HELLENICA

OXYRHYNCHIA

edited with translation and commmtary by

P.R. McKechnie & S.J. Kern

) P.R. McKechnie & S.J. Kern 1988. All rights reserved. No part
rf this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
.ransmitted in any form by any means without the prior written
rermission of the publishers. The Greek text of the Cairo fragment
vas first published in the Studia Papyrologica of 1976 and is present
n this volume with the kind permission of the Pontifico Istituto CONTENTS
Siblico. The Greek text of the fragments in Florence and I-ondon is
rom V. Bartoletti's edition of 1959 and is reproduced here with the
<ind permission of BSB B.G. Teubner Verlagsgesellschaft(Iripzig). List of Maps 1V

Preface
il British Library cataloguingin publication Data
fellenica Oxyrhynchia. - (Classical texts). Introduction J

A. The Papyri 3
1. Greece - History - to 146 B.C.
B. Work on the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia 7
L McKechnie, P.R. IL Kern, S.J.
C. Background to the periods covered t6
III. Series
D. Tbe Hellenica Oxyrhynchia as literature 2l
938'.06 DF274

:SBN 0 85668 357 4 cloth Bibliography 23

SBN 0 85668 358 2 limp
The Hellenica Oxyrhynchia
]Iassical Texrs ISSN 0953-796'l Cairo Fragments 29
Florence Fragments J)
London Fragments 45
4th impression 1993
Commentarv 116
{
lover illustration shciws part of papyrus pSI 1304 and is reproduced
r/ith thb kind permission of the Istituto papirologico <<G. Vitelli >>,
llorence.

'rinted and published in England by:

\ris & Phillips Ltd, Teddington lfouse, Church Street, Warminster,
Vilfshire, BA12 8PQ, England.

LIST OF MAPSi
Ephesus
Notium, Ephesus and Clazomenae
Rhodes and the Carian and Lycian coast
The Sardis Campaign, 395 B.C.
Electoral divisions of Boeotia
Locris, Phocis and Boeotia
Agesilaust march inland
Preface
tlne Hellenica Oryrlrynchi.a is one of the most valuable discoveries
literary papyn ftom Egypr It deals with the history of Athens and
in the late ffth and early fourth centuries,a widely studiedperiod. It
:tdn te compared in point of imlnrtance for this period with Aristotle's
Aonstintion of the Athenl'ans,also discoveredin papynrs.
119 "+'j:\' This makes it surprising that no edition with fuIl English translation
t:tras
728 been published, and perhaps still more.surprising ttrat editions in Greek
:'have
been unavailable except in library collections for some years. We hope
739
itti,
with translation and,brief commentarywill meet a need of,
142 "ditioo
scholarsand studentsfor this important text
''
156 We have had zubstantial'help from several quafiers in preparing this
ibook Mo.t
substantially,we have had the use of earlier autlors' work - and
168
the ftequent referencesto I.A.F. Bnrce An Historical Contnentary.on the
776 Hellenica Oryrhynchia (Carnbridge, 1967), wlnch we have abbrcviated to
i'Bntce' tliroughout, wilt illustrate the value of this
systematiccommentary.
'We. have been glad to be able to reprint the texts
of V. Baroletti (from the
'Teubner texts series,I*ipzig,1959) and L. Koenen(from
Sndia Papyrologica
15 (lW6>, W.39-79); we use an abbreviatedapparatuscriticus.
A number of individuals and institutions have helped us.in a direct
way. Phoographs of papyn have been supplied by the British Library, the
Ashmolean Museum and the Istituto Papirologico "G. Vitelli" in the
Univenity of Florence.A grant towards the cost of materialswas madeby the
inrftish Academy. An unpublishedthesis was given by the University
of South
Africa. Prof. M.H. Crawford has commentedon a large part of the translation
and commentaryand discussedwith us a number of the issuesinvolved. Mrs
L.A. Botha zupplied infomtation by correspondence.Mr A.I. Wilson discussed
and advisedon severalpoints, and at an early stagein the project Prof 'D.M.
Lewis gave valuable guidance. The general editor of the Aris and Phillips
Classified Texts series, Prof. M.M. Willcock, gave encouragementand
valuable comment; and Mr P. Mudd and Mr J. Aris, both of Aris and Phillips,
have been thorougtrly helpful.
The Preface,Intrcduction and Commentarywere produced to camera-
ready standardsusing the laser-printing facility at the CambridgeUniversity
ComputerLaboratory. We wish to tttank Mrs A. Hanison and Ms L. Ball for
entering and editing text. Maps were preparedby Mrs J. L.ovell and Paul
McKechnie.
We regard ourselves as jointly responsiblefor the whole work, 'for
whose mistakes and imperfectionswe are to blame; but StephenKern drafted
most of the translation (not all) and Paul McKechnie most (but not all) of the
Introduction and Commentary.We have generallylatinized names.
We should explain that we use Bartoletti's numbering system for the
chapters,and have droppedthe use of Grenfell and Hunt's chapter numbers:
but we have nod feft it right to attempt to renumberthe whole thiff to aUow
for the Cairo papyrusbeing earlier in the work than the rest, so it is referred
to,simply by column andline.
*The inddx was preparedby Mr. M. Sharp.
Paul McKecbnie The Perse School
Stephen Kem March 1987
Introduction
A. The Papyri
Since the publication by B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt in Oryrhynchus
Papyri V (London, 1908) of the papyrus, found in 1906, which forms the
main part of the Hellenica Oryrlrynchia, two other papyri have been found
containing material which is generally agreedto form part of the work of the
author of the main fragment.The three fragmentsare all from different copies
of the same text. They are introduced here in the chronological order of the
narrativein them.
1. The Cairo FragmentPCairo 26 6 SR 3049
27 1
The most lecenfly discovered ftagment, kept at the Egyptian Museum
in Cairo, and first published by L. Koenen rn Sndia Papyrologica 1976, deals
with earlier events than the other two. It is also the oldest papyruq. It is a
rather dark coloured piece of papyrus in four parts, of which three join and
form a document measuring about 21 cm by l7 cm. The fourth fragment is
positioned at the bottom of column I by reference to the Demotic list of
expenditures on the verso of the roll. The letters are small and square (about
2 mm high, except phi, which tends to have a 4-5 mm dowu stroke), in
straight lines with quite wide gaps (3-4 cm) between. The columns are.about
7.5 cm wide and more than 19 cm high, with gaps of about 2 cm between
columns. Koenen (p. 55) dates the script to the late first century A.D.
 2. The Florence Fragment P.S.I. 1304
fragmentary indeed and consists mainly of two pieces, ttp first 3.5 cm by 17.1
The other relatively small papyrus, found at oxyrhynchus in 1934 and
cm and the other 8.2 cm by 7.8 cm; there are also eight small fragments:
kept at the Istituto Papirologico 'G. Vitelli' in the university of Florence, was between them, these account for columns 9 and 10. D is the best preserved
flrst published by v. Bartoleni tn papiri greci e latini 7949. It deals with and contains columns 1l to 21, which are continuous. There are two pieces,
events later than those of the cairo papyrus, but in the same year. There are the first 59.3 cm by 2O.4 cm, and the second 50.2 cm by 20.4 cm. There are
four fragments of papyms, mostly light in colour, which do not join. A small probably columns lost between each of sections A, B, C and D.
flfth fragment joins as part of fragment A. This papyrus has no writing on the In most of the London papyrus the letters are in a clear, slightly
verso. Fragment A is 73.7 cm by 15.5 cm; fragment B is 10.7 cm by 20.5 forward-sloping style. They are 2-3 mm high with 2-3 mm between lines.
cm; fragment C is 14.5 cm by 10.5 cm and fragment D is 2.4 cm by 3.2 cm.
Column 5 and column 6 lines I-26 are in a different hand, smaller and less
The letters are in a flowing, rather angular style, 2 to 4 mm high in lines less regular with smaller gaps between lines. Column 5 has 60 lines, while the
fiercely straight than those of the cairo papyrus with gaps between lines not
others have about 40. The columns are about 8.5 cm wide and vary in height
usually more than ?- mm. The columns are about 8.g cm wide and more than
between not much over 16 cm and just under 2O cm. The gaps between
16 cm high, wittr gaps of 1.7 cm to 2 cm in between. The script is dated to
columns in the work of the main scribe are 1.8 cm to 2 cm. Grenfell and
the late second century A.D. by Bartoletti (Bruce, p.2).
Hunt described the script as 'a transitional stage between the earlier specimens
of this style of the late first or early second century and the ordinary third
century tpe' (Oryrhynchus Papyri V, p. 111); intemal evidence in the land
3. The London Fragment P.Oxy. 842
survey on the recto places it before Commodus became emperor (A.D. 177).
The principal papyrus is a much more complex find than the other two.
The delta in the left hand margin at column 5 line 45 is probably a
Found in 1906, it.consisted at first of about 230 fragments, which worc pieced
stichometrical letter indicating the 400th line copied by a professional scribe.
together by Grenfetl and Hunt leaving only 57 fragments unplaced. Untike the
Evidently the govemment document on the recto was kept for reuse: E.G.
other fwo papyri, the Londoi. papyrus has the historical text written on the
Tumer describes how officials in Egypt used to keep papyrus to copy (or
verso, and the recto has a demotic land-survey register of the Arsinoite nome
have copied) texts that interested them (Greek Papyri (Oxford, 1968), p. 90).
G.oxy. 918). There are twenty-one columns altogether, divided into four
The high value and relative scarcity of papyrus, even in Egypt, meant that
groups of fragments A, B, C and D.
literary works were often copied on the backs of other documents.
A consists of two relatively large pieces of papyrus with two small
. fragments. Ttrle first, with columns 1 and 2, is 23 cm by 2l cm; the second,

- with columns 3 and 4, is 7 cm by 2l cm. B, columrs 5 to g, consists of a Factors Connecting the Fragments
' fragment 2l cm by 20.5 cm, and four
small fragments. Grenfeli and Hunt Since the three papyri are not paru of the same copy, the hypothesis
expresseddoubt whether columns 1-4 or 5-8 should be placed fint. c is very
that they belong together is founded on the connections between their
4
 contents. As the cairo and Florence fragments are both passages from a
Oryrhynchia are not sufficient to prevent their being identified as parts of the
narrative dealing with 409 B.c. and unrelated to Xenophon's Hellenica there
s:rme text (p. 31). But A. Andrewes' suggestion, ttrat ttre papyrus is part of a
is prima facie a plausible feel o the idea ttrat they might be from the same polemical pamptrlet responding to what Lysim says about Theramenes in the
book. The London fragment deals wittr events about fourteen years later but is
Eratosthenes speech, gives a more convincing explanation of the verbal
quite long and allows certain stylistic points and mannerisms to be noticed.
similarities ('Lysias and the Theramenes Papyrus' ZPE 6 (I97O), pp. 35-38:
The author of the London fragment writes straightforward fourth 'Zur Interpretation des Michigan-Papyrus iiber Theramenes'
cf. A. Heinrichs
century Greek prose. He uses parataxis, and specially the contrasting particles
ZPE 3 (1969),pp. 101-108).
men and,de, very often; he tends to avoid hiatus; and there are no sustained
As fragments of three copies of the Hellenica Oryrhynchia have been
speeches in the extant portion of the work. Koenen, p. 62, notes the use of
found already, it is possible that further portions may be discovered and
tunchanein plus participle ('happen ta be such-and-such') in all three texts
identified. There is enough material in the sections now available to give the
(twelve instances altogether), and comments on expressions on the pattem of
basis for comparison of an item like P.Mich. 5982 with the rest on more than
'the
harbour called coressus' (cairo papyms line 12), 'the place called
speculative grounds; and with three copies attested in Egypt, it is clear that in
Miletou Teichos' (22.3) ar;.d'the river [called] cau[nius]' (9.3). This second
the flrst and second centuries A.D. the Hellenica Oryrhynchia was not an
expression particularly is certainly used so often in chapters 21-22 of the
extreme literary rarity.
London papyrus as to qualify as a mannerism: 'the plain of Thebe and the
'one called
[Apia]' Ql.l):'Olympus called Mysian' and .the mercenaries B. Work on the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia
called Dercylidean' (21.2); and 'a place which is called Leonton cephalae'
The original publication of the London fragment of the Hellenica
(2r.s). Oyxrhynchia in 1908 was greeted with interest, and by 1910 a dozen or so
Some other texts have been mentioned in connection lyth ttre
articles on it, or aspectsof it, were published in joumals. In 1909, as well as
Hellenica oryrhynchia: for examplep.Mich. s982, a singlecolumn 6.3 crn by
Grenfell and Hunt's Oxford Classical Text (including the fragments of
18.4 cm found in the university of Michigan dig at Karanis in 1930 and
Theopompus and Cratippus), E. Meyer's TheopompsHellenilca appeared: the
dated to the second century A.D. (R. Merkelbachand H.c. youtie 'Ein
text republished with commentary reflecting the weight of Meyer's certainty
Michigan-Papyrusiiber Theramenes'reE Z (1968), pp. 161-169).Ir deals
on the question of authonhip.
with rheramenes' role in surrendernegotiationsbetweenAthens and Spartain Assigning an author to the work was ftom the beginning one of the
404 and has verbal similarities to Lysias 12 (Eratosthenes).69. M. Treu main aims scholars set themselves. This and the Boeotian Constitution
('Einwiindegegendie Demokrariein der Literaturdes5./4. Ih., studii clasice attracted the strongest curiosity at first. Some comparatively recent writers
12 (1970), pp. 17-31) suggeststhat the Lysias passageand the papyrus have tended to disparage the preoccupation with authonhip (see for instance
,aug"nt have a common source (pry. 2o-zl): he goes on to suggestthat those cited by Bruce at p. 22 n. 1). Given that eighty years' thought has failed
apparentstylistic differencesbetweenthe Michigan papyrus and the Hellentca to produce general agreement on the point it is understandable that there
6 ,7
should be a feeling that no argument on existing evidence is likely to
compensate for the lack of direct attestation. But there is a certain amount that
can be said about the author and the nature of his book.
In the first place, it is established with something near certainty that
the book was written as a continuation of Thucydides' history. There are
several direct indications of this: Thucydides is referred to by name,
apparently in a reference back to something in his work (2); the Hellenica
Oryrhynchia uses a division of the year into summer and winter (9) like the
system used by Thucydides; and the Cairo and Florence fragments deal with a
time shortly after the point at which Thucydides' account breaks off. This has
immediate consequences: first, that the author is not going to be Ephorus,
because Ephorus' work was not planned on nearly such a strict chronological
plan as Thucydides', nor related to it as a continuation (cf. G.L. Bar&r The
Historian Ephorus (London, 1935), pp. 17-48); second, that a contemporary
altemative to Xenophon's view of the narrative of this period is now at any
rate partly extant.
Here authorship begins to appear important, particularly since the
Hellenica Oryrhynchia is indirectly a main source for Diodorus Siculus,
whose first century'B.C. account of this period is fully extanr. This aicount
was based on Ephorus, who used the Hellenica Oryrhynchia as a source. The
commentary notes some of the points at which the Hellenica
Oryrhynchia/Diodorus tradition differs from Xenophon's accounts and those
of Plutarch, who read Xenophon. The question is typically which version to
regard as the fairer picture. Xenophon's biases are well known: he was a rich
Athenian soldier, pro-Spartan, anti-democratic. But he lived through the period
h'e wrote about, and had some personal contact wittr important people and
cvents. While the name and background of the writer who (unknowingly)
,Jstablishedthe other tradition remain unclear, and it is not known whether the
work was written a short or long time after the events it describes, evaluation
and comparison are hazardous.
The names of a good many history writers are known. It has been
argued, for instance by H. Bloch and G.E. Underhill, that the author of the
Hellenica Oryrhynchia is a person not now known by name. This argument is
plausible because it is possible to argue against any known name that may be
suggested, but it is increasingly unattractive now that as many as three
papyrus copies are attested: it must be likely that the history is the work of
someone whose name was mentioned by later writers.
Exploration has centred on the names of Theopompus and Cratippus.
'Theopompus (or Cratippus)
Grenfell and Hunt titled the London fragment
Hellenica' in the editio princeps. J.H. Lipsius in 1916 made a rejoinder
against E. Meyer's Theopomps Hellenika by republishing the text under the
Latin title Cratippi Hellenicorum fragmenta Oryrhynchia. These writers,
Ttreopompus and Cratippus, both wrote continuations of Thucydides' work.
Theopompus started at the battle of Cynossema Gll/l}) and went
down to the battle of Cnidus, 17 years later, in twelve books: ttris is noted by
Diodorus at the beginning and end of the period concemed (D.S. XIII.42.5
and )ilV.84.7).This timespan would include the extant fragments, placing the
Cairo and Florence fragments near the beginning of the work and the London
fragment close to the end. Comments by ancient literary critics on
Theopompus' work partly encourage identification with the author of the
Hellenica Oryrhynchia, but also raise difficulties. The comment in Athenaeus
that Theopompus was a lover of truth and spent a great deal of money on
accurate fact-finding to do with his history (FGrHist 115T28a: Athen. III.85A)
could square with the evidently serious nature of the Hellenica Oryrhynchia,
and Photius' observation that Theopompus spun out his historical works with
many digressions on all sorts of historical mafiers (FGrHist 115T31) could fit
in nicely with features like the digression on the Boeotian Constitution (16-
17).
 The stylistic difficulty is that in antiquity Theopompus waS apparently
regarded as a rhetorical historian of a rather passionatekind. Cicero talks of
his 'high and exalted sWIe' (Brutus 66) and Polybius quotes in Theopompus'
own words a vivid diatribe, against the courtiers of King Philip of Macedon
(VIII.9.6-13: FGrHist ll5F225c), which is a very carefully worked up
rhetorical attack. It has been pointed out, for instance by Bruce (p. 23), ttrat
there is nothing of this sort in the Hellenica Oryrhynchia. And Theopompus'
work included speeches (FGrHist 115F164 and F166), of which the extant
part of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia has none. Another strong argument against
Theopompus as author, in some writers' view, is provided by Porphyry's
statement in connection with the meeting of Agesilaus and Phamabazus that
Theopompus had changed much of what was in Xenophon's Hellenica, and
for the worse (FGrllist 1l5T2l: cf. Commentary below, p,178).
This is a crucial passageand it is important to understand it. Porphyry,
after noting that he has read the Hellenica respectively of both Theopompus
and Xenophon, and saying that Theopompus has changed them for the worse
(he is certainly writing about something he regards as plagiarism), gives a
'in particular ttre part about the meeting of Phamabazus
specific example:
with Agesilaus anlurged by Apollophanes of Cyzicus, and the conveisations
they both had with each other under truce, which Xenophon wrote of in Book
IV very pleasingly and suitably: putting this in Book XI of his Hellenica
Theopompus made it idle and stodgy and useless.' It seems possible (at least
to us) from'this account that what Porphyry was reading in Theopompus was
not an unsuccessful plagiaristic semi-rewrite, but an independent account
which lacked the features Porphyry liked in Xenophon (the rather lively
conversation which points up the charactersof the actors).
" The last important difficulty with Theopompus is chronological. He
was bom in 378/7 (FGrHist ll5T2: cf. Jacoby's commentary at FGrHist IID
p. 352). T\e Hellenica Oryrhynchla was apparently not written before 386 (cf.
10
Commentary below, p.154).The latest date when it could have been written is
less easy to determine - it was done before the Penian Empire fell (it refers
in the present tense to the King's way of running the Empire at 79.2) arrd it
says (again in the present tense) that the Phocians have some disputed land
near Mount Pamassus (18.3): this places its writing before the fall of Phocis
in 346, and it has been suggestedthat the author did not know of the outbreak
of the Sacred War in 356 (Lipsius made this his chief argument against
Theopompus' authorship). The second inference is not compelling: it would
still make sense to refer to the land as disputed during the decade of
intermittent warfare. But if Theopompus is to have written the Hellenica
Oryrhynchia he must have been young, and he is hardly likely to have
completed the twelve books of llj.s Hellenica before about 350. It would mean
that the Hellenics Oryrhynchia, though not produced much later than
Xenophon's Hellenica (which goes down to 362 and began to circulate not
much before 356), was produced forty to seventy years after the events it
describes, and by a writer who was not yet bom when those events happened.
But it has its attractions: Theopompus was still looking for his life's work
when he finished the Hellenica (whether or not it is the Hellenica
Oryrhynchia), and he tumed afterwards to writing his 58 books of Phitippica.
There is no evidence that he was ever a particularly slow composer.
Cratippus is another matter. Dionysius of Halicamassus describes him
(De Thucydide 16) as of the same generation as Thucydides. If he is the
author of the Hellenica Oryrhynchia he must have conceived the idea fairly
soon after Thucydides' death and finished it within not too many yean, before
he became too old. It would be in the strict sensecontemporary history. There
are two possible arguments against the supposition that Cratippus might be the
author.
The first is straightforward. As H. Bloch noted ('studies in Historical
Literature of the Fourth Century: I. The Hellenica of Oxyrhynchus and its
1l
 p' 313)' Dionysiusof
authorship'HSCPSupp.vol. I (1940),pp' 303-341at Cratippuswrote the Hellenica Oryrhynchia)that such an influentialpolitician

Halicamassusalsosays(DeThucydideg)thatnoauthorafterThucydides should not tum up in the Hellenica Oryrhynchia accountof the beginning of
year into summers and
used his system of dating by the division of the the Corinthian War (pp. 278-279).

winters'TheoxyrhynchusHistoriandoesusethissystem:soitispossibleto At the heart of Lehmarur'sargumentis the suggestionthat Cratippus'

did not know the
argue that Dionysius, who did know Cratippus' work' work involved a patriotic interpretation of Athenian politics after 404 as
rigour of this
Hellenicaoryrhynchia. But thereis somedangerttrat deductive involving struggle againstSparla,while other sourcesgive a picture of the

sortmaybemisplacedinthisinstance:theHellenicaoxyrhynchiamayhave restoreddemocracyas initially a loyal subjectally of Sparta(cf. Xen. Hett.

lI.2.2Oand4.38, andArist.Ath. Po|.39.2): utd his conclusion(p. 288) is that
slippedDionysius,mind,orhemaynothavemeanthisStatementtobeused
as an absolutelycategoricalproposition' cratippus should be put close to the authors of the Athenian-patriotic
ThesecondargumentagainstCratippusislesstangiblebutmore Anhidography- not only in terms of outlook but also in point of date (mid-
Halicamassuswas
radical.There has been doubt about whetherDionysiusof fourth century). He suggeststtrat this view does not bring Dionysius of
Thucydides'F'
right to say that Cratippuswas of the same generationas Halicamassus'evidenceon the dating of cratippus radically into question.
JacobythoughttheCratippusnoteintheDeThucydidewasamarginalnote This particular view of cratippus has the merit that it usesthe only extant
the text' He
made by a writer later than Dionysius and later inco4roratedin work known to have been influencedby cratippus: the extant fragmentsof
date'
took the view that cratippus was a writer probably of Hellenistic cratippus from other sourcesamount to very rittle (FGrHisr 64), so there is
perhapssecondcenturyB.C. not much scopefor makingnew points for or againstCratippus.
Thisisthesortofthingwhichisdifficulttoproveeitherway. Other names besidesTheopompusand Cratippus which have been
DiodorusmentionsorilyXenophonandTheopompusascontinuatorsof mentionedas possibleauthorsmust be consideredoutsiders.Androtion ttre
Thucydides(D'S.x[I.42'5andXIV.84'?),butDionysius,statementon Atthidographerwill not have used the dating formulae (years; summersand
C r a t i p p u s ' d a t e i s q u i t e s p e c i f i c a n d , a s P . P d d e c h o b s e r v e s ( . U n h i s t o r i e n winters) found in the Hellenica oryrhynchia: and he (contrary to Hellenica
would be
nomm6 Cratippe' REAgZ (1970), pp' 31-45), sfionger arguments Oryrhynchia17.5)picturesAnica as badly devastated in the ArchidamianWar
requiredprejectit.G.A.LehmarrrrexaminestheopeningofPlutarch'sDe (FGrHist 324F39).F. Jacoby'ssuggesuonwas Daimachusof plaraea.This is
a source'
Gloria Atheniensium,which explicitly acknowledgesCratippusas not a well-known name but the idea does not deservethe scom which has
'Who was "Kratippos"?'
andaimstocomparetheemphasesandprioritiessuggestedtherewiththoseof occasionallybeen poured on it (e.g. A.W. Gomme
.theHelleniCaoryrhynchia(,EinHistorikernamensKratippos'ZPE(|976), CQ n.s. 4 (1954), pp. 53-55). Porphyry does nore that Ephorusplagiarized
for instancethat Archinus, mentionedrn the De Daimachus(FGrHist 65Tla); and as a PlataeanDaimachuswould be quite
- pp. 265-288).He argues
- Gloria Atheniensium and apparently a top politician' of the well placed !o write both the detailed accountof the Boeotian constitution

Thrasybulus/Anytusrank, from 404 well into the period of the Corinthian and the commentson Athenianpolitics which featurein the oxyrhynchustext.
(if
war, clearly featuredappropriatelyin cratippus,and ttrat it is astonishing He also wrote a book on siegecraft(FGrHist 65T3 and 4), which might be
t2 1a
IJ
 Oryrhynchia have had to face is the question of what approach it is best to
evidenceofttlesortofinterestinstratagemswhichttreoxyrhynchusHistorian
take to those points where the two traditions differ. There are two lines which
had.TheextremedearthofinformationaboutDaimachusmakesitunlikely
can be taken.
thatanyonewillprovehedidnotwritel}teHellenicaoryrhynchiaexceptby
did' The first, and at least up to recent years the cofnmoner of ttre two, is
showing conclusively which of the other candidates
E' Ruschenbusch has the line of looking at the accounts where they differ (and more generally) and
So the question of authorship is not settled'
first, antipoliteuesthai ('to deciding which carries the more conviction. To twentieth century scholars it is
traced the uses of three words, of which the
new coinage of Theopompus impressive when an account has detail, does not seem overdone and avoids
campaign politically against [someone]') was a
excessive stress on the author's value-judgments. By contrast an account
(FGrHist115F261)andtheothers,meteorizeinmdbrabeuein,werefirstused
is used only five times involving a large number of asides on the lines of 'so this seems to me to
metaphorically in Theopompus' time. antipoliteuesthai
have been his [Agesilaus'] f,rst fine achievement' (Xen. Ages. 1.12, and there
or persons mentioned by
in Diodorus, and then in connection with events
is plenty more of this sort of thing) demands cautious handling in a much
Theopompus@.Ruschenbusch(.Theopompea:antipoliteuesthal,ZPE39
more obvious way. so for instance A. Andrewes comments on the battle of
cannot have formed
(1980), pp. 81-90). Ruschenbusch argues that tlre word
up elsewhere in Notium ('Notion and Cyzicus: the sources compared' JHS t\Z (1982), pp. 15-
part of Ephorus' normal vocabulary (or it would tum
Three of the five 25 atp.18) that'very considerable weight should be given to the fact that the
Diodorus) and so was probably copied from Theopompus'
oxyrhynchus Historian took the trouble to explain the commanders' intentions
usesofthewordareinconrrectionwittrtheyear40g.Thereisnowayof
... no later author known to us even considered the possibility that Antiochos
provingttratonlyonewritercouldhaveusedapalticulalword,butrecent
had an intelligible plan.' Similarly on the phrygian campaign C. Dugas (.La
workhastiltedtheapparentbalanceoflikelihoodinfavourofTheopompusas
Campagned'Ag6silas en Asie Mineure' BCH 34 (1910), pp. 58-95 at p. g5)
author: the question remains open, though'
says 'in this account the brevity and dryness of P [the oxyrhynchus Historian]
Thereis.somethingtobegainedfromthinkingfurtheronthebasisof
Xenophon and the seems to me closer to the truth than Xenophon's literary and dramatic
this likelihood. At issue is the relative reliability of
developments.' scholars who attach weight to this style of argument tend to
HellenicaOryrhynchia,and,wheretheHellenicaOryrhynchiaisinvolvedas
and Diodorus' find the Hellenica Oryrhynchia in general more convincing than Xenophon.
indirect source vfa Ephorus, the relative reliability of Xenophon
slightly later than The second and opposite line of approach is most explicitly explained
If' as seems likely, the Hellenica oryrhynchia, was written
on the by V.J. Gray ('Two different approachesto the banle of Sardis in 395 B.C.'
Xenophon's Hellenica then it has no claim to enhanced credibility
CSCA 12 (1979), pp. 183-200). She argues (p. 185) that the rype of derail in
basis of bei4g more contemporary with the events it records'
' places the oxyrhynchus account is a literary feature of the text akribeiq rather than
lt wiil be argued in the commentary ttlat the auttpr in several
his account likely enargeia (accuracy rather than clarity) - the second of which polybius regards
" shows a bias in favour of the rich: the grounds for thinking
strong. Next to as the mark of a historian familiar with his subject. on the subject of the
to be less biased than Xenophon's are noI a priori particularly
which writers on the Hellenica march to Sardis she comments 'it was sufficient for Xenophon's purpose to
authorship,. the key general O*tUrT
t5

ii
t:

T
a
E

L
 control of the Median, Lydian, Babylonian and Egyptian kingdoms in the
leave it at ttlat' If it was the
have it referred to as the shortest rourc and
third quarter of the sixth century; but Athens, whose importance in the defeat
then he would appear to be the
normal route and p still gave a full itinerary,
of the Penian invasion of Greece in 480fi9 had not been greater (or not
sortofhistorianwhobelieveddetailimportantforitsownsake.Thiswasnot
much) ttran that of Sparta, had taken after the invasion the decisive role in
Xenophon'sapproachtohistory''shenotesXenophon'sinterestinleadership
leading ttre fight against the Persians in the Aegean and Eastem
andshowshowthepointsheusesinhisaccountarechosenonthegrounds
Mediterranean. The Persians had to give up their hopes of controlling the
of relevance to that interest'
Aegean islands or the Asia Minor seaboard. Athens had uibute and alliance
version respectable
This approach makes sympathy for Xenophon's
from the states in this area; could coerce states who resisted this control: and
again.GrayreinforcesitinthecaseoftheSardismarchbydocumentingtlre
establistrcd settlements of Athenians (cleruchies) at key points. The Aegean
include stratagemsl and so casting some
Hellenica Oryrhynchia's tendency to basin, prosperous and militarily advanced (specially at sea) was organized as
suspicionontheaccountoftheSardisambush.Thisofcoursesuppliesis an empire. The rest of Greece was not.
thought stratagems (planning' intellect)
own counter-argument: if a writer In 431 the Spartans and their friends began a war against Athens. The
relevanttheymightgoin,astheevidencesforAgesilaus,personalqualities first ten years' fighting proved indecisive: success in taking 292 Spartans
(and the premiss on which the
went into Xenophon's work' The conclusion captive at Pylos in 425 gave Athens hostages against Sparta's annual
Commentaryinthiseditionisbased)isttratthereisnosubstltuteforclose invasions of Attica, and Brasidas' success in attracting defections from the
each point, and that in some cases
examination of an possible evidence at Athenian Empire in the Thracian area brought about a position whereby both
of conflict'
there is no resolution possible to poins sides more or less wanted the peace treaty of 421. But Sparta's atlies, Boeotia
and Corinth, were not content with the setflement, and Sparta's old enemy,
Argos, was ready to staft fighting after the expiry of a thirty-year treaty made
C. Background to the periods covered in 451. The war went on. In 415 the Athenians decided to send a large
expedition and attempt to conquer Sicily. This force was completely destroyed
1.409-407 in 413.
had becomea greatpower'
By.the middle of the fifth century Athens Money spent, fleet destroyed, the best of their men dead, the Athenians
the fore about 550' had taken
The Persians,who under Cyrus had come to managed to fight on almost another ten years. Thucydides, who lived through

1 o. 196. The stratagems

the whole twenty seven years of the war, did not manage to finish writing his
i. Antioch,rrs at Notium (HelL Oxy' a)
history of it. It breaks off in 411, and this is where Xenophon's Hellenica
2. Secret messages (5)
3. Sardis ambush (11) begins. The f,rst extant fragment of the Hellenica Oryrhynchla fits in soon
4. Conon's stratagem at Rhodes (15) .
Sry*? (18)
5. Theban strahgem to begin war against after this point. In this period the Spartans captured and fortified Decelea, a
(/u;
6. Conon's prevention of mututy at Knooes e:

straresem
rheremaybeanorher coI.II.
atcairoFragrnent _4
place in Atrica, and used it as a base for a more systematic programme of
|d ffitJl"ri$f:1#1l", !

16
t- t7
i:,
:1

ii.
&-
 were able to The two smaller fragments deal with events in this interlude of
terdtory' But the Athenians
damage to property in Athenian optimistic feelings at Athens. The attack on Ephesus was an oppornrnistic
a new
from the Black Sea area by building
secure their seabome food supply attempt in 409 at getting control of this important city. The skirmish in
which had
revolts against them in rhe Aegean
fleet. They $emmed the flow of Megarian territory, though on a small scale, shows the Athenians doing
begun after their Sicilian defeat' something not achieved since 425 - getting the better of a Spartan land force.
a weakened
to win the war, even against
The spartans were not likely And then in 4O7 the battle of Notium ended this run of success.Alcibiades'
from Athens
the Aegean allies (subject states)
Athens, except by separating fleet was defeated in battle during his own absence:his credibility at Athens
arrangement with
of food imports to Athens' An
and cutting off the supply was gone for ever - so badly so that when in 405, happening to be in the
Athens' old
needed: tlre persian govemment,
the persians was what Sparta neighbourhood, he gave some obviously sensible advice to the Athenian
for Amorges'
by Athenian support n 414
enemy, had been antagonized admirals at Aegospotami, it was rejected out of hand and the battle lost. With
either side'
not to give decisive support to
revolt. Despite Ncibiades' advice it went the last hope of saving the corn supply and avoiding surrender.
join wittr Spana against Athens'
the Persians agreed to
come to
and talented Athenian who had
Alcibiades was a flamboyant 2.396-394
that
of ttre peace treaty of 421' Suspicion
political prominence as an opponent At the surrender Athers was forced to demolish part (not all) of the
before the
the democratic constitution arose
he was ploning to oveflhrow long walls between Piraeus and Athens, and to maintain not more than a
415 while he was
was recalled to Athens in
Sicilian expedition, and he dozen triremes. The Spartansencouragedthe formation of the oligarchy of the
servingasageneralinSicily;hemadehimselfanexileratherthanfacetrial. Thirty, as elsewhere they set up the dekarchies (ten-man juntas); but in 403
his)
(the idea of occupying Decelea was
After spending some time in Sparta democracy was re-established in Athens. The Spartans, and in particular
in
to Tissaphemes' the Persian commander
he had been able to attach himself Lysander, the leading figure in their military successesfrom 410 onwards,
WestemAsiaMihor.In4lltheAthenianforcesbasedinSamos.votedto aimed to take Athens' place as hegemonists in the Aegean.
he
'retum' to ttrem with immuniry from prosecudon and
allow him to to Had it not been for Cyrus the Younger, it is possible that this need not
he would bring the Persian support
propised that by using his influence have led to conflict with Persia so soon. He, the son of the King, had arrived
Attrens instead of SParta' to take command in Westem Asia Minor in 407 and had become a friend of
with
somedmes half-hearted' remained
In fact Persian support' though Lysander. When a brother of his came to the throne as Artaxerxes II in 401,
forces in the
40T Alcibiades led the Athenian
Sparta: but between 4ll and he raised an army with substantial if discreet Spartan support and marched to
outstanding among which was the
Aegean in a string of successfitl operations' Babylon to take the kingship for himself. He was killed in battle and his army
.
destructionoftheSpartanfleetatthebattleofCyzicusin4l0'afterwhichthe defeated. Tissaphemes, who had remained loyal to the govemment, retumed
refused' but welcomed
to make peace' The Athenians
, Spartans offered to take charge and began military operations against the Greek cities in the
with great enthusiasm'
Alcibiades back to Atlrens itself west in 4@. They appealedto the Sparransto protect them; and Thibron was

18 19
 sent to Asia with an army. central to the history of the whole period: the end of the Peloponnesian war,

In the London fragment of the Hellenicq. oryrhynchia events are which established Sparta as rhe dominant Greek State, simply added to the

moving along two more or less separatelines cf development. The Persians complexity of these relations, putting on Sparta some of the interests and

are never quite out of the picture. An alliance of Greek states against the constraints to which Athens had formerly been subject.

Spartansis forming, centring on Boeotia. Dissatisfied in 4M that the Spartans

chose not to destroy Athens totally, Boeotia is now govemed by people who
want combined action, involving a combination of states, to restrict Sparta's D. The Hellenica Oryrhynchia as literature

power. When Thucydides began his history, history-writing was still fairly

The author deals at length with the constinrtion and political situation close to being a new craft. In the middle of the fifth cennrry Herodotus had
produced his history: his predecessorsin writing narrative prose were lesser
in Boeotia; he also documents how the Athenians were divided on the
question of how far it was safe to go in taking action against Sparta. For them authors. A generation later Thucydides found himself a subject as good as

there was Conon in the background: after serving at Aegospotami he had Herodotus had had. He brought important new ideas into history writing: he

understandably (in view of the execution in 406 of the Arginusae generals) divided up his material by summers and winters; many of the things he wrote

avoided Athens and gone to Cyprus. By now he was in charge of the fleet about he had first hand knowledge of; and his analysis and interpretation of

which had been built by the Persians in Phoenicia to challenge Spartan naval events was an advance on anything which had gone before.

dominance in the Aegean. So the Persians' Strengthat sea is increasing while Thucydides did not live to complete his work. By the time of his

in Greece the Spartans are having plans laid against them. death, after the end of the war, his work was at a stage to be attractive to a

These are the broad outlines. There is incident. Agesilaus, the King of continuator. continuing the work of a writer of rhucydides' stature would

Sparta, campaigns'in Asia with some success: but soon after the time dealt give a certain inputed auttrority to the new book rhere are two continuations

with in the fragments he has to be recalled to fight off the threat to Sparta of Thucydides extant: the Hellenica Oryrhynchia and Xenophon's Hellenica.

itself.. Conon manoeuvres to Seea friendly govenrment installed, to finance his ln fus Hellenlca Xenophon covered the years from 411 to 362. But
fleet, to quell a mutiny: but soon afterwards he is to defeat the Spartans in a intemal evidence suggests that the work may have been produced by stages:
great sea battle, and give the Athenians the protection they need to rebuild the 411 ta 4M section shows a more annalistic treafinent, and does not

their long walls. include the personal comments which Xenophon incorporates in later parts of

Severd times in the London fragment ttrc author refers back to events the work. In later parts he refers to sacrifices made before and after bafle, but
.
in the Decelean war or even earlier. The issues at stake then have not ! in the 4lI-4M paft he uses a more Thucydidean approach and does not
L include them. The implication of this is that Xenophon probably began his
. changed. They concem politics and power. Democracy and oligarchy are often t
t work on the Hellenica with the primary intention of completing Thucydides'
under consideration, if allusively; and the nature of relations between Persia, ,t:
$ history: at that point he probably did not have a plan in mind which was
centratly govemed, and the states or groupings of states of the Greeks, is t
t
20 i 2l
t

I
$
$
anyttring like the overall shape of the Hellenica as it fumed out.
Indeed much of ttre history recorded in fhe later parts of the Hellenica
had probably not yet happened when Xenophon began to write his
continuation of Thucydides. To some extent this is Speculation,since there are
no precise intemal or extemal dating points for the early part of the Hellenica.
tsut G.E. Underhill argues convincingly that the comment on the expulsion of
'and even now they form
the Thirty and their adherentsfrom Eleusis in 401/0,
a single state and the people keeps its oaths' (HelI. 11.4.43), would have no
real meaning if written more than ten or fifteen years after the event. This
would suggest that Xenophon had the idea of continuing Thucydides, and
began work on the project, at some time before about 390.
Ii|ris Hellenica is a very considerable literary achievement. It is easy to
read, lively and interesting. Xenophon was a popular writer in antiquity'
counted as one of ttre first rate historians by Polybius, in the second century
B.C., and Dionysius of Halicamassus, in the first c€ntury B.C. Anian' the
historian of Alexander, modelled himself on Xenophon. Plutarch used
Xenophon extensively as a source for his biographies, and in the second
century A.D. Lucian of Samosata classed him with Herodotus and
Thucydides. He was a perennial success with the reading public in antiquity
and became recognised as a major author of the period of the definitive
achievementsof Attic literature.
'
All this is, necessarily, by way of contrast with the author of the
Hellenica Oryrhynchia. Whoever he was, he was certainly, by the canons of
the classicism of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, a minor author. This
does not necessarily mean that now he should be considered (insofar as his
work is extant) a less good historian than Xenophon; but clearly he proved a
less interesting writer from the point of view of the literary entertainment
'readers
were looking for in the ancient world.
Commentators since the flrst edition have been remarking on the
22
author's rather dry style, and restricted vocabulary. These can produce a
monotonous effect from time to time, and are coupled with a feature of style,
pretty clearly deliberate, which to the modem reader at least can seem
tiresome. This is the use of digression. In the first two chapters of the London
fragment there are three successive digressions from the main narrative - the
first describing Athenian acts of hostility to Sparta before the sending of
Demaenetus, the second commenting on Epicrates' and Cephalus' policy of
opposition to Sparta (and wider anti-Spartanism) and the third dealing briefly
with the case of Timolaus' change of sides to become an enemy of Sparta at
Corinth. There are several other places in this comparatively short text where
the technique of digression is the resource the author uses for interpreting or
giving background to his narrative-
It needs to be stressed that this style of building up a narrative is
capable of proving interesting. It Cepends very largely on what a reader
expects or is used to. In the Hellenica Oryrhynchrra digressions are an
analytical tool which has some flexibility. It is not known for certain whether
the author made any use of speechesas analysis of events; only that there are
none in the extant portions, unless a call to arms - nine words - is counted.
But if a writer, even a continuator of Thucydides, felt the composition of
appropriate speeches was a forrn of literary anifice which ought to be dropped
in favour of an altemative, he could hardly be blamed for it.
Most of the characteristic techniques of the Hellenica Oryrftynchia
author are similarly capable, at least in thgory, of being effective. But their
repeated use, and the restricted range of style and vocabulary in the text, can
be rather dutl. Take for instance the style of sentence construction which
involves beginning with the subject, using a participle with relative effect,
then coming to the main clause. It occurs three times in Chapter 12 with not
many sentencesin between to give variety: "Agesilaus, staying there ... gave
back the dead ...'; 'Tissaphemes,having leamt ... followed ...' and 'Agesilaus,
going through the plain... led the army...' BIBLIOGRAPHY
But the effort made in tJneHellenica Oryrhynciia to produce a lively,
This bibliography lists editions first and then other books and
or at least pleasing, narrative, goes quite deep. Throughout the text there is a articles. Where a publication is referred to by an abbreviation in the
low incidence of hiatus. This is particularly noticeable in the single brief bit Introduction or Commentary, this is given with the entry. AII the
books and articles listed have been used in preparing this book, but
of direct speech in ttre extant palt of the text; a literal translation would be: those not actually referred to in the Introduction or Commentary are
marked with an asterisk (*).
"'let's go, O men" he said "of the city ..."' - and this brings out how the verb
of speaking is delayed to an odd place because putting it in tlp normal 1. Editions (in order of publication)
slightly delayed position ("'let's go", he said "O men ..."') would create a 'Theopompus (or Cratippus), Hellenica'
B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt
hiatus. Other characteristic features are the use of paratixis (the particles men in Oxyrhynchas Papyri V (London, 1908), pp.110-242.
and de) - which is a very common feature in all Greek, but is still so Hellenica Oxyrhynchia cum Theopompi et Cratippi
fragmentis (Oxford, 1909).
prominent here that the reader is struck with how often it is used, and the use E. Meyer Theopomps Hellenika (Halle, 1909).
of litotes (e.g. I.1 'not with the agrcement of the people'...). J.H. Lipsius
.
Cratippi Hellenic.orum fragmenta Oxyrhynchia (Kleine
Texte fiir Vorlesungen und Ubungen, 138, Bonn, 1916).
Ephorus, the contemporary of Theopompus, used earlier writers' books F. Jacoby Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker IIA pp.17-35
to compose a history on a large scale, arranged by subjects rather than on a and IIC pp.6-20.
E. Kalinka Hellenika Oxyrhynchia (l*ipzig, 7927).
strict chronological framework. His books were widely read, and their V. Bartoletti 'Nuovi frammenti delle
"Elleniche di Ossirinco"' Papiri
popularity had something to do with the eventual supersession of earlier greci e latini 13.1.(1949), pp.61-81
M. Gigante Le Elleniche di Ossirinco (Rome, 1949).
authors in the taste of the reading public. .He began the tradition of P. Maas 'Nova Hellenicorum Oxyrhynchiorum Fragmenta' CQ 44
compendious history whose doyen later on was Livy. Xenophon's works, and ( 1 9 s 0 ) ,p p . S - 1 1 .
V. Bartoletti Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (Leipzig, 1959).
unsurprisingly those of Herodotus and Thucydides, suwived this compdtition; L. Koenen 'Papyrology in the Federal Republic of Germany and
and although his works were still there in Egypt in the early centuries A.D. Fieldwork of the International Photographic Archive in Cairo'
Studia Papyrologica 1,5 (1976), pp.39-79 at pp.55-67 and
the Hellenica Oryrhynchia author did not survive !o be copied in the medieval 69-76.
G.A. Lehmann 'Ein neues fragment der Hell. Oxy.: einige
tradition. It is, at least in the literary entertahment dimension, a second rate
Bemerkungenzu P. Cairo (temp. in v.no.) 2616127 11.-35' ZPE 26
work. The ttiings which make it a precious text to the modem student are its ( L 9 ' 1 7 ) ,p p . 1 8 1- 7 9 1 a t p p . 1 8 9 - 1 9 0 .
provision of an alternative to Xenophon's story and certain parts of its
analysis. 2. Other Books and Articles

S. Accame 'Trasibulo e i nuovi frammenti delle Elleniche di Ossirinco'

R i v . F i l . n . s . 2 8 ( 1 9 5 0 ) ,p p . 3 0 - 4 9 .
J.K. Anderson 'The Battle of Sardis in 3 9 5 B . C . ' C S C A 7 ( L 9 7 4 ) ,
pp.27-53.

24 25
A. Andrewes 'Lysias and the Theramenes Papyrus' ZPE 6 (1970)' F r a g m e n t a rC . Q . n . s . l ( 1 9 5 1 ) , p . 1 5 5 .
G. Glotz 'L€ conseil f6d6rale des B6otiens'BCH 32 (1908),
p p . 3 5- 3 8 .
'Notion and Cvzicus: the sources compared' IHS 102 pp.271-278.
(1982), pp.15-2s. A.W. Gomme 'Who was "Kratippos"?' CQ n.s.4 (1954), pp.53-55.
V.J. Gray 'Two different approaches to the battle of Sardis in 395
G.L. Barber The Historian Ephorus (I-ondon, 1935).
G. Barbieri Conone (Rome, 1955)' B . C . ' C S C A L 2 { 7 9 7 9 ) ,p p . 1 8 3 - 2 0 0 .
K.J. Beloch Die Bevblkerung der griechisch romischen welt P. Harding 'The Theramenes Myth' Phoenix 28 (7974), pp. 101-111.
W.G. Hardy 'The Hellenica Oxyrhynchia and the Devastation of
(Leipzig,1886).
H. Bloch ,studies in Historical Literature of the Fourth Century: I. Attica' C.Phil. 27 (1926), pp.346-355.
The Hellenica of Oxyrhynchus and its authorshipr HSCP supp'vol' B.V. Head British Museum Coin Catalogue (Ionia) (I-ondon, 1892).
A. Heinrichs 'Zur Interpretation des Michigan Papyrus i.iber
I ( 1 9 4 0 ) ,p p . 3 0 3 - 3 4 1 .
G. Bonamente Studio sulle Elleniche di Ossirinco (Perugia' 7973)' Theramenes'ZPE 3 (1969), pp.101-108.
R.J. Bonner 'The Boeotian Federal Constitution'C.Phil.5 (1910)' F. Jacoby Di,e Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin, 1923-)
-417.
pp.405 (= FGrHist).
'The Four Senates of the Boeotians' C.PhiI. 10 (1915), *- - - - - 'The Authorship of the Hellenica of Oxyrhynchus' CQ 44
pp.381-385. ( 1 9 s 0 ) ,p p . 1- 1 1 .
L.A. Botha The Hellenica Oxyrhynchia and the Asiatic Campaign of V. Kahrstedt Forschungen zur Geschichte des ausgehenden filnften
Agesilaus (M.A. the6is, University of South Africa, 1980). und des vierten Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1910).
'Die Seeschlacht bei Notion (407 -6)' J. Keil 'Zur Topographie und Geschichte von E p h e s o s ' I O A I 2 7 - 2 2
*H.R. Breitenbach Hist.20
(197r), pp.752-1.71. (1922-24), pp.96-712.
I.A.F. Bruce rlnternal Politics and the Outbreak of the Corinthian J. Kirchner Prosopographia Attica I-II (Berlin 1901 and 1903)
War' Emerita 28 (L960), PP.75-86' (= Kirchner, PA).
'Chios and P.S.L 1304' Phoenix 18 (1964), pp'272-282. L. Koenen 'Papyrology in the Federal Republic of Germany and
An Historical Commentary on the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia Fieldwork of the International Photographic Archive in Cairo'
(Cambridge, 1967) (= Bruce). Studia Papyrologica 15 (7976), pp.39-79.
* J . Buckler 'The Re-establishment of the Boeotarchia (378 B.C.)' J.A.O. Larsen 'The Boeotian Confederacy and Fifth-Century
AIAH 4 (7979), pp.50-64. Oligarchic Theory' TAPA 86 (1955), pp.40-50.
G . Busolt 'Der ,neue Historiker und Xenophon' Hermes 43 (1908), Representative Government in Greek and Rornan History
pp.255-285 (Berkeley and I-os Angeles, 1955).
'Zur GlaubwiirdigkeitTheopomps' Hermes 45 (1910),pp. G.A. Lehmann 'Ein Historiker namens Kratippos' ZPE 23 (L976),
*-----
220-249. pp.265-288.
*L. Ganfora Tucidide Continuato (Padua, 1970). 'Ein neues Fragment der Hell. Oxy.: einige Bemerkungen
P. Cloch€ 'La politique thdbaine de 404 d 396 av. J'-C' REG 31 z! P. Cairo (temp.inv.no.) 26/6/2711-35' ZPE 26 (1977),
( 1 9 1 8 )',p p . 3 1 5 - 3 4 8 . p p . 1 8 1- 1 9 1 .
'Spartas Arche und die Vorphase des Korinthischen Krieges
Thbbes de B|otie (Namur, 1952).
*F. Cornelius 'Die Seeschlachtbei Sardes' KIio 26 (1933), pp' 29-37. in den Hellenica Oxyrhynchia' I: ZPE 28 (1,978),pp.109-128; II:
N.H. Demand Thebes in the Fifth Century B.C. (London' 1982). zPE 30 (1978), p p . 7 3 - 9 3 .
C. Dugas 'La: Campagne d'Ag6silas en Asie Mineure' BCH 34 (1910)' D.M. Lewis Sparta and Persia (Leiden, 1.977).
pp.58-95. E.C. Marchant and G.E. Underhill Xenophon: HeIIenica (Oxford,
*c.J. Dull 'Thucydides 1.713 and the leadership of Orchomenus' 19 0 6 ) .
R. Merkelbach and H.C. Youtie 'Ein Michigan-Papyrus uber
C.Phil. 72 (7977), pp.305-314.
* A . Fuks 'Note on the Nova Hellenicorum Oxyrhynchiorum ' PE 2 (1968),pp.161-169.
T h e r a m e n e sZ

26 27
*D. Nellen 'Zur Darstellung der Schlacht bei Sardes in der Quellen'
Anc.Soc.3 (1972), pp.45-54.
P. P6dech 'Un historien nomm€ Cratippe, REA 92 (1970), pp.31-45.
C. Prdaux rev. of V. Bartoletti rNuovi frammenti delle Elleniche di
Ossirinco' Clvonique d'bgypte 48 (7g4gr, pp.348-350.
*W.K. Prentice 'Thucydides and Cratippus' C.Phil. 22 OnT,
pp.399-408.
W.K. Pritchett Tlp Greek State at War l, II and III (Berkeley and CAIRO.
Los Angeles,1974-) (=Pritchett I, II, Itr).
*lil. Rhys Roberts 'Theopompus in the Greek Literary Critics' CR 22 FRAGMENTS
(1908), pp.778-722.
E. Ruschenbusch 'Theopompea: antipoliteuesthairZPE 39 (1980),
pp.81-90.
*G. de Sanctis 'I.a battaglia di Notion' Riv.Fil. 59 (1931),
pp.222-239.
H. Swoboda 'Studien zrr Verfassung Boeotiens' Klio 10 (1910),
pp.315-334.
R.J.A. Talbert Atlas of Classical History (I-ondon and Sydney, 1985).
M. Treu 'Einwdnde gegen die Demokratie in der Literatur des 5./4.
Jh.' Studii Clasice 72 (7970r, pp.77-31.
G.E. Underhill see E.C. Marchant.
'Theopompus (or Cratippus), Hellbnica' IHS 28 (1908),
pp.277-90.
J. Wackernagel 'Orthographica und Verwandtesr PWlologus 86 (1930),
pp.l33-744
H. Wankel rSprachliche Bemerkungen zu dem neuen Fragment der
llsllsnika Oxyrhynchiat ZPE 29 (7978), pp.54-56. r
H.D. Westlake 'Rirral Traditions on a Rhodian Stasisr MII 40 (1983),
pp.239-25o.
*U. Wilcken 'Ein Theopompfragment in der neuen Hellenikat Hermes
' 43 (1908), pp.475-477.
H.C. Youte see R. Merkelbach.

28
 Col. I Cairo Fragments - Translation
FR.1
t&q] ... to attack the walls ...
1 t.l.q npoogofteTv tois 19[i1eor
... most of the triremes ...
ra)v tPr f Pc{v tdsl
inla"ei o"gg 'Erpeloiss."" ...
iaij 6t6poq t6nov tic ""'] th" _others, a place in Ephesian territory ...
6b n&ocv tiv '] ,.. having disembarked the whole force
ie"lprtbalo"s
'eni- 'Eq6oror [6r)va4nv""' tdrv Aa-]
S i..ti,' tiq n6l"e<rq. [sd [But] the Ephesians with the Spartans ... them ...
toysl ... they did not see those of the Athenians with pasion
[*ila"rpovt<,rv arbtoTg ' t ""' 'A0nvai<rv (since they were still a long way away and marching by
lrri]v too Ilcoiovog tdlv
PgTd
ydp 6vteq Ert noppc'l rcri a longer route than the others), but seeing those with
[or:xi 6drb'ov Etuxov Thrasyllus, who had only just arrived, they met them in
[pua]rpot6pcrv o6bv t6v it6p<'lv FaDrCovteg
10 i"."ta 6b nepi tbv Op&o'uMov op6rvt[e]q gggt battle at the harbour called Coressus, trlving as allies
ncxp6vtcxq dmfivrgY cmtolq npbq those who had helped [them previously] arrd the most
i.ttft" reliable ...
hrp6vcx tbv Kopnoobv ralot3plevov
itOiv
iexblyf gs o'ut-rp&xouq to0q TP - p9n0noavtcq
r o i n r o t o tgto[u]9 , . ,'?'s" ...living [in the Kil]bi[an] plain. After this Thrasyllus,
i....t..U.t...t.to" the general of the Athenians, as he reached the city,
1s i....i.... vntovnx[']'t"-"t'let'1"'tl
rctorroovtgv'- Ut::lg pi left some of his soldiers attacking, but led others to the
i...t'ptt.t. ne6ion 'A0nvcric'rv hill, which is high and hard to climb.
i"*rtf " Opcoul"l"oq pbY o teov [In this way]
"'"q tnv n6l'r[v, €]"rln6v some were turned to retreat inside, and some oubidi,
i""p"lllygi, ire npbs
pbv tdlv npooBcr- the city. The leaders of the Ephesians were Timarchus
[trv]ge' -otpctrortGtv and Possicrates...
20 [r,O1"ioe, toUq 6b npbq tbv l"6tpov d']"'
i...ignu." 5e uvnl"bq xcxi 6ooBgt6q iotrv'
i.rrt'U" 0rtbq €otpcntar, rd 6'6fc'r Tig"arn6-
[ 'e,,lel. t6v 6"Eqeoir,lv ttyoovto fqi Ti*gp-
[xo]E fgi Ilooorrp&tnq oill
2s [..... .]..9ell

30 31
 ... to strong places
FR.1+3
Col. tr ... and fled to tUe-'...
he led the army forward. Since the enemy were
retrea'ng, the Athenians followed them eagerly with the
intention s; taking the city by force. But-Timarchus
and Possicrates, the leaders of the Ephesians, called up
their own hoplites. When the Athenians approached ...
40
... the light-armed soldiers going back from-trackless ...
rcat6qet{yov tbl made an assault with the ...
fmo{or]po0vttlv ... but they, because of the ... of the ...
'A0nvaTor ... but after a short time ...
TPo-
45 r[cl]t& rpdtoc
'
JtucxoXoq 9[i] fci
'Etpeoic,w fryg[u.6v]es
... being surprisedthey fell apart ...
... towards the ships in disorder ...
50 ...1 ... they fled. As many of them as retreated by the
.lt road to the sea, marched safely. But of those going by
ple- the upper road ... were destroyed...

rcrta-]
ra

eis ee-l
ino-l
60 df,06v-l

50 dv 66[ov Wankel.

32 JJ
 Col. Itr
......t
t.....1
1 . . . . . 1 . t . 10.1en p q
[ . . . . . ] g vc r c o p ....[
-
[otpcr]trr.ltdoY naol '€1c
ilnb t4ol ryo&t[t""' FI.ORENCE
i...i"i''
i>uolcKolioae[...] ?t[ FRAGMENTS
i. "]ns'oaronve[t]dsl'[
rd.l.e"v..gtY.[
"idnltrpxor{.1'...[
75 irce T v o s. . . t . 1..t
I
o i s ''Ee6oou
"rni 6 i p a t r d r.[td rl c
d n r p e { v g y tqe {." " ""r tv- l
Duve0erv[.]n.[
y6proe rai[
r(r..... .[
[..]ovgl

34
 Florence Fragments - Translation
A
lau'st' I.1 ... four hundred ... they were driven headlong, but the
I - ] . c t L r q l .1 . . . Spartans retreated in order to the hills. But the
t..l' " ' l ' l " f r c t p a * l o l u o L " " Ar7 soldiers of the Athenians did not pursue these men, but
; " " nqorgolnoalf .- ilt"q4ftno.y1': oi',6i), leading to the
. . . . .11' followed the Megarians ... on the road ...
lfd1. lj"''::."'
,ua,,piS,,?; '1. t'ln)evrbqoolt
9v) city they struck down a great number of them. After
otp.aitColralr' 7'i9t1\\aO'' this, having ravaged the land and having given back,
d.€etl LzqoEtouEi69i)\?' o:6i under a truce, the dead of the Megarians and of the
6i Mevage)iot(t)
;;k r';"i,isr^q pb oi'x'I6|o$av,Iroltois Spartans (about twenty of these died), they set up a
il[zi ' ' ' ''1 66o6rfrE npdErilt'
ll)naxol.ouLoluteE pan"uow oEr,i't' -' trophy. Having done these things they withdrew back
nlil"w Eegouone)*"'i" l&pfi pcdvnotr'uJa' home.
ued 6i r a6r a * "' "";; ;i ;i'' " - pat'-x ai t of EvexgoitEI 1 0
74)rb
l*' i" oii i Ati,did e' on "''' v' i'yi q]u,vf x oli r oiE'
t 6-t "
r.2 But the Athenians, having found out about the battle,
" "" " were angry with the generals and took a hostile attitude,
ii noia,o oaa
o,iiEd'e,a'i'rq)q
"h\";;;;;i.i,,uoii"ldntilai'ovl6irc)iratvritEelixoon'l supposing that they had undertaken the risk rashly and
i:#::; ;;\Hri";; I;;;" ntg^i:it- played dice with the whole of the city at stake. But
nd.]rn,Bn' oixou. 2 ASrlvaior'6i ml20l8)op'evot'
",o they were glad at the victory, for as it happened they
rbqy[lovro xai Xateft(oc had never before beaten the Spartans [since the affair]
1ri,yn, ao-tePi1' lor)garrlyote' c dt'il' t oI at
;i;: ;Y",)nLMp'pdi"' ii l'fq on"'d'E ai)l'ro1i at Pylos ...

dv xtu[lrt)vovxai *q!ft;;;t' nepi 61qEtiE ndl'eaE' Eni

;u';; \' it,lyn-""'ffiy"flJ:,* iltfisvTaaov vdp
italno" nqdrepov xlelxqoutfffiee
I Aafxedatp,ovliat)v
. t'lqit'''''l'''' t'
i: . i:."i|,ii ris,to]v.
:........1or1[-
gratla'
6[ rpcrnnogv Bartoletti, exempli
5 Ibrpo't9]q Castiglioni' ^ . r-. Maas'
rtr^^a
8 rtt.ot.at..'tdJroPbv no\olv
exemPligratia.
-10 iav lu.ulP6[ov e]rdt6v' t6lv
cr]v6v[ t t'lv slut ov
Itarce aixi iJov i tlv uno[ 0
cig rtl"' Bartoletti in ed' I' as
girtotetti comments, there, is too little
6]'
room on the PaPYrus for [ov

3',7
36
 desunt versus nonnulli
. . . .]. . t---llo[.. . -]r.t.le.[---]l,r: [..
n -1"[.
. .forsarc[-- -]1" . [. Aqfipata [- - -]l5oar ldfr"y-
nalf- - -)lroxl.ly iircrl- - -l I oaidfi]r fiwou t- - -l I
rwl. . . .lLs,eiql-- -ll. .t. .le[.]r, xaL-- -l I 'oi6luirlfrE
rfiel---l I zu[.' . . .]'qr[---] l ro. t- - -l | - -l I
"rr:t-
yot[.)ta. [---]l'uzoc nQosl---Jlzqd-- -1 ! . . t- - -
--] |prto.t.lgt--I |*"osxarqwol---lI eoe
Bntf,lrr16et:p,[
ututxa l- - -flra xatd dy [ - -]lorE 6 lle\dpslroe
- - -l I dpX|,tnqyqly- - -l l'uail{' oi'rweE i.[- - - do']l
twretan', orld[-- - gllXouplas dne.l- - -flrrE 6ce_oa-
oaa w[- =-) l' Ailqvaian'r]rl-' -)l'omq yeaopanl---
ne)lgi fie xai Oouxla\i\rls- - -l I lle{pt'l6aalrql-- -) |
p,evtdtu c[- - -]lzes e68iuqt- - -] l"Torq? yal- - -li
t....-.),{-
B
III -)qaI t- - -l p,efi'fipillso,- - -1. . arr.pelL- - -)
u [ - -
. . . . o . 1 1 - ] . v f i p , i p ai [v- - - ] s t v r d v I L - - s p o E
- )
- - -fgto prla | [- - --lcol di ngooI to[- - -:l
xa).oullp,ea
€qy€pl[-- -]ti'ltll- - -)1.il"eo l[- - -]oo8. . . I t---l
yn6LI'u[- - ,-]oaoaE I t- - -ls tsfipocI t- - - d)gelopolp,
-.'- -l paottrtllas- - -fqqenol'o[- - -]i wjoo;g l[- - -]e
Exetll-- -l tais Kluall(op,etots - - -f .rtoos I t- - -1. .
[.]sql"[---]lt- --foou l[---]E d'st'ora
lt---l .-revl
- -l{e,e . i [-
- -l prt nQoqll-
[- - -]prE raulsol-
32 nepi ( IIe) 8gprtd Bartoletti in ed.I.

38
 desunt versus saltem III IV.1 ... as s/ascustomary... to send ships ... them, having
manned the ten swiftest-sailing triremes, he ordered the
IV -furtoull. r)5)onepgiilflet . . .-llqoE others to lie in wait until those of the enemy should
....] nLr lgaoaE have moved far off from the land, but he himself sailed
Ex nl| fp n e t aula6E l a fu dE,
5n)'eo6oaE, ahead to Ephesus about to bring them over to
q!fiqeq 66ua d.e &prcra)| rde p'iv 6rl6paE himself.
Bx6],.euoe vauf).oyeia\aE dv dndgalont ai rdtu nole-
p,lfau ndqpa rie yfiE, lafudE,di z- . nQof*il"etnQdE IY.2 But Lysander,when he sawthem, immediately launched
riv "Egeoloa . . . .] npooa(6p,eaoE afudle- thirteen ships; which also formerly they sank
xart]l'0dcbe ctlu)roiq qeiE aql6E ei&ie 50 Antiochus and they destroyed those of the
2 tl{oaadqoe di
Athenians who were sailing together turned back in
xaileil"xer ai.)lnegxali) ngdrepova6lr . . . . . . . .]l
fright and fled, since they did not intend to give battle
xara6{lofaor. tdv Alu)tlioyor' . . .. . . . . .]lc,re xai 6m- in force: but Lysander took all his triremes and pursued
gfleQoulotv.... . fiia) p,iv ilOtlvaiavplof4S6weE the enemy.
oi oupn).6ovflr\eqe88/aE npdgr&lpna)'n' fuqdnqooaoi)
nqovoa$p,evot rld va)up,alyfioat xazd.xgd)roE Adoav\goE IV.3 But the remaining Athenians, seeing that the Spartans
had sailed away and were pursuing their force of ten
6i dlu]d"uBlrbundoaErdE qt)figery Bdiaxe roitE lnfil'e-
ships, embarked quickly, hurrying to come to the aid of
pllouE.3 oi di ),omoi)rdtu Afir1aafun, xlafrddalres dntlQ' their own ships. But as the enemies were already
xhagl | zorctE Aaxe\or,povllou)exai iltcitxovto.E tiv] approaching quickly they could not get the triremes
cfirfuv lexaaatalul BviBlrloav p,ia e686rr,E,)Bnery|peaot manned before they arrived; but having advanced a little
way from the harbour of the Colophonians with most of
Bor1flfioatmliE atSrdtvl,auoht'f tnexetp,*vav6i rCovtv- 60 them, the ones sailing in the vanguard but they in
lowtav ijdrl 6l;i,)ray*ow ndoag piu oEx i[66uauro ?g5] | confusion without fighting and they retreated from
rstptilper.Eipilfiaat,nl.1)rlpdtlodvre;,raiE 6i] n).etoia6
aErdtv p,ft)xgdalix rc6 fup,(]uoEdvay9h,reE rc16 t)Cov
l K d " o g c o v i a v ) dpq, i un p o i l . e u l o d ) oid. .q. . . . . . . . . , ]
dErci mpayS|vreq d.p,alyei . . . .-l | 30xai 6t'
.6i
44 vnot6 Maas: the very sharply angled
bottom left corner of a letter is
preserved: Ilel,onov]vrlorc{v ? Bartoletti.
50 rcri 66ru M.FI. Crarvford.
54 to{q crqoppdq feeuyov Bartoletti in
ed. I.
57 rcrtr66v[teq rcpcto0vtcq ii6n] Maas.
60 tdig nponA.euo&ocrg Maas, to{Iq
8rolxop6vcrrq Wade-Gery in a letter to
A1
Bartbletti. +t

65 &1rcr[ivcrupdxnosv Bartoletti in ed. I.

 draEtay tineytbprfoaa roiE nd,e)p,i.uE. Aa.xe\a4rdwot the enemy in confusion. But the Spartans seeing the
6i xalt td6arcE g etify ovlr a]e rcd E A8 qv alifou E tn elt,e78 6a- Athenians fleeing pressed on and destroyed or captured
twenty-two ships, and blockaded the rest in Notium.
reE lt)agfletgouotv adrdv xai tr"ulp,BdvoDor:t' eifxoot,xai 6$o
aa6E, ztie di )"omdlE eie rd Nhtlsso]r, xarixAetoar,. IV.4 So they, having carried out thesethings, set up a trophy
4 txetvot, p,ia olfu \nnpafd)pevot ra6ra xai rponaioa 70 by the harbour of the city and turned back. The
orliloavreE] ngdE tQ ltp,ivt tiTE ndtr"eatseiE lrd.pnafllv Athenians' for the time being kept quiet, but when
dnfil$oa' ?lSqaator,6i nagaulrtxa p,ial rjfo)t:giaa elgov, went past ... for three days having looked after ...
ncpelSouo.Col.udi . . . . . .l | {orotdtv fip,egdv I'epanet|-
V.1 ... the exiles ...
o l a t r e q , . .. . . l l
V.2 For with him in the temple of Demeter and
C Persephone, which is [near?] the walls ... through the ...
had happened the wood but he stood about at
v-lq[..]qpii. . . . 11 t . . . . 1 . .eirb' night and kept quiet for some time having hidden
&et ydlg . . . 6fpil"oytaE e886atE.L. . himself in the wood. But when the Athenian was
standing at his post he, letting down a rope over the
roits I pa7,ld6as.2 naQ'on"Q p,ia yldp . . . .),yfy I ul"Q wall, would make a sign that he had taken over the
velri2tQ rfiE A.fip,r1rqloExoi KdfeqE,0[E | . . . .fve rcis guard duty, either by calling or by throwing a stone,
rci6eolBort.1... . .]o, 6d d1a[. . . .], |yeyduet 4 Wln, and the Myndian coming out of the wood first of all
ut|x)yo:g l6fi xanlod Ef7dup,i iu (d.Ltr"oa) would take and keep any note that might' have been let
7p6uovlfi oolyiaa do*n by him; then he would himself attach another note
elyeulByxp)trpoE a6rdveiEri1lr,)81r1v' he 6i llolxora-
to the rope.
oftalrl gu)nE6 ASitluaio)c, Sxeh,og piu xafleiE6nip rc6
rcQlouEfondgrovEno[r1oeu l&fi u. oqp,etov tultf napifi-)
tr"t7t fifu' glu).ax4y,4 gfleyEdp,etolE 4 l"tlfi(p Bd"cin,6
6i Mdv6(t)oEBEe]'.l$dn t)x rfiE,I r'E[.qsngdrot'p,iuei u,
ygapp,arcToaei,r1nag' Bxeh,orsxabetpdaoa[ze] 6ldpBa-
fue)axai 6rcgt31"aule]u,
l{nulla di ngoloffiVeuadrds da
EreqoulrQ ondprq yfpapplallreioa

' 8 079 Itflg =Xi]ou Bartoletti suggests.

( d^Lov) Bartoletti.
"85 Muv6( r) og Maas, Mrlv8oq De
Sanctis in a letter to Bartoletti, t-LuvDbe
Bartoletti in ed. I.
87 dh64-Lpsv'&v M.H. Crawford.
88 [tQ et6p9 y] rctl,. Vogliano. 43
 desunt versus nonnulli

? -ll y l- - -liroa:*l- - -)l d rci2sloE

- - )lyou e(l-
- -!lurr.L-- -l I vnll"- - -ll.et..le.t-- -f t,vwo,yf-so
- -JlEolrt.l-
- -ll'o""qo[-
- )18",qt-- -]lt.l..t-
IONDON
FRAGMENTS
D
'o^'#3r"ttj#',,
ii,,t
)auouf ]&.'o.[
rerfaypiul
f.ow1o.l

92 Th" papyrusshows lfOiUnEt * the

omega written above, apparently as a
correction.

44
 desunt versus nonnulli
3 -ll y l- - -lizolsaf- - -]l d rctplos- - -1lyor:etl-
- -lluro.t- - -l I v"tr!"- - Jl.st..ls.t-- -f lTavoryf-
- -)leilq.l-- -ll'o"'ea[-- -)lt* qt-- -]lt.l..t-
IONDON
FRAGMENTS
D
s dXlty(pnXsilws
)egowl tfoig inlnefioc
)E *l- lt o.[
rctfayp.6uf
l.orrlo.l

.92 The papynrs shovn I|OIIIAEI - the

omega written above, apparently as a
correction.

44
 A London Fragments - Translation
'Yn6 6i rcile ai,rodE i(6n1"euoe_rpr'-
\/I(D 76p6uofuE, VI.1 About the same time a trireme sailed out from Athens
fienEl'Ailfiar1ilealoi p,edrfie rc6]6rip,ou yvcitp'r1e
,4lr)l Qi without the agreement of the people. In charge of it
lr1pafufer]oq 6 x,tllg]t'oE qiq4e xowaodp,eaole Br) | was Demaenetus who had, it is said, made a secret
agreement with the Council concerning this affair, since
dnop(q)r1rq)rlfr pfouLfi, tbE)"6yeraq negi ro6 nQdy- some of the citizens supported him. With them he
lp,arcEfl51net6filo]uulio]rrloav aitQ rl'foa)no)"wdtt''oiv went down to Piraeus, launched a ship from the
[rt6] | xampdE eiElferyatd' xui xaSlilLxtSoae]va6v Ex shipsheds, and, putting to sea, was on his way to
oo(xuv dvay6lt evloE En)'er, ngdfeK 6ulav)a- 2 8o-
tli,lt, r,eo., Conon.
pt5pou6i p,erd radra yefaop,hou,)xai {dtvf A$quataa
V1.2 Thereupon there was a great outcry. Those of the
dyaaaxroitwalv Sootyt'titfqry,lotx)o.i vo-lr0glewee fioaa
Athenians who were well-born and cultivated were
xai leyl6watv 6zt xam)Bal)to6)ot rip n6)'w d-gy"oarcg 10
indignant, saying that they would destroy the city by
no).ilp,ou nQdE Aaxfedatp,ovli]ouE,xaranl'aytvree oi beginning a war with the Spartans. The Councillors
Blouleami d)a SfiguBovotsufiyayourdu 6fip'ot' oi&iv- were alarmed by the outcry and called the people
nqoollr)oLotj p,etot p,ercoyr7x6v at, r o6 nqdyp,aroE. outelrl together, making out that they had had no share in the
luildroE 6i I rsro6 il'r1$ouEdr'rcrdpepottdtt' ASrlvatav affair. When the people were assembled, the party of
the Athenians supporting Thrasybulus, Aesimus and
oirc neqi@qaotjBouLov xai Atory,oaxo'i "Avurovi,6i.6aoxot'
Anytus got up and instructed them that they risked great
rtdtotE 6rt piyaa (da)aryoiatat xtvduvovei p,fi rtlv nil'w danger unless they absolved the city from responsibility.
dnohiooaot rfiE ahtaE. 3 tdtt di AS\vaiata oi pt'it'
in(t)etxeiExai rdEoitolaEd16otteg tl20orcqyovrd.noqoata, VI.3 Those of the Athenianswho were moderatesand men of
oi 6i nd,).oitzai \rlp,ortxoitdre p,iapoBrliltareginelo$fihaa property were happy with the existing situation; but the
majority of the populace, although they were then in a
roiE oul.tpou)"etiouot', xai ni,p'tpaateEnqdEMil"uaa rdtt 20
state of fear and, persuaded by those who advised them,
6.pp,oori1a da AiybrlE einolr,)6nae 6t3l.t'famt try,ageio$at sent envoys to Milon, the harmost of Aegina, to tell
du Arlpatlveftou,,bEoW p,e)rdrfie ndAeae ratra | 2ine- him how he could punish Demaenetus who had not
noqxdra' llpfnqooS[er di of1pidv &navra rdu Tgdaoa acted with the city,s approval, had previously almost the
hdpfar)r ov rld npdyfp,ata xai nolt],.d.rfo)tq Aaxedct'1to- whole time stirred up matters and acted much in
opposition to the Spartans.
10 rcrtcrlBdLo0lor Rijhl; 6rcrlpdho0lot
' Grenfell and Hunt.
1,6 papyrus reads si Potrvtsr :

above.

46 41
 VII.1 For they were in the habit of sending weapons and
lubtfe dladnqa)rzor- VII (Il) dninepnldv 7t'i1-ydo
-Snt'(" crews to the ships under Cqnon, and those with
uioiilnrl)geofuE Eni:rd'E va6grdEp,eritro6 Kl6va- crates and Hagnias and Telesegorus had been sent as
voE,Bwdp,)qilr1oaa 6i np\oplea]e| 3oo5s paoil"da4v1"" oi' envoys to the King. Pharax, the former nauarch,
negi..)..xqfur1 re xai Ay'uiuuxai Td'elorly)opou' oBq arrested them and sent them to the Spartans who put
dn{oreAe them to death.
*oi oil"l""BA, @dqa| 6 ngdreqovvatSop2loE
ngdEtoiE Ala)xedary,ovtouE, of 6' ld]ndxreu'avciro6E' 30 VII.2 They took this position of opposition to Sparta under
2 fitaau,otrri 6i ta6ra ncgofovdwav rdv nepi dv I the encouragement of those supporting Epicrates and
ss'EnLxQdr\xai Kiga)'ov' o6tot ydq Etulot' BntSup'o$weE Cephalus, for these men were keen to involve the city
lBxnd.ip,Ca'oat) pdlrcra rilu n6)tw, xai totjula Eoyou(zi1tt in war, and had this intention not when they had
xai ["]d tt dealings with Timocrates and took the gold but already a
-ypuo{oao6x SnetdilTr'p'oxpdtet,6rc)tl748r1oat'
yurbp,qu)
long time before that. And yet some say that the
npdregov' xattot' rwie
'i6ylo"otilil.opor', dL'}i ii6r1 noli) money from him was the cause of concerted action by
airm yev6o8)atrd. nog' E'xelvouTEjpara. tlo.6 these people and some of the Boeotians and some in
ofpio4aot, rodtous xoi) rciE h' Borcoroigrtai nbE i,j' the other cities previously mentioned. But they do not
,lqliE d.JJ.sLE nd]reotrfatq nqoeqrlp,lvctltE,f l6oitx ei6.6req' know that all had long been ill-disposed towards the
fuf nldow aitoig ou)r,epepi1xet nd'],ar,\uop'evdtE Spartans, looking out for a way that they might make
-tyet'a the cities adopt a war policy. For the Argives and the
Aaxe6ary,oy'ilo]uq xai oxoneia 6na4 Bxnil"epa- +o
lngdq Boeotians hated the Spartans because they treated as
xai
ioirot) rldE nil,efiE. i.p,toout'ydp of p,it' Apyelot friends their enemies among the citizens; and those who
Bogwrloi. . . .)rarag roiE Aaxeoar'ptovtoag 6tt toiE Eaatt-
Toairolg typCovro g0to6, [o]i d' [i]r
Itloi)s fiiv nolndv I
25 papyrus shows ]ttev, but the e seems
to have been corrected to an o.
27 in6p]p0loav: only the upper part of the
down-stroke of the rp is visible;
inope]O0nocrv Boissevain.
n{...could also be y[...
28 papyrus shows ]torpcrtl or ]rd.]rpatn
Au]toxpdtl or' In]noxp&tr1 Grenfell
and Hunt.
.JJ ta0trlv 6o1ov < rnv yv6pnv) Fuhr;
tcr0tnv ( tiv yv6:U,nv) 6oXov
Grenfell and Hunt.
35 cx}.}.' ii6n Wilcken; crl,A"grgi Grenfell
and Hunt.
42 Borot[iov npoo]t( *OIot Castiglioni. 49
 m.igASipaq Bntilup,oflweEdnd")'d€at rlob)EAflqvafi)oaE hated them in Athens were the people who desired to
turn the Athenians from tranquillity and peace and lead
tfiE flooytae xoi u1E eiqriarlsxo.i, lnq)ooyayeh' Eni d them towards war and a vigorous policy, so that it
nol.ey,eiuxai nlil.fungafy)poae'ia,I'a'aEroiEBx tdtt' xotttdtv might be possible for them to obtain money from the
15of,p,etaorfioar'
fi 4pr1p,ari(eolflfau3 tdv 6i Kogn'il[av I public treasury.
d ngdlyp)ara (,qto6areE oi trtiad)")"ot (noganLrlotaE)rciE
Aqyeloq xai rcle Rotatole druyor'\uopfelvd;E\mxe(peuot VII.3 Of the Corinthians who wished to bring about a change
n QdEr oilEA axedoqtoaIouE,T | ry,6)],'ao E6] p'6voE ai r oiE6d.' 50 of policy, most, ( like> the Argives and Boeotians,
were hostile towards the Spartans, but Timolaus alone
goQoEyeyovrbei}lfiooaEyxltrlp'fucnv Evexa,nqdtepovdEora
was opposed to them on private grounds. Formerly he
5rotasip,euloEf| 20 xai pd.)u,ota ).axaui(an,, tiE EEeorLNGra' had been very well-disposed and an outstanding
pafleiaix rdty xard.rdv ndlep,oaoulp,fBdarcvtdv Aexfe-) pro-Spartan, as can be learnt from the events of the
J.etx6r'.4 ixeivoE yd.g&i p,ia newavataudTov tndpSqoe Decelean War.
rda vfioaa ru'dE rdv in' ASqvaiol4Eoisodta,fui 6i p'erd
66o {pltfipan eiEAp'gind"ta | 25xaranl'e6oaexai nap'
VII.4 For having obtaineal a force of five ships he ravaged
some of the islands on the side of the Athenians. And
ilx et]vaa h i gag r 6rlr afgaE ou1'mLr1 ga odtrtleaoE h' [xr1foe having sailed to Amphipolis with two triremes and
Zi(pry)oa aaup,lay)dv rdv oqaqydu lt6a Aflntua)iav, manned from there another four in addition, he defeated
dtonegetp4xld n]ou xui nqdregor', xlai Wt4geyg ds, Simichus, the Athenian general, in a sea-fight, as I
nd"ep,lifaE ltlua]BeaoiloaE ndwe xlai nts 6'EEn)eptpau have said earlier, and he captured five enemy triremes
z p d l x o v r ) a 'I s o p , e d6 i r a 6 t a [ . , . . . . . . ] d T a at p t - and thirty vessels which they had sent. Afterwards with
... triremes he sailed to Thasos and caused it to revolt
4pltiEl xaran|retioaseiE@dolo)t,dn\'orrloe rat3rqa {a)a from the Athenians.
ASrlaaiav.5. oi ltiv o6v h, taig nd)"eot'ratEngoeryr1p,6ue6
6td.rafrta nofui pd),hoafi 6t'd@oqadBalov xai rd Tpuo[ov VII.5 So it was for these reasonsmuch more than on account
inqgp,|vot1trce|wrtlo)qy t, ssroie Aaxe\ar,pot'iwE. of Pharnabazus and the gold that those in
aforementioned cities had been incited to hate the
-:- Spartans.
48 nqpcrftl"noioq Grenfell and Hunt.
58 pairyrus shows ol1tov. It( prX) ov
Fuhr.
60 [ct vo$g <iq dn] Boissevain. lct
' n2roTc c dn] Grenfell and Hunt.
67 [tdq 6v6era] Wilamowitz; [tsq
" (c)n&ooel Lipsius, Castiglioni.

l'

50 51
 Vm 0II)'O di Mfi,atv6 AiylilvqEdppoodfie
,f rite VIII.I Milon the harmost of Aegina, on hearing the news
"4e
iixouoe td. nagd. rdv ASqvlaf]av, oup,il.rlgatodp,euoE tpr.- from the Athenians, quickly manned a trireme and
pursued Demaenetus. He at this time was near
ien 6ld. rtT{atluf E6[ntv.e
da Arlp,attetov. 6 6i xard. zo6-
Thoricus in Attica.
na rldaf 7p6aovEnTe piu dtunegi @optxdarrlg Atl$ouxfie
2 Elnaf,ifi 6i npoon),e6oaESxeialolE np6ls ll . . . . . .l zo VIn.2 When he sailed against and attempted
Eneyeigr1loeu.....]ew, ci5gprloeu Eni nq|pll. ".. ilew' (Dcmainetus) rushed ... Havin$ seized one of their ships,
xgarfiglaE 6i pcdEafet)tE aitdtu tilu pi;a 6119'atrQf ua6u, he left there his own ship because the hull was in a
tur Telipor,fiv d ox)d.7oE, uitofr xar6llml6'y, I leiE 6il riy poorer condition. Having transferred his sailors to their
ship, he sailed off to the force with Conon. Having
ix eiylan,p emBrBfd.oaE t aiss uir o6 r'ati lslraE n glqin lle)p - achieved nothing, Milon returned with his ship to
oer,lflni d oqd)reopa rd perd. rc6 | lKdv@vos.oEDh'6i Aegina.
ngd|as6 M ilf,uv eiEAiywoa pelltd.rfig awal vet)tg tnavfixe.
IX.1 This was the course of the most important events
IX (fV) Td p,)iv ofiu 66p&ara rdr, I lxad dluE),)'d6a occurring in the Greek . world in this winter. At the
r(t 6er,p,Cou)t. rwrcp oap,Bdvran,I lotfuag tyiuerc' dryp- beginning of the summer ... the eighth year began
p,6uoa) 6i rc6lSfigouErfi p,iv I to[. .
. . . . ] i l r o E d y \ o o vh , e w v i n e tI . t . . ...... 80
. . . . .]oqoErdEqujpeq anall.
B)xei 6i xcnan).edoasrd.s I t. . .
..)€r, tmyea ydp aiei rcull
tt[. .
xareofxeuaxc)tE fit vecbgtaI

69 piv civ Boissevain; p6vo:v Grenfell

and Hunt.
70 npo[q Ooprrbv] 6nelerpn[oev
dpBahleiv Grenfell and Hunt; npo[q
t11v yfrvl Enexerpnloev 6fo0]eIv
Boissevain.
72 [ae 6b Lurdg v]:[cg 6b tig v]
Wilamowitz; laq 6'drei v] Boissevain.
74 ncrlB6n{e]uoev Richards.
[ou8iv 6i np€cq] Castiglioni, exempli
gratia.
78 to0to Grenfell and Huntl.
81 an{yaydlv Fuhr; crndocrq? Jacoby.

52 53
 . . . . . 1 9 6 n o ao u y * n c t t rIwt . . . D<.2 ... but Pollis came from. Sparta to the fleet of the
. . . .l rdy 6i @opud.po(ou all. Spartans and their allies as admiral, in succession to the
. . .] nagayeu*o&ar, pddllpeuoE. . . command of Archelaidas. About the same time 90 ships
. .fat xai pwfidadnolallpeiu 2. .f.os of the Phoenicians and Cilicians came to Caunus, of
pia a&uairq6 drc120[. which ten had sailed from Cilicia. and the remainder ...
, *ni 6i rdg va6Edtu Aattfe- ... of them the Sidonian rule-1 ...
\atpoatan,xai rdty I loappd.yaadgwueirar,IIil,)"Lgl uut- 90
dQ1psBx Aaxell\a(p,oaoseiq tiu uaaag17iau dilu Agye- D(3 and, having manned the triremes ... as quickly ag
Xat6auatallod.s 6d6oyoE.xad, 6i dv aultdu yg*tou possible he sailed up the river called the Caunian, into
Q)on,ixan, llxai K r)"ixaa fi xov tueafixourfa ufieg eigK a6uor', the Caunian lake of Pharnabazus and Conon
-phernes a Persian man ... sent [him?] to the King ...
6tu | 25166xa.p,ia {n).eaoau&ndKil,tfxiae , ai 6i }ueinoaoatI
t.... . . . . . ] o E a d t d y 6 D c d d n ' r c1s
l\uudorrle pao)r),et totg tu$rqe ris I
lxrirooE -. ... nelgi ,iLrl uauo.pyiat.@oe-l
ludBciloE . .)rruan'afudi tdu nagal
to[. . . . . .] . agogtd, negitfiv dem, I
t. . . . rd orqaz61ne6ov.3 Kl6)r,an, di roo
ngooll. aifoildpeuoEdyala-
F,b, I i..... ..... xai oup)nlqpritoaE td.srpalgeqI
t.. . . .. rbs rd+tfota nowp.ldfa dy Kcn-l
3s rcu xaluof ov eiE)"ipr1)u_d1al.(la)aataa eio
la y,ea in )"eaBre
.!... . . r c f i { D a q y o p d . ( xoaai r c 6 K d l } , u -
t'oE. . pilerrfE] dailg niporle nall. .

::: :::: . tbj;:;'::';E\f:'::i"ff'l'l:

::::
93 [ncxpeyevrl0locvEvevfircovr]a Meyer.
.95 ar.lt6v Bartoletti (P.McK's observations
support this); Artclv Grenfell and Huntr.
, 104 rcrLo0;revov Bury.
. 106 Ilaorg6lpvn[e]or' Aptca6lpvn[s]
(Crmpare D.S. XIV.79.5).

54 55
 . . , ] . r r d n i n e p n pdelus f p a o r x t a
gi...lslt..... 110
. r)iv oxrlyfia .t.. . ..lixsi".i;ii.'' . . . .
gtuo6 ... the plainl of the Ca[ys]ter ....
. d.lnayyefi"as
di d ry1.. . . .lriqql.-.lpti
desunt versusXXV
'u.[-, |
t x Jv) _] -.i- - -ll"t- - -llpu[-- -]l'oo.
i;.- - -])P.[-.-
:ll.o[_-_-ll**E -)li"l._.)""y-
- -i1i"*"t__ _tt
s5&s,clo)ud_- to.'L - -lliw- rdgirf- _ -fil.faocu
!Ql- : -)11..
.kexeXf-
- -llaouai otjaf-- -] l''iyow"s,
i---l lei1ouydle...

B
)(I (VD - -f, eioiudixaf.. . i . .
rdtfvinniavl...1....
. . f , { u r cd
t i zq[...1.. .... tzo
. .lonoa.
rtpi,1"6, I
. .l rcnt5q1 xl. .)rl.l . . . .

: t:';fra!ffi:lrfi,ti
:::::::: t::.::::::
. . . .zdl galfiolTptlfouneli,ou.
.y. .
. . . .l rd dgqqfd.pelLolto6 ...
. . . .lrtsropr3qlgSdlloas.
....]E td orpardne\ov I l.
118 The work of the second scribe begins at
this line.
1,27 npo6{orrov Fuhr.
124 There is a punctuation mark in the
papyrus after otpct6r{e]6ov.
1,26 [vog sig nl,tvOiorf Grenfell and Huntr

s6