• Author / Uploaded
• Alan Heiblum

Citation preview

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 an Athenian 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 new critical 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 emphasize 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 XETEX, v

vi

Preface

a unicode-based version of TEX, 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, Andrew 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 Monograph Series, Kathryn Gutzwiller, for encouragement and constructive advice on the manuscript at a later stage. The book has benefited immensely from the suggestions of two anonymous external referees, and from the comments of Adele Scafuro and David Whitehead, who also read the manuscript for the APA. I am particularly 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 University 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 Family 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. Helmreich 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 Margaret 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 productive 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 committee, 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 CAH FGrHist IG LSJ OLD Smyth TLG

Talbert 2000. Cambridge ancient history, 2d edition (1970–2005). Jacoby 1923–1958. Inscriptiones graecae. Berlin (1873–). Liddell and Scott 1925–1940. Glare 1982. Smyth 1920. References are to section numbers. Thesaurus linguae graecae electronic data bank of ancient Greek literature, available online at . 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 enumeration 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 . 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 publications 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 Babington Blass Bücheler Bursian Caesar Caffiaux Cobet Colin Comparetti Desrousseaux Fritzsche [Fuhr]

Graindor van Herwerden Hess Jensen Kaibel Kayser Kenyon Leopardi Levi Maehly Müller Piccolomini Post Radermacher Ruhnken

The papyrus, P. Lit. Lond. 133 = Brit. Mus. inv. 98 (Pack 1965, 1236). Babington 1859. Blass 1894. Bücheler 1875, 308–309. Bursian and Müller 1858. Caesar 1857. Caffiaux 1866. Cobet 1858; Cobet 1873, 343 on §43. Colin 1946. Comparetti 1864. Many of his suggestions were originally published in Comparetti 1858. Desrousseaux 1949. Fritzsche 1861–1862. The reference is from Jensen 1917. His bibliography 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 Wochenschrift für klassiche Philologie 1902 p. 1543, is in error. Cited on pages xiii, 54, 75, 115, 116. Graindor 1898. van Herwerden 1895. Hess 1938. Jensen 1917. Kaibel 1893, 56 n. 1. Kayser 1858; Kayser 1868 on §6 and §31. Kenyon 1906. Leopardi 1835, 11. Levi 1892. Maehly 1872. Bursian and Müller 1858. Piccolomini 1882. L. A. Post’s conjectures are reported in Burtt 1954. Radermacher 1896. Toup and Ruhnken 1806, 312–313.

xiv

Abbreviations

Sandys Sauppe Schäfer Schenkl Schroeder Shilleto Sitzler Spengel Stahl Sudhaus Tarrant Tell Thalheim Toup Volckmar Weil

Sandys 1895 on §10. The §12 suggestion is reported in Blass 1894 and I have not been able to verify it elsewhere. Sauppe 1860. Originally in Babington 1858, not fully repeated in Schäfer 1860. Schenkl 1877. Schroeder 1922. Shilleto 1860. Sitzler 1883. Spengel 1858. Stahl 1907, 476. All readings reported in Jensen 1917. Tarrant 1930. Tell 1861. Thalheim 1918. Toup and Ruhnken 1806, 312–313. Volckmar 1860. 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 Funeral 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 now contextualize 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 references 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 Sacred 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 opponents of Macedon began reaching out to potential allies. In the late 340s Demosthenes himself made repeated diplomatic trips to the Peloponnese 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 Athenian grain fleet later that year, Hyperides served as trierarch and participated 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 Amphictyonic 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). Hyperides 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 VI2 , 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 Alexander’s, lead in the so-called League of Corinth.13 Hyperides was a staunch supporter of Demosthenes before and after 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 Hammond 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 confirmed 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 debate 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 proposing a decree to honor Euthycrates of Olynthus.18 He alleged that Euthycrates 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 supporters 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 Alexan17

The probouleuma probably suggested a few suitable candidates for the election 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 stationed there to maintain Macedonian hegemony.25 Demosthenes himself 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’ enemies in Greece, razed the city and killed or enslaved its inhabitants. After the destruction of Thebes the enemies of Macedon were reluctant 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 continued to debate policy toward Macedon in the courts. Hyperides had proposed an honorary crown for Demosthenes before Chaeronea and was indicted by Diondas (see p. 5 above), who waited until after the destruction 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 upheld 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 panhellenism 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 below 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 Demosthenes 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 fail29

Arr. An. 2.15.2 and Curt. 3.13.15. Badian (1967, 175–176) considers how startling the news from Issus 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 joining 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 II2 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. 30

Introduction

9

ure to act in 331 by emphasizing his earlier leadership.36 Since Philip’s death the Macedonians had repeatedly suppressed every Greek rebellion, and by 330 it would have seemed increasingly unrealistic and futile to continue advocating resistance. 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.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 confrontation in 331. As the debate over Macedon grew quieter, the city pursued 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 Demosthenes 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 administration; Lambert (1997, 280–291) offers a more full account with references to recent discussion (most importantly, Faraguna 1992, 171–194). On private contributions see Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 474–477 no. 94 on IG II2 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 formal terms of the League of Corinth and decreed that all Greek exiles 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 Aetolian 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 occupied 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 fugitive 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 stationing 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 Exiles Decree and reluctant to surrender Harpalus too quickly. 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, 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 recently 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 missing, Demosthenes was confident of his innocence and called for an investigation 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 Alexander’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 fled Athens 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 Areopagus was investigating the Harpalus incident, when the Athenian assembly hotly debated an award of divine honors for Alexander and heroic cult for his recently deceased associate Hephaestion.56 Alexander 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 display a more autocratic attitude toward the Greeks with the Exiles Decree, and now the Athenian debate on Alexander’s divinity further galvanized 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 commissioned 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 from Asia to Cape Taenarum in the Peloponnese, probably 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 guidance 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 Leosthenes 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 Badian 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 Leosthenes 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 comparatively 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 II2 370. Worthington (1984) discusses the chronology of the alliance. 65 Diod. Sic. 18.9.5 and 18.11.1–2. IG II2 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 reinforcements from Asia 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 Diod. Sic. 18.11.5. See also the notes on §11 under Βοιωτούς and Εὐβοέας. Diod. Sic. 18.11.5–12.2. 68 §§12–13, Diod. Sic. 18.12.3–4. Tracy (1995, 29) emphasizes the critical contribution 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 II2 1195 (lines 28–30). 71 Just. 13.5.10–11, Plut. Dem. 27.2–4. IG II2 448 (9–12, 45–49) refers to an alliance 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. 66 67

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 Athenians 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 toward Macedon in that speech. We will see that Demosthenes defends the decision to fight the Macedonians at Chaeronea by invoking patriotic 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 discussion of the rhetorical background to Hyperides’ speech will help illuminate the innovative techniques and newfound optimism of Hyperides’ Funeral Oration, on which we will concentrate in the following section. 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 procession (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 controversial and not relevant for my present purpose. Parker (1996, 134–135) sensibly suggests that it “developed by stages” and assumed its full form with 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; Clairmont 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 casualty lists inscribed with the names of the dead, 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.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 orations, 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 parallel 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 polyandria. 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 audience 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 individual 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 several speeches. Ancient rhetorical handbooks discuss the standard format 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 accomplishments.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. §6 and §15; §§11–18. 86 Men. Rh. 418.5–422.4; [D.H.] 277.6–283.19. These accounts intermix discussion of private and public funeral orations. 87 Ziolkowski (1981, 57) and Herrman (2004, 6) chart these divisions in the surviving 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. 85

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, employs many of these standard elements, but it also provides a view to Athenian attitudes immediately after the defeat at Chaeronea.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. 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 A later 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 Demosthenes 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 bravery.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 freedom (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 language and sentiment seem uncharacteristic of Demosthenes (D.H. Dem. 44), and many ancient and modern critics have followed his judgment. But the style and attitude 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 Eumolpus 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 hegemony 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 campaign 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 eruption 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 from Athenian myth, such as the sacrifice of the Hyacinthidae 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 confrontation 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), Lycurgus 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 tradition. As we saw above (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 advocates for Greek freedom preferred to dwell on the glorious fight for freedom at Chaeronea, rather than more recent events that only confirmed 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 attention 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 opportunity to renew the fight for the freedom lost at Chaeronea.116 Hyperides’ 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 behind 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 113 114 115 116 117

Dem. 18.195. Dem. 18.208, with discussion by Yunis (2000, 108–109). Dem. 18.192–194, cf. Dem. 60.19–20. On these events see above pp. 9–12. 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, explaining 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 narrates the events of the year: the initial success in Boeotia, the siege of Antipater at Lamia, and the defeat of Leonnatus.123 Whereas Demosthenes 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 soldiers’ 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 generous 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 claim that 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 andres 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 freedom public 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 Persian Wars and applies it to the Lamian War. For example, his description 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 Thermopylae and Plataea, invite such a comparison.135 But Hyperides is not content just to observe the parallels between the two conflicts. His allusions underline the fact that the typical epitaphic account of the Persian Wars has been replaced by a narrative of recent events,136 and they anticipate 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 Macedonian leadership of the League of Corinth in the 320s. The speech constantly 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 domestic politics within the city. He praises autonomia, the city’s right to govern itself, and the rule of law, which he sharply contrasts with §19. See the note there under στέφανον τῆι πατρίδ[ι. §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. 131 132

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 citizens” and earlier in the speech he describes a similar state of affairs throughout Greece, which, he says, has been “destroyed by men working 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 religious 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 composition, 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 parallelism as a trademark of the epideictic style.142 The long paratactic sentence in §3 well exemplifies this sort of epideictic period. The first four §25 with the notes under τῆς αὐτονομίας and νόμου φωνήν . . . νόμων πίστει. §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. 138 139

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 dishonoring”). 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 κατέστη, “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 reference, 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.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 orator 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 epideictic 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, . . . ὑπερβαλλούσης 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 monosyllabic 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 adjective 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 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, 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 fifteen 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 material 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 additional 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 written against the vertical fibers on the verso of a horoscope and astrolog-

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 proximis editoribus, nisi ut duo prima fragmenta ad unam columnam efficiendam coniungerentur. 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. 147

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 cm high, and the width varies from 6.25 (cols. 1, 10, 12) to 8.5 cm (col. 9), with the majority between 7 and 8 cm wide. 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) describes 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 distinguished 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 facsimile 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 papyrus. It was prepared for a subject born in AD 95, and then the papyrus was reused for the Funeral Oration in the second century.159 This dating 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 immediately 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 improvements 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 prepared 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 volume’s compendious account of all nineteenth-century work on Hyperides’ 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 departure from Blass’ Teubner editions.164 Kenyon aimed to present as readable a text as possible; he does not indicate the lineation of the papyrus, 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 different 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 continuous 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 detailed 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 narrow columns 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 164 165 166 167

Reviewed by Fuhr (1907). A new Teubner is in preparation by László Horváth. Marzi 1977, 59–82. 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 occasionally 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 editorial markup for papyri and inscriptions, and his idiosyncratic system is often unclear to modern readers (for example, his frequent usage of dotted 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 now generally 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 classified these modern supplements into three groups. • Restorations that seem to me extremely likely, because of their con168

I diverge from Jensen’s readings of the papyrus in the following places (reference 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 Jensen’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 between 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 reasons listed in the previous item, are recorded in the apparatus, but not in the text. In situations where more than one plausible restoration has been suggested, and the criteria of sense and physical fit do not support the strong likelihood of a single restoration in preference 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 areas 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 apparatus. 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 enumerates 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 lacunae, 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 indication 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 interpretation 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 system, which is summarized here together with an explanation of other symbols used in the Greek text: ...

[ ... ] [– –] α.β.γ.

[αβγ] ‹αβγ› {αβγ}

αβγ αβγ αβγ

 |5

Letters for which the papyrus is intact, but completely unreadable. Letters for which the papyrus is lost and which have not been restored. An indeterminate amount of lost text. Letters that partially survive, but for which alternative readings are possible. Letters that are not now preserved on the papyrus, but which the editor believes the scribe wrote. Letters that the editor believes were mistakenly omitted by the scribe. Letters that the editor believes were mistakenly written by the scribe. Letters that were written and deleted by the scribe. Letters written by the scribe above the line (whether over a scribal erasure or as an abbreviation). 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. The point at which a new line of the papyrus be-

34 1

Hyperides: Funeral Oration gins; every fifth line is numbered. 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 system is used to indicate words and phrases that are in doubt in the translation. abc [abc] [– –] 1

Material that is only partially preserved on the papyrus, the restoration of which is highly likely. 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. 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 10 ..... ὁ | χ]ρόνος ὁ . [ .... ..... . | .. ]ωι τὰς πρ.[άξεις ..... | .. ]ς ἄνθρω[π ..... .... | .. ] . ν πω κα[λλί ..... .. | . ἑ]ώ.ρακε ω . [ .. οὐδ’ ἐν τῶι |15 π]αντὶ αἰῶν.[ι νομιστέον | γ]εγενῆ[σθαι .. οὔτε] | ἄ.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 μελλόντων 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 ἁ.[πά]ντων τῶν ε.ἰ.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  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 have died or more generous achievements. [For this reason] too especially, I [am now anxious] that my speech may appear inferior 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 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 individually 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 numerous and so great. But I will not refrain from speaking about the city summarily. Just as the sun goes over all the world, determining 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

39 2

3

4

5

40 6

7

8

9

10

Hyperides: Funeral Oration

Ἕλλη[σιν παρασκε]υ.άζου|σα. 40 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 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’ 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 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]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  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

12

13

14

15

16

Hyperides: Funeral Oration

| [ἐπέ]δ.ωκεν 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]ρ.όδους, δι’ ὧν καὶ πρότερον ἐ|[πὶ τ]οὺς Ἕλληνας οἱ βάρβαροι 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 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 | 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. 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 |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 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

Text and Translation to his native city, and his city to the Greeks. After he raised a mercenary force and was appointed general of the city’s troops, he defeated the first opponents to the freedom of 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, through which the barbarians had marched against the Greeks also before. He denied Antipater 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 Phocians and the Aetolians and all the others in that region as allies, and over those whom Philip and Alexander proudly commanded against their will, over those Leosthenes took command according to their will. But although he was able to master any situation he chose, he could not prevail over fate. It is right 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 citizens, [but instead] eulogize Leosthenes alone. My praise of Leosthenes [in] these battles is also a eulogy for the others citizens. For just as good planning depends on the general, so victory 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 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

44

17

18

19

20

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. 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. ἀλλὰ | μὴν τήν γε π[ερὶ] Π.ύλας καὶ Λαμί|αν μάχην 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 μνησθήσοντ[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. 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.

βούλεσθαι Babington 108 μαχομένους Sauppe 110 Ἑλλάδος Sauppe 111 προτὴν πόλιν Sauppe 118 περὶ Cobet 120  p, corr. τέραν Sauppe Babington 122 τῶν τόπων Sauppe 127   p, corr. Babington 132 ‹τὴν› Blass 133 περιέθηκαν Sauppe 140–141 sequor p et Sauppe; μήτε παίδων ‹ἀσφάλειαν εἶναι, ἀλλ’› ὕβρεις ἀνεκλείπτους καθεστάναι Jensen 107

Text and Translation vide freedom to Greece was dying for it in battle. The fact that 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 presence 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 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 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 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 everywhere. As a result, the abuse of each and every woman, maiden,

45 17

18

19

20

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 παρασχόντας |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 Ἕλλη25 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 Stob. 4.23.35: τοῦ αὐτοῦ [Hyperides]· οὐκ ἀνδρὸς ἀπειλὴν, ἀλλὰ νόμου φωνὴν κυριεύειν δεῖ τῶν ἐλευθέρων sub capite γαμικὰ παραγγέλματα.

168–170

142

p, corr. Babington ἔστι Cobet, ἤδη Sauppe, ἔτι Kayser 145 τοὺς τούτων Cobet 146 ‹τοὺς› Cobet 152 ‹τῶν› Babington 153  p, γε Babington 155 πληγὰς del. Cobet 158  μμ   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 and even every child, would be unceasing. That is clear from 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 ourselves are compelled to honor their slaves as heroes. When the rites owed to the gods have been abrogated by the boldness of the Macedonians, 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, the more praise we must believe the dead deserve. No campaign revealed the soldiers’ virtue better than this one, 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 endure so many hardships without hesitation, and that they offered 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 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 masters and slander their fellow citizens, but rather upon faith in the law. For all these reasons they performed labor after labor and

47 21

22

23

24

25

26

48

27

28

29

30

31

32

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 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. | 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 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. τίς ‹γὰρ› κα‹ι›ρὸς ἐν |30 ὧι τῆς τούτων ἀρετῆς οὐ | μνημονεύσομεν; τίς τό|πος ἐν ὧ‹ι› ζήλου καὶ τῶν | ἐντιμοτάτων 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 τυγχάνειν ποι.|40 ήσει; ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐν ταῖς ἰδία.ι.ς | εὐπραξίαις; ἀλλ’ ἐν 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 . [ .... 10 ..... ... ] | παρὰ πο.[λὺ ..... ..... ]|αι γέγον[εν; ἢ παρὰ τοῖς]

εὔνοιαν Cobet 183 εἰς αἰώνιον Sauppe 184 ὁ τοῖς Cobet ἀνιαρότατος Babington 189–190     p, corr. Babington 191–192   p post corr.,   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 180

Text and Translation 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 famous 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 death, which is most grievous for others, has been the foundation 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 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? 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, we will safely enjoy those successes thanks to the virtue of these 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

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 205–206 καὶ αὐτοὶ σπουδάσουσιν μιμεῖσθαι

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; 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   p, emend. Babington 223 μ p, corr. Shilleto 223–224   . p (νλ in rasura), corr. Shilleto 224–225  μ  μ p, ἡμιθέων καλουμένων Cobet 225           [.] 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 [ – – ] freedom [ – – ]? 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 Ἑλληνίδων | [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 ἄλλους, 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, ἐνδόξου 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 κοι258–277 233 ‹δὲ›

Stob. 4.56.36

Kayser 238 ‹δὲ› Blass 244 ‹τοὺς› Babington 246–247          μ  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 ruling power of Europe and Asia. They came to the defense of 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 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 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 friendship most firmly to the people, I mean Harmodius and Aristogiton, consider nobody to be as closely related to them as Leosthenes 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 noble 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! [ – – ]

53 36 37

38

39

40

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 πεπόνθασιν, 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 τετελευτήκασιν, οἱ παρὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἔπαινοι παῖδες αὐτῶν ἀθάνατοι ἔσονται. ὅσοι δὲ παῖδας καταλελοίπασιν, ἡ τῆς πατρίδος εὔνοια ἐπίτροπος αὐτοῖς τῶν παίδων καταστήσεται. 270 43 πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, εἰ μέν ἐστι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν ὅμοιον τῶι μὴ γενέσθαι, 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, 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 . . . 278 Poll. 2.14 = Hyp. 261 ‹τὸν›

τυγχάνειν Maximus 932c, non recte attribut. ad Ἀπολλώνιον fr. 221: Ὑπερείδης [εἴρηκε] δὲ τὸν ἀγήρατον χρόνον.

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 consciousness 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 centimeter 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 examination of the astrological text on the recto for further confirmation. The most recent editors of the horoscope (Neugebauer and Van Hoesen 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 atypical nature of Hyperides’ speech is signaled in the first sentence. Unlike other orators, who refer to funeral orations of the past (cf. the note be57

58

Hyperides: Funeral Oration

[§1–]

low on §8 under τινες ποι]εῖν), Hyperides starts right off with a consideration 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 Pritchett 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 refer 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, Ἀθηναῖος), is likely Leosthenes, son of Leosthenes of Kephal (Λεωσθένης 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 stratgos 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 II2 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 OLD s.v. telum 2c); 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 from Athens

[–§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).

ἄν[δρες ἀ]γαθοί. On this common phrase, see below on §8 under ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί γ[ίγνων]ται. 5

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 better 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 predecessors. 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 subjects (cf. §38: ὑπερέσχεν, “excelled”). 5–9

6ὁ

χ]ρόνος ὁ . [ .... . Traces of a letter survive before the lacuna. A single 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.

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 article from Bücheler’s restoration ἐν τῶι. 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, 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. 7–8

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).

[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. 9

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. 10

2, 10 νῦν φοβοῦ]μαι. The supplements of Blass and van Herwerden (appendix 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’m not convinced that the trace is a letter (there is a similar mark immediately below it, between 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 degree 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.

λόγον . . . ἔρ[γων. Speech and deeds were often contrasted in the funeral orations and other Athenian literature of the fifth and fourth centuries (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 antithesis in the Thucydidean epitaphios, and also provides a history of its development with a focus on the first two books of Thucydides’ History.

11–12

φαί]νεσθαι. The size of the lacuna better suits this reading than Babington’s γε]νέσθαι (“may be inferior”). 11

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). 13

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 individual is unique to this epitaphios. Other epitaphioi do not name individual honorands or give any sort of personal detail about the dead. Hyperides was probably influenced by the development of prose encomia in the fourth century (Schiappa (1999, 186–190) traces the development 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’ Evagoras 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 political and military partnerships, including Leosthenes and Hyperides, but this testimonium may 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 (Worthington et al. 2001, 215) tentatively suggests that “Stratocles may have died in battle,” presumably because we hear nothing else about him, although his colleague Lysicles was prosecuted after the battle), but he is not mentioned in the Demosthenic epitaphios. Hyperides’ lavish attention to Leosthenes in his speech is novel, and perhaps inspired by the model of fourth-century prose encomia. ‹τ›ῆς προαιρέ[σε]ως. Demosthenes regularly uses the noun προαίρεσις 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 section 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. 17

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 especially on the Periclean funeral oration and argues that the conception of courage in that speech is closely tied to Athenian democratic ideology. Thuc. 2.40.3 emphasizes that Athenian courage was grounded in rational deliberation, and in his funeral oration Demosthenes similarly 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 Themistocles in the underworld (§38: ἀνδρείαι καὶ φρονήσει, “courage and cunning”).

τὸ μὴ καταισχῦναι τὰς τῶν προγόνων ἀρετάς. One’s present day acts were thought to be capable of either bringing shame upon one’s ancestors, 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-

20–21

[–§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. 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.

τὰς. . . ἀρετάς. On the meaning of aret see the notes on §8 under 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 abstract 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). 21

4, 26 τῶν . . . ‹ἀνὰ›. . . ‹πεπραγμένων›. Something must have fallen out of the text here. These words have been added as a supplement by editors, 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 Comparetti (appendix B). These suggestions do not entail a correction to the article τῶν, but do require a preposition to govern the accusative πᾶσαν 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., Lycurg. 140, where the city of Athens is the external object; LSJ, s.v. εὐεργετέω II).

οὔτε ὁ χρόνος ὁ παρ[ὼ]ν ἱκανὸς . . . μνη[μο]νεῦσαι. After emphasizing the daunting task before him, the orator admits his anxiety about being unable to provide due praise for the city of Athens. Epideictic orators 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

27–29

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 excessive 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). ‹διεξ›ελθεῖν. Cobet’s correction is likely right, given Hyperides’ predilection for this verb in this speech. See below on §9 under διεξελθεῖν. 29

5. The extended simile, comparing the city of Athens with the sun, comprises 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 sentence 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 agriculture); 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 similes. Colin (1938, 246–247) admires the subtle poetic nature of its expression, 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 Whitehead 2000, 41–42 ad loc. and Blass 1887, III.2: 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 33

66

Hyperides: Funeral Oration

[§5–]

later writers, e.g., Plut. TG. 14.5 and Cic. 38.3.

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 displaying 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, Brunschwig 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. 33

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 agriculture (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 parallels). 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). That chorus’ praise culminates 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 civilization (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 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. Taken as a group, 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, and, on the other hand, a cosmopolitan interest in, and real need for, foreign artists and goods: this passage and other traditional eulogies 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 appears 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 wrongdoers 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 historic victory over the Persians (Dem. 60.11, Pl. Mx. 240d). The legendary 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 formulation found here, {τοὺς} κακοὺς κολάζειν, “to punish the wicked.” Loraux (1986, 65–67) discusses the almost complete exclusion of Theseus from all the funeral orations. Instead of Theseus, it is the Athenians 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 argues 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 Theseus. 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 immediate purpose of honoring all of the city’s war casualties as a homogeneous 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 from the 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 funeral 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 mythological times to the Athenian role in the Persian Wars (for example, Lys. 2.4–19 focuses on prehistoric exploits, and then 20–47 immediately 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’ achievements. See p. 23 above for more parallels between Hyperides’ description 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 to Athenian 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).

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

38

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 Athenian 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 restoration. The remaining traces of ink and the size of the lacuna better suit Jensen’s restoration than those of Babington and Colin (appendix B).

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

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 38–40

[–§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.

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  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 , 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. . . .” 42

43–44 νῦ]ν δὲ πόθεν κτλ. The explicit deliberation about the act of praising is characteristic of epideictic oratory; see Carey 2007a, 245. 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, index s.v. aporia for many other examples of this rhetorical trope, which is common in all types of oratory). 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 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, 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 infinitive 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 λόγων (“speech”) do not exclude the use of the infinitive.

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. The Dutch scholar Carel Gabriel Cobet (1813–1889) perhaps best epitomizes this tendency. He made many brilliant restorations in this speech, but he sometimes went too far, suggesting corrections 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 Cobet’s textual work on the Funeral Oration). Here he proposes the genitive of the adjective, πρώτου (appendix B). But the neuter accusative adverb is perfectly intelligible and does not require correction. An adverbial accusative may be used instead of the adjective “when one action is opposed to another in sequence” (Smyth 1042N). 44

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 reminds his listeners of it with that denial. 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, 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

[–§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 numerous examples from the orators and tragedy.

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). 45–46

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 homogeneity 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 papyrus 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 edition 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 definition of aret as purely military excellence. She sees this narrow conception 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 exposed to moderation (cf. Aesch. 1.6–7, where the speaker asserts that sphrosyn was the primary focus in the education of young Athenians), 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, Hyperides 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 qualities 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), Demosthenes, 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 program of 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.

τινες ποι]εῖν. A complementary infinitive is needed with the verb εἰώθασιν, “are accustomed.” Sauppe’s restoration is too long for the lacuna, 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 accustomed 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 ceremonies, 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). 56

ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί γ[ίγνων]ται. This honorific phrase is regularly used in the funeral orations and other patriotic literature to describe soldiers’ 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 appropriate 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 examples and emphasizes the military associations of the phrase). 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. 57–58

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.

τοῖς ἄλλοις Ἕλλησιν. Hyperides repeatedly emphasizes the panhellenic 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 accomplishments of Athens and Leosthenes. 63

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 result 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 successfully prosecuted a similar case against Philocrates that same year (see above pp. 3–4; Harris (1995, 116–118) shows how weak 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 prosecuted 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 mercenaries from Asia to Cape Taenarum at the southern tip of the Peloponnese, and probably maintained them there until after Alexander’s death, when Athens 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 campaign was successful (Diod. Sic. 18.11.3–4).

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. 75

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 extends further north than it did in antiquity.) Leosthenes planned to confront the enemy here, and had already occupied the pass with that intention 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 misinterpretations of the difficult terrain. The latter provides a detailed map

78

Hyperides: Funeral Oration

[§12–]

of the pass.

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 attention 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. 78–79

κατακλείσας εἰς Λαμίαν. After the defeat at Plataea the Macedonian forces fled and took refuge at Lamia for the winter (Diod. Sic. 18.11.5). Antipater was awaiting reinforcements from Craterus 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). 81–82

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 reports that Leosthenes was in contact with the Aetolians prior to Alexander’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 II2 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 Alexander’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 II2 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 approach 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 appropriates 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 emphasized by the repetition of ἡγούμενοι (“commanded”) in ἡγεμονίαν (“command”).

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). 84–85

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.

ἐγκω[μιάζ]ειν . . . ἔπαινον . . . ἐγκώμιον . . . ἐπαιν[ῶ . . . ἐγκωμ[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 97–103

[–§17]

Commentary

81

focuses on specific accomplishments. Hyperides’ usage is not so precise, 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 (ἐγκωμιάζειν 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).

ὥστ]ε . . . ἐγκωμ[ιάσ]ω. Cobet suggests ὥστ’ ἐμ]ὲ . . . ἐγκωμ[ιάζει]ν (“so as for me to praise”), a consecutive clause with the infinitive (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. 101–103

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 II2 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 Alexander’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 Alexander 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 Demosthenes’ 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 population, 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 Boeotian 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).

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 participle: Isoc. 5.108 and 8.113 (τὸ γένος . . . ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἠφανισμένον, “the family was obliterated from human society” in both). In both passages he refers to the overthrow of Greek tyrants. Hyperides alludes to these passages to emphasize the despotic nature of a potential Macedonian 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

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). 112–113

τὰ ‹δ›ὲ σώματα τῶν ἐνοικούντων ἐξηνδραποδισμένα. War captives were often enslaved and might be released for ransom. Pritchett

114

[–§18]

Commentary

83

(1971–1991, V: 223–245) catalogues and discusses dozens of examples. Alexander spared only a few Thebans and enslaved some 30,000 captives, whom he sold for 440 talents of silver; for sources and discussion see Pritchett 1971–1991, V: 244 and Hammond et al. 1972–1988, III: 65.

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. 114–115

18, 119 ἔνδοξον. On Hyperides’ fondness for this adjective see the note on §40 under ἐνδόξου.

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 Demosthenes 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 amphictyony, as is indicated by the Greek terms for the meetings and the delegates, Pylaia and Pylagoroi (Πυλαία and πυλαγόροι, Harp. s.v. Πύλαι, Dem. 18.147 and 151, IG II2 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 surrounding 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. 123–124

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 provides 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).

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). 125–127

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 individual lives for the sake of the common freedom of the Greeks, their souls are a crown for their fatherland. Both passages feature the common 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 optatives, 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 translation 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 optatives 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. Worthington (1999, 216–217) more sensibly suggests we retain the optative and regard the usage as a “Hyperidean idiom.” Elsewhere Hyperides 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 below on §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.

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.

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

138

[–§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

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-

140–141

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.

[–§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 Assembly. (There is no evidence that Alexander demanded divine orders: see Badian 1996, 26.) Both of the surviving speeches prosecuting Demosthenes for his role in the Harpalus affair discuss the orator’s role in this debate (Din. 1.94; Hyp. Dem. 31). Despite his objections Demosthenes seems to have grudgingly acquiesced in the worship of Alexander, 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. 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 Alexander, 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 Worthington (1992, 262–264) summarize the large bibliography on this issue. The present passage provides the most explicit indication of Hyperides’ 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.

ἀγάλμα[τα δὲ] καὶ βωμοὺς . . . ἀμελῶς. The rites of the gods are neglected, while Philip and Alexander improperly receive the attentions that should rightfully be devoted to divinities. In a similar vein, 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. 38). Hyperides’ terminology emphasizes that the Athenians were treating 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,

143–144

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 Pausanias and Athenian honorary decrees of all periods meticulously recognize this precise meaning of agalma (Stroud and Lewis 1979, 193; cf. Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 54). Much later, when the Roman emperors 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 considered 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 honorary 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 Ἑλλάδα, “Greece”), of course, there is the famous Philippeion in the panhellenic sanctuary for Zeus at Olympia, begun by Philip after the battle of Chaeronea (Paus. 5.20.9) and completed by Alexander after his father’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 material 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).

[τ]οὺς ‹τού›των οἰκ‹έ›τας ὥσπερ ἥρωας τιμᾶν. The most famous example of a divinely honored associate of the Macedonian rulers was Alexander’s closest companion, Hephaestion (discussed by Bickerman (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 confirms 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 privileged members of Alexander’s court, who were often given heroic honors, 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). 145–146

22, 146–148 ὅπου δὲ τὰ πρὸς ‹τοὺς› θεοὺς ὅσια . . . τί τὰ πρὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους χρὴ νομίζειν. Hyperides suggests that the decay in religious morality under Philip and Alexander would inevitably lead to widespread social decay too. He has already forecast Macedonian disruption of Greek social norms with his warning regarding sexual violence 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 soldiers 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 (χειμώνων . . . ‹ὑπο›μεμ‹ε›νηκένα‹ι›, “to endure harsh storms . . . ”) praises the men’s tolerance and strength. The trials of the campaign are a common 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 consciously 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.

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 preposition 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 formality” and “balanced echoing sentence structure” (73), stylistic tendencies that are prominent in all of the surviving examples of the genre. Bons (2007) provides a recent account of Gorgias’ role in the sophistic 163–164

[–§25]

Commentary

93

movement, with a focus on argumentation rather than prose style.

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. 166

25, 168 τῆς αὐτονομίας. Hyperides’ next sentence makes it clear that autonomia 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 external 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 autonomy to member states (cf. Ryder 1965, 103 and 151, Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 377), but with Alexander as the hgemn of the council 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.

ο‹ὐ› γὰρ ἀνδρὸς ἀπειλὴν ἀλλὰ νόμου φωνὴν κτλ. The sentiment of Hyp. fr. 214 = Rut. Lup. 2.6 is closely related: non enim simile 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 168

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 law is particularly at home in this oration, in which Hyperides repeatedly characterizes the Macedonian kings as tyrants (e.g., §20 and §40).

νόμου φωνήν . . . νόμων πίστει. The rule of law was a central 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 defend 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 version is quoted by Pollux and Stobaeus; Harding 1985, no. 109 translates all three), and citizen judges in the courts swore to vote in accordance with established laws, which were more authoritative than the orders of a single individual (And. 1.91; Harris (2004a, 58–59) contrasts “established laws” with the orders of a tyrant). The rule of law protected the people in a democracy, and the existence of law distinguished democracy from tyranny, where the ἀνδρὸς ἀπειλή, “a man’s threat,” held sway. The funeral orations regularly emphasize the importance 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). 168–172

169–171 αἰτίαν . . . διαβάλλουσιν. αἰτία, “accusation,” and διαβολή, “slander,” are regularly linked (hendiadys), and the negative connotation 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 cognate 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.

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 παίδων 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 Roman 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. 179

ε[ὔνοι]αν. Cobet’s restoration is likely correct, since Hyperides frequently refers to the goodwill of the dmos (Hyp. Dem. 29, Hyp. Phil. 7 with Whitehead 2000, 59–60). Eunoia regularly describes an individual’s patriotic loyalty to the state and was a “cardinal virtue” in 180

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 fourthcentury 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 II2 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 obligation 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.

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 minimize reference to immortality; see the note on §43 under ‹εἰκὸς›. . . ἐπιμελείας ‹καὶ κηδεμονίας› ὑπὸ τοῦ δαιμονίου τυγχάνειν. 183

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

ἄνδρες ἀγαθοὶ γεγόνασι. On this phrase see the note on §8 under ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί γ[ίγνων]ται. 189

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   , which

appears to be corrected from an original reading, also meaningless, of  . Most editors have supplied an indicative verb to govern the infinitive γεγονέναι (“become”). Cobet’s ‹ὑπάρχει εὐθὺς› (“they can immediately”) 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 answers 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.

τοῖς τῆς πόλεως ἀγαθοῖς . . . ταῖς ἰδίαις εὐπραξίαις. The description of the private and public rewards for the city and its citizens is unparalleled in the other epitaphioi. Thucydides describes the sacrifice 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 regularly 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). 196–198

ἀπολαύσομεν. For the active usage of this verb see the note on §34 under ἀκουσόντων. Hyperides uses several future active forms for 199

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 missing. The text cannot be recovered with any certainty; numerous reconstructions 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 benefit 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 future 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 various 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.

α[ ..... ..... .. ] βίον. Editors restore τὸν λοιπὸν] βίον, “their remaining 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. 201

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

202

[–§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, possibly 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 reconstruction, 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.

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. 204

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 concerning 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: νεωτέρο[ις καὶ παισίν; ἔπει]τα οὐ τὸν [θάνατον ζηλώσου]σιν αὐτ[ῶν καὶ αὐτοὶ σπου]δάσουσιν [μιμεῖσθαι; “What about their juniors and children? Won’t they envy their death and themselves strive to imitate it?”

σπου]δάσουσιν. See below on §34 under ἀκουσόντων on the future active usage of this verb.

206

100

Hyperides: Funeral Oration

[§32–]

206–207 πα]ράδειγμ[α . . . ..... ... ]πασι. Editors take πασι as the termination 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 . . . ”

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. 207

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.”

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 somewhat 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. 208

[–§34]

Commentary

101

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.

210

34, 211–213 ..... .. ]τερα . . . ἐν τῶι πολ[έμωι. Colin builds upon restorations of Cobet, Sauppe and Kenyon: δι’ ἀμφό]τερα γὰρ ἐ[ξέσται αὐτοῖς 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).

..... ... ] 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 παρασκευα]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. 213

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. 214

ὠφελείας ἕνε]κεν. Babington’s restoration perfectly fits the lacuna and seems to be confirmed by the verb ὠφελήσειεν (“confer . . . advantage”). 216

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 memorial”). He has also proposed ἡ τοιά[δε ἀνάμνησις (“such a recollection”), 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 middle 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 ἀπολαύσομεν (§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.

ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας. On this phrase see the note on §8 under ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί γ[ίγνων]ται. 218–219

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 description 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 μ, 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).

τῶν ‹ἡμιθέ›ων καλουμέν‹ων› τοὺς ἐπὶ ‹Τρο›ίαν στρα‹τεύ›σαντ[α]ς. The papyrus reads (without any word divisions)   μ  μ      [.]. 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 already emended στρατειαν (“army”) to Τροίαν (“Troy”). The corrections 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 socalled demi-gods”) Jensen compares Hes. Op. 159–160 and also Pl. Ap. 28c, which labels those who died at Troy as ἡμιθέοι, “demi-gods.” 224–225

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 encomium to 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 others when he asserts that his subjects were superior to those who fought

227

[–§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 Leosthenes and the particular events of the first season of the Lamian War. That special emphasis in this speech culminates in this declaration of superiority.

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

μόνης πᾶσαν. The repeated contrast between “one” and “many” is emphasized by this juxtaposition.

228–229

ἐταπείνωσεν. In §10 the same verb was used to describe the weakened condition of Greece before Leosthenes came along. Now the tables are turned and Leosthenes has conquered the conquerer.

230

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.

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.

231–232

37, 235–236 Μιλτιάδην καὶ Θεμιστοκλέα. Like Harmodius and Aristogiton (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.

ἀνδρείαι καὶ φρονήσει. On this pairing, see the note on §3 under ἀνδρεί[α]ς. 239

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. 240

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 abandoned Athenian acropolis prior to the battle of Salamis (Hdt. 8.51–55). Again in spring of 479 the Persian general Mardonius invaded (Hdt. 9.3). Hyperides contrasts these events with the Lamian War, in which the Athenians 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). 241–243

39, 245–246 Ἁρμόδιον καὶ Ἀριστογείτονα. This is the only epitaphios logos 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 comparison 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 conjunction 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,       

   μ   . The transmitted text is plainly corrupt and various solutions have been proposed. I have followed Blass in correcting    to οὐθέν‹α›ς (“nobody”), deleting μ (“to you”) and changing the adjective    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 inscriptions 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 example 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 exclamation. 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 Hyperides’ praise for the dead, there may be very little text missing between the end of fragment 1b (§40) and fragment 2 (§41), which comes from the consolatory section (the paramythia) of the speech that typically 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).

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).

253–254

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 Hyperides’ 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 evidence 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 examples) 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). Andragathia 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 consolatory (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 epilogues 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 passage 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 relatives 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 survivors’ 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 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, 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: πατρίος 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 feature 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 homoioteleuton 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 repetition 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.

ὅσοι μέν . . . ὅσοι δέ κτλ. These two alternative statements continue the Gorgianic antithesis. As in the previous section, these two sentences have the same structure and are linked by repetition (“children”: ἄπαιδες, παῖδες, παῖδας, παίδων; “them”: αὐτῶν, αὐτῶν, αὐτοῖς; the κατα- compounds in the second alternative). The parallel position, 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. 267–269

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.

εἰ δ’ ἔστιν αἴσθησις ἐν Ἅιδου. This view was more commonly held than Hyperides’ alternative (see previous note). The same sentiment 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” regarding doubt about the afterlife. Sourvinou-Inwood (1995, 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, and in these fourth-century passages we see a continued concern with the fate of the dead. 273–274

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 associating 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.

τοὺς ταῖς τιμαῖς τῶν θεῶν καταλυομέναις βοηθήσαντας. Cf. §21 above on the impiety of the Macedonians. 275–276

Fragmentum dubium. Sauppe plausibly assigns the phrase τὸν ἀγήρατον 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 epitaphioi (§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 himself). These manuscript readings have been corrected without comment in the text and critical apparatus. There is little reason for them to 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 ] .  16 ] 23 

[ 25  [ 29 μ . 33    34    . .  2.6 

  16  18     21  corrected from  22 ] 28  31   33  

 3.3 ] 4  ] 5–6 ]. 

 13–14  [  22  ] 26  31   32   corrected from    4.2    5 .  23  μ.[ 33  

9 . [ ] 

22–23 [ ]

5.2   6–7 

[ 13      19–20 μμ  22    33  μμ  36 μ  38  .  40   corrected from    6.1   33 ]   . 34 [ ]. , cf. col. 5.9 7.2   . 7   10    11  20–21    28   [  ]  , cf. col. 7.31 30–31 111

112

Hyperides: Funeral Oration

   corrected from    38 μ 39   41   

34 

 

8.3–4  μ 4  7   11  μ  12 μ 16  16–17 μ 18 [ ]μ. 19  corrected from  23    25     corrected from   27   34 μ  9.2–3   4 ]  7 μμ  10 ..]  11    12     13–14    15   23    μ   26 the final sigma is mistakenly written at the beginning of 10.29 29    37     41–42 . .   43   [ 10.6  []  corrected from  [] 9  [].  13    15 

 corrected from   16 

  27–28 μ μ .   33  μ 36   39 μ μ  43  11.11 

20 μ   

38  [

12.1   5   7 μ  10  14 μ 15   with  written over an erasure 16  μ 21  29 final nu is a later addition 37  39  μ corrected from  μ  41  μ 13.2–3  μ 6   9     corrected from     19–20   corrected from   21–22    22   23 μ  24–25   corrected from .. 28   . 31 μ  39   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 /, 4.6   /, 4.13 μ  /, 4.28 /, 4.34  /. More often the stops are unaccompanied by a paragraphos: 3.2  /, 3.28 μ /, 4.19  /, 6.2 [ ]/, 8.4 μ/, 9.10 ] /, 9.12  /, 10.25  /, 10.35 /, 12.10  /, 12.43 /, 13.39  /. The scribe frequently uses a diairesis mark over iota: 3.6  , 4.3

Appendix A: Papyrological Notes

113

  , 4.22  , 6.1 μ.[ ]μ  , 6.27  , 7.34  , 7.36   , 7.42   , 8.11   , 9.20   , 10.6  , 10.40   . Two breathings are indicated: 7.7   , 9.14  ; and one circumflex accent: 10.12  . 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.

περὶ] Λεωσθένους Babington. 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 σώιζων 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 παριστάς, 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 Babing3

5– 6

115

116

Hyperides: Funeral Oration

ton. 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, σφόδρα 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. 38

Appendix B: Critical Conjectures

117

νομίζομεν Kayser. 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› αὐτονομία 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, ἔξεστ’ 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 γεγενῆσθαι 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 τούτους Cobet, οὗτοι γὰρ ἄφοβον ἄξουσιν τὸν λοιπὸν βίον κατὰ τὴν 134–135 138

118

Hyperides: Funeral Oration

ἀρτίως γεγενημένην ἀσφάλειαν διὰ τούτους Babington. ἀλλ’ οὐ παρὰ τοῖς ἡλικιώταις Blass, ἢ οὐ παρὰ τοῖς ἡλικιώταις 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 τελευτὴ ἀφορμὴ μεγίστη τοῦ καλῶς ὠφελεῖν τὴν πατρίδα καὶ παραπλησίως 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 Jensen, νεωτέροις δόξουσιν; εἶτα οὐ τὸν θυμὸν θαυμάσουσιν αὐτῶν Kayser. 205–206 αὐτοὶ μιμεῖσθαι σπουδάσουσιν Babington, καὶ σφόδρα σπουδάσουσιν μιμεῖσθαι Kayser. 206–207 ὡς παράδειγμα τὸν τούτων βίον, ἀνθ’ οὗ τὴν ἀρετὴν καταλελοίπασι; 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 ἐπαινοῦνες Colin, ἐν ἅπασιν καὶ λόγοις καὶ ὠιδαῖς ἐπαινεῖν Cobet, ὠιδαῖς 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, ἀμφότερα γὰρ ἔξεσται ἐντεῦθεν περὶ Λεωσθένους εἰπεῖν Babington, ἀμφότερα γὰρ ἔστι μαθεῖν ἐκ τῶν περὶ Λεωσθένους ἱστοριῶν Schroeder, ἀγαστότερα γὰρ ἔνεστι πολλῶι περὶ Λεωσθένους λέγειν Sauppe, δημοτικώτερα γὰρ ἔστι τοῖς ποιηταῖς περὶ Λεωσθένους ἄιδειν Fritzsche. 212–213 καὶ τῶν τελευτησάντων ἐν τῶι πολέμωι Sauppe, καὶ τῶν τετελευτηκότων ἐν τῶι πολέμωι τῶιδε Babington. 202–203

Appendix B: Critical Conjectures

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. 213–216

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

122

Bibliography

Balot, R. (2004), “Courage in the democratic polis,” Classical Quarterly 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), “Archaeology 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 fragmentis, Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana, Leipzig. Cited on pages 29, 63, 135. (1881), Hyperidis orationes quattuor cum ceterarum fragmentis, Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana, Leipzig, 2d ed. Cited on page 29. (1887–1893), Die attische Beredsamkeit, Leipzig, 2d ed., 3 volumes. 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 Testament, 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. Worthington (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 Oration,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 120:1–16. Cited on pages 15, 21. Bradeen, D. W. (1969), “The Athenian casualty lists,” Classical Quarterly 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 publications: 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, Cambridge, Mass., volume 2: Lycurgus, Dinarchus, Demades, Hyperides. Cited on pages xiii, 30, 52, 119.

124

Bibliography

Caesar, J. (1857), Review of Babington 1858, Zeitschrift für die Alterthumswissenschaft 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 companion 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 during the fifth and fourth centuries BC. The archaeological, epigraphic–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 funebris 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 criticae in scriptores graecos, Leiden. Cited on pages xiii, 54. Cohen, D. (1991), “Sexuality, violence and the Athenian law of 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 funebrem,” 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, Oxford. 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 Altertumskunde 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 Aristotle, 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 makedonischen Universalreiches, Quellen und Forschungen zur antiken 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,” Transactions 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 Review 9, available electronically at . 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, Oxford, vol 2: books II–III. Cited on pages 6, 14, 70. Graindor, P. (1898), “Notes critiques sur l’épitaphios d’Hypéride,” Revue 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, Zetemata 14, Munich, 2d ed. Cited on pages 88, 91. (1996), “Athens, Samos, and Alexander the Great,” Proceedings 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 classical 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 prehistory: 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 unconstitutional 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), From the 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 Oxford. 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 reflections on the laws about sexual violence,” Dike 7: 41–83, page references 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 honoring foreigners,” Hesperia 55: 177–182. Cited on page 9. Henrichs, A. (1975), “Two doxographical notes: Democritus and Prodicus 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 Oration,” 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 aristocrat,” in J. W. Eadie and J. Ober (eds.), The craft of the ancient 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 public cemetery in the Kerameikos,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 64: 37–66. Cited on page 14. Jaschinski, S. (1981), Alexander und Griechenland unter dem Eindruck der Flucht des Harpalos, Bonn. Cited on page 58. Jebb, S. (1722), Aelius Aristides. Opera omnia Graece & Latine, Oxford, 2 vols. Cited on page xii. Jehne, M. (1994), Koine Eirene: Untersuchungen zu den Befriedungsund 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 fragmentis, Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana, 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 Aristoteles, Berlin. Cited on pages xiii, 38, 70. (1899), Comicorum graecorum fragmenta, Berlin. Cited on page xii. Kapparis, K. (1999), Apollodoros “Against Neaira” [D. 59], Untersuchungen 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, Heidelberger 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 griechischen Literatur, Beiträge zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache 14, Würzburg. Cited on page 93. Kenyon, F. G. (1893), The orations against Athenogenes and Philippides, London. Cited on page 135. (1899), The palaeography of Greek papyri, Oxford. Cited on page 28. (1906), Hyperidis orationes et fragmenta, Scriptorum classicorum 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 älteren 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 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.

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 Angeles, 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 Literaturzeitung 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 Thucydides: 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 , Cambridge. 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 independence 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 Review 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 GraecoRoman 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 HyperidesTextes,” 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 Rundschau 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–), Tragicorum Graecorum 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 Verbums 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 klassischen Athen, Diss., Münster, 2 parts in 1. Cited on pages 14, 15. (1994), “The iconography of Athenian state burials in the classical period,” in W. D. E. Coulson, O. Palagia, T. L. Shear, H. A. Shapiro, and F. J. Frost (eds.), The archaeology of Athens and Attica 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 Review 44: 42. Cited on pages xiv, 117. Tausend, K. (1992), Amphiktyonie und Symmachie: Formen zwischenstaatlicher 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 century BC Athenian 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 Epigraphik 154: 1–6. Cited on page xii. Tell, W. (1861), Hyperidis orationis funebris quae supersunt, Nordhausen. 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 ΣΩΖΟΜΕΝΑ. Dionysii Longini quae supersunt, Oxford, 3d ed. Cited on pages xiii, xiv, 54, 119. Tracy, S. V. (1994), “IG II2 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 Kommentar, 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 Ehrendekreten der Klassischen Zeit, Heidelberger althistorische Beiträge und epigraphische Studien 25, Stuttgart. Cited on pages 75, 96, 106. Versnel, H. S. (1989), “Quid Athenis et Hierosolymis? Bemerkungen über die Herkunft von Aspekten 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 systematischer Übersicht, Leipzig, 2d ed. Cited on pages 80, 84, 91, 92, 97. Wachsmuth, C. and O. Hense (1884–1912), Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium, 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, New York 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 approbation 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 Philologie, 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 II2 370 and the date of the Athenian alliance with Aetolia,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 57: 139–144. Cited on page 12. (1987), “The earlier career of Leosthenes and IG II2 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, Warminster. Cited on pages 24, 30, 84, 85, 95. (2000), “Demosthenes’ (in)activity during the reign of Alexander 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 Alexander, Claremont, 65–86. Cited on page 7. (2003b), “The authorship of the Demosthenic Epitaphios,” Museum Helveticum 60: 152–157. Cited on page 17. Worthington, I., C. R. Cooper, and E. M. Harris (2001), Dinarchus, Hyperides, 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

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

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

Boeotia, 12, 13, 21, 26, 77, 79, 82, 83, 104, 106 141

142

General Index

bribes, 3, 4, 11, 24, 76 Byzantium, 4

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 16, 17, 24, 77, 107

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

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

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

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 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

143

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 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,

145

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