησιάσειαν ἐν Ἅιδου. εἰκότω
.
ς
.
· | οὐκ ἐλάττω γὰρ ἐκείνων
ἔργα |
30
διεπράξαντο, ἀλλ’ εἰ δέον εἰπεῖν
.
| καὶ μείζω. οἱ μὲν 250
γὰρ τοὺς
.
| τῆς πατρίδος τυράννους κ
.
α
.
|τέλυσαν, οὗτοι δὲ
40 τοὺς τῆς Ἑλ|λάδος ἁπάσης. ὢ καλῆς μὲν |
35
καὶ παραδόξου
τόλμης τῆς | πραχθείσης ὑπὸ τῶνδε τῶν
.
| ἀνδρῶν, ἐνδό-
ξου δὲ καὶ με|γαλοπρεποῦς προαιρέσεως | ἧς προείλοντο,
ὑπερβ
.
αλ|
40
λούσης δὲ ἀρετῆς καὶ ἀνδ
.
ρα
.
|γαθίας τῆς ἐν τοῖς 255
κινδύνοις, | ἣν οὗτοι παρασχόμενοι εἰς | τὴν κοινὴν ἐλευθερίαν
.
| τῶν Ἑλλήνων [ – – ]
Fragment 2
41 χαλεπὸν μὲν ἴσως ἐστὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις ὄντας πάθεσι
παραμυθεῖσθαι· τὰ γὰρ πένθη οὔτε λόγωι οὔτε νόμωι κοι-
258–277 Stob. 4.56.36
233 ‹δὲ› Kayser 238 ‹δὲ› Blass 244 ‹τοὺς› Babington 246–247 ou0tvouc ou:oc
ou:otc otxtto:tpouc uμttv ttvot p, corr. Blass, οὐδένας οὕτως αὑτοῖς οἰκείους ἂν
Sauppe, οὐδαμῶς αὑτοὺς οἰκειοτέρους (οἰκείους ἑτέρους Post) ὑμῖν Kenyon, οὐθένας
οὕτως αὑτοῖς οἰκείους οὐδαμῶς ἂν Colin
Text and Translation 53
ruling power of Europe and Asia. They came to the defense of 36
one women who had been violated, but he, together with these
men now being buried with him, prevented the violence that
threatened all the women of Greece. As for those who lived 37
after these men, whose accomplishments were worthy of their
ancestors’ virtue, I mean those who fought with Miltiades and
Themistocles and the rest, the ones who by freeing Greece
conferred honor on their native city, and who made their own
lives glorious, this man greatly excelled them in courage and 38
cunning, since they warded off the barbarian force when it
was already invading, while he did not allow it even to enter.
Furthermore, they looked upon the enemy fighting on the
home front, but he prevailed over his adversaries on their own
ground.
I think that even those two who showed their mutual friend- 39
ship most firmly to the people, I mean Harmodius and Aristogi-
ton, consider nobody to be as closely related to them as Leo-
sthenes and his fellow combatants. There are not any others
with whom they would prefer to associate in Hades. Rightly
so, since Leosthenes and his men achieved no less than those
two. In fact, if it must be said, these men attained even greater
achievements. Those two destroyed the tyrants of their native
city, but these men destroyed the tyrants of all Greece. How no- 40
ble and unbelievable was the bravery exercised by these men,
how glorious and magnificent was the choice which they made,
how excellent was their virtue and courage in danger, which
they offered for the common freedom of the Greeks! [ – – ]
Fragment 2
It is perhaps difficult to console those who are so bereaved. Your 41
grief is not eased by a speech or a custom. Instead your individ-
54 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
μίζεται, ἀλλ’ ἡ φύσις ἑκάστου καὶ φιλία πρὸς τὸν τελευτή- 260
σαντα ‹τὸν› ὁρισμὸν ἔχει τοῦ λυπεῖσθαι. ὅμως δὲ χρὴ θαρρεῖν
καὶ τῆς λύπης παραιρεῖν εἰς τὸ ἐνδεχόμενον, καὶ μεμνῆσθαι
μὴ μόνον τοῦ θανάτου τῶν τετελευτηκότων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς
42 ἀρετῆς ἧς καταλελοίπασιν. ‹εἰ› γὰρ θρήνων ἄξια πεπόνθα-
σιν, ἀλλ’ ἐπαίνων μεγάλων πεποιήκασιν. εἰ δὲ γήρως θνητοῦ 265
μὴ μετέσχον, ἀλλ’ εὐδοξίαν ἀγήρατον εἰλήφασιν εὐδαίμονές
τε γεγόνασι κατὰ πάντα. ὅσοι μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν ἄπαιδες τε-
τελευτήκασιν, οἱ παρὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἔπαινοι παῖδες αὐτῶν
ἀθάνατοι ἔσονται. ὅσοι δὲ παῖδας καταλελοίπασιν, ἡ τῆς πα-
τρίδος εὔνοια ἐπίτροπος αὐτοῖς τῶν παίδων καταστήσεται. 270
43 πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, εἰ μέν ἐστι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν ὅμοιον τῶι μὴ γε-
νέσθαι, ἀπηλλαγμένοι εἰσὶ νόσων καὶ λύπης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων
τῶν προσπιπτόντων εἰς τὸν ἀνθρώπινον βίον· εἰ δ’ ἔστιν αἴ-
σθησις ἐν Ἅιδου καὶ ἐπιμέλεια παρὰ τοῦ δαιμονίου, ὥσπερ
ὑπολαμβάνομεν, ‹εἰκὸς› τοὺς ταῖς τιμαῖς τῶν θεῶν καταλυ- 275
ομέναις βοηθήσαντας πλείστης ἐπιμελείας ‹καὶ κηδεμονίας›
ὑπὸ τοῦ δαιμονίου τυγχάνειν.
Fragmentum dubium
τὸν ἀγήρατον χρόνον
273–277 εἰ δ’ ἔστιν . . . τυγχάνειν Maximus 932c, non recte attribut. ad Ἀπολλώνιον
278 Poll. 2.14 = Hyp. fr. 221: Ὑπερείδης [εἴρηκε] δὲ τὸν ἀγήρατον χρόνον.
261 ‹τὸν› Sauppe 264 εἰ Leopardi, οὐ codd. 274 ἐπιμέλεια τῶν οἰχομένων παρὰ
Maximus 275 εἰκὸς Toup et Cobet, εἶναι aut εἴη codd. 276 ἐπιμελείας καὶ κηδεμονίας:
[Fuhr] sequens Plut. Thes. 33; ἐπιμελείας aut εὐδαιμονίας aut ἐπιμελείας καὶ codd.
277 δαιμονίου aut δαίμονος codd.
Text and Translation 55
ual nature and your love for the deceased defines the limits of
your grief. Even so, you must be courageous and control your
grief as much as you can, and think not only of their death, but
also of the virtue which they have left behind. Although their 42
sufferings are worthy of lamentations, their deeds are worthy of
great praises. Although they did not live to see old age in this
life, they have gained ageless glory and have become blessed in
every respect. For those who died without children, the praise
of the Greeks will serve as immortal offspring. As for those
who left behind children, the good will of their native city will
act as a guardian for them. In addition, if death is similar to not 43
existing, then they are released from sicknesses and suffering
and the other things which trouble mortal lives. If there is con-
sciousness in Hades and the dead enjoy the care of the divine, as
we suppose, then it is likely that those who defended the honors
of the gods when they were under attack will receive the utmost
attention and care from the divinity.
Possible Fragment
ageless time
This page intentionally left blank
Commentary
Fragment 1a. On this small piece of unplaced papyrus see p. 27.
1–2. Blass (1894, xv and 78) ingeniously recognized that two separate
fragments of the papyrus should be combined to create one column.
Previous editors treated these two pieces as parts of separate columns,
which would require that a full column of text is completely missing
between sections 1 and 2. All editors since Blass have accepted this
join. The introductory nature of the general content and the complete
sentence beginning with μέν indicates that this joined column is the
first of the speech. The first fragment has no surviving margin on the
left side, while the second fragment has a left margin of less than a cen-
timeter from lines 24 to 34. The join occurs in the last word of section
1, μεγαλ]οπρεστ[έρας, “more generous”: the first piece ends with οπ
.
,
and the second begins ρ
.
επεσ
.
τ
.
. I have examined the two pieces under a
microscope and the vertical papyrus fibers confirm the join with near
certainty. Unfortunately, the mounting of the papyrus prevents an ex-
amination of the astrological text on the recto for further confirmation.
The most recent editors of the horoscope (Neugebauer and Van Hoe-
sen 1959, no. 95) also accept the join, and although they thank T. C.
Skeat, then curator of papyri at the British Museum, for information on
the papyrus, their text and notes indicate that they have no readings for
whatever writing may be hidden by the mounting.
1, 1 τῶν μὲν λόγων τ[ῶν μελ]λόντων ῥηθήσεσ[θαι κτλ. The atypi-
cal nature of Hyperides’ speech is signaled in the first sentence. Unlike
other orators, who refer to funeral orations of the past (cf. the note be-
57
58 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§1–]
low on §8 under τινες ποι]εῖν), Hyperides starts right off with a consid-
eration of how he will treat his subject, whom he specifically names.
None of the other funeral orations name the dead at all, but the speeches
were delivered at the grave, where the public monument (dmosion
sma) included a list of the fallen (Paus. 1.29.13 refers to the grave
for Leosthenes and his men; see also Clairmont 1983, 219 and Pritch-
ett 1971–1991, IV: 227–228). Other orations avoid naming the dead
and they specifically promise to treat their subject traditionally (Thuc.
2.35.1, Lys. 2.2, Dem. 60.1; Ziolkowski 1981, 64–65). They usually re-
fer to previous speakers and the “ancestral custom” (patrios nomos) of
the oration (Thuc. 2.35.1, Pl. Mx. 236d, Dem. 60.2; Ziolkowski 1981,
67).
2 περί τε] Λεωσθένους τοῦ στ[ρατη]γοῦ. The general of the Lamian
War who is praised in this speech should probably be identified with an
epigraphically attested near contemporary Athenian of the same name.
Our general, whose patronymic and deme are unknown (Diod. Sic.
17.111.3 and Paus. 1.25.5 simply describe him as an Athenian, Ἀθη-
ναῖος), is likely Leosthenes, son of Leosthenes of Kephal (Λεωσθέ-
νης Λεωσθένους Κεφᾶληθεν, Kirchner 1901, nos. 9142, 9144; Davies
1971, no. 9142; Osborne and Byrne 1994, s.v. no. 6), who appears in
two inscriptions of the 320s. In one he is listed as a general, the strat-
gos epi ti chri (Reinmuth 1971, no. 15 = Archaiologik Ephmeris
(1918) 73–100 nos. 95–97), and in the other he is named as a recent
trierarch who had died in 323/322 (IG II
2
1631, lines 601–604). For
discussion on the question of whether the epigraphic Leosthenes was
the general of the Lamian War, see Tracy 1995, 24–26 (who accepts the
identification), and Jaschinski 1981, 51–54, Bosworth 1988, 293–94,
Habicht 1997, 34–35, and Faraguna 2003, 129 (who believe that the
Lamian War general held no earlier official appointment). The general
Leosthenes was killed by a slinger’s stone during an engagement at the
siege at Lamia in the winter of 323/322 according to Diod. Sic. 18.13.5
(cf. Just. 13.5.12, with OLDs.v. telum2c); on the importance of slingers
to both sides during a siege, see Pritchett 1971–1991, V: 57–58 (with
20 on Leosthenes).
We also have some details regarding his family. A recently
published inscription introduces us to Leosthenes’ sister Philoumene
(Matthaiou 1994, 175–182) and Davies (1971, 342–343 no. 9142) has
suggested that our Leosthenes was the son of the man (Kirchner 1901,
no. 9141, Osborne and Byrne 1994, s.v. no. 5) who was condemned for
treason (Hyp. Eux. 1, Hansen 1975, 95 no. 88) and exiled fromAthens
[–§1] Commentary 59
after his defeat at the hands of Alexander of Pherae in Peparethos in
361 (Diod. Sic. 15.95.2; see also Sealey 1993, 92 and Develin 1989,
268). The elder Leosthenes lived out the rest of his life in Macedonia
(Aesch. 2.21, with the scholia, and 124).
5 ἄν[δρες ἀ]γαθοί. On this common phrase, see below on §8 under
ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί γ[ίγνων]ται.
5–9 μάρτ[υς . . . ] ἄνδρας. Hess (1938, 3) combines many of the earlier
proposals to print a readable text: μάρτυς ἄριστος ὁ χρόνος ὁ σώιζων
ἐπαίνωι τὰς πράξεις, ὧν οὐδὲ εἷς ἄνθρωπος πρότερόν πω καλλίονας
ἑώρακεν· ὥστε οὐδ’ ἐν τῶι παντὶ αἰῶνι νομιστέον γεγενῆσθαι. . . (“the
best witness is time, which preserves their deeds for praise, deeds bet-
ter than which no man has ever before seen, so that it is impossible
to believe that there were in all eternity either better men than those
who have died or more magnificent deeds”). Numerous reconstructions
have been proposed (see the apparatus and appendix B), but the text
cannot be fully recovered. The orator appears to be emphasizing that
the achievements of the dead set them apart from all of their predeces-
sors. Other epitaphioi describe the dead as part of a long tradition of
Athenian greatness (Lys. 2.3–66, Pl. Mx. 239a–246b, Dem. 60.6–11),
but both here and in his conclusion Hyperides rejects the traditional
narrative of Athenian history and emphasizes the superiority of his sub-
jects (cf. §38: ὑπερέσχεν, “excelled”).
6 ὁ χ]ρόνος ὁ
.
[
. . . .
. Traces of a letter survive before the lacuna. Asingle
vertical stroke may be an iota, or could perhaps be the leftmost portion
of a sigma. The stroke is not curved, but the scribe sometimes writes
sigmas with a straight left edge. However that type of sigma tends to be
smaller in height than this stroke, and the surviving trace seems more
compatible with an iota than a sigma.
7–8 ω
.
[
. .
οὐδ’ ἐν τῶι π]αντὶ αἰῶν[ι. There is a small trace of a vertical
stroke after the first omega, which appears to suit Sudhaus’ nu better
than Bücheler’s sigma. But Sudhaus’ relative pronoun requires a verb,
which is difficult to fit in the lacuna. He makes space by deleting the ar-
ticle from Bücheler’s restoration ἐν τῶι. The phrase ἐν (τῶι) παντὶ αἰ-
ῶνι is not very frequent in the TLG, but those usages usually include the
article (five instances with the article, one without). Bücheler’s ὥστε
seems preferable in sense, but the vertical trace of ink after the omega,
although too minute to be certainly incompatible with a sigma, dictates
caution.
60 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§1–]
8 [νομιστέον]. The restoration (suggested by Bücheler) is uncertain, but
it fits the physical gap and the sense well. Hyperides also uses the same
verbal adjective again later in the speech (§24).
9 [ἀμείνους]. Bücheler’s restoration fits the gap perfectly and makes
excellent sense. The comparative adjective is parallel to the following
μεγαλ]οπρεπεστ[έρας (“more generous”), and the tone is consistent
with the emphasis on the superiority of the campaign elsewhere in the
speech (see above p. 22). The two noun phrases coordinated by οὔτε
. . . οὔτε form an attractive chiasmus.
10 μεγαλ]οπρεπεστ[έρας. Aristotle discusses the ethical quality of
megaloprepeia in his Nicomachean Ethics, where he associates this
characteristic with financial expenditure and situates it as a middle
ground between excessive spending and stinginess (Arist. EN 1122a
18–1123a 33; cf. Dover 1974, 194). In the epitaphioi the adjective
is used to describe the soldiers’ sacrifice on the field (here and §40),
as a result of which they receive a “generous burial,” μεγαλοπρεπὴς
ταφή (Pl. Mx. 234c; Socrates is speaking before beginning Aspasia’s
epitaphios and uses the term to sum up the whole public ceremony, not
just the actual burial). The burial ceremony is described as payment
of the debt owed to the soldiers who valued the city of Athens more
than their own personal security. Megaloprepeia was one of the
virtues that motivated Athenian aristocrats to participate in liturgies.
Here, as elsewhere (see the note on §7 under οἷς ἡ κοινὴ γένεσις
κτλ on autochthony and eugeneia), the deeds of the fallen soldiers
are described in aristocratic terms. Von Reden (1995, 85) discusses
Aristotle’s definition of megaloprepeia as a democratic virtue, while
Kurke (1991, 176–177) emphasizes the associations between private
civic expenditures and tyranny.
2, 10 νῦν φοβοῦ]μαι. The supplements of Blass and van Herwerden (ap-
pendix B) do not fit the size of the lacuna as well as Jensen’s restoration.
Jensen suggests that there may be a trace of ink after μάλιστα, which
he describes as a “hastae rectae vestigium” (91). I’mnot convinced that
the trace is a letter (there is a similar mark immediately below it, be-
tween two lines of text, that does not appear to be a letter), and if it is,
it is so small that it would be compatible with nearly any character.
At Thuc. 2.35.2 Pericles worries about speaking with the proper de-
gree of moderation, so as not to disappoint the friends of the dead with
inadequate praise on the one hand, and not to make others who did not
know the fallen envious on the other hand. Here Hyperides vocalizes
[–§3] Commentary 61
only the former of those two concerns. In Pl. Lg. 717d the Athenian
speaker advises that children should give their parents a fitting burial
(the opposite of this situation), neither too shabby nor too ostentatious.
Fraenkel (1950, 359–360 on A. A. 786) notes such polarities in praise.
11–12 λόγον . . . ἔρ[γων. Speech and deeds were often contrasted in the
funeral orations and other Athenian literature of the fifth and fourth cen-
turies (for example, Thuc. 2.42.1–2 and 42.4, Lys. 2.2, Pl. Mx. 244a).
The oration for the dead is regularly compared to the courageous acts
of the fallen soldiers. Parry (1981, 160 and passim) discusses this an-
tithesis in the Thucydidean epitaphios, and also provides a history of
its development with a focus on the first two books of Thucydides’
History.
11 φαί]νεσθαι. The size of the lacuna better suits this reading than
Babington’s γε]νέσθαι (“may be inferior”).
13 πάλι‹ν›. The form πάλι is extant as early as Callimachus, but it is
usually employed for metrical purposes. πάλιν is the regular form in
Attic prose inscriptions until the Roman period (Threatte 1980–1996,
II: 395–396).
3. On the structure of the sentence in this section see p. 24 above.
16–21 ἐπαινεῖν . . . τὸν δὲ στρατηγὸν Λεωσθένη. The focus on the in-
dividual is unique to this epitaphios. Other epitaphioi do not name in-
dividual honorands or give any sort of personal detail about the dead.
Hyperides was probably influenced by the development of prose en-
comia in the fourth century (Schiappa (1999, 186–190) traces the de-
velopment of the genre, beginning with Gorgias’ Helen). These prose
encomia for contemporary figures were particularly popular in the 320s
(Momigliano (1993, 64 n. 21) refers to two examples from the period:
a work on Alexander of Epirus by Theodectes, and one on Lycurgus by
Philiscus). Like this speech, these works mixed historical narrative with
topical praise. The surviving examples of the genre, Isocrates’ Evago-
ras and Xenophon’s Agesilaus, were both written after the death of the
subjects, and like Isocrates and Xenophon, Hyperides was perhaps a
personal friend of his subject (Plut. Mor. 486d gives examples of po-
litical and military partnerships, including Leosthenes and Hyperides,
but this testimoniummay just be biographical speculation on the part of
the author; Engels (1989, 321 n. 676) considers the evidence for their
association). Although the death of an Athenian general in the field
was somewhat uncommon (Hamel (1998, app. 14, 204–209) lists 38
62 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§3–]
Athenian generals who died in battle between 501/500 and 322/321),
we know of one or perhaps two such deaths that are not mentioned in
surviving epitaphioi. The general Callias died in 432/431 during the
revolt of Potidaea (Thuc. 1.63.3) and is not mentioned in the Periclean
oration at the end of the season. Very slight evidence perhaps implies
that the general Stratocles fell in battle at Chaeronea (his command
is briefly mentioned at Aesch. 3.143 and Polyaen. 4.2.2; Harris (Wor-
thington et al. 2001, 215) tentatively suggests that “Stratocles may have
died in battle,” presumably because we hear nothing else about him, al-
though his colleague Lysicles was prosecuted after the battle), but he
is not mentioned in the Demosthenic epitaphios. Hyperides’ lavish at-
tention to Leosthenes in his speech is novel, and perhaps inspired by
the model of fourth-century prose encomia.
17 ‹τ›ῆς προαιρέ[σε]ως. Demosthenes regularly uses the noun προ-
αίρεσις to describe his public policy (for example, in On the Crown,
where his long-term policy is the main topic of debate, the noun occurs
more than a dozen times). Hyperides uses the noun only in this speech,
twice in this sentence, and again in §40. As he describes Leosthenes
and his men in the underworld, he picks up the vocabulary of this sec-
tion again, first by comparing their courage with that of the Persian War
generals (see the following note), and then in an exclamation of praise
for their choice (προαίρεσις) to die for the city.
20 ἀνδρεί[α]ς. Hyperides has just praised the city for its policy, and now
he praises the dead for the courage not to dishonor their ancestors. Balot
(2004, 413–418) discusses rationality and shame as key components of
the popular conception of courage in classical Athens. He focuses espe-
cially on the Periclean funeral oration and argues that the conception
of courage in that speech is closely tied to Athenian democratic ide-
ology. Thuc. 2.40.3 emphasizes that Athenian courage was grounded
in rational deliberation, and in his funeral oration Demosthenes simi-
larly links bravery and intelligence (Dem. 60.17). Hyperides likewise
pairs intellectual ability and martial courage here and again below in
his comparison of Leosthenes with the generals Miltiades and Themis-
tocles in the underworld (§38: ἀνδρείαι καὶ φρονήσει, “courage and
cunning”).
20–21 τὸ μὴ καταισχῦναι τὰς τῶν προγόνων ἀρετάς. One’s present day
acts were thought to be capable of either bringing shame upon one’s an-
cestors, as here and Lycurg. 110, or else adding to their glory (Thuc.
2.11.9 and 6.16.1; Dover 1974, 246). Demosthenes presents the Atheni-
[–§4] Commentary 63
ans’ opposition to Macedon as a continuation of the policy of their fore-
bears who protected Greece from foreign invaders during the Persian
Wars (Dem. 18.203–210). Hyperides’ listeners expect to hear about the
Persian Wars in a funeral oration (see the note on §12 under δι’ ὧν καὶ
πρότερον κτλ), and when reminded of the “glories of their ancestors,”
they will think of the Persian Wars and the other items that typically
appear in the catalogues of Athenian achievements (see the note on §5
under κολάζο[υσα) in the epitaphioi. But Hyperides will instead focus
on the present campaign as the culmination of Athenian greatness.
21 τὰς. . . ἀρετάς. On the meaning of aret see the notes on §8 un-
der ἀλλὰ [περ]ὶ τῆς παιδείας . . . ἐπ‹αι›δε[ύθησαν and on §40 under
ἀρετῆς καὶ ἀνδραγαθίας. The plural of abstract nouns, when used in
prose, usually refers to a plurality of concrete demonstrations of the ab-
stract quality (Bers 1984, 39; Smyth 1000; Rusten 1989, 150 on Thuc.
2.39.1); in other words aretai are specific virtuous accomplishments on
the battlefield (also noted at Dover 1974, 164).
4, 26 τῶν . . . ‹ἀνὰ›. . . ‹πεπραγμένων›. Something must have fallen out
of the text here. These words have been added as a supplement by edi-
tors, and the text printed here is exempli gratia. The reconstructions of
Cobet and Sauppe (apparatus) both require adding a verb to the text,
and neither are very certain. The manuscript reading of τῶν requires
a participle, which is provided by the supplements of Cobet and Com-
paretti (appendix B). These suggestions do not entail a correction to the
article τῶν, but do require a preposition to govern the accusative πᾶ-
σαν τὴν Ἑλλάδα (“all Greece”). Alternatively, editors have emended
the definite article τῶν to the relative ὧν and supplied a finite verb for
that relative clause. Sauppe has suggested εὐηργέτηκεν (“it has done a
good service”), which is followed by Blass (in his first edition), Jensen,
Colin, and Marzi (1977). In that case, ὧν is an attracted relative, which
would originally have been a neuter accusative plural (Smyth 2522).
The verb εὐεργετεῖν sometimes takes an internal accusative (e.g., Ly-
curg. 140, where the city of Athens is the external object; LSJ, s.v.
εὐεργετέω II).
27–29 οὔτε ὁ χρόνος ὁ παρ[ὼ]ν ἱκανὸς . . . μνη[μο]νεῦσαι. After empha-
sizing the daunting task before him, the orator admits his anxiety about
being unable to provide due praise for the city of Athens. Epideictic or-
ators faced pressure both to provide worthy praise for the dead and to
outperform previous orators (Carey (2007a, 238–240) nicely stresses
the high stakes for epideictic orators). Hyperides here addresses the
64 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§4–]
former concern, employing two commonplaces that are typically used
to express this sentiment: time is insufficient (Lys. 2.1, Pl. Mx. 246b,
Dem. 60.6; Ziolkowski 1981, 132), and the words of one man alone
are incapable of sufficiently treating the topic at hand (Thuc. 2.35.1,
Lys. 2.54; Ziolkowski 1981, 68–69). Other speakers refer to a fear of
envy (φθόνος) from their audience, because of jealousy for the exces-
sive praise granted in the speech (Thuc. 2.35.2; cf. Bulman 1992, 22
(on Pi. I. 2) and 85 n. 23 (on Gorg. fr. B6 285.13 and Thuc. 2.35.2),
and also Walcot 1978, 60–61).
29 ‹διεξ›ελθεῖν. Cobet’s correction is likely right, given Hyperides’
predilection for this verb in this speech. See below on §9 under
διεξελθεῖν.
5. The extended simile, comparing the city of Athens with the sun, com-
prises the entirety of Hyperides’ praise of the polis. Unlike the oration
of Pericles in Thucydides, where the epainos focuses wholly on the city
of Athens, Hyperides prefers to devote his attention to Leosthenes and
his soldiers. Athens sorts out the just and the unjust in the same way
that the sun distinguishes the seasons; and Athens dispenses equality
and sustains the confidence of all of Greece as the sun provides the
material for life to all of the world. Hyperides’ description of the sun
reflects the religious view of the Athenians, who believed that the gods
were responsible for the earth’s fertility. Athenian festivals celebrated
agricultural produce, and the calendar included a “procession for the
sun and the seasons” (see Parker 2005, 203–204). In this single sen-
tence Hyperides also covers many of the traditional points of praise
that fill out the bulk of other epitaphioi. Despite its brevity, this praise
of Athens alludes to many of the elements typically found in eulogies
of Athens (laudes Athenarum) in the tragedians and epideictic oratory
(for example, Athenian succor for suppliants, or the invention of agri-
culture); on these points see the individual notes below.
If we accept the restorations in the text, Hyperides celebrates
Athenian efforts to punish the wicked and eradicate injustice on the
one hand, after presenting the sun as purely beneficial in the first half
of the simile. Jensen’s (1917, xlvi) restoration of π[λείω παρέχ]ων
ἐπιμ[έλειαν attempts to balance the two limbs of the simile more
precisely, by stating that the sun gives greater rewards to those who
deserve them, and implying that others are punished with less produce.
But following Blass and earlier editors, I clearly read a tau at the
beginning of the phrase τ[ῶν ἀνθρώπ]ων ἐπιμ[ελούμενος. The top
[–§5] Commentary 65
left corner of the letter is preserved, with the top half of the vertical
stroke and a wide horizontal bar to its left, which appears to me to be
inconsistent with a pi or any other letter.
Perhaps the imbalance in the simile is to be explained by the formal
religious context here, which precludes Hyperides from describing the
punishments that the sun might inflict upon the unjust. In less formal
contexts a poet like Hesiod can more explicitly describe both the aid
and the harm that the gods inflict upon mortals (Hes. Op. 225–247;
West (1978, 213 ad loc.) adduces many parallels from Greek, Near
Eastern and Irish traditions). But Hyperides does not need to explain
that nature blights the wicked, just as Athens punishes them, because
“pollution and fertility are the two sides of a coin” (Parker 2005, 418,
in the context of a helpful discussion of the Greek view of the gods’
function in agriculture) and, in keeping with the overall optimistic tone
of the speech, the orator prefers to emphasize only the positive aspects
of the city and its relationship with the gods.
For a more pessimistic nature simile in a parallel context, see
Dem. 60.24, where the orator likens the loss of those who fell at
Chaeronea to sunlight (φῶς) being removed from the universe. Loraux
(1986, 393 n. 206) suggests that Hyperides’ positive description of
the sun directly answers Demosthenes’ image of the bleak withdrawal
of light after the defeat at Chaeronea. If so, this simile epitomizes
Athenian optimism at this point in the Lamian War.
Pöschl (1964, 558) collects bibliography on this and other sun sim-
iles. Colin (1938, 246–247) admires the subtle poetic nature of its ex-
pression, and S. Kayser (1898, 225) compares Hyp. fr. 80, a much less
elaborate comparison of rhetores and snakes. Hyp. Phil. frg. 10 also
features a simile likening the city and the body (on which see White-
head 2000, 41–42 ad loc. and Blass 1887, III.2: 33).
33 σ[ώφροσι. The curved left portion of the initial letter survives.
Blass’s restoration of σ[ώφροσι fits the space better than Sitzler’s
suggestion of σ[πουδαίοις. The adjective sphrn only occurs once in
the other surviving epitaphioi, but the context of that usage perhaps
supports the restoration here. At Pl. Mx. 247e–248a, in the consolatory
section of that speech, Socrates describes a man who “has everything
that contributes to happiness in his own hands . . . [who] is not joined
to other men” as having the “best prepared life” and being “moderate
(sphrn), brave and intelligent.” Similarly in this passage, Hyperides
associates this adjective with the possession of “everything . . . useful
for life.” The adjectives sphrn and epieiks are frequently paired by
66 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§5–]
later writers, e.g., Plut. TG. 14.5 and Cic. 38.3.
33 ἐ]πιεικέσι. Epieiks is usually defined as “flexible, reasonable, fair.”
The moral concept is an important element in Athenian self-identity. It
describes the city’s attitude toward suppliants and its ability to adjust
to a particular situation. Thus, at Gorg. fr. B6 285.15–16 the Athenian
war dead preferred τὸ πρᾶον ἐπιεικὲς to τὸ αὐθάδες δίκαιον, that is
“sympathetic fairness” in contrast to “authoritative justice” (reading
Spengel’s emendation of πρᾶον, “gentle,” for the manuscripts’ παρόν,
“present”). Arist. EN 1137a31–1138a3 similarly considers epieikeia as
a type of moderate justice. As an illustration of this quality, at Soph.
OC 1127 the suppliant Oedipus praises Theseus and Athens for dis-
playing it (τὸ ἐπιεικές) toward him. Mills (1997, 77–78) discusses the
concept of epieikeia in Athenian self-presentation. Her discussion is
supplemented by Gibert (1998). Lucas (1968, 140–141) and Adkins
(1966, esp. 79–80 and 94–98) also consider the term, demonstrating
that the quality was especially prized in fourth-century Athens, where
it was considered to be an important aspect of individual virtue (aret).
See also the discussion of Dover (1974, 191).
Epieikeia also has a more specific legal sense, referring to the
judges’ consideration of extenuating circumstances in unusual cases.
On the legal doctrine of epieikeia, see Scafuro 1997, 50–54, Brun-
schwig 1996 and especially Harris 2004c. The broad moral concept
is most relevant in the present passage, rather than the specific legal
usage, since Hyperides uses the adjective, not the noun, and seems to
link the quality with another abstract moral adjective, “reasonable” (if
the restoration σ[ώφροσι is correct). Neither the noun epieikeia nor
the adjective epieiks occur elsewhere in the surviving epitaphioi.
34–36 ἐπι[μελούμενος . . . τῶν ἄ]λλων ἁ[πά]ντων τῶν εἰς τὸν β[ίο]ν
χρησίμων. Although Hyperides is describing the sun here, in the midst
of this dense cluster of topics traditionally found in eulogies of Athens
the listener is reminded of the motif of the fertility of Attic soil and the
legend that Athens was the first state to learn the science of agriculture.
The fruits of Athens were a traditional feature in praises of the city.
Sophocles’ Triptolemus (frr. 596–617 Radt) popularized the story of
the Eleusinian prince’s teaching of agricultural skills, and Demeter’s
mysteries were celebrated by the Athenians at Eleusis. Similarly, Isoc.
4.28 tells the story of Demeter’s two gifts to Athens, agriculture and
the Mysteries, as a reward for the city’s help in the goddess’ search for
her daughter Kore. The theme also appears elsewhere in the epitaphioi,
[–§5] Commentary 67
at Pl. Mx. 238a, where Athens is celebrated for first mastering agricul-
ture (Tsitsiridis (1998, 213–214 ad loc.) surveys the importance of the
Eleusinian Mysteries for the Athenians’ civic identity).
The products of Athens were also a special source of pride among
the natives (see Schroeder 1914, 20–23 and Burgess 1902, 154 for par-
allels). The chorus of Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus gives much at-
tention to the most famous fruit of Athens in its eulogy of the city in
the second stasimon of that play (668–719). That chorus’ praise cul-
minates in its description of the olive, an important symbol for Athens
and a characteristic attribute of its patron goddess Athena. See also
Eur. Tr. 801, Eur. Ion 1433–1436, and cf. the depiction of the olive
on the Athenian tetradrachms of the fifth century (photos in Kraay
and Hirmer 1966, pl. 19 nos. 359–363, with discussion at Kraay 1976,
65–66). The olive was one of the few crops that flourished in Attica
(see Hanson 1983, especially 53, rewritten at Hanson 1998, 64, where
the Sophoclean choral ode is discussed), since the trees are resistant
to drought and adapt well to poor soil (for details see Foxhall 2007,
5–9). Sophocles describes the olive as “self-planting” (αὐτοποιός) and
“child-rearing” (παιδότροφος), thus connecting the fruits of Athens
with the themes of autochthony and agriculture as the basis of civiliza-
tion (cf. Foxhall (2007, 248–249), who associates the latter adjective
with Athenian “ideals of the long-term”).
In fact, the rocky soil of Attica was not always able to produce
enough grain for the city, and cash crops such as olives helped fund
grain imports. Moreno (2007) has demonstrated that the Athenians de-
pended on imported grain and that their foreign policy in the fifth and
fourth centuries was an integral part of a complex organized system
designed to ensure its supply. Taken as a group, the funeral orations
illustrate the tension that existed in classical Athens between pride in a
distinctiveAthenian character and the state’s self-sufficiency on the one
hand, and, on the other hand, a cosmopolitan interest in, and real need
for, foreign artists and goods: this passage and other traditional eulo-
gies extol the independent ability of Athens to provide for itself, while
in contrast the Thucydidean funeral oration boasts of the diversity of
imported products available to the Athenians during the empire of the
fifth century (Thuc. 2.38.2; the old oligarch, [Xen]. Ath 2.7, presents a
negative counterpoint).
More generally, praise for the fertility of a region is a recurring
motif in all types of Greek literature. Kienzle (1936, 39–40) collects
relevant passages. As here, many other examples of this device specif-
68 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§5–]
ically praise the karpos, “fruit,” of a locale.
35–36 τῶν εἰς τὸν β[ίο]ν χρησίμων. The phrase is technical and ap-
pears in Democritean accounts of the origin of society. According to
that philosopher’s sociological theory, mankind formed social groups
in order to obtain the necessities for life (see Cole 1990, 131–135).
Henrichs (1975, 107 n. 56) discusses the use of the specialized term
τὰ χρήσιμα πρὸς τὸν βίον, “material useful for life,” in Prodicus and
collects numerous other examples of similar phrases.
36–37 το]ὺς μὲν κακοὺ‹ς› κολάζο[υσα. Athens’ punishment of wrongdo-
ers is a common theme in the epitaphioi. Sometimes they go unnamed
(Thuc. 2.42.4, Gorg. fr. B6 286.4, Lys. 2.19), as here. The orators have
in mind either the legend of the defeat of the Amazons (Lys. 2.6 and
Dem. 60.8), or the punishment of Eurystheus (Lys. 2.16), or the his-
toric victory over the Persians (Dem. 60.11, Pl. Mx. 240d). The leg-
endary king Theseus was often celebrated in classical Athens for the
former two deeds, and Schroeder (1914, 14) discusses two passages in
which a similar phrase specifically refers to the accomplishments of
Theseus. At Eur. Supp. 341 Theseus boasts of being a “punisher of the
wicked,” κολαστὴς τῶν κακῶν (cf. also 253–255), and in Eur. fr. 678
(Kannicht), Theseus’ murder of Sciron is described with the same for-
mulation found here, {τοὺς} κακοὺς κολάζειν, “to punish the wicked.”
Loraux (1986, 65–67) discusses the almost complete exclusion of
Theseus fromall the funeral orations. Instead of Theseus, it is the Athe-
nians who were glorious against the Amazons and recovered the bodies
of the seven chiefs before Thebes. Her thesis, that this replacement was
a reaction against the policy of the ostracized leader Cimon, who had
heralded Theseus as the city founder, is unpersuasive. She wants to
discern a democratic flavor in support of her date for the institution of
the funeral oration in the 460s. Calame (1996, 416–418) sensibly ar-
gues that the importance of Theseus in Athenian ideology cannot be
the result of any particular individual’s advocacy for the hero. In any
case, the democracy of the late 460s and 450s continued to admire The-
seus. Walker (1995, 64–66) refers to a number of state-commissioned
representations of Theseus in Athens at that time.
Theseus’ absence from the orations is not surprising, given the im-
mediate purpose of honoring all of the city’s war casualties as a ho-
mogeneous body. In tragedy Theseus is a useful character who as an
individual can represent on stage values that might be ascribed to the
city as an abstract entity in nondramatic contexts such as the epitaphioi.
[–§5] Commentary 69
Thus Mills (1997, 56–57) explains that the absence of Theseus fromthe
Eumenides of Aeschylus emphasizes “the collective anonymity” of the
play’s Athenian court. Similarly, the epitaphioi celebrate the collective
unity of the civic community, and the absence of Theseus from the fu-
neral orations has nothing to do with any hypothetical rejection of the
policies of Cimon.
37 κολάζο[υσα. The catalogue of Athenian history that appears in other
epitaphioi tends to jump from the defeat of foreigners during mytho-
logical times to the Athenian role in the Persian Wars (for example,
Lys. 2.4–19 focuses on prehistoric exploits, and then 20–47 immedi-
ately presents a long account of the Persian Wars). The verb kolazein,
“to punish,” links these mythological and historical events. It is used
both for the victories of Theseus (see previous note) and the defeat of
the Persians (Pl. Mx. 240d, discussed at Tsitsiridis 1998, 277). By using
this evocative verb here, Hyperides alludes to that traditional catalogue
of Athenian exploits, which he chooses to pass over in this simile so
that he can instead go on to provide a narrative of Leosthenes’ achieve-
ments. See p. 23 above for more parallels between Hyperides’ descrip-
tion of the conflict with Macedon and others’ accounts of the Persian
Wars. For discussion of the catalogue of Athenian achievements that
appears in other funeral orations (most extensively in Lys. 2 and Plato’s
Menexenus) see Loraux 1986, 132–171 and Thomas 1989, 196–236.
37 τοῖς] δὲ δικαίο‹ι›ς β[οηθοῦσα. Hyperides continues with his
condensed allusions to traditional themes in praise of Athens. The
aid given to the children of Heracles, the Seven against Thebes,
Orestes, Medea, Heracles, and Oedipus was the subject of numerous
fifth-century tragedies in Athens. Surviving plays that treat the theme
of Athens’ help for those in need include Aeschylus’ Seven against
Thebes, Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus and Euripides’ Suppliants.
The theme is also common in funeral orations: Lys. 2.7–16, Pl. Mx.
239b, and Dem. 60.8 refer toAthenian aid for the Seven against Thebes
and the Heracleidae. Naiden (2006) has produced a comprehensive
study of ancient supplication (his detailed appendices of sources and
indexes can be used to locate discussion of these and numerous other
Athenian examples, both mythological and historical).
38 τὸ δὲ ἴσον. All Athenian citizens shared equal political rights,
whether they were rich or poor, or whether they came from the
countryside of Attica or the city of Athens. Athenian political equality
is another common motif in the epitaphioi and elsewhere. There were
70 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§5–]
various overlapping explanations for this equality: autochthony (Pl.
Mx. 239a connects ἰσογονία, “birth equality,” and ἰσονομία, “political
equality”), or the political settlement of Theseus (Dem. 60.28 praises
the ἰσηγορία, “political equality,” he created), or the Athenian political
system in the classical period (Lys. 2.56 presents τὸ ἴσον as the goal
of the Delian League). On equality as an Athenian ideal, Schroeder
1914 also refers to Isoc. 7.20, 69 and Isoc. 12.178.
The Thucydidean funeral oration also celebrates the ideal of Athe-
nian equality (Thuc. 2.37.1). Harris (1992, 160–162) has demonstrated
that Thucydides’ reference to τὸ ἴσον, “equality,” refers to the equality
before the law all Athenian citizens enjoyed in judicial disputes. That
interpretation supports the reading of τῆς ἀδικίας, “injustice,” here.
The substantive adjective τὸ ἴσον, “equality,” may allude more
generally to the democratic ideal of isonomia, “legal equality” (as
argued by Gomme (1956, 109–110); Ostwald (1969, 114 n. 3)
disagrees). Isonomia is regularly opposed to monarchia, or the rule
of one (Alcmaeon 4, Hdt. 3.142–143, cf. also Hdt. 3.80.2–82, where
isonomia is an alternative to both monarchy and oligarchy). That
antithesis colors the usage here, where the sun, and Athens, provides
the opportunity for all the Greek states to be self-governing, instead
of being subject to an unjust tyrant. The brief allusion to equality and
the Athenian political system anticipates the more extensive contrast
between Athenian democracy and barbarian tyranny later in the speech
(§§20–22).
38 τῆς ἀδι]κιάς. Harris’ interpretation of τὸ ἴσον as referring to the
courts at Thuc. 2.37.1 (see previous note) supports Jensen’s restora-
tion. The remaining traces of ink and the size of the lacuna better suit
Jensen’s restoration than those of Babington and Colin (appendix B).
38 ἀ[πονέμουσα. Kaibel preferred the reading ἀντ[ὶ τῆς πλεονε]ξίας
(“instead of [greed]”) and proposed ἀ[πονέμουσα (“dispenses”) to
continue the financial metaphor. Although ἀδι]κιάς (“injustice”) is
preferable to πλεονε]ξίας (“greed”) the remaining ink traces better suit
ἀ[πονέμουσα (“dispenses”) than Blass’ φ[υλάττουσα (“protects”) and
the verb ἀπονέμειν (“to dispense”) makes good sense even without
the reference to greed.
38–40 τοῖ]ς δὲ ἰδί[οις κινδύνοις . . . παρασκε]υάζουσα. Blass’ restoration
is based on the echo of Lycurg. 104, who describes the Greeks who
fought at Marathon: τοῖς ἰδίοις κινδύνοις κοινὴν ἄδειαν ἅπασι τοῖς
Ἕλλησι κτώμενοι, “with their own risks they acquired shared security
[–§6] Commentary 71
for all the Greeks.” On the repeated contrast between private risk and
public safety, see the note on §24 under ἰδίαν . . . κοινήν.
6, 41 π[ερὶ μὲν οὖν. There is a small dot of ink at the top left of the
line before the lacuna. As Jensen observes, it is consistent with the top
bar of a pi, and not an alpha (as Blass’s restoration of [ἀλλὰ περὶ μέ]ν
requires). For the phrase φράσαι περί, LSJ, s.v. φράζω I.2 cites Isoc.
15.117.
42 φρά]σαι ‹παρ›αλ‹ε›ί‹ψ›ω. ‹παρ›αλ‹ε›ί‹ψ›ω is Müller’s plausible
correction of the papyrus, whose nonsensical reading oXt¡o is likely
due to the scribe’s misreading of his source. The phrase φράσαι
παραλείψω (“I will refrain from speaking”) offers a pointed contrast
to τοὺς λόγους ποιήσομαι (“I will . . . focus my speech”) in the next
clause and anticipates the praeteritio below (on this rhetorical device
see the note on this section under διεξέλθω). Paraleipein usually takes
an accusative object, but later writers offer a few parallels for the
first-person future with an active infinitive (Gal. 2.450: παραλείψω . . .
ἐξελέγχειν and, a closer parallel also introducing rhetorical praeteritio,
Lib. Or. 12.27: εἰπεῖν παραλείψω). Others have suggested that the
scribe may have misread ἄμφω (“both”) in his exemplar and written
oXt¡o, but this suggestion entails other drastic changes to the papyrus
text. Kayser (1868) accepts the reading ἄμφω (“both”), which then
requires a verb to govern the first περί (“as for”) phrase. He assumes
the scribe omitted further material at the beginning of the sentence and
reconstructs the passage thus: [οὐκ ἔχων δὲ ὁμοῦ περὶ τούτων εἰπεῖν
καὶ περὶ πασῶ]ν τῶν κοινῶ[ν πράξεων τῆς πόλ]εως, ὥσπερ [χρή,
καὶ ὑμνῆ]σαι ἄμφω . . . , “[Since I am unable to speak about these men
and all] the shared [accomplishments of the] city [at the same time, as
I should, and to praise] both. . . .”
43–44 νῦ]ν δὲ πόθεν κτλ. The explicit deliberation about the act of prais-
ing is characteristic of epideictic oratory; see Carey 2007a, 245. This
short section is full of rhetorical tropes: it begins and ends with prae-
teritio (see above on this section under φρά]σαι ‹παρ›αλ‹ε›ί‹ψ›ω and
below under διεξέλθω) and here Hyperides employs the rhetorical de-
vice of aporia by suggesting that there is an abundance of potential
material to praise (see Usher 1999, index s.v. aporia for many other
examples of this rhetorical trope, which is common in all types of or-
atory). It also employs hypophora, a series of rhetorical questions and
answers (Usher (1999, 336) comments on the unusual combination of
hypophora and aporia; on hypophora see the note on §30 under τίς
72 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§6–]
‹γὰρ› κα‹ι›ρὸς κτλ). Just as he passed over any lengthy praise of the
city in §5, Hyperides nowuses these various rhetorical devices to avoid
dwelling on the traditional themes of the genos (“heritage”) and the
paideia (“upbringing”) of the Athenians in §§7–8 (on these typical sec-
tions in funeral orations see Ziolkowski 1981, 64–65). Like the simile
in §5 that functions as a miniature epainos of the city, briefly touching
upon many typical topics, here, too, Hyperides’ treatment of traditional
themes in his prooemium is highly abbreviated, allowing time for the
unusual extended narrative of the achievements of the dead that begins
in §9.
44 λέγει]ν. For the infinitive, Cobet compares Eur. Med. 475. The in-
finitive with the verb ἄρχομαι (“to begin”) implies that the speaker is
beginning to do something which will be continued, as opposed to the
supplementary participle, which is used when the speaker will then go
on to do something else (Smyth 2128). The parallels (Dem. 18.3 and
Dem. Ep. 1.1) adduced by Graindor in support of reading the noun λό-
γων (“speech”) do not exclude the use of the infinitive.
44 πρῶτον. Here is a typical instance in which nineteenth-century edi-
tors erred in their efforts to bring Hyperides’ Greek into line with earlier
classical authors. The Dutch scholar Carel Gabriel Cobet (1813–1889)
perhaps best epitomizes this tendency. He made many brilliant restora-
tions in this speech, but he sometimes went too far, suggesting correc-
tions to accord with his idealized standards of classical Attic usage (von
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1998, 40–41 discusses Cobet and his ideal
of “das reine Attische”; see also Babington’s (1859, 6) tribute to Co-
bet’s textual work on the Funeral Oration). Here he proposes the gen-
itive of the adjective, πρώτου (appendix B). But the neuter accusative
adverb is perfectly intelligible and does not require correction. An ad-
verbial accusative may be used instead of the adjective “when one ac-
tion is opposed to another in sequence” (Smyth 1042N).
45 διεξέλθω. On Hyperides’ usage of this verb, see the note on §9 under
διεξελθεῖν. Praeteritio, or paraleipsis, is the rhetorical figure in which
the speaker states that he will not mention something, and in effect re-
minds his listeners of it with that denial. Hyperides puts special empha-
sis on this device by explicitly using the verb paraleipein (“to refrain”)
at the beginning of this section to close his brief praise of the city, and
here he uses the device again to bring up quickly and dismiss two of
the traditional themes of the funeral oration: the ancestors of the dead
and their noble and autochthonous origins, and the education of the
[–§7] Commentary 73
Athenians. In forensic cases litigants sometimes claim that constraints
of time prevent a detailed account of their opponents’ misdeeds; these
insinuating claims essentially functioned as accusations for which no
evidence was needed. Usher (1999, index s.v. paraleipsis) collects nu-
merous examples from the orators and tragedy.
45–46 ἀλλ’ εὔηθες εἶναι ὑπολαμβάνω. See the note on §30 under ἀλλά
. . . on the frequent use of the particle ἀλλά (here “no”) in hypophora.
The avoidance here of the common theme of the genos is very
different from other funeral orators and particularly Demosthenes,
who discusses the Eponymous Heroes of the Athenian people at length
(Dem. 60.27–31).
7, 51–52 οἷς ἡ κοινὴ γένεσις α[ὐτόχ]θοσιν οὖσιν ἀνυπέρβλητ[ον] τὴν
εὐγένειαν ἔχει. Autochthony is employed in all the funeral orations
except the short fragment of Gorgias to emphasize the homogeneity
of the Athenian citizen body, because they were born from Attica and
have always dwelled there (Thuc. 2.36.1, Lys. 2.17, Pl. Mx. 237b,
Dem. 60.4; Ziolkowski 1981, 120–121). Because the Athenians have
been settled in one place for longer than other peoples, they were
able to become civilized sooner and are thus superior. Hyperides
makes explicit contrast between the heterogeneity of other states
and Athenian unity, much like Dem. 60.4, who likens the citizens of
other states to adopted children. Loraux (2000, 18–23) discusses these
passages and related ones from the epitaphioi and tragedy, highlighting
the “discourse of exclusion” (20) that distinguishes Athens from other
Greek cities. She also observes (21) that the myth of common origin
granted to all Athenians the aristocratic ideal of εὐγένεια, “noble
birth,” and Connor (1994, 35–38) similarly emphasizes that the myth
of autochthony glosses over social differences in order to celebrate
the anonymous “collective excellence” of Athens (38). The myth was
also hortative: Rosivach (1987, 303–304) has shown that the concept
of autochthony developed along with the Athenian Empire in the fifth
century and that the legend was used as a justification for Athenian
military activity.
Hyperides gives short shrift to many common topoi, but this one
in particular may seem a little out of place, since the orator will soon
praise the mercenary soldiers and foreign allies (§11, §13) who helped
Athens. This tension between Athens’ exclusive pride in its homogene-
ity and dependence on foreign goods and specialists also appears at
Thuc. 2.38.2 (with discussion by Connor (1993, 120)).
74 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§7–]
7–8, 51–53 ἀνυπέρβλητ[ον] . . . ἀλλὰ [πε]ρὶ. A tiny fragment of the pa-
pyrus has been lost here. My text indicates the state of the manuscript as
seen by early editors, but the underlined material has now disappeared,
presumably because of the loss of a small piece of the papyrus. In the
edition of Babington that fragment is reported in this location without
comment, but it must have been separated by the time of the third edi-
tion of Blass, who incorrectly inserts the fragment in col. 1 lines 19–22
(9–11). The fragment was lost by the time Jensen examined the papyrus.
8, 53–55 ἀλλὰ [περ]ὶ τῆς παιδείας . . . ἐπ‹αι›δε[ύθησαν. Loraux (1986,
109–110) focuses on this passage as she argues that Hyperides, despite
the many innovations in this oration, here follows a time-honored defi-
nition of aret as purely military excellence. She sees this narrow con-
ception of aret as a reaction against Dem. 60.17, and current trends
in civic epitaphs, in which aret is equated with other qualities, most
importantly sphrosyn, “moderation.” The war context of the speech
requires Hyperides to focus on Leosthenes’ military exploits in his
praise of the general’s aret (§§10–20), but his initial account of the
education of the commander and his men begins with a reminder of
the sphrosyn with which they were raised as children, before they
learned their military skills (§8). The Athenian soldiers were first ex-
posed to moderation (cf. Aesch. 1.6–7, where the speaker asserts that
sphrosyn was the primary focus in the education of young Atheni-
ans), and then they learned to be soldiers. The course of development is
parallel to Demosthenes’ definition of complete virtue consisting first
of learning, and then of bravery (Dem. 60.17). Similarly, in §29, Hy-
perides states that the dead demonstrated their virtues both through a
great length of time and amidst many dangers. These two categories
correspond to the antithesis of his previous sentence: they were born
senseless and died as brave soldiers. As children they learned quali-
ties such as sphrosyn and dikaiosyn, “justice,” and then they went
to war, where they demonstrated their military skill. It is only to be
expected that Hyperides focuses on the apex of his subjects’ virtue,
their death in the field, but this emphasis hardly constitutes “an attack
on mistaken predecessors” (Loraux 1986, 110). For all his attention to
the life of the deceased before going into battle (Dem. 60.15–16), De-
mosthenes, too, as one must in an oration over the war dead, mainly
emphasizes their martial valor (Dem. 60.18–24, aret in 23).
The special interest in the soldiers’ paideia in these two speeches is
perhaps reflective of contemporary institutional reforms in Athens. In
335/334 the ephbeia was reformed, and male Athenian youths aged 18
[–§9] Commentary 75
to 20 participated in a systematic programof military and civic training.
For discussion of these reforms see Humphreys 2004, 88–92, Fisher
2001, 65–66, Rhodes 1993, 494–495, and Faraguna 1992, 274–280.
56 τινες ποι]εῖν. A complementary infinitive is needed with the verb εἰ-
ώθασιν, “are accustomed.” Sauppe’s restoration is too long for the la-
cuna, and [Fuhr]’s (both in appendix B) is unlikely because the scribe
does not usually break a line after the first consonant of a syllable. Hess
adduces Isoc. 5.4 (ὅπερ εἰώθασί τινες ποιεῖν, “which some are accus-
tomed to do”) as a parallel for Jensen’s supplement of τινες, “some.”
Levi’s ἄλλοι, “others,” would also fill the gap nicely and make good
sense. Hyperides briefly refers to other orators at earlier burial cer-
emonies, but most of the epitaphioi begin with more explicit refer-
ence to earlier speakers (see note on §1 under τῶν μὲν λόγων τ[ῶν
μελ]λόντων ῥηθήσεσ[θαι κτλ).
57–58 ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί γ[ίγνων]ται. This honorific phrase is regularly
used in the funeral orations and other patriotic literature to describe sol-
diers’ death on the battlefield (see Loraux 1986, 99–102 for discussion
and examples). Hyperides repeats the phrase again at §28 (cf. §1 and
§34), and in both instances he contrasts the heroic death of the soldiers
with their childhood. He presents their voluntary death on the field as
the singular defining moment of their adult lives. Rusten (1986, 71–74)
observes that “even without maintaining consistent and unchanging
goodness through a lifetime, but rather by performing a single appro-
priate action at the end of that life . . . one can earn the title ἀγαθός
for eternity” (72). The phrase ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς ἐγένετο (“he was a brave
man”) was used as a formula in Athenian honorific decrees specifically
to praise valor in battle (Veligianni-Terzi (1997, 265–267) collects ex-
amples and emphasizes the military associations of the phrase). By vol-
unteering to die the fallen attain the same status as these honorands. On
the related abstract quality of andragathia see the note on §40 under
ἀρετῆς καὶ ἀνδραγαθίας.
9, 61 διεξελθεῖν. Hyperides uses this verb in the aorist with the sense of
“narrate individually” here, and at §6 and probably at §4. The earlier
usages link the orator’s avoidance of standard treatments of the city (in
§4) and of the genos (in §6). Hyperides began this paragraph by asking,
“Should I discuss [their] ancestry?” (§6), a question that served as a
praeteritio allowing him to mention that topic only in passing (see the
note on §6 under διεξέλθω). Hyperides now repeats the same verb to
signal that he will focus on an alternative topic at unusual length: the
76 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§9–]
achievements of the men on the battlefield. This verb could perhaps be
classified as “nonforensic” in the Hyperidean corpus (see above p. 26;
outside of this speech it appears only as a conjectural restoration at
Hyp. Dem. 8), but it is quite common in the court speeches of other
authors.
63 τοῖς ἄλλοις Ἕλλησιν. Hyperides repeatedly emphasizes the panhel-
lenic alliance during the Lamian (or Hellenic) War. See the note on
§16 under τῆ[ς τῶ]ν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας. Above, at §4, the orator
refrained from looking back to Athens’ previous benefactions to the
rest of Greece. Below, at §10 and §39, he highlights the current ac-
complishments of Athens and Leosthenes.
10–12. For an outline of the events of the campaign, see pp. 12–13. In
these sections Hyperides describes the events of late 323.
10, 66 τεταπεινωμένη. The verb is echoed below (see the note on §35
under ἐταπείνωσεν) to emphasize the change in circumstances as a re-
sult of the soldiers’ acts of valor.
66–67 κατεφθαρμένη ὑπὸ [τῶν] δωροδο‹κ›ούντων. The verb
drodokein, literally “to receive gifts,” always refers to bribes in
classical usage. The ambassadors to Philip and Alexander were
particularly susceptible to accusations of bribery and corruption,
(Harvey 1985, 86–87 and 106–107), since foreign kings would
commonly offer gifts to visiting ambassadors. But these accusations
of bribery in Athens usually arose in the midst of broader personal or
political feuds (see C. Taylor 2001, 61–64 and 162–163), and there is
no reason to believe that Athenian politicians were often persuaded
to serve the Macedonians against the interests of Athens (as Cargill
(1985) suggests).
Demosthenes, the most famous opponent of Macedon in the 340s,
laid charges of bribery against Aeschines in 343 to distance himself
from the embarrassing peace of Philocrates after Hyperides had suc-
cessfully prosecuted a similar case against Philocrates that same year
(see above pp. 3–4; Harris (1995, 116–118) shows howweak the charge
of bribery was), and throughout his career he frequently referred to
Greeks who were corrupted by Philip (e.g., Dem. 18.295, now echoed
by Hyp. Dion. 176v/173r l. 32–175r/174v l. 2; see also the passages
collected by Cargill (1985)). Just a year before the funeral oration was
delivered, Demosthenes became embroiled in scandal and was pros-
ecuted for accepting money from the Macedonian treasurer Harpalus
[–§12] Commentary 77
(see above p. 11). Hyperides was a prosecutor in that case and uses the
“brutal verb” drodokein to attack his former ally (see Whitehead 2000,
403 on this verb).
11, 72 ξενικὴν μὲν δύναμιν. Leosthenes ferried a large body of merce-
naries from Asia to Cape Taenarum at the southern tip of the Pelopon-
nese, and probably maintained themthere until after Alexander’s death,
whenAthens finally decided to initiate hostilities against Macedon. See
p. 12 of the introduction.
75 Βοιωτούς. After Alexander destroyed Thebes, in 335, he granted the
Thebans’ land to the neighboring Boeotians (see §17). Consequently,
the Boeotians sided with the Macedonians because they feared that the
Athenians would return that land to the Thebans if the Athenian cam-
paign was successful (Diod. Sic. 18.11.3–4).
75 Εὐβοέας. The Euboeans, under the leadership of Callias of Chalcis,
joined the Athenian alliance against Philip prior to the battle of
Chaeronea (Brunt (1969, 254–264) gives a thorough analysis of why
and when Euboea shifted its alliances from Philip to Athens). After
Philip’s victory in 338 the pro-Athenian leaders of the Euboean League
went into exile and Philip installed sympathetic governments on the
island (Roebuck (1948, 82) provides more detail than Hammond et
al. (1972–1988, II: 615) on this point). Chalcis was the site of an
armed Macedonian garrison, one of the so-called fetters of Greece
(Plb. 18.11.5) that protected Macedonian interests (Hammond et al.
1972–1988, II: 612 n. 3). When Aristotle left Athens in 323 out of
anxiety over his Macedonian connections, he took refuge at Chalcis
(D.H. Amm. 1.5, D. L. 5.5–6, 5.10; Chroust (1966) emphasizes
political reasons for his move). Diod. Sic. 18.11.1–2 lists the Greek
allies in the Lamian War: from Euboea only the city of Carystus joined
the Greek alliance; the rest of the island sided with Macedon.
12, 77 εἰς Πύλας. The pass of Thermopylae provides land access to
southern Greece from Thessaly, with steep mountains to the south and
the sea to the north. (Barrington atlas map 55 D3; the modern coast ex-
tends further north than it did in antiquity.) Leosthenes planned to con-
front the enemy here, and had already occupied the pass with that inten-
tion in mind (Diod. Sic. 18.11.5). Pritchett (1965, 71–73) and MacKay
(1963) survey the present landscape and surviving remains in order to
make sense of ancient accounts of the area and correct modern misin-
terpretations of the difficult terrain. The latter provides a detailed map
78 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§12–]
of the pass.
78–79 δι’ ὧν καὶ πρότερον ἐ[πὶ τ]οὺς Ἕλληνας οἱ βάρβαροι
ἐ[πο]ρεύθησαν. The Greeks, under the leadership of the Spartan
Leonidas, were overcome by the Persian forces at the pass of
Thermopylae in the autumn of 480. See the vivid account of Hdt.
7.201–233.
Compared to other funeral orators, Hyperides devotes very little at-
tention to the Persian Wars. He instead describes contemporary events
using the same terms that his predecessors used to describe the famous
war against the barbarians. See the notes on §5 under κολάζο[υσα, on
§20 under τὴν Μακεδόνων ὑπερηφανίαν, and on §37 under Μιλτιάδην
καὶ Θεμιστοκλέα.
81–82 κατακλείσας εἰς Λαμίαν. After the defeat at Plataea the Mac-
edonian forces fled and took refuge at Lamia for the winter (Diod.
Sic. 18.11.5). Antipater was awaiting reinforcements fromCraterus and
Leonnatus (see above p. 13 and Habicht 1997, 38). Lamia is about 10
kilometers northwest of Thermopylae, in the region of Phthiotis, near
the Malian Gulf (Barrington atlas map 55 C3; see Béquignon 1937,
263–278 on the site).
13, 82–83 Θ]ετταλοὺς δὲ καὶ Φωκέας καὶ [Αἰ]τωλοὺς καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους
ἅπαντας τοὺς ἐν τῶι τόπωι. Neither the order of Hyperides’ list nor its
position in his narrative is historically accurate. Diod. Sic. 17.111.3 re-
ports that Leosthenes was in contact with the Aetolians prior toAlexan-
der’s death in June 323. Then, after the Aetolians agreed to join his
cause, he approached the Locrians and the Phocians and other nearby
peoples (Diod. Sic. 18.9.5). According to Diodorus’ account, all these
negotiations were conducted prior to the Athenian decree declaring
war. (Diod. Sic. 18.11.1 repeats that the Aetolians were the first to join
the alliance.) Diodorus’ source for Greek events in books 18 to 20 was
Hieronymus, and his narrative is generally accepted as trustworthy (see
Hornblower 1981, 32–40; Hamilton (1977) argues that Cleitarchus is
the source for Diodorus’ Greek narrative in book 17). Oikonomides
(1982, 124) dates IG II
2
367, which honors ambassadors sent from
Athens to conduct a treaty with the Phocians, to late October 323. The
alliance must have been forged within just a few months of Alexan-
der’s death. (See also p. 12 of the introduction. The precise date of the
agreement with the Aetolians is not certain.)
Both Phocis and Thessaly had reason not to join the alliance in 323.
Phocis had received aid from Athens in the third Sacred War against
[–§13] Commentary 79
the Amphictyonic League a generation earlier, in the 350s, but in 346
the Phocian general Phalaecus broke off ties with Athens. At the end of
the war Phocis was severely punished by the Amphictyony for its war
against Thebes and Athens condoned that settlement (see Harris 1995,
81–101).
Thessaly also had reason not to sympathize with the Greek revolt.
Although the koinon of Thessaly formed a short-lived alliance with
Athens in 361/360 (IG II
2
116 = Rhodes and Osborne 2003, no. 44;
see also Tracy 1995, 29), later internal strife provided an opportunity
for Philip to intervene in Thessalian politics in either 344 or 342, and
the Thessalian cavalry played an important role in Alexander’s army
during his Asian campaign (Bosworth 1988, 264). Perhaps Alexander’s
Exiles Decree in March 324 weakened the loyalty of the Thessalians
and contributed to their emerging antipathy toward the Macedonian
regime (Bosworth 1988, 227). Earlier, during the revolt of Agis in 331,
the Thessalians may have considered turning on Macedon, if we can
infer anything from an alleged boast of Demosthenes that he brought
about such a rebellion there (reported and rejected at Aesch. 3.167).
Hyperides does not specifically mention the Locrians, who also
joined the Athenian alliance in 323. The Eastern Locrians must have
been especially valuable allies, since East Locris commands the ap-
proach to the pass at Thermopylae and isolates the Boeotians to the
south, who sided with the Macedonians.
Loraux (1986, 170) singles out Hyperides for breaking all the rules
of the funeral oration by naming Athens’ allies and describing some of
the nontraditional techniques employed by the hoplite forces during the
siege operation at Lamia. But Dem. 60.22 criticizes the Theban allies
by name for their share in the defeat at Chaeronea. Loraux makes an
unconvincing attempt to explain away Lys. 2.49, which refers to sieges
and names the Corinthian allies (cf. also Lys. 2.67). The point in listing
the allies here, after presenting a narrative of the battle season, is to
portray Athens and Leosthenes as liberators of greater Greece. Funeral
orations regularly boasted of Athens’ efforts to save the other Greeks
in the mythological past and during the Persian Wars (see above, on
§5 under το]ὺς μὲν κακοὺ‹ς› κολάζο[υσα), and here Hyperides appro-
priates that motif and applies it to the present campaign. He presents
Athens as the savior of Greece in the conclusion of this list of allies by
presenting the eagerness of the other Greeks to aid the Athenian cause
as a contrast to their previous submission to the Macedonians.
84–86 καὶ ὧν . . . ἔλαβεν. These two clauses are closely parallel in rhythm
80 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§13–]
and structure. Both begin with correlative genitives (ὧν and τούτων)
and then continue with the two contrasted subjects, the Macedonians
and Leosthenes. The final portions of the two clauses, beginning with
the antithetical rhyming adverbs (ἀκόντων, “against their will,” and
ἑκόντων, “according to their will”), are identical in syllabic length
(parisosis, see Volkmann 1885, 482 and Smyth 3038), which is em-
phasized by the repetition of ἡγούμενοι (“commanded”) in ἡγεμονίαν
(“command”).
84–85 καὶ ὧν Φίλιππος καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος ἀκόντων ἡγούμενοι
ἐσεμνύνοντο. Lycurg. 41 uses the same verb, semnunein (“to
be proud”), to describe the pride Athens took in being free and
autochthonous before the defeat at Chaeronea. That passage of
Lycurgus’ speech is modeled after the state funeral orations and
praises those who died at Chaeronea. Hyperides may have known his
speech (see the note on §19 under στέφανον τῆι πατρίδ[ι), and may
be deliberately emphasizing the change in Athens’ fortune since the
defeat at Chaeronea (cf. the note on the simile in §5 as an answer to
Demosthenes’ pessimism).
14, 90 τῆς ὕστερον [γενομέ]νης μάχης. In early 322 the Greeks
abandoned the long siege of Lamia and engaged in battle with the
Macedonian general Leonnatus, who was coming to aid Antipater
in Lamia; see above p. 13. The Thessalian cavalry was particularly
effective in winning victory for the Greeks and killing Leonnatus
(Diod. Sic. 18.15.1–4). But despite their losses, the Macedonian troops
managed to reach Antipater and help him escape from the siege at
Lamia (Habicht 1997, 39). Hyperides’ speech was delivered early in
322 and he does not refer to the more significant battles of Abydus and
Crannon that took place in July (on which see Habicht 1997, 39–40).
15, 95 ὑπολάβη‹ι›. This verb frequently refers to incorrect assumptions
(LSJ, s.v. ὑπολαμβάνω III): “Nobody should (wrongly) assume. . . .”
Whitehead (2000, 450) collects parallel examples in the forensic
speeches of Hyperides.
97–103 ἐγκω[μιάζ]ειν . . . ἔπαινον . . . ἐγκώμιον . . . ἐπαιν[ῶ . . . ἐγ-
κωμ[ιάζ]ω. Throughout this section Hyperides alternates between two
different types of “praise”: egkmion (ἐγκωμιάζειν or ἐγκώμιον, here
translated as “eulogy”) and epainos (ἐπαινεῖν or ἔπαινος, translated as
“praise”). Arist. Rh. 1367b 28–32 distinguishes between these terms:
an epainos is praise for the quality of virtue (aret), while an egkmion
[–§17] Commentary 81
focuses on specific accomplishments. Hyperides’ usage is not so pre-
cise, in part because aret on the battlefield is exemplified in actual
deeds (see above on §3 under τὰς. . . ἀρετάς). Other funeral orations
refer to epainos (ἐπαινεῖν or ἔπαινος) almost exclusively (ἐγκωμιάζειν
or ἐγκώμιον occur elsewhere in the epitaphioi only at Pl. Mx. 235a,
237a and 241c). Hyperides’ repeated usage of egkmion (ἐγκωμιά-
ζειν or ἐγκώμιον at §7, §34 and probably §33) may be influenced by
the development of the prose genre of encomia praising contemporary
individuals (see the note on §3 under ἐπαινεῖν . . . τὸν δὲ στρατηγὸν
Λεωσθένη).
101–103 ὥστ]ε . . . ἐγκωμ[ιάσ]ω. Cobet suggests ὥστ’ ἐμ]ὲ . . . ἐγκω-
μ[ιάζει]ν (“so as for me to praise”), a consecutive clause with the in-
finitive (Smyth 2258). But the surviving trace of the first letter after the
lacuna in line 30 of the papyrus (i.e., the last letter of ἐγκωμ[ιάσ]ω)
does not suit a nu.
16, 105–106 τῆ[ς τῶ]ν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας. The slogan “freedom for
the Greeks” was a prominent rallying cry. Hyperides depicts the Greek
cooperation as a reincarnation of the alliance that defeated the Persians
in 480 and 479 (see the note on §12 under δι’ ὧν καὶ πρότερον κτλ) and
repeatedly links the concept of freedom with Athens’ leadership of a
panhellenic campaign in 323 (see §§9–10 with the note on §9 under τοῖς
ἄλλοις Ἕλλησιν; cf. also §10, §11, §16, §19, §24, §40). Lycurgus uses
similar language in 331 as he bemoans the loss of the “freedom of the
Greeks” at Chaeronea (Lycurg. 50). A later Athenian inscription also
refers to the war as an Athenian effort for “the freedom of the Greeks”
(IG II
2
467, ll.6–8). See also the note on §25 under τῆς αὐτονομίας.
17, 111–112 τὴν π]όλιν τῶν Θηβαίων. A revolt against Macedonian rule
erupted in Thebes in mid-335 when the city heard a rumor of Alexan-
der’s death. Many Athenians, including Demosthenes, supported the
rebels. But Alexander reacted before Athenian support arrived. In late
summer of 335 he quickly marched his army from Illyria to central
Greece as reinforcement for the Macedonian garrison already stationed
at Thebes. The leaders of the rebellion were unbowed, and Alexan-
der reduced the city. For narratives see Arr. An. 1.6.7–10.6, Diod. Sic.
17.8–15, Plut. Alex. 11–12, and Habicht 1997, 14–15. Aesch. 3.133
laments the city’s destruction, which he of course attributes to Demo-
sthenes’ failed policies.
The terms of punishment were determined by the synedrion of the
League of Corinth (under Alexander’s leadership). Arr. An. 1.9.9 de-
82 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§17–]
scribes four penalties: destruction of the city, the continued presence
of a Macedonian garrison at Thebes, enslavement of the Theban popu-
lation, and redistribution of Theban land to other Boeotians. The harsh
settlement was not dissimilar to Philip’s arrangements after the battle of
Chaeronea, when Theban prisoners were sold for ransom, other Boeo-
tian cities were restored, and the garrison was first put in place (see
Roebuck 1948, 77–80, Hammond et al. 1972–1988, II: 610–611 and
Buckler 2003, 506–507). Hyperides here specifically indicates that all
four of the punishments of 335 were still in effect in 322 (cf. Bosworth
1980, 90).
112 ἠφα]νισμένη ἐξ ἀνθρώπων. Babington compares Lys. 2.11 (ἐπειδὴ
Ἡρακλῆς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἠφανίσθη, “after Heracles was obliterated
from human society”) for his restoration. Isocrates provides two closer
parallels, in which he also uses a similar phrase with the perfect partici-
ple: Isoc. 5.108 and 8.113 (τὸ γένος . . . ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἠφανισμένον,
“the family was obliterated from human society” in both). In both pas-
sages he refers to the overthrow of Greek tyrants. Hyperides alludes to
these passages to emphasize the despotic nature of a potential Mace-
donian rule over Greece. Hyperides reminds the Athenians, who are so
proud of having deposed their own tyrants in the late sixth century (see
the note on §39 under Ἁρμόδιον καὶ Ἀριστογείτονα), that they have
now been reduced to seeing one of their own allies destroyed by such
a ruler.
112–113 τ[ὴν δὲ ἀ]κρόπολιν φρουρουμ[έ]ν[ην]. After the battle of
Chaeronea, Philip created a permanent Macedonian military station at
Thebes to safeguard his arrangements in central Greece. Together with
the “fetters of Greece” (see above on §11 under Εὐβοέας), these forts
secured Philip’s control of the entire Greek peninsula (on the forts
see Hammond et al. 1972–1988, II: 611–613). As this passage shows,
these garrisons were maintained throughout the period of Alexander’s
rule, and beyond. Sealey (1993, 207) suggests that the garrison at
Thebes was the primary deterrent to Athenian participation in Agis’
revolt in 331 (on the revolt see also p. 8 above), but Cawkwell (1969,
179) and Worthington (2000, 110 n. 37) doubt that the garrisons
were a major factor in the Athenian response. Regardless of its actual
strength, Hyperides resents the garrison as a symbol of the loss of
Greek freedom (on which see below on §25 under τῆς αὐτονομίας).
114 τὰ ‹δ›ὲ σώματα τῶν ἐνοικούντων ἐξηνδραποδισμένα. War cap-
tives were often enslaved and might be released for ransom. Pritchett
[–§18] Commentary 83
(1971–1991, V: 223–245) catalogues and discusses dozens of exam-
ples. Alexander spared only a few Thebans and enslaved some 30,000
captives, whomhe sold for 440 talents of silver; for sources and discus-
sion see Pritchett 1971–1991, V: 244 and Hammond et al. 1972–1988,
III: 65.
114–115 τὴν δὲ χώραν ἄλλους διανεμομένους. By supporting the other
states in Boeotia, Alexander weakened the influence of Thebes and won
future allies in the Lamian War; see the note on §11 under Βοιωτούς.
18, 119 ἔνδοξον. On Hyperides’ fondness for this adjective see the note
on §40 under ἐνδόξου.
123–124 ἀφικνούμενοι . . . εἰς [τὴν Π]υλαίαν θεωροὶ γενήσοντ[αι. In late
346 Philip assumed a seat on the Amphictyonic Council, much to the
distress of anti-Macedonian politicians in Athens such as Demosthe-
nes and Hyperides (see above p. 4). Now Hyperides depicts the fight
against Macedon as a sacred war to expel the Macedonians from the
Amphictyony (for further discussion see Mari 2003, 83–85).
Thermopylae was the original meeting place of the Delphic amph-
ictyony, as is indicated by the Greek terms for the meetings and the del-
egates, Pylaia and Pylagoroi (Πυλαία and πυλαγόροι, Harp. s.v. Πύλαι,
Dem. 18.147 and 151, IG II
2
1132.3 and 1163.2), and the geographic
distribution of the member states around Thermopylae (Lefèvre 1998,
6–7 provides maps). The biannual meetings of the council began at the
shrines of Demeter and Amphictyon at Anthela, just west of the pass
at Thermopylae, and then changed venue to the sanctuary of Apollo
at Delphi (on the meeting location and schedule see Lefèvre 1998,
193–204). The Delphic amphictyony was the most important of many
such political and religious alliances in ancient Greece. The league may
have originally formed to safeguard access to the pass at Thermopylae,
which was of vital economic and strategic importance to all the sur-
rounding states. For a general discussion of these unions see Ehrenberg
1969, 108–112. The early history of the amphictyony at Thermopylae
and then Delphi is discussed by Tausend (1992, 34–43). Sánchez (2001,
173–268) provides a detailed institutional history of the amphictyony
during the period of Macedonian involvement.
124 θεωροί. The word theros refers to the pilgrimage of state-sponsored
sacred delegates who invited guests to come to religious festivals or
sanctuaries, especially to Delphi or Delos, and also to those invited
guests who came to the festivals as spectators. Perlman (2001, 45–51)
84 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§18–]
gives a useful summary of the duties of the the theroi and their hosts
(therodokoi), based on abundant epigraphic evidence; she also pro-
vides a map of the routes the theroi from Delphi would follow in
Thessaly (76). Rutherford (2000, 133–138) categorizes various usages
of theros and related terms. Hyperides uses this term here to refer
specifically to the Greek delegates who attended the meetings of the
Delphic amphictyony. The usage reinforces the characterization of the
Lamian War as a sacred war (see previous note).
125–127 ἅμα . . . ἁθροισθήσονται . . . μνησθήσονται. These two clauses
are closely linked by the homoioteleuton (Volkmann 1885, 483 and
Smyth 3026) of the two final verbs and parisosis (cf. above on §13
under καὶ ὧν . . . ἔλαβεν).
19, 129–130 τὴν ἀρετὴν ἰσχὺν καὶ τὴν ἀνδρείαν πλῆθος . . . κρίνοντες.
Hyperides echoes Lycurgus’ description of the Athenian defeat at
Marathon: “they made it clear that courage is superior to wealth and
virtue to number” (Lycurg. 108: καταφανῆ ἐποίησαν τὴν ἀνδρείαν
τοῦ πλούτου καὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν τοῦ πλήθους περιγιγνομένην). See the
following note for another link between these two speeches.
As is typical in the epitaphioi (see Walters 1980, 4–6), Hyperides
may be distorting the historical record by suggesting that the Greeks
were outnumbered. At the start of the war the Greek forces were
probably comparable to the Macedonians at sea. Although the
Persian battle fleet of 240 ships outnumbered the Greeks, in 323
the majority of Persian ships were in Asia, and the Athenians were
optimistic—unrealistically, as it turned out—that they could build
up a comparable force of 240 ships with allied contributions (Diod.
Sic. 18.10.1–3, 18.12.2, and 18.15.8–9, following the interpretation
of Morrison (1987)). The Greeks were superior in number on land at
the start of the war (Diod. Sic. 18.12.4: οἱ μὲν Ἕλληνες . . . πολὺ τῶν
Μακεδόνων ὑπερέχοντες, “The Greeks . . . who far outnumbered the
Macedonians”; for further details, see Diod. Sic. 18.10.2 and 18.12.2)
until the Macedonian general Leonnatus arrived with reinforcements
during the winter (see Diod. Sic. 18.14.5 and cf. above p. 13).
Worthington (1999, 216) offers a detailed assessment of the forces on
each side at the beginning and end of the war (but his figure for the
Athenian naval force in 323 is too large: see Morrison 1987).
132–133 στέφανον τῆι πατρίδ[ι. Cf. Lycurg. 50: στέφανον τῆς πατρίδος,
“crown of the fatherland.” The evocative phrase appears only in these
two passages (in the TLG), and, given the parallel contexts, may sug-
[–§20] Commentary 85
gest that Hyperides knew Lycurgus’ work. The Lycurgan phrase comes
in the course of a mini-epitaphios in praise of those who sacrificed their
lives for Greek freedom at Chaeronea. Because they risked their indi-
vidual lives for the sake of the common freedom of the Greeks, their
souls are a crown for their fatherland. Both passages feature the com-
mon antithesis of private sacrifice for the public good, and Hyperides’ ἡ
ἐλευθερία εἰς τὸ κοινόν, “[they made] freedom a common possession,”
echoes Lycurgus’ κοινὴ ἐλευθερία, “common freedom.” Maas (1928,
260) suggests that the Lycurgus passage echoes Dem. 60.23, where the
virtue of the fallen is praised as being the soul of Greece. Hyperides
uses the motif to underline the Lamian War’s goal of recovering from
the defeat at Chaeronea.
20, 134–135 τί ἂν συμβῆναι νομίζοιμεν. The particle ἄν must modify the
infinitive in the contrary-to-fact condition. The optative verbs here and
at §22 (κρίνοιμεν, “we judge”) should be classified as potential opta-
tives, either with the particle ἄν modifying both the optative and the
infinitive apo koinou, or with the finite optative verb standing alone
without the particle. But the context seems to require a more declarative
sense than potential optatives usually have, as is reflected in the transla-
tion here (rather than “what would we suppose would have happened”
and in §22 “we would judge these expectations would be”). Graindor
(1898, 342) and Hess (1938, 65) list parallel examples of potential op-
tatives without ἄν, but Rennie (1940, 22) insists that those examples are
all scribal mistakes that “have been rightly emended.” Nevertheless, as
Graindor, Jensen, and Hess have concluded, these two occurrences of
the same syntactic phenomenon are unlikely to be scribal errors. Wor-
thington (1999, 216–217) more sensibly suggests we retain the opta-
tive and regard the usage as a “Hyperidean idiom.” Elsewhere Hype-
rides uses a potential optative without ἄν (Hyp. Phil. 10, διὰ τί γὰρ
τούτου φείσαισθε; “Why should you spare this man?”, discussed by
Salvaneschi 1972, 150–154), and Bers (1984, 134–135) observes the
frequency of the construction in the koin dialect and suggests that it
was colloquial in the fourth century. In other regards Hyperides seems
to reflect the emergence of koin; see belowon §34 under ἀκουσόντων.
Cf. also the note on §35 under ἆρ’ οὐκ ἂν ‹οἰ›όμεθα.
135 μὴ κατὰ τρόπον τούτων ἀγωνισαμένων. The participle serves
as the protasis of a contrafactual condition. This vivid picture of
what might have happened to Greece is unparalleled in the epitaphioi
(but cf. Lycurg. 60). Homer commonly uses conditions of the type
86 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§20–]
“now X would have happened if Y had not intervened” (e.g., Hom.
Il. 3.373–382) as plot-changing devices and also to emphasize a
situation or make an editorial comment on a character (on Homer’s
contrafactuals see Louden 1993; Nesselrath (1992) studies this device
in epic poetry more generally). Hyperides’ usage here emphasizes the
heroic action of the fallen and their service to Greece.
135 κατὰ τρόπον. For this sense of the prepositional phrase see LSJ, s.v.
τρόπος II.4.b.
138 συνελόντα δ’ εἰπεῖν. Or “to put it briefly.” Hyperides is the first to
use the accusative participle instead of the dative in this common idiom
(Pohle 1928, 93; LSJ s.v. συναιρέωI.2.b). Babington (appendix B) sug-
gests correcting the case to accord with earlier usage of the phrase, but
a similar phrase with the accusative at Hdt. 3.82.5 (ἐνὶ δὲ ἔπεϊ πάντα
συλλαβόντα εἰπεῖν, “to put it all together briefly”) justifies retaining the
papyrus reading. Hyperides’ verbal usage is occasionally more similar
to later writers than earlier (cf. the note below on §34 under ἀκουσόν-
των), and the idiom occurs regularly with the accusative in later writ-
ers, especially in scholia and commentaries (e.g., scholion ap. Hom.
Od. 13.429).
138 τὴν Μακεδόνων ὑπερηφανίαν. Pl. Mx. 240d, describing the bat-
tle of Marathon, speaks of the “insolence of all Asia” (ὑπερηφανία
ὅλης Ἀσίας). In this oration Hyperides avoids dwelling upon the Per-
sian Wars, so prominent in other epitaphioi, and assimilates the topoi
that recur in Athenian treatments of the Persian Wars to the present
conflict with Macedon. For discussion, see above p. 23.
The termὑπερηφανία, “insolence,” here refers to the enemy’s over-
confidence. In general the term expresses moral condemnation and is
often linked with hybris (MacDowell 1990, 302–303 on Dem. 21.83).
Here there is also a sense of coercion, reinforced by ὑπήκοον, “sub-
ject,” and ἐξ ἀνάγκης, “forced” in the previous sentence.
138–139 τὴν . . . ὑπερηφανίαν . . . μὴ τὴν . . . δύναμιν. This section of the
speech is especially full of pointed antitheses such as this. See below
on §24 under ἰδίαν . . . κοινήν.
138 Μακεδόνων. Macedonians, though native Greek speakers, were of-
ten characterized as foreign barbaroi by Demosthenes and his polit-
ical allies. Hall (2001) surveys the ancient and modern debate as to
whether the Macedonians were Greeks. He reasonably suggests that
in the fourth-century criteria such as language and genealogy mattered
[–§20] Commentary 87
less to the Greeks than cultural practice, and that these varied crite-
ria could be manipulated to argue that the Macedonians were or were
not Greek. Badian (1982) argues that Demosthenes’ characterization of
Philip as a barbarian (e.g., Dem. 3.17, 19.271) is an accurate reflection
of the general Greek attitude at that time, and Borza (1996) has corrob-
orated his findings with an analysis of how ancient writers distinguish
Macedonians from Greeks.
However he was perceived in Athens, Philip clearly wanted to be
thought of as a Greek, and by reviving earlier accounts that the Mac-
edonian kings descended from Argos, he provided genealogical evi-
dence for his claim. He also took advantage of his Olympic victory
of 356 to advertise his devotion to philhellenic culture, by building the
Philippeion in Olympia and minting a coin series featuring Zeus Olym-
pios and a victorious jockey (no. 16 in Yalouris et al. 1980). After the
battle of Chaeronea these Hellenic aspirations took on an increasing po-
litical significance, when Philip formed the League of Corinth to sup-
port his planned panhellenic campaign against Persia (see above p. 7),
a plan that was carried out after his death by Alexander. By presenting
the Macedonians as barbarians in this speech (§38), Hyperides justifies
the Greek revolt in 323. The characterization is also rhetorically effec-
tive, since it allows the orator to mold his account of the Lamian War
after treatments of the great war against the Persian barbaroi.
140–141 ὥστε . . . καθεστάναι. Sauppe keeps the papyrus reading of
ovtxXttt:ouc and prints ἂν ἐκλείπτους. The adjective ἔκλειπτος
is otherwise unattested, but it is easy to make sense of it meaning
“lacking,” as the opposite of ἀνέκλειπτος, and it should be retained.
Other editors print ἀνεκλείπτους, an adjective that is quite common
in post-classical Greek (and occasionally found in the classical
period: Alc. fr. 305.13 and Hecat. Abd. fr. 25.1360), but its meaning,
“uninterrupted,” is the opposite of what is required after the negative
conjunction μηδέ. Those who prefer ἀνεκλείπτους must also make
extensive, and unnecessary, emendations elsewhere in the clause (see
appendix B).
140–141 μήτε γυνα‹ι›κῶν μήτε παρθένων μηδὲ παίδων ὕβρ‹ε›ις. Hybris
can refer to a wide range of arrogant, offensive, or violent behavior
and attitudes. For general discussions see Fisher 1992 and MacDowell
1976.
It was regularly used as a term for sexual violence perpetrated with
the intent of humiliating victims and their families. Harris (2004b) ex-
88 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§20–]
plains “the differences between the ancient idea of hybris and the mod-
ern concept of rape”: rape refers to the victim’s lack of consent, whereas
hybris “looks partly at the intention of the aggressor, partly at the ef-
fect on the honor of the victim and her relatives” (319). Violent sexual
assaults were considered typical behavior of a tyrant. At Hdt. 3.80.5
Otanes criticizes the institution of monarchy, because one character-
istic of a king is that he, among other things, “forces women” (βι-
ᾶται γυναῖκας). Several other passages are collected and discussed
by Fisher (1992, 104–111) and Doblhofer (1994, 34–40). The addi-
tion of μηδὲ παίδων, “even every child,” emphasizes the savage bru-
tality of the Macedonians, which is also attested elsewhere. Pritchett
(1971–1991, V: 238–242) describes the types of suffering that befell
defeated women and children, with specific examples of Macedonian
treatment of the captives from Olynthus and Thebes (cf. Din. 1.23–24
and Dem. 19.193–198, 305–306, 309).
Hyperides encourages his audience to support the war against Mac-
edon by warning them that the Macedonians have no respect for Greek
cultural norms (cf. Cohen (1991, 174–175) on sexual violence as “a
transgression of social norms” perpetrated by a tyrant or an enemy at
war), whether sexual or religious (for the latter see Hyperides’ next
sentence with the following notes on §21). Hyperides again praises the
fallen for protecting the women of Greece in §36.
21, 142 ἐξ ὧν ἀναγκαζόμεθα κτλ. Hyperides refers to the unprecedented
honors bestowed upon Philip and Alexander throughout Greece (τὴν
Ἑλλάδα, §20). Perhaps already in the early 350s Philip was being wor-
shiped in Amphipolis, as is stated by second-century AD orator Aelius
Aristides (38, p. 480), who says that there “they sacrificed to him as a
god” (ἔθυον ὡς θεῶι) at the time of Philip’s capture of that city in late
357 (Habicht 1970, 12–13; Fredricksmeyer 1979, 50–51). Later, an in-
scription of 332 from Eresus on Lesbos refers to altars of Zeus Philip-
pios, which were erected there, probably in 336 (Rhodes and Osborne
2003, no. 83 ii.4–5). But it is more likely that Philip was presented as
a mortal championed by Zeus, not as a divine manifestation of the god
(Badian 1996, 13; cf. Habicht 1970, 14–15 and Fredricksmeyer 1979,
51–52).
For Athens there is one late piece of evidence for the worship of
Philip. Clement of Alexandria, a second-century AD convert to Chris-
tianity, in a catalogue of deified mortals reports that the Athenians
voted to worship (προσκυνεῖν) Philip (Clem. Al. Protr. 4.54.5). The
source is unreliable: see Badian 1981, 67–71.
[–§21] Commentary 89
We have contemporary evidence for the possibility of a cult of
Alexander in Athens. In the fall of 324, there was debate over whether
Alexander was to be declared a god. From Athenaeus (6.251b) we
hear that Demades brought such a proposal to the Athenian Assem-
bly. (There is no evidence that Alexander demanded divine orders: see
Badian 1996, 26.) Both of the surviving speeches prosecuting Demos-
thenes for his role in the Harpalus affair discuss the orator’s role in this
debate (Din. 1.94; Hyp. Dem. 31). Despite his objections Demosthe-
nes seems to have grudgingly acquiesced in the worship of Alexander,
but we should note the ironic tone in his famous remark that Alexan-
der could be called the son of Zeus and Poseidon too if he likes (Hyp.
Dem. 31). The debate is best discussed by Badian (1981, 54–59) (whom
Parker 1996, 256–258 follows), who points out that the cult of Alexan-
der, if it was in fact instituted in Athens, “did not survive long enough
to leave any traces we could expect to recognize” (55). Badian (1996,
25–26) revisits the question and suggests that the Athenians set up
a portrait statue that depicted Alexander as a god, but they did not
adopt actual cult worship. Whitehead (2000, 455–457) and Worthing-
ton (1992, 262–264) summarize the large bibliography on this issue.
The present passage provides the most explicit indication of Hyperi-
des’ attitude to the worship of Alexander.
142 ἔ[στ]ι. The initial letter is slightly more likely an epsilon than an eta,
and the lacuna is too large for ἤ[δη, “already” (Sauppe) or ἔ[τι “still”
(Kayser). Only a small trace of the top of the final character survives.
143–144 ἀγάλμα[τα δὲ] καὶ βωμοὺς . . . ἀμελῶς. The rites of the gods
are neglected, while Philip and Alexander improperly receive the at-
tentions that should rightfully be devoted to divinities. In a similar
vein, the orator Lycurgus accuses Leocrates of fleeing fromAthens af-
ter Chaeronea as if he believed that the entire city had been abandoned
and “the temples were empty” (Lycurg. 38).
Hyperides’ terminology emphasizes that the Athenians were treat-
ing the Macedonians as immortal gods. Isoc. 9.57 describes the statues
of the Athenian general Conon and Evagoras, the king of Cyprus, as
eikones, which he contrasts with statues of Zeus Soter in the Agora
of Athens, which were agalmata. These agalmata, just like the altars
and temples mentioned here, should honor gods, not mortals (see Nock
1972, 241–244). The linguistic distinction was carefully maintained.
In the literary and epigraphic testimonia from the agora, agalmata are
always divine figures. Conversely, honorary dedications (Price (1984,
90 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§21–]
177) observes that the word eikon may refer to “a statue, a bust, a tondo
or a painting”) are never referred to with this term. Similarly, both Pau-
sanias and Athenian honorary decrees of all periods meticulously rec-
ognize this precise meaning of agalma (Stroud and Lewis 1979, 193;
cf. Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 54). Much later, when the Roman em-
perors came to be routinely deified, their statues were referred to as
agalmata (Price 1984, 176–179).
Were the representations of Philip or Alexander in Athens con-
sidered to be agalmata or eikones? The evidence is not strong. Paus.
1.9.4 refers to statues of both in the Agora without using a specific
noun (Φίλιππός τε καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Φιλίππου κεῖνται, “Philip and
Alexander are placed . . . ”). Clement of Alexandria (see previous note
on this section) refers to worship of Philip in the sanctuary of Heracles
at Cynosarges, south of the Athenian Acropolis, and Fredricksmeyer
(1979, 49–50) suggests that an agalma of Philip was put on display
there as a σύνναος θεοῦ, a “partner of the god.” But Badian (1981,
70–71) more plausibly suggests that the statue was a common hon-
orary dedication and not an object of worship, and that it was likely the
same work that Pausanias later saw in the Agora.
Outside of Athens (Hyperides refers to all of Greece; §20: τὴν Ἑλ-
λάδα, “Greece”), of course, there is the famous Philippeion in the pan-
hellenic sanctuary for Zeus at Olympia, begun by Philip after the battle
of Chaeronea (Paus. 5.20.9) and completed by Alexander after his fa-
ther’s death in 336. This building featured statues not only of Philip
and Alexander, but also Philip’s parents and wife. Pausanias refers to
the images of Olympias and Eurydice in the Philippeion as eikones, but
does not explicitly label the statues of Philip, Alexander, and Amyntas
as either eikones or agalmata. Miller (1973, 191) reasonably interprets
the Philippeion as a sort of statue garden, rather than a hero shrine.
Fredricksmeyer (1979, 58) speculates that “at the Philippeum Philip
suggested and approximated his deification but stopped just short of
actually introducing it formally as a cult.” The statues were made of
gold and ivory, and are the earliest known use of chryselephantine ma-
terial for mortals, but Lapatin (2001, 117–118) rightly cautions against
reading too much into this fact and adds that “there is no evidence that
chryselephantine materials alone signified divinity.”
To summarize, there is ample evidence that Philip and Alexander
hinted at their divinity and perhaps encouraged cultic worship, but it is
very unlikely that any formal cult existed in Athens in 322.
144 τοῖ[ς μὲν] θεοῖς ἀμελῶς, τοῖς δὲ ἀνθρώπο[ις] ἐπιμελῶς. The an-
[–§23] Commentary 91
tithesis between gods and men is reinforced by repeated word endings
(homoioteleuton, Volkmann 1885, 483 and Smyth 3026) and sounds
(parechesis, Volkmann 1885, 515 and Smyth 3037; cf. above on §18
under ἅμα . . . ἁθροισθήσονται . . . μνησθήσονται).
145–146 [τ]οὺς ‹τού›των οἰκ‹έ›τας ὥσπερ ἥρωας τιμᾶν. The most fa-
mous example of a divinely honored associate of the Macedonian rulers
was Alexander’s closest companion, Hephaestion (discussed by Bick-
erman (1985, 473–478) and Habicht (1970, 29–34)). After his friend’s
death in Ecbatana in October 324 Alexander asked of the oracle of
Zeus Ammon in Siwah that Hephaestion be honored as a πάρεδρος,
literally “cochair” of the god, or a hero (Diod. Sic. 17.115.6, Arr. An.
7.23.6; Bickerman 1985, 481–482). Hyperides’ description here con-
firms that Arrian was correct to describe the honors as hero worship,
and this passage also demonstrates that these honors spread quickly
in the Greek world (Treves 1939; Cawkwell (1994, 299–300) explains
that the Greeks were “inescapably obliged by ... religious attitudes”
(300) to follow the oracle at Siwah, regardless of their attitude toward
Alexander). The reference to a member of the king’s court as a slave
is typical of Greek views of the royal entourage at this time. The privi-
leged members of Alexander’s court, who were often given heroic hon-
ors, were depicted as flatterers, parasites, or sometimes even slaves, as
here (Price 1984, 32–36). Not until the third century did these friends of
the court come to be identified by their titles instead of such pejorative
characterizations (Herman 1980–1981).
22, 146–148 ὅπου δὲ τὰ πρὸς ‹τοὺς› θεοὺς ὅσια . . . τί τὰ πρὸς τοὺς
ἀνθρώπους χρὴ νομίζειν. Hyperides suggests that the decay in reli-
gious morality under Philip and Alexander would inevitably lead to
widespread social decay too. He has already forecast Macedonian dis-
ruption of Greek social norms with his warning regarding sexual vio-
lence in §21, and now he pairs human and divine morality in order to
emphasize that the Macedonians threaten all aspects of Greek culture.
On the close relationship between the laws of the gods and the laws of
men see Harris 2004a, 51–56 and Parker 1983, 170.
150 κρίνοιμεν. See above, on §20 under τί ἂν συμβῆναι νομίζοιμεν.
23, 153–158 ἐν ἧι . . . ‹ὑπο›μεμ‹ε›νηκένα‹ι›. The various hardships the sol-
diers endured are summarized in an ascending tricolon in which each
of the three members expands upon its predecessor. The first limb (ἐν
ἧι . . . ἦ‹ν›, “during which . . . go into battle every day”) briefly refers
92 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§23–]
to their daily toils; the second (πλείους . . . χρόνωι, “fight more battles
. . . times gone by”) emphasizes the continuous battles and invokes a
comparison with past campaigns; the third and longest limb (χειμώ-
νων . . . ‹ὑπο›μεμ‹ε›νηκένα‹ι›, “to endure harsh storms . . . ”) praises
the men’s tolerance and strength. The trials of the campaign are a com-
mon rhetorical trope (e.g., A. A. 559–566 and Pl. Sym. 219e–220b) for
praising soldiers.
24. Rusten (1986) analyzes a similar passage in Thucydides’ funeral
oration. In that passage (Thuc. 2.42.4) Rusten considers Thucydides’
description of the progression of the soldiers’ decision. First they con-
sciously decided to enter battle, recognizing the glory to be won there
in victory. Then they put aside consideration of their own future and
devoted themselves wholly to the matter at hand. Finally they put more
importance on a glorious death than cowardly flight, and consented to
sacrifice their lives. Here, the progression is not as detailed as at Thuc.
2.42.4, but nonetheless the same sequence of thought is apparent. The
citizens first decided to submit (ὑπομεῖναι, “to endure,” cf. Thuc. loc.
cit. ὑπέμειναν, “endured”) themselves to battle and then consciously
choose death to preserve Greek freedom. Dem. 60.26 also presents the
same sequence.
163–164 διὰ τὴν τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀπόδειξιν . . . ἀτυχεῖς. The pair of clauses,
διὰ . . . εὐτυχεῖς (“fortunate because of their display of virtue”) and διὰ
. . . ἀτυχεῖς (“unfortunate because of their loss of life”), are balanced by
parallel structure (paromoiosis, see Volkmann 1885, 482, Smyth 3039).
Furthermore, the parallelism is reinforced by repetition of the prepo-
sition διά at the beginning of each clause, each of which governs a
rhyming abstract noun of identical length compounded with ἀπό; then
both clauses end with antithetical compound adjectives formed on the
same stem (see Fehling 1969, 243–244 on this sentence with parallel
examples of repetitive compounds). This sort of stiff symmetry, with
its sometimes cloying figures, was characteristic of Gorgias, and the
epideictic genre in general. On Gorgias and Gorgianic encomia, see
Denniston 1952, 10–12 and MacDowell 1982, 17–19. Pritchett (1975,
98–101) discusses and illustrates individual Gorgianic figures and Cole
(1991, 71–74) provides a stylistic analysis of the extensive fragment of
Gorgias’ Funeral Oration (Gorg. fr. B6) that emphasizes its “stiff for-
mality” and “balanced echoing sentence structure” (73), stylistic ten-
dencies that are prominent in all of the surviving examples of the genre.
Bons (2007) provides a recent account of Gorgias’ role in the sophistic
[–§25] Commentary 93
movement, with a focus on argumentation rather than prose style.
166 ἰδίαν . . . κοινήν. This antithesis is common throughout the
epitaphioi (e.g., Thuc. 2.42.2, Pl. Mx. 236d, Lys. 2.44, Dem. 60.10).
In the Menexenus, where the pairing occurs most frequently, there is
a distinction in meaning between (1) Athens in contrast to the rest
of Greece and (2) the Athenian soldiers in contrast to their civilian
fellow-citizens (Tsitsiridis 1998, 181). In this speech both senses
are also present, with this passage distinguishing the soldiers from
the other Athenian citizens, while the adjectives are used in §5 and
§19 to distinguish Athens as a collective whole from the rest of
Greece. Kemmer (1903, 121 and 170–173) catalogues numerous
other Attic prose examples of the ἴδιος/κοινός (“private/shared”) and
ἴδιος/δημόσιος (“private/public”) antitheses.
25, 168 τῆς αὐτονομίας. Hyperides’ next sentence makes it clear that au-
tonomia refers to the political constitution of Athens. In this context of
a war against external domination, eleutheria, “freedom” (see above on
§16 under τῆ[ς τῶ]ν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας) refers to freedom from ex-
ternal rule, while autonomia, “independence” is a subordinate concept
describing the city’s ability to maintain its own internal government;
for discussion and further bibliography see Raaflaub 2004, 156–157.
As a koin eirn, the League of Corinth guaranteed freedom and au-
tonomy to member states (cf. Ryder 1965, 103 and 151, Rhodes and
Osborne 2003, 377), but with Alexander as the hgemn of the coun-
cil this provision was a dead letter (for a recent study of this issue see
Jehne 1994, 166–197, who emphasizes the importance of the Persian
campaign for the emergence of Philip and Alexander’s role as leaders
of the league). Dem. 17.8 provides an earlier parallel of an Athenian
advocate for rebellion decrying the loss of freedom and independence
under Alexander. That earlier complaint probably belongs to a debate
on Agis’ revolt in 331 (Sealey 1993, 240, Cawkwell 1961, 74–75), and
may also have been written by Hyperides (Lib. Arg.D. or. 17). See also
the note on §16 under τῆ[ς τῶ]ν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας.
168 ο‹ὐ› γὰρ ἀνδρὸς ἀπειλὴν ἀλλὰ νόμου φωνὴν κτλ. The sentiment of
Hyp. fr. 214 =Rut. Lup. 2.6 is closely related: non enimsimile est vivere
in aequa civitate, ubi ius legibus valeat, et devenire sub unius tyranni
imperium, ubi singularis libido dominetur. Sed necesse est aut legibus
fretum meminisse libertatis, aut unius potestati traditum quotidianam
commentari servitutem, “life in a just state, where the law prevails, is
not at all like submission to the rule of one ruler, where an individual’s
94 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§25–]
desire reigns. We must trust in the law and be mindful of our freedom,
or hand ourselves over to one man’s command and complain of our
slavery every day.” The pride in an aequa civitas, “just state,” is well
illustrated in the simile of §5. This passage of the funeral oration was
evidently often quoted: Stobaeus also cites it (see apparatus). Its neat
contrast between the rule of one and the rule of the lawis particularly at
home in this oration, in which Hyperides repeatedly characterizes the
Macedonian kings as tyrants (e.g., §20 and §40).
168–172 νόμου φωνήν . . . νόμων πίστει. The rule of law was a cen-
tral tenet in Athenian democratic ideology. The nomoi, “laws,” were
seen as a basic element of a free society. All Athenian men swore
the Ephebic oath as young men, in which they vowed to obey and de-
fend the laws of Athens (the oath is preserved in a mid-fourth-century
inscription, Rhodes and Osborne 2003, no. 88 i.5–20; a literary ver-
sion is quoted by Pollux and Stobaeus; Harding 1985, no. 109 trans-
lates all three), and citizen judges in the courts swore to vote in accor-
dance with established laws, which were more authoritative than the
orders of a single individual (And. 1.91; Harris (2004a, 58–59) con-
trasts “established laws” with the orders of a tyrant). The rule of law
protected the people in a democracy, and the existence of law distin-
guished democracy from tyranny, where the ἀνδρὸς ἀπειλή, “a man’s
threat,” held sway. The funeral orations regularly emphasize the im-
portance of law as a guarantor of democratic equality and the rights
of individuals (Thuc. 2.37.1, Lys. 2.18–19; cf. Harris 2004a, 41–42),
and in this speech the despotic rule of the Macedonians is pointedly
contrasted with the rule of law (here and §20; the same antithesis also
appears at Eur. Supp. 429–437).
169–171 αἰτίαν . . . διαβάλλουσιν. αἰτία, “accusation,” and διαβολή,
“slander,” are regularly linked (hendiadys), and the negative con-
notation of the latter rubs off on the former to give it the sense of
“ungrounded accusation” (Yunis 2001, 110–111). Here that sense is
intensified by the contrast with ἔλεγχον, “proof.” Whitehead (2000,
396) notes other collocations of “accusations” and “slanders” in
Hyperides.
170 τοῖς κολακεύουσιν. Hyperides repeatedly uses this verb and the cog-
nate noun κολακεία, “flattery,” to denounce any advocate of Macedon
as a toady (see Whitehead 2000, 216–217 on Hyp. Eux. 19; cf. also
Hyp. Eux. 20 and 23).
[–§27] Commentary 95
26, 173 πόνους πόνων. Polyptoton is the repetition of one word in
different cases. Usher (1999, 20) observes that this rhetorical figure
is more common in tragedy than prose, and Worthington (1999,
219–220) compares Eur. And. 802–803: κακὸν κακῶι διάδοχον, “evil
after evil.” Mastronarde (2002, 96) collects other tragic examples; see
Fehling 1969, 37–39 for further discussion. Such poeticisms are at
home in epideictic poetry and are quite common in this speech (see the
note on the simile in §5 and on §40 under ὢ καλῆς μὲν καὶ παραδόξου
τόλμης κτλ).
27, 177–179 πατέρε‹ς› . . . παῖδες. Hyperides’ funeral oration is the
only one that refers to the family members of the deceased during the
epainos section of the oration. Others address the surviving family
members, usually at much greater length, at the end of the oration, in
the final consolation (the παραμυθία, Thuc. 2.44–45, Lys. 2.75–76, Pl.
Mx. 246d–249c, Dem. 60.32–37). The failure to address the widows
in this speech is also unusual, and this passage is the only one in the
epitaphioi to refer to the subjects’ sisters.
177 ἔνδοξοι. On this adjective see below on §40 under ἐνδόξου.
179 ἐννόμως. The reference to lawful marriages is an emphatic contrast
with the sexual violence that Hyperides feared from Macedonian rulers
(see the note on §20 under μήτε γυνα‹ι›κῶν μήτε παρθένων μηδὲ παί-
δων ὕβρ‹ε›ις).
179 ἐφόδιον. Literally “means, provisions” for a trip or journey. This is
a favorite metaphor of Hyperides’ (Whitehead (2000, 216) discusses
examples at Hyp. Eux. 19 and Hyp. Dem. 40; cf. also Hyp. fr. 219a)
and his usage anticipates a common idiom of the Hellenistic and Ro-
man periods. The meaning seems to be something like an “asset for”
a particular situation, or perhaps an “introduction to” something. The
earliest such usage is from the early fifth century, in a fragment of the
comic poet Epicharmus: εὐσεβὴς βίος μέγιστον ἐφόδιον θνατοῖς ἐστιν,
“a pious life is the greatest asset for mortals” (Epich. fr. 261). Then the
metaphorical usage emerges again after 350, both in Hyperides and also
at Dem. 34.35. For later examples and further discussion, see Gromska
1927, 64 and Pohle 1928, 72.
180 ε[ὔνοι]αν. Cobet’s restoration is likely correct, since Hyperides fre-
quently refers to the goodwill of the dmos (Hyp. Dem. 29, Hyp. Phil.
7 with Whitehead 2000, 59–60). Eunoia regularly describes an indi-
vidual’s patriotic loyalty to the state and was a “cardinal virtue” in
96 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§27–]
the fourth century (Whitehead 1993, 52–54) and was often paired with
aret. The phrase πρὸς τὸν δῆμον (“of the people”) may echo fourth-
century honorary decrees: Veligianni-Terzi (1997, 218–219) collects
examples of the phrase ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα καὶ εὐνοίας τῆς εἰς τὸν δῆμον
τὸν Ἀθηναίων (“because of virtue and good will toward the Athenian
people”) in Athenian inscriptions (e.g., IG II
2
448 = Schwenk 1985,
407–418 no. 83 (lines 13–14), from the same year as this speech). Here
and later in this speech (§42) Hyperides describes a reciprocal obliga-
tion that the city owed the children of the dead because of their fathers’
public contribution.
The Athenian state financially supported war orphans (Lys. frr.
128–129 (P. Hib. 14) and SEG 28.46 (Harding 1985, 13–15 no. 8);
see also Thuc. 2.46.1, Pl. Mx. 249a, Arist. Ath. 24.3). The orphans
were displayed to the entire city at the beginning of the City Dionysia,
dressed in full armor as they undertook their Ephebic service. The
practice may have originated with Solon (D. L. 1.55 is followed by
Stroud (1971, 288)) and continued in the fourth century. Aeschines
describes this honorable custom as a thing of the past (Aesch.
3.154–155; cf. Isoc. 8.82), which he contrasts with the proposed
crowning of Demosthenes at the Dionysia. But his rhetorical purpose
is to emphasize the inappropriate award for Demosthenes, and this
passage of the Funeral Oration (together with §42) suggests that state
support for war orphans continued at least until 322. For a discussion
of the evidence and the administration of the practice see Stroud 1971,
288–290.
183 τάξιν. The military metaphor describes the dead holding an “eternal
post” in the afterlife. Dem. 60.34 uses the same metaphor to describe
the dead among the islands of the blessed. The funeral orations min-
imize reference to immortality; see the note on §43 under ‹εἰκὸς›. . .
ἐπιμελείας ‹καὶ κηδεμονίας› ὑπὸ τοῦ δαιμονίου τυγχάνειν.
28, 185 ἀρχηγός. The word archgos (“foundation, cause, beginning”)
is synonymous with archgets, a technical term for the founder of a
family or race. Here, before his unusual description of Leosthenes in the
afterworld (§§35–40), Hyperides boldly describes the soldiers’ death as
a new birth. His use of archgos, with its connotations of origins and
foundations, reinforces that assertion.
187 ἐξ ἀρχῆς. The phrase here has the sense of “anew” or “again” (LSJ,
s.v. ἀρχή notes only Ar. Pl. 221 for this meaning).
[–§30] Commentary 97
189 ἄνδρες ἀγαθοὶ γεγόνασι. On this phrase see the note on §8 under
ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί γ[ίγνων]ται.
29, 190–192 ἀρετὴν . . . ἀνδραγαθίαν. On the distinction between these
overlapping terms see the note on §40 under ἀρετῆς καὶ ἀνδραγαθίας.
191 †αξαθαι. The papyrus offers the senseless reading oço0ot, which
appears to be corrected from an original reading, also meaningless, of
oço0gv. Most editors have supplied an indicative verb to govern the in-
finitive γεγονέναι (“become”). Cobet’s ‹ὑπάρχει εὐθὺς› (“they can im-
mediately”) seems most elegant (for other suggestions see appendix B).
Alternatively, others have preferred to emend the corrupt form here to
an infinitive, either ἄρξασθαι (“to begin”) or ἀξιωθῆναι (“to deserve”),
and then either emend γεγονέναι to an indicative form (Babington), or
else posit a lacuna at the end of the sentence that could provide the main
verb for the sentence (Blass).
30, 193 τίς ‹γὰρ› κα‹ι›ρὸς κτλ. Hypophora is a rhetorical figure in which
the speaker asks a series of rhetorical questions and then provides an-
swers for them. Volkmann (1885, 492–494) and Usher (1999, index s.v.
hypophora) note several examples from the orators. Hyperides is very
fond of the device and employs it above at §6 and §§20–23; cf. also
Hyp. Phil. 10. Here the rhetorical questions emphasize that the dead
will always be celebrated everywhere (cf. Lys. 2.74, a close parallel).
196–198 ἀλλά . . . ἀλλ’ . . . ἀλλ’ . Denniston (1954, 10–11) discusses the
use of the particle ἀλλά to introduce various alternatives as the speaker
holds a dialogue with himself. In §6 Hyperides used ἀλλά to introduce
the answer to his own question, but here it emphatically prefaces both
question and answer.
196–198 τοῖς τῆς πόλεως ἀγαθοῖς . . . ταῖς ἰδίαις εὐπραξίαις. The de-
scription of the private and public rewards for the city and its citizens
is unparalleled in the other epitaphioi. Thucydides describes the sacri-
fice of the fallen soldiers as an ἔρανος, “contribution” (Thuc. 2.43.1).
The reference to both public and private benefits amplifies the praise
at §26, εἰς τὸ ἄλλους καλῶς ζῆν, “so that others could live well.” The
substantive adjective ἀγαθοῖς is neuter here; forensic speeches regu-
larly use the phrase τὰ τῆς πόλεως ἀγαθά to refer to “the prosperity
of the city” (Lys. 12.47, Dem. 18.323 and 24.155, Din. 3.22).
199 ἀπολαύσομεν. For the active usage of this verb see the note on
§34 under ἀκουσόντων. Hyperides uses several future active forms for
98 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§30–]
verbs that are typically future deponents during the classical period.
31–34. More than half of the right portion of the entire column is miss-
ing. The text cannot be recovered with any certainty; numerous recon-
structions by earlier editors are listed in the apparatus and appendix B.
We do not know how wide the column was, and the scribe writes much
more densely in the last columns of the manuscript. I have indicated
that about twelve characters are missing at the end of each line, but
even that assumption is highly uncertain. Much of the general sense
seems clear: Hyperides details the benefits the fallen have bestowed
upon the Athenians, distinguishing the latter into age groups. First he
probably refers to the elder citizens and the secure life they will enjoy
(col. 11.1–6 =200–202). Then he turns to the soldiers’ peers, who can live
without fear (6–11 = 202–204), and the young Athenians, who will ben-
efit from the good example set by the dead (11–19 = 204–207). Next the
orator probably refers to the praise the soldiers will receive in speeches
and songs (cf. Lys. 2.3 and Pl. Mx. 239c), which will be comparable
to the songs sung of the Trojan campaign (20–30 = 207–211). Finally the
speech emphasizes how pleasant and profitable it will be to recall the
valor of the fallen (30–12.6 = 211–219).
31, 200 ποία‹ι› . . . γενήσο[νται. The interrogative adjective and the fu-
ture tense continue the hypophora from the previous section.
200–205 ἡλικιῶν . . . ἡλικιώτ[αις . . . νεωτέρο[ις. Again, the sense contin-
ues from the previous section. In section §30 the orator surveyed vari-
ous benefits the dead provided to Greece and Athens. Now he divides
those who received these favors into age groups (cf. Lycurg. 144). At
col. 11.2 (201) editors plausibly restore τοῖς γ[εραιτέρους (“those older,”
Sauppe), τοῖς π[ρεσβυτέροις (“the elders,” Cobet) or τοῖς γ[έρουσιν
(“the aged,” Babington) to complete the division into elders, peers, and
juniors. The remaining traces of the last letter of col. 11.2 (201) could
be read either as a gamma or a pi.
201 α[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
] βίον. Editors restore τὸν λοιπὸν] βίον, “their remain-
ing life,” most with some form of the verb ἄγειν, “to lead,” to govern
it. For example: ἄ]φοβον ἄ[ξουσιν τὸν λοιπὸν] βίον (Sauppe), “They
[the elders?] will live the rest of their lives without fear” as a result of
the sacrifice of the fallen soldiers.
202 γεγενῆσ[θαι
. . . . . . . . .
. The left half of the final character of col. 11.5
(202) is curved, and well suits a sigma (Jensen, Blass), but not a mu
(Babington, Cobet) or a tau (Sauppe). The infinitive should certainly
[–§32] Commentary 99
be read, probably with a verb to govern it in the following lacuna. For
example, Blass proposes γεγενῆσ[θαι ἡγήσονται, “They [the elders?]
will be confident that [their life?] has been made ...”
202–203 παρὰ τοῖς] ἡλικιώτ[αις. The restoration of παρὰ τοῖς (“among”)
is based on col. 11.1–2 (200–201), where the papyrus preserves the last
part of the preposition and the article in the parallel phrase “among
their elders” (whatever restoration is accepted for “elders”; see the note
above under ἡλικιῶν . . . ἡλικιώτ[αις . . . νεωτέρο[ις.
203
. . . . . . . . .
] τελευτη
.
[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. A relative or demonstrative pronoun
likely introduces a new clause here, connecting the dead to their peers
(τοῖς ἡλικιώταις). The last character of col. 11.8 (203) is curved, pos-
sibly a phi (Radermacher), an alpha (Sitzler), a sigma (Kayser 1868),
or even an omega. The noun τελευτή (“death”) may be followed by
another noun or adjective, but the participle τελευτήσαντες (“dying”)
is equally possible. Some sort of verbal element, either the participle
τελευτήσαντες (“dying”) or a finite verb with τελευτή (“death”) as its
subject, may have preceded καλῶς (“nobly”). Radermacher’s recon-
struction, which seems too long for the gap, may give the sense: οἷς
ἐκείνων ἡ] τελευτὴ φ[θόνον ἐμβέβληκε], “The death of these men has
struck them [their peers] with envy . . . ” But any reconstruction here is
highly uncertain.
204 παρὰ πο
.
[λὺ
. . . . . . . . . .
]αι γέγον[εν. The reading παρὰ πο[λὺ (“by
far”) appears quite likely; the final character of col. 11.10 (204) is not
a lambda (as Sitzler’s restoration requires). Col. 11.11 (204) reads γον,
not τον (Kayser). A perfect form of γίγνεσθαι (“to become”), probably
finite, but perhaps a participle, is preceded either by an infinitive or a
dative singular first declension noun.
32, 204–206 ἢ παρὰ τοῖς] νεωτέρο[ις . . . σπου]δάσουσιν [
. . . . . . . . . .
. For
the restoration of ἢ παρὰ (“among”), see the note on §31 under παρὰ
τοῖς] ἡλικιώτ[αις. The hypophora continues here with questions con-
cerning the last age group, those younger than the dead. An initial
question probably introduces the νεωτέρο[ις (“the youth”), with a new
clause adding additional queries. Blass’s restoration is attractive: νεω-
τέρο[ις καὶ παισίν; ἔπει]τα οὐ τὸν [θάνατον ζηλώσου]σιν αὐτ[ῶν καὶ
αὐτοὶ σπου]δάσουσιν [μιμεῖσθαι; “What about their juniors and chil-
dren? Won’t they envy their death and themselves strive to imitate it?”
206 σπου]δάσουσιν. See below on §34 under ἀκουσόντων on the future
active usage of this verb.
100 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§32–]
206–207 πα]ράδειγμ[α . . .
. . . . . . . .
]πασι. Editors take πασι as the termina-
tion of a third plural perfect verb, with the fallen soldiers as the subject.
Jensen’s restoration seems plausible: εἰ γὰρ πα]ράδειγμ[α ἐκείνοις τοῦ
βί]ου τὴν ἀ[ρετὴν καταλελοί]πασι, “If they have handed down the
virtue of their lives as a model . . . ”
207 οὐκ [
. . . . . . . . . . . .
]ζειν αὐ[τοὺς
. . . . . . . .
]μη. An infinitive ends in -ζειν,
and αὐ[τοὺς (“them”) is needed as the accusative subject. Editors treat
-μη as a dative singular first declension ending (with the mute iota
omitted, as the scribe often does). Jensen’s restoration nicely captures
the likely sense: οὐκ [ἀθανάτωι δεῖ νομί]ζειν αὐ[τοὺς χρήσεσθαι τῆι
μνή]μη‹ι›, “must we not believe that they enjoy an immortal memorial
. . . ” For the phrase ἀθάνατος μνήμη (“immortal memorial”), cf. Lys.
2.6 and 81.
33. Colin cautions that this section is “the most uncertain part of the
entire column” (“incertissima pars totius columnae”). The only clear
words refer to the Greeks (Ἕλλην[ας) and the Phrygians (Φρυγῶν).
Pl. Mx. 239b–c and Dem. 60.9 provide possible parallels. Both
passages refer to the mythical accomplishments of the Greeks that
were celebrated by the poets, and both also contrast the media of poets
and prose writers. Colin’s highly speculative restoration is preferable
to Blass’ (appendix B) for palaeographic reasons (explained in the
following note). Colin suggests: ἢ τίνε[ς ποιηταὶ καὶ λογογρά]φοι
λεί[ψονται ποτε κατὰ τοὺς] Ἕλλην[ας πασῶν εὐλογιῶν περὶ]
τῶν πε[πραγμένων ἐκείνοις;] παρὰ τίσ[ι δ’ οὐ μᾶλλον αὐτὰ τῆς]
Φρυγῶν κ[ρατησάσης στρα]τείας ἐγ[κωμιασθήσεται; “What writers
of poetry or prose among the Greeks will ever lack any praise for
the accomplishments of these men? Among whom will these deeds
not be praised more than that campaign that conquered the Trojans?”
Kenyon’s restoration, equally uncertain, may provide some sense of
the rest of the section: πανταχοῦ] δὲ τῆς Ἑλ[λάδος ἐξέσται ταῦ]τα
τοῖς ἐ[πιγιγνομένοις] ἅπασιν κ[αὶ λόγοις καὶ ὠι]δαις ἐπα[ινεῖσθαι,
“Everywhere in Greece these accomplishments will be be praised by
all their descendents both in prose and in song.”
208 λε[
. . . . .
. I follow Jensen’s reading of λε (but I see no sign of the
following iota he reports). Earlier editors read λο (and the hand-drawn
image in Babington 1858 reflects that reading), but the papyrus is some-
what abraded on the right side of the letter in question. A round shape
is clearly visible, but it does not fully close on the right and there is a
trace of the cross stroke of an epsilon.
[–§34] Commentary 101
210 ἐγ[κωμι
. . . . .
. This is quite likely a form of the noun ἐγκώμιον or the
verb ἐγκωμιάζειν. See the note on §15 under ἐγκω[μιάζ]ειν . . . for the
sense.
34, 211–213
. . . . . . .
]τερα . . . ἐν τῶι πολ[έμωι. Colin builds upon restora-
tions of Cobet, Sauppe and Kenyon: δι’ ἀμφό]τερα γὰρ ἐ[ξέσται αὐ-
τοῖς τὰ] περὶ Λεωσ[θένους ὑμνεῖν] καὶ τῶν τ[ελευτησάντων] ἐν τῶι
πολ[έμωι, “For both these reasons it will be possible for them [later
writers] to praise the achievements of Leosthenes and those who have
died in this war.” The general sense is appropriate, but much remains
uncertain. The reference of δι’ ἀμφό]τερα (“for both these reasons”)
is unclear, and ὑμνεῖν (“to praise”) seems to leave out prose works
(cf. Thuc. 2.41.4, where the orator rejects the need for the praise of
poets like Homer).
213
. . . . . . . .
] ἡδονῆς κτλ. Cobet’s supplements are very attractive: εἰ μὲν
γὰρ] ἡδονῆς ἕν[εκεν ἐγκωμιάσ]ουσιν τὰς τ[ηλικαύτας καρ]τερίας, τί
γέ[νοιτ’ ἂν τοῖς Ἕλ]λησιν ἥδι[ον ἢ ἔπαινος τῶν] τὴν ἐλευθερί[αν πα-
ρασκευα]σάντων ἀπ[ὸ τῶν Μακεδό]νων; “If they enjoy praising such
great endurance, what could be sweeter for the Greeks than praise of
those who acquired freedom from the Macedonians.” All that remains
of the final character in col. 11.40 (215–216) is a small raised dot of ink,
most likely an upsilon, but a pi or tau is quite possible.
214 τ[οιαύτας καρ]τερίας. The restoration is based on the same phrase
at §24. However, Cobet’s τ[ηλικαύτας (“such great”) might better fill
the lacuna.
216 ὠφελείας ἕνε]κεν. Babington’s restoration perfectly fits the lacuna
and seems to be confirmed by the verb ὠφελήσειεν (“confer . . . advan-
tage”).
216 ἡ τοια[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
]. Pl. Mx. 236e draws a relationship between the
logos of the funeral oration and a memorial (μνήμη) for the dead, which
Cobet echoes with his restoration of ἡ τοια[ύτη μνήμη (“such a memo-
rial”). He has also proposed ἡ τοιά[δε ἀνάμνησις (“such a recollec-
tion”), which better fits the size of the gap.
217 ἀκουσόντων. This is the earliest attested usage of an active form of
the future of the verb ἀκούειν (“to hear”). Several classical future mid-
dle deponent verbs regularly occur in the active voice in koin Greek
(examples at Blass and Debrunner 1961, 42 no. 77; see also Browning
1983, 29) and this example is not a scribal accident (as Rennie (1940,
102 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§34–]
22) supposed), as we can see from the similar examples of ἀπολαύ-
σομεν (§30, “will enjoy”) and σπου]δάσουσιν (§32, “will be eager”)
earlier in the speech, both of which are also future middle deponents
in the classical period. Gromska (1927, 36–37) and Pohle (1928, 21)
discuss this aspect of Hyperides and the emergence of the koin dialect.
218–219 ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας. On this phrase see the note on §8 under ἄνδρες
ἀγαθοί γ[ίγνων]ται.
35, 220 ἀλλὰ μήν. The particles mark a new point in the argument; for
examples (including this passage) and discussion see Denniston 1954,
344–345. In this transitional sentence Hyperides summarizes his de-
scription of the glory of the dead among the living and then turns to
their reception in the underworld.
223 ἆρ’ οὐκ ἂν ‹οἰ›όμεθα. The papyrus reads ooμt0o, which Shilleto
corrects to οἰόμεθα (“we suppose”), an easy visual confusion on the part
of the scribe. Levi proposes reading the optative οἰοίμεθα, to accord
with the unusual usages of the optative in §20 and §22 (on which see
the note on §20 under τί ἂν συμβῆναι νομίζοιμεν).
224–225 τῶν ‹ἡμιθέ›ων καλουμέν‹ων› τοὺς ἐπὶ ‹Τρο›ίαν στρα‹τεύ›σαν-
τ[α]ς. The papyrus reads (without any word divisions) 6tgyopμtvov
xoXouμtvouc :ouc ttt c:po:ttov c:pocov:[
.
]c. The first two words
are plainly corrupt; Cobet compared Isoc. 4.84 and proposed reading
τῶν ἡμιθέων καλουμένων (“of the so-called demi-gods,” on which
Blass commented “audacter, sed optima sententia”). Babington had al-
ready emended στρατειαν (“army”) to Τροίαν (“Troy”). The correc-
tions are indeed bold, but the following material, specifically the “one
woman assaulted” ([μ]ιᾶς γυναικὸς ὑβρισθεί[σ]ης, §36), must refer to
the Trojan war. For the phrase τῶν ἡμιθέων καλουμένων (“of the so-
called demi-gods”) Jensen compares Hes. Op. 159–160 and also Pl. Ap.
28c, which labels those who died at Troy as ἡμιθέοι, “demi-gods.”
227 δ]ιήνεγκε. Hyperides boldly asserts that Leosthenes excelled the
heroes of the past. His superiority is again emphasized in “excelled”
(ὑπερέσχεν, §38) and “even greater” (καὶ μείζω, §39; cf. also §19 and
§23). It was commonplace for writers of elegy or encomiumto compare
their subjects with the heroic past (e.g., Simonides fragments 10–18
(West) on the battle of Plataea, with discussion on the epic comparisons
by Boedecker (1996, 229–232)). But Hyperides, with his pronounced
emphasis on Leosthenes and his troops, goes much further than oth-
ers when he asserts that his subjects were superior to those who fought
[–§37] Commentary 103
at Troy and in the Persian Wars. Typically the dead are not elevated
above, but rather equated with, their illustrious ancestors. Thus, for
example, Lys. 2.67–70 speaks of the dead in the same terms as their
ancestors earlier in the speech, as does Pl. Mx. 246a (see Ziolkowski
1981, 80–83 on the motif; Plut. Per. 28.7 employs an argument similar
to Hyperides’ when he compares the Samian campaign of 440 and 439
with the Trojan War). Hyperides’ initial sidestepping of the traditional
themes of the prooemium allowed him to focus on the individual Leos-
thenes and the particular events of the first season of the Lamian War.
That special emphasis in this speech culminates in this declaration of
superiority.
228 μετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ πα[τ]ρίδος μόνης. In other epitaphioi this sort of
hyperbole is reserved for the battle of Marathon (Lys. 2.20 and Pl. Mx.
240c ignore Plataean aid in 490; see Schroeder 1914, 29–30). Here,
Hyperides continues to assert the superiority of his subjects, despite
his own earlier account of the mercenary army and the Athenian allies
(§11, §13).
228–229 μόνης πᾶσαν. The repeated contrast between “one” and “many”
is emphasized by this juxtaposition.
230 ἐταπείνωσεν. In §10 the same verb was used to describe the weak-
ened condition of Greece before Leosthenes came along. Now the ta-
bles are turned and Leosthenes has conquered the conquerer.
36, 230–231 μ]ιᾶς γυναικὸς ὑβρισθεί[σ]ης. On sexual violence as typical
behavior for a tyrant, see above, on §20 under ὥστε μήτε γυνα‹ι›κῶν
μήτε παρθένων μηδὲ παίδων ὕβρ‹ε›ις.
231–232 πα[σ]ῶν τῶν Ἑλληνίδων. Other funeral orations describe
Athens as the savior of all of Greece during the Persian Wars (Lys.
2.20, Dem. 60.10). Once again, Hyperides adapts language usually
used of the Persian Wars to praise Leosthenes and his troops.
37, 235–236 Μιλτιάδην καὶ Θεμιστοκλέα. Like Harmodius and Aristogi-
ton (see below on §39 under Ἁρμόδιον καὶ Ἀριστογείτονα), these two
generals of the Persian Wars were famed for saving Greece from a
despotic ruler (cf. Hdt. 6.109.3, where Miltiades asserts that a victory at
Marathon would surpass the deeds of the tyrant slayers). See above on
§5 and §20 for other cases where Leosthenes and his men are implicitly
compared to the Greeks who warded off the Persians.
These two generals are singled out to represent the battles of
104 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§37–]
Marathon and Salamis, the two most important victories for Athens
during the Persian Wars. Pl. Mx. 241b–c well summarizes the typical
account in the funeral orations: “The other Greeks were taught by the
men in the army at Marathon and those in the navy at Salamis. They
learned to become used to not fearing the barbarians on land or at
sea.” Unlike other funeral orations, Hyperides singles out the generals
who led the campaigns in order to compare them with Leosthenes.
238 ἔνδοξον. See below on §40 under ἐνδόξου.
38, 239 ὑπερέσχεν. On this assertion see above on §35 under δ]ιήνεγκε.
239 ἀνδρείαι καὶ φρονήσει. On this pairing, see the note on §3 under
ἀνδρεί[α]ς.
240 τὴ‹ν› τῶν βαρβάρων δύναμιν. The repetition of dynamis from
§35, where it referred to the Trojans, reinforces the characterization
of the Macedonians as foreign barbarians. See the note on §20 under
Μακεδόνων.
241–243 ἐν τῆ‹ι› οἰκ‹ε›ίαι . . . ἐν τῆι τῶν ἐχθρῶν. Hyperides refers to
the invasions of Attica during the Persian Wars. In autumn of 490 the
Persians landed at Marathon in northeast Attica (Hdt. 6.102–103). In
autumn of 480 Xerxes invaded by land and burned the abandonedAthe-
nian acropolis prior to the battle of Salamis (Hdt. 8.51–55). Again in
spring of 479 the Persian general Mardonius invaded (Hdt. 9.3). Hype-
rides contrasts these events with the Lamian War, in which the Atheni-
ans and their allies met the invaders in Boeotia and drove them north to
Thermopylae (§§11–14). The Thucydidean funeral oration makes the
same point about the Athenian ability to defeat the enemy in hostile
territory (Thuc. 2.39.2).
39, 245–246 Ἁρμόδιον καὶ Ἀριστογείτονα. This is the only epitaphios lo-
gos that compares the war dead with Harmodius and Aristogiton. For
the story of the tyrant slayers who were credited with ending the rule
of the Pisistratids in the late sixth century, see Thuc. 6.53–59 and Hdt.
5.55–57. The famous tyrant slayers were celebrated for their efforts to
liberate Athens from the rule of the Pisistratidae, and here the compar-
ison contributes to the characterization of the Macedonians as tyrants.
They were also venerated as heroes (on their honors, see Dem. 19.280
with MacDowell (2000, 326) and Arist. Ath. 58.1 with Rhodes (1993,
651–652)) and regular sacrifices for these two heroes took place in con-
junction with the ceremony for the war dead (Currie 2005, 95–96, Tay-
[–§40] Commentary 105
lor 1991, 7–8). These sacrifices were conduced by the polemarch and
probably took place at their grave in the Ceramicus (Kearns 1989, 55
and 150). The emphasis in this passage on the close relation between
the war dead and Harmodius and Aristogiton suggests that the fallen
soldiers also received heroic honors; for further discussion of this point
see the note on §43 under ‹εἰκὸς›. . . ἐπιμελείας ‹καὶ κηδεμονίας› ὑπὸ
τοῦ δαιμονίου τυγχάνειν.
246–247 οὐθέν‹α›ς οὕτως αὑτοῖς οἰκεί{οτερ}ους {ὑμῖν} εἶναι. The
papyrus reads, without word breaks, ou0tvouc ou:oc ou:otc
otxtto:tpouc uμttv ttvot. The transmitted text is plainly corrupt
and various solutions have been proposed. I have followed Blass in
correcting ou0tvouc to οὐθέν‹α›ς (“nobody”), deleting uμttv (“to
you”) and changing the adjective otxtto:tpouc from the comparative
to the positive degree. The first change can be explained as a simple
morphological mistake on the part of the scribe, who confused the
accusative plural endings of the second and third declensions. The
insertion of ὑμῖν is more difficult to explain, and its presence may
indicate more serious problems with the text here (those who keep
it change οὕτως to οὐδαμῶς; e.g., Kenyon prints οὐδαμῶς αὑτοὺς
οἰκειοτέρους ὑμῖν, “they are in no way closer to you [than Leosthenes
. . . ]). The positive adjective is restored because οὕτως does not
regularly modify comparatives. The clause is an indirect statement
depending on νομίζειν (“consider”), and αὑτοῖς (“to them”) refers to
Harmodius and Aristogiton.
246 οὐθέν‹α›ς. The spelling οὐθείς, οὐθέν first appears on Athenian in-
scriptions in 378/377 and completely replaces οὐδείς, οὐδέν by the end
of the fourth century, but forms of οὐδείς begin to reappear in the first
century BC (Threatte 1980–1996, I: 472–476). This is the only exam-
ple of the usage of οὐθείς by the scribe of this papyrus, but it may well
be the form Hyperides actually wrote.
250 καὶ μείζω. See the note on §35 under δ]ιήνεγκε.
40, 252–253 ὢ καλῆς μὲν καὶ παραδόξου τόλμης κτλ. Exclamatory ὤ is
uncommon in Attic prose, especially introducing such a lengthy excla-
mation. The particle is only found twice elsewhere in the orators, both
times in an oath (“by the gods,” ὢ πρὸς [τῶν] θεῶν, Dem. 21.98, 166).
For other poetic usages in this speech see the note on §26 under πόνους
πόνων. Here the exclamations signal a shift in the speech. The orator
has finished his comparison of Leosthenes and his predecessors in the
106 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§40–]
underworld, and now prepares to conclude the praise section (epainos)
of the speech. If indeed these exclamations mark the conclusion of Hy-
perides’ praise for the dead, there may be very little text missing be-
tween the end of fragment 1b (§40) and fragment 2 (§41), which comes
from the consolatory section (the paramythia) of the speech that typ-
ically immediately follows the end of the epainos (cf. Thuc. 2.42–43,
Lys. 2.76–77, Pl. Mx. 246a–b, Dem. 60.31–32; see also above p. 16).
253–254 ἐνδόξου. Hyperides is especially fond of this adjective in this
speech. It does not occur in any of the other epitaphioi or elsewhere
in Hyperides. He uses it here to describe the generous contribution the
dead made to the state. Previously it was used to praise the victory in
Boeotia (§18), the glory acquired by the fathers of the fallen (§27), and
the achievement of the soldiers of the Persian Wars (§37).
254 μεγαλοπρεποῦς προαιρέσεως. For the sense of μεγαλοπρεπής see
above on §1 under μεγαλ]οπρεπεστ[έρας. On the soldiers’ decision to
volunteer their lives for Athens, see the note above on §24. On Hyperi-
des’ use of the noun προαίρεσις in this speech, see the note on §3 under
‹τ›ῆς προαιρέ[σε]ως.
255 ἀρετῆς καὶ ἀνδραγαθίας. Aesch. 3.42 and 49 suggests that these two
nouns were regularly paired in honorific decrees (for the epigraphic ev-
idence see Whitehead 1993, 49 n. 38 and Veligianni-Terzi 1997, 217).
Both abstract nouns refer to the qualities of an ἀγαθὸς ἀνήρ, a “noble
man” (for discussion see Veligianni-Terzi 1997, 270–272 and Dover
1974, 164–165), but they are not simple synonyms. Whitehead (1993,
57–62) discusses the development of the concept of andragathia in the
late fifth century. He distinguishes semantic differences between aret
and andragathia. Aret had a long-standing connection with heroic
death and the term carried an aristocratic flavor. Andragathia was more
egalitarian and praised men for “what they had done rather than who
they were” (Whitehead 1993, 57–62) and was often used generally to
describe military valor (see Pritchett 1971–1991, III: 280–283 for ex-
amples) or more specifically for death in the field (see note on §1 under
ἄν[δρες ἀ]γαθοί). Hyperides also links the two terms above (§29). An-
dragathia is also a very common term in decrees awarding Athenian
citizenship to foreigners; for discussion and references see Kapparis
1999, 364–365.
41–43. On the amount of material missing between §40 and §41, see
the note on §40 under ὢ καλῆς μὲν καὶ παραδόξου τόλμης κτλ. This
[–§41] Commentary 107
fragment is preserved in Stobaeus’ Anthology as an example of a conso-
latory (παρηγορικόν) passage. He attributes the passage to Hyperides
without specifying a speech title. Babington (1859, 46–48) assigned it
to the Funeral Oration, on the basis of several similarities to the epi-
logues of other epitaphioi (e.g., for χάλεπον . . . ἐστι cf. Dem. 60.35
and Thuc. 2.44.2; on the adjective ἀγήρατος see the note below on
§43 under τὸν ἀγήρατον χρόνον; see also the link between this pas-
sage and Dem. 60.34 discussed below in the note on §43 under εἰ μέν
ἐστι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κτλ), and he is followed by all subsequent editors.
More information on the readings of individual manuscripts may be
found in Wachsmuth and Hense 1884–1912. The Anthology, probably
compiled in the fifth century AD, catalogues literary quotations under
a number of such headings, but unfortunately it does not provide any
context or discussion of the individual quotations which it preserves.
This passage probably comprises the entirety of the consolation section
of the speech (παραμυθία), the brief conclusion addressed to the rela-
tives of the dead (cf. Thuc. 2.43–45, Lys. 2.77–80, Pl. Mx. 246b2–249c,
Dem. 60.32–37). D.H. Rh. 6.4 advises that the consolation not consist
of mourning and lamentation, since that would only increase the sur-
vivors’ sorrow. Rather, the paramythia should emphasize that the dead
fell quick and painlessly, and that they earned a glorious burial and
escaped the miseries of later illnesses. The surviving epitaphioi gener-
ally follow this pattern and emphasize that it is the idyllic state of the
dead in the afterlife that comforts the bereaved (further discussed by
Kassel (1958, 41)). This passage has a philosophical quality to it, with
its avoidance of direct address to the survivors and its emphasis on the
universal fate of all men, the freedom from mortal illness for the dead,
and the possibility that they may be enjoying a better existence after
death (discussed by Soffel (1974, 14–19)).
41, 259–261 τὰ . . . πένθη . . . λυπεῖσθαι. Sourvinou-Inwood (1995,
191–195) nicely contrasts the attitudes toward the war dead as
displayed in fifth-century public epitaphs with archaic epitaphs for
private individuals. Whereas private epitaphs present a negative
characterization of death that is often “dominated by grief and
lament” (192), the epitaphs for the war dead depict death as a positive
event, and emphatically eschew grief and lamentation. Here and in the
following sections, Hyperides reflects that attitude as he systematically
compares the positive benefits of dying for the city with the individual
losses of the men and their families.
108 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§41–]
259 οὔτε λόγωι οὔτε νόμωι. The logos (“speech”) is the funeral oration
itself, the nomos (“custom”) is the entire ceremony (Thuc. 2.34.1: πα-
τρίος νόμος, “ancestral custom”), including the speech. See pp. 14–15
for a description of the ceremony.
261 ὁρισμόν. This noun contributes to the philosophical tone. Aristotle
frequently uses it to define terms (see LSJ s.v. ὁρισμός II for examples).
42, 264–267 ‹εἰ› γὰρ . . . κατὰ πάντα. The series of parallel clauses fea-
ture highly stylized rhetorical devices that signal the closure of the
speech. In the first pair of clauses (‹εἰ› γὰρ . . . πεποιήκασιν, “Although
their sufferings . . . great praises”) the parallelism is reinforced by ho-
moioteleuton and the alliteration of the final verbs (πεπόνθασιν and
πεποιήκασιν). The second sentence (εἰ δέ . . . κατὰ πάντα, “Although
they did not live . . . in every respect”) is a tricolon interlinked by rep-
etition of the γηρ- (“age”) stem and the two εὐ- compounds (“glory”
and “blessed”). See Denniston 1954, 11–13 on the use of the particle
ἀλλά to mean “on the other hand, still.” For other examples of short
antithetical clauses such as these see the note on §24 under διὰ τὴν τῆς
ἀρετῆς ἀπόδειξιν . . . ἀτυχεῖς.
267–269 ὅσοι μέν . . . ὅσοι δέ κτλ. These two alternative statements con-
tinue the Gorgianic antithesis. As in the previous section, these two
sentences have the same structure and are linked by repetition (“chil-
dren”: ἄπαιδες, παῖδες, παῖδας, παίδων; “them”: αὐτῶν, αὐτῶν, αὐ-
τοῖς; the κατα- compounds in the second alternative). The parallel po-
sition, structure and sense of οἱ παρὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἔπαινοι (“the
praise of the Greeks”) and ἡ τῆς πατρίδος εὔνοια (“the good will of
their native city”) further link the two alternatives.
269–270 ὅσοι δὲ παῖδας καταλελοίπασιν . . . καταστήσεται. The state
supported the war orphans; see the note on §27 under ε[ὔνοι]αν. On
“the good will of their native city” (ἡ τῆς πατρίδος εὔνοια) see the
note on §27 under ε[ὔνοι]αν.
43, 271 εἰ μέν ἐστι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κτλ. This rationalization of death is
first found at Pl. Ap. 40c5–41c7, where Socrates suggests that death is
either like a dreamless sleep or else a migration to another place, and
appears as a regular theme in Greek and Roman consolation literature
(see Kassel 1958, 76–77). Socrates muses at length about meeting the
heroes of old in Hades, just as Hyperides has done earlier in the speech
(§§35–40). Dover (1974, 243–246) conveniently collects the evidence
for Greek views on death. It was widely held that the dead did have
[–§43] Commentary 109
some perception of the world of the living, and that the living should
treat them respectfully. The development and practice of hero cult in
Greece also reflects this sort of attitude toward the dead.
273–274 εἰ δ’ ἔστιν αἴσθησις ἐν Ἅιδου. This view was more commonly
held than Hyperides’ alternative (see previous note). The same sen-
timent is expressed in very similar terms at Isoc. 19.42, Lycurg. 136
and Philem. fr. 118. Demosthenes similarly refers to the afterlife of the
fallen soldiers in the islands of the blessed (Dem. 60.34). Parker (2005,
364) discusses these and other examples as a “cliché of the culture” re-
garding doubt about the afterlife. Sourvinou-Inwood (1995, 298–302)
suggests that the concern for an individual’s “happy afterlife” (299) de-
veloped as a cultural trend during the archaic period and the fifth cen-
tury, and in these fourth-century passages we see a continued concern
with the fate of the dead.
275–277 ‹εἰκὸς›. . . ἐπιμελείας ‹καὶ κηδεμονίας› ὑπὸ τοῦ δαιμονίου
τυγχάνειν. The funeral orations typically focus on the eternally
glorious reputation of the dead among the living (e.g., Lys. 2.80–81,
Pl. Mx. 243c-d, Dem. 60.27), and only hint at divine honors for
the war dead and an eternal afterlife as heroes in the most tentative
fashion (Dem. 60.34, §27). In this passage the restoration of εἰκός, “it
is likely,” adds a similar note of caution. But the previous scene of
Leosthenes in the underworld (§§35–40) is much more explicit in as-
sociating him with the heroes of the Trojan War and Athenians such as
Harmodius and Aristogiton, who were honored as heroes (see the note
on §39 under Ἁρμόδιον καὶ Ἀριστογείτονα). Parker (1996, 135–137)
discusses the inconsistency of the treatment of the war dead in the
epitaphioi. He concludes that they received honors “indistinguishable
from those of heroes” and that they might eventually over time be
labeled as such. See also Currie 2005, 96, Loraux 1986, 39–41, and
Versnel 1989, 169–171.
275–276 τοὺς ταῖς τιμαῖς τῶν θεῶν καταλυομέναις βοηθήσαντας. Cf.
§21 above on the impiety of the Macedonians.
Fragmentum dubium. Sauppe plausibly assigns the phrase τὸν ἀγή-
ρατον χρόνον, attributed by Pollux to Hyperides without a speech title,
to the Funeral Oration. The adjective is better suited to epideictic than
forensic oratory, and it appears elsewhere in this speech and the epi-
taphioi (§42; Thuc. 2.43.2, 44.4, Lys. 2.79, Dem. 60.36). Dover (1968,
65–67) categorizes the adjective as “non-forensic” (cf. above p. 26).
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix A: Papyrological Notes
The scribe often makes obvious errors (some of which he corrects him-
self). These manuscript readings have been corrected without comment
in the text and critical apparatus. There is little reason for themto crowd
the apparatus, but they may be of interest to papyrologists and others,
and it may be useful to have them gathered together. References in this
appendix are to the columns and lines of the papyrus (for example, 6.3
= line 3 of column 6). For an explanation of the editorial symbols used
here, see pp. 33–34.
1.14 t]o
.
poxt]vj 16 y]tytvvg 23 tXXo::[o 25 ytytvvg[ 29 uμttv
.
33 ou:ot'c' 34 :]o
.
j'o'v ttvot'c
.
'
2.6 xoXXto t'v'o 16 tytv't' 18 toXtt:otc 21 xo0 corrected
from xo: 22 tpo:]tp]oj'o'v 28 :]oj'o'c 31 oxvgco
33 'g'Xtoctocovtocov
3.3 t]ptto'v' 4 xo0t]c:o'c' 5–6 t]t
.
tttxtct 13–14 xoX'o'(o[uco
22 toX]to'c' 26 to0t'v' 31 't'tvot 32 :tvoc corrected from:tvouc
4.2 cuvcuv 5 o
.
v]:j'6'po 9 o
.
[u:o_]0oct'v' 22–23 y[tvov]:ot
23 ytytvvgμ
.
[ 33 to:pt:t
5.2 6opo6ovouv:ov 6–7 oXXo[6o 13 toX't't:txgc 19–20 μo-
_oμtvo]ujc 22 xo:oXoXopov 33 cuμμo_ou'c' 36 tctμvu'v'ov:o
38 cuv]
.
j'g'pg 40 xpo:gcot corrected from xpo:gcgc
6.1 ouy 33 :t]Xtu:gc
.
ov:]tj'o'c 34 tvo[u:o]v
.
, cf. col. 5.9
7.2 ou:o
.
7 ttopov 10 tçou:gc 11 :o:t 20–21 cuvptpgxtt
28 0topotytvgcov[:ot]xot]:gc:ouj, cf. col. 7.31 30–31 op-
111
112 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
0potc0gcov:ot corrected from ov0potc0gcov:ot 34 xoXXttovov
38 coμo:o'v' 39 xpttvov:tc 41 tu]:j'6'oçtov
8.3–4 oyovtocoμtvov 4 6'c't 7 :ou:ot 11 6uvoμttv 12 μt:t
16 tç:ov 16–17 ovoyxo(oμtc0o 18 yt[tvo]μ
.
tvoc 19 t¡opov
corrected fromt¡opoc 23 otxg:oc 25 tpo']uj'c octocorrected
from oto 27 ov0potou'c' 34 o6tμtoyop]cj
9.2–3 topttopXgXu0o:t 4 ]tppuXoc 7 uttpμtμvgxtvot
10
..
]o:tptoc 11 toXtt:oc 12 :otou:ot]cj 13–14 cuvoyo-
vt'c':oc 15 opouou 23 ovtu:gcou:ovoμttvoc ov6'oc'p
26 the final sigma is mistakenly written at the beginning of
10.29 29 toXtt:oc 37 :ou:ou:ouc 41–42 t¡
.
o
.
:'6'tov
43 otoXoXo:o[v
10.6 oto[v]tov corrected from oto[v]ov 9 ovtt[o:]o
.
:oc
13 6txoto'v' 15 oXXo corrected from oX6o 16 xoXXtto
27–28 μvgμovovtu:
.
ouc 33 tv:ttμo:o:ov 36 oyo'c'0otc
39 μvgμvgc 43 :o'v'
11.11 y]oj't'yov 20 μg'g':tvt 38 g6tt[ov
12.1 yttvt:ot 5 :ou'c' 7 gμttv 10 ¡tvtpov 14 ooμt0o
15 o:ovXtoc0tvg with vX written over an erasure 16 0ouμo(ov:o'c'
21 :o'v' 29 final nu is a later addition 37 ov6po'v' 39 ytytvvg-
μtvov corrected from ytytvvgμtvouc 41 6totttpoyμtvo'v'
13.2–3 tv:ttμov 6 ctotgcov 9 tttX0ouctv corrected from
tt0X0ouctv 19–20 ptpoto:o:o corrected from 6tpoto:o:o
21–22 opt:oytt]6j':'ovo 22 ou:o'c' 23 uμttv 24–25 Xtoc0tgxot
corrected from Xtoc0t
..
ot 28 o:outtxo:
.
31 μtt(ov
39 tpocttXov:o
The scribe has inserted paragraphoi after the following lines: 3.11,
21, 26; 4.6, 13, 28, 34; 6.13, 26, 30; 7.18, 32; 8.1, 20; 9.14; 10.18, 29;
11.26; 12.9, 35; 13.17, 36.
The scribe occasionally uses an angular stroke to punctuate a stop
(here printed as ´). These periods are sometimes accompanied by a
paragraphos: 3.21 co´, 4.6 ytvtoXoyttv´, 4.13 tyxoμto(ttv´, 4.28
cov´, 4.34 Xgctv´. More often the stops are unaccompanied by a
paragraphos: 3.2 _t:ot´, 3.28 μvgc0o´, 4.19 ttv´, 6.2 [c0ot]´, 8.4
μtvov´, 9.10 x]op:tptoc´, 9.12 Xtoc0tvg´, 10.25 ott6ttçov´,
10.35 to:tpov´, 12.10 tc:tv´, 12.43 to´, 13.39 tpocttXov:o´.
The scribe frequently uses a diairesis mark over iota: 3.6 ïxtct, 4.3
Appendix A: Papyrological Notes 113
ï6tov, 4.22 ïvo, 6.1 tïμ
.
[op]μtvgc, 6.27 uïov, 7.34 ïc, 7.36 ïc_uv, 7.42
ï6tov, 8.11 ïc_uttv, 9.20 ï6tov, 10.6 ïc, 10.40 ï6totc.
Two breathings are indicated: 7.7 ttopov, 9.14 ou:ouc; and one
circumflex accent: 10.12 toc.
Line fillers, usually resembling a right angle bracket, but sometimes
a long dash, are used very frequently, especially toward the bottom of
columns.
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix B: Critical Conjectures
Nb. For an explanation of what criteria determine whether restorations
are recorded here or in the main apparatus, see p. 32.
3 περὶ] Λεωσθένους Babington.
5–6 μάρτυς ἀκριβὴς Bücheler.
5–8 μάρτυς αὐτὸς ὁ Χρόνος ὁ σώιζων ἐπαίνωι τὰς πράξεις· οὐ γάρ
τις ἀνθρώπων προαίρεσίν πω καλλίω τῆσδ’ ἑώρακε ὧν ἴσμεν
οὐδ’ ἐν παντὶ αἰῶνι πεπύσμεθα γεγενημένους Sudhaus, ὁ σώι-
ζων ἐπαίνωι τὰς πράξεις τὰς καλὰς· ἄνθρωπος δὲ τίς πρᾶξίν πω
καλλίω τῆσδε ἑώρακε; Schroeder.
6 ὁ σύμπας Cobet.
6 τὰς πράξεις: τὰ ὅπλα Kenyon.
7–9 ὥστε οὐδ’ ἐν τῶι παντὶ αἰῶνι νομιστέον γεγενῆσθαι οὔτε ἄνδρας
ἀμείνους τῶν τετελευτηκότων τῶνδε Bücheler.
10 ὃ] καὶ Sauppe, διόπερ] Bücheler.
10 γε φοβοῦμαι Blass, πεφόβημαι van Herwerden.
11 φαίνεσθαι: γενέσθαι Babington.
17–20 τοῦ προελέσθαι . . . τοῦ μὴ καταισχῦναι corr. Volckmar.
25 τὰ καθ’ ἕκαστον Cobet.
26 τῶν πρό[τε]ρον ‹διασωσάντων› Comparetti.
29 ἀνελθεῖν Desrousseaux, ἐπελθεῖν Babington, διελθεῖν Sauppe.
30 κεφαλαίων Cobet.
32–35 τὰς μὲν ὥρας διακρίνων καὶ τὸ πρέπον καὶ καλῶς ἔχον παρι-
στάς, τοῖς δὲ σώφροσι καὶ ἐπιεικέσι πλείω παρέχων ἐπιμέλειαν,
ὥστε καὶ γενέσθαι σίτων αἴτιος καὶ καρπῶν Jensen, xlvi.
34 καὶ γενέσεως τῆς τροφῆς Blass, καὶ αὔξης [Fuhr].
38 τῆς ἀδικίας: τῆς δεσποτείας Colin, πλεονεξίας anon. apud Babing-
115
116 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
ton.
38 φυλάττουσα Blass.
39 κοινὴν ἄδειαν: τὴν ἐλευθερί]αν Cobet.
41 ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τῶν κοινῶν . . . Blass.
41 κοινῶν πράξεων τῆς πόλεως Fritzsche, κοινῶν τῶν τῆς πόλεως
Sauppe.
41–42 εἶπον φράσαι ‹χαλεπόν› Kayser, χρὴ δηλῶσαι {αλιφω} Sauppe.
42 παραλείπω Bücheler.
43–44 ποιησόμενος ἐνθάδε πόθεν Sauppe et Shilleto.
44 λέγειν: λέγων Sauppe, Caesar; λόγων Graindor.
44 πρώτου Cobet.
45 ἑκάστων Piccolomini.
49 τουτων p, τοῦτον Cobet.
50 τοῦ λόγου ποιουμένου Bursian.
56 παῖδες μαθεῖν [Fuhr], παιδεύειν Sauppe.
56 πάντας ὑμᾶς Cobet.
58 γένωνται Babington.
66 ὥσπερ επτηχυῖαν: κατεπτηχυῖαν Babington, δέει κατεπτηχυῖαν
Sandys, φόβωι κατεπ. Maehly, ἔτι κατεπ. Cobet et Schenkl, σφό-
δρα κατεπ. Piccolomini.
70 δυνήσεται: βουλήσεται Piccolomini.
71 ἐπέδωκεν μὲν ἑαυτὸν Kayser.
73 συστησάμενος: κτησάμενος Kayser.
78 παρόδους: διόδους Sandys ap. Blass.
89 ἀεὶ: καὶ Jensen, ζῶν Kayser, τὴν Sauppe.
90 ἐκείνου: τούτου Babington.
91 πάντων ἀγαθῶν Müller, πολλῶν ἀγ. Maehly.
96 διὰ τὸ Λεωσθένη μόνον Cobet, φάσκων Λεωσθένη μ’ ἕν’ Shilleto,
ἐν τῶι Λεωσθένη μὲν Babington.
98 ‹καὶ› τῶν ἄλλων Babington.
103 ἐγκωμιάσω Stahl.
107 βούλ]εσθαι: προελέσθαι Jensen.
108 μαχόμενοι Babington.
110 πατρίδος Babington.
111 πρότερον Babington, πρώτην Cobet.
111 τὴν μὲν πόλιν Babington.
115 διανενεμημένους Cobet.
118 περὶ: πρὸς Babington.
128 {οὔτε} μετ’ ἐλαττόνων Cobet.
130 εἶναι del. Müller.
Appendix B: Critical Conjectures 117
134–135 νομίζομεν Kayser.
138 συνελόντι Babington.
140–141 ἀνεπιδείκτους ci. Tarrant; ἀνεκλείπτους . . . ‹μὴ› καθεστάναι
add. Colin; μηδὲ παίδων ‹ἔλεον εἶναι μηδένα, ἀλλ’› ὕβρεις Hess;
μηδε‹μίαν φειδὼ γίγνεσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτων καὶ› παίδων Cobet;
ὕβρεις ‹ἀνιέναι ποτέ, ἀλλ’› ἀνεκλείπτους Kayser.
140 μηδὲ: μήτε Fritzsche; cf. Smyth 2949.
142 ἠναγκαζόμεθα Tell.
142 ἔστι: ἐᾶν Caffiaux, ἔχειν Babington.
148 ἀνθρώπους ‹δίκαια› Fritzsche.
150 κρίνομεν Kayser.
155–156 ἄλλους πάντας ‹συμβαίνει› ἐν ‹παντὶ› τῶι παρεληλυθότι
χρόνωι Blass, ἄλλους πάντας ‹πολίτας συμβαίνει› Maehly,
ἄλλους παντα‹χῆι γῆς συνέβαινεν› Colin.
165 ‹ἀντὶ› θνητοῦ σώματος Caesar.
165 ἀντεκτήσαντο Maehly.
167–168 ‹τί› πᾶσαν εὐδαιμονίαν Weil; ‹ἔρρει› γὰρ πᾶσα εὐδαιμονία
ἄνευ τῆς αὐτονομίας Piccolomini; φέρε γὰρ, τίς πᾶσα εὐδαιμονία
ἄνευ τῆς αὐτονομίας Schenkl; ‹ἐν αὑτῆι› aut ‹ἐφ’ αὑτῆς› αὐτονο-
μία Müller.
171–172 τὸ τῶν πολλῶν ἀσφαλές Cobet.
180 πρὸς τοῦ δῆμου Caesar.
183 αἰώνιων τάξιν Shilleto, ἀμείνω τ. Cobet, δαιμόνων τ. Fritzsche,
ἀθανάτων τ. Caesar.
184 ἀλγεινότατος Cobet.
191 ἀπεδείξαντο Cobet.
191–192 αξαθαι: ἀρξαμένους ὑπάρχει Kenyon, ἄιξαντας ἦν Jensen, ἔξ-
εστ’ εὐθὺς Colin, ἐξῆν εὐθὺς Thalheim, ἐξῆν Ἀθηναίοις Comparetti,
ἀξιοῦμεν Caesar, Blass leg. ἄρξασθαι cum lacuna postea.
198 {ἐν} τῆι Cobet.
199 ἀπολαυσόμεθα Sauppe.
200–201 πότερον οὐ παρὰ Blass, πρῶτον μὲν παρὰ Babington, ἆρ’ οὐ
παρὰ Fritzsche.
201 παρὰ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις; Cobet, π. τοῖς γεραιτέρους; Sauppe.
201–202 οἱ ἄφοβον ἄξειν τὸν λοιπὸν βίον καὶ ἐν τῶι ἀσφαλεῖ γεγενῆ-
σθαι ἡγήσονται διὰ τούτους Blass, γεγενῆσθαι ὁμολογοῦσι Colin,
ἀλλ’ ἄφοβον ἄξουσιν τὸν λοιπὸν βίον καὶ ἐλάττων τοῦ γήρως
γεγένηται ἡ δυσχέρια διὰ τούτους αὐτοῖς Sauppe, ἀλλ’ ἄφοβον
διάξουσι τὸν λοιπὸν βίον κακῶν ἀπαθεῖς γεγενημένοι διὰ τού-
τους Cobet, οὗτοι γὰρ ἄφοβον ἄξουσιν τὸν λοιπὸν βίον κατὰ τὴν
118 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
ἀρτίως γεγενημένην ἀσφάλειαν διὰ τούτους Babington.
202–203 ἀλλ’ οὐ παρὰ τοῖς ἡλικιώταις Blass, ἢ οὐ παρὰ τοῖς ἡλικιώ-
ταις Fritzsche, ἔπειτα παρὰ τοῖς ἡλικιώταις Babington.
203–204 οἷς οὗτοι τελευτήσαντες οὕτω καλῶς συνεβάλοντο εἰς τὸ
παρὰ πολὺ κουφισθῆναί γε τὸν ἀγῶνα Kayser, οἷς ἡ τούτων τε-
λευτὴ ἀφορμὴ μεγίστη τοῦ καλῶς ὠφελεῖν τὴν πατρίδα καὶ πα-
ραπλησίως τῆι ἀρετῆι διενέγκαι γέγονεν Sitzler.
204–205 ἀλλ’ οὐ παρὰ τοῖς νεωτέροις Blass, ἢ οὐ παρὰ τοῖς νεωτέροις;
ἀλλὰ Fritzsche.
205 καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ἔπειτα; οὐ τὸν θάνατον ζηλώσουσιν αὐτῶν Jen-
sen, νεωτέροις δόξουσιν; εἶτα οὐ τὸν θυμὸν θαυμάσουσιν αὐτῶν
Kayser.
205–206 αὐτοὶ μιμεῖσθαι σπουδάσουσιν Babington, καὶ σφόδρα σπου-
δάσουσιν μιμεῖσθαι Kayser.
206–207 ὡς παράδειγμα τὸν τούτων βίον, ἀνθ’ οὗ τὴν ἀρετὴν κατα-
λελοίπασι; Blass, παράδειγμα γενόμενον οὐ τὴν ἀρετὴν σωτήριον
πᾶσι; Kayser.
207–208 οὐκ ἐγκωμιάζειν ἀεὶ χρὴ ὧν οὐ δέδοικα μή τινες συγγραφεῖς
σοφοὶ λόγων ἄλλους τῶν Ἑλλήνων προκρίνωσι Kayser.
207 οὐκοῦν ἄξιον εὐδαιμονίζειν αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τοσαύτηι τιμῆι Blass, οὐκ
ἄξιον ἐγκωμιάζειν αὐτούς; Babington.
208–210 ἢ τίνες (aut τίνες δὲ) ποιηταὶ καὶ φιλόσοφοι λόγων καὶ ὠιδῶν
εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἀπορήσουσι περὶ τῶν πεπραγμένων αὐτοῖς;
παρὰ τίσι δ’ οὐ μᾶλλον αὕτη τῆς Φρυγῶν κρατησάσης στρατείας
ἐγκωμιασθήσεται; Blass.
209–210 Φρυγῶν καὶ τῆς ἐπὶ Τροίαν στρατείας Sauppe.
210–211 ποῦ δὲ τῆς Ἑλλάδος Blass, ποῦ δὲ τῆς Ἑλλάδος παύσονται
ταῦτα τοῖς ἐπιγιγνομένοις ἀεὶ ἅπασιν καὶ λόγοις καὶ ὠιδαῖς ἐπαι-
νοῦνες Colin, ἐν ἅπασιν καὶ λόγοις καὶ ὠιδαῖς ἐπαινεῖν Cobet, ὠι-
δαῖς ἐπάιδοντες Babington, οὐκ εὐπρεπεστάτοις ἐπαίνοις εἰς ἀεὶ
παρὰ ἅπασιν καὶ λόγοις καὶ ὠιδαῖς ἐπαινεθήσονται Sitzler.
212 ἐπ’ ἀμφότερα γὰρ ἐξέσται ὑμνεῖν περὶ Λεωσθένους Cobet, δι’
ἀμφότερα γὰρ ἔστιν ὑμνῆσαι τὰ περὶ Λεωσθένους Kenyon, ἀμ-
φότερα γὰρ ἔξεσται ἐντεῦθεν περὶ Λεωσθένους εἰπεῖν Babington,
ἀμφότερα γὰρ ἔστι μαθεῖν ἐκ τῶν περὶ Λεωσθένους ἱστοριῶν
Schroeder, ἀγαστότερα γὰρ ἔνεστι πολλῶι περὶ Λεωσθένους λέ-
γειν Sauppe, δημοτικώτερα γὰρ ἔστι τοῖς ποιηταῖς περὶ Λεωσθέ-
νους ἄιδειν Fritzsche.
212–213 καὶ τῶν τελευτησάντων ἐν τῶι πολέμωι Sauppe, καὶ τῶν
τετελευτηκότων ἐν τῶι πολέμωι τῶιδε Babington.
Appendix B: Critical Conjectures 119
213–216 μνημονεύουσιν τὰς τοιαύτας Blass, εἴτε γὰρ τῆς ἡδονῆς ἕνε-
κεν ἐγκωμιάζουσι τὰς τούτων καρτερίας . . . ἢ τούτων τῶν τὴν
ἐλευθερίαν πᾶσι βεβαιωσάντων ἀκούειν ὑμνουμένων Sauppe.
216 ἡ τοιαύτη σπουδὴ Sauppe, ἡ τοιαύτη μελέτη αὐτοῖς Fritzsche.
223 οἰοίμεθα Levi.
223–224 φοιτᾶν Cobet.
224–225 τῶν διογενῶν καλουμένων Schenkl, τῶν ἡρώων καλουμένων
Fritzsche, τῶνδε ἡγούμενον καὶ καλουμένους Post, Kenyon scribit
cum obelis τῶν διηγημένων καὶ ὑμνουμένων.
225 ἐπὶ ‹Τροίαν τὴν› στρατεῖαν στρα‹τεύ›σαντας Tell.
232–233 μετὰ γ’ ὧν συνθάπτομεν νῦν αὐτὸν ἀνδρῶν Blass.
235 λέγω δὴ p et Cobet, λέγω δὲ Colin, λέγω δὴ καὶ Blass.
258 πένθεσι Maehly.
262 παραιρεῖν aut παραινεῖν codd.
263–264 τῆς ἀρετῆς ‹ἧς ἀποδεδείχασι καὶ τῆς δόξης› ἧς Maehly.
276 Ruhnken leg. κηδεμονίας solum; cf. Phot. Bibl. codex 251
(463a.13f Bekker): ἀνάγκη πλείστης ἐπιτροφῆς καὶ κηδεμονίας
τυγχάνειν.
This page intentionally left blank
Bibliography
Adkins, A. W. H. (1966), “Aristotle and the best kind of tragedy,” Clas-
sical Quarterly 16: 78–102. Cited on page 66.
Ashton, N. G. (1983), “The Lamian War—a false start?,” Antichthon
17: 47–63. Cited on page 12.
Babington, C. (1858), Ὑπερείδου λόγος ἐπιτάφιος, Cambridge. Cited
on pages xiv, 27–29, 33, 40, 100, 124, 130, 136.
(1859), Ὑπερείδου λόγος ἐπιτάφιος, Cambridge, 2d ed. Cited
on pages xiii, 27, 29, 32, 33, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 61,
70, 72, 74, 82, 86, 97, 98, 101, 102, 107, 115–118.
Badian, E. (1961), “Harpalus,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 81: 16–43.
Cited on pages 10–12.
(1967), “Agis III,” Hermes 95: 170–192. Cited on page 8.
(1981), “The deification of Alexander the Great,” in Ancient
Macedonian studies in honor of Charles F. Edson, Thessaloniki,
Institute for Balkan Studies 158, 27–71. Cited on pages 89, 90.
(1982), “Greeks and Macedonians,” in Macedonia and Greece
in late classical and early Hellenistic times, Washington, D.C.,
Studies in the history of art 10, 33–51. Cited on page 87.
(1994), “Agis III: revisions and reflections,” in I. Wothing-
ton (ed.), Ventures into Greek history, Oxford, 258–292. Cited on
page 8.
(1996), “Alexander the Great between two thrones and heaven:
variations on an old theme,” in A. Small (ed.), Subject and ruler:
the cult of the ruling power in classical antiquity, Ann Arbor, Jour-
nal of Roman Archaeology supplementary series 17, 11–26. Cited
on pages 88, 89.
121
122 Bibliography
Balot, R. (2004), “Courage in the democratic polis,” Classical Quar-
terly 54: 406–423. Cited on page 62.
Bartolini, G. (1977), Iperide: rassegna di problemi e di studi
(1912–1972), Proagones: Studi 13, Padua. Cited on page 31.
Béquignon, Y. (1937), La vallée du Spercheios des origines au IVe
siècle. Études d’archéologie et de topographie, Bibliothèque des
écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 144, Paris. Cited on
page 78.
Berkowitz, L. and K. A. Squitier (1990), Thesaurus Linguae Graecae:
canon of Greek authors and works, New York, 3d ed. Cited on
page xi.
Bers, V. (1984), Greek poetic syntax in the classical age, Yale classical
monographs 5, New Haven. Cited on pages 63, 85.
Bickerman, E. J. (1985), Religions and politics in the Hellenistic and
Roman periods, Biblioteca di Athenaeum 5, Como, edited by E.
Gabba and M. Smith. Cited on page 91.
Blackman, D. J., J. Baker, and N. Hardwick (1997–1998), “Archaeol-
ogy in Greece 1997–98,” Archaeological Reports 44: 1–136. Cited
on page 15.
Blackwell, C. W. (1999), In the absence of Alexander. Harpalus and the
failure of Macedonian authority, Lang classical studies 12, New
York. Cited on page 10.
Blass, F. (1869), Hyperidis orationes quattuor cum ceterarum frag-
mentis, Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teub-
neriana, Leipzig. Cited on pages 29, 63, 135.
(1881), Hyperidis orationes quattuor cum ceterarum fragmen-
tis, Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneri-
ana, Leipzig, 2d ed. Cited on page 29.
(1887–1893), Die attische Beredsamkeit, Leipzig, 2d ed., 3 vol-
umes. Cited on pages 25, 65.
(1894), Hyperidis orationes sex cum ceterarum fragmentis,
Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana,
Leipzig, 3d ed. Cited on pages xii–xiv, 27, 31, 32, 36, 38, 40,
42, 44, 46, 50, 52, 57, 60, 64, 65, 70, 71, 74, 97–100, 102, 105,
115–119, 134, 135.
Blass, F. and A. Debrunner (1961), A Greek grammar of the New Tes-
tament, Chicago, translation of the ninth–tenth German edition by
R. W. Funk. Cited on page 101.
Boedeker, D. (1996), “Simonides and Herodotus on Plataea,” Arethusa
29: 223–242. Cited on page 102.
Bibliography 123
Bons, J. A. E. (2007), “Gorgias the sophist and early rhetoric,” in I. Wor-
thington (ed.), A companion to Greek rhetoric, Malden, 37–46.
Cited on page 93.
Borza, E. N. (1996), “Greeks and Macedonians in the age of Alexander.
The source traditions,” in E. M. Harris and R. W. Wallace (eds.),
Transitions to empire: essays in Greco-Roman history, 360–146
BC in honor of E. Badian, Norman, Oklahoma series in classical
culture 21, 122–139. Cited on page 87.
Bosworth, A. B. (1980), A historical commentary on Arrian’s History
of Alexander. Volume I: commentary on books I–III, Oxford. Cited
on pages 7, 82.
(1988), Conquest and empire: the reign of Alexander the Great,
Cambridge. Cited on pages 6, 9–11, 58, 79.
(2000), “The historical context of Thucydides’ Funeral Ora-
tion,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 120:1–16. Cited on pages 15, 21.
Bradeen, D. W. (1969), “The Athenian casualty lists,” Classical Quar-
terly 19: 145–159. Cited on page 15.
Browning, R. (1983), Medieval and modern Greek, Cambridge, 2d ed.
Cited on page 101.
Brunschwig, J. (1996), “Rule and exception: on the Aristotelian theory
of exception,” in M. Frede and G. Striker (eds.), Rationality in
Greek thought, Oxford, 115–155. Cited on page 66.
Brunt, P. (1969), “Euboea in the time of Philip II,” Classical Quarterly
19: 245–265. Cited on page 77.
Bücheler, F. (1875), “Coniectanea,” Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie
und Paedagogik 111: 305–340. Cited on pages xiii, 36, 38, 59,
60, 115, 116.
Buckler, J. (2003), Aegean Greece in the fourth century, Leiden and
Boston. Cited on page 82.
Bulman, P. (1992), Phthonos in Pindar, University of California publi-
cations: classical studies 35, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Cited on
page 64.
Burgess, T. C. (1902), Epideictic literature, Chicago. Cited on pages
16, 67.
Bursian, C. and E. Müller (1858), “Zu Hypereides Epitaphios,” Neue
Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik 77: 471–472. Cited
on pages xiii, 29, 40, 42, 71, 116, 117.
Burtt, J. O. (1954), Minor Attic orators, Loeb classical library, Cam-
bridge, Mass., volume 2: Lycurgus, Dinarchus, Demades, Hype-
rides. Cited on pages xiii, 30, 52, 119.
124 Bibliography
Caesar, J. (1857), Review of Babington 1858, Zeitschrift für die Al-
terthumswissenschaft 84–85: 667–675. Cited on pages xiii, 29,
116, 117.
Caffiaux, H. (1866), Recension nouvelle du texte de l’oraison funèbre
d’Hypéride, Paris. Cited on pages xiii, 29, 117, 130.
Calame, C. (1996), Thésée et l’imaginaire athénien, Lausanne, 2d ed.
Cited on page 68.
Carey, C. (2007a), “Epideictic oratory,” in I. Worthington (ed.), A com-
panion to Greek rhetoric, Malden, 236–252. Cited on pages 15,
16, 24, 63, 71.
(2007b), Lysiae orationes, Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca
Oxoniensis, Oxford. Cited on page xii.
Carey, C., M. Edwards, Z. Farkas, J. Herrman, L. Horváth, G. Mayer,
T. Mészáros, P. J. Rhodes, and N. Tchernetska (2008), “Fragments
of Hyperides’ Against Diondas from the Archimedes Palimpsest,”
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 165: 1–19. Cited on
page xii.
Cargill, J. (1985), “Demosthenes, Aischines, and the crop of traitors,”
Ancient World 11: 75–85. Cited on page 76.
Cawkwell, G. L. (1961), “A note on Ps. Demosthenes 17.20,” Phoenix
15: 74–78. Cited on page 93.
(1969), “The crowning of Demosthenes,” Classical Quarterly
19: 163–180. Cited on pages 8, 82.
(1994), “The deification of Alexander the Great: a note,”
in I. Worthington (ed.), Ventures into Greek history, Oxford,
293–306. Cited on pages 11, 91.
Chroust, A. H. (1966), “Aristotle’s flight from Athens in the year 323
BC,” Historia 15: 185–192. Cited on page 77.
Clairmont, C. W. (1983), Patrios nomos: public burial in Athens dur-
ing the fifth and fourth centuries BC. The archaeological, epi-
graphic–literary, and historical evidence, British archaeological
reports 63, Oxford, 2 vols. Cited on pages 14, 15, 58.
Cobet, C. G. (1858), Ὑπερείδου λόγος ἐπιτάφιος. Hyperidis oratio fu-
nebris recens reperta, Leiden. Cited on pages xiii, 29, 36, 38, 40,
44, 46, 48, 50, 63, 64, 72, 81, 95, 97, 98, 101, 102, 115–119.
(1873), Variae lectiones quibus continentur observationes crit-
icae in scriptores graecos, Leiden. Cited on pages xiii, 54.
Cohen, D. (1991), “Sexuality, violence and theAthenian lawof hubris,”
Greece & Rome 38: 171–188. Cited on page 88.
Bibliography 125
Cole, T. (1990), Democritus and the sources of Greek anthropology,
American Philological Association monograph series 25, Atlanta,
reprint of 1967 edition. Cited on page 68.
(1991), The origins of rhetoric in ancient Greece, Baltimore.
Cited on page 92.
Colin, G. (1938), “L’orasion funèbre d’Hypéride: ses rapports avec les
autres oraisons funèbres athéniennes,” Revue des études Grecques
51: 209–266 and 305–394. Cited on page 65.
(1946), Hypéride. Discours, Les Belles Lettres, Paris. Cited on
pages xiii, 30, 31, 36, 40, 50, 52, 63, 70, 100, 101, 115, 117–119.
Comparetti, D. (1858), “Observationes in Hyperidis orationem fune-
brem,” Rheinisches Museum 13: 533–545. Cited on pages xiii, 29.
(1864), Il discorso d’Iperide dei morti nella guerra Laminea,
Pisa. Cited on pages xiii, 29, 63, 115, 117, 130.
Connor, W. R. (1993), “Theseus and his city,” in P. Hellström and
B. Alroth (eds.), Religion and power in the ancient Greek world.
Proceedings of the Uppsala symposium 1993, Uppsala, Uppsala
studies in ancient mediterranean and near eastern civilizations 24,
115–120. Cited on page 73.
(1994), “The problem of Athenian civic identity,” in A. L.
Boegehold and A. C. Scafuro (eds.), Athenian identity and civic
ideology, Baltimore, 34–44. Cited on page 73.
Coppola, A. (1996), Epitafio per i caduti di Lamia, Venice, introduction
by L. Braccesi. Cited on page 30.
Currie, B. (2005), Pindar and the cult of heroes, Oxford. Cited on pages
22, 104, 109.
Davies, J. K. (1971), Athenian propertied families, 600–300 BC, Ox-
ford. Cited on page 58.
Denniston, J. D. (1952), Greek prose style, Oxford. Cited on page 92.
(1954), The Greek particles, Oxford, 2d ed. Cited on pages 97,
102, 108.
Desrousseaux, A. M. (1949), “Hypéride, Ἐπιτάφιος §4,” Annuaire
de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves 9:
207–209. Cited on pages xiii, 115.
Develin, R. (1989), Athenian officials 684–321 BC, Cambridge. Cited
on pages 4, 5, 59.
Diels, H. and W. Kranz (1952), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker,
Berlin, 6th ed., 3 vols. Cited on page xii.
Dindorf, W. (1829), Aristides, Leipzig, 3 vols. Cited on page xii.
126 Bibliography
Doblhofer, G. (1994), Vergewaltigung in der Antike, Beiträge zur Al-
tertumskunde 46, Stuttgart and Leipzig. Cited on page 88.
Dover, K. J. (1968), Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum, Berkeley and
Los Angeles. Cited on pages 24, 26, 109.
(1974), Greek popular morality in the time of Plato and Aris-
totle, Oxford. Cited on pages 60, 62, 63, 66, 106, 108.
Ehrenberg, V. (1969), The Greek state, Oxford, 2d ed. Cited on page 83.
Ellis, J. R. (1976), Philip II and Macedonian imperialism, London.
Cited on page 4.
Engels, J. (1989), Studien zur politischen Biographie des Hypereides:
Athen in der Epoche der lykurgischen Reformen und des make-
donischen Universalreiches, Quellen und Forschungen zur an-
tiken Welt 2, Munich. Cited on pages 3, 4, 61.
Faraguna, M. (1992), Atene nell’età di Alessandro: problemi politici,
economici, finanziari, Rome. Cited on pages 9, 75.
(2003), “Alexander and the Greeks,” in J. Roisman (ed.), Brill’s
companion to Alexander the Great, Leiden, 99–130. Cited on
page 58.
Fehling, D. (1969), Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei
den Greichen vor Gorgias, Berlin. Cited on pages 92, 95.
Fisher, N. R. E. (1992), Hybris. A study in the values of honour and
shame in ancient Greece, Warminster. Cited on pages 87, 88.
(2001), Aeschines, Against Timarchos, Oxford. Cited on
page 75.
Flower, M. (2000), “Alexander the Great and panhellenism,” in A. B.
Bosworth and E. J. Baynham (eds.), Alexander the Great in fact
and fiction, Oxford, 96–135. Cited on page 7.
Foxhall, L. (2007), Olive cultivation in ancient Greece: seeking the
ancient economy, Oxford. Cited on page 67.
Fraenkel, E. (1950), Agamemnon. Edited with a commentary, Oxford,
3 vols. Cited on page 61.
Fredricksmeyer, E. A. (1979), “Divine honors for Philip II,” Transac-
tions of the American Philological Association 109: 39–61. Cited
on pages 88, 90.
Fritzsche, F. V. (1861–1862), De Hyperidis laudatione funebri, Index
Lectionum in Academia Rostochiensi, Literis Adlerianis, 2d ed.
Cited on pages xiii, 29, 46, 116–119.
Fuhr, C. (1907), Review of Kenyon 1906, Berliner philologische
Wochenschrift 27: 769–774. Cited on page 30.
Bibliography 127
Gibert, J. (1998), Review of Mills 1997, Bryn Mawr Classical Re-
view 9, available electronically at <http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/
/bmcr/1998/1998-07-06.html>. Cited on page 66.
Glare, P. G. W. (ed.) (1982), Oxford Latin dictionary, Oxford. Cited on
pages xi, 58.
Gomme, A. W. (1956), A historical commentary on Thucydides, Ox-
ford, vol 2: books II–III. Cited on pages 6, 14, 70.
Graindor, P. (1898), “Notes critiques sur l’épitaphios d’Hypéride,” Re-
vue de l’instruction publique en Belgique 41: 341–344. Cited on
pages xiii, 72, 85, 116.
Gromska, D. (1927), De sermone Hyperidis, Studia Leopolitana 3,
Lemberg. Cited on pages 95, 102.
Habicht, C. (1970), Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte, Zetem-
ata 14, Munich, 2d ed. Cited on pages 88, 91.
(1996), “Athens, Samos, and Alexander the Great,” Proceed-
ings of the American Philosophical Society 140: 397–405. Cited
on page 10.
(1997), Athens from Alexander to Antony, Cambridge, Mass.
Cited on pages 3, 9, 14, 58, 78, 80, 81.
Hall, J. M. (2001), “Contested ethnicities: perceptions of Macedonia
within evolving definitions of Greek identity,” in I. Malkin (ed.),
Ancient perceptions of Greek ethnicity, Cambridge, Mass, Center
for Hellenic Studies colloquia 5, 159–186. Cited on page 86.
Hamel, D. (1998), Athenian generals: military authority in the clas-
sical period, Mnemosyne supplementa 182, Leiden. Cited on
page 61.
Hamilton, J. R. (1977), “Cleitarchus and Didorus 17,” in K. Kinzl (ed.),
Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in ancient history and pre-
history: studies presented to Fritz Schachermeyr on the occasion
of his eightieth birthday, Berlin, 126–146. Cited on page 78.
Hammond, N. G. L., G. T. Griffith, and F. W. Walbank (1972–1988), A
history of Macedonia, Oxford, 3 volumes. Cited on pages 5, 77,
82, 83.
Hansen, M. H. (1974), The sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens
in the fourth century BC and the public action against unconstitu-
tional proposals, Odense. Cited on pages 5, 6, 8.
(1975), Eisangelia: the sovereignty of the People’s Court in
Athens in the fourth century BC and the impeachment of generals
and politicians, Odense. Cited on pages 3, 18, 58.
128 Bibliography
(1989), The Athenian Ecclesia II, Copenhagen. Cited on
page 3.
(1991), The Athenian democracy in the age of Demosthenes,
Oxford. Cited on page 6.
Hanson, V. D. (1983), Warfare and agriculture in classical Greece,
Biblioteca di studi antichi 40, Pisa. Cited on page 67.
(1998), Warfare and agriculture in classical Greece, Berkeley
and Los Angeles, revised ed. Cited on page 67.
Harding, P. (1985), Fromthe end of the Peloponnesian War to the battle
of Ipsus, Translated documents of Greece & Rome 2, Cambridge.
Cited on pages 94, 96.
Harris, E. M. (1992), “Pericles’ praise of Athenian democracy.
Thucydides 2.37.1,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 94:
157–167, reprinted in Harris 2006, 29–39. Cited on page 70.
(1995), Aeschines and Athenian politics, New York and Ox-
ford. Cited on pages 4, 8, 76, 79.
(2000), “Open texture in Athenian law,” Dike 3: 27–79. Cited
on pages 9, 19.
(2004a), “Antigone the lawyer, or the ambiguities of nomos,”
in E. M. Harris and L. Rubinstein (eds.), The law and the courts
in ancient Greece, London, 19–56, page references to reprint in
Harris 2006, 41–80. Cited on pages 91, 94.
(2004b), “Did rape exist in classical Athens? Further reflec-
tions on the laws about sexual violence,” Dike 7: 41–83, page ref-
erences to reprint in Harris 2006, 297–332. Cited on page 88.
(2004c), “Le rôle de l’epieikeia dans les tribunaux athéniens,”
Revue historique de droit français et étranger 82: 1–13. Cited on
page 66.
(2006), Democracy and the rule of law in classical Athens,
Cambridge. Cited on page 128.
Harvey, F. D. (1985), “Dona ferentes: some aspects of bribery in Greek
politics,” in P. A. Cartledge and F. D. Harvey (eds.), Crux: essays
presented to G. E. M. de Ste. Croix on his 75th birthday, Exeter,
History of Political Thought 6, 76–117. Cited on page 76.
Heisserer, A. J. and R. A. Moysey (1986), “An Athenian decree hon-
oring foreigners,” Hesperia 55: 177–182. Cited on page 9.
Henrichs, A. (1975), “Two doxographical notes: Democritus and Prod-
icus on religion,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 79:
93–123. Cited on page 68.
Bibliography 129
Herman, G. (1980–1981), “The ‘friends’ of the early Hellenistic rulers:
servants or officials?,” Talanta 12–13: 103–149. Cited on page 91.
Herrman, J. (2004), Athenian funeral orations, Newburyport. Cited on
pages 15, 16.
(2008), “The authenticity of the Demosthenic Funeral Ora-
tion,” Acta antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 48:
171–178. Cited on page 17.
van Herwerden, H. (1895), “Ad Hyperidem,” Mnemosyne 23: 162–166.
Cited on pages xiii, 38, 60, 115.
Hess, H. (1938), Textkritische und erklärende Beiträge zum Epitaphios
des Hypereides, Klassisch-philologische Studien 11, Leipzig.
Cited on pages xiii, 36, 59, 75, 85, 117, 134.
Hornblower, J. (1981), Hieronymus of Cardia, Oxford. Cited on
page 78.
Humphreys, S. C. (1985), “Lycurgus of Boutadai: an Athenian aris-
tocrat,” in J. W. Eadie and J. Ober (eds.), The craft of the an-
cient historian: essays in honor of Chester G. Starr, Lanham, Md.,
199–252. Cited on page 9.
(2004), The strangeness of gods: historical perspectives on the
interpretation of Athenian religion, Oxford. Cited on pages 9, 75.
Jacoby, F. (1923–1958), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker,
Berlin, 15 vols. Cited on pages xi, xii, 12.
(1944), “Patrios nomos: state burial in Athens and the pub-
lic cemetery in the Kerameikos,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 64:
37–66. Cited on page 14.
Jaschinski, S. (1981), Alexander und Griechenland unter demEindruck
der Flucht des Harpalos, Bonn. Cited on page 58.
Jebb, S. (1722), Aelius Aristides. Opera omnia Graece & Latine, Ox-
ford, 2 vols. Cited on page xii.
Jehne, M. (1994), Koine Eirene: Untersuchungen zu den Befriedungs-
und Stabilisierungsbemühungen in der griechischen Poliswelt des
4. Jahrhunderts v. Ch, Historia Einzelschriften 63, Stuttgart. Cited
on page 93.
Jensen, C. C. (1917), Hyperidis orationes sex cum ceterarum fragmen-
tis, Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneri-
ana, Leipzig. Cited on pages xii–xiv, 26, 27, 30–32, 36, 38, 40,
42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 59, 60, 63, 64, 70, 71, 74, 75, 85, 98, 100, 102,
115–118, 137.
Johnson, W. A. (2004), Bookrolls and scribes in Oxyrhynchus, Toronto.
Cited on page 28.
130 Bibliography
Kaibel, G. (1893), Stil und Text der ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑ ΑΘΗΝΑΙΩΝ des Aris-
toteles, Berlin. Cited on pages xiii, 38, 70.
(1899), Comicorum graecorum fragmenta, Berlin. Cited on
page xii.
Kapparis, K. (1999), Apollodoros “Against Neaira” [D. 59], Unter-
suchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 53, Berlin. Cited
on page 106.
Kassel, R. (1958), Untersuchungen zur griechischen und römischen
Konsolationsliteratur, Zetemata 18, Munich. Cited on pages
107, 108.
Kassel, R. and C. Austin (1983–), Poetae comici Graeci, Berlin, 8 vols.
Cited on page xii.
Kayser, L. (1858), Review of Babington 1858, Neue Jahrbücher für
Philologie und Paedagogik 77: 369–383. Cited on pages xiii, 29,
40, 42, 46, 52, 89, 99, 116–118.
(1868), Review of Comparetti 1864 and Caffiaux 1866, Hei-
delberger Jahrbücher 241. Cited on pages xiii, 71, 99.
Kayser, S. (1898), “L’art oratoire, le style et la langue d’Hypéride,”
Musée Belge 2: 49–93 and 210–229. Cited on page 65.
Kearns, E. (1989), The heroes of Attica, University of London Institute
of Classical Studies Bulletin supplements 57, London. Cited on
pages 21, 105.
Kemmer, E. (1903), Die polare Ausdrucksweise in der griechis-
chen Literatur, Beiträge zur historischen Syntax der griechischen
Sprache 14, Würzburg. Cited on page 93.
Kenyon, F. G. (1893), The orations against Athenogenes and Philippi-
des, London. Cited on page 135.
(1899), The palaeography of Greek papyri, Oxford. Cited on
page 28.
(1906), Hyperidis orationes et fragmenta, Scriptorumclassico-
rum bibliotheca Oxoniensis, Oxford. Cited on pages xiii, 30, 36,
38, 40, 50, 52, 100, 101, 115, 117–119, 126.
Kienzle, E. (1936), Der Lobpreis von Städten und Ländern in der äl-
teren griechischen Dichtung, Kallmünz. Cited on page 67.
Kirchner, J. (1901), Prosopographia Attica, Berlin. Cited on page 58.
Kraay, C. M. (1976), Archaic and classical Greek coins, The Library
of numismatics, London. Cited on page 67.
Kraay, C. M. and M. Hirmer (1966), Greek coins, New York. Cited on
page 67.
Bibliography 131
Kühn, K. G. (1821–1833), Claudii Galeni opera omnia, Medicorum
Graecorum opera quae exstant 1–20, Leipzig. Cited on page xii.
Kurke, L. (1991), The traffic in praise. Pindar and the poetics of social
economy, Ithaca. Cited on page 60.
Lambert, S. D. (1997), Rationes centesimarum: sales of public land in
Lykourgan Athens, Archaia Ellas 3, Amsterdam. Cited on page 9.
Lapatin, K. (2001), Chryselephantine statuary in the ancient Mediter-
ranean world, Oxford. Cited on page 90.
Lefèvre, F. (1998), L’amphictionie pyléo-delphique: histoire et institu-
tions, Athens. Cited on page 83.
Leopardi, J. (1835), “Excerpta ex schedis criticis,” Rheinisches Mu-
seum 3: 1–14. Cited on pages xiii, 54.
Levi, L. (1892), Osservazioni sul testo dell’Epitafio d’Iperide, Pisa,
reprinted, Rome, 1978. Cited on pages xiii, 40, 75, 102, 119.
Liddell, H. G. and R. Scott (1925–1940), A Greek–English lexicon, Ox-
ford, 9th ed. Cited on pages xi, 5, 63, 71, 80, 86, 96, 108.
Lobel, E. and D. L. Page (1955), Poetarum Lesbiorum fragmenta, Ox-
ford. Cited on page xii.
Loraux, N. (1986), The invention of Athens: the funeral oration in the
classical city, Cambridge, Mass., translation of 1981 French edi-
tion by A. Sheridan. Cited on pages 13, 14, 23, 65, 68, 69, 74, 75,
79, 109.
(2000), Born of the earth: myth and politics in Athens, Ithaca,
translation of 1981 French edition by S. Stewart. Cited on page 73.
Louden, B. (1993), “Pivotal contrafactuals in Homeric epic,” Classical
Antiquity 12: 181–198. Cited on page 86.
Lucas, D. W. (1968), Aristotle. Poetics, Oxford. Cited on page 66.
Maas, P. (1928), “Zitate aus Demosthenes’ Epitaphios bei Lykurgos,”
Hermes 63: 258–260. Cited on pages 19, 85.
MacDowell, D. M. (1976), “Hybris in Athens,” Greece & Rome 23:
14–31. Cited on page 87.
(1982), Gorgias. Encomium of Helen, Bristol. Cited on
page 92.
(1990), Demosthenes, Against Meidias (Oration 21), Oxford.
Cited on page 86.
(2000), Demosthenes. On the false embassy (Oration 19), Ox-
ford. Cited on pages 3, 4, 104.
MacKay, P. (1963), “Procopius’ De Aedificiis and the topography of
Thermopylae,” American Journal of Archaeology 67: 241–255.
Cited on page 77.
132 Bibliography
Maehly, J. (1872), “ZumEpitaphios des Hypereides,” Neue Jahrbücher
für Philologie und Paedagogik 105: 607–612. Cited on pages xiii,
116, 117, 119.
Mari, M. (2003), “Macedonians and pro-Macedonians in early Hel-
lenistic Athens: reflections on ἀσέβεια,” in O. Palagia and S. V.
Tracy (eds.), The Macedonians in Athens, 322–229 BC, Oxford,
82–92. Cited on page 83.
Marzi, M. (1977), Oratori attici minori, Turin, volume 1: Iperide, Es-
chine, Lycurgo. Cited on pages 30, 63.
Mastronarde, D. J. (2002), Euripides. Medea, Cambridge. Cited on
page 95.
Matthaiou, A. (1994), “Two newAttic inscriptions,” in R. Osborne and
S. Hornblower (eds.), Ritual, finance, politics. Athenian demo-
cratic accounts presented to David Lewis, Oxford, 175–188. Cited
on page 58.
McCabe, D. F. (1981), The prose-rhythmof Demosthenes, Monographs
in classical studies, New York. Cited on page 17.
Migne, J.-P. (1857–1866), Patrologia Graeca, Paris, 161 vols. Cited
on page xii.
Miller, S. (1973), “The Philippeion and Macedonian Hellenistic ar-
chitecture,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
(Athen. Abt.) 88: 189–218. Cited on page 90.
Mills, S. (1997), Theseus, tragedy, and the Athenian empire, Oxford.
Cited on pages 66, 69, 127.
Momigliano, A. (1993), The development of Greek biography, Cam-
bridge, Mass., expanded ed. Cited on page 61.
Moreno, A. (2007), Feeding the democracy: the Athenian grain supply
in the fifth and fourth centuries BC, Oxford. Cited on page 67.
Morrison, J. S. (1987), “Athenian sea-power in 323/2 BC: dream and
reality,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 107: 88–97. Cited on pages
12, 84.
Naiden, F. S. (2006), Ancient supplication, Oxford. Cited on page 69.
Nesselrath, H.-G. (1992), Ungeschehenes Geschehen. ‘Beinahe-
Episoden’ im griechischen und römischen Epos von Homer bis
zur Spätantike, Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 27, Stuttgart. Cited
on page 86.
Neugebauer, O. and H. Van Hoesen (1959), Greek horoscopes,
Philadelphia. Cited on pages 28, 29, 57.
Nock, A. D. (1972), Essays on religion and the ancient world, Cam-
bridge, Mass., edited by Z. Stewart. 2 vols. Cited on page 89.
Bibliography 133
Oikonomides, A. N. (1982), “Athens and the Phokians at the outbreak
of the Lamian War (= IG II
2
367),” Ancient World 5: 123–127.
Cited on pages 12, 78.
Osborne, M. J. (1983), Naturalization in Athens, Brussels, volume 3.
Cited on page 5.
Osborne, M. J. and S. G. Byrne (1994), A lexicon of Greek personal
names, Oxford, volume 2: Attica. Cited on page 58.
Ostwald, M. (1969), Nomos and the beginnings of the Athenian democ-
racy, Oxford. Cited on page 70.
Pack, R. A. (1965), The Greek and Latin literary texts from Greco-
Roman Egypt, Ann Arbor, 2d ed., references are to item numbers.
Cited on pages xiii, 27, 36.
Parker, R. (1983), Miasma: pollution and purification in early Greek
religion, Oxford. Cited on page 91.
(1996), Athenian religion. A history, Oxford. Cited on pages
14, 89, 109.
(2005), Polytheism and society at Athens, Oxford. Cited on
pages 64, 65, 109.
Parry, A. (1981), Logos and ergon in Thucydides, Monographs in clas-
sical studies, Salem. Cited on page 61.
Patterson, C. (2006), “ ‘Citizen cemeteries’ in classical Athens?,” Clas-
sical Quarterly 56: 48–56. Cited on page 15.
Peek, W. (1955), Griechische Vers-Inschriften, Berlin, vol. 1. Grab-
Epigramme. Cited on page 15.
Perlman, P. (2001), City and sanctuary in ancient Greece. The theo-
rodokoi in the Peloponnese, Hypomnemata 21, Göttingen. Cited
on page 84.
Piccolomini, E. (1882), “Osservazioni sul testo dell’Epitafio d’Iperide,”
in Studi di Filologia Greca, Turin, 1, 107–132. Cited on pages xiii,
38, 116, 136.
Pohle, U. (1928), Die Sprache des Redners Hypereides in ihren
Beziehungen zur Koine, Klassisch-philologische Studien 2,
Leipzig. Cited on pages 86, 95, 102.
Pöschl, V. (1964), Bibliographie zur antiken Bildersprache, Bibliothek
der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, neue Folge, 1 Reihe,
Heidelberg, edited by H. Gärtner and W. Heyke. Cited on page 65.
Price, S. R. F. (1984), Rituals and power: the Roman imperial cult in
Asia Minor, Cambridge. Cited on pages 90, 91.
134 Bibliography
Pritchett, W. K. (1965), Studies in ancient Greek topography. Part I,
University of California publications: classical studies 1, Berkeley
and Los Angeles. Cited on page 77.
(1971–1991), The Greek state at war, Berkeley and Los Ange-
les, 5 volumes. Cited on pages 14, 15, 58, 83, 88, 106.
(1975), Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Thucydides, Berkeley
and Los Angeles. Cited on page 92.
Raaflaub, K. (2004), The discovery of freedom in ancient Greece,
Chicago. Cited on page 93.
Radermacher, L. (1896), Review of Blass 1894, Deutsche Liter-
aturzeitung 1163–1164. Cited on pages xiii, 29, 48, 99.
von Reden, S. (1995), Exchange in ancient Greece, London. Cited on
page 60.
Reinmuth, O. W. (1971), The ephebic inscriptions of the fourth century
BC, Mnemosyne supplementa 14, Leiden. Cited on page 58.
Rennie, W. (1940), Review of Hess 1938, Classical Review 54: 21–22.
Cited on pages 85, 101.
Rhodes, P. J. (1972), The Athenian boule, Oxford. Cited on page 12.
(1993), A commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia,
Oxford, revised ed. Cited on pages 9, 75, 104.
(2006), A history of the classical Greek world, 478–323 BC,
Malden. Cited on pages 3, 8.
Rhodes, P. J. and R. Osborne (2003), Greek historical inscriptions
404–323 BC, Oxford. Cited on pages 8, 9, 79, 88, 90, 93, 94.
Roebuck, C. (1948), “The settlements of Philip II with the Greek states
in 338 BC,” Classical Philology 43: 73–92. Cited on pages 5,
77, 82.
Rolando, C. (1969), Per i caduti della guerra lamiaca, Turin. Cited on
page 30.
Rosivach, V. (1987), “Autochthony and the Athenians,” Classical
Quarterly 37: 294–306. Cited on page 73.
Russell, D. A. and N. G. Wilson (1981), Menander Rhetor, Oxford.
Cited on page xii.
Rusten, J. S. (1986), “Structure, style, and sense in interpreting Thucy-
dides: the soldier’s choice (Thuc.2.42.4),” Harvard Studies in
Classical Philology 90: 49–76. Cited on pages 75, 92.
(1989), Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War: book II, Cam-
bridge. Cited on pages 15, 63.
Bibliography 135
Rutherford, I. (2000), “Theoria and Daran: pilgrimage and vision in
Greece and India,” Classical Quarterly 50: 133–146. Cited on
page 84.
Ryder, T. T. B. (1965), Koine eirene. General peace and local inde-
pendence in ancient Greece, Oxford. Cited on pages 5, 93.
Salvaneschi, E. (1972), “Osservazioni su alcuni passi di Iperide,” Maia
24: 149–160. Cited on page 85.
Sánchez, P. (2001), L’Amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes.
Recherches sur son rôle historique, des origines au IIe siècle
de notre ère, Historia Einzelschriften 148, Stuttgart. Cited on
page 83.
Sandys, J. E. (1870), Review of Blass 1869, The Academy 220–221.
Cited on pages xiv, 29, 116.
(1895), Review of Kenyon 1893 and Blass 1894, Classical Re-
view 9: 71–74. Cited on pages xiv, 29.
Sauppe, H. (1860), “ΥΠΕΡΕΙΔΟΥ ΕΠΙΤΑΦΙΟΣ. Hyperides
Grabrede,” Philologus Supplementband 1: 1–60. Cited on pages
xiv, 29, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 52, 54, 63, 75, 87, 89, 98, 101,
109, 115–119.
Scafuro, A. (1997), The forensic stage: settling disputes in Graeco-
Roman new comedy, Cambridge. Cited on page 66.
Schenkl, K. (1877), “Zum Epitaphios des Hypereides,” Zeitschrift für
die österreichischen Gymnasien 28: 896–898. Cited on pages xiv,
116, 117, 119.
Schiappa, E. (1999), The beginnings of rhetorical theory in classical
Greece, New Haven. Cited on page 61.
Schroeder, O. (1914), De laudibus Athenarum a poetis tragicis et ab
oratoribus epidicticis excultis, Diss., Göttingen. Cited on pages
67, 68, 70, 103.
(1922), “Beiträge zur Weiderherstellung des Hyperides-
Textes,” Hermes 57: 450–464. Cited on pages xiv, 115, 118.
Schwenk, C. J. (1985), Athens in the age of Alexander. The dated laws
& decrees of “the Lykourgan era” 338–322 BC, Chicago. Cited
on pages 12, 96.
Schäfer, A. (1860), “Zu Hyperides Epitaphios,” Philologus 15:
150–151. Cited on page xiv.
Sealey, R. (1993), Demosthenes and his time: a study in defeat, New
York and Oxford. Cited on pages 5, 8, 59, 82, 93.
Shilleto, R. (1860), “Hyperides,” Journal of Classical and Sacred
Philology 4: 318–323. Cited on pages xiv, 29, 50, 102, 116, 117.
136 Bibliography
Shipley, D. G. A. (1987), A history of Samos, 800–188 BC, Oxford.
Cited on page 10.
Sitzler, J. (1883), Review of Piccolomini 1882, Philologische Rund-
schau 3.33: 1025–1030. Cited on pages xiv, 38, 65, 99, 118.
Smyth, H. W. (1920), Greek grammar, Cambridge, Mass. Cited on
pages xi, 63, 72, 80, 81, 84, 91, 92, 117.
Snell, B., R. Kannicht, and S. L. Radt (1971–), TragicorumGraecorum
fragmenta, Göttingen, 5 vols. Cited on page xii.
Soffel, J. (1974), Die Regeln Menanders für die Leichenrede, Beiträge
zur klassischen Philologie 57, Meisenheim am Glan. Cited on
page 107.
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. (1995), “Reading” Greek death to the end of
the classical period, Oxford. Cited on pages 107, 109.
Spengel, L. (1858), Review of Babington 1858, Gelehrte Anzeigen der
K. Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 48–50: 385–406.
Cited on pages xiv, 29, 42.
Stahl, J. M. (1907), Kritisch-historische Syntax des griechischen Ver-
bums der klassischen Zeit, Heidelberg. Cited on pages xiv, 116.
Stroud, R. (1971), “Greek inscriptions. Theozotides and the Athenian
orphans,” Hesperia 40: 280–301. Cited on page 96.
Stroud, R. and D. M. Lewis (1979), “Athens honors king Evagoras of
Salamis,” Hesperia 48: 180–193. Cited on page 90.
Stupperich, R. (1977), Staatsbegräbnis und Privatgrabmal im klassis-
chen Athen, Diss., Münster, 2 parts in 1. Cited on pages 14, 15.
(1994), “The iconography of Athenian state burials in the clas-
sical period,” in W. D. E. Coulson, O. Palagia, T. L. Shear, H. A.
Shapiro, and F. J. Frost (eds.), The archaeology of Athens and At-
tica under the democracy, Oxford, 93–103. Cited on page 15.
Talbert, R. (2000), Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world,
Princeton and Oxford. Cited on pages xi, 77, 78.
Tarrant, D. (1930), “Hyperides, Epitaphios 20 (col. 8),” Classical Re-
view 44: 42. Cited on pages xiv, 117.
Tausend, K. (1992), Amphiktyonie und Symmachie: Formen zwischen-
staatlicher Beziehungen im archaischen Griechenland, Historia
Einzelschriften 73, Stuttgart. Cited on page 83.
Taylor, C. (2001), “Bribery in Athenian politics,” Greece & Rome 48:
53–66 and 154–172. Cited on page 76.
Taylor, M. W. (1991), The tyrant slayers: the heroic image in fifth cen-
tury BCAthenian art and politics, Monographs in classical studies,
Salem, 2d ed. Cited on page 104.
Bibliography 137
Tchernetska, N. (2005), “New fragments of Hyperides from the
Archimedes Palimpsest,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigra-
phik 154: 1–6. Cited on page xii.
Tell, W. (1861), Hyperidis orationis funebris quae supersunt, Nord-
hausen. Cited on pages xiv, 29, 117, 119.
Thalheim, T. (1918), Review of Jensen 1917, Berliner philologische
Wochenschrift 38: 289–291. Cited on pages xiv, 117.
Thomas, R. (1989), Oral tradition and written record in classical
Athens, Cambridge. Cited on pages 16, 69.
Thompson, E. M. and G. F. Warner (1881), Catalogue of ancient
manuscripts in the British Museum, London, volume 1: Greek.
Cited on page 28.
Threatte, L. (1980–1996), The grammar of Attic inscriptions, Berlin, 2
vols. Cited on pages 61, 105.
Toup, J. and D. Ruhnken (1806), ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΟΥ ΛΟΓΓΙΝΟΥ ΤΑ ΣΩ-
ΖΟΜΕΝΑ. Dionysii Longini quae supersunt, Oxford, 3d ed. Cited
on pages xiii, xiv, 54, 119.
Tracy, S. V. (1994), “IGII
2
1195 and Agathe Tyche in Attica,” Hesperia
63: 241–244. Cited on page 13.
(1995), Athenian democracy in transition: Attic letter-cutter of
340 to 290 BC, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Cited on pages 13, 14,
58, 79.
Treves, P. (1939), “Hyperides and the cult of Hephaestion,” Classical
Review 53: 56–57. Cited on page 91.
Tsirigoti-Drakotou, I. (2000), “Nea stili pesonton apo to Dimosion
Sima,” Archaiologikon Deltion 55: 87–112. Cited on page 15.
Tsitsiridis, S. (1998), Platons Menexenos. Einleitung, Text und Kom-
mentar, Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 107, Stuttgart and Leipzig.
Cited on pages 67, 69, 93.
Turner, E. G. (1980), Greek papyri, Oxford, revised ed. Cited on pages
27, 31.
(1987), Greek manuscripts of the ancient world, University
of London Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin supplements 46,
London, 2d ed., edited by P. J. Parsons. Cited on pages 28, 29.
Usener, H. and L. Radermacher (1885–1929), Dionysii Halicarnasei
quae exstant, Leipzig, 6 volumes. Cited on page xii.
Usher, S. (1999), Greek oratory. Tradition and originality, Oxford.
Cited on pages 71, 73, 95, 97.
138 Bibliography
Veligianni-Terzi, C. (1997), Wertbegriffe in den attischen Ehren-
dekreten der Klassischen Zeit, Heidelberger althistorische Bei-
träge und epigraphische Studien 25, Stuttgart. Cited on pages 75,
96, 106.
Versnel, H. S. (1989), “Quid Athenis et Hierosolymis? Bemerkungen
über die Herkunft vonAspekten des ‘effective death’,” in J. W. van
Henten (ed.), Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie, Leiden,
162–196. Cited on page 109.
Volckmar, C. (1860), “Zu Hyperides Grabrede,” Philologus 15:
151–152. Cited on pages xiv, 29, 115.
Volkmann, R. (1885), Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer in sys-
tematischer Übersicht, Leipzig, 2d ed. Cited on pages 80, 84, 91,
92, 97.
Wachsmuth, C. and O. Hense (1884–1912), Ioannis Stobaei An-
thologium, Berlin, 5 vols. Cited on page 107.
Walbank, M. B. (1994), “A Lex Sacra of the state and of the deme
Kollytos,” Hesperia 63: 233–239. Cited on page 13.
Walcot, P. (1978), Envy and the Greeks: a study of human behaviour,
Warminster. Cited on page 64.
Walker, H. J. (1995), Theseus and Athens, NewYork and Oxford. Cited
on page 68.
Walters, K. R. (1980), “Rhetoric as ritual: the semiotics of the Attic
funeral oration,” Florilegium 2: 1–27. Cited on pages 17, 84.
Wankel, H. (1976), Demosthenes, Rede für Ktesiphon über den Kranz,
Heidelberg, 2 vols. Cited on page 8.
Wattenbach, W. (1897), Scripturae Graecae specimina, Berlin, 3d ed.
Cited on page 29.
Weil, H. (1858), “Zu Hypereides Epitaphios,” Neue Jahrbücher für
Philologie und Paedagogik 77: 746. Cited on pages xiv, 29, 117.
West, M. L. (1978), Hesiod. Works & Days. Edited with prolegomena
and commentary, Oxford. Cited on page 65.
Whitehead, D. (1993), “Cardinal virtues: the language of public appro-
bation in democratic Athens,” Classica et Mediaevalia 44: 37–75.
Cited on pages 96, 106.
(2000), Hypereides. The forensic speeches, Oxford. Cited on
pages v, 3, 4, 6, 10–12, 24, 29, 31, 65, 77, 80, 89, 94, 95.
von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. (1998), Geschichte der Philolo-
gie, Stuttgart and Leipzig, 3d ed., reprint of 1927 edition with
postscript and indexes by Albert Henrichs. Cited on page 72.
Bibliography 139
Worthington, I. (1984), “IG II
2
370 and the date of the Athenian al-
liance with Aetolia,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
57: 139–144. Cited on page 12.
(1987), “The earlier career of Leosthenes and IG II
2
1631,”
Historia 36: 489–491. Cited on page 10.
(1992), A historical commentary on Dinarchus: rhetoric and
conspiracy in later fourth-century Athens, Ann Arbor. Cited on
pages 7, 89.
(1994), “The Harpalus affair and the Greek response to the
Macedonian hegemony,” in I. Worthington (ed.), Ventures into
Greek history, Oxford, 307–330. Cited on page 12.
(1999), Dinarchus and Hyperides, Greek orators 2, Warmin-
ster. Cited on pages 24, 30, 84, 85, 95.
(2000), “Demosthenes’ (in)activity during the reign of Alexan-
der the Great,” in I. Worthington (ed.), Demosthenes: statesman
and orator, London and New York, 90–113. Cited on pages 8, 9,
11, 19, 82.
(2003a), “Alexander’s destruction of Thebes,” in W. Heckel
and L. A. Tritle (eds.), Crossroads of history: the age of Alexan-
der, Claremont, 65–86. Cited on page 7.
(2003b), “The authorship of the Demosthenic Epitaphios,” Mu-
seum Helveticum 60: 152–157. Cited on page 17.
Worthington, I., C. R. Cooper, and E. M. Harris (2001), Dinarchus, Hy-
perides, and Lycurgus, The oratory of classical Greece 5, Austin.
Cited on pages 3, 18, 62.
Yalouris, N., M. Andronikos, K. Rhomiopoulou, A. Herrmann, and
C. Vermeule (1980), The search for Alexander. An exhibition,
Boston. Cited on page 87.
Yunis, H. (2000), “Politics as literature: Demosthenes and the burden
of the Athenian past,” Arion 8: 97–118. Cited on page 20.
(2001), Demosthenes. On the crown, Cambridge. Cited on
page 94.
Ziolkowski, J. E. (1981), Thucydides and the tradition of funeral
speeches at Athens, Monographs in classical studies, New York.
Cited on pages 16, 58, 64, 72, 73, 103.
This page intentionally left blank
General Index
abstract nouns, 63
Abydus, 13, 80
Aelius Aristides, 88
Aeschines, 4–6, 8, 9, 19, 59,
62, 74, 76, 79, 81, 96, 106
Aeschylus, 61, 69, 92
Aetolian League, 10, 12, 78
Agis, 8, 9, 18, 19, 79, 82, 93
Alcaeus, 87
Alcmaeon, 70
Alexander, 3, 5–12, 20, 24,
76–79, 81–83, 87–91, 93
Alexander of Epirus, 61
Alexander of Pherae, 59
Amazons, 17, 68
Amorgus, 13
Amphictyony, 4, 21, 79, 83, 84
Amphipolis, 88
Amphissa, 4
Amyntas, 90
ancestors, 16, 17, 20–22, 59,
62, 63, 72, 103
Andocides, 94
andragathia, 75, 106
Antipater, 8, 13, 14, 21, 78, 80
Antiphilus, 13
Areopagus, 11
aret, 63, 66, 74, 81, 84, 96,
106
aristocratic values, 15, 60, 73,
106
Aristophanes, 96
Aristotle, 60, 66, 77, 80, 96,
104, 108
Arrian, 7, 8, 81, 82, 91
Artemisium, 18
Athens
defense of Greece, 17, 19,
63, 79, 103
fertility, 64–68
funeral orations, 15–17
punishes injustice, 64, 65,
68–70
rule of law, 23, 25, 70, 93,
94
state burials, 14–15
Attalus, 6
autochthony, 16, 60, 67, 70,
72–73, 80
Boeotia, 12, 13, 21, 26, 77, 79,
82, 83, 104, 106
141
142 General Index
bribes, 3, 4, 11, 24, 76
Byzantium, 4
Callias, 62
Callias of Chalcis, 77
Carystus, 77
Ceramicus, 14, 105
Chaeronea, 3, 5–9, 14, 17–20,
22, 23, 62, 65, 77, 79–82,
85, 87, 89, 90
Chalcis, 77
chryselephantine material, 90
Cimon, 68–69
City Dionysia, 96
Cleitarchus, 78
Clement of Alexandria, 88, 90
Conon, 89
Corinthian War, 20–22
Crannon, 14, 80
Craterus, 78
Q. Curtius Rufus, 8
death, views of, 108, 109
Delian League, 70
Delos, 83
Delphi, 83–84
Demades, 6–8, 11, 14, 89
Democritus, 68
dmosion sma, 15, 58
Demosthenes, 4–22, 40, 58, 59,
62–65, 68–70, 72–74, 76,
79–81, 83, 85–89, 92, 93,
95–97, 100, 103–107, 109
Dinarchus, 5, 10, 11, 88, 89,
97
Diodorus Siculus, 5–7, 10–14,
58, 59, 77, 78, 80, 81, 84,
91
Diogenes Laertius, 77, 96
Diondas, 5, 7, 18
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 16,
17, 24, 77, 107
Ecbatana, 91
egkmion, 80, 81, 101
encomia in prose, 61–62, 81,
92
epainos, 16, 26, 64, 72, 80, 81,
95, 106
ephbeia, 75
Ephebic oath, 94
Epicharmus, 95
epieikeia, 65, 66
Eponymous Heroes, 15, 17, 21,
73
equality, 64, 69, 70, 73, 94
Eresus, 88
Euboea, 4, 12, 77
Eumolpus, 17, 19
Euripides, 67, 68, 72, 94, 95
Eurydice, 90
Eurystheus, 68
Eusebius, 19
Euthycrates, 6
Evagoras, 61, 89
Exiles Decree, 10, 11, 79
family members, 95
freedom, 8, 17, 18, 20, 22–24,
81, 82, 85, 92–94, 101, 107
Galen, 71
genos, 72, 73, 75
Gorgias, 15, 64, 66, 68, 92, 93
Harmodius and Aristogiton, 21,
22, 103–105, 109
Harpalus, 10–12, 77, 89
Harpocration, 5, 44, 83
Hecataeus of Abdera, 87
Hephaestion, 11, 91
General Index 143
Heracles and the Heraclidae,
17, 69, 82, 90
hero cult, 24, 90–91, 104–105,
108, 109
Herodotus, 70, 78, 86, 88, 103,
104
Hesiod, 65, 102
Hieronymus, 78
Homer, 86
Hyacinthidae, 19
hybris, 86–88
Hyperides, xi, xiii, xiv, 4–7,
10–13, 15, 16, 18, 19,
21–27, 29–33, 40, 54,
58–60, 62–65, 70–91, 93–99,
101–109, 125
Hyperides’ Funeral Oration
koin dialect, 85, 86, 98, 99,
101–102
structure, 26
style, 24–26, 63–64, 71–72,
80, 92–93, 108, see also
rhetorical devices
superiority of Lamian War
soldiers, 22–23, 59, 60,
102–103
Illyria, 7, 81
Isocrates, 61, 66, 70, 71, 75,
82, 89, 96, 102, 109
Issus, 8
Justinus, 13, 58
koin eirn, 5, 93
Lamia, 13, 58, 78–80
Lamian War, 3, 7, 11, 22, 23,
58, 65, 76, 77, 83–85, 87,
103, 104
League of Corinth, 5, 6, 10,
17, 23, 82, 87, 93
Leocrates, 18, 19, 89
Leonidas, 78
Leonnatus, 13, 21, 78, 80, 84
Leosthenes, 12, 13, 21–23, 25,
26, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 69,
74, 76–80, 96, 101–105, 109
Libanius, 8, 71, 93
Locris, 12, 78, 79
logos, 101, 108
Longinus, 24
Lucian, 5
Lycurgus, 8, 9, 18, 19, 22, 23,
61–63, 70, 80, 81, 84–86,
89, 98, 109
Lysias, 15–17, 20–22, 58, 59,
61, 64, 68–70, 73, 79, 82,
93–98, 100, 103, 106, 107,
109
Lysicles, 62
Macedon, 3, 4, 6–14, 18,
23, 25, 59, 63, 69, 76–84,
86–89, 91, 94, 101, 104, 109
Marathon, 17, 19, 20, 23, 70,
84, 86, 103, 104
Mardonius, 104
Maximus, 54
Medea, 69
Megalopolis, 8
megaloprepeia, 60, 106
Menander Rhetor, 16
mercenaries, 8, 10, 12, 73, 77,
103
Miltiades, 21, 23, 62, 103
Nicanor, 10
Oedipus, 66, 69
Oeniadae, 10
144 General Index
Olympia, 87, 90
Olympias, 90
Orestes, 69
orphans, 96, 108
paideia, 72–74
paramythia, 16, 26, 107
Pausanias, 12, 58, 90
Peparethos, 59
Persia, 7, 8, 10, 84, 87
Persian Wars, 7, 14, 16–23, 63,
68, 69, 78, 79, 81, 86, 103,
104, 106
Phalaecus, 79
Philemo, 109
Philip, 3–7, 9, 17, 19, 20, 24,
76, 77, 79, 82, 83, 87–91
Philippeion, 87, 90
Philippides, 6, 7
Philiscus, 61
Philocrates, 3, 4, 76
Phocis, 4, 12, 78, 79
Photius, 119
Phrygians, 100
Pindar, 64
Pisistratids, 104
Plataea, 13, 23, 78, 102, 103
Plato, 6, 15–17, 21, 23, 58–61,
64, 65, 67–70, 73, 81, 86,
92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 100–104,
106–109
Plutarch, 4–8, 10–15, 54, 61,
66, 81, 103
Pollux, 54
Polyaenus, 62
Polybius, 77
Poseidon, 89
Potidaea, 62
Prodicus, 68
rape, see sexual violence
rhetorical devices
alliteration, 108
antithesis, 61, 70, 74, 80, 85,
86, 91, 93, 94, 108
aporia, 71
chiasmus, 60
exclamations, 25, 26, 105
homoioteleuton, 84, 91, 108
hyperbole, 22, 103
hypophora, 71, 73, 97–99
juxtaposition, 103
metaphor, 70, 95, 96
parechesis, 91
parisosis, 25, 80, 84
paromoiosis, 92
polyptoton, 25, 95
praeteritio, 71, 72, 75
repetition, 80, 92, 95, 104,
108
simile, 21, 25, 64, 65, 69,
72, 80, 93–95
tricolon, 91, 108
Rhodes, 4
P. Rutilius Lupus, 93
Sacred War, 4, 79, 83–84
sacrifice, 19, 24, 88, 104, 105
Salamis, 18, 19, 104
Samian War, 103
Samos, 10
sexual violence, 24, 87–88, 91,
95, 102, 103
Simonides, 102
Siwah, 91
Solon, 96
Sophocles, 66, 67, 69
sphrosyn, 65–66, 74
Stobaeus, 46, 52, 107
Stratocles, 62
suppliants, 17, 64, 66
General Index 145
Taenarum, 10, 12, 77
Thebes, 4, 5, 7, 8, 17–19, 21,
68, 69, 77, 79, 81–83
Themistocles, 21, 23, 62
Theodectes, 61
theros, 83
Thermopylae, 13, 23, 77–79,
83, 104
Theseus, 17, 66, 68–70
Thessaly, 13, 77–80
Thucydides, 15, 16, 58, 60–64,
67, 68, 70, 73, 92–97, 101,
104, 106–109
Trojan War, 21, 22, 98, 100,
102–104, 109
tyranny, 21, 24, 60, 70, 82, 88,
93, 94, 103, 104
underworld, 21, 23, 26, 62,
102, 106, 108, 109
Xenophon, 61, 67
Xerxes, 104
Zeus, 87–91
This page intentionally left blank
Index of Greek Words
τὰ ἀγαθά, 97
ἄγαλμα, 89, 90
ἀγήρατος, 26, 109
αἰτία, 94
ἀκούειν, 101
ἀλλά, 73, 97, 102, 108
ἄν, 85
ἀνδραγαθία, 106
ἀνδρεία, 62, 104
ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί, 59, 75, 97, 102
ἀνέκλειπτος, 87
ἀπολαύειν, 97
ἀρετή, 63, 66, 74, 81, 84, 106
ἀρχή, 96
ἀρχηγός, 96
αὐτονομία, 93
ἀφανίζειν, 82 102
δεξιοῦσθαι, 26
διαβολή, 94
διεξελθεῖν, 64, 75, 76
δικαιοσύνη, 74
δύναμις, 104
δωροδοκεῖν, 76, 77
ἐγκώμιον, 80, 81, 101
εἰκών, 89, 90
ἔκλειπτος, 87
ἔλεγχος, 94
ἐλευθερία, 85, 93
ἔνδοξος, 26, 106
ἔπαινος, 80, 81
ἐπιείκεια, 65, 66
ἔρανος, 97
ἔργον, 61
εὐγένεια, 60, 73
εὐεργετεῖν, 63
εὔνοια, 95
ἐφόδιον, 95
ἡγεμών, 26
ἡμίθεος, 102
θεωρός, 83
ἴδιος, 71, 93
τὸ ἴσον, 70
κακοί, 68
κοινός, 71, 93
κολάζειν, 69
κολακεία, 94
λόγος, 61, 101, 108
μεγαλοπρέπεια, 60, 106
μνήμη, 100, 101
νομίζειν, 60
ὁρισμός, 108
οὐθείς, 105
147
148 Index of Greek Words
πάλιν, 61
πάρεδρος, 91
παραλείπειν, 71
προαίρεσις, 62, 106
προβουλεύειν, 5
προσκυνεῖν, 88
σεμνύνειν, 80
σπουδάζειν, 99
στέφανος, 84
συνελεῖν δ’ εἰπεῖν, 86
σωφροσύνη, 65–66, 74
τάξις, 96
ταπεινοῦν, 76, 103
τρόπος, 86
ὕβρις, 86–88
ὑπερηφανία, 86
ὑπολαμβάνειν, 80
φθόνος, 64
φράζειν, 71
χρήσιμος, 68
ὤ, 105

HYPERIDES

AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
AMERICAN CLASSICAL STUDIES VOLUME 53
Series Editor Kathryn J. Gutzwiller Studies in Classical History and Society Meyer Reinhold Sextus Empiricus The Transmission and Recovery of Pyrrhonism Luciano Floridi The Augustan Succession An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman History Books 55–56 (9 B.C.–A.D. 14) Peter Michael Swan Greek Mythography in the Roman World Alan Cameron Virgil Recomposed The Mythological and Secular Centos in Antiquity Scott McGill Representing Agrippina Constructions of Female Power in the Early Roman Empire Judith Ginsburg Figuring Genre in Roman Satire Catherine Keane Homer’s Cosmic Fabrication Choice and Design in the Iliad Bruce Heiden Hyperides Funeral Oration Judson Herrman

and Commentary by Judson Herrman 2009 .HYPERIDES Funeral Oration Edited with Introduction. Translation.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hyperides. 3. stored in a retrieval system.A36 2009 885’. Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Copyright © 2009 by the American Philological Association Published by Oxford University Press. edited with introduction. recording. New York. I.com Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. New York 10016 www. Funeral rites and ceremonies. Judson. translation. mechanical. PA4212. [Epitaphios. photocopying. 2. English & Greek] Funeral oration / Hyperides . no. Funeral orations—Translations into English. and education. Inc. in any form or by any means.Oxford University Press. Title. Herrman. or transmitted. scholarship. and commentary by Judson Herrman.01—dc22 2008045141 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper .oup. p. publishes works that further Oxford University’s objective of excellence in research. 53) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. electronic. No part of this publication may be reproduced. or otherwise. 198 Madison Avenue. cm. ISBN 978-0-19-538865-7 1. Ancient—Greek—Athens.—(American classical studies . II. Inc. without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Hyperides—Translations into English.

David Whitehead’s excellent commentary on the forensic speeches (Whitehead 2000) has done much to satisfy a long-standing need for a detailed guide to the Hyperidean corpus. I have designed and typeset the book myself using open source software. and to the creators and the community of support for XETEX. and to emphasize the difference between it and other funeral orations. and because it reveals that a state funeral oration could transform the standard content of the genre and adapt it to the immediate historical context. which situates the speech in its historical and rhetorical context. I am grateful to Stephanie Attia at Oxford University Press for expert advice on the design. The revisions have sometimes been slowed by work on other projects. This book has grown out of a doctoral dissertation. but I hope the present volume has benefited from those parerga. I also include an introduction. and a translation. the notes are designed to demonstrate the timeliness of the speech. The commentary is both historical and philological.Preface Hyperides’ Funeral Oration is arguably the most important surviving example of an Athenian epitaphios logos both because of its fine quality as an epideictic composition. Recent work—now further accelerated by the discovery of extensive and previously unknown fragments of Hyperides in the Archimedes Palimpsest—has reestablished Hyperides’ importance as an orator and as a political figure. Most notably. I hope that the present book will suitably fill a conspicuous gap arising from Professor Whitehead’s decision to concentrate on the surviving courtroom speeches. accompanied by an extensive commentary aimed at an audience of scholars and graduate students in classics and ancient history. v . This volume presents a new critical edition of the text.

I would like to thank John Duffy. A Fletcher Family Research Grant from Bowdoin College enabled me to study the papyrus for the first time in person during the summer of 2003. Andrew Wolpert. and from the comments of Adele Scafuro and David Whitehead. and Margaret S. Goheen Fellowship during the academic year 2006/2007. which I have adapted and extended to produce camera-ready copy of this volume. Kathryn Gutzwiller. who advised . Harvard University’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences awarded me a dissertation completion fellowship to finish the first full version of this material in spring 1999. I would like also to acknowledge and thank several institutions for their financial support. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the generous help I’ve received in the course of writing this book. for encouragement and constructive advice on the manuscript at a later stage. I completed final revisions of this manuscript at the National Humanities Center. My time at the National Humanities Center was co-funded by a sabbatical grant from the Loeb Classical Library Foundation. I am also grateful to Peter Hunt and the students in his spring 2008 seminar on Greek oratory at the University of Colorado for their useful comments. supplemented by an award from the Jonathan E. I am grateful to the librarians and staff at those institutions and to the British Library. and Harvey Yunis for helpful comments on early drafts of this material. but I have not always followed their advice. and for the edmac and Eplain macros packages. where I held the Robert F. supported study at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in 2005 and at Harvard’s Widener Library in 2006. Helmreich Research and Book Grant Fund. and Nancy L. The book has benefited immensely from the suggestions of two anonymous external referees. I am also grateful to the editorial board of of the APA Publication Committee and especially to the editor of the APA Monograph Series. Two awards from the academic support committee of Allegheny College. I am particularly grateful to everyone at the Center for making my time there so productive and comfortable. Any remaining errors or omissions are entirely my own. I am particularly indebted to Professor Scafuro for devoting an extraordinary amount of time to reading and commenting on my manuscript. My greatest academic debts are to Albert Henrichs. who also read the manuscript for the APA.vi Preface a unicode-based version of TEX. they have saved me from many mistakes and misunderstandings. These readers and those named below may not agree with all of my arguments and conclusions here.

. My final thanks go to my wife. essentially served as a second advisor. and who has been selflessly helpful at every stage of writing and revision. and to Edward Harris. who.Preface vii the dissertation and has continued to be supportive and inspiring. Robin Orttung. as an outside reader on the dissertation committee. for all of her love and support as this book was born and matured.

This page intentionally left blank .

Editions of Fragments 3. Hyperides’ Funeral Oration 4.Contents Abbreviations 1. The Historical Background 2. General 2. The Text and Translation Text and Translation Commentary Appendix A: Papyrological Notes Appendix B: Critical Conjectures Bibliography General Index Index of Greek Words 3 14 20 27 35 57 111 115 121 141 147 xi xii xii . The Rhetorical Background 3. In the Critical Apparatus Introduction 1.

This page intentionally left blank .

tlg.Abbreviations Ancient authors are cited according to the abbreviations in the LSJ and OLD. Jacoby 1923–1958.uci. Berlin (1873–). Barrington atlas CAH FGrHist IG LSJ OLD Smyth TLG Talbert 2000.. Inscriptiones graecae. A printed catalogue of the contents may be found in Berkowitz and Squitier 1990. except that Demosthenes is abbreviated as “Dem. Liddell and Scott 1925–1940. Glare 1982. 1. Smyth 1920. 1.” Sections of Hyperides’ Funeral Oration are referred to with a section sign only. Cambridge ancient history. 2d edition (1970–2005). References are to section numbers.edu/>. 121–139. Thesaurus linguae graecae electronic data bank of ancient Greek literature.” References to all modern works by author and year of publication may be found in the comprehensive bibliography below on pp. Epit. General The following special abbreviations are used throughout the work.” and Plutarch as “Plut. e. available online at <http://www.g. xi . “§1” rather than “Hyp.

2). Philemo Kassel and Austin 1983–. Gorgias Diels and Kranz 1952. vol. I: 210–216 no. In the case of editors who have published more than one edi- . V (Kannicht). vol. which is also indicated in Dindorf 1829. also preserved in the palimpsest) and <http://www. In the Critical Apparatus In the critical apparatus and appendix B. Hyperides References to the older fragments use the enumeration of Jensen 1917 and Blass 1894. Alcaeus Lobel and Page 1955. or because the reference is to a particular edition’s pagination. see pp.xii Abbreviations 2.archimedespalimpsest. Hecataeus FGrHist. because editors order speeches or fragments differently. 82. II: 271–307 no. Euripides Snell et al. Lysias Carey 2007b. vol. For a history of editions of the text. 24. Maximus Migne 1857–1866 vol. 264. vol. 88–147. 29–31. Russell and Wilson (1981.org/>. Alcmaeon Diels and Kranz 1952. Sophocles Snell et al. 6 (Opuscula vol. the numbering systems of the following are employed in this work: The pagination is that of Jebb 1722. Epicharmus Kaibel 1899. I refer to the page numbers of the bifolia of the Euchologion. VII: 221–317. the following abbreviations are used for the publications of modern scholars. vol. For further information on these new fragments see Tchernetska 2005 (the editio princeps of the fragments of Hyperides’ Against Timandros. Pseudo-Dionysius Usener and Radermacher 1885–1929. IIIa: 11–64 no. 362–381) provide a convenient translation. The first edition of the new fragments of the Against Diondas has now appeared (Carey et al. Galen Kühn 1821–1833. vol. 1971–. IV (Radt). Aristides 3. 2008). Editions of Fragments In references to ancient authors which depend upon particular editions. 111–291. vol. 91. and also textual discussion in the commentary. 1971–.

I usually refer only to the most recent publication. In one instance I have been unable to locate the original publication for some editorial suggestions. The other reference. Toup and Ruhnken 1806. Desrousseaux 1949. Kenyon 1906. Kayser 1858. 98 (Pack 1965. L. Many of his suggestions were originally published in Comparetti 1858. Radermacher 1896. Kayser 1868 on §6 and §31. Post’s conjectures are reported in Burtt 1954. unless there is something noteworthy in the earlier work not included in the later edition. Lond.g. 308–309. 343 on §43. Kaibel 1893. Graindor 1898. I have checked six of those and not been able to locate Fuhr’s comments on the Funeral Oration. Comparetti 1864. 1236).Abbreviations xiii tion (e. Babington and Blass). 116. Bursian and Müller 1858. Leopardi 1835. Piccolomini 1882. and the editor’s name is enclosed in brackets (viz. Cited on pages xiii. 56 n. Caesar 1857. The reference is from Jensen 1917. Cobet 1873. Graindor van Herwerden Hess Jensen Kaibel Kayser Kenyon Leopardi Levi Maehly Müller Piccolomini Post Radermacher Ruhnken . p Babington Blass Bücheler Bursian Caesar Caffiaux Cobet Colin Comparetti Desrousseaux Fritzsche [Fuhr] The papyrus. Maehly 1872. 1. A. to Wochenschrift für klassiche Philologie 1902 p. 75. Bursian and Müller 1858. His bibliography lists seven items. [Fuhr]). Colin 1946. 54. P. 1543. 115. Mus. Fritzsche 1861–1862. Levi 1892. Lit. Bücheler 1875.. Jensen 1917. 312–313. 133 = Brit. Caffiaux 1866. Hess 1938. is in error. inv. van Herwerden 1895. 11. Cobet 1858. Babington 1859. Blass 1894.

All readings reported in Jensen 1917. 312–313. Originally in Babington 1858. Volckmar 1860. 476. Schroeder 1922. Shilleto 1860. The §12 suggestion is reported in Blass 1894 and I have not been able to verify it elsewhere. Weil 1858. not fully repeated in Schäfer 1860. Spengel 1858. Schenkl Schroeder Shilleto Sitzler Spengel Stahl Sudhaus Tarrant Tell Thalheim Toup Volckmar Weil . Sitzler 1883. Tarrant 1930. Tell 1861. Stahl 1907. Toup and Ruhnken 1806. Thalheim 1918. Schenkl 1877. Sauppe 1860.xiv Sandys Sauppe Schäfer Abbreviations Sandys 1895 on §10.

HYPERIDES .

This page intentionally left blank .

328–346 and Habicht 1997. For more than twenty years he had been one of the leading opponents of Macedonian involvement in Greek affairs. after the death of Philip’s son Alexander in 323. 207.3 Philocrates was one of the ten Athenian Hansen (1989. We will now contextualize that optimism. For further biographical references see Whitehead 2000. the Greeks revolted.Introduction 1. 2. and 1 3 .1 and the Funeral Oration marks the pinnacle of the Athenian policy of resistance to Macedon. 1 n. 2 For more comprehensive treatments of the period. 61–66) provides a shorter summary of his life. 60) gives an outline of Hyperides’ political activity and Engels (1989) has produced an exhaustive political biography. Philip defeated the Greek allies at Chaeronea in August 338 and afterward instituted a league of Greek states under Macedonian control. 109. 2001. first by examining Hyperides’ role in the decades-long Athenian debate over relations with Macedon. The Historical Background Hyperides (born in 390/389) delivered the Funeral Oration in Athens in early 322. and the Funeral Oration evinces the optimistic mood of Hyperides and other Athenians at the time. Fifteen years later. and then by considering the events that led to the Lamian War in 323. 102–103 no. see Rhodes 2006. 6–42. The rebellion was initially successful. MacDowell 2000. 3 On the case see Hansen 1975.2 Hyperides first came to prominence as an opponent of Macedon in 343 when he prosecuted Philocrates in a case of treason (eisangelia) for accepting bribes from Philip. Cooper (Worthington et al.

10 Demosthenes was proud of engineering this alliance Whitehead 2000. Demosthenes and other leading Athenian opponents of Macedon began reaching out to potential allies. 9 [Plu. The Macedonian king entered central Greece as the h gem n of the Amphictyonic League in the fourth Sacred War against Amphissa. 19. 186–193 and CAH VI2 .8 Hyperides helped prepare the fleet to face the Macedonians at Euboea in 340. 2. 53–56) considers the Athenian motives for a treaty with Philip at this point. Athens’ ally. 18. In the late 340s Demosthenes himself made repeated diplomatic trips to the Peloponnese and elsewhere.5 Hyperides convinced the court that Philocrates accepted bribes from Philip and acted against the interest of Athens. see Engels 1989. 7 For the sequence of the two trials see Dem. 6 See also the note on §10 under κατεφθαρμένη ὑπὸ [τῶν] δωροδο‹κ›ούντων. Dem. while Hyperides went to the island of Rhodes.116 and Aesch. on the Amphictyonic Council at the end of the third Sacred War in late 346. For relations between Athens and Phocis see the note on §13 under Θ]ετταλοὺς δὲ καὶ Φωκέας κτλ. 10 For a narrative of these events see Ellis 1976. 5 It is first labeled “the peace of Philocrates” at Dem. 848e and 849e. 778–781. and after Philip laid siege to Byzantium and captured the Athenian grain fleet later that year. who prosecuted Aeschines soon afterward on similar grounds. 19.6.4 The so-called Peace of Philocrates became an embarrassment for Athens when Philip gained a foothold in central Greece by replacing Phocis. Harris (1995.4 Hyperides: Funeral Oration ambassadors who negotiated peace terms with Philip in early 346.] Vit. 14) explains why Demosthenes. 4 Harris (1995. while Athens formed an opposing coalition with Thebes and several other Greek states. one of the ambassadors in 346. Hyperides’ successful attack on Philocrates and the Peace brought him into partnership with Demosthenes.6 Philocrates was sentenced to death in absentia and his property was confiscated. 334–335). 126–130) demonstrates the complete implausibility of Demosthenes’ later allegations that Aeschines deliberately precipitated the fourth Sacred War as an opportunity for Philip to invade central Greece. Hyperides may also have visited Chios and/or Thasos on this trip. 235. MacDowell (2000. 87–88.150.9 In 339 the lines were drawn for war with Philip in Greece. X or. sought to distance himself from the Peace by prosecuting Aeschines in 343. Hyperides served as trierarch and participated in the expedition to Byzantium.237 lists Athens’ allies . 8 The evidence for these missions is collected by Develin (1989.7 In anticipation of the upcoming conflict with Philip.

Demosthenes’ enemies charged him with cowardice in battle (a charge that could be leveled at any of the survivors). Par. 67–68 (T67). but references to Theban exiles at Athens in the fragments of Hyperides’ defense speech (Hyp. along with the other Greek states.238. Dem. 18.156 and Harp. 18. see Dem. Plut. The proposal was indicted by Diondas in a graph paranom n (Hansen 1974.5 provides figures for Athenian losses. 196–198) discusses the terms of the coalition (Athens paid two-thirds of the expense according to Aesch. 36–37 no. 145v/144r ll. s.2. lead in the so-called League of Corinth.86.14 As a member of the boul in 338/337 he remained in the city during the battle. Plut.12.Introduction 5 and he was among the Athenian troops who fought at the battle of Chaeronea in 338. Sealey (1993.12 In the aftermath Athens. not I. metics. 12 Diod. 15 Luc.143 and Dem. 175–176. Ryder (1965. 36 no. 1972–1988. II: 623–646) provides a detailed overview. and then Alexander’s. Develin (1989. which is now perhaps confirmed by the new text of the Against Diondas (Hyp. 3. the measure was challenged for illegality and never put into effect (Hansen 1974. Din. προβουλεύω III. 25). 13 On the settlements with the individual Greek states after the battle see Hammond et al. 26). Pel. 3. 345)).11 The battle was a complete failure for the Greeks.g. Dion.153. which uses the verb probouleuein in a non-technical sense (LSJ s. 20. but he was never prosecuted for lipotaxion: Aesch. 211–226. Sic.v. 25–26. (1972–1988. More than one thousand Athenians died and two thousand more were taken hostage. II: 604–623 and Roebuck 1948. and that detail is now also found at Hyp. 16.15 and when news of the disaster reached Athens. Aesch. 102–105 and 150–162) discusses the League of Corinth as a koin eir n and Hammond et al. 3. cf.57. he put forward an emergency measure enfranchising slaves.5 observes the destruction of the entire Theban Sacred Band. 27). 42 offers late and unspecific evidence for his membership on the boul (which is accepted by.v. He proposed an honorary crown to award Demosthenes for his good service to the city of Athens in the days leading up to the confrontation. 176r/173v ll..152. 9–12). 223–224 seems to place the proposal for a crown by Demomeles and Hyperides before the battle.2) to describe Hyperides’ activity at the time of battle. e.16 At the end of the campaign season the boul initiated the selection process for the orator at the state funeral oration. Dion. 16 Osborne 1983. and Athenians whose citizenship had been revoked.13 Hyperides was a staunch supporter of Demosthenes before and after the battle. 145r/144v l. 18. 1. ἰσοτελής on the exiles in Athens) indicate that the case did not come to trial until after 335. 14 Dem. and Hyperides likely had a role in the presentation of Demosthenes as a candidate before the As- before the battle. Dion. 18. lost its autonomy in foreign policy and was forced to follow Philip’s. 159. 187. 11 On the alliance. . the other Greek allies also suffered heavy losses.

20 Hansen 1974. He reconciled some with his promises and others by show of force. but in both cases we find Hyperides firmly opposed to Athenian appeasement of Macedon. 17. Mx.2. 22.23 The League was designed to support first Philip’s.21 Demosthenes also made secret contact with Attalus. Whitehead (2000.22 The League of Corinth now appeared to be a dead letter and agitations arose throughout Greece. Demosthenes celebrated publicly and the city awarded crowns to the assassins. 17 . and encouraged the other Greek states to rebel.6 Hyperides: Funeral Oration sembly. an Athenian politician who helped negotiate with Philip after the battle. Hyperides prosecuted Demades. 32. 76.6.3. 37 no.285 describes an election in the Assembly with alternative candidates (on the procedure for electing magistrates see Hansen 1991. 19 Hyp. Gomme (1956.2–4. 22 Plut.77. and then AlexanThe probouleuma probably suggested a few suitable candidates for the election in the Assembly (perhaps implied at Pl. Dem.18 He alleged that Euthycrates colluded with Philip and was a traitor to his own city. 18. Aesch. 234b). with discussion by Bosworth (1988. much of the Athenian debate over Macedon took place in the courts. and we will consider the content of the speech in the next section of the introduction.1–2. Some time before Philip’s death in autumn of 336.17 The people selected Demosthenes to give the funeral oration in late 338. 18 Hansen 1974. 102) asserts that the boul appointed the speaker. who presided when that body approved honors for leading Macedonians and/or their supporters in Athens. Dem. 23 Diod.3. Sic. In the years after the battle of Chaeronea. 39 no. 23. 28. a Macedonian commander in Asia and Alexander’s chief rival for the throne. and that he failed to support Athens after its defeat. The Athenian opponents of Macedon were encouraged by the murder of Philip in October 336. 3. But Alexander rose to the occasion. 188–189). He prosecuted Philippides for proposing honors for the proedroi of the Assembly. When the news reached Athens. 17. 160.2.20 The outcome of both trials is unknown. but Dem. Diod.1 and 17.5. 21 Plut.19 Another case at about the same time indicates how divisive the Macedonian question was in Athens. 29–30 and 32) discusses the date and those honored by the proedroi. and where Hyperides stood. 233–235). fr. By the end of 336 the League of Corinth was reinstated and Alexander was recognized as the new h gem n of the Greeks. for proposing a decree to honor Euthycrates of Olynthus. Sic.

Sic.28 The citizen judges supported the anti-Macedonian stance of 24 Diod. On Alexander’s panhellenism see Flower 2000.2. and convinced the Athenian Assembly to support the Theban cause. 164–165). 17. but that support did not materialize in time. 23.Introduction 7 der’s. An. saved them. had recently returned to the city. X or.] Vit. 27 On Demades’ role see Diod. On the garrison see note on §17 under τ[ὴν δὲ ἀ]κρόπολιν φρουρουμ[έ]ν[ην].18. Hyperides refers to some fifty unsuccessful indictments of anti-Macedonian politicians by Diondas. 1. 5 above).3–4. In spring of 335 he traveled to quell a revolt in Illyria.8–14. 18). exiled after the battle of Chaeronea. Sic.89.15.1–2 with discussion by Worthington (1992. 16. with the note on §17 under τὴν π]όλιν τῶν Θηβαίων. and they were quick to provoke a rebellion against the garrison stationed there to maintain Macedonian hegemony. Alexander arrived with his army. 848f. 25 For narratives of the Theban revolt and destruction see Arr. Dion. In autumn of 335 the Macedonian army. An. cf. [Plu. Dem. Hyperides had proposed an honorary crown for Demosthenes before Chaeronea and was indicted by Diondas (see p. 17. As in the prosecution of Philippides. and in the course of that action a rumor of his death reached Thebes. and in this case the court upheld his award for Demosthenes.26 Before Athens could join the rebellion. who waited until after the destruction of Thebes to bring the case to court.4 and 3. 26 See Diod. 31–32 (on the speech see below p. and only the diplomacy of Demades. which was portrayed as a panhellenic war of revenge for the invasion of 480. 93–95) demonstrates that these later accounts wrongly include Hyperides because of his activity during the Lamian War.7–8 and Diod. Athenian politicians continued to debate policy toward Macedon in the courts. with the support of Thebes’ enemies in Greece. but Bosworth (1980. we continue to see sharp divisions over attitudes toward Macedon.6–7 and Plut. 17. razed the city and killed or enslaved its inhabitants. Arr. Alexander demanded the surrender of his most prominent opponents in Athens.27 Despite the ineffectiveness of military resistance. Sic. . Alexander returned to the north to make final preparations. Hyperides’ recent opponent in court. After the destruction of Thebes the enemies of Macedon were reluctant to risk further rebellion.25 Demosthenes himself sent arms.8. 145r/144v ll. Some sources put Hyperides on the list of Athenians demanded. Sic.14. Worthington (2003a) suggests that Alexander’s treatment of Thebes was connected with Theban support of a rival (Amyntas son of Perdiccas III) for the Macedonian throne.24 With Greece pacified. 2. Enemies of Philip.12. campaign against the Persian Empire. 9–10 and 175r/174v ll. 28 Hyp.

13. did not press the issue.30 When Agis III of Sparta led a huge army of Greeks and mercenaries in revolt in 331. 33 Libanius’ summary of Dem.2 and Curt. Worthington (2000. 17 attributes the speech to Hyperides (Lib. 2. Rhodes (2006. and was indicted soon afterward by Aeschines in a graph paranom n. also Harris 1995. Mor. Badian (1967. 173). 818e. Aeschines’ indictment. and the context is probably the debate in the Athenian Assembly over joining Agis’ revolt.15. 37–39 no. at Megalopolis in early 330. but there is little sign of concerted resistance in Athens as Alexander marched east into Asia for his twelve-year campaign beginning in 334.35 In his speech On the Crown Demosthenes focuses on the events leading to the battle of Chaeronea and he has next to nothing to say about more recent history. but to no avail. 3. 3. Hansen (1974. 31 On the date see Badian 1994. and by shorthand I refer to him as the defendant in this account. 342) suggests that the mention of a contribution to this war in an honorary inscription proposed by Lycurgus (IG II2 351 = Rhodes and Osborne 2003. 32 Demades: Plut. 240 for references. Demosthenes delivered the main defense speech as Ctesiphon’s syn goros.34 The following year Aeschines called Demosthenes to account for his failed policy of resistance. He diverts attention from Athens’ tardy response to Thebes in 335 and the failArr. Alexander’s regent in Macedonia. Agis’ revolt was easily defeated by Antipater. Some saw the revolt as an opportunity to fight for freedom. 474–477 no. An.8 Hyperides: Funeral Oration Demosthenes and Hyperides. but others were more cautious.15.32 Hyperides and Lycurgus probably did urge the Athenians to join the fight.” 34 On the date see Badian 1994.31 Athenian politicians were divided. but the case did not come to trial until 330/329.33 Without the support of the Athenian navy. or.1 and Aesch.29 but any prospects for an alliance of Greeks and Persians collapsed soon afterward with Alexander’s victory at Issus. 181–183) and Cawkwell (1969. 277. 268–271. Athens and other Greek states sent ambassadors to Persia in 333 to request support for a Greek rebellion. Dem. 30 29 . 17).D. 13–37) provides a thorough analysis of the dates of Ctesiphon’s proposal.165–166. 35 Ctesiphon proposed a crown for Demosthenes in 337/336. and the trial. 94) “indicates that Lycurgus would have liked Athens to take part. 178–180) suggest that Demosthenes failed to appreciate the revolt’s potential. Arg. Badian (1967. 24. and Demosthenes. 97–98) is more sceptical of Agis’ chances and defends Demosthenes’ inactivity (cf. Demades convinced the city not to antagonize Macedon. 30) catalogues the testimonia for these events and Wankel (1976. 175–176) considers how startling the news from Issus must have been for the Greeks. see Sealey 1993. despite his initial support for the revolt. Demosthenes: Plut.

77–129 (a reprint of Humphreys 1985 with updated notes and an extensive new “afterword”). neither of which addresses foreign policy. the opponents of Macedon waited for their opportunity.37 Demosthenes was the most prominent opponent of Alexander in Athens. and he wrote a speech for a client in prosecution of Athenogenes). but at the same time. increased dramatically. the city pursued internal reforms. the case only concerns Ctesiphon’s decree of 336. 59–67) demonstrates that Aeschines’ case was weak. and were also used to increase the size of the fleet. As the debate over Macedon grew quieter. 40 Habicht (1997. 257–267 and Humphreys 2004. 515–516) provides a concise sketch of Lycurgus’ financial administration. The court overwhelmingly rejected Aeschines’ prosecution and in doing so endorsed Demosthenes’ nostalgic depiction of Athenian opposition to Philip in the years leading up to Chaeronea. 101) summarizes the slight evidence for Demosthenes’ activity between 330 and 324. 19–20.38 In 330 Athenians looked back at the Demosthenic policy of the early 330s with approval. 38 Worthington (2000. Lambert (1997.39 These funds underwrote the construction of several public buildings and fortifications. For a more detailed account see Faraguna 1992. 280–291) offers a more full account with references to recent discussion (most importantly. probably in 330 or not long afterward. . see the discussion on pp. 94 on IG II2 351 + 624 and Heisserer and Moysey (1986) on a similar honorary decree.Introduction 9 ure to act in 331 by emphasizing his earlier leadership. 23–26) and Bosworth (1988. and by 330 it would have seemed increasingly unrealistic and futile to continue advocating resistance. the fight against Macedon.40 While the city was building its strength. and Lycurgus also recruited private donors.41 Several factors severely aggravated relations between Athens and 36 Admittedly. On private contributions see Rhodes and Osborne 2003. 41 We have two forensic speeches of Hyperides from the period of 330 to 324 (he spoke as a syn goros for Euxenippus. 204–211) provide useful brief summaries of Lycurgus’ programs. Faraguna 1992. 171–194). Still. The city’s revenues. other leaders such as Hyperides and Lycurgus were unable to convince their fellow citizens to pursue an active policy of confrontation in 331. Aeschines brings up the revolts of the 330s and Demosthenes does not respond. as we saw in the reaction to Agis’ revolt. 39 Rhodes (1993.36 Since Philip’s death the Macedonians had repeatedly suppressed every Greek rebellion. 474–477 no. and later events are not strictly relevant. 37 Harris (2000. or at least postponed. under the administration of Lycurgus. and after his victory against Aeschines he appears to have abandoned. and that the judges voted in support of Demosthenes’ interpretation of the legal issue.

Din. 26–27. [Plu. 46 Diod. 17. 44 See §13 with note under Θ]ετταλοὺς δὲ καὶ Φωκέας καὶ [Αἰ]τωλοὺς κτλ.47 After stationing his private army and most of his fleet at Taenarum. First. 8–9. Sic. but especially for Athens and the Aetolian League. at the same time as news of the Exiles Decree began to reach the Greeks. 220–228) offers a useful discussion. before he could be surrendered.43 The Exiles Decree caused great anxiety throughout Greece.48 Athens was nervous about the Exiles Decree and reluctant to surrender Harpalus too quickly. which it had occupied since 365.000 cleruchs (14) seems to be confirmed by a recently discovered council list of the cleruchy (Habicht 1996. but also the Exiles Decree required Athens to abandon Samos. His estimate of between 6.10 Hyperides: Funeral Oration Alexander beginning in early 324. 18.000 and 12. who came to Olympia in early August 324 to announce formally the Exiles Decree).44 Not only would they be affected by the return of long-absent mercenaries to Greece. X or. Harpalus was admitted to the city and then. 401).1 and 18. 41–77) also provides a detailed discussion of the events and questions Demosthenes’ guilt. Dem. Demosthenes proposed that Harpalus be confined and that his assets be safeguarded on the Acropolis while Demosthenes himself would negotiate with Alexander’s agent (Nicanor.108. 43 Badian 1961.109. Dem. Dem. 215–216). 846a–b.46 The next source of friction between Athens and Alexander was the arrival of Harpalus. 13–17 and 134–136 to his list). almost immediately. 17. 103. Whitehead (2000. Sic.16.42 Thousands of Greek mercenaries served in the Persian army. 42 Diod. cf.7. Sic. and in the wake of the Macedonian conquest. 1. many of these troops were discharged (others were incorporated into Alexander’s army).45 while the Aetolians were ordered to quit Oeniadae. 49 Hyp.81.] Vit.49 But Harpalus slipped out of the city in late summer. 165–166) discusses Alexander’s Exiles Decree and Samos. 45 Shipley (1987. 47 Hyp. and repatriate thousands of cleruchs. 357 n.8. who would need homes and livelihoods in Athens. who came as a fugitive seeking asylum at Athens in spring of 324. Alexander’s former treasurer. who would soon ally in revolt. he was demanded by various Macedonian envoys.6. The standard study of the Harpalus scandal is Badian 1961. Bosworth (1988.8. Alexander abandoned the formal terms of the League of Corinth and decreed that all Greek exiles must be allowed to repatriate in their native cities. 18. . discussed by Bosworth (1988. 17. 48 Diod. 246) lists more recent work (add Blackwell 1999. Worthington (1987.

Dem. Dem.4–5. and Hyp. . Dem. X or. 26. Plut. 10 and [Plu.1. 56 See the notes to §21 under ἐξ ὧν ἀναγκαζόμεθα κτλ and [τ]οὺς ‹τού›των οἰκ‹έ›τας ὥσπερ ἥρωας τιμᾶν. 25. such as the debate over Alexander’s divinity (see the next paragraph). Dem.53 The procedure must have been influenced by political considerations.57 The Macedonian king had already begun to display a more autocratic attitude toward the Greeks with the Exiles Decree. Dem. when the Athenian assembly hotly debated an award of divine honors for Alexander and heroic cult for his recently deceased associate Hephaestion. and eventually found guilty. 27. Sic. 2 and Din. 400–402) note. The prosecution speeches by Hyperides and Dinarchus survive (Hyp. 288. There were widespread allegations that Harpalus won his exit from Athens with bribes. 846c. Bosworth 1988. in spring of 323.108.51 When half of the 700 talents deposited by Harpalus were found missing.8 and 18. 51 Diod. 32–36. 53 [Plu. and Demosthenes admitted to accepting funds for public use. 55 Plut. requested this treatment for Hephaestion. and that Demades proposed a cult for Alexander on his own initiative.] Vit. 52 See Hyp.55 The third factor accelerating the war came in late 324. or Demosthenes’ reluctance to join the fiercest advocates of war. Cf. 216–217. as the Areopagus was investigating the Harpalus incident. the negotiations with Macedon on the exiles. 299–302) explains that the Greeks were compelled to follow the oracle. 218–220. 57 Cawkwell (1994. 1. and Din.54 After the trial Demosthenes fled Athens and lived in exile until he was recalled at the end of the year to help the Lamian War effort. 104–105.2. 17.4 on the Areopagus. Demosthenes was confident of his innocence and called for an investigation by the Areopagus.56 Alexander himself. Bosworth 1988. 1). Hyp. Sic. 31–32 and Bosworth 1988.19.108.50 Demosthenes was a central figure in all these events and he became embroiled in the scandal that Harpalus left in his wake. Hyperides would soon attack Demosthenes for his acquiescence on this issue and in the Funeral Oration he singles it 50 Diod.Introduction 11 and was murdered soon afterward in Crete. 12–13 with Whitehead’s (2000. and now the Athenian debate on Alexander’s divinity further galvanized his opponents. X or. Dem. 54 Badian 1961. Dem. For further details on all these events see Badian 1961.] Vit. 846b on the missing gold. following the oracle at Ammon. 17. while others voluntarily proposed similar honors for Alexander in Athens. Plut.52 After that council declared its findings six months later.8. Demosthenes and others were put on trial. Worthington 2000.

immediately began developing “a comparatively long-term programme of expanding the number of ships that could be sent to sea by a newly organised Hellenic League” (90). Sic.5. approved provisions for a large Athenian army and fleet to join the mercenaries. and he was elected general for the year 323/322. 63 On Hyperides’ role see Plut. under the guidance of Hyperides. They openly moved toward war with the support of Harpalus’ gold.3. On Taenarum as a “recognised mercenary center” see Badian 1961. 18.3 (on his confused chronology here.25. 64 Diod.10. 18. 61 Paus. and a formal alliance was concluded at the start of the war.59 Earlier that year the boul commissioned the Athenian Leosthenes to levy a mercenary army.58 The Athenians resolved to go to war against Macedon before the death of Alexander on June 10.11. 15 = FGrHist 105 F6 may preserve a rhetorical piece purporting to be a speech by Leosthenes at this debate. Rhodes (1972. IG II2 367 = Schwenk 1985. 8. and the Athenians joined Leosthenes and his Hyp. 65 Diod. 62 Diod.5. 81 records honors for the Athenian ambassador to Phocis (see Oikonomides 1982). Dem. P.2 and Plut. 18. Badian (1961.12 Hyperides: Funeral Oration out as a particularly goading incitement to the Greeks. 89–93) discusses these passages and concludes that Athens. 142).5 and 18. The religious motivation for the war may be emphasized over the other factors because of the ceremonial context of the Funeral Oration. Morrison (1987. 323.52.9.64 The Locrians and the Phocians and many of the other neighboring Greeks soon joined the coalition. 60 Diod. Worthington (1984) discusses the chronology of the alliance. On his earlier career see the note on §1 under περί τε] Λεωσθένους τοῦ στ[ρατη]γοῦ.11. Sic.2 and 18. 18.9. 401 for references to further discussion of this hypothesis. 486d. 17.62 The Assembly.111. 394–401 no. see Worthington 1984. in the hope of forming a new thalassocracy. 1. Phoc. Sic.5.3 enumerate the Athenian forces. 58 .111. Sic. Hib.60 He had ferried a large body of mercenaries from Asia to Cape Taenarum in the Peloponnese. 59 Worthington (1994) has convincingly refuted Ashton’s (1983) suggestion that the revolt was already in preparation before Harpalus arrived in Athens. 31. and their numbers were increased by Harpalus’ men and other exiles. and at that point Athens seized the opportunity. 27–28. 37–40) suggests that Demosthenes used the twenty talents he received from Harpalus to retain these soldiers in summer of 324. A fragment of the stele survives: IG II2 370. §21.63 Leosthenes was in contact with the Aetolian League prior to Alexander’s death.9. Diod. Badian (1961. Sic. see Whitehead 2000. 23.1–2. probably in 325/324.4. 37 n. Mor. 17.65 Euboea and Boeotia sided with Macedon.61 Alexander’s death came as a surprise. 164) infers that Leosthenes was the hoplite general. 42) notes that the “secret” (ἐν ἀπορρήτοις) arrangement must have been approved by the Assembly.

72 In early 322 Antiphilus. Plut. misfortune struck when the general Leosthenes was killed in a minor engagement.2. 70 See Tracy’s (1994. 18. See also the notes on §11 under Βοιωτούς and Εὐβοέας. the Macedonians were forced to take refuge in Lamia and await reinforcements.15. Diod. 37–38.4–5.10–11.66 The Greek forces then occupied Thermopylae. lifted the siege and led the Greeks in victory against the Macedonian reinforcements.5. and the defeat of Leonnatus (§§12–14) and before the setbacks later that year. Sic. see also the note on §1 under περί τε] Λεωσθένους τοῦ στ[ρατη]γοῦ. 18.1–7. IG II2 448 (9–12. Antipater offered to surrender.18.67 He enlisted the Thessalians en route. 27. 74 There was not a fixed calendar date for the ceremony. but Antipater escaped in retreat with his entire army. Sic. Sic. 18. The Macedonian general Leonnatus was killed. 242) discussion of an augmented text (Walbank 1994) of IG II2 1195 (lines 28–30). the siege at Lamia. but would not agree to Leosthenes’ unconditional terms. The Macedonian commander Antipater requested reinforcements from Asia as he marched south to meet the Greeks.3. and Demosthenes supported him there (and was consequently recalled from exile). Sic. and the army was defeated soon afterward Diod. The speech was presented after the initial victory in Boeotia. see also the note on §14 under τῆς ὕστερον [γενομέ]νης μάχης. After the Greeks defeated Antipater north of Thermopylae. 68 §§12–13.71 But as the siege dragged on into the winter. 18. 13. Phoc.11.12. 29) emphasizes the critical contribution of the Thessalian cavalry. 71 Just. 18.73 Hyperides delivered the Funeral Oration in early 322. where they planned to meet the Macedonian army.69 In Athens the deme of Collytus voted a thank offering to Agathe Tyche for the recent victories. Plut.12. Dem.74 when the Greeks had every reason to be optimistic about defeating Macedon.5.11. see Loraux 1986. but they defected and joined the other Greeks.5.5–12. 13. Tracy (1995. see also the note on §13 under Θ]ετταλοὺς δὲ καὶ Φωκέας καὶ [Αἰ]τωλοὺς κτλ. 72 Diod.68 As the winter approached the Greeks were confident of success. 45–49) refers to an alliance with Sicyon in late 323. The Athenian fleet suffered two major losses at Abydus and Amorgus in July of 322.Introduction 13 allied forces to defeat them near Plataea. Diod. 73 Diod. Sic. Just.2–4. Leosthenes’ replacement in command.4.13. 18. 26. 66 67 .3–4.70 Hyperides was busy recruiting allies in the Peloponnese. 69 Diod. §23 describes the difficulties of the winter siege. Sic.

4–17.76 2.15. 39 n.8–9) is highly compressed). Demosthenes and Hyperides were condemned to death by the Assembly. Dem. 28 n. who cut out Hyperides’ tongue. Plut. Loraux 1986. 75 . 55. on which we will concentrate in the following section. Athens institutionalized state burials for those who died in service each year. Gomme 1956.” Others have argued for specific dates in the late 470s or 460s (see Jacoby 1944. In the years after the Persian Wars. which included a garrison in the Piraeus. 77 The date at which the institution was first introduced is notoriously controversial and not relevant for my present purpose. This discussion of the rhetorical background to Hyperides’ speech will help illuminate the innovative techniques and newfound optimism of Hyperides’ Funeral Oration. and at the same time his speech reflects its historical context in 338.75 Athens was forced to submit to the Macedonian terms. From there we will turn to other speeches of the 330s and find a similar attitude of nostalgic patriotism alongside acknowledgment of the Macedonian hegemony. For Crannon see Diod.2–4.77 The ceremony took place in the winter (or whenever the campaign season came to a close) and included a mourning period (prothesis) in the agora. 13–15.5.16. We will now consider the institutional setting of the speech and the characteristic elements found in Athenian state funeral orations.235–238. Stupperich 1977. Parker (1996. Sic.14 Hyperides: Funeral Oration at Crannon. Phoc. 134–135) sensibly suggests that it “developed by stages” and assumed its full form with an oration “after the defeat of the Persians. 34) list the epigraphic sources for the naval battles (Diodorus’ version (18. 28. 56–76). The Rhetorical Background Hyperides’ Funeral Oration was addressed to a large audience of Athenians and foreigners at the public ceremony for the burial of the war dead in early 322. 1. 28. 94–101. 18. under the leadership of Demades. Clairmont 1983. 76 Plut. We will see that Demosthenes defends the decision to fight the Macedonians at Chaeronea by invoking patriotic models from Athenian history. a procession (ekphora) to the Ceramicus. The fullest recent summary of the problem is Pritchett 1971–1991. IV: 112–124. We will then focus on the Demosthenic Funeral Oration and examine the coexistence of traditional motifs and current attitudes toward Macedon in that speech.1. 7) and Tracy (1995. and subsequently arrested and killed by agents of Antipater. and burial of the cremated remains Habicht (1997.

2. and the few speeches that we have contain several unique passages. IV: 102–106) discusses representations of the the prothesis and the ekphora in vase painting and drama. 2.34. Per.13 with Pritchett 1971–1991. 8–11.78 The remains were divided into ten coffins. one for each of the Cleisthenic tribes.6 and note 17 on p. 80 On the selection of the orator see Thuc. Plut. Pritchett (1971–1991. and that the speech addresses the audience’s specific concerns in 431/430. 81 Thuc. 2. 8 on an earlier Periclean speech). Bosworth (2000) persuasively argues that Thucydides gives an accurate reproduction of what Pericles actually said. for the testimonia see Lys. Bosworth (2000. Bradeen’s work on the casualty lists is synthesized in Bradeen 1969.80 The ceremony was attended by a large audience of Athenian citizens. 2. Gorg. which is replaced by an extended description of the Athenian politeia.141 describes the oration as a uniquely Athenian custom. Pl. the Periclean oration in Thucydides’ history. fr.80. 60.13. has recently been discovered. A funeral monument with cremated remains of several men. but also that of the hero”. it is necessary to note that only a handful of speeches survive from a period of approximately 150 years. see Blackman et al. 249b and Dem. 2. 6. 2) emphasizes the size of the audience described in Thucydides’ introduction to Pericles’ speech. 1. Mx. 1–37. 60–73) describe the polyandria.34. differs from the others (except that of Hyperides) in its omission of the typical account of Athenian history. Mx. IV: 107. 82 Thuc. 20. . 6. 83 Thuc. See Herrman 2004 for translations of all of these with notes emphasizing their individual differences. Pl. Hyp.82 The best known funeral oration. 1997–1998. Lys. who were again classified according to their tribes.79 The Assembly selected an orator to give a public speech of praise for the dead and consolation for the living.34. Dem. 241) observes that the games “take us into the world not just of the early aristocrat . it features a lengthy catalogue of the Eponymous Thuc. On the iconography. Carey (2007a.Introduction 15 in the public tomb (d mosion s ma) followed by the funeral oration (epitaphios logos) and games (epitaphios ag n). Patterson (2006. . Dem. sculptural decoration. 5–6.81 Before considering the typical elements of Athenian funeral orations. Stupperich 1994.6. 137). 53–56) argues against the common interpretation of d mosion s ma as “national cemetery” (cf. 2. and Tsirigoti-Drakotou (2000) describes a recently discovered casualty list fragment (I am grateful to Adele Scafuro for this reference). Rusten 1989. 79 Stupperich (1977.35–46 (cf. 2. dated to the third quarter of the fifth century. For the epigrams see Peek 1955. 60. 236d–249c. Dem. and casualty lists inscribed with the names of the dead. 60. 78 .4–31) and Clairmont (1983.83 Demosthenes’ speech is the only one we have that was delivered after a serious defeat. including female family members and foreign guests. nos. and in a passage without parallel in Attic literature.37–42. and the monument featured sepulchral epigrams.

§§1–2 (with the note to §1 under τῶν μὲν λόγων τ[ῶν μελ]λόντων ῥηθήσεσ[θαι κτλ).85 But despite these idiosyncrasies. the ancestors of the dead.” Burgess (1902. 2. Plato. Dem. 245) observes that the self-referentiality of the speeches is “reminiscent of verse panegyric.17. Mx. and their nature. 60. Thomas (1989. 150–153) provides a detailed catalogue of the elements in these narratives.4. 85 84 . 418. due to the abundance of worthy material. 88 Thuc.] 278.89 The praise section occupies the bulk of the funeral orations. 91 Thuc.5–422. Lys. 60.87 Lamentation should be avoided in a speech exhorting the listeners to continue fighting. 57) and Herrman (2004. 60. cf. 420. These accounts intermix discussion of private and public funeral orations. 87 Ziolkowski (1981. Dem. depart. the surviving speeches share a similar structure and many of the same topics and motifs recur in several speeches. §6 and §15.3–66 and Pl.6–11.27–31. and it. 237c.86 A speech for the war dead should have an extended section of praise (the epainos).84 Hyperides’ speech is the only one that focuses on an individual and provides a detailed narrative of the recent campaign season. All of the speeches have an introduction (prooimion) with commonplaces regarding earlier speakers and the impossibility of praising the dead sufficiently. is full of standard material. 236d–e.11–12.4.15–18. Pl.1–2. The usual topics are the city. 60. 2. Pl.35.16 Hyperides: Funeral Oration Heroes.1.1–2. Rh.36. [D. followed by a consolatory address (paramythia) to the families of the dead. Rh. education. 2. cf.91 This section of the speech regularly contains an idealized history of Athens. 2.” 89 “Now that you have lamented these men as each of you should. extending from mythological times to the Persian Wars and beyond. 60.37.] 277. 196–236) discusses these accounts as examples of an “official tradition. Mx. Dem. and accomplishments. [D. 2.H.90 The orators often assert that their Athenian ancestors were autochthonous (“born of the earth”) and that this shared local origin was responsible for the state’s unity and advanced civilization. 90 Men. §§11–18. §7 with note under οἷς ἡ κοινὴ γένεσις α[ὐτόχ]θοσιν οὖσιν ἀνυπέρβλητ[ον] τὴν εὐγένειαν ἔχει. Lys. Pl.92 This narrative emphasizes Athens as the savior of the other Greeks. 6) chart these divisions in the surviving speeches. Ancient rhetorical handbooks discuss the standard format of an epitaphios logos.19.” Thuc. Mx.88 The closing words of the speeches are also often formulaic: Thucydides. Mx.H. Carey (2007a.6–283. 249c and Dem. and Demosthenes conclude with slight variations on the same theme. too. also Dem. 239a–246b offer the most extensive narratives. 92 Lys. 86 Men.46.1. 2.

99 93 Amazons: Lys.24.98 But amid these words of praise. 60. Mx.8. and many ancient and modern critics have followed his judgment.94 Demosthenes presents the recent conflict with Philip as the latest in a long series of Athenian efforts to protect the other Greeks from foreign invaders. Dem. 98 Dem.Introduction 17 from Theseus’ expeditions against the Amazons and Eumolpus to the battle of Marathon. 60. Pl. But the style and attitude of the speech can be readily explained by the genre and the historical situation. Mx. His narrative of Athenian history begins with an account of how the ancestors of the dead drove Eumolpus and the Amazons out of Greece and ends with a similar description of the Greek victory in the Persian Wars. 2. Demosthenes observes that Greece has lost its freedom (eleutheria) and dignity (axi ma) and fallen into darkness (skotos) and disgrace (dyskleia).95 A later section of the speech. 22. 14–16) observes that the epitaphioi cast Eumolpus and the Amazons as aggressive invaders to serve as a precedent for the Persian invasions. 240c–e. he instead praises the Athenians for their foresight in following his guidance.4–6. Mx. 95 Dem. delivered in autumn of 338. and he praises the citizen soldiers for their bravery. and as a refuge for suppliants such as the children of Heracles. Pl. 239b.8. further associates those who died at Chaeronea with the Athenian historical tradition. 2. 96 Dem. 2. Section 20 refers to the peace negotiations between Philip and . Even before the creation of the League of Corinth. 94 Dionysius of Halicarnassus denied the authenticity of Dem. 239b. 44). For recent discussion see Herrman 2008 and Worthington 2003b. Mx. and there is no compelling reason to doubt that the speech is Demosthenic.18. but Demosthenes does not repudiate the policy that led them there. 99 Dem. 60. Dem. 97 Dem. 60. Walters (1980. or the will of a god (a daim n). he also offers a vision of the immediate reaction to defeat in Athens. Eumolpus: Pl. which relates inspiring tales about each of the Eponymous Heroes of Athens. 239b.97 In the end he attributes the defeat to misfortune (tych ).93 Demosthenes’ Funeral Oration.96 The speech acknowledges that the Greeks lost the battle. employs many of these standard elements. but it also provides a view to Athenian attitudes immediately after the defeat at Chaeronea. 60 because its language and sentiment seem uncharacteristic of Demosthenes (D.27–31. 60.21. 169–172) confirms that the prosody is statistically consistent with genuine speeches. and he faults the Theban commanders for their performance in the field. Dem.11–16. Heraclidae: Lys.8–11. Pl. McCabe (1981. 60. Marathon: Lys.H. 60.19.

as a funeral oration. avoided specific discussion of policy. Fragments of a newly discovered speech of Hyperides.103 He describes the effort as “noble” (chr stos) and. delivered after the eruption of Agis’ revolt.18 Hyperides: Funeral Oration The Athenians were unable to challenge the Macedonian hegemony in the years after the battle of Chaeronea. delivered not as formal funeral orations but rather in political court cases in the 330s. 145v/144r ll. 103 Hyp. 18. which explains why the speech concentrates on that period. When his accuser alleges that the terms of the alliance with Thebes were unfair for Athens. 104 Hyp. 137r/136v l.238. Dem. He was charged with fleeing Athens immediately after the battle of Chaeronea.104 Demosthenes’ Funeral Oration and Hyperides’ Against Diondas both concentrate on Chaeronea and neither offers any prospect of renewed resistance to Macedon. 102 Hyp. For details on the trial of Leocrates see Hansen 1975. 105 On the date of the trial see Harris (in Worthington et al. Dion.” 102 and then makes a more explicit analogy between the campaign of 338 and the Persian Wars. Taken together. continue to illustrate the Athenian mood toward Macedonia. 121. 1–2. 2001. 5 on the date of the Against Diondas. 137v/136r ll. 8 on Agis’ revolt. 8. Hyperides answers with an account of the Athenian contribution to the allied forces at the battles of Artemisium and Salamis. Dion. and especially after the destruction of Thebes in 335. Against Diondas. 100 For a narrative of these events see above pp. but Hyperides’ is primarily concerned with a defense of the political decisions leading to battle. 101 See above note 14 on p.101 Demosthenes’ speech of 338. show that the leading enemies of the Macedonians in Athens continued to use historical precedent to defend the policy that led to Chaeronea. he praises the Athenian d mos for following a policy aimed at the freedom of the Greeks “just as [Athens did] before. just as Demosthenes did. 9–22. 1). 32–137v/136r l. Dion. and see below note 112 on p. 20 for the Demosthenic parallels. 6–7. they suggest that in the years after Chaeronea the Athenian enemies of Macedon focused on the past as they grew resigned to the Macedonian hegemony.105 In one brief passage he closely echoes Demosthenes’ Funeral Oration as he laments that “the liberty of the Greeks” perished Athens immediately after the battle. See below note 115 on p.100 A handful of important speeches. . 19 on the relation of these two speeches. continues to dwell on the loss at Chaeronea seven years before. 159 n. he blames the defeat on misfortune (tych ). Like Demosthenes. not the creation of the League in early 337. Cf. See above p. 108 no. Lycurgus’ prosecution of Leocrates in 331.

107 Lycurg. PE 10.160–161.110 But Demosthenes does not take the bait.3. quoted above.41–42. 67–75). 165. uses models from myth and the Persian Wars to heroize the Athenian effort at Chaeronea. fr. his defense speech focuses on the period leading up to the battle of Chaeronea. Lycurg. 99. cf. he defends the policy that led to Chaeronea. by using many of the same arguments that appeared in his Funeral Oration in 338. 50. 8). he compares the campaign against Philip with patriotic episodes from Athenian myth. 111 Dem.107 From myth he moves to the Persian Wars. nor does he mention the recent defeat of Agis. 8).29 (on the Leontidae). cf. cf. 60.108 Lycurgus may have hoped the Athenians would join Agis’ revolt in 331 and put the defeat of 338 behind them (see note 33 on p. 60. 112 Indeed. and promises to return to the topic later in his defense. 60. 104 and 70. 3. there are many close verbal echoes between On the Crown and Against Diondas. such as the sacrifice of the Hyacinthidae to save Athens from Eumolpus. 95). but his persuasive appeal to the court in Athens in his prosecution of Leocrates. 3. Worthington 2000. and also in Hyperides’ Against Diondas and Lycurgus’ Against Leocrates. he believes) Demosthenic speech. Instead. 106 .112 Demosthenes shows no regret for his policy. 156–157. Demosthenes delivered his masterpiece On the Crown. the battles of Marathon and Salamis.106 Like Demosthenes and other funeral orators. 98–100. 110 Aesch. 109 Although his case was weak (on the legal issues see Harris 2000. singling out the two standard examples of Athenian heroism. As we have already observed (see p.252). In his prosecution speech Aeschines blames Demosthenes for missing the opportunity of Philip’s death in 336 and for failing to support Thebes in 335 and Agis in 331. Maas (1928) lists several other close parallels and suggests that Lycurgus deliberately alludes to the (genuine.111 But the promise is left unfulfilled: Demosthenes does not return to the subject of the Theban revolt.27. Early in the speech he makes a brief mention of the destruction of Thebes. and avoids discussion of more recent events.Introduction 19 along with the soldiers who died on the field.24. as Eusebius had already noted (Eus. 101 recalls Dem. Lycurgus lost by only a single vote (Aesch.109 A year after Lycurgus’ prosecution. like earlier speeches of Demosthenes and Hyperides.14–15 = Hyp. He argues that confrontation with Philip was inevitable. Dem. 108 Lycurg. Dem. and that the alliance with Thebes Lycurg. 18.

These orations pay little attention to subsequent developments.113 Not only was this policy sensible. For details and references see above p. 3.20 Hyperides: Funeral Oration was the best alternative for Athens. which they present as the most recent event in a long tradition of Athenian accomplishments. for example.114 As before. Earlier funeral orations present an idealized history of Athens that begins in the mythological past and culminates with the Persian Wars. demonstrates that the leading advocates for Greek freedom preferred to dwell on the glorious fight for freedom at Chaeronea. Dem. Hyperides’ Funeral Oration As we have just seen. Lysias. 60. presenting an extensive account of the Persian Wars as the centerpiece. but it also lived up to the Athenian tradition. cf. according to Demosthenes. but only briefly. and Hyperides shows them that the current campaign was more important than any of their ancestors’ achievements. As we saw above (p. On these events see above pp. 9–12. 16. for the loss at Chaeronea. The Athenians had finally put Chaeronea behind them. as Philip and Alexander consolidated their control of Greece. with discussion by Yunis (2000. 108–109). as if to emphasize that the current honorands play but a small part in a great tradition.192–194. especially the Persians. . he blames misfortune. and the death of Alexander in 323 provided an ideal opportunity to renew the fight for the freedom lost at Chaeronea. rather than more recent events that only confirmed their impotence against Alexander. devotes nearly his whole speech to “the deeds of the dead” (3). Dem. the speeches of the 330s focus on the defeat at Chaeronea.19–20. the war with Philip was compared to earlier Athenian efforts against foreign invaders. 18.115 This speech.208. With its focus on recent events. 18. In On the Crown he again invokes the model of those earlier heroes and presents Chaeronea as a modern-day Marathon. while the Corinthian 113 114 115 116 117 Dem. like each of the others considered in this section. or a divine spirit.117 They do sometimes describe more recent events.116 Hyperides’ speech reflects the changed situation. 17) when considering Demosthenes’ Funeral Oration. Dem. But in the 320s Athenian prospects improved dramatically. 18.195. it stands apart from Athenian speeches of the 330s and from earlier funeral orations.

who played a leading role in the revolt and was killed in the field.20–47 and 66–70. 12–13 and the note on section §1 under περί τε] Λεωσθένους τοῦ στ[ρατη]γοῦ. . 3–4) suggests that Pericles’ oration in 439 may have been similar to Hyperides’ in this regard. 122 §§9–10. Similarly. 120 See §5 with the commentary notes. but instead focuses exclusively on recent events. and this short comparison encompasses many of the standard topoi found in the longer narratives of other speeches. 121 As discussed above (pp. 2. Bosworth (2000.124 Although his narrative focuses exclusively on the most recent campaign season. He offers instead a simile comparing the city of Athens with the sun. 124 §§17–18 with the commentary notes. see Kearns 1989. 60. then with the Athenian generals Miltiades and Themistocles. in the Menexenus the Persian Wars receive much more attention than the Corinthian War. For discussion of this speech’s unusual focus on the general. 12–13. 80–92.122 and then narrates the events of the year: the initial success in Boeotia. He presents an extended description of each of the Eponymous Heroes of Athens. 17. each of the funeral orations is idiosyncratic in some way. 119 Dem. Mx.Introduction 21 War receives only a moment’s attention. and the defeat of Leonnatus. 15–17). and finally with the tyrant-slayers Harmodius and Aristogiton.121 He begins with the general Leosthenes. and in each instance adds the refrain that the members of the tribe were inspired by their distant ancestors. τὸν δὲ στρατηγὸν Λεωσθένη. the siege of Antipater at Lamia.118 Demosthenes’ speech nicely illustrates the typical emphasis on the past found in earlier funeral orations. Other epitaphioi praise the dead for matching the deeds of 118 Lys. Hyperides points to the current situation in Thebes and emphasizes the future meetings of the Amphictyonic Council as stimuli for the soldiers’ efforts. . 239d–241d and 244b–245c.120 The narrative that follows does not append recent accomplishments to a long catalogue of older achievements.123 Whereas Demosthenes had emphasized the tribal heroes as inspirational models. On Leosthenes see pp. see also above pp. with the individual entries in her appendix 1. explaining that “there is not enough time now to survey individually its earlier [accomplishments]” (§4). 123 §§12–14 with the commentary notes. above p.119 Hyperides refuses to narrate the past deeds of the city at all.27–31. Hyperides concludes his praise of Leosthenes and his men with an account of the reception that the general will receive in Hades. He first compares Leosthenes with the Greek heroes of the Trojan War. On the Eponymous Heroes. . see Pl. see the note on §3 under ἐπαινεῖν . cf. and there may well have been earlier epitaphioi that also focused on recent events.

§38. 17. See the note there under τὴν ἀρετὴν ἰσχὺν καὶ τὴν ἀνδρείαν πλῆθος . 60. 60.”127 Again at the end of his introduction he repeats that recent accomplishments were “more honorable and noble” than those of the ancestors (§3). . Statements such as these do not occur in earlier funeral orations. On andres agathoi see the note on §8 under ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί γ[ίγνων]ται. At the end of the narrative of the campaign season he boldly makes an explicit claim that no earlier effort was more important: “None of those who came before ever fought for more noble goals or against stronger adversaries. 128 §19.125 but Hyperides emphatically argues that Leosthenes deserved more praise than his predecessors. See above p. he was more courageous and foresighted than the generals of the Persian Wars because he prevented the foreign invaders from reaching Athens. 127 §1. 126 §35. .22 Hyperides: Funeral Oration their ancestors. See also the note on §35 under δ]ιήνεγκε.126 Hyperides highlights the primacy of the Lamian War elsewhere throughout the speech. Lysias concludes his narrative by stating that the soldiers of the Corinthian War “preserved the glory” of their ancestors (69: τήν . 130 Lycurg. 129 Dem. 50.23–24. in his Funeral Oration of 338 Demosthenes lamented that the freedom and dignity of Greece died along with the souls of the fallen soldiers at Chaeronea.129 Hyperides’ positive attitude also stands in contrast to the courtroom speeches delivered after the battle of Chaeronea. in 330 Lycurgus echoed Demosthenes’ tone of despondency.”130 For example. . see the note there under [ἀμείνους] on the restoration of the word. . Currie (2005. and Harmodius and Aristogiton would prefer his company because he accomplished “even more” than they by liberating all of Greece. 125 . κρίνοντες on the hyperbole. He “greatly excelled” those who attacked Troy because the stakes were higher for Greece in 322. 116–118) lists passages that describe the accomplishments of the war dead as being “worthy” (axios) of comparison to the deeds of the epic heroes.”128 And later he adds that the Lamian War displayed the soldiers’ virtue better than any earlier campaigns had (§23).10). he makes no comparable statement regarding the dead from Chaeronea. He begins with the standard description of the dead as andres agathoi (“brave men”) and then goes on to add that there have never been “[better] men than those who have died or more generous achievements. δόξαν διασώσαντες) and although Demosthenes argues that the soldiers of the Persian War were superior to those of the Trojan War (Dem. or with fewer allies. §39. and added that the souls of those who died in 338 were a “crown for the fatherland.

. κρίνοντες.”134 The circumstances of the war. 135 Cf. and the rule of law.Introduction 23 Hyperides responded in 322 that the soldiers in the Lamian war “made freedom public property for all” and that it was not the souls of the dead at Chaeronea. Hyperides also appropriates the language typically used for the Persian Wars and applies it to the Lamian War. Loraux 1986. See the note there under στέφανον τῆι πατρίδ[ι. with the note on §37 under Μιλτιάδην καὶ Θεμιστοκλέα. with an alliance of Greek states fighting a foreign monarch. alluding to the Lamian War slogan of “freedom for the Greeks. not just of external freedom. invite such a comparison. see the note on §20 under τὴν Μακεδόνων ὑπερηφανίαν. but rather the glorious achievements of the Athenians in the recent campaign that were a “a crown for the fatherland. For example. as he laments the Athenians’ loss. his description of the courage of the Lamian War soldiers echoes Lycurgus’ praise for the fighters at Marathon. His allusions underline the fact that the typical epitaphic account of the Persian Wars has been replaced by a narrative of recent events. 134 §37. §19.136 and they anticipate the oration’s vivid final scene of Leosthenes and his men in the underworld. see the note on §19 under τὴν ἀρετὴν ἰσχὺν καὶ τὴν ἀνδρείαν πλῆθος .135 But Hyperides is not content just to observe the parallels between the two conflicts. Plato’s description of the Persian offensive at Marathon as “the insolence of all Asia” becomes the “insolence of Macedon” for Hyperides. Pl. 240d. 137 §§37–38. 133 §20. 108. but also of the basic right to determine their own domestic politics within the city. where they will be praised for their superiority to the legendary generals of the Persian Wars. . In one key passage Hyperides defines this concept in constitutional terms. Lycurg. Mx. the city’s right to govern itself. On freedom as a Lamian War slogan see the note on §16 under τῆ[ς τῶ]ν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας. 131 132 .” 131 His clams for the excellence of those who fought in the first season of the Lamian War reveal a newfound optimism in Athenian prospects.133 Hyperides further links the two wars when he emphasizes that Miltiades and Themistocles freed Greece. 136 See the note on §5 under κολάζο[υσα. The speech constantly calls for the “freedom of the Greeks” and the overthrow of the Macedonian rule.132 Similarly.137 Hyperides’ speech illustrates the Athenian attitude to the Macedonian leadership of the League of Corinth in the 320s. 127–129. and significant battles near Thermopylae and Plataea. He praises autonomia. which he sharply contrasts with §19.

H. διέθετο. altars. . .” 139 In a passage without parallel in the other epitaphioi. He predicts that the whole world would be subject to one master. 5 n. thus. has been “destroyed by men working against their own fatherland and accepting bribes from Philip and Alexander. .142 The long paratactic sentence in §3 well exemplifies this sort of epideictic period. and temples” of the gods receive less care than those of men.140 Turning now to stylistic considerations. The first four §25 with the notes under τῆς αὐτονομίας and νόμου φωνήν . ὡς οὐκ οἶδ’ εἴ τις ἄλλος. Hyperides forecasts widespread assaults on Greek women and children. 34: [Ὑπερείδης] οἰκτίσασθαί τε προσφυέστατος. 20. and he composed his funeral oration in an epideictic style as no one else could. νόμων πίστει. see Whitehead 2000. his speech concerning Leto is rather poetic. 141 Longin. the great critic Longinus praised Hyperides’ Funeral Oration as an exemplary epideictic composition. on §21 under ἀγάλμα[τα δὲ] καὶ βωμοὺς . who would overturn all Greek social and religious norms.”141 Ancient critics distinguished the style of epideictic speeches from forensic oratory. and on §22 under ὅπου δὲ τὰ πρὸς ‹τοὺς› θεοὺς ὅσια . . 60). . ὥσπερ ἀμέλει τὰ μὲν περὶ τὴν Λητὼ ποιητικώτερα. singling out the orator’s skill at arousing pity. identifying long sentences with rhyming and parallelism as a trademark of the epideictic style. 245–246) gives a few salient examples of “marked” language in funeral orations and the conspicuous “verbal craftsmanship” of the genre. Isoc. . for further discussion see the notes on §20 under μήτε γυνα‹ι›κῶν μήτε παρθένων μηδὲ παίδων ὕβρ‹ε›ις. and his smooth and flexible phrasing: “He [Hyperides] was most suited to stirring pity. . he says. upon sacrifices performed for mortals” and “honor their slaves as heroes” while the “statues. §25 with the note under τοῖς κολακεύουσιν and §10 with the note under κατεφθαρμένη ὑπὸ [τῶν] δωροδο‹κ›ούντων. Carey (2007a. he asks his listeners to imagine the consequences for Greece if the soldiers had not fought for freedom. 140 §§20–22. τὸν δ’ Ἐπιτάφιον ἐπιδεικτικῶς.24 Hyperides: Funeral Oration the tyrannical rule of Alexander. cited and discussed by Dover (1968. ἔτι δὲ μυθολογῆσαι κεχυμένως καὶ ἐν ὑγρῶι πνεύματι διεξοδεῦσαι τι εὐκαμπὴς ἄκρως. 31. . . ἀμελῶς.138 He decries the pernicious influence of Athenians who “flatter their masters and slander their fellow citizens” and earlier in the speech he describes a similar state of affairs throughout Greece. which. and he was also extremely flexible in narrating myths extensively and in presenting a topic with a supple spirit. to look . 138 139 . . For a list of references to other ancient and modern discussions of the style of the Funeral Oration. and also observes that the Athenians “are compelled . 17 and Worthington 1999. 142 See D. τί τὰ πρὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους χρὴ νομίζειν. for instance.

. καὶ τῆς στρατείας ἡγεμὼν τοῖς πολίταις κατέστη. and in §25 he similarly opposes “the threat of a man” (ἀνδρὸς ἀπειλήν) with “the voice of law” (νόμου φωνήν) and compares the abstract noun “accusation” (αἰτίαν) with “proof” (ἔλεγχον). .” and Leosthenes). . . .Introduction 25 words (ἄξιον δέ [ἐσ]τιν ἐπαινεῖν. ). . verb) and the last clause of the sentence consists of a pair of three-word phrases after καί (τῆς στρατείας ἡγεμὼν and τοῖς πολίταις κατέστη) that are parallel in length.144 The speech is replete with short pairs of antithetical phrases that reinforce the long sentences with their symmetry. . . The first object is explained with an articular infinitive phrase (τὸ προε[λέσθ]αι. 33–34) comments on the long periods in this speech and also discusses Hyperides’ tendency to use superfluous verbiage (aux sis). . which respond to the previous two objects. . followed by a trisyllabic noun or verb that governs the immediately preceding noun as an object. as is the second (τὸ μὴ καταισχῦναι. . dative of reference. §24 with the note under διὰ τὴν τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀπόδειξιν .” “the dead. “for making decisions”). . The epideictic style is also characterized by other marked constructions that are uncommon in forensic speeches. which are closely connected by μέν and δέ (twice). he was leader of the city and of the deceased soldiers. Both τῆς στρατείας ἡγεμὼν and τοῖς πολίταις κατέστη follow the same pattern of monosyllabic article followed by trisyllabic noun. . For example. ὑπερβαλλούσης δὲ ἀρετῆς καὶ ἀνδραγαθίας . ἐνδόξου δὲ . The third object. the orator pointedly contrasts “the insolence of Macedon” (τὴν Μακεδόνων ὑπερφανίαν) and “the power of justice” (τὴν τοῦ δικαίου δύναμιν) in §20. . “deserves to be praised”) govern a series of three parallel objects (“the city. see the end of the introductory note on §5. . . . see §13 with the note under καὶ ὧν . Leosthenes. . the elaborate simile in §5 strikes a poetic tone. Blass (1887–1893. προαιρέσεως. τόλμης. These final two clauses (τῆς τε γὰρ προαιρέσεως εἰσηγητὴς τῆι πόλ‹ε›ι ἐγένετο. ἀτυχεῖς and §42 with the note under ὅσοι μέν . ἔλαβεν. . “he initiated the policy for the city and he was appointed leader of the expedition for the citizens”) are closely parallel in their syntax and word order (objective genitive. 144 For other examples. For example. ὅσοι δέ κτλ. is then introduced and is the subject of two new verbs (ἐγένετο and κατέστη). “for not dishonoring”).145 The epideictic style is also 143 On the rhetorical figure of parisosis see on §13 under καὶ ὧν . 145 On less complex similes in oratory. ἔλαβεν. . . and that tone is maintained by figures such as the polyptoton in §26 (πόνους πόνων) and the exclamations in §40 (ὢ καλῆς μὲν . nominative subject.143 The long sentence in §3 is only one of several such examples of this sort of epideictic sentence with symmetrical parallel clauses in the Funeral Oration.

37. 16) and it may be useful to conclude this section with an outline summary of Hyperides’ speech: • §§1–3: introduction (prooimion) • §§4–40: praise (epainos) — — — — §§4–5: the city (πάτρις) §§6–7: the Athenian race (γένος) and their nobility (εὐγένεια) §8: upbringing (παιδεία) §§9–40: the achievements (τὰ πεπραγμένα) of the fallen * * * * * * * * * * §§10–14: Leosthenes’ deeds in battle §15: the virtue (ἀρετή) of the other soldiers §§16–17: their service for all of Greece fighting in Boeotia §§18–19: the battles in Boeotia and at Lamia §§20–23: the importance of their victory §§24–26: the sacrifices made by the dead for the living §27: the surviving family members §§28–29: attainment of nobility in death §§30–34: our memory of them as heroes §§35–40: their reception in Hades • §§41–43: consolation (paramythia) For polyptoton see the note on §26 under πόνους πόνων. the adjective ἔνδοξος (“glorious”) and the noun ἡγεμών (“leader”) are used repeatedly here but not elsewhere in the corpus. All of the surviving funeral orations follow a similar structure (see above p. “ageless”). the Funeral Oration stands apart from the rest of the Hyperidean corpus not only because of the subject and purpose of the speech.. the corpus is small and fragmentary. ἀγήρατος (§43 and the fragmentum dubium. and for exclamations see on §40 under ὢ καλῆς μὲν καὶ παραδόξου τόλμης κτλ.26 Hyperides: Funeral Oration apparent in word usage. and ἡγεμών (§§3. but also because of its style of composition. for example. so many of the words listed in Jensen’s index vocabularum occur only once. 35. ἡγεμών: §§3. 35 “leader”). 40. 11. 65–67) list of “non-forensic” terms in Lysias’ Funeral Oration are used by Hyperides only in the Epitaphios: e. “to welcome”). Of course. But a number of the items in Dover’s (1968. The Funeral Oration uses several vocabulary items that do not appear in his forensic speeches.146 In sum. 27. δεξιοῦσθαι (twice in §35. 146 ἔνδοξος: §§18.g. 11. .

147 It was found near Egyptian Thebes and brought to London in late 1856 by H. 1–10 (see next paragraph. the papyrus falls into three physical divisions: col. 151 See the note on §§1–2. 1236.152 One additional small piece of the papyrus (my fragment 1a) has not been placed.149 This arrangement is clearly confirmed by the texts on both sides of the papyrus. Pack 1965. “the deeds”). 93 and Jensen 1917. 150 Blass (1894. there appears to be continuity. nisi ut duo prima fragmenta ad unam columnam efficiendam coniungerentur. 11 also support continuity between cols. Stobart. Turner (1980. too. that came after col. xvi n. πεπραγμένων. The text is more difficult at the end of the second division. Churchill Babington.153 The first part (cols. otherwise lost. Lit. 11 and 12: see note on §34 under ὠφελείας ἕνε]κεν. xv) observes that neque quicquam fere reliqui ille fecit proximis editoribus. 133 = Brit. Lond. inv.151 Accepting this join. which indicates that it cannot belong to any of the lacunae in cols. it must come from the right half of col. 3. The Text and Translation The Funeral Oration was one of the first examples of Greek literature rediscovered on papyrus in the middle of the nineteenth century. which should presumably be blank. Hyperides’ text clearly continues directly from column 1 to 2 (§2: τῶν .Introduction 27 4. 21) lists the few literary finds before 1860. like the piece of papyrus that preserves cols. 98.150 Friedrich Blass made one important modification when he recognized that the fragments Babington had classified as the first two columns in fact join to form one column. Cf. and quickly won wide assent. 12–13. arranged the fifteen fragments into fourteen columns. 148 Babington 1859. 1–10) of the text of the Funeral Oration is written against the vertical fibers on the verso of a horoscope and astrolog- P. 13. 11 or from an additional section of the papyrus. indicating that no material has been lost between the first two divisions of papyrus. Blass 1894. but here. . 153 The fragment is torn on all sides. “if”) at the end of column 11 is nicely completed by the verb γίνεται (“was”) at the start of column 12. and then answered by the optative question τίς ἂν λόγος ὠφελήσειεν (“what speech would confer”). the modern mounting of the papyrus obscures the other side of this fragment. 2–11. The fibers run parallel to its script. cols. and cols. . Mus. 2). 149 The details in Babington 1858 are summarized by Jensen (1917. 1. 147 . 152 The proposed restorations for the end of col. The conditional protasis εἰ δέ (§34. 113.148 The first editor. 11–13).

λ. 156 P. β. but the bottom margin tapers off (1. with the majority between 7 and 8 cm wide. 11–13) comes after a glue-join (a synkoll sis) and is written along the fibers on a separate piece of papyrus with nothing on the other side. punctuation.157 Here. ξ is especially distinguished by its height and narrowness. 103–104) describes our scribe as a private nonliterary hand and compares P. 12) to 8.158 Thompson and Warner (1881. 1–3. A published facsimile of the entire manuscript may be found in Babington 1858. 28–38 no. each letter stands by itself. Letters such as γ. Kenyon (1899.154 The second part of the papyrus text (cols. 4) provide an image of 154 The recto text is Neugebauer and Van Hoesen 1959.5 cm) of the papyrus is well preserved. but in other places whole words or phrases need to be supplied to make sense of the text. the lines are roughly bilinear..5 cm for cols. Oxy. 9. 9. In general. See appendix A for further details on scribal mistakes. 5) suggestion that it was written as a school exercise is very attractive. The scribe seems careless and makes several mistakes (see appendix A). from as few as 12 characters per line (e. 157 The same scribe also wrote P. and while it is very accurate for the most part. and the spacing is quite tight. The script is not cursive.155 The top margin (2.5 cm (col. sometimes of only a character or two. 10. cols. and ψ drop below the bottom rule. 95. no.1174 (Turner 1987. while most of the other columns have up to 44 lines of text. Turner’s (1987. 34) and other known rolls (Johnson 2004.34).12) to as many as 31 (9. In general. Its vertical orientation is opposite the verso. it tends to hide physical blemishes in the papyrus and is occasionally inaccurate. I would compare P. Most columns have 18 to 20 characters per line. 3. and the width varies from 6. 9). 5) comments on the rarity of this technique for column division. it is a hand-drawn lithograph. 64 (scribe B1)). with specific reference to this papyrus. orthography. 62. The intercolumn divisions are highly unusual: the scribe uses one or two vertical lines with virtually no blank space on either side. pl. 3. 158 There are instances where fairly clear readings in the facsimile are not apparent .g. ι. The columns are 18 to 19 cm high. and diacritics. with more adherence to an upper rule.156 although that hand is much more careful and less cramped than this one.1175. and φ often project above the upper rule. the style seems somewhat hurried. 6. 5.33 and 9. Oxy. φ.28 Hyperides: Funeral Oration ical text in Greek and Coptic. The first three columns contain only 33 or 34 lines. Oxy.40.454 = Turner 1987. 1.454. then very little). Oxy. no. 155 Turner (1987. but this ranges with the width of the columns. There are a number of omissions.25 (cols.

3–4) reads τοὺς παῖδας παιδευθ[ῆναι in §8 and the image of the end of col. has a drawing of cols.160 and Babington reexamined the papyrus in light of their suggestions and published a second edition in 1859. 8–9. 4 line 21 reflects that reading (the horizontal crossbar of the theta is there in the facsimile. Bursian and Müller (1858) and Weil (1858) also published notes that year. see Neugebauer and Van Hoesen 1959. reviewed by Sandys (1870). 3). Fritzsche (1861–1862). in the first modern edition of the surviving speeches and fragments of Hyperides. The Funeral Oration of Hyperides was first edited and published in England by Churchill Babington (1858). for reviews of the third edition see Sandys 1895 and Radermacher 1896.162 As new Hyperides papyri came to light. Comparetti (1858). pl. 19–23) provides an excellent survey of the editions of Blass and subsequent editors. which editors assign to the late second century AD. 162 Blass 1869. and Cobet (1858).Introduction 29 the right half of col. The horoscope on the recto is important for the dating of the papyrus. not only because of the editor’s excellent skill as a upon examination of the manuscript.159 This dating is confirmed by the palaeographical parallels cited in the previous paragraph. The collective work of all of these early scholars was synthesized by Friedrich Blass. note also Tell (1861) and Caffiaux (1866). 160 Babington (1859. Spengel (1858). 7–11. 18–19 on the length of intervals between writing on the verso and reuse of the recto of a papyrus roll. Shilleto (1860) and Volckmar (1860) published notes. who further added numerous significant improvements of his own to the text. but not on the papyrus. 6 and cols. It was prepared for a subject born in AD 95. which appeared in the Teubner series in 1869. while Wattenbach (1897. See Turner 1987. For example. 163 Blass 1881 and 1894. Within the next decade four more editions and several short articles appeared. Blass prepared updated editions of the Teubner volume. Schäfer (1860). 24) himself agreed a year later in his second edition). This exciting new text immediately prompted several publications from some of the best Hellenists on the continent. and the value and extent of their contributions can be judged from the frequency of their names in the apparatuses of all subsequent editions. Caesar (1857). which differed mainly in their restorations of the lacunose sections of the speech.163 and his third edition remains valuable. 161 The most valuable editions are those of Sauppe (1860) and Comparetti (1864).161 The work of these early scholars did much to improve the text of the speech. . 5–6) refers specifically to Kayser (1858). 159 On the date of the horoscope. Whitehead (2000. 28–29. Babington (1858. and then the papyrus was reused for the Funeral Oration in the second century. as Babington (1859.

Jensen was an extremely skilled papyrologist. Burtt’s (1954) Loeb provides a good English translation and brief explanatory notes.164 Kenyon aimed to present as readable a text as possible. and Rolando 1969. . printing his text in narrow columns that represent the papyrus line by line. Two other bilingual editions of the entire corpus aimed at general readers have appeared since Colin. Marzi 1977. with historical notes on the translation or on grammatical points for students. with square brackets as appropriate. Coppola 1996. but he does not record alternative proposals for the gaps. to present a continuous and intelligible text. a few other twentieth-century editions deserve mention. they instead adapt Jensen’s text. He scrupulously preserves the layout of the papyrus. Gaston Colin (1946) prepared a Budé edition that features a full translation of the corpus. Two twentieth-century editions of the Funeral Oration illustrate different approaches to presenting the text. Frederic Kenyon (1906) produced an Oxford Classical Text of Hyperides that was a marked departure from Blass’ Teubner editions. which are noted in my apparatus and appendix B. he does not indicate the lineation of the papyrus. Most notably. but also for the volume’s compendious account of all nineteenth-century work on Hyperides’ text. 59–82. Before describing my own approach to the text. None of these editions are based on a fresh collation of the papyrus. Christian Jensen (1917) prepared the most recent Teubner edition. together with an extensive introduction and a useful critical apparatus. and Marzi (1977) provides an Italian translation with very useful critical notes on several textual cruces. In the most damaged sections of the Funeral Oration he follows two different approaches.30 Hyperides: Funeral Oration papyrologist and countless ingenious restorations. A new Teubner is in preparation by László Horváth. and his detailed observations in his apparatus with regard to doubtful readings are an important advance on Blass’ editions. and removes editorial brackets and dots from the text when they pertain only to a few letters that can be restored with certainty. Worthington 1999. In §§31–34 he fills in all of the lacunae.166 A few brief editions of the Funeral Oration.167 A final notice 164 165 166 167 Reviewed by Fuhr (1907).165 which is widely recognized as the best existing edition of Hyperides. have also appeared in recent years. His text incorporates many highly speculative restorations. In §1 he prints short phrases separated by dots and does not record many restorations for the lacunae.

170 On the Leiden system. subtracting dots. because of their conI diverge from Jensen’s readings of the papyrus in the following places (reference to column and line of the papyrus): 1. I cannot claim to be as experienced or skilled a papyrologist as Jensen.2. 19.170 Second. 22. but there are several places where I see things slightly differently. 21.30. 21 n. his frequent usage of dotted letters within square brackets).12. and I provide full bibliographic details for that material. 6. 9. xlvi) and §31 πα]ρὰ τοῖς . 11. 9. 4...168 Most of these differences involve adding or. . 38.5. 168 .27.Introduction 31 should be given to Bartolini (1977. 40. I do not propose any new restorations. 24. and his idiosyncratic system is often unclear to modern readers (for example. Jensen 1917. less often. π]αντί αἰῶν[ι. 32. 5.19. I have included a fuller record of nineteenth. and I would claim some independent value for the perception of a second set of eyes. 14. see Whitehead 2000. 187–188 n.8.. I have classified these modern supplements into three groups. 7. §1 ὁ χ]ρόνος . Jensen. §5 τ[ῶν ἀνθρώπ]ων ἐπιμ[ελούμενος (cf. 13.10. By and large I follow his expert opinions. For a criticism of Jensen’s system. 21. 11. 40. The text of the Funeral Oration presented in this volume is based on my own examination of the papyrus at the British Library in 2003 and 2005. First. 8. see Turner 1980. 20. 80.2. 9. and occasionally I am not confident that the traces can be read as a particular letter. . 6. 21. The bulk of the plausible restorations that are now generally accepted were put forward during the first decade after the discovery of the papyrus. 88–101) which is not an edition of the speech.21. 20. Only a few of these adjustments affect the wording of the text or restorations adopted in the text. .169 But in some other respects I would suggest that my edition is an improvement upon Jensen’s. 2.17. 10.and twentieth-century editorial suggestions. 33. I have rather endeavored to provide an accurate account of the papyrus’ readings and of modern editors’ restorations in my text and apparatus. • Restorations that seem to me extremely likely. but rather an invaluable summary of textual and other work on the Funeral Oration between 1912 and 1972. 13. but I have carefully double-checked all of his readings. [ . 20. 169 Viz. 3.. and Colin there seems to be little fertile ground left for editorial inventiveness. In many places the papyrus is damaged and scholars have proposed conjectural restorations for areas that are lost or illegible. his text was produced before the so-called Leiden system standardized editorial markup for papyri and inscriptions. 7. 10.5. and after the subsequent improvements of Blass.

however. in scholarship. and their physical fit with holes or damage in the manuscript. §1. most of which go back to Babington’s first edition. I have tended to print dots in the text. • Restorations that seem less certain but highly plausible. the TLG refers to the papyrus layout. Blass 1894.32 Hyperides: Funeral Oration sistency with surviving ink traces. to indicate the size of the lacunae and I have listed the most plausible restoration in the apparatus.g. which has a much fuller apparatus than Jensen). Appendix B records restorations that I deem most unlikely. are recorded in the apparatus. In particularly damaged areas of the papyrus (e. and the commentary refers to these sections. The text is printed as continuous prose with embedded notation of papyrus column and line breaks. and they should be able to consider all of the proposed alternatives for themselves. and readers need references for both systems. In situations where more than one plausible restoration has been suggested. are not listed in the apparatus. dots have been gathered into groups of five (except for the last group of the lacuna) for the reader’s convenience. are incorporated in the text between square brackets. • Proposals that seem to me least suitable to the physical remains or the sense are recorded in appendix B. but not in the text.. §§31–34).. The scribe regularly writes mute iotas. rather than section number. Most notably. and these line numbers are used in the apparatus and in appendix B. and (2) these records obviate the need to consult nineteenth-century editions (i. and the criteria of sense and physical fit do not support the strong likelihood of a single restoration in preference to others. and because they seem to convey a highly appropriate sense in context. and the editors are credited in the apparatus. In lacunae. and in the text It is still quite common to encounter references by column and line. obvious restorations of only a letter or two. for the reasons listed in the previous item.e. In order not to inflate the size of the apparatus. 171 . and appear in the commentary lemmata. The standard section divisions are indicated by bold numbers in the outer margin (the left margin of the text and the right margin of the translation). for two reasons: (1) readers may doubt my judgement. I have printed dots in the text and noted the various restoration in the apparatus. It is important to record them. as noted in the previous item. these groupings are not intended to signal the length of the individual words missing from our manuscript.171 The right margin of the text enumerates the lines as printed in this edition.

or orthography have been corrected without indication in the text or apparatus. Letters that the editor believes were mistakenly omitted by the scribe. An indeterminate amount of lost text. The point at which a new line of the papyrus be- [ . ] [– –] αβγ .. [αβγ] ‹αβγ› {αβγ} αβγ αβγ αβγ |5 . which is summarized here together with an explanation of other symbols used in the Greek text: . Letters that the editor believes were mistakenly written by the scribe. Several basic scribal mistakes of copying. but which have since been lost.. and to serve as minimal annotation on the Greek text in instances where I may have neglected to provide a full note. Letters that partially survive.Introduction 33 the iota adscript is employed throughout. Letters for which the papyrus is intact. The translation is intended primarily to demonstrate my interpretation of the Greek text. Dots and brackets are employed in accordance with the Leiden system. along with a comprehensive catalogue of scribal punctuation and diacritics. explained below. I have employed a notation system of brackets and italics. the column number appears as a Roman numeral in the inner margin. Letters (in §§7–8) that were seen by Babington and appear in his facsimile (Babington 1858). Letters that are not now preserved on the papyrus. Letters for which the papyrus is lost and which have not been restored. in an effort to convey the physical state of the papyrus and the certainty of individual words. ἀλλὰ [πε]ρί. The point at which a new papyrus column begins. spelling. See the note on §§7–8 under ἀνυπέρβλητ[ον] .. Letters written by the scribe above the line (whether over a scribal erasure or as an abbreviation).. scribal omissions of mute iota are indicated by angle brackets. but for which alternative readings are possible. .. but which the editor believes the scribe wrote. Letters that were written and deleted by the scribe.. . I also hope it will make the entire volume more accessible for historians who do not read Greek. but completely unreadable. these are listed in appendix A.

Lost text. Numbered sections of the speech begin at sense breaks (the start of a new sentence or clause) and are indicated in the outer margins. the restoration of which is highly likely. For bibliographic information on the editors listed in the apparatus. . every fifth line is numbered. The following notation system is used to indicate words and phrases that are in doubt in the translation. xii–xiv. see pp. abc [abc] [– –] 1 Material that is only partially preserved on the papyrus. Numbered sections of the speech begin at sense breaks (the start of a new sentence or clause) and are indicated in the outer margins. Material restored by modern conjecture and more subject to doubt.34 1 Hyperides: Funeral Oration gins. the reader may consult the Greek text to determine the length of the lacuna.

Text and Translation .

| ..... 10 . .. .. ὁ συνειδὼς ἔργωι Colin τὰς πράξεις Babington 6–7 ὧν οὐδεὶς ἄνθρωπος οὐδὲν ἔργον πω καλλίον (οὐδεμίαν . . οὐ γάρ τις ἀνθρώπων προαίρεσίν πω καλλίω τῆσδ’ (πρότερόν πω καλλίονας Jensen ap... cf.. ] .. .. [ .. ἑ]ώρακε ω . [ . ]ωι τὰς πρ[άξεις . ν πω κα[λλί .. οὐδ’ . ... ἄνδρας [ἀμείνους τῶν] | τετελε‹υ›τ[ηκότων] | οὔτε πρ[άξεις . 133 = Brit.. Mus... Blass .. ὧν ἴσμεν οὐδ’ ἐν παντὶ αἰῶνι Sudhaus 8 νομιστέον Bücheler ποτ’ οὔτε Colin 9 ἀμείνους τῶν Bücheler 9–10 πράξεις μεγαλοπρεπεστέρας Jensen seq. . | . XI aut post col. οὔτε] | . 98 (Pack 1965.. P. | .. 1236) 1–257 1 fragmentum ponendum est in col... μάρτυς αὐτὸς Kenyon 6 ὁ ἰδὼν ἐν τῶι πολέμωι Bücheler. Hess) ἑώρακε Sudhaus 7–8 ὥστε οὐδ’ ἐν τῶι παντὶ αἰῶνι Bücheler. ... ]ς . inv.. Fragment 1b 1 τῶν μὲν λόγων τ[ῶν μελ]|λόντων ῥηθήσεσ[θαι ἐπὶ] | τῶιδε I .... | . ὡς ἦσαν ἄν[δρες | ἀ]γαθοί. . p.Fragment 1a [ – – ]αλλοτ[ – – ]|[ – – ]πολλ[ – – ]|[ – – ]γεν[ – – ] . .. XIII.. τῶι τάφω[ι περί τε] | Λεωσθένους τοῦ στ[ρατη]|5 γοῦ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλ[λων] | τῶν μετ’ ἐκείνου [τετε]|λευτηκότων .. μάρτ[υς 5 . Lit. ἄνθρω[π . . ὁ | χ]ρόνος ὁ . Lond.. 27 2 τῶν μελλόντων Babington 3 περί τε Cobet et Sauppe 5–6 μάρτυς ἔστω Colin. . ἐν τῶι |15 π]αντὶ αἰῶν[ι νομιστέον | γ]εγενῆ[σθαι . καλλίω Colin) καθεόρακεν Bücheler. ἐν τ[ῶι πο|λ]έμωι. .

which [ – – ] the deeds [ – – ] men. [ – – ] has never seen more noble [– – nor in] all eternity [should it be thought] that there have been [either better] men than those who .Text and Translation 37 Fragment 1a [ – – ] other [ – – ] many [ – – ] Fragment 1b As for the speech that will be be spoken [over] this grave [con. Time. time is a witness to the fact that they were noble men.1 cerning] Leosthenes the general and the others who have died with him in the war.

. . μὲν κακοὺ‹ς› κολά|ζο[υσα. . λόγοι ῥηθή|σονται. οὔτε ὁ χρόνος ὁ παρ|[ὼ]ν ἱκανὸς οὔτε ὁ και|25 [ρὸ]ς ἁρμόττων . ἄδειαν Blass . . τ]οῖς . 5 ὥσπερ | [γὰρ] ὁ ἥλιος πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμ[ένη]ν ἐπέρ|χεται. ἐπὶ κεφαλαί|[ου δ]ὲ οὐκ ὀκνήσω εἰπεῖν | [περ]ὶ αὐτῆς· 30 . καὶ | [καρπ]ῶν κ[αὶ τῶν ἄ]λλων |10 ἁ[πά]ντων τῶν εἰς τὸν | 35 . . οὕτως | κα[ὶ] ἡ πόλις ἡμῶν διατε|λε[ῖ το]ὺς . πάντα καθ]ιστάς. . . . 10 διὸ Blass νῦν φοβοῦμαι Jensen 11 φαίνεσθαι Cobet 12–13 ἐκεῖνό . . ἔρ[γων] |25 τῶν γεγενη[μέ]|νων. ἀνθρώπ]ων | ἐπιμ[ελούμενος κ]αὶ γε|ν[έσεως καὶ τροφῆ]ς . διεξελθεῖν Cobet 30 κεφαλαίου Babington 31 γὰρ Babington 32 εἰς τὸ πρέπον Blass. . . καὶ τῆς στρατείας ἡ|γεμὼν τοῖς πολίταις | κατέστη.. ‹τ›ὴν μὲν | [πό]λ‹ι›ν ἡμῶν ‹τ›ῆς προαιρέ|[σε]ως ἕνεκεν. κατὰ τὸ πρέπον Kenyon 33 πάντα καθιστάς Cobet. . ἄξιον δέ | [ἐσ]τιν ἐπαινεῖν II . III . οὔτε ῥάιδι|[ον] ἕνα ὄντα τοσαύ|[τα]ς .. ἔχον παριστάς Jensen σώφροσι Blass. .38 Hyperides: Funeral Oration 2 μεγα|20 λ]οπρεπεστ[έρας. . . . ὥστε καὶ γενέσθαι σίτων αἴτιος Jensen 35 καρπῶν Blass ἁπάντων Cobet 37 βοηθοῦσα Piccolomini 38 τῆς ἀδικίας Jensen ἀπονέμουσα Kaibel 38–39 τοῖς δὲ . τὰ[ς μὲν] ὥρας δι|ακρίνων [εἰς τὸ] πρέπον | καὶ καλῶ[ς . 4 περὶ μὲν οὖν |20 [τ]ῆς πόλεως διεξιέναι | [τ]ὸ καθ’ ἕκαστον 25 τῶν πρό|[τε]ρον ‹ἀνὰ› πᾶσαν τὴν Ἑλλά|[δ]α ‹πεπραγμένων› . τοὺς δὲ τετε|[λευ]τηκότας τῆς ἀνδρεί|10 [α]ς τῆς ἐν τῶι πολέμωι. . . ὅ]|τι τὰ ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ ‹ἐ›κ[λει]|πόμενα ὑμεῖ‹ς› οἱ ἀ|30 κούοντες προσθή|σετε· οὐ γὰρ ἐ‹ν› τοῖς τυ|χοῦσιν οἱ . 10 . πλὴν κατ’ [ἐκεῖ]|νό γε . τοῖ]ς δὲ δικαίο‹ι›ς |15 β[οηθοῦσα]. σπουδαίοις Sitzler 33–34 τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπιμελούμενος Blass. δὲ ἰδί|[οις κινδύνοις κ]αὶ δαπά|ναι[ς κοινὴν ἄδει]αν τοῖς |20 . ἀλλ’ ἐν αὐτοῖς | τοῖ‹ς› μάρτυσι τῶν 15 3 ‹ἐκ›είνοις [π]επραγμένων. πλείω παρέχων ἐπιμέλειαν Jensen 34 γενέσεως καὶ ζωῆς (καὶ τροφῆς van Herwerden) Bücheler. β[ίο]ν χρησίμων. . διὸ] | καὶ μάλιστα [νῦν φοβοῦ]|μαι. . . |5 τοῖς δὲ σ[ώφροσι καὶ ἐ]πι|εικέσι τ[ῶν . τὸ . καὶ τὸ πρέπον Jensen. τὸ δὲ ἴσον ἀν|τ[ὶ τῆς ἀδι]κίας ἅπασιν | ἀ[πονέμουσα. ὧν πρότερον πᾶσαν τὴν Ἑλλάδα ‹εὐηργέτηκεν› Sauppe 29 p. Cobet. προε|5 [λέσθ]αι ὅμοια καὶ ἔτι σε|[μνό]τερα καὶ καλλίω ‹τ›ῶν | [πρότ]ερον αὐτῆι πεπρα|[γμέ]νων. ὅτι Cobet 13 ἐκλειπόμενα Sudhaus 16 ἐκείνοις Sauppe 26 rest. πάλι‹ν› θα[ρρῶ. . μή μοι συμ[βῆι τὸν] | λόγον ἐλάττ[ω φαί]|νεσθαι τῶν .. . | τὸ μὴ καταισχῦναι 20 τὰς | τῶν προγόνων ἀρετάς· | τὸν δὲ στρατηγὸν Λεωσ|θένη διὰ ἀμφότερα· τῆς |15 τε γὰρ προαιρέσεως εἰσ|ηγητὴς τῆι πόλ‹ε›ι ἐγένε|το. καὶ τηλικαύτας πρά|[ξεις] ‹διεξ›ελθεῖν καὶ μνη|30 [μο]νεῦσαι. τῶ‹ι› μα|[κρ]ολογεῖν. .

will supply whatever details I omit. determining the seasons appropriately and establishing [all] the right conditions. and yet even more honorable and noble than its earlier accomplishments. for making decisions that were similar. I [am now anxious] that my speech may appear inferior to their accomplishments. supplying reasonable and fair-minded humans with birth and [sustenance] and [crops] and all other things needed for life. no. The general Leosthenes deserves praise on both counts: he initiated the policy for the city and he was appointed leader of the expedition for the citizens. and provides [universal safety] to the Greeks at 39 2 3 4 5 . But then again I find confidence in the fact that you. Our city deserves to be praised because of its policy.Text and Translation have died or more generous achievements. [dispenses] equality instead of injustice to all. I speak before men who are themselves witnesses to the deeds of those men. But I will not refrain from speaking about the city summarily. [For this reason] too especially. And it’s not easy for one man alone to narrate and call to mind deeds so numerous and so great. [gives aid] to the just. As for the city. there is not enough time now to survey individually its earlier [accomplishments throughout] all Greece nor does this occasion call for a long speech. in the same way too our city continuously punishes the wicked. and the dead deserve praise for their courage in war. the audience. for not dishonoring the virtuous acts of their ancestors. For I do not address just any audience. Just as the sun goes over all the world.

40 6

Hyperides: Funeral Oration

7

8

9

10

Ἕλλη[σιν παρασκε]υάζου|σα. 40 . π[ερὶ μὲν οὖ]ν τῶν | κοινῶ[ν ἔργων τῆς πόλ]εως | ὥσπερ . π[ροεῖπον, φρά]σαι ‹παρ›αλ‹ε›ί|‹ψ›ω, περ[ὶ δὲ Λεωσθέ]νους . . . . καὶ |25 τῶν ἄ[λλων τοὺς λόγ]ους ποι|ήσομ[αι ἤδη. νῦ]ν . δὲ πόθεν | ἄρξωμα[ι λέγει]ν, ἢ τίνος | πρῶτον μνησθῶ; . πότε|ρα περ[ὶ] τοῦ γένους αὐτῶν |30 ἑκάστ‹ου› διεξέλθω; ἀλλ’ 45 εὔ|ηθες εἶναι ὑπολαμβάνω· | τὸ‹ν› μὲν ‹γὰρ› ἄλλους τινὰς ἀν|θρώπους ἐγκωμιάζοντα, οἳ πολλαχόθεν εἰς μίαν | πόλιν IV συνεληλυθότες | οἰκοῦσι γένος ἴδιον ἕκασ|τος συνεισενεγκάμενος, |5 τούτων μὲν δεῖ κατ’ ἄνδρα | γενεαλογεῖν ἕκαστον· . | περὶ δὲ Ἀθηναίων ἀνδρῶν | τοὺ‹ς› λόγου‹ς› ποιούμενον, 50 . οἷς | ἡ κοινὴ γένεσις α[ὐτόχ]θοσιν |10 οὖσιν ἀνυπέρβλητ[ον] . τὴν | εὐγένειαν ἔχει, πε[ρ]ίεργον | ἡγοῦμαι εἶναι ἰδία[ι τὰ] γένη | ἐγκωμιάζειν. ἀλλὰ [πε]ρὶ τῆς | παιδείας αὐτῶν ἐπι[μνη]σθῶ, |15 καὶ ὡς ἐν πολλῆι σ[ωφρο]|σύνηι παῖδες . ὄντ[ες ἐτρά]|φησαν καὶ ἐπ‹αι›δε[ύθησαν,] | ὅπερ εἰώθασιν 55 . [τινες ποι]|εῖν; ἀλλ’ οἶμαι π[άντας] |20 εἰδέναι ὅτι τούτου . . [ἕνεκα] | τοὺ‹ς› παῖδας παιδεύομ[εν,] | ἵνα ἄνδρες ἀγαθοὶ . γ[ίγνων]|ται· τοὺς δὲ γεγενημ[ένους] | ἐν τῶι πολέμωι . ἄνδρ[ας] |25 ὑπερβάλλοντας τῆι ἀρ[ετῆι] | πρόδηλόν ἐστιν . ὅτι πα[ῖδες] | ὄντες καλῶς ἐπαιδε[ύθη]|σαν. ἁπλούστατον 60 ο[ὖν ἡ]|γοῦμαι εἶναι τὴν ἐν τ[ῶι] |30 πολέμωι διεξελθεῖν . ἀ|ρετήν, καὶ ὡς πολλῶν ἀ|γαθῶν αἴτιοι γεγένη‹ν›ται | τῆι πατρίδι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις Ἕλ|λησιν. ἄρξομαι δὲ πρῶτον ἀ|35 πὸ τοῦ στρατηγοῦ· καὶ γὰρ δίκαι|ον. Λεωσθένης γὰρ ὁρῶν | τὴν Ἑλλάδα πᾶ[σ]αν 65 . τεταπει|νωμένην καὶ [ὥσπερ] ἐπτη [χ]υῖαν, κατεφθαρμέ- V . νην ὑπὸ | [τῶν] δωροδο‹κ›ούντων παρὰ Φι|[λίπ]που καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου κατὰ | [τῶν] πατρίδων τῶν αὑτῶν, |5 [καὶ τ]ὴν μὲν πόλιν ἡμῶν | [δεομέ]νην ἀνδρός, τὴν δ’ ‹Ἑ›λλά|[δα . πᾶ]σαν πόλεως, ἥτις προστῆν|[αι δυ]νήσεται τῆς ἡγεμονίας, 70 .

40 παρασκευάζουσα Babington 41 περὶ μὲν οὖν Babington κοινῶν ἔργων τῆς πόλεως Babington 41–42 ὥσπερ προεῖπον Blass 42 φράσαι Kayser p, παραλείψω Müller περὶ δὲ Λεωσθένους Babington 43 ἄλλων τοὺς λόγους Sauppe 43–44 ποιήσομαι νῦν δὲ Babington, ἤδη add. Colin 44 λέγειν Cobet 45 . p; ἑκάστου Babington, cf. Dem. 60.12 46 τὸν μὲν γὰρ Schaefer ap. Babington 50 μ p, τοὺς λόγους ποιούμενος Cobet 52–53 parvula fragmenta deest; cf. comm. ad §§7–8 55 ἐπαιδεύθησαν rest. Babington, p 56 τινες ποιεῖν Jensen, ἄλλοι ποιεῖν Levi πάντας Babington 57 ἕνεκα Babington 58 [ ] p, corr. Sauppe 61 οὖν Babington 66 ὥσπερ Kenyon 70 δυνήσεται Schäfer

Text and Translation its own [risk] and expense. As for the public [deeds of the] city as [I said, I will refrain from detailing them]. Instead I will now focus my speech on Leosthenes and the [others. Now] where should I begin [my speech]; what should I bring up first? Should I discuss in detail the ancestry of each of them? No, I suppose that is facile. If I were praising some other people, who came from many places to settle one city, each contributing a different heritage to the mix, then I would need to trace the background of each, man by man. But since I am speaking about Athenian men, who, thanks to their common origin in their birth from the land itself, have unsurpassable nobility, I believe that praising the ancestors individually is beside the point. Should I mention their education, and how they were raised and educated in great moderation when they were children, as [some] are accustomed to [do]? But I suppose [everyone] knows that we educate our children [with this goal], that they may become brave men. Since these men were distinguished in wartime virtue, it is obvious that they were taught well as children. I think therefore it is simplest to narrate their courage in war, and how they were responsible for many benefits to their fatherland and to the other Greeks. I will begin first with the general, as is right. Leosthenes saw all of Greece humbled and cowering [so to speak], destroyed by men working against their own fatherland and accepting bribes from Philip and Alexander. When he saw that our city needed a man, and all Greece needed a city that would be able to take a position as leader, for the sake of freedom he offered himself

41 6

7

8

9 10

42 11

Hyperides: Funeral Oration

12

13

14

15

16

| [ἐπέ]δωκεν ἑαυτὸν μὲν τῆι |10 [πατρί]δι, τὴν δὲ πόλιν τοῖς . Ἕλλη|σ[ιν] εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν· καὶ ξε|νικὴν μὲν δύναμιν . ‹συ›στησά|μενος, τῆς δὲ πολιτικῆς ἡγε|μὼν καταστὰς τοὺς πρώτου|15 ς ἀντιταξαμένους τῆι τῶν | Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίαι Βοι|ωτοὺς καὶ Μακεδόνας καὶ | Εὐβοέας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους 75 συμ|μάχους αὐτῶν ἐνίκησε μα|20 χόμενους ἐν τῆι Βοιωτίαι. | ἐντεῦθεν δ’ ἐλθὼν εἰς Πύ|λας καὶ καταλαβὼν τὰς | [πα]ρόδους, δι’ ὧν καὶ πρότερον ἐ|[πὶ τ]οὺς Ἕλληνας οἱ βάρ. βαροι ἐ|25 [πο]ρεύθησαν, τῆς μὲν ἐπὶ | [τὴν] Ἑλλάδα πορείας Ἀντί|[π]ατρον ἐκώλυσεν, αὐτὸν δὲ | [κα]ταλαβὼν ἐν τοῖς τό- 80 . . ποις τού|[τοι]ς καὶ μάχηι νικήσας ἐπολι|30 [όρ]κει κατακλείσας εἰς Λαμίαν· | [Θ]ετταλοὺς δὲ καὶ Φωκέας καὶ | [Α]ἰτωλοὺς . . καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἅπαν|τας τοὺς ἐν τῶι τόπωι συμμάχους | ἐποιήσατο, καὶ ὧν Φίλιππος |35 καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος ἀκόντων ἡγού|μενοι ἐσεμνύνοντο, τούτων Λε|ωσθένης ἑκόντων τὴν 85 ἡγε|μονίαν ἔλαβεν. συνέβη δ’ αὐτῶι | τῶν μὲν πραγμάτων ὧν προε[ί]|40 λετο κρατῆσαι, τῆς δὲ εἱμ[αρ]μένης οὐ‹κ› ἦν VI . | περιγενέ[σθαι.] δίκαιον δ’ ἐσ|τὶν μὴ μ[όνον] ὧν ἔπραξεν | Λεωσθέν[ης ἀε]ὶ χάριν ἔχειν |5 αὐτῶι πρ[ώτωι ἀ]λλὰ . . . καὶ τῆς | ὕστερον [γενομέ]νης μάχης | μετὰ τὸ[ν ἐκείνο]υ 90 . . θάνατον | καὶ τῶν [ἄλλων ἀγ]αθῶν τῶν | ἐν τῆι στ[ρατείαι . . τ]αύτηι συμ|10 βάντων [τ]ο[ῖς Ἕλ]λησιν· ἐπὶ | γὰρ τοῖς ὑπὸ . . . [Λε]ωσθένους | ‹τε›θεῖσιν θεμελίοις οἰκοδο|μοῦσιν οἱ νῦν τὰς ὕστερον | πράξεις. καὶ μηδεὶς ὑπολά|15 βη‹ι› με τῶν ἄλλων πολιτῶν | 95 [μη]δένα λόγον ποιεῖσθαι, | [ἀλλὰ] Λεωσθένη μ‹ό›ν‹ον› ἐγκω|[μιάζ]ειν. συμβαίνει γὰρ | [τὸν Λε]ωσθένους ἔπαινον |20 . [ἐπὶ ταῖ]ς μάχαις ἐγκώμιον | [τῶν ἄλ]λων πολιτῶν εἶναι· | το[ῦ μὲν] γὰρ βουλεύεσθαι | καλ[ῶς ὁ στρα]τηγὸς αἴτιος, . . τοῦ | δὲ νι[κᾶν μαχ]ομένους οἱ κιν|25 δυν[εύειν ἐθ]έλοντες τοῖς 100 . . σώ|μασι[ν· ὥστ]ε ὅταν | ἐπαιν[ῶ τὴν γ]εγονυῖαν νίκην, | ἅμα . τ[ῆι Λε]ωσθένους ἡγεμονί|αι καὶ [τὴν τ]ῶν ἄλλων ἀρετὴν . |30 ἐγκωμ[ιάζ]ω. τίς γὰρ οὐ|κ ἂν δικα[ίως] ἐπαινοίη τῶν | . . . πολιτῶν [το]ὺς ἐν τῶιδε τῶι | πολέμω[ι τε]λευτήσαντας, οἳ . . . . | τὰς ἑα[υτῶ]ν ψυχὰς ἔδωκαν |35 ὑπὲρ τῆ[ς τῶ]ν Ἑλλήνων 105 ἐλευ|θερίας, [φα]νερωτάτην ἀπό|δειξιν τ[αύτ]ην ἡγούμενοι . .

71 ἐπέδωκεν Kayser μ p, corr. Babington 73 συστησάμενος Babington 78 παρόδους Spengel 89 ἀεὶ Jensen πρώτωι Blass 90 γενομένης Babington ἐκείνου Müller 91 ἄλλων ἀγαθῶν Babington στρατείαι Babington 96 μ p, corr. Sauppe 98 ἐπὶ ταῖς Babington 103 ἐγκωμιάζω Sauppe

but also for the battle which was fought later after his death. along with the leadership of Leosthenes I also eulogize the virtue of the other men. Who would not rightly praise the citizens who died in the war and gave up their lives for the freedom of the Greeks? They believed that the clearest proof of their willingness to pro- 43 11 12 13 14 15 16 . and his city to the Greeks. and Euboeans and their other allies. My praise of Leosthenes [in] these battles is also a eulogy for the others citizens. He enlisted the Thessalians. whenever I praise the victorious outcome. the Phocians and the Aetolians and all the others in that region as allies. over those Leosthenes took command according to their will. For on the foundations laid down by Leosthenes the survivors build their future achievements. the Boeotians. through which the barbarians had marched against the Greeks also before. It is right not only to always thank Leosthenes first for what he did.Text and Translation to his native city. He denied Antipater entry into Greece. But although he was able to master any situation he chose. As a result. [but instead] eulogize Leosthenes alone. After he raised a mercenary force and was appointed general of the city’s troops. and over those whom Philip and Alexander proudly commanded against their will. he could not prevail over fate. so victory in the field comes from those willing to risk their lives. Macedonians. and after the confrontation and victory there. and for the [other] benefits that came out of this campaign for the Greeks. he shut Antipater in at Lamia and laid siege to the place. he defeated the first opponents to the freedom of the Greeks. No one should assume that I take no account of the other citizens. at a battle in Boeotia. From there he went to Thermopylae and occupied the pass. For just as good planning depends on the general.

. βούλεσθαι Babington 108 μαχομένους Sauppe 110 Ἑλλάδος Sauppe 111 προτέραν Sauppe τὴν πόλιν Sauppe 118 περὶ Cobet 120 p. ἐνιαυτοῦ εἰς [τὴν Π]υλαίαν | θεωροὶ γενήσοντ[αι] | τῶν . περιθεῖναι τὸ μαχομ[ένους] | τελευτῆσαι ὑπὲρ αὐτ‹ῆ›[ς. οὐ μόνον [τῶι 120 μαχο]μένους νικᾶν | Ἀντίπατρον κα[ὶ τοὺς σ]υμμάχους . τὴν π[ροτέρα]ν | γενέσθαι. Babington 122 τῶν τόπων Sauppe 127 p. . συμ|βέβηκεν ἧς [ἐν Βοιω]τοῖς ἠγωνίσαν|το. . . τὴν . . ἀλλ’› ὕβρεις ἀνεκλείπτους καθεστάναι Jensen 107 .v. Babington 132 ‹τὴν› Blass 133 περιέθηκαν Sauppe 140–141 sequor p et Sauppe. Ὑπερείδης τε ἐν ἐπιταφίωι καὶ Θεόπομπος . χην γεν[ομέν]ην οὐχ ἧττον |20 αὐτοῖς ἔνδο[ξον γε]νέσθαι .. corr. ἀλλὰ | μὴν τήν γε π[ερὶ] Πύλας καὶ Λαμί|αν μά. ὥστε πρὸ ὀ|15 φθαλμῶν 115 ὁρώμενα αὐτοῖς τὰ δει|νὰ ἄοκνον π[αρ]εῖχε τόλμα‹ν› εἰς τὸ | κινδυνεύειν [πρ]οχείρως. . ἄξιον τοίνυν συλλογίσασθαι καὶ τί ἂν | συμβῆναι νομί. . τὴν ἀρετὴν ἰσχὺν | καὶ τὴν ἀνδρείαν πλῆθος ἀλλ’ οὐ | τὸν πολὺν ἀριθμὸν τῶν σωμάτων | εἶναι κρίνοντες. . καὶ μὴ τὴν τοῦ | δικαίου δύναμιν ἰσχύειν | παρ’ ἑκάστοις. τῶι ἐ]νταυθοῖ γε|25 γενῆσθαι τὴν μ[άχην. ἀ]κρό|10 πολιν αὐτῆς φρουρουμ[έ]ν[ην] ὑ|πὸ τῶν Μακεδόνων. τό]πον ἁ|θροισθήσονται καὶ τ[ῆς το]ύτων ἀ|ρετῆς μνησθήσοντ[αι. . . νόμωι δὲ τῶι | τούτ‹ου› τρόπωι ἐξ ἀνάγκης χρῆσ|θαι τὴν Ἑλλάδα. μήτε παίδων ‹ἀσφάλειαν εἶναι. . συνελόντα | δ’ εἰπεῖν τὴν Μακεδόνων ὑ|10 περφανίαν . ὥστε μήτε | γυνα‹ι›κῶν μήτε παρθένων | μηδὲ παίδων 140 118–125 Harp. corr. τ[ὴν δὲ . ο]ὐ|δέν‹ε›ς γὰρ πώποτε τῶν γεγονότων | οὔτε περὶ καλλίονων οὔτε πρὸς ἰσ|35 χυροτέρους οὔτε μετ’ ἐλαττόνων | ἠγωνίσαντο. ἑώρων γὰ[ρ τὴν π]ό|λιν τῶν . ..44 Hyperides: Funeral Oration 17 18 19 20 εἶ|ναι τοῦ β[ούλ]εσθαι τῆι Ἑλλάδι | [τὴ]ν ἐλε[υθερ]ίαν VII . τὴν δ’ εὐδοξίαν ‹τὴν› ἀπὸ | τῶν πράξεων ἴδιον στέφανον | τῆι πατρίδ[ι περ]ιέθηκαν. . ἔργων τῶν πε[πρα]γμένων |30 αὐτοῖς· ἅμα γὰρ εἰς τὸ[ν 125 . | ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶι τόπω[ι. ἆρ’ οὐκ ἂν 135 ἑνὸς μὲν δεσ|5 πότου τὴν οἰκουμένην ὑπήκο|ον ἅπασαν εἶναι.. s. . τὰ ‹δ›ὲ σώμα|τα τῶν ἐνοικούντων ἐξηνδρα|ποδισμένα. 130 καὶ τὴν μὲν ἐ|40 λευθερίαν εἰς τὸ κοινὸν πᾶσιν | κατέθεσαν. . Πύλαι: ὅτι δέ τις ἐγίγνετο σύνοδος τῶν Ἀμφικτυόνων εἰς Πύλας. .VIII ζοιμεν μὴ κα|τὰ τρόπον τούτων ἀγωνισα|μένων. Θηβαίων οἰκτ[ρῶς ἠφα]νισ|μένην ἐξ ἀνθρώπων. μ]έ|γα δ’ αὐτοῖς συνεβάλετ[ο εἰ]ς | τὸ προθύμως ὑπὲρ τῆς . . εἰρήκασιν. . δὲ χώραν ἄλ|λους διανεμομένους. [Ἑλλ]ά|5 δος ἀγωνίσασθαι τὸ ἐν τῆ[ι Βοιω]|τίαι τὴν μάχην 110 .] ἀφικνού|μενοι γὰρ οἱ Ἕλλη[νες ἅπ]αντες | δὶς τοῦ . .

Wouldn’t the whole world be subject to one master and wouldn’t Greece be forced to treat his whim as law? In short. As a result. that is that the battle happened there. and not the power of justice. not only because they defeated Antipater and his allies. They made freedom a common possession for everyone. the insolence of Macedon. the abuse of each and every woman. the bodies of the inhabitants enslaved and others parceling out the land. The fact that their prior battle took place in Boeotia contributed greatly to their eagerness to fight for Greece. Now it is worthwhile to consider also what we suppose would have happened if they had not fought dutifully. For they saw the city of Thebes pitiably obliterated from human society. maiden. 45 17 18 19 20 . All the Greeks who arrive at the Amphictyonic meeting twice a year will be observers of the accomplishments of these men.Text and Translation vide freedom to Greece was dying for it in battle. And as they assemble at that place they will recall their virtue. The battle that took place near Thermopylae and Lamia proved to be no less glorious for them than that which they fought in Boeotia. its acropolis garrisoned by the Macedonians. the presence of these terrible sights before their eyes provided them with the unwavering courage to risk their lives readily. but also because of the place. or with fewer allies. but they offered the glory that came from their deeds as a private crown for their fatherland. would prevail everywhere. None of those who came before ever fought for more noble goals or against stronger adversaries. judging that virtue was strength and that courage—but not just a great number of individual bodies—was mass. As a result.

τοῖ[ς μὲν] θεοῖς | ἀμελῶς. 4.35: τοῦ αὐτοῦ [Hyperides]· οὐκ ἀνδρὸς ἀπειλὴν. . τί τὰ πρὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους | χρὴ νομίζειν. συντελούμενα. . ἀλλὰ νόμου φωνὴν κυριεύειν δεῖ τῶν ἐλευθέρων sub capite γαμικὰ παραγγέλματα. . καὶ τοὺς τῶι τοιούτωι | στρατηγῶι προθύμως συναγωνισ|τὰς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς παρασχόντας |15 ἆρ’ οὐ διὰ τὴν τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀπόδειξιν | εὐτυχεῖς μᾶλλον ἢ διὰ τὴν τοῦ ζῆν | ἀπόλειψιν ἀτυχεῖς νομιστέον.23. post εὐδαιμονίαν 169 εὐδαιμόνων: ἐλευθέρων Stobaeus 142 . Blass pos. ο‹ὐ› γὰρ ἀνδρὸς | ἀπειλὴν ἀλλὰ νόμου φωνὴν κυρι|25 εύειν δεῖ τῶν εὐδαιμόνων. p. τὴ[ν] |20 ἰδίαν ἀρετὴν τὴν κοινὴν ἐλ[ευ]|θερίαν τοῖς Ἕλλη. οὐδεμία γὰρ |35 στρατεία τὴν ‹τῶν› στρατευομένων ἀρε|τὴν ἐνεφάνισεν μᾶλλον τῆς νῦν | γεγενημένης. ἆρ’ οὐκ ἂν παν|τελῶς καταλελύσθαι. φέρει γὰρ πᾶσαν εὐδαιμονίαν ἡ αὐτονομία Jensen. ἐν τῶι παρεληλυ|θότι χρόνωι. | τοσούτω‹ι› μειζόνων ἐπαίνων | 150 23 τοὺς τετελευτηκότας ἀξίους | χρὴ νομίζειν. καὶ τῶι λόγωι χαλεπὸν | [εἶν]αι φράσαι. γε Babington 155 πληγὰς del. | φέρει γὰρ ‹οὐδὲν› πᾶσαν εὐδαιμονίαν | ἄνευ . |25 ὅπου δὲ τὰ πρὸς ‹τοὺς› θεοὺς ὅσια διὰ | τὴν Μακεδόνων τόλμαν ἀν|ή‹ι›ρηται. χειμώνων δ’ ὑ|[π]ερβολὰς καὶ τῶν καθ’ ἡμέ|5 [ρ]αν ἀναγκαίων ἐνδείας τοσ|[αύ]τας καὶ . 22 τι|μᾶν ἡμᾶς ἀναγκαζομένους. τηλικαύτας οὕτως | [ἐγ]κρατῶς ὑπ‹ο›μεμ‹ε›νηκέναι. Babington ἔστι Cobet. | [ὥσ]τε . ἐν ἧι ‹γ›ε παρατάτ|τεσθαι μὲν ὁσημέραι ἀναγκαῖ|ον ἦ‹ν›. πλείους δὲ μάχας ἠγωνίσ|40 θαι διὰ μιᾶς στρατ[εία]ς ἢ τοὺς ἄλλους πάντας πληγὰς λαμ|βάνειν IX . οὐδ’ αἰ|τίαν φοβερὰν εἶναι τοῖς ἐλευθέροις | ἀλλ’ ἔλεγχον. | οἵτινες θνητοῦ σώματος ἀθάν[α]|τον δόξαν ἐκτήσαντο καὶ διὰ 165 .. . ὥστε |30 ὅσω‹ι› δεινότερα τὰ προ‹σ›δοκώ|μεν’ ἂν γενέσθαι κρίνοιμεν. ἔτι Kayser 145 τοὺς τούτων Cobet 146 ‹τοὺς› Cobet 152 ‹τῶν› Babington 153 p. 25 σιν ἐβεβαίωσαν. 24 τὸν δὴ τοιαύτας |10 [κ]αρτερίας ἀόκνως ὑπομεῖναι | τοὺ‹ς› 160 πολίτας προτρεψάμενον | Λεωσθένη. ἤδη Sauppe. Cobet 158 μμ p. ἀγάλμα[τα δὲ] καὶ |20 βωμοὺς καὶ ναοὺς . τοῖς δὲ ἀνθρώπο[ις] ἐπι|μελῶς . corr. γ[ινο]μέ|νας ἐφορᾶν. καὶ [τ]οὺς | ‹τού›των οἰκ‹έ›τας ὥσπερ ἥρωας 145 . ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῆι τῶν νόμων πίστει | 26 γενέσθαι. φανερὸν δ’ ἐξ ὧν ἀναγ|καζόμεθα καὶ νῦν ἔ[στ]ι· θυσί|ας μὲν ἀνθρώποις . Babington 167–168 ‹οὐδὲν› Fritzsche. οὐδ’ ἐπὶ τοῖς κολακεύ|ουσιν 170 τοὺς δυνάστας καὶ διαβάλλου|σιν τοὺ‹ς› πολίτας τὸ τῶν πολιτῶν ἀσ|30 φαλές. τῆς αὐτονομίας. lac. ὑπὲρ ὧν ἁπάντων οὗτοι πό|νους πόνων διαδόχους 168–170 Stob.46 Hyperides: Funeral Oration 21 ὕβρ‹ε›ις ἂν ἐκ|15 λείπτους ἑκάστοις καθεστά|ναι. corr.

No campaign revealed the soldiers’ virtue better than this one. and temples hardly celebrated in the case of the gods while carefully so for men and at the same time we ourselves are compelled to honor their slaves as heroes. [Nothing] provides complete happiness in the absence of independence. must they not be regarded as fortunate because of their display of virtue. to fight more battles in one season than the number of blows which all others had suffered in times gone by. during which it was necessary to go into battle every day. When the rites owed to the gods have been abrogated by the boldness of the Macedonians. altars. that must have authority over people. what must we expect for the social customs of human society? Wouldn’t they have been completely destroyed? The more frightening we judge these expectations would be. if they are to be happy. would be unceasing. but also upon statues. Considering that Leosthenes persuaded the citizens to endure so many hardships without hesitation.Text and Translation and even every child. and to endure harsh storms and such great shortages of daily supplies with so much self-control that it is difficult to convey even in words. but rather proof. For all these reasons they performed labor after labor and 47 21 22 23 24 25 26 . and that they offered themselves eagerly as fellow fighters alongside such a great general. the more praise we must believe the dead deserve. but rather upon faith in the law. For it is not the threat of a man. Nor should the safety of the citizens depend upon those who flatter their masters and slander their fellow citizens. but rather the voice of law. rather than unfortunate because of their loss of life? These men acquired immortal glory for the price of a mortal body and with their own individual virtue they secured common freedom for the Greeks. Nor should an accusation cause fear among free men. That is clear from what we are compelled to do and what exists even now: to look not only upon sacrifices performed for mortals.

] | βίον κα[ ...... μνημο|νευτοὺς διὰ ἀνδραγαθί|αν γεγονέναι... νῦν δ’ ἄνδρες | ἀγαθοὶ γεγόνασι· καὶ | τότε μὲν ‹ἐν› . . . . ἀλλὰ τὰ | διὰ τούτους γεγονότα . ἀρετήν—οὐ γὰρ θεμιτὸν | τούτου τοῦ ὀνόματος τυ|χεῖν τοὺς οὕτως ὑπὲρ | καλῶν τὸ‹ν› βίον ἐκλιπόν|5 τας—ἀλλὰ τῶν .. ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐξ ἀρ|χῆς γεγονέναι καλλίω | γένεσιν τῆς πρώτης ὑ|παρξάσης. ὑπάρχει εὐθὺς Cobet. . τίς ‹γὰρ› κα‹ι›ρὸς ἐν |30 ὧι τῆς τούτων ἀρετῆς οὐ | μνημονεύσομεν..... .... ἢ παρὰ τοῖς] ... τότε μὲν | γὰρ παῖδες ὄντες ἄφρο|20 νες ἦσαν... ἢ παρὰ τοῖς] .. . ποία‹ι› δὲ τῶν | ἡλικιῶν οὐ μακαριστοὶ γενήσο[νται . .. . .. ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐν ταῖς ἰδίαις | εὐπραξίαις. ] | τελευτη . τίς τό|πος ἐν ὧ‹ι› ζήλου καὶ τῶν | ἐντιμοτάτων ἐπαίνων | τυγχάνοντας οὐκ ὀψόμ[ε]|35 θα. ἄρξασθαι (aut ἀξιωθῆναι) ... p ante corr.. . [ ... τὸ ζῆν | ‹ε›ἰς αἰώ[ν]ιον τάξιν με|τηλλα[χό]των ἕξουσιν.. νῦν δ’ ἀπὸ | ταύτης †αξαθαι γνωρί|μους πᾶσι καὶ ......48 Hyperides: Funeral Oration 27 28 29 30 31 32 ποιούμενοι | καὶ τοῖς καθ’ ἡμέραν κινδύνοις τοὺ‹ς› εἰς | τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον φόβους τῶν πολιτῶν |35 καὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων 175 . ἀλλ’ ἐν .. ο‹ὐ›κ εὐ|τυχεῖς κρίνειν δίκαιον. ἢ παρὰ Sauppe 201 παρὰ τοῖς γέρουσιν Babington 201–202 ἀλλ’ ἄφοβον αὑτοῖς τὸν λοιπὸν βίον καὶ εὐδαίμονα γεγενῆσθαι νομίζουσα διὰ τούτους Jensen 202–203 ἢ παρὰ τοῖς ἡλικιώταις Sauppe 203–204 οἷς ἐκείνων ἡ τελευτὴ φθόνον ἐμβέβληκε καλῶς.. . 10 ... corr.. μητέρες περίβλε‹π›τοι τοῖς | πολίταις γεγόνασι. τούτοις ἀρχηγὸς μεγά|λων ἀγαθῶν γέγον|ε. πα]|ρὰ τοῖς . ... διὰ τούτους πατέρες | ἔνδοξοι.. τῆ‹ι› τούτων | ἀρετῆι βεβαίως αὐτῶν ἀπο|λαύσομεν. XI . ὡς ἐπιφανεστάτων παρὰ πολὺ τῆι αὑτῶν ἀνδρείαι γεγονότων Radermacher 204–205 ἢ παρὰ τοῖς νεωτέροις Sauppe 180 ... τ[ίν]ας | ἄλλους ἢ τούτους ἐπαινεῖσθαι | καὶ μνήμης τυγχά. ]|αι γέγον[εν. . .. | ἢ πῶς ἐκλελοιπέναι |15 τὸν ... ἄ]|φοβον α[ ..... βίον. . ..... . παρὰ ..... πότερον οὐκ 195 ἐν τοῖς τῆς | πόλεως ἀγαθοῖς. .... . νειν ποι|40 ήσει. ] | γεγενῆσ[θαι .. ἀδελφαὶ γάμων |40 τῶν προσηκόντων ἐννόμως τετυ|χήκασι καὶ τεύξονται.. . πῶς τούτους 185 . ] | διὰ τούτ[ους. παραιρούμενοι τὸ | ζῆν ἀνήλωσαν εἰς τὸ τοὺς ἄλλους | καλῶς ζῆν.... .. | εἰ γὰρ [ὁ τοῖ]ς ἄλλοις ὢν | ἀνιαρ[ότ]ατος θάνατος |10 . | ἡλικιώτ[αις. ] | παρὰ πο[λὺ . ἀπέδειξαν. [ ... γέγονε Babington 193 ‹γὰρ› Cobet 200–201 γενήσονται οὗτοι. Babington 191–192 p post corr. ] | καλῶς . παῖδες ἐφό|διον εἰς τὴν . .. . 5 ...... [ .. . πρὸς τὸν δῆμον ε[ὔνοι]|αν τὴν τῶν οὐκ ἀπολωλότω[ν] X . πολλῶ‹ι› χρό|νωι καὶ διὰ πολλῶν | κινδύνων τὴν ἀρετὴν |25 190 .. εὔνοιαν Cobet 183 εἰς αἰώνιον Sauppe 184 ὁ τοῖς Cobet ἀνιαρότατος Babington 189–190 p.

it is not right to use that term for men who lost their lives fighting on behalf of such a noble cause—rather. instead of saying that they have been born anew in a better birth than than their first? Then they were senseless children. Their sisters have justly entered into suitable marriages according to the law and will continue to do so. And then they displayed their virtue over a long period of time and amid many perils. On what occasion will we not recall the virtue of these men? In what place will we not see them as the object of pride and esteemed praise? Will they not come to mind if the city does well? The things that were accomplished because of them will cause what other men than these to be praised and remembered? Perhaps they won’t be remembered by those who are individually prosperous? Well. of men who have exchanged life for a perpetual position. Because of them their fathers have become famous and their mothers are admired among the citizens. which is most grievous for others. If death. The children of these men who have died—no. and how can we say that they have lost their lives.Text and Translation with their daily risks they lessened the fears for all time of the citizens and the Greeks. will have their virtue as an asset for the good will of the people. but now as a result of this [ – – ] become known to everyone and remembered for their courage. They gave up their lives so that others could live well. how can we not judge them fortunate. we will safely enjoy those successes thanks to the virtue of these men. has been the foundation of great advantages for them. but now they have become brave men. In the eyes of what generation will they not be blessed? [ – – ] among the [ – – ] fearless [ – – ] life [ – – ] to have become [ – – ] because of them? [– – among] their peers? [ – – ] death [ – – ] nobly [ – – ] by far [ – – ] has [– – among the] youth [ – – ] not the [ – – ] will be eager 49 27 28 29 30 31 32 .

] | Ἑλλην[ .. ]|τερα γὰρ ε[ . ]|ουσιν τὰς τ[οιαύτας καρ]|τερίας... emend..... ... ἔπειτα οὐ τὸν 205–206 καὶ αὐτοὶ σπουδάσουσιν μιμεῖσθαι .... ]|20 μη ... .... ]|φοι λε[ .. . Babington 223 μ p. ὁ δὲ |25 μετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ πα|[τ]ρίδος μόνης ....... ]|ζειν αὐ[τοὺς .... ............. 205 ...... στρα]|τείας ἐγ[κωμι ...... . ........ . . .. ὧν 225 .. . .. ... ]|τα οὐ τὸν [ .. ... p (νλ in rasura)... ... ... .. ἐκ τού|10 των φανερόν ἐστιν· ἐν | Ἅιδου δὲ λογίσασθαι ἄ|ξιον.. Shilleto 223–224 . ] | ἅπασιν κα[ὶ λόγοις καὶ ὠι]|30 δαῖς ἐπα[ . ..... ] | παρὰ πο[ ........ ἆρ’ οὐκ ἂν ‹οἰ›όμεθα |15 ὁ‹ρ›ᾶν . corr. Colin 210–211 πανταχοῦ δὲ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἐξέσται ταῦτα τοῖς ἐπιγιγνομένοις ἅπασιν .. ] | τὴν ἐλευθερί[αν .. ]|νων. .. ...... ]|τατοις 210 . Cobet 216 εἰ δὲ ὠφελείας ἕνεκεν Babington ἡ τοιαύτη μνήμη aut ἡ τοιάδε ἀνάμνησις Cobet 220 p.......] p.... παρὰ τίσι δ’ οὐ μᾶλλον αὐτὰ τῆς Φρυγῶν κρατησάσης στρατείας ἐγκωμιασθήσεται. .. emend.. . 35 ἀλλὰ μὴν | ὅτι παρ’ ἡμῖν καὶ τοῖς λο|‹ιπ›οῖς πᾶσιν 220 εὐδοκιμεῖν | αὐτοὺς ἀναγκαῖον.. .. [δ]ιήνεγκε.. .... ]|ου τὴν ἀρ[ετὴν . ] |35 ἡδονῆς ἕν[εκεν ......... . πόλιν εἷλον. . ... ] |25 Φρυγῶν κ[ .. ... Shilleto 224–225 μ μ p. ..... 33 ἢ τίνε[ς ...... ἡμιθέων καλουμένων Cobet 225 [.... ... εἰ δὲ [ὠφελείας ἕνε]|κεν ἡ τοια[ .. ἐπαινεῖσθαι Kenyon 211 καὶ λόγοις καὶ ὠιδαῖς Cobet 212–213 δι’ ἀμφότερα γὰρ ἐξέσται αὐτοῖς τὰ περὶ Λεωσθένους ὑμνεῖν καὶ τῶν τελευτησάντων ἐν τῶι πολέμωι Colin 213–216 εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἡδονῆς ἕνεκεν ἐγκωμιάσουσιν τὰς τηλικαύτας καρτερίας.... .50 Hyperides: Funeral Oration | νεωτέρο[ις .... ] | τῶν πε[ . ... . .. Ἕλ]|λησιν ἥδι[ον . . 215 . ... ... σπου]|15 δάσουσιν [ .... [ .... ] | δὲ τῆς ελ[ ..XII ται. . τίνες οἱ τὸν ἡγεμόν|α δεξιωσόμενοι τὸν τού|των. ]|σιν αὐτ . . τίς ἂν λόγος | ὠφελήσειεν μᾶλλον | τὰς τῶν ἀκουσόντων | ψυχὰς τοῦ τὴν ἀρετὴν |5 ἐγκωμιάσοντος καὶ τοὺς | ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας. 34 ε[ ..... τί γε[ .. [ .......... ... ]|πασι οὐκ [ ... ] | περὶ Λεωσ[θένους . τί γένοιτ’ ἂν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἥδιον ἢ ἔπαινος τῶν τὴν ἐλευθερίαν παρασκευασάντων ἀπὸ τῶν Μακεδόνων. ] | καὶ τῶν τ[ .... .... ......... . ] γίνε. ...... ... θάνατον ζηλώσουσν αὐτῶν Blass Blass 206–207 εἰ γὰρ παράδειγμα ἐκείνοις τοῦ βίου τὴν ἀρετὴν καταλελοίπασι Jensen 207 οὐκ ἀθανάτωι δεῖ νομίζειν αὐτοὺς χρήσεσθαι τῆι μνήμηι Jensen 208–210 ἢ τίνες ποιηταὶ καὶ λογογράφοι λείψονταί ποτε κατὰ τοὺς Ἕλληνας πασῶν εὐλογιῶν παρὶ τῶν πεπραγμένων ἐκείνοις.. |20 οὗτος ἀδελφὰς π[ρ]άξεις | ἐνστησάμενος τοσοῦτον | .. πα]|ράδειγμ[α ..... ὥστε οἱ μὲν | μετὰ πάσης τῆς Ἑλλάδος | [μ]ίαν ...... ]|40 σάντων ἀ . . .... ] | ἐν τῶι πολ[έμωι..... ... Λεωσθένη δεξιου|μένους καὶ θαυμάζοντας | τῶν ‹ἡμιθέ›ων κα|λουμέν‹ων› τοὺς ἐπὶ ‹Τρο›ίαν | στρα‹τεύ›σαντ[α]ς..... .. corr.. . .... Babington 205 νεωτέροις καὶ παισίν. .

Don’t we suppose that we would see some of the so-called [demi-gods]. while it is clear from these points that they must be 35 honored by us and all who come after us. welcoming and admiring Leosthenes? Although he had accomplished deeds akin to theirs. with the help of his native city alone. brought down the entire . it’s worthwhile to consider who will welcome their leader in Hades. not [ – – ] to [ – – ] them [ – – ]. Who [ – – ] Greek [ – – ] of the things [ – – ] among [ – – ] 33 of the Phrygians [ – – ] praise the campaign [ – – ] but of the [ – – ] to all [with speeches and] songs to praise [ – – ] Both [ – – ] 34 about Leosthenes [ – – ] and of those [ – – ] in war [ – – ] for the sake of pleasure [ – – ] [such great] feats of daring [ – – ] what would be sweeter for the Greeks [than – –] of those [ – – ] freedom [ – – ]? If such a [ – – ] was [motivated by advantage]. he greatly surpassed them. what speech would confer more advantage on the souls of those who will hear it than one which eulogizes virtue and brave men? And. the ones who fought in the struggle against Troy. captured only one city.Text and Translation 51 [ – – ] example [ – – ] the virtue [ – – ]. since they. with the help of all Greece. while he.

οὐδένας οὕτως αὑτοῖς οἰκείους ἂν Sauppe.56. ἐνδό. γὰρ τοὺς | τῆς πατρίδος τυράννους κα|τέλυσαν. | ἣν οὗτοι παρασχόμενοι εἰς | τὴν κοινὴν ἐλευθερίαν . ἐπελθοῦσαν |10 τὴ‹ν› τῶν βαρβάρων δύνα|μιν ἠμύναντο. 4. {ὑμῖν} | εἶναι νομίζειν ὡς Λεωσ|25 θέ‹ν›η καὶ τοὺς ἐκείνωι συν|αγωνισαμένους.. οἱ μὲν 250 . εἰκότως· | οὐκ ἐλάττω γὰρ ἐκείνων . ἀλλ’ εἰ δέον εἰπεῖν | καὶ μείζω.. ὑπερβαλ|40 λούσης δὲ ἀρετῆς καὶ ἀνδρα|γαθίας τῆς ἐν τοῖς 255 . ἔργα |30 διεπράξαντο. | τῶν Ἑλλήνων [ – – ] Fragment 2 41 χαλεπὸν μὲν ἴσως ἐστὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις ὄντας πάθεσι παραμυθεῖσθαι· τὰ γὰρ πένθη οὔτε λόγωι οὔτε νόμωι κοι258–277 233 ‹δὲ› Stob. οὐθέν‹α›ς οὕτως | αὑτοῖς οἰκεί{οτερ}ους . ξου δὲ καὶ με|γαλοπρεποῦς προαιρέσεως | ἧς προείλοντο. | [λ]έγω δὴ τοὺς περὶ Μιλ|τιάδην 235 . 36 δύ|[ν]αμιν ἐταπείνωσεν. ἐλευθερώσαντες ἔν|τιμον μὲν τὴν πα|τρίδα κατέστησαν. οὗτος | δὲ ἐν τῆι τῶν ἐχθρῶν περι|εγένετο τῶν ἀντιπάλων. ὁ δὲ πα|[σ]ῶν τῶν Ἑλλη. κινδύνοις.52 Hyperides: Funeral Oration πᾶσαν | [τ]ὴν τῆς Εὐρώπης καὶ | [τ]ῆς Ἀσίας ἄρχουσαν . οὗτοι δὲ . οὐδαμῶς αὑτοὺς οἰκειοτέρους (οἰκείους ἑτέρους Post) ὑμῖν Kenyon. 39 | οἶμαι δὲ καὶ ‹τοὺς› τὴν πρὸς ἀλλή|λους φιλίαν τῶι δήμωι βε|20 βαιότατα ἐνδειξαμένους.36 Kayser 238 ‹δὲ› Blass 244 ‹τοὺς› Babington 246–247 μ p. 40 τοὺς τῆς Ἑλ|λάδος ἁπάσης. | λέγω δὲ Ἁρμόδιον καὶ 245 Ἀρισ|τογείτονα. ὧν οὗτος . |30 [κ]ἀκεῖνοι μὲν ἕνεκα | [μ]ιᾶς 230 γυναικὸς ὑβρισθεί|[σ]ης ἤμυναν. . 38 ἔν|5 δοξον ‹δὲ› τὸν αὑτῶν βίον | ‹ἐ›ποίησαν. οὐδὲ ἔστι|ν οἷς ἂν μᾶλλον ἢ τούτοις | πλησιάσειαν ἐν Ἅιδου. ὅσ|ον οἱ μὲν . τοσ|οῦτον ὑπερέσχεν ἀν|δρείαι καὶ φρονήσει. νίδων | [τ]ὰς ἐπιφερομένας |35 [ὕ]βρεις ἐκώλυσεν με|[τὰ] τῶν συνθαπτομέ|[ν]ων νῦν αὐτῶι ἀνδρῶν. καὶ Θεμισ|τοκλέα καὶ τοὺς ἄλ λους. οὐθένας οὕτως αὑτοῖς οἰκείους οὐδαμῶς ἂν Colin . | [τ]ῶν ‹δὲ› 37 μετ’ ἐκείνους μὲν | [γ]εγενημένων. . οἳ τὴν Ἑλλάδ[α] | XIII . . Blass. ὢ καλῆς μὲν |35 καὶ παραδόξου τόλμης τῆς | πραχθείσης ὑπὸ τῶνδε τῶν | ἀνδρῶν. | κἀκεῖνοι μὲν ἐν τῆ‹ι› οἰ|κ‹ε›ίαι τοὺς ἐχθ‹ρ›οὺς ἐπεῖδον |15 ἀγωνιζομένους.. ὁ δὲ 240 μη|δ’ ἐπελθεῖν ἐποίησεν. . ἄξια |40 [δ]ὲ τῆς ἐκείνων ἀρε|[τ]ῆς διαπεπραγμένων. corr.

Text and Translation ruling power of Europe and Asia. I mean those who fought with Miltiades and Themistocles and the rest. Instead your individ- . they looked upon the enemy fighting on the home front. Furthermore. Rightly so. How noble and unbelievable was the bravery exercised by these men. and who made their own lives glorious. the ones who by freeing Greece conferred honor on their native city. while he did not allow it even to enter. prevented the violence that threatened all the women of Greece. this man greatly excelled them in courage and cunning. but he prevailed over his adversaries on their own ground. In fact. since Leosthenes and his men achieved no less than those two. Your 41 grief is not eased by a speech or a custom. since they warded off the barbarian force when it was already invading. Those two destroyed the tyrants of their native city. these men attained even greater achievements. I mean Harmodius and Aristogiton. but these men destroyed the tyrants of all Greece. They came to the defense of one women who had been violated. if it must be said. how glorious and magnificent was the choice which they made. consider nobody to be as closely related to them as Leosthenes and his fellow combatants. but he. whose accomplishments were worthy of their ancestors’ virtue. which they offered for the common freedom of the Greeks! [ – – ] 53 36 37 38 39 40 Fragment 2 It is perhaps difficult to console those who are so bereaved. As for those who lived after these men. I think that even those two who showed their mutual friendship most firmly to the people. how excellent was their virtue and courage in danger. together with these men now being buried with him. There are not any others with whom they would prefer to associate in Hades.

2. ἀλλ’ ἡ φύσις ἑκάστου καὶ φιλία πρὸς τὸν τελευτή. . ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς 42 ἀρετῆς ἧς καταλελοίπασιν. . ἀλλ’ εὐδοξίαν ἀγήρατον εἰλήφασιν εὐδαίμονές τε γεγόνασι κατὰ πάντα.275 ομέναις βοηθήσαντας πλείστης ἐπιμελείας ‹καὶ κηδεμονίας› ὑπὸ τοῦ δαιμονίου τυγχάνειν. οὐ codd. 278 Poll. καὶ μεμνῆσθαι μὴ μόνον τοῦ θανάτου τῶν τετελευτηκότων. ‹εἰ› γὰρ θρήνων ἄξια πεπόνθασιν.14 = Hyp. ἡ τῆς πατρίδος εὔνοια ἐπίτροπος αὐτοῖς τῶν παίδων καταστήσεται. ὅσοι δὲ παῖδας καταλελοίπασιν. non recte attribut. Fragmentum dubium τὸν ἀγήρατον χρόνον 273–277 εἰ δ’ ἔστιν . ὥσπερ ὑπολαμβάνομεν. ὅσοι μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν ἄπαιδες τετελευτήκασιν. Sauppe 264 εἰ Leopardi. 261 ‹τὸν› τυγχάνειν Maximus 932c. εἰ δὲ γήρως θνητοῦ 265 μὴ μετέσχον. ἀλλ’ ἐπαίνων μεγάλων πεποιήκασιν. 221: Ὑπερείδης [εἴρηκε] δὲ τὸν ἀγήρατον χρόνον. 274 ἐπιμέλεια τῶν οἰχομένων παρὰ Maximus 275 εἰκὸς Toup et Cobet. ad Ἀπολλώνιον fr. εἰ μέν ἐστι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν ὅμοιον τῶι μὴ γενέσθαι. ‹εἰκὸς› τοὺς ταῖς τιμαῖς τῶν θεῶν καταλυ. 277 δαιμονίου aut δαίμονος codd. 33.54 Hyperides: Funeral Oration μίζεται. οἱ παρὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἔπαινοι παῖδες αὐτῶν ἀθάνατοι ἔσονται. . 276 ἐπιμελείας καὶ κηδεμονίας: [Fuhr] sequens Plut. ὅμως δὲ χρὴ θαρρεῖν καὶ τῆς λύπης παραιρεῖν εἰς τὸ ἐνδεχόμενον. ἐπιμελείας aut εὐδαιμονίας aut ἐπιμελείας καὶ codd. ἀπηλλαγμένοι εἰσὶ νόσων καὶ λύπης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν προσπιπτόντων εἰς τὸν ἀνθρώπινον βίον· εἰ δ’ ἔστιν αἴσθησις ἐν Ἅιδου καὶ ἐπιμέλεια παρὰ τοῦ δαιμονίου. 270 43 πρὸς δὲ τούτοις.260 σαντα ‹τὸν› ὁρισμὸν ἔχει τοῦ λυπεῖσθαι. εἶναι aut εἴη codd. Thes.

if death is similar to not 43 existing. and think not only of their death. you must be courageous and control your grief as much as you can. as we suppose. For those who died without children.Text and Translation 55 ual nature and your love for the deceased defines the limits of your grief. the praise of the Greeks will serve as immortal offspring. If there is consciousness in Hades and the dead enjoy the care of the divine. their deeds are worthy of great praises. the good will of their native city will act as a guardian for them. they have gained ageless glory and have become blessed in every respect. In addition. As for those who left behind children. Although they did not live to see old age in this life. Possible Fragment ageless time . then they are released from sicknesses and suffering and the other things which trouble mortal lives. but also of the virtue which they have left behind. Even so. Although their 42 sufferings are worthy of lamentations. then it is likely that those who defended the honors of the gods when they were under attack will receive the utmost attention and care from the divinity.

This page intentionally left blank .

for information on the papyrus. The most recent editors of the horoscope (Neugebauer and Van Hoesen 1959. 95) also accept the join. μεγαλ]οπρεστ[έρας. 1. The join occurs in the last word of section 1. and the second begins ρεπεστ. The atypical nature of Hyperides’ speech is signaled in the first sentence. the mounting of the papyrus prevents an examination of the astrological text on the recto for further confirmation. which would require that a full column of text is completely missing between sections 1 and 2. while the second fragment has a left margin of less than a centimeter from lines 24 to 34. 1 τῶν μὲν λόγων τ[ῶν μελ]λόντων ῥηθήσεσ[θαι κτλ. Skeat. who refer to funeral orations of the past (cf. The first fragment has no surviving margin on the left side. . Unlike other orators. then curator of papyri at the British Museum. microscope and the vertical papyrus fibers confirm the join with near certainty. “more generous”: the first piece ends with οπ. Blass (1894. C. All editors since Blass have accepted this join.. their text and notes indicate that they have no readings for whatever writing may be hidden by the mounting. I have examined the two pieces under a . Previous editors treated these two pieces as parts of separate columns. xv and 78) ingeniously recognized that two separate fragments of the papyrus should be combined to create one column. no.Commentary Fragment 1a. On this small piece of unplaced papyrus see p. and although they thank T. Unfortunately. 1–2. the note be57 . . The introductory nature of the general content and the complete sentence beginning with μέν indicates that this joined column is the first of the speech. 27.

236d. None of the other funeral orations name the dead at all. 9142.5 (cf. Sic. Davies 1971. 13. 1.5 simply describe him as an Athenian. Ziolkowski 1981. Habicht 1997. son of Leosthenes of Kephal (Λεωσθένης Λεωσθένους Κεφᾶληθεν. whose patronymic and deme are unknown (Diod. 67). 2 περί τε] Λεωσθένους τοῦ στ[ρατη]γοῦ. and Jaschinski 1981. Hyperides starts right off with a consideration of how he will treat his subject. no.1.v. Osborne and Byrne 1994. 2. Dem. but the speeches were delivered at the grave.v. with OLD s.29. on the importance of slingers to both sides during a siege. 34–35. no. 293–94. whom he specifically names. Just. and Faraguna 2003. Our general. Sic. nos. The general Leosthenes was killed by a slinger’s stone during an engagement at the siege at Lamia in the winter of 323/322 according to Diod. lines 601–604). 95 no. telum 2c). Hansen 1975. 15 = Archaiologik Eph meris (1918) 73–100 nos.13. 175–182) and Davies (1971. see also Clairmont 1983. no. 129 (who believe that the Lamian War general held no earlier official appointment). 64–65). 51–54. 17.13 refers to the grave for Leosthenes and his men. 9142) has suggested that our Leosthenes was the son of the man (Kirchner 1901. and in the other he is named as a recent trierarch who had died in 323/322 (IG II2 1631. Lys. Ziolkowski 1981.v.25.58 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§1–] low on §8 under τινες ποι]εῖν). Eux. no. They usually refer to previous speakers and the “ancestral custom” (patrios nomos) of the oration (Thuc.2. V: 57–58 (with 20 on Leosthenes). where the public monument (d mosion s ma) included a list of the fallen (Paus.111. In one he is listed as a general. Bosworth 1988. see Pritchett 1971–1991. Ἀθηναῖος). 60. Mx. 6). the strat gos epi t i ch r i (Reinmuth 1971. 60. Pl. s. 9144. The general of the Lamian War who is praised in this speech should probably be identified with an epigraphically attested near contemporary Athenian of the same name. 88) and exiled from Athens . s. IV: 227–228). 1.3 and Paus. Kirchner 1901. A recently published inscription introduces us to Leosthenes’ sister Philoumene (Matthaiou 1994. 342–343 no.5. 95–97). no.12. 9141. Other orations avoid naming the dead and they specifically promise to treat their subject traditionally (Thuc.2. who appears in two inscriptions of the 320s.1. 5) who was condemned for treason (Hyp.35.1. For discussion on the question of whether the epigraphic Leosthenes was the general of the Lamian War. 1.35. 9142. 2. Osborne and Byrne 1994. Dem. 219 and Pritchett 1971–1991. 24–26 (who accepts the identification). 18. see Tracy 1995. We also have some details regarding his family. is likely Leosthenes. 2.

Other epitaphioi describe the dead as part of a long tradition of Athenian greatness (Lys. but the vertical trace of ink after the omega. But Sudhaus’ relative pronoun requires a verb. .6–11). [ . one without). . 2. . .2. but both here and in his conclusion Hyperides rejects the traditional narrative of Athenian history and emphasizes the superiority of his subjects (cf. see below on §8 under ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί γ[ίγνων]ται. but the text cannot be fully recovered. Traces of a letter survive before the lacuna.21. Sic. ἄν[δρες ἀ]γαθοί. Numerous reconstructions have been proposed (see the apparatus and appendix B). He makes space by deleting the article from Bücheler’s restoration ἐν τῶι.[–§1] Commentary 59 after his defeat at the hands of Alexander of Pherae in Peparethos in 361 (Diod. 268). The elder Leosthenes lived out the rest of his life in Macedonia (Aesch. A single vertical stroke may be an iota. 5–9 6ὁ χ]ρόνος ὁ .. see also Sealey 1993. Pl.3–66. However that type of sigma tends to be smaller in height than this stroke. 92 and Develin 1989. but the scribe sometimes writes sigmas with a straight left edge. The stroke is not curved. 3) combines many of the earlier proposals to print a readable text: μάρτυς ἄριστος ὁ χρόνος ὁ σώιζων ἐπαίνωι τὰς πράξεις.95. [ . The orator appears to be emphasizing that the achievements of the dead set them apart from all of their predecessors. Bücheler’s ὥστε seems preferable in sense. or could perhaps be the leftmost portion of a sigma.. οὐδ’ ἐν τῶι π]αντὶ αἰῶν[ι. which appears to suit Sudhaus’ nu better than Bücheler’s sigma. The phrase ἐν (τῶι) παντὶ αἰῶνι is not very frequent in the TLG. but those usages usually include the article (five instances with the article. ] ἄνδρας.. Mx.. (“the best witness is time. which preserves their deeds for praise. On this common phrase. 15. which is difficult to fit in the lacuna. 7–8 . §38: ὑπερέσχεν. 2. Hess (1938. 60. and the surviving trace seems more compatible with an iota than a sigma. although too minute to be certainly incompatible with a sigma. ω . 239a–246b. “excelled”). dictates caution. so that it is impossible to believe that there were in all eternity either better men than those who have died or more magnificent deeds”). 5 μάρτ[υς . and 124). Dem. . deeds better than which no man has ever before seen. There is a small trace of a vertical stroke after the first omega. with the scholia. ὧν οὐδὲ εἷς ἄνθρωπος πρότερόν πω καλλίονας ἑώρακεν· ὥστε οὐδ’ ἐν τῶι παντὶ αἰῶνι νομιστέον γεγενῆσθαι.

[ἀμείνους]. Von Reden (1995. Aristotle discusses the ethical quality of megaloprepeia in his Nicomachean Ethics.35. the deeds of the fallen soldiers are described in aristocratic terms. which he describes as a “hastae rectae vestigium” (91). The burial ceremony is described as payment of the debt owed to the soldiers who valued the city of Athens more than their own personal security. . Socrates is speaking before beginning Aspasia’s epitaphios and uses the term to sum up the whole public ceremony. At Thuc. I’m not convinced that the trace is a letter (there is a similar mark immediately below it. 85) discusses Aristotle’s definition of megaloprepeia as a democratic virtue. 234c. as elsewhere (see the note on §7 under οἷς ἡ κοινὴ γένεσις κτλ on autochthony and eugeneia). The two noun phrases coordinated by οὔτε . 22). it is so small that it would be compatible with nearly any character. Here. between two lines of text. 2.60 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§1–] 8 [νομιστέον]. so as not to disappoint the friends of the dead with inadequate praise on the one hand. not just the actual burial). that does not appear to be a letter).2 Pericles worries about speaking with the proper degree of moderation. and not to make others who did not know the fallen envious on the other hand. and if it is. while Kurke (1991. The restoration (suggested by Bücheler) is uncertain. but it fits the physical gap and the sense well. 9 μεγαλ]οπρεπεστ[έρας. 176–177) emphasizes the associations between private civic expenditures and tyranny. The supplements of Blass and van Herwerden (appendix B) do not fit the size of the lacuna as well as Jensen’s restoration. where he associates this characteristic with financial expenditure and situates it as a middle ground between excessive spending and stinginess (Arist. cf. . Megaloprepeia was one of the virtues that motivated Athenian aristocrats to participate in liturgies. 10 2. as a result of which they receive a “generous burial. Dover 1974. EN 1122a 18–1123a 33.” μεγαλοπρεπὴς ταφή (Pl. The comparative adjective is parallel to the following μεγαλ]οπρεπεστ[έρας (“more generous”). 10 νῦν φοβοῦ]μαι. and the tone is consistent with the emphasis on the superiority of the campaign elsewhere in the speech (see above p. Bücheler’s restoration fits the gap perfectly and makes excellent sense. Here Hyperides vocalizes . Hyperides also uses the same verbal adjective again later in the speech (§24). Mx. Jensen suggests that there may be a trace of ink after μάλιστα. οὔτε form an attractive chiasmus. 194). In the epitaphioi the adjective is used to describe the soldiers’ sacrifice on the field (here and §40).

Hyperides was probably influenced by the development of prose encomia in the fourth century (Schiappa (1999. these works mixed historical narrative with topical praise. φαί]νεσθαι. The focus on the individual is unique to this epitaphios. The form πάλι is extant as early as Callimachus. 359–360 on A. Speech and deeds were often contrasted in the funeral orations and other Athenian literature of the fifth and fourth centuries (for example. 14. but it is usually employed for metrical purposes. 24 above. Hyperides was perhaps a personal friend of his subject (Plut.2. 486d gives examples of political and military partnerships. Other epitaphioi do not name individual honorands or give any sort of personal detail about the dead. 160 and passim) discusses this antithesis in the Thucydidean epitaphios.[–§3] Commentary 61 only the former of those two concerns. were both written after the death of the subjects. 186–190) traces the development of the genre. These prose encomia for contemporary figures were particularly popular in the 320s (Momigliano (1993. 11 πάλι‹ν›. 64 n. Thuc. Mor. II: 395–396). 21) refers to two examples from the period: a work on Alexander of Epirus by Theodectes. including Leosthenes and Hyperides.4. 717d the Athenian speaker advises that children should give their parents a fitting burial (the opposite of this situation). and one on Lycurgus by Philiscus). Pl. πάλιν is the regular form in Attic prose inscriptions until the Roman period (Threatte 1980–1996. 244a). and also provides a history of its development with a focus on the first two books of Thucydides’ History. . 16–21 ἐπαινεῖν . Mx. On the structure of the sentence in this section see p. The oration for the dead is regularly compared to the courageous acts of the fallen soldiers. 11–12 λόγον . Engels (1989. 2.1–2 and 42. 321 n. but this testimonium may just be biographical speculation on the part of the author. ἔρ[γων. Isocrates’ Evagoras and Xenophon’s Agesilaus. The size of the lacuna better suits this reading than Babington’s γε]νέσθαι (“may be inferior”). Like this speech. τὸν δὲ στρατηγὸν Λεωσθένη. app. In Pl. The surviving examples of the genre. 204–209) lists 38 . . Fraenkel (1950. Although the death of an Athenian general in the field was somewhat uncommon (Hamel (1998. 13 3.42. 676) considers the evidence for their association). Lg. Lys. A. 786) notes such polarities in praise. . beginning with Gorgias’ Helen). Parry (1981. neither too shabby nor too ostentatious. 2. . and like Isocrates and Xenophon.

although his colleague Lysicles was prosecuted after the battle). One’s present day acts were thought to be capable of either bringing shame upon one’s ancestors. Hyperides’ lavish attention to Leosthenes in his speech is novel. ‹τ›ῆς προαιρέ[σε]ως. and again in §40.16. where his long-term policy is the main topic of debate. Hyperides uses the noun only in this speech.3 emphasizes that Athenian courage was grounded in rational deliberation. first by comparing their courage with that of the Persian War generals (see the following note). Demosthenes regularly uses the noun προαίρεσις to describe his public policy (for example. and now he praises the dead for the courage not to dishonor their ancestors. as here and Lycurg. the noun occurs more than a dozen times).11. 2. Harris (Worthington et al. 110. twice in this sentence. 215) tentatively suggests that “Stratocles may have died in battle. or else adding to their glory (Thuc.17).2. Demosthenes presents the Atheni- . Hyperides likewise pairs intellectual ability and martial courage here and again below in his comparison of Leosthenes with the generals Miltiades and Themistocles in the underworld (§38: ἀνδρείαι καὶ φρονήσει. “courage and cunning”). Very slight evidence perhaps implies that the general Stratocles fell in battle at Chaeronea (his command is briefly mentioned at Aesch.40.143 and Polyaen.9 and 6. he picks up the vocabulary of this section again. 1. 60. 20–21 τὸ μὴ καταισχῦναι τὰς τῶν προγόνων ἀρετάς. we know of one or perhaps two such deaths that are not mentioned in surviving epitaphioi. Hyperides has just praised the city for its policy.” presumably because we hear nothing else about him.2.63. and then in an exclamation of praise for their choice (προαίρεσις) to die for the city.3) and is not mentioned in the Periclean oration at the end of the season.1. 246). Dover 1974. and in his funeral oration Demosthenes similarly links bravery and intelligence (Dem. 3. 2. 2001. The general Callias died in 432/431 during the revolt of Potidaea (Thuc. 413–418) discusses rationality and shame as key components of the popular conception of courage in classical Athens. 4. He focuses especially on the Periclean funeral oration and argues that the conception of courage in that speech is closely tied to Athenian democratic ideology.62 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§3–] Athenian generals who died in battle between 501/500 and 322/321). and perhaps inspired by the model of fourth-century prose encomia. in On the Crown. 17 20 ἀνδρεί[α]ς. Balot (2004. but he is not mentioned in the Demosthenic epitaphios. As he describes Leosthenes and his men in the underworld. Thuc.

where the city of Athens is the external object. . but do require a preposition to govern the accusative πᾶσαν τὴν Ἑλλάδα (“all Greece”). After emphasizing the daunting task before him. εὐεργετέω II). 140. 26 τῶν . which is provided by the supplements of Cobet and Comparetti (appendix B).1). . Sauppe has suggested εὐηργέτηκεν (“it has done a good service”). . 164). Hyperides here addresses the . usually refers to a plurality of concrete demonstrations of the abstract quality (Bers 1984. ἐπ‹αι›δε[ύθησαν and on §40 under ἀρετῆς καὶ ἀνδραγαθίας. in other words aretai are specific virtuous accomplishments on the battlefield (also noted at Dover 1974. editors have emended the definite article τῶν to the relative ὧν and supplied a finite verb for that relative clause. 21 4. when used in prose.v. LSJ. and when reminded of the “glories of their ancestors. On the meaning of aret see the notes on §8 under ἀλλὰ [περ]ὶ τῆς παιδείας . In that case. ἀρετάς. 238–240) nicely stresses the high stakes for epideictic orators). . The verb εὐεργετεῖν sometimes takes an internal accusative (e.203–210). Rusten 1989. s.[–§4] Commentary 63 ans’ opposition to Macedon as a continuation of the policy of their forebears who protected Greece from foreign invaders during the Persian Wars (Dem. . and the text printed here is exempli gratia. These suggestions do not entail a correction to the article τῶν. These words have been added as a supplement by editors. 27–29 οὔτε ὁ χρόνος ὁ παρ[ὼ]ν ἱκανὸς .39. 2. . and Marzi (1977). which would originally have been a neuter accusative plural (Smyth 2522).g. Jensen. 39. But Hyperides will instead focus on the present campaign as the culmination of Athenian greatness. and neither are very certain. Alternatively. The manuscript reading of τῶν requires a participle. Something must have fallen out of the text here. which is followed by Blass (in his first edition). Colin.” they will think of the Persian Wars and the other items that typically appear in the catalogues of Athenian achievements (see the note on §5 under κολάζο[υσα) in the epitaphioi. Smyth 1000. . Hyperides’ listeners expect to hear about the Persian Wars in a funeral oration (see the note on §12 under δι’ ὧν καὶ πρότερον κτλ). ‹ἀνὰ›. τὰς. the orator admits his anxiety about being unable to provide due praise for the city of Athens. The reconstructions of Cobet and Sauppe (apparatus) both require adding a verb to the text.. μνη[μο]νεῦσαι. ‹πεπραγμένων›. ὧν is an attracted relative. . Lycurg. . The plural of abstract nouns. 150 on Thuc. . 18. Epideictic orators faced pressure both to provide worthy praise for the dead and to outperform previous orators (Carey (2007a.

2. Ziolkowski 1981. See below on §9 under διεξελθεῖν. 203–204). Mx.35. and the calendar included a “procession for the sun and the seasons” (see Parker 2005. ‹διεξ›ελθεῖν. 60–61). this praise of Athens alludes to many of the elements typically found in eulogies of Athens (laudes Athenarum) in the tragedians and epideictic oratory (for example. who believed that the gods were responsible for the earth’s fertility. Hyperides celebrates Athenian efforts to punish the wicked and eradicate injustice on the one hand.64 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§4–] former concern. Ziolkowski 1981. I. 2. 2. Unlike the oration of Pericles in Thucydides. on these points see the individual notes below. Dem. Lys. B6 285.35. after presenting the sun as purely beneficial in the first half of the simile. Athens sorts out the just and the unjust in the same way that the sun distinguishes the seasons. employing two commonplaces that are typically used to express this sentiment: time is insufficient (Lys. comprises the entirety of Hyperides’ praise of the polis. and implying that others are punished with less produce. Despite its brevity. Hyperides’ description of the sun reflects the religious view of the Athenians. In this single sentence Hyperides also covers many of the traditional points of praise that fill out the bulk of other epitaphioi. Athenian festivals celebrated agricultural produce. I clearly read a tau at the beginning of the phrase τ[ῶν ἀνθρώπ]ων ἐπιμ[ελούμενος. 22 (on Pi.6. 246b. Other speakers refer to a fear of envy (φθόνος) from their audience. Hyperides prefers to devote his attention to Leosthenes and his soldiers.54. 23 (on Gorg. fr. Jensen’s (1917. and the words of one man alone are incapable of sufficiently treating the topic at hand (Thuc. The top . 68–69).1. where the epainos focuses wholly on the city of Athens. or the invention of agriculture). cf. Bulman 1992. and Athens dispenses equality and sustains the confidence of all of Greece as the sun provides the material for life to all of the world. comparing the city of Athens with the sun. given Hyperides’ predilection for this verb in this speech. by stating that the sun gives greater rewards to those who deserve them.13 and Thuc. 2. The extended simile. 29 5. 2.1. and also Walcot 1978. But following Blass and earlier editors. 132). because of jealousy for the excessive praise granted in the speech (Thuc. 2. If we accept the restorations in the text. 2) and 85 n. 60. Athenian succor for suppliants.35. Cobet’s correction is likely right. Pl.2). xlvi) restoration of π[λείω παρέχ]ων ἐπιμ[έλειαν attempts to balance the two limbs of the simile more precisely.

a much less elaborate comparison of rhetores and snakes. The adjective s phr n only occurs once in the other surviving epitaphioi.[–§5] Commentary 65 left corner of the letter is preserved. Mx. .” Similarly in this passage. Perhaps the imbalance in the simile is to be explained by the formal religious context here. Pöschl (1964. 225–247. West (1978. brave and intelligent. this simile epitomizes Athenian optimism at this point in the Lamian War. The curved left portion of the initial letter survives. . Op.2: 33). Near Eastern and Irish traditions). which precludes Hyperides from describing the punishments that the sun might inflict upon the unjust. just as Athens punishes them. the orator prefers to emphasize only the positive aspects of the city and its relationship with the gods. . but the context of that usage perhaps supports the restoration here. 213 ad loc. 246–247) admires the subtle poetic nature of its expression. 247e–248a.24. useful for life. If so. where the orator likens the loss of those who fell at Chaeronea to sunlight (φῶς) being removed from the universe. At Pl. 10 also features a simile likening the city and the body (on which see Whitehead 2000. in the consolatory section of that speech. in the context of a helpful discussion of the Greek view of the gods’ function in agriculture) and. 558) collects bibliography on this and other sun similes. because “pollution and fertility are the two sides of a coin” (Parker 2005. frg. Kayser (1898. Hyperides associates this adjective with the possession of “everything . Colin (1938. which appears to me to be inconsistent with a pi or any other letter. 41–42 ad loc. 225) compares Hyp. [who] is not joined to other men” as having the “best prepared life” and being “moderate (s phr n). In less formal contexts a poet like Hesiod can more explicitly describe both the aid and the harm that the gods inflict upon mortals (Hes. Phil. 418. Loraux (1986. in keeping with the overall optimistic tone of the speech. For a more pessimistic nature simile in a parallel context.) adduces many parallels from Greek. with the top half of the vertical stroke and a wide horizontal bar to its left. 393 n. fr.” The adjectives s phr n and epieik s are frequently paired by 33 . Hyp. σ[ώφροσι. and S. . 206) suggests that Hyperides’ positive description of the sun directly answers Demosthenes’ image of the bleak withdrawal of light after the defeat at Chaeronea. Blass’s restoration of σ[ώφροσι fits the space better than Sitzler’s suggestion of σ[πουδαίοις. 60. and Blass 1887. But Hyperides does not need to explain that nature blights the wicked. III. Socrates describes a man who “has everything that contributes to happiness in his own hands . see Dem. 80.

fair. . Her discussion is supplemented by Gibert (1998). 38. Although Hyperides is describing the sun here. Isoc. Epieik s is usually defined as “flexible. that is “sympathetic fairness” in contrast to “authoritative justice” (reading Spengel’s emendation of πρᾶον. reasonable. at Soph. Brunschwig 1996 and especially Harris 2004c.66 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§5–] later writers. ἐ]πιεικέσι. Sophocles’ Triptolemus (frr.” for the manuscripts’ παρόν.g. not the noun. at Gorg. The broad moral concept is most relevant in the present passage. e.” The moral concept is an important element in Athenian self-identity. See also the discussion of Dover (1974.. as a reward for the city’s help in the goddess’ search for her daughter Kore. demonstrating that the quality was especially prized in fourth-century Athens. Lucas (1968. Thus. The fruits of Athens were a traditional feature in praises of the city. since Hyperides uses the adjective. 50–54. “reasonable” (if the restoration σ[ώφροσι is correct). TG.3. “present”). 79–80 and 94–98) also consider the term. esp. Similarly. τῶν ἄ]λλων ἁ[πά]ντων τῶν εἰς τὸν β[ίο]ν χρησίμων. 4. . OC 1127 the suppliant Oedipus praises Theseus and Athens for displaying it (τὸ ἐπιεικές) toward him. On the legal doctrine of epieikeia. Mills (1997.15–16 the Athenian war dead preferred τὸ πρᾶον ἐπιεικὲς to τὸ αὐθάδες δίκαιον. 140–141) and Adkins (1966. fr. rather than the specific legal usage. 14. where it was considered to be an important aspect of individual virtue (aret ). 77–78) discusses the concept of epieikeia in Athenian self-presentation. B6 285. and seems to link the quality with another abstract moral adjective. The theme also appears elsewhere in the epitaphioi.5 and Cic. in the midst of this dense cluster of topics traditionally found in eulogies of Athens the listener is reminded of the motif of the fertility of Attic soil and the legend that Athens was the first state to learn the science of agriculture.28 tells the story of Demeter’s two gifts to Athens. Neither the noun epieikeia nor the adjective epieik s occur elsewhere in the surviving epitaphioi. agriculture and the Mysteries. see Scafuro 1997. EN 1137a31–1138a3 similarly considers epieikeia as a type of moderate justice. Arist. and Demeter’s mysteries were celebrated by the Athenians at Eleusis. 191). It describes the city’s attitude toward suppliants and its ability to adjust to a particular situation. referring to the judges’ consideration of extenuating circumstances in unusual cases. 33 34–36 ἐπι[μελούμενος . Epieikeia also has a more specific legal sense. “gentle. . 596–617 Radt) popularized the story of the Eleusinian prince’s teaching of agricultural skills. As an illustration of this quality. Plut.

since the trees are resistant to drought and adapt well to poor soil (for details see Foxhall 2007. 213–214 ad loc. especially 53. 801. Ath 2. while in contrast the Thucydidean funeral oration boasts of the diversity of imported products available to the Athenians during the empire of the fifth century (Thuc. with discussion at Kraay 1976. In fact. foreign artists and goods: this passage and other traditional eulogies extol the independent ability of Athens to provide for itself. many other examples of this device specif- . As here.) surveys the importance of the Eleusinian Mysteries for the Athenians’ civic identity). 248–249). an important symbol for Athens and a characteristic attribute of its patron goddess Athena. Ion 1433–1436. on the other hand. 39–40) collects relevant passages. and real need for. pl. Taken as a group. where Athens is celebrated for first mastering agriculture (Tsitsiridis (1998. The chorus of Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus gives much attention to the most famous fruit of Athens in its eulogy of the city in the second stasimon of that play (668–719). 64. rewritten at Hanson 1998. the funeral orations illustrate the tension that existed in classical Athens between pride in a distinctive Athenian character and the state’s self-sufficiency on the one hand. 2.[–§5] Commentary 67 at Pl. 19 nos. 5–9). the depiction of the olive on the Athenian tetradrachms of the fifth century (photos in Kraay and Hirmer 1966. 20–23 and Burgess 1902. That chorus’ praise culminates in its description of the olive. Tr. and cash crops such as olives helped fund grain imports. Foxhall (2007. the rocky soil of Attica was not always able to produce enough grain for the city. 238a. 65–66). Kienzle (1936. and. More generally. 359–363. thus connecting the fruits of Athens with the themes of autochthony and agriculture as the basis of civilization (cf. praise for the fertility of a region is a recurring motif in all types of Greek literature.2. Mx. [Xen]. Moreno (2007) has demonstrated that the Athenians depended on imported grain and that their foreign policy in the fifth and fourth centuries was an integral part of a complex organized system designed to ensure its supply. Eur. Sophocles describes the olive as “self-planting” (αὐτοποιός) and “child-rearing” (παιδότροφος). and cf. the old oligarch. See also Eur. The products of Athens were also a special source of pride among the natives (see Schroeder 1914. a cosmopolitan interest in. where the Sophoclean choral ode is discussed). 154 for parallels). presents a negative counterpoint). The olive was one of the few crops that flourished in Attica (see Hanson 1983.7. who associates the latter adjective with Athenian “ideals of the long-term”).38.

16).” in Prodicus and collects numerous other examples of similar phrases. given the immediate purpose of honoring all of the city’s war casualties as a homogeneous body. 36–37 το]ὺς μὲν κακοὺ‹ς› κολάζο[υσα. Calame (1996. and Schroeder (1914.19). 416–418) sensibly argues that the importance of Theseus in Athenian ideology cannot be the result of any particular individual’s advocacy for the hero. and in Eur. The orators have in mind either the legend of the defeat of the Amazons (Lys.42. 341 Theseus boasts of being a “punisher of the wicked. 2. Gorg. 678 (Kannicht). Lys. 2. 2. 56) discusses the use of the specialized term τὰ χρήσιμα πρὸς τὸν βίον. or the historic victory over the Persians (Dem. the democracy of the late 460s and 450s continued to admire Theseus.6 and Dem. 14) discusses two passages in which a similar phrase specifically refers to the accomplishments of Theseus. She wants to discern a democratic flavor in support of her date for the institution of the funeral oration in the 460s. Mx. fr.4. as here. fr. According to that philosopher’s sociological theory. it is the Athenians who were glorious against the Amazons and recovered the bodies of the seven chiefs before Thebes. The legendary king Theseus was often celebrated in classical Athens for the former two deeds. Pl. or the punishment of Eurystheus (Lys. that this replacement was a reaction against the policy of the ostracized leader Cimon. Supp. Athens’ punishment of wrongdoers is a common theme in the epitaphioi. The phrase is technical and appears in Democritean accounts of the origin of society. 65–67) discusses the almost complete exclusion of Theseus from all the funeral orations. is unpersuasive. mankind formed social groups in order to obtain the necessities for life (see Cole 1990. 107 n.4.8). B6 286. In tragedy Theseus is a useful character who as an individual can represent on stage values that might be ascribed to the city as an abstract entity in nondramatic contexts such as the epitaphioi. . “to punish the wicked. {τοὺς} κακοὺς κολάζειν. 131–135). In any case. 240d). Theseus’ absence from the orations is not surprising. 64–66) refers to a number of state-commissioned representations of Theseus in Athens at that time. “material useful for life. Walker (1995. 60. 2. also 253–255). “fruit.” Loraux (1986. 60. Her thesis.” κολαστὴς τῶν κακῶν (cf. Sometimes they go unnamed (Thuc.” of a locale. At Eur. Instead of Theseus. who had heralded Theseus as the city founder. Henrichs (1975.11.68 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§5–] ically praise the karpos. Theseus’ murder of Sciron is described with the same formulation found here. 35–36 τῶν εἰς τὸν β[ίο]ν χρησίμων.

38 τὸ δὲ ἴσον. Athenian political equality is another common motif in the epitaphioi and elsewhere. 240d.[–§5] Commentary 69 Thus Mills (1997. 132–171 and Thomas 1989. “to punish. the Seven against Thebes. 2. The catalogue of Athenian history that appears in other epitaphioi tends to jump from the defeat of foreigners during mythological times to the Athenian role in the Persian Wars (for example. Hyperides alludes to that traditional catalogue of Athenian exploits. or whether they came from the countryside of Attica or the city of Athens. both mythological and historical). Pl.4–19 focuses on prehistoric exploits. 37 τοῖς] δὲ δικαίο‹ι›ς β[οηθοῦσα. Heracles. 60. Surviving plays that treat the theme of Athens’ help for those in need include Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes. discussed at Tsitsiridis 1998. Lys. There were . and then 20–47 immediately presents a long account of the Persian Wars).” links these mythological and historical events. Hyperides continues with his condensed allusions to traditional themes in praise of Athens. 277). 2. Similarly. All Athenian citizens shared equal political rights. whether they were rich or poor. Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus and Euripides’ Suppliants. Naiden (2006) has produced a comprehensive study of ancient supplication (his detailed appendices of sources and indexes can be used to locate discussion of these and numerous other Athenian examples. The aid given to the children of Heracles. By using this evocative verb here. See p. 196–236. The verb kolazein. 37 κολάζο[υσα. which he chooses to pass over in this simile so that he can instead go on to provide a narrative of Leosthenes’ achievements. the epitaphioi celebrate the collective unity of the civic community. The theme is also common in funeral orations: Lys. Mx.8 refer to Athenian aid for the Seven against Thebes and the Heracleidae. It is used both for the victories of Theseus (see previous note) and the defeat of the Persians (Pl. Medea. and the absence of Theseus from the funeral orations has nothing to do with any hypothetical rejection of the policies of Cimon. and Oedipus was the subject of numerous fifth-century tragedies in Athens. For discussion of the catalogue of Athenian achievements that appears in other funeral orations (most extensively in Lys. 23 above for more parallels between Hyperides’ description of the conflict with Macedon and others’ accounts of the Persian Wars. 2 and Plato’s Menexenus) see Loraux 1986.7–16. and Dem. Orestes. 56–57) explains that the absence of Theseus from the Eumenides of Aeschylus emphasizes “the collective anonymity” of the play’s Athenian court. Mx. 239b.

2. or the rule of one (Alcmaeon 4. or the Athenian political system in the classical period (Lys.” may allude more generally to the democratic ideal of isonomia. 3) disagrees). cf. instead of being subject to an unjust tyrant. “political equality.80. Harris’ interpretation of τὸ ἴσον as referring to the courts at Thuc.1 (see previous note) supports Jensen’s restoration.70 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§5–] various overlapping explanations for this equality: autochthony (Pl. 60. 69 and Isoc. “birth equality. who describes the Greeks who fought at Marathon: τοῖς ἰδίοις κινδύνοις κοινὴν ἄδειαν ἅπασι τοῖς Ἕλλησι κτώμενοι.20. The brief allusion to equality and the Athenian political system anticipates the more extensive contrast between Athenian democracy and barbarian tyranny later in the speech (§§20–22). Hdt. Mx.37.142–143. ἀ[πονέμουσα.” he created). “political equality”). where the sun. or the political settlement of Theseus (Dem. Isonomia is regularly opposed to monarchia. 104. 7. Blass’ restoration is based on the echo of Lycurg. Harris (1992. The remaining traces of ink and the size of the lacuna better suit Jensen’s restoration than those of Babington and Colin (appendix B).56 presents τὸ ἴσον as the goal of the Delian League). On equality as an Athenian ideal.28 praises the ἰσηγορία. “injustice. . where isonomia is an alternative to both monarchy and oligarchy). The Thucydidean funeral oration also celebrates the ideal of Athenian equality (Thuc. 12. “with their own risks they acquired shared security 38–40 . .178. Kaibel preferred the reading ἀντ[ὶ τῆς πλεονε]ξίας (“instead of [greed]”) and proposed ἀ[πονέμουσα (“dispenses”) to continue the financial metaphor. and Athens.” here. 2. That antithesis colors the usage here. provides the opportunity for all the Greek states to be self-governing.2–82. Although ἀδι]κιάς (“injustice”) is preferable to πλεονε]ξίας (“greed”) the remaining ink traces better suit ἀ[πονέμουσα (“dispenses”) than Blass’ φ[υλάττουσα (“protects”) and the verb ἀπονέμειν (“to dispense”) makes good sense even without the reference to greed. Schroeder 1914 also refers to Isoc. also Hdt. Ostwald (1969.” refers to the equality before the law all Athenian citizens enjoyed in judicial disputes. 239a connects ἰσογονία. 3. 109–110). 2. The substantive adjective τὸ ἴσον. “equality. 38 τῆς ἀδι]κιάς. “equality.37.” and ἰσονομία. “legal equality” (as argued by Gomme (1956. παρασκε]υάζουσα. That interpretation supports the reading of τῆς ἀδικίας.1). 114 n. 38 τοῖ]ς δὲ ἰδί[οις κινδύνοις . 3. 160–162) has demonstrated that Thucydides’ reference to τὸ ἴσον.

on hypophora see the note on §30 under τίς . .2 cites Isoc. καὶ ὑμνῆ]σαι ἄμφω . 15. 6.[–§6] Commentary 71 for all the Greeks. whose nonsensical reading is likely due to the scribe’s misreading of his source. see Carey 2007a. The explicit deliberation about the act of praising is characteristic of epideictic oratory. 2. s. Others have suggested that the scribe may have misread ἄμφω (“both”) in his exemplar and written . Paraleipein usually takes an accusative object. . .117. 41 π[ερὶ μὲν οὖν. see the note on §24 under ἰδίαν . ὥσπερ [χρή. Or. . ἐξελέγχειν and. aporia for many other examples of this rhetorical trope. 336) comments on the unusual combination of hypophora and aporia. . . . but this suggestion entails other drastic changes to the papyrus text. . For the phrase φράσαι περί. as I should. and not an alpha (as Blass’s restoration of [ἀλλὰ περὶ μέ]ν requires). It also employs hypophora. a closer parallel also introducing rhetorical praeteritio. . There is a small dot of ink at the top left of the line before the lacuna.27: εἰπεῖν παραλείψω).v. . LSJ. Kayser (1868) accepts the reading ἄμφω (“both”). .450: παραλείψω . Lib. focus my speech”) in the next clause and anticipates the praeteritio below (on this rhetorical device see the note on this section under διεξέλθω). κοινήν. which then requires a verb to govern the first περί (“as for”) phrase. 12. φρά]σαι ‹παρ›αλ‹ε›ί‹ψ›ω. a series of rhetorical questions and answers (Usher (1999. but later writers offer a few parallels for the first-person future with an active infinitive (Gal. . and to praise] both. This short section is full of rhetorical tropes: it begins and ends with praeteritio (see above on this section under φρά]σαι ‹παρ›αλ‹ε›ί‹ψ›ω and below under διεξέλθω) and here Hyperides employs the rhetorical device of aporia by suggesting that there is an abundance of potential material to praise (see Usher 1999.v. The phrase φράσαι παραλείψω (“I will refrain from speaking”) offers a pointed contrast to τοὺς λόγους ποιήσομαι (“I will . ‹παρ›αλ‹ε›ί‹ψ›ω is Müller’s plausible correction of the papyrus. “[Since I am unable to speak about these men and all] the shared [accomplishments of the] city [at the same time. which is common in all types of oratory). 245. φράζω I. it is consistent with the top bar of a pi. He assumes the scribe omitted further material at the beginning of the sentence and reconstructs the passage thus: [οὐκ ἔχων δὲ ὁμοῦ περὶ τούτων εἰπεῖν καὶ περὶ πασῶ]ν τῶν κοινῶ[ν πράξεων τῆς πόλ]εως.” 42 43–44 νῦ]ν δὲ πόθεν κτλ. index s. As Jensen observes.” On the repeated contrast between private risk and public safety.

44 λέγει]ν. see the note on §9 under διεξελθεῖν. The Dutch scholar Carel Gabriel Cobet (1813–1889) perhaps best epitomizes this tendency. 40–41 discusses Cobet and his ideal of “das reine Attische”. Med. The infinitive with the verb ἄρχομαι (“to begin”) implies that the speaker is beginning to do something which will be continued. Hyperides puts special emphasis on this device by explicitly using the verb paraleipein (“to refrain”) at the beginning of this section to close his brief praise of the city. which is used when the speaker will then go on to do something else (Smyth 2128). too. as opposed to the supplementary participle. but he sometimes went too far. 1. Hyperides’ treatment of traditional themes in his prooemium is highly abbreviated. Hyperides now uses these various rhetorical devices to avoid dwelling on the traditional themes of the genos (“heritage”) and the paideia (“upbringing”) of the Athenians in §§7–8 (on these typical sections in funeral orations see Ziolkowski 1981.3 and Dem. The parallels (Dem. allowing time for the unusual extended narrative of the achievements of the dead that begins in §9. On Hyperides’ usage of this verb. Here he proposes the genitive of the adjective. For the infinitive. He made many brilliant restorations in this speech.1) adduced by Graindor in support of reading the noun λόγων (“speech”) do not exclude the use of the infinitive. Cobet compares Eur. see also Babington’s (1859.72 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§6–] ‹γὰρ› κα‹ι›ρὸς κτλ). πρώτου (appendix B). is the rhetorical figure in which the speaker states that he will not mention something. Just as he passed over any lengthy praise of the city in §5. πρῶτον. Here is a typical instance in which nineteenth-century editors erred in their efforts to bring Hyperides’ Greek into line with earlier classical authors. briefly touching upon many typical topics. or paraleipsis. and here he uses the device again to bring up quickly and dismiss two of the traditional themes of the funeral oration: the ancestors of the dead and their noble and autochthonous origins. and the education of the 45 . But the neuter accusative adverb is perfectly intelligible and does not require correction. Ep. Praeteritio. here. Like the simile in §5 that functions as a miniature epainos of the city. and in effect reminds his listeners of it with that denial. 44 διεξέλθω. 6) tribute to Cobet’s textual work on the Funeral Oration). suggesting corrections to accord with his idealized standards of classical Attic usage (von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1998. 18. 475. An adverbial accusative may be used instead of the adjective “when one action is opposed to another in sequence” (Smyth 1042N). 64–65).

index s. Ziolkowski 1981. 60. highlighting the “discourse of exclusion” (20) that distinguishes Athens from other Greek cities. . 60. Because the Athenians have been settled in one place for longer than other peoples. 303–304) has shown that the concept of autochthony developed along with the Athenian Empire in the fifth century and that the legend was used as a justification for Athenian military activity. 60. Hyperides makes explicit contrast between the heterogeneity of other states and Athenian unity. This tension between Athens’ exclusive pride in its homogeneity and dependence on foreign goods and specialists also appears at Thuc. 120–121). In forensic cases litigants sometimes claim that constraints of time prevent a detailed account of their opponents’ misdeeds. 2.4. but this one in particular may seem a little out of place. 18–23) discusses these passages and related ones from the epitaphioi and tragedy. much like Dem. 2. 35–38) similarly emphasizes that the myth of autochthony glosses over social differences in order to celebrate the anonymous “collective excellence” of Athens (38).[–§7] Commentary 73 Athenians. Autochthony is employed in all the funeral orations except the short fragment of Gorgias to emphasize the homogeneity of the Athenian citizen body.” and Connor (1994. Mx. because they were born from Attica and have always dwelled there (Thuc. Pl. Loraux (2000.v. The avoidance here of the common theme of the genos is very different from other funeral orators and particularly Demosthenes. §13) who helped Athens. who discusses the Eponymous Heroes of the Athenian people at length (Dem. The myth was also hortative: Rosivach (1987.36. . Hyperides gives short shrift to many common topoi. 51–52 οἷς ἡ κοινὴ γένεσις α[ὐτόχ]θοσιν οὖσιν ἀνυπέρβλητ[ον] τὴν εὐγένειαν ἔχει. 45–46 7. Lys. “noble birth. on the frequent use of the particle ἀλλά (here “no”) in hypophora.4. Usher (1999.2 (with discussion by Connor (1993.27–31). She also observes (21) that the myth of common origin granted to all Athenians the aristocratic ideal of εὐγένεια. 120)). . See the note on §30 under ἀλλά . they were able to become civilized sooner and are thus superior. 237b. paraleipsis) collects numerous examples from the orators and tragedy.1.38. 2. ἀλλ’ εὔηθες εἶναι ὑπολαμβάνω. since the orator will soon praise the mercenary soldiers and foreign allies (§11. who likens the citizens of other states to adopted children. Dem. these insinuating claims essentially functioned as accusations for which no evidence was needed.17.

as one must in an oration over the war dead.18–24. She sees this narrow conception of aret as a reaction against Dem.” The war context of the speech requires Hyperides to focus on Leosthenes’ military exploits in his praise of the general’s aret (§§10–20). 109–110) focuses on this passage as she argues that Hyperides.15–16). . The Athenian soldiers were first exposed to moderation (cf.” and then they went to war. but his initial account of the education of the commander and his men begins with a reminder of the s phrosyn with which they were raised as children. . 8. The course of development is parallel to Demosthenes’ definition of complete virtue consisting first of learning. For all his attention to the life of the deceased before going into battle (Dem. presumably because of the loss of a small piece of the papyrus. but it must have been separated by the time of the third edition of Blass. “justice. It is only to be expected that Hyperides focuses on the apex of his subjects’ virtue. where the speaker asserts that s phrosyn was the primary focus in the education of young Athenians). who incorrectly inserts the fragment in col. A tiny fragment of the papyrus has been lost here. 60. As children they learned qualities such as s phrosyn and dikaiosyn . In the edition of Babington that fragment is reported in this location without comment. despite the many innovations in this oration. where they demonstrated their military skill. ἀλλὰ [πε]ρὶ. most importantly s phrosyn . here follows a time-honored definition of aret as purely military excellence. Demosthenes.74 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§7–] 7–8. 51–53 ἀνυπέρβλητ[ον] . 1 lines 19–22 (9–11). in which aret is equated with other qualities. 60. In 335/334 the eph beia was reformed. too.17. 60. but this emphasis hardly constitutes “an attack on mistaken predecessors” (Loraux 1986. 1. and then of bravery (Dem. The fragment was lost by the time Jensen examined the papyrus. Aesch. ἐπ‹αι›δε[ύθησαν.17). 110). 53–55 ἀλλὰ [περ]ὶ τῆς παιδείας . mainly emphasizes their martial valor (Dem. Similarly. Hyperides states that the dead demonstrated their virtues both through a great length of time and amidst many dangers. The special interest in the soldiers’ paideia in these two speeches is perhaps reflective of contemporary institutional reforms in Athens. . but the underlined material has now disappeared.6–7. and then they learned to be soldiers. and male Athenian youths aged 18 . These two categories correspond to the antithesis of his previous sentence: they were born senseless and died as brave soldiers. aret in 23). before they learned their military skills (§8). 60. . in §29. and current trends in civic epitaphs. Loraux (1986. their death in the field. “moderation. My text indicates the state of the manuscript as seen by early editors.

“some. A complementary infinitive is needed with the verb εἰώθασιν. and at §6 and probably at §4. Fisher 2001. a question that served as a praeteritio allowing him to mention that topic only in passing (see the note on §6 under διεξέλθω). Hyperides repeats the phrase again at §28 (cf. 494–495.4 (ὅπερ εἰώθασί τινες ποιεῖν.” Sauppe’s restoration is too long for the lacuna. “others. “Should I discuss [their] ancestry?” (§6). 61 διεξελθεῖν.[–§9] Commentary 75 to 20 participated in a systematic program of military and civic training. 71–74) observes that “even without maintaining consistent and unchanging goodness through a lifetime. The earlier usages link the orator’s avoidance of standard treatments of the city (in §4) and of the genos (in §6). This honorific phrase is regularly used in the funeral orations and other patriotic literature to describe soldiers’ death on the battlefield (see Loraux 1986. Hess adduces Isoc. and Faraguna 1992. . Hyperides began this paragraph by asking. Hyperides uses this verb in the aorist with the sense of “narrate individually” here. 274–280. He presents their voluntary death on the field as the singular defining moment of their adult lives.” Levi’s ἄλλοι. and [Fuhr]’s (both in appendix B) is unlikely because the scribe does not usually break a line after the first consonant of a syllable. §1 and §34). For discussion of these reforms see Humphreys 2004. Rusten (1986. 5. but most of the epitaphioi begin with more explicit reference to earlier speakers (see note on §1 under τῶν μὲν λόγων τ[ῶν μελ]λόντων ῥηθήσεσ[θαι κτλ). but rather by performing a single appropriate action at the end of that life . 57–58 9. 88–92. 99–102 for discussion and examples). “which some are accustomed to do”) as a parallel for Jensen’s supplement of τινες. and in both instances he contrasts the heroic death of the soldiers with their childhood.” would also fill the gap nicely and make good sense. Rhodes 1993. “are accustomed. . By volunteering to die the fallen attain the same status as these honorands. On the related abstract quality of andragathia see the note on §40 under ἀρετῆς καὶ ἀνδραγαθίας. Hyperides now repeats the same verb to signal that he will focus on an alternative topic at unusual length: the . 65–66. 56 ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί γ[ίγνων]ται. 265–267) collects examples and emphasizes the military associations of the phrase). τινες ποι]εῖν. one can earn the title ἀγαθός for eternity” (72). The phrase ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς ἐγένετο (“he was a brave man”) was used as a formula in Athenian honorific decrees specifically to praise valor in battle (Veligianni-Terzi (1997. Hyperides briefly refers to other orators at earlier burial ceremonies.

since foreign kings would commonly offer gifts to visiting ambassadors. Just a year before the funeral oration was delivered. For an outline of the events of the campaign. Harris (1995. 66 τεταπεινωμένη. 63 10–12. (Harvey 1985. 86–87 and 106–107). Demosthenes.. This verb could perhaps be classified as “nonforensic” in the Hyperidean corpus (see above p. Dem. The verb is echoed below (see the note on §35 under ἐταπείνωσεν) to emphasize the change in circumstances as a result of the soldiers’ acts of valor. literally “to receive gifts.295. laid charges of bribery against Aeschines in 343 to distance himself from the embarrassing peace of Philocrates after Hyperides had successfully prosecuted a similar case against Philocrates that same year (see above pp. The verb d rodokein. 12–13. Demosthenes became embroiled in scandal and was prosecuted for accepting money from the Macedonian treasurer Harpalus .” always refers to bribes in classical usage. In these sections Hyperides describes the events of late 323. 32–175r/174v l. the orator refrained from looking back to Athens’ previous benefactions to the rest of Greece. and throughout his career he frequently referred to Greeks who were corrupted by Philip (e. Hyperides repeatedly emphasizes the panhellenic alliance during the Lamian (or Hellenic) War. 3–4. he highlights the current accomplishments of Athens and Leosthenes. now echoed by Hyp. Taylor 2001. 8). at §4. but it is quite common in the court speeches of other authors. at §10 and §39.76 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§9–] achievements of the men on the battlefield. see pp. 2. τοῖς ἄλλοις Ἕλλησιν. 116–118) shows how weak the charge of bribery was). 26. Dion. Below. 66–67 κατεφθαρμένη ὑπὸ [τῶν] δωροδο‹κ›ούντων. 61–64 and 162–163). Dem. and there is no reason to believe that Athenian politicians were often persuaded to serve the Macedonians against the interests of Athens (as Cargill (1985) suggests). see also the passages collected by Cargill (1985)). The ambassadors to Philip and Alexander were particularly susceptible to accusations of bribery and corruption. See the note on §16 under τῆ[ς τῶ]ν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας. the most famous opponent of Macedon in the 340s. 18. Above. outside of this speech it appears only as a conjectural restoration at Hyp. But these accusations of bribery in Athens usually arose in the midst of broader personal or political feuds (see C. 10. 176v/173r l.g.

Consequently.11. he took refuge at Chalcis (D. when Athens finally decided to initiate hostilities against Macedon. 1972–1988.11. Diod. under the leadership of Callias of Chalcis. The latter provides a detailed map . 75 Βοιωτούς.1–2 lists the Greek allies in the Lamian War: from Euboea only the city of Carystus joined the Greek alliance.5). he granted the Thebans’ land to the neighboring Boeotians (see §17).5. 11. Sic. 18. 77 εἰς Πύλας. 18.10.H. After Alexander destroyed Thebes. one of the so-called fetters of Greece (Plb.11. 18.) Leosthenes planned to confront the enemy here. When Aristotle left Athens in 323 out of anxiety over his Macedonian connections. with steep mountains to the south and the sea to the north. the modern coast extends further north than it did in antiquity. and had already occupied the pass with that intention in mind (Diod. D. 12 of the introduction. Hyperides was a prosecutor in that case and uses the “brutal verb” d rodokein to attack his former ally (see Whitehead 2000.5) that protected Macedonian interests (Hammond et al. Εὐβοέας. Amm. (Barrington atlas map 55 D3. See p. 1. (1972–1988. 254–264) gives a thorough analysis of why and when Euboea shifted its alliances from Philip to Athens). II: 615) on this point). Pritchett (1965. Chroust (1966) emphasizes political reasons for his move). 72 ξενικὴν μὲν δύναμιν. II: 612 n. the rest of the island sided with Macedon. and probably maintained them there until after Alexander’s death. 3). joined the Athenian alliance against Philip prior to the battle of Chaeronea (Brunt (1969. 75 12. 71–73) and MacKay (1963) survey the present landscape and surviving remains in order to make sense of ancient accounts of the area and correct modern misinterpretations of the difficult terrain. Sic. Chalcis was the site of an armed Macedonian garrison. 5. The Euboeans. Leosthenes ferried a large body of mercenaries from Asia to Cape Taenarum at the southern tip of the Peloponnese.11. L. 82) provides more detail than Hammond et al. the Boeotians sided with the Macedonians because they feared that the Athenians would return that land to the Thebans if the Athenian campaign was successful (Diod.[–§12] Commentary 77 (see above p. 403 on this verb). 11). in 335.5–6. 18. The pass of Thermopylae provides land access to southern Greece from Thessaly. 5. After Philip’s victory in 338 the pro-Athenian leaders of the Euboean League went into exile and Philip installed sympathetic governments on the island (Roebuck (1948. Sic.3–4).

1 repeats that the Aetolians were the first to join the alliance. 12 of the introduction. 18. Lamia is about 10 kilometers northwest of Thermopylae. 13 and Habicht 1997. Hyperides devotes very little attention to the Persian Wars.) Both Phocis and Thessaly had reason not to join the alliance in 323. Then. After the defeat at Plataea the Macedonian forces fled and took refuge at Lamia for the winter (Diod. on §20 under τὴν Μακεδόνων ὑπερηφανίαν. Diod. under the leadership of the Spartan Leonidas. which honors ambassadors sent from Athens to conduct a treaty with the Phocians. were overcome by the Persian forces at the pass of Thermopylae in the autumn of 480. Sic. (Diod. Sic.9. he approached the Locrians and the Phocians and other nearby peoples (Diod.11.11. Sic. see Béquignon 1937. Compared to other funeral orators. 81–82 13. Hamilton (1977) argues that Cleitarchus is the source for Diodorus’ Greek narrative in book 17). and on §37 under Μιλτιάδην καὶ Θεμιστοκλέα.5). See the vivid account of Hdt. Antipater was awaiting reinforcements from Craterus and Leonnatus (see above p. The precise date of the agreement with the Aetolians is not certain.) Diodorus’ source for Greek events in books 18 to 20 was Hieronymus.111.201–233. 78–79 κατακλείσας εἰς Λαμίαν.78 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§12–] of the pass. in the region of Phthiotis. near the Malian Gulf (Barrington atlas map 55 C3. 263–278 on the site). The alliance must have been forged within just a few months of Alexander’s death. 18. Oikonomides (1982. 32–40. after the Aetolians agreed to join his cause. 82–83 Θ]ετταλοὺς δὲ καὶ Φωκέας καὶ [Αἰ]τωλοὺς καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἅπαντας τοὺς ἐν τῶι τόπωι. The Greeks. Neither the order of Hyperides’ list nor its position in his narrative is historically accurate. 18. 124) dates IG II2 367.5). δι’ ὧν καὶ πρότερον ἐ[πὶ τ]οὺς Ἕλληνας οἱ βάρβαροι ἐ[πο]ρεύθησαν. 38). (See also p. He instead describes contemporary events using the same terms that his predecessors used to describe the famous war against the barbarians. According to Diodorus’ account.3 reports that Leosthenes was in contact with the Aetolians prior to Alexander’s death in June 323. See the notes on §5 under κολάζο[υσα. all these negotiations were conducted prior to the Athenian decree declaring war. to late October 323. Phocis had received aid from Athens in the third Sacred War against . 7. and his narrative is generally accepted as trustworthy (see Hornblower 1981. 17. Sic.

but in 346 the Phocian general Phalaecus broke off ties with Athens. ἔλαβεν. Thessaly also had reason not to sympathize with the Greek revolt. 170) singles out Hyperides for breaking all the rules of the funeral oration by naming Athens’ allies and describing some of the nontraditional techniques employed by the hoplite forces during the siege operation at Lamia. 227). Hyperides does not specifically mention the Locrians. 81–101). who also joined the Athenian alliance in 323. 60. . during the revolt of Agis in 331. after presenting a narrative of the battle season. Earlier. 3. But Dem. no. the Thessalians may have considered turning on Macedon. 84–86 καὶ ὧν . He presents Athens as the savior of Greece in the conclusion of this list of allies by presenting the eagerness of the other Greeks to aid the Athenian cause as a contrast to their previous submission to the Macedonians. .167). later internal strife provided an opportunity for Philip to intervene in Thessalian politics in either 344 or 342. who sided with the Macedonians. see also Tracy 1995. and here Hyperides appropriates that motif and applies it to the present campaign. 29). Loraux (1986.22 criticizes the Theban allies by name for their share in the defeat at Chaeronea.[–§13] Commentary 79 the Amphictyonic League a generation earlier. 2. 2. since East Locris commands the approach to the pass at Thermopylae and isolates the Boeotians to the south. 264). in the 350s. 44. The Eastern Locrians must have been especially valuable allies. on §5 under το]ὺς μὲν κακοὺ‹ς› κολάζο[υσα). At the end of the war Phocis was severely punished by the Amphictyony for its war against Thebes and Athens condoned that settlement (see Harris 1995. and the Thessalian cavalry played an important role in Alexander’s army during his Asian campaign (Bosworth 1988. is to portray Athens and Leosthenes as liberators of greater Greece. Loraux makes an unconvincing attempt to explain away Lys. These two clauses are closely parallel in rhythm .49. Perhaps Alexander’s Exiles Decree in March 324 weakened the loyalty of the Thessalians and contributed to their emerging antipathy toward the Macedonian regime (Bosworth 1988. if we can infer anything from an alleged boast of Demosthenes that he brought about such a rebellion there (reported and rejected at Aesch. also Lys. The point in listing the allies here. Although the koinon of Thessaly formed a short-lived alliance with Athens in 361/360 (IG II2 116 = Rhodes and Osborne 2003. Funeral orations regularly boasted of Athens’ efforts to save the other Greeks in the mythological past and during the Persian Wars (see above. which refers to sieges and names the Corinthian allies (cf.67).

ἐγκωμ[ιάζ]ω. “according to their will”). semnunein (“to be proud”). . Sic. καὶ ὧν Φίλιππος καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος ἀκόντων ἡγούμενοι ἐσεμνύνοντο. This verb frequently refers to incorrect assumptions (LSJ. ἔπαινον . the Macedonian troops managed to reach Antipater and help him escape from the siege at Lamia (Habicht 1997. see Volkmann 1885. .80 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§13–] and structure.” Whitehead (2000. and may be deliberately emphasizing the change in Athens’ fortune since the defeat at Chaeronea (cf. . Both begin with correlative genitives (ὧν and τούτων) and then continue with the two contrasted subjects.1–4). Throughout this section Hyperides alternates between two different types of “praise”: egk mion (ἐγκωμιάζειν or ἐγκώμιον. . 18. the note on the simile in §5 as an answer to Demosthenes’ pessimism). 84–85 14. see above p. which is emphasized by the repetition of ἡγούμενοι (“commanded”) in ἡγεμονίαν (“command”). The final portions of the two clauses. Rh. to describe the pride Athens took in being free and autochthonous before the defeat at Chaeronea. “against their will. the Macedonians and Leosthenes. But despite their losses. . 15. 90 τῆς ὕστερον [γενομέ]νης μάχης. In early 322 the Greeks abandoned the long siege of Lamia and engaged in battle with the Macedonian general Leonnatus. 39). are identical in syllabic length (parisosis. s. ἐπαιν[ῶ . Arist. translated as “praise”). ἐγκω[μιάζ]ειν . 1367b 28–32 distinguishes between these terms: an epainos is praise for the quality of virtue (aret ). 482 and Smyth 3038). 95 ὑπολάβη‹ι›. who was coming to aid Antipater in Lamia. ἐγκώμιον . while an egk mion 97–103 . 13. 450) collects parallel examples in the forensic speeches of Hyperides.” and ἑκόντων. beginning with the antithetical rhyming adverbs (ἀκόντων. The Thessalian cavalry was particularly effective in winning victory for the Greeks and killing Leonnatus (Diod.15. ὑπολαμβάνω III): “Nobody should (wrongly) assume. 41 uses the same verb. here translated as “eulogy”) and epainos (ἐπαινεῖν or ἔπαινος. . .v. . . . . That passage of Lycurgus’ speech is modeled after the state funeral orations and praises those who died at Chaeronea. Lycurg. Hyperides may have known his speech (see the note on §19 under στέφανον τῆι πατρίδ[ι). Hyperides’ speech was delivered early in 322 and he does not refer to the more significant battles of Abydus and Crannon that took place in July (on which see Habicht 1997. 39–40).

50). supported the rebels. Hyperides’ repeated usage of egk mion (ἐγκωμιάζειν or ἐγκώμιον at §7. including Demosthenes. the last letter of ἐγκωμ[ιάσ]ω) does not suit a nu. . §34 and probably §33) may be influenced by the development of the prose genre of encomia praising contemporary individuals (see the note on §3 under ἐπαινεῖν . 1. ἐγκωμ[ιάσ]ω. 111–112 τὴν π]όλιν τῶν Θηβαίων. a consecutive clause with the infinitive (Smyth 2258).e. A later Athenian inscription also refers to the war as an Athenian effort for “the freedom of the Greeks” (IG II2 467. An. Sic.9 de- .7–10. 17. §19. But Alexander reacted before Athenian support arrived. ll. Plut.6.[–§17] Commentary 81 focuses on specific accomplishments. 101–103 16. For narratives see Arr. 14–15. Lycurgus uses similar language in 331 as he bemoans the loss of the “freedom of the Greeks” at Chaeronea (Lycurg. . The slogan “freedom for the Greeks” was a prominent rallying cry. In late summer of 335 he quickly marched his army from Illyria to central Greece as reinforcement for the Macedonian garrison already stationed at Thebes. in part because aret on the battlefield is exemplified in actual deeds (see above on §3 under τὰς. cf. The leaders of the rebellion were unbowed. 105–106 τῆ[ς τῶ]ν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας. Hyperides depicts the Greek cooperation as a reincarnation of the alliance that defeated the Persians in 480 and 479 (see the note on §12 under δι’ ὧν καὶ πρότερον κτλ) and repeatedly links the concept of freedom with Athens’ leadership of a panhellenic campaign in 323 (see §§9–10 with the note on §9 under τοῖς ἄλλοις Ἕλλησιν.6. The terms of punishment were determined by the synedrion of the League of Corinth (under Alexander’s leadership). 17.. . and Alexander reduced the city. τὸν δὲ στρατηγὸν Λεωσθένη). . §11. ὥστ]ε . which he of course attributes to Demosthenes’ failed policies. A revolt against Macedonian rule erupted in Thebes in mid-335 when the city heard a rumor of Alexander’s death. Mx. ἐγκωμ[ιάζει]ν (“so as for me to praise”). Other funeral orations refer to epainos (ἐπαινεῖν or ἔπαινος) almost exclusively (ἐγκωμιάζειν or ἐγκώμιον occur elsewhere in the epitaphioi only at Pl. Many Athenians. §16.9. 1. Arr.6–8).8–15. See also the note on §25 under τῆς αὐτονομίας. . .133 laments the city’s destruction. 235a. . 237a and 241c). ἀρετάς). 3. also §10. . 11–12. Cobet suggests ὥστ’ ἐμ]ὲ . Hyperides’ usage is not so precise. An. Alex. §40). and Habicht 1997. But the surviving trace of the first letter after the lacuna in line 30 of the papyrus (i. Diod. §24. Aesch.

90).11 (ἐπειδὴ Ἡρακλῆς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἠφανίσθη. that they have now been reduced to seeing one of their own allies destroyed by such a ruler. 1972–1988. II: 610–611 and Buckler 2003. 112 τ[ὴν δὲ ἀ]κρόπολιν φρουρουμ[έ]ν[ην]. As this passage shows. “the family was obliterated from human society” in both).108 and 8. 2. when Theban prisoners were sold for ransom. Hyperides reminds the Athenians. In both passages he refers to the overthrow of Greek tyrants. Together with the “fetters of Greece” (see above on §11 under Εὐβοέας). Hammond et al. who are so proud of having deposed their own tyrants in the late sixth century (see the note on §39 under Ἁρμόδιον καὶ Ἀριστογείτονα). ἠφα]νισμένη ἐξ ἀνθρώπων. Babington compares Lys. 112–113 114 τὰ ‹δ›ὲ σώματα τῶν ἐνοικούντων ἐξηνδραποδισμένα. and redistribution of Theban land to other Boeotians. 77–80. enslavement of the Theban population. Hyperides resents the garrison as a symbol of the loss of Greek freedom (on which see below on §25 under τῆς αὐτονομίας). the continued presence of a Macedonian garrison at Thebes. Philip created a permanent Macedonian military station at Thebes to safeguard his arrangements in central Greece. 8 above). . but Cawkwell (1969. Regardless of its actual strength. and beyond. and the garrison was first put in place (see Roebuck 1948.113 (τὸ γένος . 37) doubt that the garrisons were a major factor in the Athenian response. other Boeotian cities were restored. Sealey (1993. Hyperides here specifically indicates that all four of the punishments of 335 were still in effect in 322 (cf. Hyperides alludes to these passages to emphasize the despotic nature of a potential Macedonian rule over Greece. . The harsh settlement was not dissimilar to Philip’s arrangements after the battle of Chaeronea. in which he also uses a similar phrase with the perfect participle: Isoc. 1972–1988. “after Heracles was obliterated from human society”) for his restoration. these garrisons were maintained throughout the period of Alexander’s rule. ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἠφανισμένον. II: 611–613). After the battle of Chaeronea. Pritchett . War captives were often enslaved and might be released for ransom. Bosworth 1980. 207) suggests that the garrison at Thebes was the primary deterrent to Athenian participation in Agis’ revolt in 331 (on the revolt see also p. Isocrates provides two closer parallels. 179) and Worthington (2000. these forts secured Philip’s control of the entire Greek peninsula (on the forts see Hammond et al. 5. 110 n. 506–507).82 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§17–] scribes four penalties: destruction of the city.

1972–1988. and then changed venue to the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi (on the meeting location and schedule see Lefèvre 1998. In late 346 Philip assumed a seat on the Amphictyonic Council. The biannual meetings of the council began at the shrines of Demeter and Amphictyon at Anthela. . 6–7 provides maps). 83–85). Thermopylae was the original meeting place of the Delphic amphictyony. 45–51) . The early history of the amphictyony at Thermopylae and then Delphi is discussed by Tausend (1992. s. The word the ros refers to the pilgrimage of state-sponsored sacred delegates who invited guests to come to religious festivals or sanctuaries. By supporting the other states in Boeotia. much to the distress of anti-Macedonian politicians in Athens such as Demosthenes and Hyperides (see above p. V: 223–245) catalogues and discusses dozens of examples. . The league may have originally formed to safeguard access to the pass at Thermopylae. εἰς [τὴν Π]υλαίαν θεωροὶ γενήσοντ[αι. The Delphic amphictyony was the most important of many such political and religious alliances in ancient Greece. whom he sold for 440 talents of silver. III: 65. 108–112. 123–124 124 θεωροί. On Hyperides’ fondness for this adjective see the note on §40 under ἐνδόξου. 114–115 18. 34–43). see the note on §11 under Βοιωτούς. and the geographic distribution of the member states around Thermopylae (Lefèvre 1998. Alexander weakened the influence of Thebes and won future allies in the Lamian War. 18. 4). For a general discussion of these unions see Ehrenberg 1969.3 and 1163. for sources and discussion see Pritchett 1971–1991. V: 244 and Hammond et al. IG II2 1132.000 captives. 119 ἔνδοξον. Dem. τὴν δὲ χώραν ἄλλους διανεμομένους. Pylaia and Pylagoroi (Πυλαία and πυλαγόροι. 193–204). ἀφικνούμενοι . Alexander spared only a few Thebans and enslaved some 30. Harp.2). Πύλαι.[–§18] Commentary 83 (1971–1991.147 and 151. especially to Delphi or Delos. Perlman (2001. 173–268) provides a detailed institutional history of the amphictyony during the period of Macedonian involvement. which was of vital economic and strategic importance to all the surrounding states. just west of the pass at Thermopylae. and also to those invited guests who came to the festivals as spectators. Now Hyperides depicts the fight against Macedon as a sacred war to expel the Macedonians from the Amphictyony (for further discussion see Mari 2003.v. as is indicated by the Greek terms for the meetings and the delegates. Sánchez (2001.

ἅμα .2) until the Macedonian general Leonnatus arrived with reinforcements during the winter (see Diod. 18.4: οἱ μὲν Ἕλληνες . . and the Athenians were optimistic—unrealistically. Hyperides echoes Lycurgus’ description of the Athenian defeat at Marathon: “they made it clear that courage is superior to wealth and virtue to number” (Lycurg. Cf. Sic. ἁθροισθήσονται . for further details. in 323 the majority of Persian ships were in Asia. . Sic.84 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§18–] gives a useful summary of the duties of the the the roi and their hosts (the rodokoi). As is typical in the epitaphioi (see Walters 1980. At the start of the war the Greek forces were probably comparable to the Macedonians at sea. 133–138) categorizes various usages of the ros and related terms. “crown of the fatherland. 18. κρίνοντες.5 and cf.10. . 18. μνησθήσονται. as it turned out—that they could build up a comparable force of 240 ships with allied contributions (Diod. above p. Lycurg. Rutherford (2000. above on §13 under καὶ ὧν . . 18. based on abundant epigraphic evidence.2. The usage reinforces the characterization of the Lamian War as a sacred war (see previous note). 4–6). . 108: καταφανῆ ἐποίησαν τὴν ἀνδρείαν τοῦ πλούτου καὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν τοῦ πλήθους περιγιγνομένην). Sic. following the interpretation of Morrison (1987)).12. .15. The Greeks were superior in number on land at the start of the war (Diod. Although the Persian battle fleet of 240 ships outnumbered the Greeks.8–9. . 132–133 στέφανον τῆι πατρίδ[ι. Worthington (1999.12. .14.2 and 18. 50: στέφανον τῆς πατρίδος. who far outnumbered the Macedonians”. Sic. 125–127 19. These two clauses are closely linked by the homoioteleuton (Volkmann 1885. 18. . “The Greeks .12. Hyperides may be distorting the historical record by suggesting that the Greeks were outnumbered. 129–130 τὴν ἀρετὴν ἰσχὺν καὶ τὴν ἀνδρείαν πλῆθος . See the following note for another link between these two speeches. . 216) offers a detailed assessment of the forces on each side at the beginning and end of the war (but his figure for the Athenian naval force in 323 is too large: see Morrison 1987).” The evocative phrase appears only in these two passages (in the TLG). Hyperides uses this term here to refer specifically to the Greek delegates who attended the meetings of the Delphic amphictyony. and. πολὺ τῶν Μακεδόνων ὑπερέχοντες. and 18. ἔλαβεν). 483 and Smyth 3026) of the two final verbs and parisosis (cf. see Diod. 13).1–3. . given the parallel contexts. she also provides a map of the routes the the roi from Delphi would follow in Thessaly (76). may sug- . .10.

This vivid picture of what might have happened to Greece is unparalleled in the epitaphioi (but cf. or with the finite optative verb standing alone without the particle. 60). Cf. 135 μὴ κατὰ τρόπον τούτων ἀγωνισαμένων. The optative verbs here and at §22 (κρίνοιμεν. 150–154). either with the particle ἄν modifying both the optative and the infinitive apo koinou. discussed by Salvaneschi 1972. 134–135) observes the frequency of the construction in the koin dialect and suggests that it was colloquial in the fourth century.” Nevertheless. and Bers (1984. 10. and Hess have concluded. their souls are a crown for their fatherland. but Rennie (1940. In other regards Hyperides seems to reflect the emergence of koin . διὰ τί γὰρ τούτου φείσαισθε. “we judge”) should be classified as potential optatives. Worthington (1999. Jensen. these two occurrences of the same syntactic phenomenon are unlikely to be scribal errors. 216–217) more sensibly suggests we retain the optative and regard the usage as a “Hyperidean idiom. see below on §34 under ἀκουσόντων. and Hyperides’ ἡ ἐλευθερία εἰς τὸ κοινόν. Lycurg. also the note on §35 under ἆρ’ οὐκ ἂν ‹οἰ›όμεθα.” echoes Lycurgus’ κοινὴ ἐλευθερία. Both passages feature the common antithesis of private sacrifice for the public good. 260) suggests that the Lycurgus passage echoes Dem. The particle ἄν must modify the infinitive in the contrary-to-fact condition.[–§20] Commentary 85 gest that Hyperides knew Lycurgus’ work. “common freedom. The participle serves as the protasis of a contrafactual condition. Homer commonly uses conditions of the type . “[they made] freedom a common possession.” Elsewhere Hyperides uses a potential optative without ἄν (Hyp. Graindor (1898. 134–135 τί ἂν συμβῆναι νομίζοιμεν. 60. The Lycurgan phrase comes in the course of a mini-epitaphios in praise of those who sacrificed their lives for Greek freedom at Chaeronea. “Why should you spare this man?”. Phil. But the context seems to require a more declarative sense than potential optatives usually have. 22) insists that those examples are all scribal mistakes that “have been rightly emended. where the virtue of the fallen is praised as being the soul of Greece.” Maas (1928. 20. Hyperides uses the motif to underline the Lamian War’s goal of recovering from the defeat at Chaeronea. 342) and Hess (1938. as is reflected in the translation here (rather than “what would we suppose would have happened” and in §22 “we would judge these expectations would be”). Because they risked their individual lives for the sake of the common freedom of the Greeks. 65) list parallel examples of potential optatives without ἄν. as Graindor.23.

86

Hyperides: Funeral Oration

[§20–]

“now X would have happened if Y had not intervened” (e.g., Hom. Il. 3.373–382) as plot-changing devices and also to emphasize a situation or make an editorial comment on a character (on Homer’s contrafactuals see Louden 1993; Nesselrath (1992) studies this device in epic poetry more generally). Hyperides’ usage here emphasizes the heroic action of the fallen and their service to Greece.

κατὰ τρόπον. For this sense of the prepositional phrase see LSJ, s.v. τρόπος II.4.b.
135 138 συνελόντα δ’ εἰπεῖν. Or “to put it briefly.” Hyperides is the first to use the accusative participle instead of the dative in this common idiom (Pohle 1928, 93; LSJ s.v. συναιρέω I.2.b). Babington (appendix B) suggests correcting the case to accord with earlier usage of the phrase, but a similar phrase with the accusative at Hdt. 3.82.5 (ἐνὶ δὲ ἔπεϊ πάντα συλλαβόντα εἰπεῖν, “to put it all together briefly”) justifies retaining the papyrus reading. Hyperides’ verbal usage is occasionally more similar to later writers than earlier (cf. the note below on §34 under ἀκουσόντων), and the idiom occurs regularly with the accusative in later writers, especially in scholia and commentaries (e.g., scholion ap. Hom. Od. 13.429). 138 τὴν Μακεδόνων ὑπερηφανίαν. Pl. Mx. 240d, describing the battle of Marathon, speaks of the “insolence of all Asia” (ὑπερηφανία ὅλης Ἀσίας). In this oration Hyperides avoids dwelling upon the Persian Wars, so prominent in other epitaphioi, and assimilates the topoi that recur in Athenian treatments of the Persian Wars to the present conflict with Macedon. For discussion, see above p. 23. The term ὑπερηφανία, “insolence,” here refers to the enemy’s overconfidence. In general the term expresses moral condemnation and is often linked with hybris (MacDowell 1990, 302–303 on Dem. 21.83). Here there is also a sense of coercion, reinforced by ὑπήκοον, “subject,” and ἐξ ἀνάγκης, “forced” in the previous sentence. 138–139 τὴν . . . ὑπερηφανίαν . . . μὴ τὴν . . . δύναμιν. This section of the speech is especially full of pointed antitheses such as this. See below on §24 under ἰδίαν . . . κοινήν. 138

Μακεδόνων. Macedonians, though native Greek speakers, were often characterized as foreign barbaroi by Demosthenes and his political allies. Hall (2001) surveys the ancient and modern debate as to whether the Macedonians were Greeks. He reasonably suggests that in the fourth-century criteria such as language and genealogy mattered

[–§20]

Commentary

87

less to the Greeks than cultural practice, and that these varied criteria could be manipulated to argue that the Macedonians were or were not Greek. Badian (1982) argues that Demosthenes’ characterization of Philip as a barbarian (e.g., Dem. 3.17, 19.271) is an accurate reflection of the general Greek attitude at that time, and Borza (1996) has corroborated his findings with an analysis of how ancient writers distinguish Macedonians from Greeks. However he was perceived in Athens, Philip clearly wanted to be thought of as a Greek, and by reviving earlier accounts that the Macedonian kings descended from Argos, he provided genealogical evidence for his claim. He also took advantage of his Olympic victory of 356 to advertise his devotion to philhellenic culture, by building the Philippeion in Olympia and minting a coin series featuring Zeus Olympios and a victorious jockey (no. 16 in Yalouris et al. 1980). After the battle of Chaeronea these Hellenic aspirations took on an increasing political significance, when Philip formed the League of Corinth to support his planned panhellenic campaign against Persia (see above p. 7), a plan that was carried out after his death by Alexander. By presenting the Macedonians as barbarians in this speech (§38), Hyperides justifies the Greek revolt in 323. The characterization is also rhetorically effective, since it allows the orator to mold his account of the Lamian War after treatments of the great war against the Persian barbaroi.

ὥστε . . . καθεστάναι. Sauppe keeps the papyrus reading of and prints ἂν ἐκλείπτους. The adjective ἔκλειπτος is otherwise unattested, but it is easy to make sense of it meaning “lacking,” as the opposite of ἀνέκλειπτος, and it should be retained. Other editors print ἀνεκλείπτους, an adjective that is quite common in post-classical Greek (and occasionally found in the classical period: Alc. fr. 305.13 and Hecat. Abd. fr. 25.1360), but its meaning, “uninterrupted,” is the opposite of what is required after the negative conjunction μηδέ. Those who prefer ἀνεκλείπτους must also make extensive, and unnecessary, emendations elsewhere in the clause (see appendix B).
140–141 140–141

μήτε γυνα‹ι›κῶν μήτε παρθένων μηδὲ παίδων ὕβρ‹ε›ις. Hybris can refer to a wide range of arrogant, offensive, or violent behavior and attitudes. For general discussions see Fisher 1992 and MacDowell 1976. It was regularly used as a term for sexual violence perpetrated with the intent of humiliating victims and their families. Harris (2004b) ex-

88

Hyperides: Funeral Oration

[§20–]

plains “the differences between the ancient idea of hybris and the modern concept of rape”: rape refers to the victim’s lack of consent, whereas hybris “looks partly at the intention of the aggressor, partly at the effect on the honor of the victim and her relatives” (319). Violent sexual assaults were considered typical behavior of a tyrant. At Hdt. 3.80.5 Otanes criticizes the institution of monarchy, because one characteristic of a king is that he, among other things, “forces women” (βιᾶται γυναῖκας). Several other passages are collected and discussed by Fisher (1992, 104–111) and Doblhofer (1994, 34–40). The addition of μηδὲ παίδων, “even every child,” emphasizes the savage brutality of the Macedonians, which is also attested elsewhere. Pritchett (1971–1991, V: 238–242) describes the types of suffering that befell defeated women and children, with specific examples of Macedonian treatment of the captives from Olynthus and Thebes (cf. Din. 1.23–24 and Dem. 19.193–198, 305–306, 309). Hyperides encourages his audience to support the war against Macedon by warning them that the Macedonians have no respect for Greek cultural norms (cf. Cohen (1991, 174–175) on sexual violence as “a transgression of social norms” perpetrated by a tyrant or an enemy at war), whether sexual or religious (for the latter see Hyperides’ next sentence with the following notes on §21). Hyperides again praises the fallen for protecting the women of Greece in §36. 21, 142 ἐξ ὧν ἀναγκαζόμεθα κτλ. Hyperides refers to the unprecedented honors bestowed upon Philip and Alexander throughout Greece (τὴν Ἑλλάδα, §20). Perhaps already in the early 350s Philip was being worshiped in Amphipolis, as is stated by second-century AD orator Aelius Aristides (38, p. 480), who says that there “they sacrificed to him as a god” (ἔθυον ὡς θεῶι) at the time of Philip’s capture of that city in late 357 (Habicht 1970, 12–13; Fredricksmeyer 1979, 50–51). Later, an inscription of 332 from Eresus on Lesbos refers to altars of Zeus Philippios, which were erected there, probably in 336 (Rhodes and Osborne 2003, no. 83 ii.4–5). But it is more likely that Philip was presented as a mortal championed by Zeus, not as a divine manifestation of the god (Badian 1996, 13; cf. Habicht 1970, 14–15 and Fredricksmeyer 1979, 51–52). For Athens there is one late piece of evidence for the worship of Philip. Clement of Alexandria, a second-century AD convert to Christianity, in a catalogue of deified mortals reports that the Athenians voted to worship (προσκυνεῖν) Philip (Clem. Al. Protr. 4.54.5). The source is unreliable: see Badian 1981, 67–71.

there was debate over whether Alexander was to be declared a god. Whitehead (2000. ἀμελῶς. which he contrasts with statues of Zeus Soter in the Agora of Athens. 455–457) and Worthington (1992. who points out that the cult of Alexander. 26. 54–59) (whom Parker 1996. The present passage provides the most explicit indication of Hyperides’ attitude to the worship of Alexander. 256–258 follows). which were agalmata. (There is no evidence that Alexander demanded divine orders: see Badian 1996.94. The initial letter is slightly more likely an epsilon than an eta. Only a small trace of the top of the final character survives.57 describes the statues of the Athenian general Conon and Evagoras. as eikones. The rites of the gods are neglected. and the lacuna is too large for ἤ[δη. The debate is best discussed by Badian (1981. 31). Dem.) Both of the surviving speeches prosecuting Demosthenes for his role in the Harpalus affair discuss the orator’s role in this debate (Din. 25–26) revisits the question and suggests that the Athenians set up a portrait statue that depicted Alexander as a god. Hyp. 31). but we should note the ironic tone in his famous remark that Alexander could be called the son of Zeus and Poseidon too if he likes (Hyp. In the literary and epigraphic testimonia from the agora. . “did not survive long enough to leave any traces we could expect to recognize” (55).[–§21] Commentary 89 We have contemporary evidence for the possibility of a cult of Alexander in Athens. agalmata are always divine figures. 143–144 ἀγάλμα[τα δὲ] καὶ βωμοὺς .251b) we hear that Demades brought such a proposal to the Athenian Assembly. From Athenaeus (6. if it was in fact instituted in Athens. should honor gods. 38). Badian (1996. honorary dedications (Price (1984. 241–244). . In the fall of 324. 262–264) summarize the large bibliography on this issue. The linguistic distinction was carefully maintained. but they did not adopt actual cult worship. . not mortals (see Nock 1972. “already” (Sauppe) or ἔ[τι “still” (Kayser). 9. just like the altars and temples mentioned here. 1. Hyperides’ terminology emphasizes that the Athenians were treating the Macedonians as immortal gods. Conversely. Isoc. while Philip and Alexander improperly receive the attentions that should rightfully be devoted to divinities. the king of Cyprus. 142 ἔ[στ]ι. the orator Lycurgus accuses Leocrates of fleeing from Athens after Chaeronea as if he believed that the entire city had been abandoned and “the temples were empty” (Lycurg. In a similar vein. Dem. Despite his objections Demosthenes seems to have grudgingly acquiesced in the worship of Alexander. These agalmata.

cf. 176–179). Much later. 193. The an- .” To summarize. 49–50) suggests that an agalma of Philip was put on display there as a σύνναος θεοῦ. This building featured statues not only of Philip and Alexander. τοῖς δὲ ἀνθρώπο[ις] ἐπιμελῶς. Miller (1973. a bust. and are the earliest known use of chryselephantine material for mortals. Alexander. and Fredricksmeyer (1979.9) and completed by Alexander after his father’s death in 336.” But Badian (1981. Paus. begun by Philip after the battle of Chaeronea (Paus. ”). when the Roman emperors came to be routinely deified.” The statues were made of gold and ivory. 58) speculates that “at the Philippeum Philip suggested and approximated his deification but stopped just short of actually introducing it formally as a cult.4 refers to statues of both in the Agora without using a specific noun (Φίλιππός τε καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Φιλίππου κεῖνται. Pausanias refers to the images of Olympias and Eurydice in the Philippeion as eikones. “Greece”). Clement of Alexandria (see previous note on this section) refers to worship of Philip in the sanctuary of Heracles at Cynosarges. and that it was likely the same work that Pausanias later saw in the Agora. but does not explicitly label the statues of Philip. a tondo or a painting”) are never referred to with this term. and Amyntas as either eikones or agalmata. a “partner of the god. south of the Athenian Acropolis. Rhodes and Osborne 2003.20. 54). there is the famous Philippeion in the panhellenic sanctuary for Zeus at Olympia. 70–71) more plausibly suggests that the statue was a common honorary dedication and not an object of worship. their statues were referred to as agalmata (Price 1984. . but it is very unlikely that any formal cult existed in Athens in 322. §20: τὴν Ἑλλάδα. 144 τοῖ[ς μὲν] θεοῖς ἀμελῶς. . of course. but Lapatin (2001. 5. 117–118) rightly cautions against reading too much into this fact and adds that “there is no evidence that chryselephantine materials alone signified divinity. 1. Were the representations of Philip or Alexander in Athens considered to be agalmata or eikones? The evidence is not strong.9. there is ample evidence that Philip and Alexander hinted at their divinity and perhaps encouraged cultic worship. 191) reasonably interprets the Philippeion as a sort of statue garden. but also Philip’s parents and wife. Outside of Athens (Hyperides refers to all of Greece. “Philip and Alexander are placed . rather than a hero shrine.90 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§21–] 177) observes that the word eikon may refer to “a statue. Fredricksmeyer (1979. both Pausanias and Athenian honorary decrees of all periods meticulously recognize this precise meaning of agalma (Stroud and Lewis 1979. Similarly.

. Arr. regardless of their attitude toward Alexander). Volkmann 1885. 146–148 ὅπου δὲ τὰ πρὸς ‹τοὺς› θεοὺς ὅσια . 29–34)). Hephaestion (discussed by Bickerman (1985. He has already forecast Macedonian disruption of Greek social norms with his warning regarding sexual violence in §21. τί τὰ πρὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους χρὴ νομίζειν. above on §18 under ἅμα . or sometimes even slaves. 17.. The various hardships the soldiers endured are summarized in an ascending tricolon in which each of the three members expands upon its predecessor. 483 and Smyth 3026) and sounds (parechesis. ἁθροισθήσονται .6. 145–146 22. 515 and Smyth 3037. 32–36). parasites. . 23. or a hero (Diod. See above. 299–300) explains that the Greeks were “inescapably obliged by .. Not until the third century did these friends of the court come to be identified by their titles instead of such pejorative characterizations (Herman 1980–1981). on §20 under τί ἂν συμβῆναι νομίζοιμεν. 51–56 and Parker 1983.[–§23] Commentary 91 tithesis between gods and men is reinforced by repeated word endings (homoioteleuton. The reference to a member of the king’s court as a slave is typical of Greek views of the royal entourage at this time. . Bickerman 1985. [τ]οὺς ‹τού›των οἰκ‹έ›τας ὥσπερ ἥρωας τιμᾶν.115. “during which . 153–158 ἐν ἧι . 150 κρίνοιμεν. . 170. . On the close relationship between the laws of the gods and the laws of men see Harris 2004a. go into battle every day”) briefly refers . cf. After his friend’s death in Ecbatana in October 324 Alexander asked of the oracle of Zeus Ammon in Siwah that Hephaestion be honored as a πάρεδρος. An. The privileged members of Alexander’s court. religious attitudes” (300) to follow the oracle at Siwah. . . Volkmann 1885. . Hyperides’ description here confirms that Arrian was correct to describe the honors as hero worship. were depicted as flatterers. . Cawkwell (1994. as here (Price 1984. .23. ‹ὑπο›μεμ‹ε›νηκένα‹ι›. literally “cochair” of the god. 473–478) and Habicht (1970. . ἦ‹ν›. and now he pairs human and divine morality in order to emphasize that the Macedonians threaten all aspects of Greek culture. The most famous example of a divinely honored associate of the Macedonian rulers was Alexander’s closest companion. μνησθήσονται). 7. and this passage also demonstrates that these honors spread quickly in the Greek world (Treves 1939. Sic. Hyperides suggests that the decay in religious morality under Philip and Alexander would inevitably lead to widespread social decay too. 481–482). The first limb (ἐν ἧι . .6. who were often given heroic honors.

A. διὰ . . The trials of the campaign are a common rhetorical trope (e. Furthermore. see Denniston 1952. The citizens first decided to submit (ὑπομεῖναι. 243–244 on this sentence with parallel examples of repetitive compounds). times gone by”) emphasizes the continuous battles and invokes a comparison with past campaigns. the third and longest limb (χειμώνων . with its sometimes cloying figures. . . .. . Pritchett (1975.42. . This sort of stiff symmetry. Dem. εὐτυχεῖς (“fortunate because of their display of virtue”) and διὰ . Smyth 3039). Rusten (1986) analyzes a similar passage in Thucydides’ funeral oration. 219e–220b) for praising soldiers. and consented to sacrifice their lives. 60. . recognizing the glory to be won there in victory. 482. . 2. then both clauses end with antithetical compound adjectives formed on the same stem (see Fehling 1969. 24. First they consciously decided to enter battle.4. stylistic tendencies that are prominent in all of the surviving examples of the genre. the progression is not as detailed as at Thuc. 98–101) discusses and illustrates individual Gorgianic figures and Cole (1991. . Here. see Volkmann 1885.92 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§23–] to their daily toils. are balanced by parallel structure (paromoiosis. . διὰ τὴν τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀπόδειξιν . was characteristic of Gorgias. . ἀτυχεῖς.26 also presents the same sequence. 71–74) provides a stylistic analysis of the extensive fragment of Gorgias’ Funeral Oration (Gorg. ἀτυχεῖς (“unfortunate because of their loss of life”). χρόνωι.” cf. “to endure harsh storms . 10–12 and MacDowell 1982. ‹ὑπο›μεμ‹ε›νηκένα‹ι›. “to endure. . each of which governs a rhyming abstract noun of identical length compounded with ἀπό. fr. ὑπέμειναν. On Gorgias and Gorgianic encomia. Thuc. Bons (2007) provides a recent account of Gorgias’ role in the sophistic 163–164 . 17–19. the parallelism is reinforced by repetition of the preposition διά at the beginning of each clause. ”) praises the men’s tolerance and strength. “fight more battles . In that passage (Thuc.4) Rusten considers Thucydides’ description of the progression of the soldiers’ decision. 559–566 and Pl. .42. The pair of clauses.g. A. cit. the second (πλείους . 2. Sym. but nonetheless the same sequence of thought is apparent. Then they put aside consideration of their own future and devoted themselves wholly to the matter at hand. “endured”) themselves to battle and then consciously choose death to preserve Greek freedom. . Finally they put more importance on a glorious death than cowardly flight. and the epideictic genre in general. B6) that emphasizes its “stiff formality” and “balanced echoing sentence structure” (73). loc.

103 and 151. Lup. Cawkwell 1961. In the Menexenus. where the law prevails. “freedom” (see above on §16 under τῆ[ς τῶ]ν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας) refers to freedom from external rule. 60. fr. where an individual’s 168 . with this passage distinguishing the soldiers from the other Athenian citizens.. 166 25. ubi ius legibus valeat. the League of Corinth guaranteed freedom and autonomy to member states (cf. eleutheria. who emphasizes the importance of the Persian campaign for the emergence of Philip and Alexander’s role as leaders of the league). In this speech both senses are also present. 17. 236d.[–§25] Commentary 93 movement. 17).2. ἰδίαν . 377). or. ubi singularis libido dominetur. 121 and 170–173) catalogues numerous other Attic prose examples of the ἴδιος/κοινός (“private/shared”) and ἴδιος/δημόσιος (“private/public”) antitheses. . Arg. “independence” is a subordinate concept describing the city’s ability to maintain its own internal government. 2. with a focus on argumentation rather than prose style. et devenire sub unius tyranni imperium. This antithesis is common throughout the epitaphioi (e.8 provides an earlier parallel of an Athenian advocate for rebellion decrying the loss of freedom and independence under Alexander. where the pairing occurs most frequently. κοινήν. but with Alexander as the h gem n of the council this provision was a dead letter (for a recent study of this issue see Jehne 1994. See also the note on §16 under τῆ[ς τῶ]ν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας. ο‹ὐ› γὰρ ἀνδρὸς ἀπειλὴν ἀλλὰ νόμου φωνὴν κτλ. 2. Lys. 240. Rhodes and Osborne 2003. Dem. . 2. there is a distinction in meaning between (1) Athens in contrast to the rest of Greece and (2) the Athenian soldiers in contrast to their civilian fellow-citizens (Tsitsiridis 1998. and may also have been written by Hyperides (Lib. Sed necesse est aut legibus fretum meminisse libertatis.10). In this context of a war against external domination. 166–197. Dem. for discussion and further bibliography see Raaflaub 2004. Pl.42. That earlier complaint probably belongs to a debate on Agis’ revolt in 331 (Sealey 1993. Kemmer (1903. Hyperides’ next sentence makes it clear that autonomia refers to the political constitution of Athens. Mx. 181). while autonomia. 156–157. As a koin eir n .g. 214 = Rut.D.6 is closely related: non enim simile est vivere in aequa civitate. Ryder 1965. aut unius potestati traditum quotidianam commentari servitutem. while the adjectives are used in §5 and §19 to distinguish Athens as a collective whole from the rest of Greece. The sentiment of Hyp. Thuc.44. 168 τῆς αὐτονομίας. “life in a just state. 74–75). is not at all like submission to the rule of one ruler.

” and διαβολή.5–20.” to denounce any advocate of Macedon as a toady (see Whitehead 2000. Rhodes and Osborne 2003.94 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§25–] desire reigns. no. αἰτία. νόμων πίστει.” held sway. and citizen judges in the courts swore to vote in accordance with established laws. also Hyp. . “laws. Its neat contrast between the rule of one and the rule of the law is particularly at home in this oration. in which they vowed to obey and defend the laws of Athens (the oath is preserved in a mid-fourth-century inscription.37. “a man’s threat. . 88 i. Harris 2004a. which were more authoritative than the orders of a single individual (And. 19. “slander. in which Hyperides repeatedly characterizes the Macedonian kings as tyrants (e. Hyperides repeatedly uses this verb and the cognate noun κολακεία. The funeral orations regularly emphasize the importance of law as a guarantor of democratic equality and the rights of individuals (Thuc. cf. 2. 216–217 on Hyp. and the existence of law distinguished democracy from tyranny. νόμου φωνήν . 1. Lys. Harris (2004a. “flattery. Supp. where the ἀνδρὸς ἀπειλή.” is well illustrated in the simile of §5.” were seen as a basic element of a free society. “proof. 396) notes other collocations of “accusations” and “slanders” in Hyperides. 58–59) contrasts “established laws” with the orders of a tyrant). and the negative connotation of the latter rubs off on the former to give it the sense of “ungrounded accusation” (Yunis 2001. cf. 168–172 169–171 αἰτίαν . 41–42). . 2. All Athenian men swore the Ephebic oath as young men.91. 109 translates all three).” Whitehead (2000. and in this speech the despotic rule of the Macedonians is pointedly contrasted with the rule of law (here and §20. the same antithesis also appears at Eur. The nomoi. This passage of the funeral oration was evidently often quoted: Stobaeus also cites it (see apparatus). διαβάλλουσιν.18–19. Eux. The rule of law protected the people in a democracy.1. . 429–437). or hand ourselves over to one man’s command and complain of our slavery every day. 170 τοῖς κολακεύουσιν. Eux. §20 and §40).g. We must trust in the law and be mindful of our freedom. .. 110–111). 20 and 23). Here that sense is intensified by the contrast with ἔλεγχον. a literary version is quoted by Pollux and Stobaeus.” are regularly linked (hendiadys).” The pride in an aequa civitas. no. “accusation. Harding 1985. “just state. The rule of law was a central tenet in Athenian democratic ideology.

And.44–45. ἐφόδιον. fr. 7 with Whitehead 2000. ἐννόμως. Cobet’s restoration is likely correct. 802–803: κακὸν κακῶι διάδοχον. in the final consolation (the παραμυθία. 179 ε[ὔνοι]αν. Mx. usually at much greater length. The reference to lawful marriages is an emphatic contrast with the sexual violence that Hyperides feared from Macedonian rulers (see the note on §20 under μήτε γυνα‹ι›κῶν μήτε παρθένων μηδὲ παίδων ὕβρ‹ε›ις). “evil after evil. Hyp. 216) discusses examples at Hyp. or perhaps an “introduction to” something. Thuc. see Fehling 1969. 177 179 ἔνδοξοι.75–76. 2. 219–220) compares Eur.32–37). in a fragment of the comic poet Epicharmus: εὐσεβὴς βίος μέγιστον ἐφόδιον θνατοῖς ἐστιν. 96) collects other tragic examples.35. Lys. and this passage is the only one in the epitaphioi to refer to the subjects’ sisters. 177–179 πατέρε‹ς› . Usher (1999. also Hyp. 37–39 for further discussion. 59–60). Pl. “a pious life is the greatest asset for mortals” (Epich. fr. 64 and Pohle 1928. and Worthington (1999. Others address the surviving family members. Such poeticisms are at home in epideictic poetry and are quite common in this speech (see the note on the simile in §5 and on §40 under ὢ καλῆς μὲν καὶ παραδόξου τόλμης κτλ). since Hyperides frequently refers to the goodwill of the d mos (Hyp.” Mastronarde (2002. Dem. see Gromska 1927. 246d–249c.[–§27] Commentary 95 26. cf. provisions” for a trip or journey. Literally “means. Phil. On this adjective see below on §40 under ἐνδόξου. Polyptoton is the repetition of one word in different cases. The meaning seems to be something like an “asset for” a particular situation. Eux. 29. 2. 40. . 19 and Hyp. This is a favorite metaphor of Hyperides’ (Whitehead (2000. 20) observes that this rhetorical figure is more common in tragedy than prose. 60. The earliest such usage is from the early fifth century. 34. at the end of the oration. 261). both in Hyperides and also at Dem. Hyperides’ funeral oration is the only one that refers to the family members of the deceased during the epainos section of the oration. Eunoia regularly describes an individual’s patriotic loyalty to the state and was a “cardinal virtue” in 180 . 219a) and his usage anticipates a common idiom of the Hellenistic and Roman periods. For later examples and further discussion. παῖδες. The failure to address the widows in this speech is also unusual. Dem. Dem. . Then the metaphorical usage emerges again after 350. 27. 72. 173 πόνους πόνων.

But his rhetorical purpose is to emphasize the inappropriate award for Demosthenes.46. 187 ἐξ ἀρχῆς. The phrase here has the sense of “anew” or “again” (LSJ. 183 28. . frr. reinforces that assertion. 3. ἀρχή notes only Ar. 8. The military metaphor describes the dead holding an “eternal post” in the afterlife. 128–129 (P. Pl. The word arch gos (“foundation. ἐπιμελείας ‹καὶ κηδεμονίας› ὑπὸ τοῦ δαιμονίου τυγχάνειν. a technical term for the founder of a family or race.46 (Harding 1985. 8).154–155. from the same year as this speech). . Mx. The Athenian state financially supported war orphans (Lys.3). Hib. The funeral orations minimize reference to immortality. dressed in full armor as they undertook their Ephebic service. and this passage of the Funeral Oration (together with §42) suggests that state support for war orphans continued at least until 322. Here. before his unusual description of Leosthenes in the afterworld (§§35–40). see the note on §43 under ‹εἰκὸς›. IG II2 448 = Schwenk 1985.55 is followed by Stroud (1971.82). 13–15 no.34 uses the same metaphor to describe the dead among the islands of the blessed. Arist. Aeschines describes this honorable custom as a thing of the past (Aesch. 2. 185 ἀρχηγός.. beginning”) is synonymous with arch get s.g.1. Ath. For a discussion of the evidence and the administration of the practice see Stroud 1971. τάξιν. which he contrasts with the proposed crowning of Demosthenes at the Dionysia. with its connotations of origins and foundations. The orphans were displayed to the entire city at the beginning of the City Dionysia. 218–219) collects examples of the phrase ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα καὶ εὐνοίας τῆς εἰς τὸν δῆμον τὸν Ἀθηναίων (“because of virtue and good will toward the Athenian people”) in Athenian inscriptions (e.96 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§27–] the fourth century (Whitehead 1993. L. 60. cf. Here and later in this speech (§42) Hyperides describes a reciprocal obligation that the city owed the children of the dead because of their fathers’ public contribution. 288)) and continued in the fourth century.v. His use of arch gos. . 24. The phrase πρὸς τὸν δῆμον (“of the people”) may echo fourthcentury honorary decrees: Veligianni-Terzi (1997. Isoc. 221 for this meaning). 83 (lines 13–14). 52–54) and was often paired with aret . The practice may have originated with Solon (D. Dem. Pl. s. 14) and SEG 28. 1. Hyperides boldly describes the soldiers’ death as a new birth. 407–418 no. 288–290. see also Thuc. 249a. cause.

.” The substantive adjective ἀγαθοῖς is neuter here. 18. 492–494) and Usher (1999. . 2. Alternatively. The reference to both public and private benefits amplifies the praise at §26. Hypophora is a rhetorical figure in which the speaker asks a series of rhetorical questions and then provides answers for them. 196–198 ἀπολαύσομεν. index s. εἰς τὸ ἄλλους καλῶς ζῆν. Most editors have supplied an indicative verb to govern the infinitive γεγονέναι (“become”). also meaningless. Dem.74. 3. Hyperides is very fond of the device and employs it above at §6 and §§20–23. also Hyp. a close parallel). ἀνδραγαθίαν.43. either ἄρξασθαι (“to begin”) or ἀξιωθῆναι (“to deserve”). .323 and 24. hypophora) note several examples from the orators. and then either emend γεγονέναι to an indicative form (Babington). Thucydides describes the sacrifice of the fallen soldiers as an ἔρανος. The papyrus offers the senseless reading 30. 190–192 ἀρετὴν . of . 196–198 ἀλλά . forensic speeches regularly use the phrase τὰ τῆς πόλεως ἀγαθά to refer to “the prosperity of the city” (Lys. Here the rhetorical questions emphasize that the dead will always be celebrated everywhere (cf. Din. 193 τίς ‹γὰρ› κα‹ι›ρὸς κτλ. Hyperides uses several future active forms for 199 . Cobet’s ‹ὑπάρχει εὐθὺς› (“they can immediately”) seems most elegant (for other suggestions see appendix B). .v. 10–11) discusses the use of the particle ἀλλά to introduce various alternatives as the speaker holds a dialogue with himself. . In §6 Hyperides used ἀλλά to introduce the answer to his own question. Phil. . ἀλλ’ . others have preferred to emend the corrupt form here to an infinitive. . “contribution” (Thuc. Denniston (1954. “so that others could live well. On this phrase see the note on §8 under ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί γ[ίγνων]ται. but here it emphatically prefaces both question and answer. 2. ἀλλ’ . On the distinction between these overlapping terms see the note on §40 under ἀρετῆς καὶ ἀνδραγαθίας.47. For the active usage of this verb see the note on §34 under ἀκουσόντων. ταῖς ἰδίαις εὐπραξίαις.22). or else posit a lacuna at the end of the sentence that could provide the main verb for the sentence (Blass). Volkmann (1885. cf. . 10.1). 29.155. τοῖς τῆς πόλεως ἀγαθοῖς . . Lys. 191 †αξαθαι. which appears to be corrected from an original reading. 12.[–§30] 189 Commentary 97 ἄνδρες ἀγαθοὶ γεγόνασι. The description of the private and public rewards for the city and its citizens is unparalleled in the other epitaphioi.

At col. Much of the general sense seems clear: Hyperides details the benefits the fallen have bestowed upon the Athenians. Lycurg. 201 202 γεγενῆσ[θαι ... 11. . The text cannot be recovered with any certainty. .. 144).” Cobet) or τοῖς γ[έρουσιν (“the aged. and juniors. 11. The infinitive should certainly . Blass)... First he probably refers to the elder citizens and the secure life they will enjoy (col. The remaining traces of the last letter of col. ... 11.. In section §30 the orator surveyed various benefits the dead provided to Greece and Athens. ἡλικιώτ[αις .98 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§30–] verbs that are typically future deponents during the classical period. 200–205 ἡλικιῶν ... νεωτέρο[ις. 200 ποία‹ι› . I have indicated that about twelve characters are missing at the end of each line. the sense contin- ues from the previous section. but even that assumption is highly uncertain..6 = 211–219). .” Babington) to complete the division into elders.. For example: ἄ]φοβον ἄ[ξουσιν τὸν λοιπὸν] βίον (Sauppe). 2. . but not a mu (Babington. . .1–6 = 200–202). The interrogative adjective and the future tense continue the hypophora from the previous section. 11. “to lead. 239c). . “They [the elders?] will live the rest of their lives without fear” as a result of the sacrifice of the fallen soldiers. Mx. ] βίον.. and well suits a sigma (Jensen..” Sauppe). γενήσο[νται. Editors restore τὸν λοιπὸν] βίον.5 (202) is curved. Again. who will benefit from the good example set by the dead (11–19 = 204–207). . Lys. τοῖς π[ρεσβυτέροις (“the elders. .. Finally the speech emphasizes how pleasant and profitable it will be to recall the valor of the fallen (30–12. 31. We do not know how wide the column was. α[ . Now he divides those who received these favors into age groups (cf. Then he turns to the soldiers’ peers.3 and Pl.2 (201) editors plausibly restore τοῖς γ[εραιτέρους (“those older. Cobet) or a tau (Sauppe). who can live without fear (6–11 = 202–204).2 (201) could be read either as a gamma or a pi.” most with some form of the verb ἄγειν. numerous reconstructions by earlier editors are listed in the apparatus and appendix B.. and the scribe writes much more densely in the last columns of the manuscript. 31–34. and the young Athenians. The left half of the final character of col.” to govern it. Next the orator probably refers to the praise the soldiers will receive in speeches and songs (cf. peers. “their remaining life. More than half of the right portion of the entire column is missing. distinguishing the latter into age groups. which will be comparable to the songs sung of the Trojan campaign (20–30 = 207–211).

... Col. is preceded either by an infinitive or a dative singular first declension noun. . ] τελευτη . . far”) appears quite likely. “The death of these men has struck them [their peers] with envy . .. 11. but perhaps a participle.. .. 11. with a new clause adding additional queries. probably with a verb to govern it in the following lacuna. Blass’s restoration is attractive: νεωτέρο[ις καὶ παισίν.11 (204) reads γον. . . . probably finite.. The last character of col. See below on §34 under ἀκουσόντων on the future active usage of this verb. a sigma (Kayser 1868).. may give the sense: οἷς ἐκείνων ἡ] τελευτὴ φ[θόνον ἐμβέβληκε].. ἡλικιώτ[αις . see the note on §31 under παρὰ τοῖς] ἡλικιώτ[αις. where the papyrus preserves the last part of the preposition and the article in the parallel phrase “among their elders” (whatever restoration is accepted for “elders”. possibly a phi (Radermacher). ....” 202–203 παρὰ τοῖς] ἡλικιώτ[αις. Blass proposes γεγενῆσ[θαι ἡγήσονται. ” But any reconstruction here is highly uncertain. [ ..... 203 .8 (203) is curved. A perfect form of γίγνεσθαι (“to become”)... .. The noun τελευτή (“death”) may be followed by another noun or adjective..[–§32] Commentary 99 be read. the final character of col. .. “What about their juniors and children? Won’t they envy their death and themselves strive to imitate it?” 206 σπου]δάσουσιν. but the participle τελευτήσαντες (“dying”) is equally possible.. The reading παρὰ πο[λὺ (“by . . Radermacher’s reconstruction.. A relative or demonstrative pronoun likely introduces a new clause here. ἔπει]τα οὐ τὸν [θάνατον ζηλώσου]σιν αὐτ[ῶν καὶ αὐτοὶ σπου]δάσουσιν [μιμεῖσθαι.. 204 32. Some sort of verbal element. those younger than the dead....1–2 (200–201).. An initial question probably introduces the νεωτέρο[ις (“the youth”). νεωτέρο[ις... παρὰ πο[λὺ . σπου]δάσουσιν [ .10 (204) is not a lambda (as Sitzler’s restoration requires). The hypophora continues here with questions concerning the last age group.. The restoration of παρὰ τοῖς (“among”) is based on col. ]αι γέγον[εν. or even an omega. either the participle τελευτήσαντες (“dying”) or a finite verb with τελευτή (“death”) as its subject. 11. . For the restoration of ἢ παρὰ (“among”). 204–206 ἢ παρὰ τοῖς] νεωτέρο[ις . may have preceded καλῶς (“nobly”). . . not τον (Kayser). “They [the elders?] will be confident that [their life?] has been made .. which seems too long for the gap. see the note above under ἡλικιῶν .. an alpha (Sitzler). . 11. For example... connecting the dead to their peers (τοῖς ἡλικιώταις).

“What writers of poetry or prose among the Greeks will ever lack any praise for the accomplishments of these men? Among whom will these deeds not be praised more than that campaign that conquered the Trojans?” Kenyon’s restoration... Both passages refer to the mythical accomplishments of the Greeks that were celebrated by the poets. Editors treat -μη as a dative singular first declension ending (with the mute iota omitted.. Jensen’s restoration nicely captures the likely sense: οὐκ [ἀθανάτωι δεῖ νομί]ζειν αὐ[τοὺς χρήσεσθαι τῆι μνή]μη‹ι›. . “Everywhere in Greece these accomplishments will be be praised by all their descendents both in prose and in song.. . may provide some sense of the rest of the section: πανταχοῦ] δὲ τῆς Ἑλ[λάδος ἐξέσται ταῦ]τα τοῖς ἐ[πιγιγνομένοις] ἅπασιν κ[αὶ λόγοις καὶ ὠι]δαις ἐπα[ινεῖσθαι. equally uncertain.” λε[ .. .. Colin cautions that this section is “the most uncertain part of the entire column” (“incertissima pars totius columnae”). 239b–c and Dem. Earlier editors read λο (and the hand-drawn image in Babington 1858 reflects that reading). and αὐ[τοὺς (“them”) is needed as the accusative subject. Mx. Editors take πασι as the termination of a third plural perfect verb. but it does not fully close on the right and there is a trace of the cross stroke of an epsilon. ... as the scribe often does). . . “If they have handed down the virtue of their lives as a model . ]πασι.. The only clear words refer to the Greeks (Ἕλλην[ας) and the Phrygians (Φρυγῶν). “must we not believe that they enjoy an immortal memorial .] παρὰ τίσ[ι δ’ οὐ μᾶλλον αὐτὰ τῆς] Φρυγῶν κ[ρατησάσης στρα]τείας ἐγ[κωμιασθήσεται. . . ]ζειν αὐ[τοὺς .... cf. Colin’s highly speculative restoration is preferable to Blass’ (appendix B) for palaeographic reasons (explained in the following note).. . ]μη. Lys. Colin suggests: ἢ τίνε[ς ποιηταὶ καὶ λογογρά]φοι λεί[ψονται ποτε κατὰ τοὺς] Ἕλλην[ας πασῶν εὐλογιῶν περὶ] τῶν πε[πραγμένων ἐκείνοις. but the papyrus is somewhat abraded on the right side of the letter in question.. 2... ” For the phrase ἀθάνατος μνήμη (“immortal memorial”)... A round shape is clearly visible.9 provide possible parallels. with the fallen soldiers as the subject. Jensen’s restoration seems plausible: εἰ γὰρ πα]ράδειγμ[α ἐκείνοις τοῦ βί]ου τὴν ἀ[ρετὴν καταλελοί]πασι..6 and 81. I follow Jensen’s reading of λε (but I see no sign of the following iota he reports). 207 33.. . Pl. and both also contrast the media of poets and prose writers. ” οὐκ [ . .. 208 .. An infinitive ends in -ζειν....100 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§32–] 206–207 πα]ράδειγμ[α . 60. .

. 34... Cobet’s τ[ηλικαύτας (“such great”) might better fill the lacuna. 213 τ[οιαύτας καρ]τερίας. . 2. Several classical future middle deponent verbs regularly occur in the active voice in koin Greek (examples at Blass and Debrunner 1961.41. The restoration is based on the same phrase at §24... See the note on §15 under ἐγκω[μιάζ]ειν . 216 216 ἡ τοια[ ..[–§34] 210 Commentary 101 ἐγ[κωμι . ]τερα . 77. .. .. but a pi or tau is quite possible. ... 214 ὠφελείας ἕνε]κεν. . τί γέ[νοιτ’ ἂν τοῖς Ἕλ]λησιν ἥδι[ον ἢ ἔπαινος τῶν] τὴν ἐλευθερί[αν παρασκευα]σάντων ἀπ[ὸ τῶν Μακεδό]νων. ἐν τῶι πολ[έμωι.. which better fits the size of the gap. This is quite likely a form of the noun ἐγκώμιον or the verb ἐγκωμιάζειν.. . 29) and this example is not a scribal accident (as Rennie (1940. . where the orator rejects the need for the praise of poets like Homer). This is the earliest attested usage of an active form of the future of the verb ἀκούειν (“to hear”). 236e draws a relationship between the logos of the funeral oration and a memorial (μνήμη) for the dead. The reference of δι’ ἀμφό]τερα (“for both these reasons”) is unclear. advantage”). ].. Mx.” The general sense is appropriate.. Cobet’s supplements are very attractive: εἰ μὲν γὰρ] ἡδονῆς ἕν[εκεν ἐγκωμιάσ]ουσιν τὰς τ[ηλικαύτας καρ]τερίας.. 211–213 . “If they enjoy praising such great endurance.. what could be sweeter for the Greeks than praise of those who acquired freedom from the Macedonians. which Cobet echoes with his restoration of ἡ τοια[ύτη μνήμη (“such a memorial”). .. .40 (215–216) is a small raised dot of ink. 42 no. Thuc.. Pl. Sauppe and Kenyon: δι’ ἀμφό]τερα γὰρ ἐ[ξέσται αὐτοῖς τὰ] περὶ Λεωσ[θένους ὑμνεῖν] καὶ τῶν τ[ελευτησάντων] ἐν τῶι πολ[έμωι.. He has also proposed ἡ τοιά[δε ἀνάμνησις (“such a recollection”)... but much remains uncertain. 217 ἀκουσόντων. “For both these reasons it will be possible for them [later writers] to praise the achievements of Leosthenes and those who have died in this war. for the sense..” All that remains of the final character in col. . .. Babington’s restoration perfectly fits the lacuna and seems to be confirmed by the verb ὠφελήσειεν (“confer .4. and ὑμνεῖν (“to praise”) seems to leave out prose works (cf. . .. most likely an upsilon. Colin builds upon restorations of Cobet. 11. However. see also Browning 1983. ] ἡδονῆς κτλ.

His superiority is again emphasized in “excelled” (ὑπερέσχεν. Gromska (1927.] . which Shilleto corrects to οἰόμεθα (“we suppose”). The particles mark a new point in the argument. “demi-gods. 4. also §19 and §23). both of which are also future middle deponents in the classical period. goes much further than others when he asserts that his subjects were superior to those who fought . Levi proposes reading the optative οἰοίμεθα. 21) discuss this aspect of Hyperides and the emergence of the koin dialect.g. which labels those who died at Troy as ἡμιθέοι. 159–160 and also Pl. 218–219 35. Simonides fragments 10–18 (West) on the battle of Plataea. “will enjoy”) and σπου]δάσουσιν (§32. It was commonplace for writers of elegy or encomium to compare their subjects with the heroic past (e. “will be eager”) earlier in the speech. §39. Op.102 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§34–] 22) supposed). sed optima sententia”). Ap. The papyrus reads μ . Cobet compared Isoc. Babington had already emended στρατειαν (“army”) to Τροίαν (“Troy”). §38) and “even greater” (καὶ μείζω. ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας. τῶν ‹ἡμιθέ›ων καλουμέν‹ων› τοὺς ἐπὶ ‹Τρο›ίαν στρα‹τεύ›σαντ[α]ς. Hyperides boldly asserts that Leosthenes excelled the heroes of the past. specifically the “one woman assaulted” ([μ]ιᾶς γυναικὸς ὑβρισθεί[σ]ης. For the phrase τῶν ἡμιθέων καλουμένων (“of the socalled demi-gods”) Jensen compares Hes. On this phrase see the note on §8 under ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί γ[ίγνων]ται. In this transitional sentence Hyperides summarizes his description of the glory of the dead among the living and then turns to their reception in the underworld. with his pronounced emphasis on Leosthenes and his troops.84 and proposed reading τῶν ἡμιθέων καλουμένων (“of the so-called demi-gods.” 224–225 227 δ]ιήνεγκε. an easy visual confusion on the part of the scribe. 223 ἆρ’ οὐκ ἂν ‹οἰ›όμεθα. but the following material. §36). The papyrus reads (without any word divisions) μ μ [. cf. 229–232)). The corrections are indeed bold. with discussion on the epic comparisons by Boedecker (1996. to accord with the unusual usages of the optative in §20 and §22 (on which see the note on §20 under τί ἂν συμβῆναι νομίζοιμεν). But Hyperides. 220 ἀλλὰ μήν. as we can see from the similar examples of ἀπολαύσομεν (§30. 344–345.” on which Blass commented “audacter.. 28c. for examples (including this passage) and discussion see Denniston 1954. The first two words are plainly corrupt. must refer to the Trojan war. 36–37) and Pohle (1928.

230–231 μ]ιᾶς γυναικὸς ὑβρισθεί[σ]ης.7 employs an argument similar to Hyperides’ when he compares the Samian campaign of 440 and 439 with the Trojan War). Hyperides’ initial sidestepping of the traditional themes of the prooemium allowed him to focus on the individual Leosthenes and the particular events of the first season of the Lamian War.20. Here. these two generals of the Persian Wars were famed for saving Greece from a despotic ruler (cf. Now the tables are turned and Leosthenes has conquered the conquerer. on §20 under ὥστε μήτε γυνα‹ι›κῶν μήτε παρθένων μηδὲ παίδων ὕβρ‹ε›ις. Other funeral orations describe Athens as the savior of all of Greece during the Persian Wars (Lys.10). These two generals are singled out to represent the battles of . despite his own earlier account of the mercenary army and the Athenian allies (§11. as does Pl. Lys.109. 231–232 πα[σ]ῶν τῶν Ἑλληνίδων. Typically the dead are not elevated above. see above. See above on §5 and §20 for other cases where Leosthenes and his men are implicitly compared to the Greeks who warded off the Persians. On sexual violence as typical behavior for a tyrant. Per. In §10 the same verb was used to describe the weakened condition of Greece before Leosthenes came along. Dem. Plut.67–70 speaks of the dead in the same terms as their ancestors earlier in the speech. Hyperides continues to assert the superiority of his subjects. Mx. Like Harmodius and Aristogiton (see below on §39 under Ἁρμόδιον καὶ Ἀριστογείτονα). 228 228–229 μόνης πᾶσαν. 6. Thus.[–§37] Commentary 103 at Troy and in the Persian Wars. Hyperides adapts language usually used of the Persian Wars to praise Leosthenes and his troops. 60. their illustrious ancestors. 80–83 on the motif. see Schroeder 1914.20 and Pl. 2. where Miltiades asserts that a victory at Marathon would surpass the deeds of the tyrant slayers). 235–236 Μιλτιάδην καὶ Θεμιστοκλέα. for example. 246a (see Ziolkowski 1981. 230 36. ἐταπείνωσεν. The repeated contrast between “one” and “many” is emphasized by this juxtaposition. 2. §13). 2. In other epitaphioi this sort of hyperbole is reserved for the battle of Marathon (Lys. 240c ignore Plataean aid in 490. That special emphasis in this speech culminates in this declaration of superiority. Mx. but rather equated with.3. Once again. Hdt. 29–30). μετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ πα[τ]ρίδος μόνης. 28. 37.

They were also venerated as heroes (on their honors. On this assertion see above on §35 under δ]ιήνεγκε. in which the Athenians and their allies met the invaders in Boeotia and drove them north to Thermopylae (§§11–14). Hyperides refers to the invasions of Attica during the Persian Wars. Hyperides singles out the generals who led the campaigns in order to compare them with Leosthenes. 2. Tay- . and here the comparison contributes to the characterization of the Macedonians as tyrants. 651–652)) and regular sacrifices for these two heroes took place in conjunction with the ceremony for the war dead (Currie 2005. In autumn of 480 Xerxes invaded by land and burned the abandoned Athenian acropolis prior to the battle of Salamis (Hdt. see Thuc.” Unlike other funeral orations. Mx. 326) and Arist. 245–246 Ἁρμόδιον καὶ Ἀριστογείτονα. 241–243 39. On this pairing. where it referred to the Trojans. Pl. the two most important victories for Athens during the Persian Wars.39. Ath. See below on §40 under ἐνδόξου. 6. This is the only epitaphios logos that compares the war dead with Harmodius and Aristogiton. 58. 239 τὴ‹ν› τῶν βαρβάρων δύναμιν. 5. 240 ἐν τῆ‹ι› οἰκ‹ε›ίαι . 8. . 9.2).280 with MacDowell (2000. See the note on §20 under Μακεδόνων. see the note on §3 under ἀνδρεί[α]ς. ἐν τῆι τῶν ἐχθρῶν.104 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§37–] Marathon and Salamis. They learned to become used to not fearing the barbarians on land or at sea. 19. 239 ὑπερέσχεν. Hyperides contrasts these events with the Lamian War. reinforces the characterization of the Macedonians as foreign barbarians. ἀνδρείαι καὶ φρονήσει. The repetition of dynamis from §35.55–57. 238 ἔνδοξον. 38. Again in spring of 479 the Persian general Mardonius invaded (Hdt.51–55). In autumn of 490 the Persians landed at Marathon in northeast Attica (Hdt. see Dem. 6.102–103).1 with Rhodes (1993. 95–96. The Thucydidean funeral oration makes the same point about the Athenian ability to defeat the enemy in hostile territory (Thuc. . For the story of the tyrant slayers who were credited with ending the rule of the Pisistratids in the late sixth century.3). 241b–c well summarizes the typical account in the funeral orations: “The other Greeks were taught by the men in the army at Marathon and those in the navy at Salamis.53–59 and Hdt. The famous tyrant slayers were celebrated for their efforts to liberate Athens from the rule of the Pisistratidae.

Here the exclamations signal a shift in the speech. 246–247 οὐθέν‹α›ς οὕτως αὑτοῖς οἰκεί{οτερ}ους {ὑμῖν} εἶναι. but forms of οὐδείς begin to reappear in the first century BC (Threatte 1980–1996. . ἐπιμελείας ‹καὶ κηδεμονίας› ὑπὸ τοῦ δαιμονίου τυγχάνειν. The clause is an indirect statement depending on νομίζειν (“consider”). I have followed Blass in correcting to οὐθέν‹α›ς (“nobody”). . 252–253 ὢ καλῆς μὲν καὶ παραδόξου τόλμης κτλ. and its presence may indicate more serious problems with the text here (those who keep it change οὕτως to οὐδαμῶς. The first change can be explained as a simple morphological mistake on the part of the scribe. . 7–8). The papyrus reads. . See the note on §35 under δ]ιήνεγκε. 21. . The emphasis in this passage on the close relation between the war dead and Harmodius and Aristogiton suggests that the fallen soldiers also received heroic honors.[–§40] Commentary 105 lor 1991.. Kenyon prints οὐδαμῶς αὑτοὺς οἰκειοτέρους ὑμῖν. 166). and αὑτοῖς (“to them”) refers to Harmodius and Aristogiton. The spelling οὐθείς. 250 καὶ μείζω. The insertion of ὑμῖν is more difficult to explain. οὐθέν first appears on Athenian inscriptions in 378/377 and completely replaces οὐδείς. “they are in no way closer to you [than Leosthenes .98.g. but it may well be the form Hyperides actually wrote. deleting μ (“to you”) and changing the adjective from the comparative to the positive degree. The transmitted text is plainly corrupt μ and various solutions have been proposed. 40. These sacrifices were conduced by the polemarch and probably took place at their grave in the Ceramicus (Kearns 1989. The orator has finished his comparison of Leosthenes and his predecessors in the . without word breaks. 55 and 150). The particle is only found twice elsewhere in the orators. especially introducing such a lengthy exclamation. Dem. Exclamatory ὤ is uncommon in Attic prose. both times in an oath (“by the gods. This is the only example of the usage of οὐθείς by the scribe of this papyrus. for further discussion of this point see the note on §43 under ‹εἰκὸς›. ]). e. The positive adjective is restored because οὕτως does not regularly modify comparatives.” ὢ πρὸς [τῶν] θεῶν. I: 472–476). 246 οὐθέν‹α›ς. who confused the accusative plural endings of the second and third declensions. οὐδέν by the end of the fourth century. For other poetic usages in this speech see the note on §26 under πόνους πόνων.

49 n. 57–62) discusses the development of the concept of andragathia in the late fifth century. Aret had a long-standing connection with heroic death and the term carried an aristocratic flavor. Pl. 217). and the achievement of the soldiers of the Persian Wars (§37). Whitehead (1993. 16). there may be very little text missing between the end of fragment 1b (§40) and fragment 2 (§41). On the soldiers’ decision to volunteer their lives for Athens. 2. Hyperides also links the two terms above (§29). 2. for discussion and references see Kapparis 1999. Aesch. Both abstract nouns refer to the qualities of an ἀγαθὸς ἀνήρ. 41–43. 3. 164–165). It does not occur in any of the other epitaphioi or elsewhere in Hyperides. 60. III: 280–283 for examples) or more specifically for death in the field (see note on §1 under ἄν[δρες ἀ]γαθοί). Hyperides is especially fond of this adjective in this speech. 253–254 ἐνδόξου. but they are not simple synonyms. see the note on §3 under ‹τ›ῆς προαιρέ[σε]ως. 254 μεγαλοπρεποῦς προαιρέσεως. the glory acquired by the fathers of the fallen (§27). On the amount of material missing between §40 and §41. For the sense of μεγαλοπρεπής see above on §1 under μεγαλ]οπρεπεστ[έρας. and now prepares to conclude the praise section (epainos) of the speech.42 and 49 suggests that these two nouns were regularly paired in honorific decrees (for the epigraphic evidence see Whitehead 1993. 364–365. which comes from the consolatory section (the paramythia) of the speech that typically immediately follows the end of the epainos (cf. He distinguishes semantic differences between aret and andragathia. see the note on §40 under ὢ καλῆς μὲν καὶ παραδόξου τόλμης κτλ. This 255 ἀρετῆς . 38 and Veligianni-Terzi 1997.42–43. a “noble man” (for discussion see Veligianni-Terzi 1997. He uses it here to describe the generous contribution the dead made to the state. If indeed these exclamations mark the conclusion of Hyperides’ praise for the dead. Andragathia was more egalitarian and praised men for “what they had done rather than who they were” (Whitehead 1993. see also above p. see the note above on §24. καὶ ἀνδραγαθίας. Thuc. 270–272 and Dover 1974.106 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§40–] underworld. Lys. 57–62) and was often used generally to describe military valor (see Pritchett 1971–1991. Previously it was used to praise the victory in Boeotia (§18). On Hyperides’ use of the noun προαίρεσις in this speech. Andragathia is also a very common term in decrees awarding Athenian citizenship to foreigners. Dem.76–77. Mx. 246a–b.31–32.

2. with its avoidance of direct address to the survivors and its emphasis on the universal fate of all men. . More information on the readings of individual manuscripts may be found in Wachsmuth and Hense 1884–1912.77–80. 259–261 τὰ . the paramythia should emphasize that the dead fell quick and painlessly. on the adjective ἀγήρατος see the note below on §43 under τὸν ἀγήρατον χρόνον. .H.[–§41] Commentary 107 fragment is preserved in Stobaeus’ Anthology as an example of a consolatory (παρηγορικόν) passage. 2. . catalogues literary quotations under a number of such headings. D. on the basis of several similarities to the epilogues of other epitaphioi (e. 246b2–249c. Pl.44. 60. and emphatically eschew grief and lamentation. Lys. . see also the link between this passage and Dem. Here and in the following sections. Sourvinou-Inwood (1995.34 discussed below in the note on §43 under εἰ μέν ἐστι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κτλ). ἐστι cf. and that they earned a glorious burial and escaped the miseries of later illnesses. . 2. 60.. λυπεῖσθαι. This passage probably comprises the entirety of the consolation section of the speech (παραμυθία). 191–195) nicely contrasts the attitudes toward the war dead as displayed in fifth-century public epitaphs with archaic epitaphs for private individuals. 14–19)). 46–48) assigned it to the Funeral Oration. 2.4 advises that the consolation not consist of mourning and lamentation. Rather. Whereas private epitaphs present a negative characterization of death that is often “dominated by grief and lament” (192). 41. and he is followed by all subsequent editors. He attributes the passage to Hyperides without specifying a speech title. Rh. .43–45. The surviving epitaphioi generally follow this pattern and emphasize that it is the idyllic state of the dead in the afterlife that comforts the bereaved (further discussed by Kassel (1958. This passage has a philosophical quality to it. πένθη . Mx. 41)).32–37).35 and Thuc. but unfortunately it does not provide any context or discussion of the individual quotations which it preserves. and the possibility that they may be enjoying a better existence after death (discussed by Soffel (1974. The Anthology. since that would only increase the survivors’ sorrow. Dem. . 6. for χάλεπον .g. Hyperides reflects that attitude as he systematically compares the positive benefits of dying for the city with the individual losses of the men and their families. the brief conclusion addressed to the relatives of the dead (cf. the epitaphs for the war dead depict death as a positive event. Thuc. 60. probably compiled in the fifth century AD. Dem. Babington (1859. the freedom from mortal illness for the dead.

κατὰ πάντα.compounds (“glory” and “blessed”). the κατα. ἀτυχεῖς.34. . This noun contributes to the philosophical tone. “Although they did not live . . . 267–269 269–270 ὅσοι δὲ παῖδας καταλελοίπασιν . παίδων. Socrates muses at length about meeting the heroes of old in Hades.” For other examples of short antithetical clauses such as these see the note on §24 under διὰ τὴν τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀπόδειξιν . αὐτοῖς.1: πατρίος νόμος. See pp. . Aristotle frequently uses it to define terms (see LSJ s. παῖδας.compounds in the second alternative). . 243–246) conveniently collects the evidence for Greek views on death. ὁρισμός II for examples). These two alternative statements continue the Gorgianic antithesis.v. . . 271 εἰ μέν ἐστι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κτλ. On “the good will of their native city” (ἡ τῆς πατρίδος εὔνοια) see the note on §27 under ε[ὔνοι]αν. . 76–77). As in the previous section. 2. ὅσοι δέ κτλ. . Ap. See Denniston 1954. . . The parallel position. It was widely held that the dead did have . these two sentences have the same structure and are linked by repetition (“children”: ἄπαιδες. The second sentence (εἰ δέ . . just as Hyperides has done earlier in the speech (§§35–40). The series of parallel clauses feature highly stylized rhetorical devices that signal the closure of the speech. great praises”) the parallelism is reinforced by homoioteleuton and the alliteration of the final verbs (πεπόνθασιν and πεποιήκασιν). structure and sense of οἱ παρὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἔπαινοι (“the praise of the Greeks”) and ἡ τῆς πατρίδος εὔνοια (“the good will of their native city”) further link the two alternatives. κατὰ πάντα. still. In the first pair of clauses (‹εἰ› γὰρ . The state supported the war orphans. “ancestral custom”). “Although their sufferings . 11–13 on the use of the particle ἀλλά to mean “on the other hand. 14–15 for a description of the ceremony. Dover (1974. . καταστήσεται.108 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§41–] 259 οὔτε λόγωι οὔτε νόμωι. see the note on §27 under ε[ὔνοι]αν. 43. αὐτῶν. 264–267 ‹εἰ› γὰρ . the nomos (“custom”) is the entire ceremony (Thuc. ὅσοι μέν . 42. including the speech. . The logos (“speech”) is the funeral oration itself. “them”: αὐτῶν.(“age”) stem and the two εὐ. . in every respect”) is a tricolon interlinked by repetition of the γηρ. . παῖδες. and appears as a regular theme in Greek and Roman consolation literature (see Kassel 1958. πεποιήκασιν. 40c5–41c7. where Socrates suggests that death is either like a dreamless sleep or else a migration to another place. This rationalization of death is first found at Pl. 261 ὁρισμόν.

See also Currie 2005. 96. 60. 39–41. Sourvinou-Inwood (1995.4..42. τοὺς ταῖς τιμαῖς τῶν θεῶν καταλυομέναις βοηθήσαντας. Cf. 2. and in these fourth-century passages we see a continued concern with the fate of the dead.34).” adds a similar note of caution.27). and that the living should treat them respectfully. In this passage the restoration of εἰκός. The funeral orations typically focus on the eternally glorious reputation of the dead among the living (e. εἰ δ’ ἔστιν αἴσθησις ἐν Ἅιδου.80–81. The development and practice of hero cult in Greece also reflects this sort of attitude toward the dead. 118.79. This view was more commonly held than Hyperides’ alternative (see previous note). Dem. 60. 169–171. 65–67) categorizes the adjective as “non-forensic” (cf. and only hint at divine honors for the war dead and an eternal afterlife as heroes in the most tentative fashion (Dem.36). 273–274 275–277 ‹εἰκὸς›. 60.34. and it appears elsewhere in this speech and the epitaphioi (§42.2. 2. §21 above on the impiety of the Macedonians. 364) discusses these and other examples as a “cliché of the culture” regarding doubt about the afterlife. ἐπιμελείας ‹καὶ κηδεμονίας› ὑπὸ τοῦ δαιμονίου τυγχάνειν. who were honored as heroes (see the note on §39 under Ἁρμόδιον καὶ Ἀριστογείτονα). Parker (1996. fr. “it is likely. The adjective is better suited to epideictic than forensic oratory. Demosthenes similarly refers to the afterlife of the fallen soldiers in the islands of the blessed (Dem. 135–137) discusses the inconsistency of the treatment of the war dead in the epitaphioi. Lys. to the Funeral Oration. . Loraux 1986. But the previous scene of Leosthenes in the underworld (§§35–40) is much more explicit in associating him with the heroes of the Trojan War and Athenians such as Harmodius and Aristogiton. Sauppe plausibly assigns the phrase τὸν ἀγήρατον χρόνον. The same sentiment is expressed in very similar terms at Isoc. 44. attributed by Pollux to Hyperides without a speech title. 2. Lycurg. Thuc. §27).g. Pl. 60. Dover (1968. .43. Lys.[–§43] Commentary 109 some perception of the world of the living. . 19. 298–302) suggests that the concern for an individual’s “happy afterlife” (299) developed as a cultural trend during the archaic period and the fifth century. above p. 26). He concludes that they received honors “indistinguishable from those of heroes” and that they might eventually over time be labeled as such. 136 and Philem. Parker (2005. 243c-d. 275–276 Fragmentum dubium. Dem. Mx. and Versnel 1989.

This page intentionally left blank .

col. These manuscript readings have been corrected without comment in the text and critical apparatus.14 ] . and it may be useful to have them gathered together. For an explanation of the editorial symbols used here.9 - . 6. 16 22 ] 23 [ . cf.6 from 33 3.Appendix A: Papyrological Notes The scribe often makes obvious errors (some of which he corrects himself).3 ] 22 ] 4. 32 9 . There is little reason for them to crowd the apparatus. 18 28 25 21 [ 29 μ .2 23 5. corrected 31 4 26 5 .[ 13–14 corrected from 22–23 [ [ ] ] 6–7 22 . cf. 33–34. μ[ 33 .2 28 34 16 ] .2 μ 38 6.31 30–31 .3 = line 3 of column 6). ] 31 5–6 ] . 5. . 1. 33 2. but they may be of interest to papyrologists and others. 7. 7 ] 111 11 20–21 . see pp. References in this appendix are to the columns and lines of the papyrus (for example. 33 40 [ 13 33 μμ corrected from 34 36 19–20 μ μ ] [ . 10 [ ] .1 7. col.

4 μ /.39 /. 29. 4. 34. 13. 36.6 /.2 [ ]/. 11. 8.112 38 Hyperides: Funeral Oration μ corrected from 39 4 23 34 34 41 7 18 25 μ 11 ]μ . 10. 4. [ 14 μ 39 μ 5 7 μ 10 with written over an erasure 16 29 final nu is a later addition 37 corrected from μ 41 μ - μ 6 19–20 22 21–22 corrected from 39 . The scribe occasionally uses an angular stroke to punctuate a stop (here printed as /). 39 μ μ 43 11.21 /.25 /. 26.13. 12. More often the stops are unaccompanied by a paragraphos: 3. 8. 21.11.26. 26.28 μ /.29 29 37 41–42 . 9.18.28 /.34 /.14. 4. 4. 9.3 ..1. 10.19 /.3–4 μ 16 16–17 corrected from from 27 9. These periods are sometimes accompanied by a paragraphos: 3.13 μ /. The scribe has inserted paragraphoi after the following lines: 3.6 [ ] corrected from [ ] 13 15 corrected from 27–28 μ μ 33 μ ..6.2 /.10 ] /.18. 20. 9 corrected from corrected from 23 μ 24–25 28 31 μ . 4. The scribe frequently uses a diairesis mark over iota: 3.35 /.2–3 10 .11 12. 9.9.10 /. 43 [ 10. 30.12 /. 13. .6 . 7. 6. 28.] μ [ μ 12 μ 19 corrected 11 15 23 μ 26 the final sigma is mistakenly written at the beginning of 10. 3. 10.43 /. 32.2–3 20 μ 38 9 16 36 4 ] 12 7 μμ 13–14 [ ]. 12.1 15 21 μ 13. 8. 13. 4. 12.17. 4. 6. 35.

7. usually resembling a right angle bracket. especially toward the bottom of columns.Appendix A: Papyrological Notes 113 . 6. 7.34 .20 .1 μ[ ]μ .6 . 9.12 . 7.22 . 6. . are used very frequently. Two breathings are indicated: 7.40 . but sometimes a long dash.7 . 9.11 . Line fillers. 10.14 . and one circumflex accent: 10.36 .27 . 4.42 . . 8. 10.

This page intentionally left blank .

6 τὰς πράξεις: τὰ ὅπλα Kenyon.Appendix B: Critical Conjectures Nb. 5–8 μάρτυς αὐτὸς ὁ Χρόνος ὁ σώιζων ἐπαίνωι τὰς πράξεις· οὐ γάρ τις ἀνθρώπων προαίρεσίν πω καλλίω τῆσδ’ ἑώρακε ὧν ἴσμεν οὐδ’ ἐν παντὶ αἰῶνι πεπύσμεθα γεγενημένους Sudhaus. apud Babing3 5– 6 115 . τοῖς δὲ σώφροσι καὶ ἐπιεικέσι πλείω παρέχων ἐπιμέλειαν. διόπερ] Bücheler. διελθεῖν Sauppe. see p. xlvi. 26 τῶν πρό[τε]ρον ‹διασωσάντων› Comparetti. τοῦ μὴ καταισχῦναι corr. 32–35 τὰς μὲν ὥρας διακρίνων καὶ τὸ πρέπον καὶ καλῶς ἔχον παριστάς. Volckmar. 38 τῆς ἀδικίας: τῆς δεσποτείας Colin. 17–20 τοῦ προελέσθαι . 34 καὶ γενέσεως τῆς τροφῆς Blass. πεφόβημαι van Herwerden. For an explanation of what criteria determine whether restorations are recorded here or in the main apparatus. Schroeder. 32. . 6 ὁ σύμπας Cobet. καὶ αὔξης [Fuhr]. περὶ] Λεωσθένους Babington. 10 ὃ] καὶ Sauppe. 7–9 ὥστε οὐδ’ ἐν τῶι παντὶ αἰῶνι νομιστέον γεγενῆσθαι οὔτε ἄνδρας ἀμείνους τῶν τετελευτηκότων τῶνδε Bücheler. ὥστε καὶ γενέσθαι σίτων αἴτιος καὶ καρπῶν Jensen. ἐπελθεῖν Babington. ὁ σώιζων ἐπαίνωι τὰς πράξεις τὰς καλὰς· ἄνθρωπος δὲ τίς πρᾶξίν πω καλλίω τῆσδε ἑώρακε. πλεονεξίας anon. 11 φαίνεσθαι: γενέσθαι Babington. 25 τὰ καθ’ ἕκαστον Cobet. 30 κεφαλαίων Cobet. μάρτυς ἀκριβὴς Bücheler. . 29 ἀνελθεῖν Desrousseaux. 10 γε φοβοῦμαι Blass.

78 παρόδους: διόδους Sandys ap. 96 διὰ τὸ Λεωσθένη μόνον Cobet. φόβωι κατεπ. τοῦτον Cobet. 111 πρότερον Babington. Maehly. 73 συστησάμενος: κτησάμενος Kayser. δέει κατεπτηχυῖαν Sandys. Maehly. 130 εἶναι del. 107 βούλ]εσθαι: προελέσθαι Jensen. χρὴ δηλῶσαι {αλιφω} Sauppe. Blass. 41–42 εἶπον φράσαι ‹χαλεπόν› Kayser. ζῶν Kayser. 70 δυνήσεται: βουλήσεται Piccolomini. 103 ἐγκωμιάσω Stahl. τὴν Sauppe. Piccolomini. φάσκων Λεωσθένη μ’ ἕν’ Shilleto. 90 ἐκείνου: τούτου Babington. 98 ‹καὶ› τῶν ἄλλων Babington. . Blass. 118 περὶ: πρὸς Babington. 49 τουτων p. παιδεύειν Sauppe. Caesar. . 44 πρώτου Cobet. 56 παῖδες μαθεῖν [Fuhr]. ἐν τῶι Λεωσθένη μὲν Babington. Cobet et Schenkl. 111 τὴν μὲν πόλιν Babington. 71 ἐπέδωκεν μὲν ἑαυτὸν Kayser. 41 ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τῶν κοινῶν . Müller. 56 πάντας ὑμᾶς Cobet. 42 παραλείπω Bücheler. 89 ἀεὶ: καὶ Jensen. 115 διανενεμημένους Cobet. 108 μαχόμενοι Babington. λόγων Graindor. 91 πάντων ἀγαθῶν Müller. .116 38 Hyperides: Funeral Oration ton. φυλάττουσα Blass. ἔτι κατεπ. 128 {οὔτε} μετ’ ἐλαττόνων Cobet. σφόδρα κατεπ. πολλῶν ἀγ. 50 τοῦ λόγου ποιουμένου Bursian. 44 λέγειν: λέγων Sauppe. 41 κοινῶν πράξεων τῆς πόλεως Fritzsche. 110 πατρίδος Babington. 58 γένωνται Babington. 43–44 ποιησόμενος ἐνθάδε πόθεν Sauppe et Shilleto. 45 ἑκάστων Piccolomini. 39 κοινὴν ἄδειαν: τὴν ἐλευθερί]αν Cobet. κοινῶν τῶν τῆς πόλεως Sauppe. πρώτην Cobet. 66 ὥσπερ επτηχυῖαν: κατεπτηχυῖαν Babington.

Tarrant. ‹ἔρρει› γὰρ πᾶσα εὐδαιμονία ἄνευ τῆς αὐτονομίας Piccolomini. 142 ἔστι: ἐᾶν Caffiaux. 171–172 τὸ τῶν πολλῶν ἀσφαλές Cobet. ἄλλους παντα‹χῆι γῆς συνέβαινεν› Colin. Smyth 2949. φέρε γὰρ. 191 ἀπεδείξαντο Cobet. τίς πᾶσα εὐδαιμονία ἄνευ τῆς αὐτονομίας Schenkl. 140 μηδὲ: μήτε Fritzsche. 201–202 οἱ ἄφοβον ἄξειν τὸν λοιπὸν βίον καὶ ἐν τῶι ἀσφαλεῖ γεγενῆσθαι ἡγήσονται διὰ τούτους Blass. cf. 165 ἀντεκτήσαντο Maehly. ἀλλ’› ὕβρεις Hess. 198 {ἐν} τῆι Cobet. Cobet. 201 παρὰ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις. Sauppe. ἀξιοῦμεν Caesar. 155–156 ἄλλους πάντας ‹συμβαίνει› ἐν ‹παντὶ› τῶι παρεληλυθότι χρόνωι Blass.Appendix B: Critical Conjectures 134–135 138 117 νομίζομεν Kayser. π. γεγενῆσθαι ὁμολογοῦσι Colin. Cobet. ἀλλ’ ἄφοβον διάξουσι τὸν λοιπὸν βίον κακῶν ἀπαθεῖς γεγενημένοι διὰ τούτους Cobet. 165 ‹ἀντὶ› θνητοῦ σώματος Caesar. οὗτοι γὰρ ἄφοβον ἄξουσιν τὸν λοιπὸν βίον κατὰ τὴν . ἔχειν Babington. 191–192 αξαθαι: ἀρξαμένους ὑπάρχει Kenyon. 148 ἀνθρώπους ‹δίκαια› Fritzsche. ‹μὴ› καθεστάναι add. ἀνεκλείπτους . ὕβρεις ‹ἀνιέναι ποτέ. 140–141 ἀνεπιδείκτους ci. ἐξῆν εὐθὺς Thalheim. ἀθανάτων τ. ἀλλ’ ἄφοβον ἄξουσιν τὸν λοιπὸν βίον καὶ ἐλάττων τοῦ γήρως γεγένηται ἡ δυσχέρια διὰ τούτους αὐτοῖς Sauppe. Blass leg. 199 ἀπολαυσόμεθα Sauppe. τοῖς γεραιτέρους. πρῶτον μὲν παρὰ Babington. 180 πρὸς τοῦ δῆμου Caesar. ἔξεστ’ εὐθὺς Colin. ἄλλους πάντας ‹πολίτας συμβαίνει› Maehly. 184 ἀλγεινότατος Cobet. ἀμείνω τ. Colin. 167–168 ‹τί› πᾶσαν εὐδαιμονίαν Weil. ἐξῆν Ἀθηναίοις Comparetti. ‹ἐν αὑτῆι› aut ‹ἐφ’ αὑτῆς› αὐτονομία Müller. ἀλλ’› ἀνεκλείπτους Kayser. ἄιξαντας ἦν Jensen. ἆρ’ οὐ παρὰ Fritzsche. μηδὲ παίδων ‹ἔλεον εἶναι μηδένα. ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτων καὶ› παίδων Cobet. ἄρξασθαι cum lacuna postea. μηδε‹μίαν φειδὼ γίγνεσθαι. δαιμόνων τ. 183 αἰώνιων τάξιν Shilleto. 150 κρίνομεν Kayser. Caesar. . . 142 ἠναγκαζόμεθα Tell. συνελόντι Babington. Fritzsche. 200–201 πότερον οὐ παρὰ Blass.

Babington. οἷς ἡ τούτων τελευτὴ ἀφορμὴ μεγίστη τοῦ καλῶς ὠφελεῖν τὴν πατρίδα καὶ παραπλησίως τῆι ἀρετῆι διενέγκαι γέγονεν Sitzler. οὐκ ἄξιον ἐγκωμιάζειν αὐτούς. 207 οὐκοῦν ἄξιον εὐδαιμονίζειν αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τοσαύτηι τιμῆι Blass. 204–205 ἀλλ’ οὐ παρὰ τοῖς νεωτέροις Blass. ἀμφότερα γὰρ ἔστι μαθεῖν ἐκ τῶν περὶ Λεωσθένους ἱστοριῶν Schroeder. Blass.118 202–203 Hyperides: Funeral Oration ἀρτίως γεγενημένην ἀσφάλειαν διὰ τούτους Babington. εἶτα οὐ τὸν θυμὸν θαυμάσουσιν αὐτῶν Kayser. 209–210 Φρυγῶν καὶ τῆς ἐπὶ Τροίαν στρατείας Sauppe. νεωτέροις δόξουσιν. 206–207 ὡς παράδειγμα τὸν τούτων βίον. ποῦ δὲ τῆς Ἑλλάδος παύσονται ταῦτα τοῖς ἐπιγιγνομένοις ἀεὶ ἅπασιν καὶ λόγοις καὶ ὠιδαῖς ἐπαινοῦνες Colin. 212 ἐπ’ ἀμφότερα γὰρ ἐξέσται ὑμνεῖν περὶ Λεωσθένους Cobet. οὐκ εὐπρεπεστάτοις ἐπαίνοις εἰς ἀεὶ παρὰ ἅπασιν καὶ λόγοις καὶ ὠιδαῖς ἐπαινεθήσονται Sitzler. 208–210 ἢ τίνες (aut τίνες δὲ) ποιηταὶ καὶ φιλόσοφοι λόγων καὶ ὠιδῶν εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἀπορήσουσι περὶ τῶν πεπραγμένων αὐτοῖς. 205 καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ἔπειτα. ἀμφότερα γὰρ ἔξεσται ἐντεῦθεν περὶ Λεωσθένους εἰπεῖν Babington. ἀλλ’ οὐ παρὰ τοῖς ἡλικιώταις Blass. παράδειγμα γενόμενον οὐ τὴν ἀρετὴν σωτήριον πᾶσι. οὐ τὸν θάνατον ζηλώσουσιν αὐτῶν Jensen. 212–213 καὶ τῶν τελευτησάντων ἐν τῶι πολέμωι Sauppe. δημοτικώτερα γὰρ ἔστι τοῖς ποιηταῖς περὶ Λεωσθένους ἄιδειν Fritzsche. καὶ σφόδρα σπουδάσουσιν μιμεῖσθαι Kayser. καὶ τῶν τετελευτηκότων ἐν τῶι πολέμωι τῶιδε Babington. . ἀνθ’ οὗ τὴν ἀρετὴν καταλελοίπασι. παρὰ τίσι δ’ οὐ μᾶλλον αὕτη τῆς Φρυγῶν κρατησάσης στρατείας ἐγκωμιασθήσεται. Blass. 210–211 ποῦ δὲ τῆς Ἑλλάδος Blass. 205–206 αὐτοὶ μιμεῖσθαι σπουδάσουσιν Babington. ἢ οὐ παρὰ τοῖς ἡλικιώταις Fritzsche. 203–204 οἷς οὗτοι τελευτήσαντες οὕτω καλῶς συνεβάλοντο εἰς τὸ παρὰ πολὺ κουφισθῆναί γε τὸν ἀγῶνα Kayser. ἀγαστότερα γὰρ ἔνεστι πολλῶι περὶ Λεωσθένους λέγειν Sauppe. ἢ οὐ παρὰ τοῖς νεωτέροις. ἀλλὰ Fritzsche. ἐν ἅπασιν καὶ λόγοις καὶ ὠιδαῖς ἐπαινεῖν Cobet. ἔπειτα παρὰ τοῖς ἡλικιώταις Babington. δι’ ἀμφότερα γὰρ ἔστιν ὑμνῆσαι τὰ περὶ Λεωσθένους Kenyon. Kayser. 207–208 οὐκ ἐγκωμιάζειν ἀεὶ χρὴ ὧν οὐ δέδοικα μή τινες συγγραφεῖς σοφοὶ λόγων ἄλλους τῶν Ἑλλήνων προκρίνωσι Kayser. ὠιδαῖς ἐπάιδοντες Babington.

Appendix B: Critical Conjectures
213–216

119

μνημονεύουσιν τὰς τοιαύτας Blass, εἴτε γὰρ τῆς ἡδονῆς ἕνεκεν ἐγκωμιάζουσι τὰς τούτων καρτερίας . . . ἢ τούτων τῶν τὴν ἐλευθερίαν πᾶσι βεβαιωσάντων ἀκούειν ὑμνουμένων Sauppe. 216 ἡ τοιαύτη σπουδὴ Sauppe, ἡ τοιαύτη μελέτη αὐτοῖς Fritzsche. 223 οἰοίμεθα Levi. 223–224 φοιτᾶν Cobet. 224–225 τῶν διογενῶν καλουμένων Schenkl, τῶν ἡρώων καλουμένων Fritzsche, τῶνδε ἡγούμενον καὶ καλουμένους Post, Kenyon scribit cum obelis τῶν διηγημένων καὶ ὑμνουμένων. 225 ἐπὶ ‹Τροίαν τὴν› στρατεῖαν στρα‹τεύ›σαντας Tell. 232–233 μετὰ γ’ ὧν συνθάπτομεν νῦν αὐτὸν ἀνδρῶν Blass. 235 λέγω δὴ p et Cobet, λέγω δὲ Colin, λέγω δὴ καὶ Blass. 258 πένθεσι Maehly. 262 παραιρεῖν aut παραινεῖν codd. 263–264 τῆς ἀρετῆς ‹ἧς ἀποδεδείχασι καὶ τῆς δόξης› ἧς Maehly. 276 Ruhnken leg. κηδεμονίας solum; cf. Phot. Bibl. codex 251 (463a.13f Bekker): ἀνάγκη πλείστης ἐπιτροφῆς καὶ κηδεμονίας τυγχάνειν.

This page intentionally left blank

Bibliography

Adkins, A. W. H. (1966), “Aristotle and the best kind of tragedy,” Classical Quarterly 16: 78–102. Cited on page 66. Ashton, N. G. (1983), “The Lamian War—a false start?,” Antichthon 17: 47–63. Cited on page 12. Babington, C. (1858), Ὑπερείδου λόγος ἐπιτάφιος, Cambridge. Cited on pages xiv, 27–29, 33, 40, 100, 124, 130, 136. (1859), Ὑπερείδου λόγος ἐπιτάφιος, Cambridge, 2d ed. Cited on pages xiii, 27, 29, 32, 33, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 61, 70, 72, 74, 82, 86, 97, 98, 101, 102, 107, 115–118. Badian, E. (1961), “Harpalus,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 81: 16–43. Cited on pages 10–12. (1967), “Agis III,” Hermes 95: 170–192. Cited on page 8. (1981), “The deification of Alexander the Great,” in Ancient Macedonian studies in honor of Charles F. Edson, Thessaloniki, Institute for Balkan Studies 158, 27–71. Cited on pages 89, 90. (1982), “Greeks and Macedonians,” in Macedonia and Greece in late classical and early Hellenistic times, Washington, D.C., Studies in the history of art 10, 33–51. Cited on page 87. (1994), “Agis III: revisions and reflections,” in I. Wothington (ed.), Ventures into Greek history, Oxford, 258–292. Cited on page 8. (1996), “Alexander the Great between two thrones and heaven: variations on an old theme,” in A. Small (ed.), Subject and ruler: the cult of the ruling power in classical antiquity, Ann Arbor, Journal of Roman Archaeology supplementary series 17, 11–26. Cited on pages 88, 89. 121

2d ed. Squitier (1990). 38. 3d ed. 135. Cited on pages xii–xiv. Chicago. Blass.” Classical Quarterly 54: 406–423. Cited on page 102. . “Simonides and Herodotus on Plataea. translation of the ninth–tenth German edition by R. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: canon of Greek authors and works. Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Die attische Beredsamkeit. Cited on page 62. New York. A. Blackwell. F. 52. Études d’archéologie et de topographie. Cited on pages 29. Hyperidis orationes quattuor cum ceterarum fragmentis. Yale classical monographs 5.” Arethusa 29: 223–242. 3 volumes. J. La vallée du Spercheios des origines au IVe siècle. Bickerman. Religions and politics in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. 50. D. Berkowitz. Smith. 31. Blass. Leipzig. New Haven. 2d ed. Paris. Blackman. Boedeker.. Cited on pages 25. Cited on page 15. Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 144. 74. W. New York. “Archaeology in Greece 1997–98. A Greek grammar of the New Testament. 102. Hyperidis orationes quattuor cum ceterarum fragmentis. Cited on pages 63. 65. Cited on page 78. Cited on page xi. Cited on page 91. 60. J. In the absence of Alexander. (1881). Debrunner (1961). (1894). edited by E. Lang classical studies 12. 70. Hardwick (1997–1998). 27. Funk. 3d ed. Cited on page 10. 42. and A. 65. W. 85. 40. Cited on page 101. R. L. 134. (1869). 57. Biblioteca di Athenaeum 5. G. 64. Bers. Cited on page 31.122 Bibliography Balot. Como. C. Iperide: rassegna di problemi e di studi (1912–1972). J. 32. Béquignon. Padua. Leipzig. 46. Bartolini. 97–100. Hyperidis orationes sex cum ceterarum fragmentis. Leipzig. F. Cited on page 29. 115–119. (1977). Gabba and M. Proagones: Studi 13. 105. E. Leipzig. 135. (1996). 71. (1887–1893). (1937). (1984). 44. and N. (2004).” Archaeological Reports 44: 1–136. 63. 36. V. Baker. and K. (1999).. Y. Greek poetic syntax in the classical age. Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. “Courage in the democratic polis. (1985). Harpalus and the failure of Macedonian authority. D.

A. Bücheler. “Coniectanea. “The historical context of Thucydides’ Funeral Oration. (1969). J. J. Burgess. 119. Conquest and empire: the reign of Alexander the Great. W. N. P. 79. P. Bosworth. 9–11. (1969). Wallace (eds. Medieval and modern Greek. Berkeley and Los Angeles. (1875). Rationality in Greek thought. Cited on pages xiii. Worthington (ed. Cited on page 66. Burtt. Cited on page 15.Bibliography 123 Bons. (2003). Transitions to empire: essays in Greco-Roman history. Harris and R.” Classical Quarterly 19: 245–265. volume 2: Lycurgus. and E. Cited on page 64. Cited on page 101. 115–155. (1983). “Greeks and Macedonians in the age of Alexander. Frede and G. Cited on page 82. 59. Cited on page 77. J.” in I. A. Aegean Greece in the fourth century. (2000). The source traditions. Brunt. 30. 42. 116. 122–139. Bulman. D. 360–146 BC in honor of E. Oklahoma series in classical culture 21. Cited on pages 16. 67. 117. 82. Browning.” Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik 111: 305–340. 37–46. B. 60. Volume I: commentary on books I–III . (1902). 21. R. Cited on pages xiii. (1996). 36. Cambridge.” in M. Cited on pages 7. 116.). Dinarchus. Bradeen. F. “Euboea in the time of Philip II. 115. Norman. Phthonos in Pindar. W.. Bursian. (1996). C. 52. J. Epideictic literature.). C. 29. University of California publications: classical studies 35. Chicago. . Oxford. Malden. Minor Attic orators. Cambridge.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 120:1–16. 40.” in E. Leiden and Boston. A historical commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander. Demades. Buckler.” Classical Quarterly 19: 145–159. 2d ed. Cited on page 93. “Rule and exception: on the Aristotelian theory of exception. Borza. O. Striker (eds. 38. M.). Hyperides. Cited on pages xiii. Oxford. Cited on page 87. T. A companion to Greek rhetoric. Badian. “Zu Hypereides Epitaphios. Cited on pages 15. Mass. Cited on pages 6. 58. Müller (1858). (1988). Brunschwig. (1954). (1992). E. “Gorgias the sophist and early rhetoric. Loeb classical library. (2007). “The Athenian casualty lists.” Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik 77: 471–472. E. (1980). 71. Cambridge.

Cited on page 76. J. J. Mészáros. Cited on page xii.” Greece & Rome 38: 171–188. (1873). Lysiae orationes.” in I. 16. 115–119. “Demosthenes. Variae lectiones quibus continentur observationes criticae in scriptores graecos. Caffiaux. 117.” Phoenix 15: 74–78. Cited on page 77. Cited on pages xiii.. 15. 117. (1866). 29. 81. (2007a). 72. 40. L.). Tchernetska (2008). “The crowning of Demosthenes.20. Leiden. A companion to Greek rhetoric. Zeitschrift für die Alterthumswissenschaft 84–85: 667–675. 29. Z.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 165: 1–19. 63. 82. Oxford. Recension nouvelle du texte de l’oraison funèbre d’Hypéride. Cited on page xii. 44. Cited on pages 11. Cited on pages xiii. 38. Herrman. Review of Babington 1858. 2d ed. 116. 97. 91. Malden. Cargill. Mayer. Lausanne. 95. 101. Worthington (ed. “A note on Ps. 98. 29. Patrios nomos: public burial in Athens during the fifth and fourth centuries BC. Leiden. and the crop of traitors.). 48. C. and historical evidence. M. 24. Carey. Cited on pages xiii. J. Cited on pages 8. Cited on page 93. “Epideictic oratory. “Sexuality. 58. Cited on pages 14.124 Bibliography Caesar. 46. Cited on page 88. “The deification of Alexander the Great: a note. Cited on pages xiii. Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis. C. (1991). G. Chroust. Worthington (ed. C. Cited on pages 15. 54. H. 102.” Ancient World 11: 75–85. W. Calame. (1966). (1969). Cohen. C. Clairmont. (1858).” Classical Quarterly 19: 163–180. (1994). “Fragments of Hyperides’ Against Diondas from the Archimedes Palimpsest. 36. 2 vols. T.” Historia 15: 185–192. G. Aischines. “Aristotle’s flight from Athens in the year 323 BC. Carey. Oxford. G. 50. P.” in I. A. J. (1857). (1996). Cawkwell. Oxford. Edwards. C. Demosthenes 17. (1985). Ὑπερείδου λόγος ἐπιτάφιος. 71. Hyperidis oratio funebris recens reperta. Cited on page 68. epigraphic–literary. 130. . 63. D. Cobet. Farkas. H. Paris. Horváth. 64. British archaeological reports 63. (1983). The archaeological. Rhodes. and N. Ventures into Greek history. 236–252. violence and the Athenian law of hubris. (2007b). L. (1961). Thésée et l’imaginaire athénien. 293–306.

Colin. (1971). B. 104. Develin. “The problem of Athenian civic identity. Denniston.” Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves 9: 207–209.). Aristides. 100. 36. C. 115. (1991). R. Cited on page 30. 29. (1829). 2d ed. (1949). Epitafio per i caduti di Lamia. Oxford. Hellström and B. Cambridge.” in A. W. 50. “L’orasion funèbre d’Hypéride: ses rapports avec les autres oraisons funèbres athéniennes. Cited on page 73. A. Uppsala studies in ancient mediterranean and near eastern civilizations 24. Cited on page xii. “Hypéride. Discours. 70. Cited on pages 4. and W. Cited on pages 97. Venice. Pindar and the cult of heroes. (1996). 600–300 BC.” Revue des études Grecques 51: 209–266 and 305–394. Dindorf. Comparetti. (1954). Kranz (1952). Alroth (eds. Ἐπιτάφιος §4. J. 102. “Theseus and his city. Boegehold and A. Cited on page 58. A. (1990). 52. Connor. Democritus and the sources of Greek anthropology. 63. Athenian identity and civic ideology. Cited on pages xiii. Oxford. Desrousseaux. T. Cited on pages xiii. Currie. G. 59. 3 vols. W. 34–44. Cited on pages xiii. Cited on page xii. 31. K. 117. Oxford. Il discorso d’Iperide dei morti nella guerra Laminea. (1989).Bibliography 125 Cole. The origins of rhetoric in ancient Greece. 101. Athenian propertied families. M. Braccesi. Paris. 115. J. Greek prose style. (1858). Hypéride. Leipzig. H. Uppsala. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Cited on page 68. 40. The Greek particles. 115–120. 5. Atlanta. Baltimore. Cited on page 92. Cited on pages 22. (1993). Scafuro (eds. (2005). Proceedings of the Uppsala symposium 1993. Berlin. Baltimore. Coppola. D. Cited on pages xiii.” Rheinisches Museum 13: 533–545. 115. “Observationes in Hyperidis orationem funebrem. Cited on page 65. Oxford. (1864). (1946). Cited on page 92. 130. 108. D. introduction by L.. Les Belles Lettres. Diels. (1938). . Athenian officials 684–321 BC. (1994). 29. 30.” in P. 63. 6th ed. 117–119. Pisa. reprint of 1967 edition. R. Davies. Religion and power in the ancient Greek world. (1952). 109. L. American Philological Association monograph series 25. Cited on page 73. 3 vols.).

finanziari. 99–130.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 109: 39–61. Fehling. Ehrenberg. Greek popular morality in the time of Plato and Aristotle. Agamemnon. C. Literis Adlerianis. A. Cited on page 58. Cited on page 75. (1992). Cited on page 30. E. London. Engels. N. economici. Review of Kenyon 1906. Cited on page 4. J. 66. (1969). Quellen und Forschungen zur antiken Welt 2. (1994). Fuhr. Cited on pages 60. Cited on pages 3. 75. (1976). Oxford. M. K. “Divine honors for Philip II. Cited on pages xiii. 61. Cited on page 67. Dover. V. De Hyperidis laudatione funebri. (1969). D. Olive cultivation in ancient Greece: seeking the ancient economy. F. Berlin. Studien zur politischen Biographie des Hypereides: Athen in der Epoche der lykurgischen Reformen und des makedonischen Universalreiches. Brill’s companion to Alexander the Great. A study in the values of honour and shame in ancient Greece. The Greek state. 116–119. Cited on page 7. 109. R. (1968). (1989). 29. (1979). Against Timarchos. Berliner philologische Wochenschrift 27: 769–774. (2000). Warminster. Foxhall. Fisher. Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum. (1907). (1950). 26. Cited on pages 24. “Alexander the Great and panhellenism. Munich. Fritzsche. (1992). Cited on pages 88. J. Hybris. M. L. Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Greichen vor Gorgias. Vergewaltigung in der Antike. 96–135.” in J. Oxford. Alexander the Great in fact and fiction. R. Faraguna. Aeschines. Cited on page 61. Ellis.” in A. Stuttgart and Leipzig. 106. 2d ed. Baynham (eds. 95. (2003). Atene nell’età di Alessandro: problemi politici. Cited on page 83. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 46.126 Bibliography Doblhofer. 46.). Edited with a commentary. J. 62. Flower. 2d ed. Rome. Oxford. Fraenkel. (2007). Cited on pages 87. 3 vols. V. “Alexander and the Greeks. 88. (1974). B. 90. Index Lectionum in Academia Rostochiensi. Cited on pages 9. J. (1861–1862). Oxford. Berkeley and Los Angeles. E. Fredricksmeyer. 108. Oxford. Roisman (ed. Oxford.). Leiden. (2001). Cited on pages 92. Bosworth and E. Cited on page 88. Philip II and Macedonian imperialism. 4. G. E. 63. .

G. 91. 58. Center for Hellenic Studies colloquia 5. Cited on pages 3. G. (1970). “Cleitarchus and Didorus 17. Berlin. Hall. Cambridge. Cited on pages xi. Hammond. 102. Samos. 3 volumes.sas. (1998). Odense. A history of Macedonia. Cited on page 61. J. Eisangelia: the sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the fourth century BC and the impeachment of generals and politicians. P. (1975). Hansen. 80. Oxford.” in I. Kinzl (ed. W. Cited on page 86. (1974). 159–186.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 140: 397–405. 58. 81. Cited on pages 3. Mass. A historical commentary on Thucydides. H. Mass. C. (1977). 72. (1997). . Athens from Alexander to Antony. Oxford Latin dictionary. Gomme. (ed. 9. 82. Athenian generals: military authority in the classical period. Oxford. Cited on pages xiii. and Alexander the Great. Walbank (1972–1988). 6. De sermone Hyperidis. J.. Malkin (ed. A. Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9. Griffith. 14. (1998). D. and F.Bibliography 127 Gibert. Cited on pages 6. 83. “Contested ethnicities: perceptions of Macedonia within evolving definitions of Greek identity. 77. G. Hamilton. 116. N. Review of Mills 1997. “Notes critiques sur l’épitaphios d’Hypéride. Cited on pages 5. available electronically at <http://ccat. (1956). Cited on pages 95. (2001). The sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the fourth century BC and the public action against unconstitutional proposals. Cited on page 66. (1996). W. Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte. Cited on page 78. 8. Hamel.). D. Habicht. Munich. Glare. 126–146. M. M. J. Cited on page 10.). 18. P. Odense.upenn. 14. Cited on pages 5. Zetemata 14. R. 70. 2d ed. 58.html>.” in K. Leiden. (1927). Graindor. (1898). 78. T. Cited on pages 88. vol 2: books II–III.) (1982). Ancient perceptions of Greek ethnicity. Mnemosyne supplementa 182.” Revue de l’instruction publique en Belgique 41: 341–344. Oxford. Studia Leopolitana 3.edu/ /bmcr/1998/1998-07-06. Cambridge. Lemberg. W. Gromska. 85. L. Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in ancient history and prehistory: studies presented to Fritz Schachermeyr on the occasion of his eightieth birthday. “Athens.

” in P. History of Political Thought 6. V. Biblioteca di studi antichi 40. J. Cited on page 68. . (2000). “Antigone the lawyer. The Athenian democracy in the age of Demosthenes. Harris. From the end of the Peloponnesian War to the battle of Ipsus. Hanson.37. The Athenian Ecclesia II . New York and Oxford. Cited on page 70. “Did rape exist in classical Athens? Further reflections on the laws about sexual violence. Cited on page 88. or the ambiguities of nomos. “Two doxographical notes: Democritus and Prodicus on religion. “Pericles’ praise of Athenian democracy. Moysey (1986). 41–80.” Hesperia 55: 177–182. M. (2004a). page references to reprint in Harris 2006. 76. E. 94. Cambridge. E. Cited on page 3. Cited on page 67. Crux: essays presented to G.1. D. A. (1995). Berkeley and Los Angeles. The law and the courts in ancient Greece. Pisa. F. A. “An Athenian decree honoring foreigners. Translated documents of Greece & Rome 2. Cited on page 66. M. Croix on his 75th birthday. (1985). and R. Harvey. Cited on page 6. D. 96. 29–39.” Revue historique de droit français et étranger 82: 1–13. Rubinstein (eds. 8.128 Bibliography (1989).). Cited on page 67. Aeschines and Athenian politics.” Dike 7: 41–83. Thucydides 2. Warfare and agriculture in classical Greece. London. A. D. 297–332. Harvey (eds. (2004c). de Ste. Cited on pages 4.). (2004b). Cited on page 76. 19. (1991). (2006). Cited on page 9. Cartledge and F. 79. Harris and L. Cited on pages 91. Henrichs. (1975).” in E. Cited on pages 94. Exeter.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 79: 93–123. (1983).” Dike 3: 27–79. Democracy and the rule of law in classical Athens. “Open texture in Athenian law. 19–56. Oxford. Cited on pages 9. Copenhagen. page references to reprint in Harris 2006. Heisserer. 76–117. (1992). A. M. (1998).” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 94: 157–167. “Le rôle de l’epieikeia dans les tribunaux athéniens. revised ed. “Dona ferentes: some aspects of bribery in Greek politics. Harding. (1985). Cambridge. P. Cited on page 128. Warfare and agriculture in classical Greece. reprinted in Harris 2006.

64. 115. Herrman. 30–32. C. Athenian funeral orations. (1994). (1895). “Ad Hyperidem. (1981). The strangeness of gods: historical perspectives on the interpretation of Athenian religion. Jensen. 36. Johnson. 46. Cited on page 91.). A. “The ‘friends’ of the early Hellenistic rulers: servants or officials?. (1985). Starr. Cited on page 14. Leipzig. Aelius Aristides. van Herwerden. xii.Bibliography 129 Herman. Bookrolls and scribes in Oxyrhynchus. 100. Toronto. (2008). (1981). Jacoby.” Talanta 12–13: 103–149. Leipzig. Jaschinski. Jahrhunderts v. J. (1923–1958).” Journal of Hellenic Studies 64: 37–66. (2004). Cited on page xii. 27. Historia Einzelschriften 63. 15 vols. C. Cited on page 93. W. 102. C. 44. 98. 115–118. Bonn. Klassisch-philologische Studien 11. (2004). Cited on pages xiii. S. Cited on pages xi. Eadie and J.. Stuttgart. Hornblower. Cited on page 28. 137. Opera omnia Graece & Latine. Cited on pages xii–xiv. 2 vols. “Lycurgus of Boutadai: an Athenian aristocrat. “Patrios nomos: state burial in Athens and the public cemetery in the Kerameikos. Cited on page 78. Ch. 42. H. (1938). Cited on page 17.” in J. 12. Cited on page 58. Cited on pages 15. . 134. Lanham. (1722). Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. 59. Jehne. Md. S. 26. 59. Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Cited on pages xiii. 74. The craft of the ancient historian: essays in honor of Chester G. W. M. 38. Newburyport. 60. Cited on page 9. 85. 85.” Mnemosyne 23: 162–166. 63. 70. Hieronymus of Cardia. 48. 71. Koine Eirene: Untersuchungen zu den Befriedungsund Stabilisierungsbemühungen in der griechischen Poliswelt des 4. Textkritische und erklärende Beiträge zum Epitaphios des Hypereides. (1944). 75. 199–252. G. 117. (1980–1981). 36. J. S. 38. 60. H. Ober (eds. 50. Hess. Oxford. 16. 40. Cited on pages 9. F. 75. (2004). Berlin. Humphreys. Oxford. “The authenticity of the Demosthenic Funeral Oration.” Acta antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 48: 171–178. (1917). Oxford. Hyperidis orationes sex cum ceterarum fragmentis. Alexander und Griechenland unter dem Eindruck der Flucht des Harpalos. 75. Jebb.

G. Heidelberger Jahrbücher 241. The palaeography of Greek papyri. Kapparis. R. M. 71. The orations against Athenogenes and Philippides. 40. Berlin. Cited on page 93. G. F. (1989). Cited on page xii. Cited on page 28. “L’art oratoire. E. Apollodoros “Against Neaira” [D. Kienzle. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 53. Beiträge zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache 14. (1958). Kallmünz. E.” Musée Belge 2: 49–93 and 210–229. L. 52. Kenyon. . 99. Kraay. C. (1899). Cited on pages xiii. Oxford. Kearns. Hirmer (1966). University of London Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin supplements 57. M. (1898). Cited on pages xiii. Stil und Text der ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑ ΑΘΗΝΑΙΩΝ des Aristoteles. Cited on page 67. Kassel. Cited on page 67. 89. Würzburg. Greek coins. 70. le style et la langue d’Hypéride. E. (1893). 40. 100. Cited on page 106. S. 101. Berlin. Cited on page 65. Austin (1983–). K. Kayser. Oxford. London. Zetemata 18. (1893). London. 126. Berlin. 52. Archaic and classical Greek coins. Der Lobpreis von Städten und Ländern in der älteren griechischen Dichtung. 29. and C. Untersuchungen zur griechischen und römischen Konsolationsliteratur. 38. Cited on page xii. Berlin. 8 vols. 105. Cited on pages xiii. (1868). 117–119. 38. R. 30. (1903). Kirchner. (1976). Cited on page 58. The Library of numismatics. Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis. 36. The heroes of Attica. Review of Babington 1858. 42. Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik 77: 369–383. 108. 46. 59]. Comicorum graecorum fragmenta.130 Bibliography Kaibel. 115. J. Kayser. London. 99. C. and M. Die polare Ausdrucksweise in der griechischen Literatur. Kemmer. Cited on page 67. 116–118. Berlin. Poetae comici Graeci. (1906). Munich. (1901). (1936). Review of Comparetti 1864 and Caffiaux 1866. Cited on pages 107. (1858). New York. Prosopographia Attica. Kassel. 50. Cited on page 135. Kraay. (1899). Cited on pages xiii. Hyperidis orationes et fragmenta. Cited on pages 21. (1999).

Bibliography

131

Kühn, K. G. (1821–1833), Claudii Galeni opera omnia, Medicorum Graecorum opera quae exstant 1–20, Leipzig. Cited on page xii. Kurke, L. (1991), The traffic in praise. Pindar and the poetics of social economy, Ithaca. Cited on page 60. Lambert, S. D. (1997), Rationes centesimarum: sales of public land in Lykourgan Athens, Archaia Ellas 3, Amsterdam. Cited on page 9. Lapatin, K. (2001), Chryselephantine statuary in the ancient Mediterranean world, Oxford. Cited on page 90. Lefèvre, F. (1998), L’amphictionie pyléo-delphique: histoire et institutions, Athens. Cited on page 83. Leopardi, J. (1835), “Excerpta ex schedis criticis,” Rheinisches Museum 3: 1–14. Cited on pages xiii, 54. Levi, L. (1892), Osservazioni sul testo dell’Epitafio d’Iperide, Pisa, reprinted, Rome, 1978. Cited on pages xiii, 40, 75, 102, 119. Liddell, H. G. and R. Scott (1925–1940), A Greek–English lexicon, Oxford, 9th ed. Cited on pages xi, 5, 63, 71, 80, 86, 96, 108. Lobel, E. and D. L. Page (1955), Poetarum Lesbiorum fragmenta, Oxford. Cited on page xii. Loraux, N. (1986), The invention of Athens: the funeral oration in the classical city, Cambridge, Mass., translation of 1981 French edition by A. Sheridan. Cited on pages 13, 14, 23, 65, 68, 69, 74, 75, 79, 109. (2000), Born of the earth: myth and politics in Athens, Ithaca, translation of 1981 French edition by S. Stewart. Cited on page 73. Louden, B. (1993), “Pivotal contrafactuals in Homeric epic,” Classical Antiquity 12: 181–198. Cited on page 86. Lucas, D. W. (1968), Aristotle. Poetics, Oxford. Cited on page 66. Maas, P. (1928), “Zitate aus Demosthenes’ Epitaphios bei Lykurgos,” Hermes 63: 258–260. Cited on pages 19, 85. MacDowell, D. M. (1976), “Hybris in Athens,” Greece & Rome 23: 14–31. Cited on page 87. (1982), Gorgias. Encomium of Helen, Bristol. Cited on page 92. (1990), Demosthenes, Against Meidias (Oration 21), Oxford. Cited on page 86. (2000), Demosthenes. On the false embassy (Oration 19), Oxford. Cited on pages 3, 4, 104. MacKay, P. (1963), “Procopius’ De Aedificiis and the topography of Thermopylae,” American Journal of Archaeology 67: 241–255. Cited on page 77.

132

Bibliography

Maehly, J. (1872), “Zum Epitaphios des Hypereides,” Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik 105: 607–612. Cited on pages xiii, 116, 117, 119. Mari, M. (2003), “Macedonians and pro-Macedonians in early Hellenistic Athens: reflections on ἀσέβεια,” in O. Palagia and S. V. Tracy (eds.), The Macedonians in Athens, 322–229 BC, Oxford, 82–92. Cited on page 83. Marzi, M. (1977), Oratori attici minori, Turin, volume 1: Iperide, Eschine, Lycurgo. Cited on pages 30, 63. Mastronarde, D. J. (2002), Euripides. Medea, Cambridge. Cited on page 95. Matthaiou, A. (1994), “Two new Attic inscriptions,” in R. Osborne and S. Hornblower (eds.), Ritual, finance, politics. Athenian democratic accounts presented to David Lewis, Oxford, 175–188. Cited on page 58. McCabe, D. F. (1981), The prose-rhythm of Demosthenes, Monographs in classical studies, New York. Cited on page 17. Migne, J.-P. (1857–1866), Patrologia Graeca, Paris, 161 vols. Cited on page xii. Miller, S. (1973), “The Philippeion and Macedonian Hellenistic architecture,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Athen. Abt.) 88: 189–218. Cited on page 90. Mills, S. (1997), Theseus, tragedy, and the Athenian empire, Oxford. Cited on pages 66, 69, 127. Momigliano, A. (1993), The development of Greek biography, Cambridge, Mass., expanded ed. Cited on page 61. Moreno, A. (2007), Feeding the democracy: the Athenian grain supply in the fifth and fourth centuries BC, Oxford. Cited on page 67. Morrison, J. S. (1987), “Athenian sea-power in 323/2 BC: dream and reality,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 107: 88–97. Cited on pages 12, 84. Naiden, F. S. (2006), Ancient supplication, Oxford. Cited on page 69. Nesselrath, H.-G. (1992), Ungeschehenes Geschehen. ‘BeinaheEpisoden’ im griechischen und römischen Epos von Homer bis zur Spätantike, Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 27, Stuttgart. Cited on page 86. Neugebauer, O. and H. Van Hoesen (1959), Greek horoscopes, Philadelphia. Cited on pages 28, 29, 57. Nock, A. D. (1972), Essays on religion and the ancient world, Cambridge, Mass., edited by Z. Stewart. 2 vols. Cited on page 89.

Bibliography

133

Oikonomides, A. N. (1982), “Athens and the Phokians at the outbreak of the Lamian War (= IG II2 367),” Ancient World 5: 123–127. Cited on pages 12, 78. Osborne, M. J. (1983), Naturalization in Athens, Brussels, volume 3. Cited on page 5. Osborne, M. J. and S. G. Byrne (1994), A lexicon of Greek personal names, Oxford, volume 2: Attica. Cited on page 58. Ostwald, M. (1969), Nomos and the beginnings of the Athenian democracy, Oxford. Cited on page 70. Pack, R. A. (1965), The Greek and Latin literary texts from GrecoRoman Egypt, Ann Arbor, 2d ed., references are to item numbers. Cited on pages xiii, 27, 36. Parker, R. (1983), Miasma: pollution and purification in early Greek religion, Oxford. Cited on page 91. (1996), Athenian religion. A history, Oxford. Cited on pages 14, 89, 109. (2005), Polytheism and society at Athens, Oxford. Cited on pages 64, 65, 109. Parry, A. (1981), Logos and ergon in Thucydides, Monographs in classical studies, Salem. Cited on page 61. Patterson, C. (2006), “ ‘Citizen cemeteries’ in classical Athens?,” Classical Quarterly 56: 48–56. Cited on page 15. Peek, W. (1955), Griechische Vers-Inschriften, Berlin, vol. 1. GrabEpigramme. Cited on page 15. Perlman, P. (2001), City and sanctuary in ancient Greece. The theorodokoi in the Peloponnese, Hypomnemata 21, Göttingen. Cited on page 84. Piccolomini, E. (1882), “Osservazioni sul testo dell’Epitafio d’Iperide,” in Studi di Filologia Greca, Turin, 1, 107–132. Cited on pages xiii, 38, 116, 136. Pohle, U. (1928), Die Sprache des Redners Hypereides in ihren Beziehungen zur Koine, Klassisch-philologische Studien 2, Leipzig. Cited on pages 86, 95, 102. Pöschl, V. (1964), Bibliographie zur antiken Bildersprache, Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, neue Folge, 1 Reihe, Heidelberg, edited by H. Gärtner and W. Heyke. Cited on page 65. Price, S. R. F. (1984), Rituals and power: the Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor, Cambridge. Cited on pages 90, 91.

4). W. 58. Raaflaub. and sense in interpreting Thucydides: the soldier’s choice (Thuc. 478–323 BC. (1975). style. “Structure. 94. P. C. Deutsche Literaturzeitung 1163–1164. 82. (2006). Cited on pages 9. Cited on pages 8. Wilson (1981). K. Classical Review 54: 21–22. University of California publications: classical studies 1. Cited on page 30. 8. J. A commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Radermacher. Cited on pages 85. (1972). Part I . Per i caduti della guerra lamiaca. (1989). Mnemosyne supplementa 14. . London. Berkeley and Los Angeles. and R. Review of Blass 1894. Rosivach. (1971). Rennie. 101. 75. Roebuck. 9. 48. P. (1971–1991). Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Thucydides. 93. “The settlements of Philip II with the Greek states in 338 BC. 88. 77. Oxford. revised ed. (2004). C. S. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Oxford. Reinmuth. Cited on page 60. 92. Malden. 5 volumes. Chicago. Cited on page 58. 15. 90. Cited on pages xiii. J. 99. The ephebic inscriptions of the fourth century BC. Rolando. Cited on pages 75. Cited on page 12. Cited on page 93. 88. 29. “Autochthony and the Athenians. Studies in ancient Greek topography. W. The Athenian boule. S. The Greek state at war. The discovery of freedom in ancient Greece. Cited on page 92. (1969). D. (1995). Thucydides. A history of the classical Greek world. L.” Classical Philology 43: 73–92. and N.2. (1896). 79. Oxford. Cited on pages 14. (1993). Osborne (2003). Cited on pages 15. Cited on pages 3. O. J.42. Rhodes. V. Greek historical inscriptions 404–323 BC. Cambridge. von Reden. Menander Rhetor. 104. 63. Rhodes.” Classical Quarterly 37: 294–306. Review of Hess 1938. Russell. 106.134 Bibliography Pritchett. (1986).” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 90: 49–76. Cited on pages 5. Leiden. 83. The Peloponnesian War: book II . W. A. (1987). G. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Rusten. Cited on page 73. (1940). Cited on page xii. Oxford. Exchange in ancient Greece. Turin. K. (1948). (1965). Cited on page 77.

Recherches sur son rôle historique. Athens in the age of Alexander. Review of Blass 1869. 38. Cited on pages xiv. 70. 8. 116. Shilleto. Demosthenes and his time: a study in defeat. 115. The dated laws & decrees of “the Lykourgan era” 338–322 BC. 29.” Hermes 57: 450–464. Classical Review 9: 71–74. Ryder. Cited on pages xiv. 119. 101. Cited on pages xiv. 40. (1860). (1999). O. Review of Kenyon 1893 and Blass 1894. General peace and local independence in ancient Greece. Koine eirene. Cited on pages xiv. “Osservazioni su alcuni passi di Iperide. “ΥΠΕΡΕΙΔΟΥ ΕΠΙΤΑΦΙΟΣ. 68. Cited on pages 5. 50. E. The Academy 220–221. Göttingen. “Beiträge zur Weiderherstellung des HyperidesTextes. 116. (1972). H. 96. L’Amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes. Cited on page 85. Sauppe. I. Schroeder. Cited on pages xiv. 63. Sánchez. Oxford. R. 109. 46.” Maia 24: 149–160. J. De laudibus Athenarum a poetis tragicis et ab oratoribus epidicticis excultis. (2001). New Haven. Sandys. (1914). (1985). “Zum Epitaphios des Hypereides. 29. Cited on page 66. K. 98. 117. 29. Cited on pages xiv. “Zu Hyperides Epitaphios. The forensic stage: settling disputes in GraecoRoman new comedy. Cited on pages 5.” Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology 4: 318–323. Scafuro. des origines au IIe siècle de notre ère. 29. T. (1860). Diss. A. J. 93. (2000). Cambridge. (1922). (1997). 93. Stuttgart. (1965). Schenkl. Cited on page xiv. New York and Oxford.Bibliography 135 Rutherford. Cited on pages 12. 89.” Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien 28: 896–898. Schwenk. 75. E. Salvaneschi. R. Hyperides Grabrede. 117. Schäfer.” Philologus Supplementband 1: 1–60. T. 118. B. 42. 87. (1895).. Sealey. “Hyperides. 52. 44. E. The beginnings of rhetorical theory in classical Greece. 115–119. 116. 54. 36. “Theoria and Dar an: pilgrimage and vision in Greece and India. (1860). Cited on page 84. 82. Cited on pages 67. 48. . Cited on page 83. Chicago.” Classical Quarterly 50: 133–146. (1870). Cited on page 61. 102.” Philologus 15: 150–151. C. A. 59. Schiappa. (1877). (1993). 103. Historia Einzelschriften 148. P.

117. Meisenheim am Glan. Cited on page 83. Oxford. K. Epitaphios 20 (col. (1977). Theozotides and the Athenian orphans. 800–188 BC. Cited on pages xiv. Sourvinou-Inwood. (1858). Stroud. E. Heidelberg. G.. 63. T. Frost (eds. 91. 2 parts in 1. Soffel. W. Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 57. Stahl.” Hesperia 40: 280–301. Historia Einzelschriften 73. 8). Oxford. Coulson. “Bribery in Athenian politics. Shear. Cited on page 107. Gelehrte Anzeigen der K. Göttingen. Palagia. (1987). Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Review of Babington 1858. The archaeology of Athens and Attica under the democracy. Shapiro. 92. H. 42. D. Kritisch-historische Syntax des griechischen Verbums der klassischen Zeit. Salem. Review of Piccolomini 1882. L. Cited on pages xi. Cited on page 104. R. Princeton and Oxford. Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world. and S. (2000). Cited on pages xiv.” Greece & Rome 48: 53–66 and 154–172. L. (1930). “Hyperides. R. Radt (1971–). 109. Die Regeln Menanders für die Leichenrede. Cited on pages xiv. O. Staatsbegräbnis und Privatgrabmal im klassischen Athen. (1992). 5 vols. 99. Smyth. Stroud. Amphiktyonie und Symmachie: Formen zwischenstaatlicher Beziehungen im archaischen Griechenland. Stuttgart. Cited on page 76. “Greek inscriptions. Mass. Cited on pages 107. C. C. M. “Athens honors king Evagoras of Salamis. Tarrant. 80. Cited on page 10. 29. L. Cited on page 96. “Reading” Greek death to the end of the classical period. M. and D. 93–103. “The iconography of Athenian state burials in the classical period. Diss. Tausend. Cited on page 15. Cambridge. A. D. Philologische Rundschau 3. 84. Münster. The tyrant slayers: the heroic image in fifth century BC Athenian art and politics. 38. H. Cited on pages xi. (1971). R.).” in W. W. Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 48–50: 385–406. Cited on page 90. 78. A. 77. 72. 117. Stupperich. (1907).. Spengel. Oxford. . Sitzler. (1994). Talbert. 116. 118. M. Cited on pages xiv. (1883). Taylor.” Hesperia 48: 180–193. A history of Samos. and F. J. B. (1991). R. Taylor. 81. Greek grammar. (1920). J. J. Cited on pages 14. J.” Classical Review 44: 42. Monographs in classical studies. Cited on page xii. (1974).33: 1025–1030.136 Bibliography Shipley. (1995). Snell. Lewis (1979). Kannicht. D. (2001). 65. 15. 2d ed. R.

Thompson. S. Athenian democracy in transition: Attic letter-cutter of 340 to 290 BC. (1998). ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΟΥ ΛΟΓΓΙΝΟΥ ΤΑ ΣΩΖΟΜΕΝΑ. Toup. Thomas. Cited on page 91. 14. Usher. I. volume 1: Greek.” Hesperia 63: 241–244. G. Warner (1881). 117. Cited on pages xiii. Nordhausen. 54. M. Hyperidis orationis funebris quae supersunt. 2d ed. edited by P. Stuttgart and Leipzig. (1987). (1918). Cited on page xii. 31. xiv. and D. (1994). (2005). Tell. Parsons. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 107. Review of Jensen 1917. Cited on pages xiv. L. Tsitsiridis. Oxford. Cited on page 13. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Cited on pages 27. R. 29. (1999). 58. Oxford. Berlin. “Nea stili pesonton apo to Dimosion Sima. 97. 105.. Cited on pages 71. Text und Kommentar. Usener.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 154: 1–6. Einleitung. Ruhnken (1806). Berliner philologische Wochenschrift 38: 289–291. Cambridge. Dionysii Longini quae supersunt. 95. (1939). 79. S. Tracy. . W. 2 vols. Cited on pages 13. 119. Oxford. Cited on pages 16. Oral tradition and written record in classical Athens. 3d ed.” Classical Review 53: 56–57. “Hyperides and the cult of Hephaestion. “New fragments of Hyperides from the Archimedes Palimpsest. Catalogue of ancient manuscripts in the British Museum. Radermacher (1885–1929).” Archaiologikon Deltion 55: 87–112. (1861). 69. 93. (1980–1996). Greek papyri. Greek manuscripts of the ancient world. Turner. 69. P. Tradition and originality. E. J. (1989). revised ed. The grammar of Attic inscriptions. and G. T. Treves. Tsirigoti-Drakotou. Leipzig. (2000). Greek oratory. 117. (1995). Cited on page 28. Cited on page xii. F. Thalheim. Cited on pages xiv. Cited on pages 28. 119. Dionysii Halicarnasei quae exstant. Cited on pages 61. Threatte. N. (1980). S. Cited on page 15. London. J. Platons Menexenos. Cited on pages 67. University of London Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin supplements 46. and L. “IG II2 1195 and Agathe Tyche in Attica. London.Bibliography 137 Tchernetska. 29. E. V. 6 volumes. 73. H.

Heidelberger althistorische Beiträge und epigraphische Studien 25. H. Walbank. H. (1885). Cited on page 72. (1976).” Philologus 15: 151–152. Hypereides.138 Bibliography Veligianni-Terzi. 84. 117. New York and Oxford. (1995). Edited with prolegomena and commentary. 6. Cited on pages 80. 5 vols. 94. Wankel. Heidelberg. Works & Days. L. 31. Cited on page 107. Envy and the Greeks: a study of human behaviour. (1998). 92. Demosthenes. U. and O. 29.” Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik 77: 746. Whitehead. Walters. “Rhetoric as ritual: the semiotics of the Attic funeral oration. K. 3d ed. Cited on page 65. C. 3d ed. 10–12. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff. (1980). Oxford. Weil. 2 vols. (1989). (1858). 29. Volkmann. Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie. Cited on pages v. 95. Wertbegriffe in den attischen Ehrendekreten der Klassischen Zeit. C. 80. (1860). (1993).). Cited on page 13.” Hesperia 63: 233–239. (1994). Geschichte der Philologie. reprint of 1927 edition with postscript and indexes by Albert Henrichs. 24. 84. 89. Wattenbach. Cited on pages xiv. (2000). Cited on page 8. Cited on pages 96. Warminster. 106. 2d ed. 29. Hesiod. S. Hense (1884–1912). H. Cited on page 68. J. (1997). B. 4. Cited on page 64. 162–196. R. Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer in systematischer Übersicht.” in J. Walcot. M. Rede für Ktesiphon über den Kranz. The forensic speeches. Volckmar. P. 91. Cited on pages xiv. Versnel.. 3. Walker. Wachsmuth. Stuttgart and Leipzig. W. “Cardinal virtues: the language of public approbation in democratic Athens. Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium. 77. Berlin. “Zu Hyperides Grabrede. 96. Cited on pages 17. 106. “Zu Hypereides Epitaphios. Stuttgart. Cited on pages 75. Berlin. (1978). West.” Classica et Mediaevalia 44: 37–75. C. Oxford. “Quid Athenis et Hierosolymis? Bemerkungen über die Herkunft von Aspekten des ‘effective death’. Leiden. Cited on page 109. . R. 97. W. Scripturae Graecae specimina. (1897). Theseus and Athens. Cited on page 29. D. 65. M. 115. (1978). Leipzig. van Henten (ed.” Florilegium 2: 1–27. “A Lex Sacra of the state and of the deme Kollytos. H.

A. 9. and E. Herrmann. Crossroads of history: the age of Alexander. H. 11. K.). 95. 85. 72. I.Bibliography 139 Worthington. Cited on pages 8. . Yunis. Thucydides and the tradition of funeral speeches at Athens. and Lycurgus. (2000). 58. (1999). Greek orators 2. Worthington (ed. Oxford. I. J.” in I. Cited on pages 24. “Politics as literature: Demosthenes and the burden of the Athenian past. Cited on page 17. and C. Claremont. (2003b). 62. Cited on pages 16. The oratory of classical Greece 5. (1987). 89. Cited on pages 7. Monographs in classical studies. Boston. R.. 19. Cited on page 87. 30. “Demosthenes’ (in)activity during the reign of Alexander the Great. N. Cited on page 12. Cited on page 12. Ann Arbor. M. Andronikos.). (2001). Demosthenes: statesman and orator. Harris (2001). Vermeule (1980).). 307–330. (2000). (1981). “The authorship of the Demosthenic Epitaphios. Austin. 64. (1992). A historical commentary on Dinarchus: rhetoric and conspiracy in later fourth-century Athens. Dinarchus. Cited on page 94. 73. “The Harpalus affair and the Greek response to the Macedonian hegemony. Hyperides. E. “The earlier career of Leosthenes and IG II2 1631. Worthington. A. (2003a). 65–86. 103. Dinarchus and Hyperides. London and New York. Worthington (ed. Warminster. Yalouris.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 57: 139–144. New York. Rhomiopoulou. 84.” Museum Helveticum 60: 152–157. Cited on page 20. C. An exhibition. Cited on page 7. On the crown. Cooper. M. (1984). “Alexander’s destruction of Thebes. Ventures into Greek history..” in W.” Arion 8: 97–118. 18. Demosthenes. Ziolkowski. Heckel and L.” in I.” Historia 36: 489–491. Tritle (eds. “IG II2 370 and the date of the Athenian alliance with Aetolia. (1994). The search for Alexander. Cambridge. Cited on pages 3. 82. Cited on page 10. 90–113.

This page intentionally left blank .

96. 64. 63 Abydus. 25. 103 fertility. 64–68 funeral orations. 18. 91 Artemisium. 5–12. 65. 63. 106 Antipater. 76. 104. 21. 92 Aetolian League. 13 Amphictyony. 88 Aeschines. 66. 82. 90 ancestors. 19. 20. 16. 11 aret . 70. 16. 72. 59. 14–15 Attalus. 26. 4–6. 62. 94 andragathia. 82. 62. 60. 15–17 punishes injustice. 81. 93. 8. 17. 13. 60. 4. 70 Alexander. 70. 87 Alcmaeon. 21. 80 Antiphilus. 83. 78 Agis. 84. 106 Aristophanes. 93 Alexander of Epirus. 108 Arrian. 21. 13. 17. 106 Aeschylus. 8. 61 Alexander of Pherae. 13. 103 Andocides. 17. 83. 69. 3. 9. 73. 8. 24. 12. 80 Boeotia. 104. 74. 106 aristocratic values. 76–79. 4 Amyntas. 77. 23. 18 Athens defense of Greece. 82. 96. 74. 19. 10. 19. 61. 80 Aelius Aristides. 15. 96. 59 Amazons. 81. 80. 13 141 Areopagus. 7. 63. 78. 77. 6 autochthony. 75. 60. 81. 79. 68 Amorgus. 106 .General Index abstract nouns. 9. 14. 96 Aristotle. 81–83. 12. 79. 63. 88 Amphissa. 66. 79. 84 Amphipolis. 8. 72–73. 59. 67. 94 state burials. 79. 68–70 rule of law. 20–22. 93 Alcaeus. 87–91. 79.

81. 68 Eusebius. 108. 8. 77 Carystus. 88. 11. 101 encomia in prose. 109 Dinarchus. 10–12. 91 egk mion. 85. 12. 96 Diondas. 15. 61–62. 77. 95 freedom. 90 Conon. 89. 90 Chalcis. 4 Callias. 16. 10. 103–107. 85. 95 epieikeia. 92 epainos. 18. 89 Harpocration. 75 Ephebic oath. 14. 83 Hecataeus of Abdera. 77 Ceramicus. 58 Demosthenes. 94. 17–20. 14. 14. 69. 85–89. 90 Cimon. 17. 79 family members. 59. 65. 89 Democritus. 20. 73 equality. 81. 64. 95. 10–14. 72. 24. 77. 26. 77 Eumolpus. 6 Evagoras. 10. 22. 77. 71 genos. 40. 6–8. 87. 70. 58. 96 Cleitarchus. 3. 4–22. 19 Euthycrates. 4. 75 Gorgias. 20–22 Crannon.142 General Index Dionysius of Halicarnassus. 24. 4. 76 Byzantium. 11. 92–94. 15. 65. 80 Craterus. 94 Eresus. 62. 78 Q. 81. 84. 100. 17. 8 death. views of. 61. 5. 72–74. 95 Eurydice. 92. 80. 83–84 Demades. 73. 107 Galen. 83 Delphi. 18 . 95–97. 77. 68–70. 107 Ecbatana. 87 Hephaestion. 77 chryselephantine material. 16. 82. 66 Eponymous Heroes. 106 eph beia. 5–7. 62–65. 68. 81. 68–69 City Dionysia. 76. 97 Diodorus Siculus. 92. 15. 7. 89 Corinthian War. 19 Euripides. 5. 101. 81. 88 Euboea. 88. 94 Epicharmus. 11. 62 Callias of Chalcis. 59. 72. 22–24. 93. 64. 73. Curtius Rufus. 11. 64. 109 Harpalus. 78 Clement of Alexandria. 89 Exiles Decree. 68. 91 Diogenes Laertius. 83. 23. 109 Delian League. 44. 79–81. 72. 103–105. 68 d mosion s ma. 58. 78. 22. 17. 5. 89. 3. 93 Harmodius and Aristogiton. 67. 105 Chaeronea. 77. 90 Eurystheus. 80. 21. 70 Delos. 5–9. 14. 79–82. 17. 80. 11. 91 bribes. 66. 21.

13. 93 Lamia. 79. 59. 19 hybris. 54. 21–23. 21. 10. 65. 13. 90 hero cult. 10–13. 71. 96. 8. 7. 40. 59. 78 Homer. 101–109. 19. 99. 78–80 Lamian War. 89 Leonidas. 16 mercenaries. 69. 104. 7. 103 Nicanor. 92–93. 69. 26 style. 80. 61. 64. 17. 73. 58. 61–63. 12. 76–80. 23. 60. 9. 109 Lysicles. 58 koin eir n . 78. 13. 62. 69. 65. 106 Menander Rhetor. 103 Miltiades. 29–33. 22–23. 61. 8 megaloprepeia. 109 Issus. 71–72. 85. 104 Maximus.General Index Heracles and the Heraclidae. 82. 91. 66. 109 Marathon. 76. 70. 12. 86 Hyacinthidae. 106. 86–88 Hyperides. 66. 19. 62. 10 Oedipus. 86. 104–105. 12. 125 Hyperides’ Funeral Oration koin dialect. 23. 24 Lucian. 58. 8 Justinus. 80. 102–103 Illyria. 84. 81. 58. 63–64. 6. 76–84. see also rhetorical devices superiority of Lamian War soldiers. 3. 62–65. 108 Longinus. 108. 26. 23. 21. 101–105. 101. 24–26. 93–99. 60. 82. 84–86. 18. 23. 8. 54 Medea. 109 Lysias. 64. 59. 98. 101. 104 Mardonius. 77. 71. 86. 13. 20. xiv. 11. 25. 3. 98. 16. 109 Herodotus. 93–98. 79 logos. 22. 18. 89. 78. xiii. 5 Lycurgus. 58. 82. 108. 18. 80. 20–22. 6–14. 100. 15–17. 78 Leonnatus. 19. 69 Megalopolis. 109 Libanius. 101–102 structure. xi. 86. 73. 104 Hesiod. 23. 102. 22. 88. 89. 87. 103. 61. 83–85. 62 Macedon. 15. 87. 5. 68–70. 5. 82. 18. 10. 96. 78. 70. 59. 103. 94. 21–27. 58–60. 107. 24. 77. 86–89. 102 Hieronymus. 17. 103. 25. 4–7. 8. 90–91. 10 . 84 Leosthenes. 74. 93 Leocrates. 70. 103. 70–91. 63. 93 Locris. 23. 70. 69 Oeniadae. 4. 104 143 League of Corinth. 19. 81 Isocrates. 75. 17.

19.144 General Index rape. 12. 10. 84 paromoiosis. 104 Samian War. 82. 74. 4 P. 95. 3–7. 102. 19. 66. 17. 46. see sexual violence rhetorical devices alliteration. 64. 69 s phrosyn . 93 Sacred War. 26. 73. 26. 93–95 tricolon. 72. 91 Solon. 103. 92 polyptoton. 106–109 Plutarch. 7. 108 aporia. 102. 87. 68 . 23. 71. 98. 96 Sophocles. 83. 108 Rhodes. 76 Phocis. 61. 62 suppliants. 80. 96 parechesis. 84. 60 exclamations. 92. 96. Rutilius Lupus. 7 Philiscus. 23. 63. 66. 58–61. 78. 104. 90 Philippides. 24. 106 Phalaecus. 96. 100–104. 104 Plataea. 103 Simonides. 80. 25. 3. 10–15. 14. 54. 4. 79 Philemo. 25. 108 antithesis. 103 Pollux. 65–66. 80. 69. 85. 87. 91. 91. 103 hypophora. 95 praeteritio. 4–8. 87–88. 13. 24. 93. 79. 8. 108 hyperbole. 86. 109 Philip. 86. 90 Olympias. 95. 88. 6. 94. 87 Persian Wars. 107 Stratocles. 79. 108 simile. 59 Persia. 81. 16–23. 77. 20. 74 Stobaeus. 79. 103 Plato. 81. 73. 91. 78. 107 Pausanias. 102 Siwah. 93. 67–70. 72–74 paramythia. 91. 66 Olympia. 71. 86. 76. 69 orphans. 90 Peparethos. 10 sexual violence. 64 Pisistratids. 18. 80. 62 Prodicus. 75 repetition. 21. 16. 103 Samos. 70. 92. 25. 104. 78. 64. 70. 9. 104. 83–84 sacrifice. 95. 87–91 Philippeion. 90 Orestes. 105 homoioteleuton. 61 Philocrates. 97–99 juxtaposition. 54 Polyaenus. 91 parisosis. 12. 15–17. 52. 58. 77 Poseidon. 21. 103 metaphor. 17. 89 Potidaea. 119 Phrygians. 100 Pindar. 6. 7. 22. 71 chiasmus. 24. 81. 84. 69. 19. 79 Photius. 64. 105 Salamis. 4. 4. 72. 68. 62 Polybius. 95. 67. 61. 65. 108 paideia. 25. 65.

88. 109 tyranny. 73. 77–79. 103. 108. 104 Zeus. 94. 104 Theseus. 82. 67 Xerxes. 100. 106. 4. 101. 23. 92–97. 70. 87–91 . 77. 61 the ros. 68. 79. 24. 145 104. 16. 62. 102–104. 26. 58. 10. 22. 5. 81–83 Themistocles. 83. 60–64. 77–80 Thucydides. 21. 66. 7. 17–19. 68. 21. 13. 21. 15. 61. 83 Thermopylae. 60. 70. 102.General Index Taenarum. 23. 67. 21. 21. 12. 62 Theodectes. 104 underworld. 77 Thebes. 93. 8. 106–109 Trojan War. 17. 109 Xenophon. 13. 68–70 Thessaly. 69. 23. 98.

This page intentionally left blank .

104 δωροδοκεῖν. 71. 96 αὐτονομία. 101 νομίζειν. 97 ἄγαλμα. 26. 63. 94 ἐλευθερία. 108 ἄν. 26. 106 ἔπαινος. 74. 75. 93 κολάζειν. 68 κοινός. 97. 102. 74 δύναμις. 85 ἀνδραγαθία. 60. 85. 87 ἀπολαύειν. 94 λόγος. 73. 96 ἀρχηγός. 89. 63 εὔνοια. 75. 66 ἔρανος. 106 ἀρχή. 65. 60 ὁρισμός. 90 ἔκλειπτος. 97 ἀρετή. 109 αἰτία. 106 ἀνδρεία. 93 τὸ ἴσον. 81. 82 102 δεξιοῦσθαι. 81 ἐπιείκεια. 83 ἴδιος. 94 διεξελθεῖν. 90 ἀγήρατος. 95 ἡγεμών. 73 εὐεργετεῖν. 95 ἐφόδιον. 89. 80. 93 ἔνδοξος. 97. 59. 69 κολακεία. 94 ἀκούειν. 108 οὐθείς. 64. 76. 77 ἐγκώμιον. 101 ἀλλά. 104 ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί. 97 ἔργον. 71. 76 δικαιοσύνη.Index of Greek Words τὰ ἀγαθά. 100. 87 147 ἔλεγχος. 101. 60. 62. 102 ἀνέκλειπτος. 26 διαβολή. 93 ἀφανίζειν. 61. 101 εἰκών. 108 μεγαλοπρέπεια. 61 εὐγένεια. 26 ἡμίθεος. 84. 105 . 81. 66. 106 μνήμη. 102 θεωρός. 70 κακοί. 80.

61 πάρεδρος. 71 χρήσιμος. 86 ὕβρις. 103 τρόπος. 105 . 68 ὤ. 76. 71 προαίρεσις. 65–66. 74 τάξις. 86 ὑπολαμβάνειν. 5 προσκυνεῖν. 91 παραλείπειν. 64 φράζειν. 96 ταπεινοῦν. 84 συνελεῖν δ’ εἰπεῖν. 80 φθόνος. 62.148 Index of Greek Words πάλιν. 80 σπουδάζειν. 86–88 ὑπερηφανία. 88 σεμνύνειν. 86 σωφροσύνη. 99 στέφανος. 106 προβουλεύειν.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->