Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sextus Empiricus
The Transmission and Recovery of Pyrrhonism
Luciano Floridi
Virgil Recomposed
The Mythological and Secular Centos in Antiquity
Scott McGill
Representing Agrippina
Constructions of Female Power in the Early Roman Empire
Judith Ginsburg
Hyperides
Funeral Oration
Judson Herrman
HYPERIDES
Funeral Oration
Judson Herrman
2009
Oxford University Press, Inc. publishes works that further
Oxford Universitys objective of excellence
in research, scholarship, and education.
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
Preface
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 Ive received in
the course of writing this book. I would like to thank John Duffy, An-
drew Wolpert, and Harvey Yunis for helpful comments on early drafts
of this material. I am also grateful to the editorial board of of the APA
Publication Committee and especially to the editor of the APA Mono-
graph Series, Kathryn Gutzwiller, for encouragement and constructive
advice on the manuscript at a later stage. The book has beneted im-
mensely from the suggestions of two anonymous external referees, and
from the comments of Adele Scafuro and David Whitehead, who also
read the manuscript for 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 Uni-
versity of Colorado for their useful comments. These readers and those
named below may not agree with all of my arguments and conclusions
here; they have saved me from many mistakes and misunderstandings,
but I have not always followed their advice. Any remaining errors or
omissions are entirely my own.
I would like also to acknowledge and thank several institutions for
their nancial support. Harvard Universitys Graduate School of Arts
and Sciences awarded me a dissertation completion fellowship to nish
the rst full version of this material in spring 1999. A Fletcher Fam-
ily Research Grant from Bowdoin College enabled me to study the
papyrus for the rst time in person during the summer of 2003. Two
awards from the academic support committee of Allegheny College,
supplemented by an award from the Jonathan E. and Nancy L. Helm-
reich Research and Book Grant Fund, supported study at the Institute of
Classical Studies in London in 2005 and at Harvards Widener Library
in 2006. I am grateful to the librarians and staff at those institutions and
to the British Library. I completed nal revisions of this manuscript at
the National Humanities Center, where I held the Robert F. and Mar-
garet S. Goheen Fellowship during the academic year 2006/2007. My
time at the National Humanities Center was co-funded by a sabbatical
grant from the Loeb Classical Library Foundation. I am particularly
grateful to everyone at the Center for making my time there so produc-
tive and comfortable.
My greatest academic debts are to Albert Henrichs, who advised
Preface vii
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. 121139.
1. General
xi
xii Abbreviations
2. Editions of Fragments
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
editors name is enclosed in brackets (viz. [Fuhr]).
p The papyrus, P. Lit. Lond. 133 = Brit. Mus. inv. 98
(Pack 1965, 1236).
Babington Babington 1859.
Blass Blass 1894.
Bcheler Bcheler 1875, 308309.
Bursian Bursian and Mller 1858.
Caesar Caesar 1857.
Cafaux Cafaux 1866.
Cobet Cobet 1858; Cobet 1873, 343 on 43.
Colin Colin 1946.
Comparetti Comparetti 1864. Many of his suggestions were
originally published in Comparetti 1858.
Desrousseaux Desrousseaux 1949.
Fritzsche Fritzsche 18611862.
[Fuhr] The reference is from Jensen 1917. His bibliogra-
phy lists seven items. I have checked six of those
and not been able to locate Fuhrs comments on the
Funeral Oration. The other reference, to Wochen-
schrift fr klassiche Philologie 1902 p. 1543, is in
error. Cited on pages xiii, 54, 75, 115, 116.
Graindor Graindor 1898.
van Herwerden van Herwerden 1895.
Hess Hess 1938.
Jensen Jensen 1917.
Kaibel Kaibel 1893, 56 n. 1.
Kayser Kayser 1858; Kayser 1868 on 6 and 31.
Kenyon Kenyon 1906.
Leopardi Leopardi 1835, 11.
Levi Levi 1892.
Maehly Maehly 1872.
Mller Bursian and Mller 1858.
Piccolomini Piccolomini 1882.
Post L. A. Posts conjectures are reported in Burtt 1954.
Radermacher Radermacher 1896.
Ruhnken Toup and Ruhnken 1806, 312313.
xiv Abbreviations
3
4 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
ambassadors who negotiated peace terms with Philip in early 346.4 The
so-called Peace of Philocrates became an embarrassment for Athens
when Philip gained a foothold in central Greece by replacing Phocis,
Athens ally, on the Amphictyonic Council at the end of the third Sa-
cred War in late 346.5 Hyperides convinced the court that Philocrates
accepted bribes from Philip and acted against the interest of Athens.6
Philocrates was sentenced to death in absentia and his property was
conscated.
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
conict with Philip, Demosthenes and other leading Athenian oppo-
nents of Macedon began reaching out to potential allies. In the late
340s Demosthenes himself made repeated diplomatic trips to the Pelo-
ponnese and elsewhere, while Hyperides went to the island of Rhodes.8
Hyperides helped prepare the eet to face the Macedonians at Euboea
in 340, and after Philip laid siege to Byzantium and captured the Athe-
nian grain eet later that year, Hyperides served as trierarch and par-
ticipated in the expedition to Byzantium.9
In 339 the lines were drawn for war with Philip in Greece. The
Macedonian king entered central Greece as the hgemn of the Am-
phictyonic League in the fourth Sacred War against Amphissa, while
Athens formed an opposing coalition with Thebes and several other
Greek states.10 Demosthenes was proud of engineering this alliance
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 Philips, and then Alexan-
ders, lead in the so-called League of Corinth.13
Hyperides was a staunch supporter of Demosthenes before and af-
ter the battle. He proposed an honorary crown to award Demosthenes
for his good service to the city of Athens in the days leading up to
the confrontation.14 As a member of the boul in 338/337 he remained
in the city during the battle,15 and when news of the disaster reached
Athens, he put forward an emergency measure enfranchising slaves,
metics, and Athenians whose citizenship had been revoked.16 At the
end of the campaign season the boul initiated the selection process
for the orator at the state funeral oration, and Hyperides likely had a
role in the presentation of Demosthenes as a candidate before the As-
before the battle. Sealey (1993, 196198) 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. 912).
11
On the alliance, see Dem. 18.153, 211226. 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, 175176, 187, Din.
1.12, Plut. Dem. 20.2.
12
Diod. Sic. 16.86.5 provides gures for Athenian losses; Plut. Pel. 18.5 observes
the destruction of the entire Theban Sacred Band.
13
On the settlements with the individual Greek states after the battle see Ham-
mond et al. 19721988, II: 604623 and Roebuck 1948. Ryder (1965, 102105 and
150162) discusses the League of Corinth as a koin eirn and Hammond et al.
(19721988, II: 623646) provides a detailed overview.
14
Dem. 18.57, 223224 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. 2526; cf. Aesch.
3.156 and Harp. s.v. on the exiles in Athens) indicate that the case did not
come to trial until after 335.
15
Luc. Par. 42 offers late and unspecic evidence for his membership on the
boul (which is accepted by, e.g., Develin (1989, 345)), which is now perhaps con-
rmed 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. III, not I.2)
to describe Hyperides activity at the time of battle.
16
Osborne 1983, 6768 (T67); the measure was challenged for illegality and
never put into effect (Hansen 1974, 3637 no. 27).
6 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
17
The probouleuma probably suggested a few suitable candidates for the elec-
tion in the Assembly (perhaps implied at Pl. Mx. 234b). Gomme (1956, 102) asserts
that the boul appointed the speaker, but Dem. 18.285 describes an election in the
Assembly with alternative candidates (on the procedure for electing magistrates see
Hansen 1991, 233235).
18
Hansen 1974, 37 no. 28.
19
Hyp. fr. 76.
20
Hansen 1974, 39 no. 32. Whitehead (2000, 2930 and 32) discusses the date
and those honored by the proedroi.
21
Plut. Dem. 22.12, Aesch. 3.77, 160.
22
Plut. Dem. 23.2, Diod. Sic. 17.5.1 and 17.3.2.
23
Diod. Sic. 17.3.24.6, with discussion by Bosworth (1988, 188189).
Introduction 7
24
Diod. Sic. 16.89.2, cf. Arr. An. 2.14.4 and 3.18.12. On Alexanders panhel-
lenism see Flower 2000.
25
For narratives of the Theban revolt and destruction see Arr. An. 1.78 and Diod.
Sic. 17.814, with the note on 17 under ] . On the garrison
see note on 17 under [ ] [][]. Worthington (2003a)
suggests that Alexanders treatment of Thebes was connected with Theban support
of a rival (Amyntas son of Perdiccas III) for the Macedonian throne.
26
See Diod. Sic. 17.8.67 and Plut. Dem. 23.12 with discussion by Worthington
(1992, 164165).
27
On Demades role see Diod. Sic. 17.15.34. Some sources put Hyperides on
the list of Athenians demanded, but Bosworth (1980, 9395) demonstrates that these
later accounts wrongly include Hyperides because of his activity during the Lamian
War.
28
Hyp. Dion. 145r/144v ll. 910 and 175r/174v ll. 3132 (on the speech see be-
low p. 18); [Plu.] Vit. X or. 848f.
8 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
29
Arr. An. 2.15.2 and Curt. 3.13.15.
30
Badian (1967, 175176) considers how startling the news from Issus must have
been for the Greeks.
31
On the date see Badian 1994, 268271.
32
Demades: Plut. Mor. 818e; Demosthenes: Plut. Dem. 24.1 and Aesch.
3.165166. Badian (1967, 181183) and Cawkwell (1969, 178180) suggest that
Demosthenes failed to appreciate the revolts potential. Worthington (2000, 9798)
is more sceptical of Agis chances and defends Demosthenes inactivity (cf. also
Harris 1995, 173).
33
Libanius summary of Dem. 17 attributes the speech to Hyperides (Lib. Arg.D.
or. 17), and the context is probably the debate in the Athenian Assembly over join-
ing Agis revolt; see Sealey 1993, 240 for references. Rhodes (2006, 342) suggests
that the mention of a contribution to this war in an honorary inscription proposed by
Lycurgus (IG II2 351 = Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 474477 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 Ctesiphons
syngoros, and by shorthand I refer to him as the defendant in this account. Hansen
(1974, 3739 no. 30) catalogues the testimonia for these events and Wankel (1976,
1337) provides a thorough analysis of the dates of Ctesiphons proposal, Aeschines
indictment, and the trial.
Introduction 9
36
Admittedly, the case only concerns Ctesiphons decree of 336, and later events
are not strictly relevant. Still, Aeschines brings up the revolts of the 330s and Demos-
thenes does not respond; see the discussion on pp. 1920.
37
Harris (2000, 5967) 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, 515516) provides a concise sketch of Lycurgus nancial ad-
ministration; Lambert (1997, 280291) offers a more full account with references
to recent discussion (most importantly, Faraguna 1992, 171194). On private con-
tributions see Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 474477 no. 94 on IG II2 351 + 624 and
Heisserer and Moysey (1986) on a similar honorary decree.
40
Habicht (1997, 2326) and Bosworth (1988, 204211) provide useful brief
summaries of Lycurgus programs. For a more detailed account see Faraguna 1992,
257267 and Humphreys 2004, 77129 (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
42
Diod. Sic. 17.109.1 and 18.8; cf. Dem. 17.16. Bosworth (1988, 220228) offers
a useful discussion.
43
Badian 1961, 2627.
44
See 13 with note under ] [] .
45
Shipley (1987, 165166) discusses Alexanders Exiles Decree and Samos. His
estimate of between 6,000 and 12,000 cleruchs (14) seems to be conrmed by a re-
cently discovered council list of the cleruchy (Habicht 1996, 401).
46
Diod. Sic. 18.8.6.
47
Hyp. Dem. 18, discussed by Bosworth (1988, 215216). The standard study
of the Harpalus scandal is Badian 1961; Whitehead (2000, 357 n. 246) lists more
recent work (add Blackwell 1999, 1317 and 134136 to his list). Worthington (1987,
4177) also provides a detailed discussion of the events and questions Demosthenes
guilt.
48
Diod. Sic. 17.108.7; [Plu.] Vit. X or. 846ab.
49
Hyp. Dem. 89; Din. 1.81, 103.
Introduction 11
50
Diod. Sic. 17.108.8 and 18.19.2. For further details on all these events see
Badian 1961, 3132 and Bosworth 1988, 216217.
51
Diod. Sic. 17.108.8, Plut. Dem. 25, Hyp. Dem. 1213 with Whiteheads (2000,
400402) 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, 3236, Bosworth 1988, 218220, Worthington 2000, 104105.
55
Plut. Dem. 27.45.
56
See the notes to 21 under and []
.
57
Cawkwell (1994, 299302) 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
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 Ashtons (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 ( ) arrangement must
have been approved by the Assembly. Badian (1961, 37 n. 164) infers that Leos-
thenes was the hoplite general. On his earlier career see the note on 1 under ]
[].
61
Paus. 1.25.5, 8.52.5. On Taenarum as a recognised mercenary center see Ba-
dian 1961, 2728.
62
Diod. Sic. 18.9.4. Badian (1961, 3740) suggests that Demosthenes used the
twenty talents he received from Harpalus to retain these soldiers in summer of 324;
see Whitehead 2000, 401 for references to further discussion of this hypothesis.
63
On Hyperides role see Plut. Phoc. 23.2 and Plut. Mor. 486d; P. Hib. 15 =
FGrHist 105 F6 may preserve a rhetorical piece purporting to be a speech by Leos-
thenes at this debate. Diod. Sic. 18.10.2 and 18.11.3 enumerate the Athenian forces.
Morrison (1987, 8993) discusses these passages and concludes that Athens, in the
hope of forming a new thalassocracy, immediately began developing a compara-
tively long-term programme of expanding the number of ships that could be sent to
sea by a newly organised Hellenic League (90).
64
Diod. Sic. 17.111.3, 18.9.5. A fragment of the stele survives: IG II2 370. Wor-
thington (1984) discusses the chronology of the alliance.
65
Diod. Sic. 18.9.5 and 18.11.12. IG II2 367 = Schwenk 1985, 394401 no. 81
records honors for the Athenian ambassador to Phocis (see Oikonomides 1982).
Introduction 13
allied forces to defeat them near Plataea.66 The Greek forces then
occupied Thermopylae, where they planned to meet the Macedonian
army. The Macedonian commander Antipater requested reinforce-
ments 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 condent 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 (1214) and before the setbacks
later that year. The Athenian eet suffered two major losses at Abydus
and Amorgus in July of 322, and the army was defeated soon afterward
66
Diod. Sic. 18.11.5. See also the notes on 11 under and .
67
Diod. Sic. 18.11.512.2.
68
1213, Diod. Sic. 18.12.34. Tracy (1995, 29) emphasizes the critical con-
tribution of the Thessalian cavalry; see also the note on 13 under ]
[] .
69
Diod. Sic. 18.18.3, Plut. Phoc. 26.4.
70
See Tracys (1994, 242) discussion of an augmented text (Walbank 1994) of
IG II2 1195 (lines 2830).
71
Just. 13.5.1011, Plut. Dem. 27.24. IG II2 448 (912, 4549) refers to an al-
liance with Sicyon in late 323.
72
Diod. Sic. 18.13.45, Just. 13.5.12; see also the note on 1 under ]
[]. 23 describes the difculties of the winter siege.
73
Diod. Sic. 18.15.17; see also the note on 14 under []
.
74
There was not a xed calendar date for the ceremony; see Loraux 1986, 3738.
14 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
75
Habicht (1997, 39 n. 7) and Tracy (1995, 28 n. 34) list the epigraphic sources for
the naval battles (Diodorus version (18.15.89) is highly compressed). For Crannon
see Diod. Sic. 18.16.417.5.
76
Plut. Phoc. 28.1, Plut. Dem. 28.24.
77
The date at which the institution was rst introduced is notoriously controver-
sial and not relevant for my present purpose. Parker (1996, 134135) sensibly sug-
gests that it developed by stages and assumed its full form with an oration after the
defeat of the Persians. Others have argued for specic dates in the late 470s or 460s
(see Jacoby 1944, 55; Gomme 1956, 94101; Stupperich 1977, 1.235238; Clair-
mont 1983, 1315; Loraux 1986, 5676). The fullest recent summary of the problem
is Pritchett 19711991, IV: 112124.
Introduction 15
78
Thuc. 2.34; Dem. 20.141 describes the oration as a uniquely Athenian custom.
Patterson (2006, 5356) argues against the common interpretation of dmosion sma
as national cemetery (cf. Rusten 1989, 137). Pritchett (19711991, IV: 102106)
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 19711991, IV: 107.
79
Stupperich (1977, 1.431) and Clairmont (1983, 6073) describe the polyan-
dria. For the epigrams see Peek 1955, nos. 137. On the iconography, Stupperich
1994. Bradeens 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 fth century, has recently
been discovered; see Blackman et al. 19971998, 811.
80
On the selection of the orator see Thuc. 2.34.6 and note 17 on p. 6.
81
Thuc. 2.34.6, Dem. 60.13. Bosworth (2000, 2) emphasizes the size of the au-
dience described in Thucydides introduction to Pericles speech.
82
Thuc. 2.3546 (cf. Plut. Per. 8 on an earlier Periclean speech), Gorg. fr. 56,
Lys. 2, Pl. Mx. 236d249c, Dem. 60, Hyp. 6. See Herrman 2004 for translations of
all of these with notes emphasizing their individual differences.
83
Thuc. 2.3742. Bosworth (2000) persuasively argues that Thucydides gives an
accurate reproduction of what Pericles actually said, and that the speech addresses
the audiences specic concerns in 431/430.
16 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
84
Dem. 60.2731.
85
6 and 15; 1118.
86
Men. Rh. 418.5422.4; [D.H.] 277.6283.19. These accounts intermix discus-
sion of private and public funeral orations.
87
Ziolkowski (1981, 57) and Herrman (2004, 6) chart these divisions in the sur-
viving speeches.
88
Thuc. 2.35.12, Lys. 2.12, Pl. Mx. 236de, Dem. 60.1, 12 (with the note
to 1 under [ ] [ ). 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. 420.1112; [D.H.] 278.1518.
91
Thuc. 2.36.1, Lys. 2.17, Pl. Mx. 237c, Dem. 60.4, 7 with note under
[] [] .
92
Lys. 2.366 and Pl. Mx. 239a246b offer the most extensive narratives; cf.
also Dem. 60.611. Thomas (1989, 196236) discusses these accounts as examples
of an ofcial tradition. Burgess (1902, 150153) provides a detailed catalogue of
the elements in these narratives.
Introduction 17
93
Amazons: Lys. 2.46, Pl. Mx. 239b, Dem. 60.8; Eumolpus: Pl. Mx. 239b;
Marathon: Lys. 2.21, Pl. Mx. 240ce; Heraclidae: Lys. 2.1116, Pl. Mx. 239b,
Dem. 60.8.
94
Dionysius of Halicarnassus denied the authenticity of Dem. 60 because its lan-
guage and sentiment seem uncharacteristic of Demosthenes (D.H. Dem. 44), and
many ancient and modern critics have followed his judgment. But the style and atti-
tude of the speech can be readily explained by the genre and the historical situation,
and there is no compelling reason to doubt that the speech is Demosthenic. McCabe
(1981, 169172) conrms that the prosody is statistically consistent with genuine
speeches. For recent discussion see Herrman 2008 and Worthington 2003b.
95
Dem. 60.811. Walters (1980, 1416) observes that the epitaphioi cast Eumol-
pus and the Amazons as aggressive invaders to serve as a precedent for the Persian
invasions.
96
Dem. 60.2731.
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
Athens immediately after the battle, not the creation of the League in early 337.
100
For a narrative of these events see above pp. 67.
101
See above note 14 on p. 5 on the date of the Against Diondas.
102
Hyp. Dion. 137v/136r ll. 12.
103
Hyp. Dion. 145v/144r ll. 922. 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. 32137v/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 eeing 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 eld.106 Like Demosthenes and
other funeral orators, he compares the campaign against Philip with
patriotic episodes from Athenian myth, such as the sacrice of the Hy-
acinthidae to save Athens from Eumolpus.107 From myth he moves to
the Persian Wars, singling out the two standard examples of Athenian
heroism, the battles of Marathon and Salamis.108 Lycurgus may have
hoped the Athenians would join Agis revolt in 331 and put the defeat
of 338 behind them (see note 33 on p. 8), but his persuasive appeal to the
court in Athens in his prosecution of Leocrates, like earlier speeches of
Demosthenes and Hyperides, uses models from myth and the Persian
Wars to heroize the Athenian effort at Chaeronea.109
A year after Lycurgus prosecution, Demosthenes delivered his
masterpiece On the Crown. As we have already observed (see p. 8),
his defense speech focuses on the period leading up to the battle
of Chaeronea, and avoids discussion of more recent events. In his
prosecution speech Aeschines blames Demosthenes for missing the
opportunity of Philips 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 unfullled: Demosthenes does not return to the
subject of the Theban revolt, nor does he mention the recent defeat of
Agis. Instead, he defends the policy that led to Chaeronea, by using
many of the same arguments that appeared in his Funeral Oration in
338, and also in Hyperides Against Diondas and Lycurgus Against
Leocrates.112
Demosthenes shows no regret for his policy. He argues that con-
frontation with Philip was inevitable, and that the alliance with Thebes
106
Lycurg. 50; cf. Dem. 60.24, quoted above. Maas (1928) lists several other close
parallels and suggests that Lycurgus deliberately alludes to the (genuine, he believes)
Demosthenic speech.
107
Lycurg. 98100; 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, 6775), Ly-
curgus lost by only a single vote (Aesch. 3.252).
110
Aesch. 3.160161, 156157, 165.
111
Dem. 18.4142; 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 10.3.1415 = Hyp. fr. 95).
20 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
was the best alternative for Athens.113 Not only was this policy sensible,
according to Demosthenes, but it also lived up to the Athenian tradi-
tion. As we 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 advo-
cates for Greek freedom preferred to dwell on the glorious ght for
freedom at Chaeronea, rather than more recent events that only con-
rmed their impotence against Alexander.
As we have just seen, the speeches of the 330s focus on the defeat
at Chaeronea, which they present as the most recent event in a long
tradition of Athenian accomplishments. These orations pay little atten-
tion to subsequent developments, as Philip and Alexander consolidated
their control of Greece. But in the 320s Athenian prospects improved
dramatically, and the death of Alexander in 323 provided an ideal op-
portunity to renew the ght for the freedom lost at Chaeronea.116 Hy-
perides speech reects 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 nally put Chaeronea be-
hind them, and Hyperides shows them that the current campaign was
more important than any of their ancestors achievements.
Earlier funeral orations present an idealized history of Athens
that begins in the mythological past and culminates with the Persian
Wars.117 They do sometimes describe more recent events, but only
briey, as if to emphasize that the current honorands play but a
small part in a great tradition. Lysias, for example, devotes nearly his
whole speech to the deeds of the dead (3), presenting an extensive
account of the Persian Wars as the centerpiece, while the Corinthian
113
Dem. 18.195.
114
Dem. 18.208, with discussion by Yunis (2000, 108109).
115
Dem. 18.192194, cf. Dem. 60.1920.
116
On these events see above pp. 912.
117
For details and references see above p. 16.
Introduction 21
118
Lys. 2.2047 and 6670. Similarly, in the Menexenus the Persian Wars receive
much more attention than the Corinthian War; see Pl. Mx. 239d241d and 244b245c.
119
Dem. 60.2731; cf. above p. 17. On the Eponymous Heroes, see Kearns 1989,
8092, with the individual entries in her appendix 1.
120
See 5 with the commentary notes.
121
As discussed above (pp. 1517), 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, 34) suggests that Pericles oration in 439 may have
been similar to Hyperides in this regard.
122
910. On Leosthenes see pp. 1213 and the note on section 1 under
] []. For discussion of this speechs unusual focus on
the general, see the note on 3 under . . . .
123
1214 with the commentary notes; see also above pp. 1213.
124
1718 with the commentary notes.
22 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
125
For example, Lysias concludes his narrative by stating that the soldiers of
the Corinthian War preserved the glory of their ancestors (69: . . .
) 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, 116118) 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 ].
127
1; see the note there under [] on the restoration of the word. On an-
dres agathoi see the note on 8 under [].
128
19. See the note there under . . .
on the hyperbole.
129
Dem. 60.2324. 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 rst season of the
Lamian War reveal a newfound optimism in Athenian prospects.
Hyperides also appropriates the language typically used for the Per-
sian Wars and applies it to the Lamian War. For example, his descrip-
tion of the courage of the Lamian War soldiers echoes Lycurgus praise
for the ghters at Marathon.132 Similarly, Platos 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 ghting a foreign monarch, and signicant battles near Ther-
mopylae and Plataea, invite such a comparison.135 But Hyperides is not
content just to observe the parallels between the two conicts. His allu-
sions underline the fact that the typical epitaphic account of the Persian
Wars has been replaced by a narrative of recent events,136 and they an-
ticipate the orations vivid nal scene of Leosthenes and his men in
the underworld, where they will be praised for their superiority to the
legendary generals of the Persian Wars.137
Hyperides speech illustrates the Athenian attitude to the Macedo-
nian leadership of the League of Corinth in the 320s. The speech con-
stantly calls for the freedom of the Greeks and the overthrow of the
Macedonian rule. In one key passage Hyperides denes this concept
in constitutional terms, as he laments the Athenians loss, not just of
external freedom, but also of the basic right to determine their own do-
mestic politics within the city. He praises autonomia, the citys right
to govern itself, and the rule of law, which he sharply contrasts with
131
19. See the note there under [.
132
19, Lycurg. 108; see the note on 19 under
. . . .
133
20, Pl. Mx. 240d; see the note on 20 under .
134
37. On freedom as a Lamian War slogan see the note on 16 under [ ]
.
135
Cf. Loraux 1986, 127129.
136
See the note on 5 under [.
137
3738, with the note on 37 under .
24 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
138
25 with the notes under and . . . .
139
25 with the note under and 10 with the note under
[] .
140
2022; for further discussion see the notes on 20 under
, on 21 under [ ]
. . . , and on 22 under . . .
.
141
Longin. 34: [] ,
,
, ,
, . 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,
245246) gives a few salient examples of marked language in funeral orations and
the conspicuous verbal craftsmanship of the genre.
Introduction 25
143
On the rhetorical gure of parisosis see on 13 under . . . . Both
and follow the same pattern of mono-
syllabic article followed by trisyllabic noun, followed by a trisyllabic noun or verb
that governs the immediately preceding noun as an object.
144
For other examples, see 13 with the note under . . . , 24 with
the note under . . . and 42 with the note under
. . . . Blass (18871893, 3334) comments on the long periods
in this speech and also discusses Hyperides tendency to use superuous verbiage
(auxsis).
145
On less complex similes in oratory, see the end of the introductory note on 5.
26 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
For polyptoton see the note on 26 under , and for exclamations see
on 40 under .
146
: 18, 27, 37, 40; : 3, 11, 35. Of course, the corpus is small
and fragmentary, so many of the words listed in Jensens index vocabularum occur
only once. But a number of the items in Dovers (1968, 6567) list of non-forensic
terms in Lysias Funeral Oration are used by Hyperides only in the Epitaphios: e.g.,
(43 and the fragmentum dubium, ageless), (twice in 35,
to welcome), and (3, 11, 35 leader).
Introduction 27
The Funeral Oration was one of the rst 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 rst editor, Churchill Babington, arranged the f-
teen fragments into fourteen columns.149 This arrangement is clearly
conrmed by the texts on both sides of the papyrus, and quickly won
wide assent.150 Friedrich Blass made one important modication when
he recognized that the fragments Babington had classied as the rst
two columns in fact join to form one column.151 Accepting this join,
the papyrus falls into three physical divisions: col. 1, cols. 211, and
cols. 1213. Hyperides text clearly continues directly from column 1
to 2 (2: . . . , the deeds), indicating that no mate-
rial has been lost between the rst two divisions of papyrus. The text
is more difcult at the end of the second division, but here, too, there
appears to be continuity. The conditional protasis (34, if) at
the end of column 11 is nicely completed by the verb (was)
at the start of column 12, and then answered by the optative question
(what speech would confer).152 One addi-
tional small piece of the papyrus (my fragment 1a) has not been placed;
it must come from the right half of col. 11 or from an additional section
of the papyrus, otherwise lost, that came after col. 13.153
The rst part (cols. 110) of the text of the Funeral Oration is writ-
ten against the vertical bers on the verso of a horoscope and astrolog-
147
P. Lit. Lond. 133 = Brit. Mus. inv. 98; Pack 1965, 1236. Turner (1980, 21) lists
the few literary nds before 1860.
148
Babington 1859, 3.
149
The details in Babington 1858 are summarized by Jensen (1917, xvi n. 2).
150
Blass (1894, xv) observes that neque quicquam fere reliqui ille fecit prox-
imis editoribus, nisi ut duo prima fragmenta ad unam columnam efciendam con-
iungerentur.
151
See the note on 12.
152
The proposed restorations for the end of col. 11 also support continuity between
cols. 11 and 12: see note on 34 under ].
153
The fragment is torn on all sides. The bers run parallel to its script, which
indicates that it cannot belong to any of the lacunae in cols. 110 (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. 1113).
Cf. Blass 1894, 93 and Jensen 1917, 113.
28 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
ical text in Greek and Coptic.154 The second part of the papyrus text
(cols. 1113) comes after a glue-join (a synkollsis) and is written along
the bers 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 rst 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. 13, 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, 103104) de-
scribes our scribe as a private nonliterary hand and compares P. Oxy.
9.1175.157 Here, the lines are roughly bilinear, with more adherence to
an upper rule. Letters such as , , , and drop below the bottom
rule. , , and often project above the upper rule. is especially dis-
tinguished by its height and narrowness. In general, the style seems
somewhat hurried, and the spacing is quite tight. Turners (1987, 5)
suggestion that it was written as a school exercise is very attractive.
The scribe seems careless and makes several mistakes (see appendix
A). There are a number of omissions, sometimes of only a character or
two, but in other places whole words or phrases need to be supplied to
make sense of the text. See appendix A for further details on scribal
mistakes, orthography, punctuation, and diacritics. A published fac-
simile of the entire manuscript may be found in Babington 1858; it is a
hand-drawn lithograph, and while it is very accurate for the most part,
it tends to hide physical blemishes in the papyrus and is occasionally
inaccurate.158 Thompson and Warner (1881, pl. 4) provide an image of
154
The recto text is Neugebauer and Van Hoesen 1959, 2838 no. 95. Its vertical
orientation is opposite the verso.
155
Turner (1987, 5) comments on the rarity of this technique for column division,
with specic 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. 711, while Wattenbach (1897, pl. 3),
has a drawing of cols. 89.
The horoscope on the recto is important for the dating of the pa-
pyrus. 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 dat-
ing is conrmed by the palaeographical parallels cited in the previous
paragraph, which editors assign to the late second century AD.
The Funeral Oration of Hyperides was rst edited and published in
England by Churchill Babington (1858). This exciting new text imme-
diately prompted several publications from some of the best Hellenists
on the continent,160 and Babington reexamined the papyrus in light of
their suggestions and published a second edition in 1859. Within the
next decade four more editions and several short articles appeared,
which differed mainly in their restorations of the lacunose sections of
the speech.161 The work of these early scholars did much to improve
the text of the speech, and the value and extent of their contributions
can be judged from the frequency of their names in the apparatuses of
all subsequent editions.
The collective work of all of these early scholars was synthesized
by Friedrich Blass, who further added numerous signicant improve-
ments of his own to the text, in the rst modern edition of the surviving
speeches and fragments of Hyperides, which appeared in the Teubner
series in 1869.162 As new Hyperides papyri came to light, Blass pre-
pared updated editions of the Teubner volume,163 and his third edition
remains valuable, not only because of the editors excellent skill as a
upon examination of the manuscript. For example, Babington (1858, 34) reads
[ in 8 and the image of the end of col. 4 line 21 reects 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, 2829.
See Turner 1987, 1819 on the length of intervals between writing on the verso and
reuse of the recto of a papyrus roll.
160
Babington (1859, 56) refers specically to Kayser (1858), Spengel (1858),
Caesar (1857), Comparetti (1858), and Cobet (1858). Bursian and Mller (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 Cafaux (1866). Fritzsche (18611862), Schfer (1860),
Shilleto (1860) and Volckmar (1860) published notes.
162
Blass 1869, reviewed by Sandys (1870). Whitehead (2000, 1923) provides an
excellent survey of the editions of Blass and subsequent editors.
163
Blass 1881 and 1894; for reviews of the third edition see Sandys 1895 and
Radermacher 1896.
30 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
papyrologist and countless ingenious restorations, but also for the vol-
umes compendious account of all nineteenth-century work on Hype-
rides text.
Two twentieth-century editions of the Funeral Oration illustrate
different approaches to presenting the text. Frederic Kenyon (1906)
produced an Oxford Classical Text of Hyperides that was a marked de-
parture from Blass Teubner editions.164 Kenyon aimed to present as
readable a text as possible; he does not indicate the lineation of the pa-
pyrus, and removes editorial brackets and dots from the text when they
pertain only to a few letters that can be restored with certainty. In the
most damaged sections of the Funeral Oration he follows two differ-
ent approaches. In 1 he prints short phrases separated by dots and does
not record many restorations for the lacunae. In 3134 he lls in all
of the lacunae, with square brackets as appropriate, to present a contin-
uous and intelligible text, but he does not record alternative proposals
for the gaps. Christian Jensen (1917) prepared the most recent Teubner
edition,165 which is widely recognized as the best existing edition of
Hyperides. Jensen was an extremely skilled papyrologist, and his de-
tailed observations in his apparatus with regard to doubtful readings are
an important advance on Blass editions. He scrupulously preserves the
layout of the papyrus, printing his text in 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 Jensens
text. Most notably, Gaston Colin (1946) prepared a Bud 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. Burtts (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 nal notice
164
Reviewed by Fuhr (1907).
165
A new Teubner is in preparation by Lszl Horvth.
166
Marzi 1977, 5982.
167
Worthington 1999, Coppola 1996, and Rolando 1969.
Introduction 31
168
I diverge from Jensens readings of the papyrus in the following places (refer-
ence to column and line of the papyrus): 1.12, 14, 19, 20, 21; 2.10, 21; 3.5, 6, 9, 13,
20; 4.27; 5.8, 11; 6.19, 24, 32, 33; 7.2, 7, 9, 10, 20; 8.17; 9.21; 10.5, 38, 40; 11.2, 21,
40; 13.30.
169
Viz., 1 ] . . . ] [, 5 [ ] [
(cf. Jensen 1917, xlvi) and 31 ] . [ .... .
170
On the Leiden system, see Turner 1980, 187188 n. 22. For a criticism of Jen-
sens system, see Whitehead 2000, 21 n. 80.
32 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
sistency with surviving ink traces, and their physical t with holes
or damage in the manuscript, and because they seem to convey a
highly appropriate sense in context, are incorporated in the text be-
tween square brackets, and the editors are credited in the apparatus.
In order not to inate the size of the apparatus, obvious restorations
of only a letter or two, most of which go back to Babingtons rst
edition, are not listed in the apparatus.
Restorations that seem less certain but highly plausible, for the rea-
sons listed in the previous item, are recorded in the apparatus, but
not in the text. In situations where more than one plausible restora-
tion has been suggested, and the criteria of sense and physical t do
not support the strong likelihood of a single restoration in prefer-
ence to others, I have printed dots in the text and noted the various
restoration in the apparatus.
Proposals that seem to me least suitable to the physical remains or
the sense are recorded in appendix B. In particularly damaged ar-
eas of the papyrus (e.g., 1, 3134), I have tended to print dots
in the text, as noted in the previous item, to indicate the size of the
lacunae and I have listed the most plausible restoration in the appa-
ratus. Appendix B records restorations that I deem most unlikely. It
is important to record them, however, for two reasons: (1) readers
may doubt my judgement, and they should be able to consider all
of the proposed alternatives for themselves, and (2) these records
obviate the need to consult nineteenth-century editions (i.e., Blass
1894, which has a much fuller apparatus than Jensen).
The text is printed as continuous prose with embedded notation of
papyrus column and line breaks.171 The right margin of the text enu-
merates the lines as printed in this edition, and these line numbers are
used in the apparatus and in appendix B, and appear in the commentary
lemmata. The standard section divisions are indicated by bold numbers
in the outer margin (the left margin of the text and the right margin of
the translation), and the commentary refers to these sections. In lacu-
nae, dots have been gathered into groups of ve (except for the last
group of the lacuna) for the readers 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
Fragment 1b
1 [ ]|. [ ] | I
[ ] | []|5
.[] | []|.
[ |], .[ | ], ..[ 5
..... | ] . [ .... ..... . | .. ] .[ ..... | .. ]
10
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
[ ].|. 40
6 .[ ] | [ ] |
.[, ]. |, .[ ].
|25 [ ] |.[ . ]
| [ ]., | ;
| [] |30 ; 45
7 | |
| ,
| IV
| | -
, |5 . |
| . | , 50
| .[] |10 []
| , [] | [
8 ] | . [] |
[], |15 .[]|
[ ]| .[,] | 55
[ ]|; .[] |20 .
[] | .[,] |
[]| .[] |
[] |25 .[] |
9 [] | []|. 60
.[ ]| [] |30
|, | |
|.
|35
10 |. | []. 65
| []
[]., - V
| [] |[]
| [] , |5 [
]. | [] , |[
] , |[ ]. , 70
40 Babington 41 Babington
Babington 4142 Blass 42 Kayser p,
Mller Babington 43 Sauppe
4344 Babington, add. Colin 44 Cobet 45
. p;
Babington, cf. Dem. 60.12 46 Schaefer ap. Babington 50
p, Cobet 5253 parvula fragmenta deest;
cf. comm. ad 78 55 rest. Babington, p 56 Jensen,
Levi Babington 57 Babington 58 [] p,
corr. Sauppe 61 Babington 66 Kenyon 70 Schfer
Text and Translation 41
to his native city, and his city to the Greeks. After he raised a 11
mercenary force and was appointed general of the citys troops,
he defeated the rst 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, 12
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 Pho- 13
cians and the Aetolians and all the others in that region as al-
lies, and over those whom Philip and Alexander proudly com-
manded against their will, over those Leosthenes took com-
mand according to their will. But although he was able to master
any situation he chose, he could not prevail over fate. It is right 14
not only to always thank Leosthenes rst for what he did, but
also for the battle which was fought later after his death, and
for the [other] benets that came out of this campaign for the
Greeks. For on the foundations laid down by Leosthenes the
survivors build their future achievements.
No one should assume that I take no account of the other 15
citizens, [but instead] eulogize Leosthenes alone. My praise of
Leosthenes [in] these battles is also a eulogy for the others citi-
zens. For just as good planning depends on the general, so vic-
tory in the eld comes from those willing to risk their lives. As
a result, whenever I praise the victorious outcome, along with
the leadership of Leosthenes I also eulogize the virtue of the
other men. Who would not rightly praise the citizens who died 16
in the war and gave up their lives for the freedom of the Greeks?
They believed that the clearest proof of their willingness to pro-
44 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
vide freedom to Greece was dying for it in battle. The fact that 17
their prior battle took place in Boeotia contributed greatly to
their eagerness to ght for Greece. For they saw the city of
Thebes pitiably obliterated from human society, its acropolis
garrisoned by the Macedonians, the bodies of the inhabitants
enslaved and others parceling out the land. As a result, the pres-
ence of these terrible sights before their eyes provided them
with the unwavering courage to risk their lives readily.
The battle that took place near Thermopylae and Lamia 18
proved to be no less glorious for them than that which they
fought in Boeotia, not only because they defeated Antipater
and his allies, but also because of the place, that is that
the battle happened there. All the Greeks who arrive at the
Amphictyonic meeting twice a year will be observers of the
accomplishments of these men. And as they assemble at that
place they will recall their virtue. None of those who came 19
before ever fought for more noble goals or against stronger
adversaries, or with fewer allies, judging that virtue was
strength and that couragebut not just a great number of
individual bodieswas mass. They made freedom a common
possession for everyone, but they offered the glory that came
from their deeds as a private crown for their fatherland.
Now it is worthwhile to consider also what we suppose 20
would have happened if they had not fought dutifully. Wouldnt
the whole world be subject to one master and wouldnt Greece
be forced to treat his whim as law? In short, the insolence of
Macedon, and not the power of justice, would prevail every-
where. As a result, the abuse of each and every woman, maiden,
46 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
21 |15 |.
| .[]. |
[].| , .[ ] |20
[ ] | , ...[] |
, [] | . 145
22 | . |25
| |,
| ; |
; |30 |
, | | 150
23 | .
|35 |
| , |
| , |40
[]. | IX
| , |[]
|5 []. |[]
| []. , | [].
| [] .
24 |10 [] | 160
| ,
| | -
|15 |
| ; |
.[]| 165
.[] |20 []| -
25 .. | |
. |
|25 , |
| , | 170
|
|30 , |
26 . |
| |
. |35 175
| |
27 . | ,
| , |40
| , ..|
.[]| [] X
| |
| |5 .
| []. |[] .
28 | [ ] . | []. |10
.| |, 185
| ., | |15
, | |
|; | |20
29 , | . | .
| | . |25 190
, | .|
|. | .
30 |30 | -
; | | -
| []|35 ; 195
. | ; . |
[].. | .. | -
.|40 ; .. | ;
31 .. | |.
| . .[ ..... . XI
]| . [ .... ..... .. ]| [ ..... ..... .. ] | [ .....
..... .. ] | .[ ..... .... ] | [; ]
5
with their daily risks they lessened the fears for all time of the
citizens and the Greeks. They gave up their lives so that others
could live well. Because of them their fathers have become fa- 27
mous and their mothers are admired among the citizens. Their
sisters have justly entered into suitable marriages according to
the law and will continue to do so. The children of these men
who have diedno, it is not right to use that term for men who
lost their lives ghting on behalf of such a noble causerather,
of men who have exchanged life for a perpetual position, will
have their virtue as an asset for the good will of the people. If 28
death, which is most grievous for others, has been the founda-
tion of great advantages for them, how can we not judge them
fortunate, and how can we say that they have lost their lives,
instead of saying that they have been born anew in a better
birth than than their rst? Then they were senseless children,
but now they have become brave men. And then they displayed 29
their virtue over a long period of time and amid many perils,
but now as a result of this [ ] become known to everyone
and remembered for their courage.
On what occasion will we not recall the virtue of these men? 30
In what place will we not see them as the object of pride and
esteemed praise? Will they not come to mind if the city does
well? The things that were accomplished because of them will
cause what other men than these to be praised and remembered?
Perhaps they wont be remembered by those who are individ-
ually prosperous? Well, we will safely enjoy those successes
thanks to the virtue of these men. In the eyes of what genera- 31
tion will they not be blessed? [ ] among the [ ] fearless
[ ] life [ ] to have become [ ] because of them? [
among] their peers? [ ] death [ ] nobly [ ] by far [ ]
has [ among the] youth [ ] not the [ ] will be eager 32
50 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
205 ; Blass
205206 Blass 206207
Jensen 207
Jensen 208210
;
; Colin 210211
. . . Kenyon 211
Cobet 212213
Colin 213216
,
; Cobet
216 Babington aut
Cobet 220 p, emend. Babington 223 p, corr. Shilleto 223224
. p ( in rasura), corr. Shilleto 224225
p,
Cobet 225
[.] p, emend. Babington
Text and Translation 51
| [] | [].
36 |[] . |30 [] | [] 230
|[]. , |[] -
| [] |35 [] |[]
|[] . | []
37 | [], |40 []
|[] , | [] |. 235
|. , .[] | XIII
| | ,
38 .|5 | ,
..| | , |
|10 | , 240
| . | |
|15 , |
| .
39 | |
|20 , | 245
|, . | {}
{} | |25
|, | |
. .. |
|30 , . | . 250
. | ..|,
40 | . |35
| . | , -
| | ,
.|40 ..| 255
, | | .
| [ ]
Fragment 2
41
-
258277 Stob. 4.56.36
233
Kayser 238 Blass 244 Babington 246247
p, corr. Blass,
Sauppe, ( Post) Kenyon,
Colin
Text and Translation 53
Fragment 2
, - 260
.
,
,
42 . -
, . 265
,
. -
,
. , -
. 270
43 , -
,
-
,
, - 275
.
Fragmentum dubium
ual nature and your love for the deceased denes the limits of
your grief. Even so, you must be courageous and control your
grief as much as you can, and think not only of their death, but
also of the virtue which they have left behind. Although their 42
sufferings are worthy of lamentations, their deeds are worthy of
great praises. Although they did not live to see old age in this
life, they have gained ageless glory and have become blessed in
every respect. For those who died without children, the praise
of the Greeks will serve as immortal offspring. As for those
who left behind children, the good will of their native city will
act as a guardian for them. In addition, if death is similar to not 43
existing, then they are released from sicknesses and suffering
and the other things which trouble mortal lives. If there is con-
sciousness in Hades and the dead enjoy the care of the divine, as
we suppose, then it is likely that those who defended the honors
of the gods when they were under attack will receive the utmost
attention and care from the divinity.
Possible Fragment
ageless time
This page intentionally left blank
Commentary
57
58 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [1]
only the former of those two concerns. In Pl. Lg. 717d the Athenian
speaker advises that children should give their parents a tting burial
(the opposite of this situation), neither too shabby nor too ostentatious.
Fraenkel (1950, 359360 on A. A. 786) notes such polarities in praise.
1112 . . . [. Speech and deeds were often contrasted in the
funeral orations and other Athenian literature of the fth and fourth cen-
turies (for example, Thuc. 2.42.12 and 42.4, Lys. 2.2, Pl. Mx. 244a).
The oration for the dead is regularly compared to the courageous acts
of the fallen soldiers. Parry (1981, 160 and passim) discusses this an-
tithesis in the Thucydidean epitaphios, and also provides a history of
its development with a focus on the rst two books of Thucydides
History.
11]. The size of the lacuna better suits this reading than
Babingtons ] (may be inferior).
13 . The form is extant as early as Callimachus, but it is
usually employed for metrical purposes. is the regular form in
Attic prose inscriptions until the Roman period (Threatte 19801996,
II: 395396).
3. On the structure of the sentence in this section see p. 24 above.
1621 . . . . The focus on the in-
dividual is unique to this epitaphios. Other epitaphioi do not name in-
dividual honorands or give any sort of personal detail about the dead.
Hyperides was probably inuenced by the development of prose en-
comia in the fourth century (Schiappa (1999, 186190) traces the de-
velopment of the genre, beginning with Gorgias Helen). These prose
encomia for contemporary gures were particularly popular in the 320s
(Momigliano (1993, 64 n. 21) refers to two examples from the period:
a work on Alexander of Epirus by Theodectes, and one on Lycurgus by
Philiscus). Like this speech, these works mixed historical narrative with
topical praise. The surviving examples of the genre, Isocrates Evago-
ras and Xenophons Agesilaus, were both written after the death of the
subjects, and like Isocrates and Xenophon, Hyperides was perhaps a
personal friend of his subject (Plut. Mor. 486d gives examples of po-
litical and military partnerships, including Leosthenes and Hyperides,
but this 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 eld
was somewhat uncommon (Hamel (1998, app. 14, 204209) lists 38
62 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [3]
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 inict upon the unjust. In less formal
contexts a poet like Hesiod can more explicitly describe both the aid
and the harm that the gods inict upon mortals (Hes. Op. 225247;
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 () 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.
Pschl (1964, 558) collects bibliography on this and other sun sim-
iles. Colin (1938, 246247) admires the subtle poetic nature of its ex-
pression, and S. Kayser (1898, 225) compares Hyp. fr. 80, a much less
elaborate comparison of rhetores and snakes. Hyp. Phil. frg. 10 also
features a simile likening the city and the body (on which see White-
head 2000, 4142 ad loc. and Blass 1887, III.2: 33).
33 [. The curved left portion of the initial letter survives.
Blasss restoration of [ ts the space better than Sitzlers
suggestion of [. 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. 247e248a, in the consolatory
section of that speech, Socrates describes a man who has everything
that contributes to happiness in his own hands . . . [who] is not joined
to other men as having the best prepared life and being moderate
(sphrn), brave and intelligent. Similarly in this passage, Hyperides
associates this adjective with the possession of everything . . . useful
for life. The adjectives sphrn and epieiks are frequently paired by
66 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [5]
at Pl. Mx. 238a, where Athens is celebrated for rst mastering agricul-
ture (Tsitsiridis (1998, 213214 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, 2023 and Burgess 1902, 154 for par-
allels). The chorus of Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus gives much at-
tention to the most famous fruit of Athens in its eulogy of the city in
the second stasimon of that play (668719). That chorus praise cul-
minates in its description of the olive, an important symbol for Athens
and a characteristic attribute of its patron goddess Athena. See also
Eur. Tr. 801, Eur. Ion 14331436, and cf. the depiction of the olive
on the Athenian tetradrachms of the fth century (photos in Kraay
and Hirmer 1966, pl. 19 nos. 359363, with discussion at Kraay 1976,
6566). The olive was one of the few crops that ourished 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,
59). Sophocles describes the olive as self-planting () and
child-rearing (), thus connecting the fruits of Athens
with the themes of autochthony and agriculture as the basis of civiliza-
tion (cf. Foxhall (2007, 248249), who associates the latter adjective
with Athenian ideals of the long-term).
In fact, the rocky soil of Attica was not always able to produce
enough grain for the city, and cash crops such as olives helped fund
grain imports. Moreno (2007) has demonstrated that the Athenians de-
pended on imported grain and that their foreign policy in the fth 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 states self-sufciency on the one
hand, and, on the other hand, a cosmopolitan interest in, and real need
for, foreign artists and goods: this passage and other traditional eulo-
gies extol the independent ability of Athens to provide for itself, while
in contrast the Thucydidean funeral oration boasts of the diversity of
imported products available to the Athenians during the empire of the
fth 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, 3940) collects
relevant passages. As here, many other examples of this device specif-
68 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [5]
Thus Mills (1997, 5657) explains that the absence of Theseus from the
Eumenides of Aeschylus emphasizes the collective anonymity of the
plays Athenian court. Similarly, the epitaphioi celebrate the collective
unity of the civic community, and the absence of Theseus from the fu-
neral orations has nothing to do with any hypothetical rejection of the
policies of Cimon.
37 [. The catalogue of Athenian history that appears in other
epitaphioi tends to jump from the defeat of foreigners during mytho-
logical times to the Athenian role in the Persian Wars (for example,
Lys. 2.419 focuses on prehistoric exploits, and then 2047 immedi-
ately presents a long account of the Persian Wars). The verb kolazein,
to punish, links these mythological and historical events. It is used
both for the victories of Theseus (see previous note) and the defeat of
the Persians (Pl. Mx. 240d, discussed at Tsitsiridis 1998, 277). By using
this evocative verb here, Hyperides alludes to that traditional catalogue
of Athenian exploits, which he chooses to pass over in this simile so
that he can instead go on to provide a narrative of Leosthenes achieve-
ments. See p. 23 above for more parallels between Hyperides descrip-
tion of the conict 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 Platos
Menexenus) see Loraux 1986, 132171 and Thomas 1989, 196236.
37 ] [. 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
fth-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. 2.716, 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).
38 . All Athenian citizens shared equal political rights,
whether they were rich or poor, or whether they came from the
countryside of Attica or the city of Athens. Athenian political equality
is another common motif in the epitaphioi and elsewhere. There were
70 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [5]
for all the Greeks. On the repeated contrast between private risk and
public safety, see the note on 24 under . . . .
6, 41 [ . 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 Blasss restoration of [ ]
requires). For the phrase , LSJ, s.v. I.2 cites Isoc.
15.117.
42 ] . is Mllers plausible
correction of the papyrus, whose nonsensical reading is likely
due to the scribes misreading of his source. The phrase
(I will refrain from speaking) offers a pointed contrast
to (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 ). Paraleipein usually takes
an accusative object, but later writers offer a few parallels for the
rst-person future with an active innitive (Gal. 2.450: . . .
and, a closer parallel also introducing rhetorical praeteritio,
Lib. Or. 12.27: ). Others have suggested that the
scribe may have misread (both) in his exemplar and written
, but this suggestion entails other drastic changes to the papyrus
text. Kayser (1868) accepts the reading (both), which then
requires a verb to govern the rst (as for) phrase. He assumes
the scribe omitted further material at the beginning of the sentence and
reconstructs the passage thus: [
] [ ], [,
] . . . , [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. . . .
4344 ] . The explicit deliberation about the act of prais-
ing is characteristic of epideictic oratory; see Carey 2007a, 245. This
short section is full of rhetorical tropes: it begins and ends with prae-
teritio (see above on this section under ] and
below under ) and here Hyperides employs the rhetorical de-
vice of aporia by suggesting that there is an abundance of potential
material to praise (see Usher 1999, index s.v. aporia for many other
examples of this rhetorical trope, which is common in all types of or-
atory). It also employs hypophora, a series of rhetorical questions and
answers (Usher (1999, 336) comments on the unusual combination of
hypophora and aporia; on hypophora see the note on 30 under
72 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [6]
(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 . Leosthenes ferried a large body of merce-
naries from Asia to Cape Taenarum at the southern tip of the Pelopon-
nese, and probably maintained them there until after Alexanders death,
when Athens nally decided to initiate hostilities against Macedon. See
p. 12 of the introduction.
75 . After Alexander destroyed Thebes, in 335, he granted the
Thebans land to the neighboring Boeotians (see 17). Consequently,
the Boeotians sided with the Macedonians because they feared that the
Athenians would return that land to the Thebans if the Athenian cam-
paign was successful (Diod. Sic. 18.11.34).
75 . The Euboeans, under the leadership of Callias of Chalcis,
joined the Athenian alliance against Philip prior to the battle of
Chaeronea (Brunt (1969, 254264) gives a thorough analysis of why
and when Euboea shifted its alliances from Philip to Athens). After
Philips 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. (19721988, 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.
19721988, 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. 5.56, 5.10; Chroust (1966) emphasizes
political reasons for his move). Diod. Sic. 18.11.12 lists the Greek
allies in the Lamian War: from Euboea only the city of Carystus joined
the Greek alliance; the rest of the island sided with Macedon.
12, 77 . The pass of Thermopylae provides land access to
southern Greece from Thessaly, with steep mountains to the south and
the sea to the north. (Barrington atlas map 55 D3; the modern coast ex-
tends further north than it did in antiquity.) Leosthenes planned to con-
front the enemy here, and had already occupied the pass with that inten-
tion in mind (Diod. Sic. 18.11.5). Pritchett (1965, 7173) and MacKay
(1963) survey the present landscape and surviving remains in order to
make sense of ancient accounts of the area and correct modern misin-
terpretations of the difcult terrain. The latter provides a detailed map
78 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [12]
of the pass.
7879 [ ]
[]. 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.
7.201233.
Compared to other funeral orators, Hyperides devotes very little at-
tention to the Persian Wars. He instead describes contemporary events
using the same terms that his predecessors used to describe the famous
war against the barbarians. See the notes on 5 under [, on
20 under , and on 37 under
.
8182 . After the defeat at Plataea the Mac-
edonian forces ed 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 Bquignon 1937,
263278 on the site).
13, 8283 ] []
. Neither the order of Hyperides list nor its
position in his narrative is historically accurate. Diod. Sic. 17.111.3 re-
ports that Leosthenes was in contact with the Aetolians prior to Alexan-
ders 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 rst 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, 3240; 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 Alexan-
ders 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
gives a useful summary of the duties of the the theroi and their hosts
(therodokoi), based on abundant epigraphic evidence; she also pro-
vides a map of the routes the theroi from Delphi would follow in
Thessaly (76). Rutherford (2000, 133138) categorizes various usages
of theros and related terms. Hyperides uses this term here to refer
specically 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).
125127 . . . . . . . These two clauses
are closely linked by the homoioteleuton (Volkmann 1885, 483 and
Smyth 3026) of the two nal verbs and parisosis (cf. above on 13
under . . . ).
19, 129130 . . . .
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:
). See the
following note for another link between these two speeches.
As is typical in the epitaphioi (see Walters 1980, 46), 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 eet of 240 ships outnumbered the Greeks, in 323
the majority of Persian ships were in Asia, and the Athenians were
optimisticunrealistically, as it turned outthat they could build
up a comparable force of 240 ships with allied contributions (Diod.
Sic. 18.10.13, 18.12.2, and 18.15.89, 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: . . .
, 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 gure for the
Athenian naval force in 323 is too large: see Morrison 1987).
132133 [. Cf. Lycurg. 50: ,
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 sacriced their
lives for Greek freedom at Chaeronea. Because they risked their indi-
vidual lives for the sake of the common freedom of the Greeks, their
souls are a crown for their fatherland. Both passages feature the com-
mon antithesis of private sacrice for the public good, and Hyperides
, [they made] freedom a common possession,
echoes Lycurgus , 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 Wars goal of recovering from
the defeat at Chaeronea.
20, 134135 . The particle must modify the
innitive in the contrary-to-fact condition. The optative verbs here and
at 22 (, we judge) should be classied as potential opta-
tives, either with the particle modifying both the optative and the
innitive apo koinou, or with the nite optative verb standing alone
without the particle. But the context seems to require a more declarative
sense than potential optatives usually have, as is reected in the transla-
tion here (rather than what would we suppose would have happened
and in 22 we would judge these expectations would be). Graindor
(1898, 342) and Hess (1938, 65) list parallel examples of potential op-
tatives without , but Rennie (1940, 22) insists that those examples are
all scribal mistakes that have been rightly emended. Nevertheless, as
Graindor, Jensen, and Hess have concluded, these two occurrences of
the same syntactic phenomenon are unlikely to be scribal errors. Wor-
thington (1999, 216217) more sensibly suggests we retain the opta-
tive and regard the usage as a Hyperidean idiom. Elsewhere Hype-
rides uses a potential optative without (Hyp. Phil. 10,
; Why should you spare this man?, discussed by
Salvaneschi 1972, 150154), and Bers (1984, 134135) 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 reect the emergence of koin; see below on 34 under .
Cf. also the note on 35 under .
135 . 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]
less to the Greeks than cultural practice, and that these varied crite-
ria could be manipulated to argue that the Macedonians were or were
not Greek. Badian (1982) argues that Demosthenes characterization of
Philip as a barbarian (e.g., Dem. 3.17, 19.271) is an accurate reection
of the general Greek attitude at that time, and Borza (1996) has corrob-
orated his ndings with an analysis of how ancient writers distinguish
Macedonians from Greeks.
However he was perceived in Athens, Philip clearly wanted to be
thought of as a Greek, and by reviving earlier accounts that the Mac-
edonian kings descended from Argos, he provided genealogical evi-
dence for his claim. He also took advantage of his Olympic victory
of 356 to advertise his devotion to philhellenic culture, by building the
Philippeion in Olympia and minting a coin series featuring Zeus Olym-
pios and a victorious jockey (no. 16 in Yalouris et al. 1980). After the
battle of Chaeronea these Hellenic aspirations took on an increasing po-
litical signicance, when Philip formed the League of Corinth to sup-
port his planned panhellenic campaign against Persia (see above p. 7),
a plan that was carried out after his death by Alexander. By presenting
the Macedonians as barbarians in this speech (38), Hyperides justies
the Greek revolt in 323. The characterization is also rhetorically effec-
tive, since it allows the orator to mold his account of the Lamian War
after treatments of the great war against the Persian barbaroi.
140141 . . . . Sauppe keeps the papyrus reading of
and prints . The adjective
is otherwise unattested, but it is easy to make sense of it meaning
lacking, as the opposite of , and it should be retained.
Other editors print , 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 . Those who prefer must also make
extensive, and unnecessary, emendations elsewhere in the clause (see
appendix B).
140141 . Hybris
can refer to a wide range of arrogant, offensive, or violent behavior
and attitudes. For general discussions see Fisher 1992 and MacDowell
1976.
It was regularly used as a term for sexual violence perpetrated with
the intent of humiliating victims and their families. Harris (2004b) ex-
88 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [20]
plains the differences between the ancient idea of hybris and the mod-
ern concept of rape: rape refers to the victims lack of consent, whereas
hybris looks partly at the intention of the aggressor, partly at the ef-
fect on the honor of the victim and her relatives (319). Violent sexual
assaults were considered typical behavior of a tyrant. At Hdt. 3.80.5
Otanes criticizes the institution of monarchy, because one character-
istic of a king is that he, among other things, forces women (-
). Several other passages are collected and discussed
by Fisher (1992, 104111) and Doblhofer (1994, 3440). The addi-
tion of , even every child, emphasizes the savage bru-
tality of the Macedonians, which is also attested elsewhere. Pritchett
(19711991, V: 238242) describes the types of suffering that befell
defeated women and children, with specic examples of Macedonian
treatment of the captives from Olynthus and Thebes (cf. Din. 1.2324
and Dem. 19.193198, 305306, 309).
Hyperides encourages his audience to support the war against Mac-
edon by warning them that the Macedonians have no respect for Greek
cultural norms (cf. Cohen (1991, 174175) 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 . Hyperides refers to the unprecedented
honors bestowed upon Philip and Alexander throughout Greece (
, 20). Perhaps already in the early 350s Philip was being wor-
shiped in Amphipolis, as is stated by second-century AD orator Aelius
Aristides (38, p. 480), who says that there they sacriced to him as a
god ( ) at the time of Philips capture of that city in late
357 (Habicht 1970, 1213; Fredricksmeyer 1979, 5051). Later, an in-
scription of 332 from Eresus on Lesbos refers to altars of Zeus Philip-
pios, which were erected there, probably in 336 (Rhodes and Osborne
2003, no. 83 ii.45). 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, 1415 and Fredricksmeyer 1979,
5152).
For Athens there is one late piece of evidence for the worship of
Philip. Clement of Alexandria, a second-century AD convert to Chris-
tianity, in a catalogue of deied mortals reports that the Athenians
voted to worship () Philip (Clem. Al. Protr. 4.54.5). The
source is unreliable: see Badian 1981, 6771.
[21] Commentary 89
177) observes that the word eikon may refer to a statue, a bust, a tondo
or a painting) are never referred to with this term. Similarly, both Pau-
sanias and Athenian honorary decrees of all periods meticulously rec-
ognize this precise meaning of agalma (Stroud and Lewis 1979, 193;
cf. Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 54). Much later, when the Roman em-
perors came to be routinely deied, their statues were referred to as
agalmata (Price 1984, 176179).
Were the representations of Philip or Alexander in Athens con-
sidered to be agalmata or eikones? The evidence is not strong. Paus.
1.9.4 refers to statues of both in the Agora without using a specic
noun ( , 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, 4950) suggests that an agalma of Philip was put on display
there as a , a partner of the god. But Badian (1981,
7071) more plausibly suggests that the statue was a common hon-
orary dedication and not an object of worship, and that it was likely the
same work that Pausanias later saw in the Agora.
Outside of Athens (Hyperides refers to all of Greece; 20: -
, Greece), of course, there is the famous Philippeion in the pan-
hellenic sanctuary for Zeus at Olympia, begun by Philip after the battle
of Chaeronea (Paus. 5.20.9) and completed by Alexander after his fa-
thers death in 336. This building featured statues not only of Philip
and Alexander, but also Philips 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 deication but stopped just short of
actually introducing it formally as a cult. The statues were made of
gold and ivory, and are the earliest known use of chryselephantine ma-
terial for mortals, but Lapatin (2001, 117118) rightly cautions against
reading too much into this fact and adds that there is no evidence that
chryselephantine materials alone signied 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 [ ] , [] . The an-
[23] Commentary 91
desire reigns. We must trust in the law and be mindful of our freedom,
or hand ourselves over to one mans 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).
168172 . . . . The rule of law was a cen-
tral tenet in Athenian democratic ideology. The nomoi, laws, were
seen as a basic element of a free society. All Athenian men swore
the Ephebic oath as young men, in which they vowed to obey and de-
fend the laws of Athens (the oath is preserved in a mid-fourth-century
inscription, Rhodes and Osborne 2003, no. 88 i.520; a literary ver-
sion is quoted by Pollux and Stobaeus; Harding 1985, no. 109 trans-
lates all three), and citizen judges in the courts swore to vote in accor-
dance with established laws, which were more authoritative than the
orders of a single individual (And. 1.91; Harris (2004a, 5859) con-
trasts established laws with the orders of a tyrant). The rule of law
protected the people in a democracy, and the existence of law distin-
guished democracy from tyranny, where the , a mans
threat, held sway. The funeral orations regularly emphasize the im-
portance of law as a guarantor of democratic equality and the rights
of individuals (Thuc. 2.37.1, Lys. 2.1819; cf. Harris 2004a, 4142),
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. 429437).
169171 . . . . , accusation, and ,
slander, are regularly linked (hendiadys), and the negative con-
notation of the latter rubs off on the former to give it the sense of
ungrounded accusation (Yunis 2001, 110111). Here that sense is
intensied by the contrast with , proof. Whitehead (2000,
396) notes other collocations of accusations and slanders in
Hyperides.
170 . Hyperides repeatedly uses this verb and the cog-
nate noun , attery, to denounce any advocate of Macedon
as a toady (see Whitehead 2000, 216217 on Hyp. Eux. 19; cf. also
Hyp. Eux. 20 and 23).
[27] Commentary 95
the fourth century (Whitehead 1993, 5254) and was often paired with
aret. The phrase (of the people) may echo fourth-
century honorary decrees: Veligianni-Terzi (1997, 218219) collects
examples of the phrase
(because of virtue and good will toward the Athenian
people) in Athenian inscriptions (e.g., IG II2 448 = Schwenk 1985,
407418 no. 83 (lines 1314), from the same year as this speech). Here
and later in this speech (42) Hyperides describes a reciprocal obliga-
tion that the city owed the children of the dead because of their fathers
public contribution.
The Athenian state nancially supported war orphans (Lys. frr.
128129 (P. Hib. 14) and SEG 28.46 (Harding 1985, 1315 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.
3.154155; 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,
288290.
183. The military metaphor describes the dead holding an eternal
post in the afterlife. Dem. 60.34 uses the same metaphor to describe
the dead among the islands of the blessed. The funeral orations min-
imize reference to immortality; see the note on 43 under . . .
.
28, 185 . 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 (3540), 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 . The phrase here has the sense of anew or again (LSJ,
s.v. notes only Ar. Pl. 221 for this meaning).
[30] Commentary 97
verbs that are typically future deponents during the classical period.
3134. More than half of the right portion of the entire column is miss-
ing. The text cannot be recovered with any certainty; numerous recon-
structions by earlier editors are listed in the apparatus and appendix B.
We do not know how wide the column was, and the scribe writes much
more densely in the last columns of the manuscript. I have indicated
that about twelve characters are missing at the end of each line, but
even that assumption is highly uncertain. Much of the general sense
seems clear: Hyperides details the benets 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. 11.16 = 200202). Then he turns to the soldiers peers, who can live
without fear (611 = 202204), and the young Athenians, who will ben-
et from the good example set by the dead (1119 = 204207). 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 (2030 = 207211). Finally the
speech emphasizes how pleasant and protable it will be to recall the
valor of the fallen (3012.6 = 211219).
31, 200 . . . [. The interrogative adjective and the fu-
ture tense continue the hypophora from the previous section.
200205 . . . [ . . . [. Again, the sense contin-
ues from the previous section. In section 30 the orator surveyed vari-
ous benets 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 [ (those older,
Sauppe), [ (the elders, Cobet) or [
(the aged, Babington) to complete the division into elders, peers, and
juniors. The remaining traces of the last letter of col. 11.2 (201) could
be read either as a gamma or a pi.
201 [ ..... ..... .. ] . Editors restore ] , their remain-
ing life, most with some form of the verb , to lead, to govern
it. For example: ] [ ] (Sauppe), They
[the elders?] will live the rest of their lives without fear as a result of
the sacrice of the fallen soldiers.
202 [ ..... .... . The left half of the nal 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 innitive should certainly
[32] Commentary 99
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. 2.6770 speaks of the dead in the same terms as their
ancestors earlier in the speech, as does Pl. Mx. 246a (see Ziolkowski
1981, 8083 on the motif; Plut. Per. 28.7 employs an argument similar
to Hyperides when he compares the Samian campaign of 440 and 439
with the Trojan War). Hyperides initial sidestepping of the traditional
themes of the prooemium allowed him to focus on the individual Leos-
thenes and the particular events of the rst season of the Lamian War.
That special emphasis in this speech culminates in this declaration of
superiority.
228 [] . 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, 2930). 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).
. The repeated contrast between one and many
228229
is emphasized by this juxtaposition.
230. In 10 the same verb was used to describe the weak-
ened condition of Greece before Leosthenes came along. Now the ta-
bles are turned and Leosthenes has conquered the conquerer.
36, 230231 ] []. On sexual violence as typical
behavior for a tyrant, see above, on 20 under
.
231232[] . Other funeral orations describe
Athens as the savior of all of Greece during the Persian Wars (Lys.
2.20, Dem. 60.10). Once again, Hyperides adapts language usually
used of the Persian Wars to praise Leosthenes and his troops.
37, 235236 . Like Harmodius and Aristogi-
ton (see below on 39 under ), 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. 241bc 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 . See below on 40 under .
38, 239 . On this assertion see above on 35 under ].
239 . On this pairing, see the note on 3 under
[].
240 . 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
.
241243 . . . . Hyperides refers to
the invasions of Attica during the Persian Wars. In autumn of 490 the
Persians landed at Marathon in northeast Attica (Hdt. 6.102103). In
autumn of 480 Xerxes invaded by land and burned the abandoned Athe-
nian acropolis prior to the battle of Salamis (Hdt. 8.5155). Again in
spring of 479 the Persian general Mardonius invaded (Hdt. 9.3). Hype-
rides contrasts these events with the Lamian War, in which the Atheni-
ans and their allies met the invaders in Boeotia and drove them north to
Thermopylae (1114). The Thucydidean funeral oration makes the
same point about the Athenian ability to defeat the enemy in hostile
territory (Thuc. 2.39.2).
39, 245246 . This is the only epitaphios lo-
gos that compares the war dead with Harmodius and Aristogiton. For
the story of the tyrant slayers who were credited with ending the rule
of the Pisistratids in the late sixth century, see Thuc. 6.5359 and Hdt.
5.5557. The famous tyrant slayers were celebrated for their efforts to
liberate Athens from the rule of the Pisistratidae, and here the compar-
ison contributes to the characterization of the Macedonians as tyrants.
They were also venerated as heroes (on their honors, see Dem. 19.280
with MacDowell (2000, 326) and Arist. Ath. 58.1 with Rhodes (1993,
651652)) and regular sacrices for these two heroes took place in con-
junction with the ceremony for the war dead (Currie 2005, 9596, Tay-
[40] Commentary 105
lor 1991, 78). These sacrices 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 . . .
.
246247 {} {} . The
papyrus reads, without word breaks,
. The transmitted text is plainly corrupt
and various solutions have been proposed. I have followed Blass in
correcting
to (nobody), deleting
(to
you) and changing the adjective
from the comparative
to the positive degree. The rst 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 is more difcult to explain, and its presence may
indicate more serious problems with the text here (those who keep
it change to ; e.g., Kenyon prints
, they are in no way closer to you [than Leosthenes
. . . ]). The positive adjective is restored because does not
regularly modify comparatives. The clause is an indirect statement
depending on (consider), and (to them) refers to
Harmodius and Aristogiton.
246 . The spelling , rst appears on Athenian in-
scriptions in 378/377 and completely replaces , by the end
of the fourth century, but forms of begin to reappear in the rst
century BC (Threatte 19801996, I: 472476). This is the only exam-
ple of the usage of by the scribe of this papyrus, but it may well
be the form Hyperides actually wrote.
250 . See the note on 35 under ].
40, 252253 . Exclamatory is
uncommon in Attic prose, especially introducing such a lengthy excla-
mation. The particle is only found twice elsewhere in the orators, both
times in an oath (by the gods, [] , Dem. 21.98, 166).
For other poetic usages in this speech see the note on 26 under
. Here the exclamations signal a shift in the speech. The orator
has nished his comparison of Leosthenes and his predecessors in the
106 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [40]
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 reects this sort of attitude toward the dead.
273274 . This view was more commonly
held than Hyperides alternative (see previous note). The same sen-
timent is expressed in very similar terms at Isoc. 19.42, Lycurg. 136
and Philem. fr. 118. Demosthenes similarly refers to the afterlife of the
fallen soldiers in the islands of the blessed (Dem. 60.34). Parker (2005,
364) discusses these and other examples as a clich of the culture re-
garding doubt about the afterlife. Sourvinou-Inwood (1995, 298302)
suggests that the concern for an individuals happy afterlife (299) de-
veloped as a cultural trend during the archaic period and the fth cen-
tury, and in these fourth-century passages we see a continued concern
with the fate of the dead.
275277 . . .
. The funeral orations typically focus on the eternally
glorious reputation of the dead among the living (e.g., Lys. 2.8081,
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 , it
is likely, adds a similar note of caution. But the previous scene of
Leosthenes in the underworld (3540) is much more explicit in as-
sociating him with the heroes of the Trojan War and Athenians such as
Harmodius and Aristogiton, who were honored as heroes (see the note
on 39 under ). Parker (1996, 135137)
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, 3941, and
Versnel 1989, 169171.
. Cf.
275276
21 above on the impiety of the Macedonians.
Fragmentum dubium. Sauppe plausibly assigns the phrase -
, attributed by Pollux to Hyperides without a speech title,
to the Funeral Oration. The adjective is better suited to epideictic than
forensic oratory, and it appears elsewhere in this speech and the epi-
taphioi (42; Thuc. 2.43.2, 44.4, Lys. 2.79, Dem. 60.36). Dover (1968,
6567) categorizes the adjective as non-forensic (cf. above p. 26).
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix A: Papyrological Notes
The scribe often makes obvious errors (some of which he corrects him-
self). These manuscript readings have been corrected without comment
in the text and critical apparatus. There is little reason for 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. 3334.
1.14 ]. 16 ] 23
[ 25 [ 29
.
33
34 .
.
2.6
16 18
21 corrected
from 22 ] 28 31
33
3.3 ] 4
] 56 ].
1314
[
22
] 26 31
32
corrected from
4.2 5 . 9 . []
2223 [
]
23 .[ 33
5.2 67
[ 13
1920 -
22
33 36
38 . 40
corrected from
6.1 33 ]
. 34 []. , cf. col. 5.9
7.2
. 7
10 11 2021
28
[
] , cf. col. 7.31 3031 -
111
112 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
38 39
41
8.34
4 7
11
12
16 1617 18 [
]. 19
corrected from 23
25
corrected
from
27 34
9.23
4 ]
7
10 ..]
11
12
1314 -
15 23
26 the nal sigma is mistakenly written at the beginning of
10.29 29
37 4142 . .
43
[
10.6
[]
corrected from
[] 9
[].
13
15
corrected from
16
2728 . 33
36
39 43
11.11 20
38
[
12.1
5 7
10 14
15
with
written over an erasure 16
21 29 nal nu is a later addition 37 39 -
corrected from 41
13.23
6
9
corrected from
1920
corrected from
2122
22 23
2425
corrected from
..
28
. 31
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
/, 4.28
/, 4.34
/. More often the stops are unaccompanied by a
paragraphos: 3.2
/, 3.28 /, 4.19
/, 6.2 [
]/, 8.4
/, 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 .[ ]
, 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
circumex accent: 10.12
.
Line llers, 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
115
116 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
ton.
38 Blass.
39 : ] Cobet.
41 . . . Blass.
41 Fritzsche,
Sauppe.
4142 Kayser, {} Sauppe.
42 Bcheler.
4344 Sauppe et Shilleto.
44 : Sauppe, Caesar; Graindor.
44 Cobet.
45 Piccolomini.
49 p, Cobet.
50 Bursian.
56 [Fuhr], Sauppe.
56 Cobet.
58 Babington.
66 : Babington,
Sandys, . Maehly, . Cobet et Schenkl, -
. Piccolomini.
70 : Piccolomini.
71 Kayser.
73 : Kayser.
78 : Sandys ap. Blass.
89 : Jensen, Kayser, Sauppe.
90 : Babington.
91 Mller, . Maehly.
96 Cobet, Shilleto,
Babington.
98 Babington.
103 Stahl.
107 ]: Jensen.
108 Babington.
110 Babington.
111 Babington, Cobet.
111 Babington.
115 Cobet.
118 : Babington.
128 {} Cobet.
130 del. Mller.
Appendix B: Critical Conjectures 117
134135 Kayser.
138 Babington.
140141 ci. Tarrant; . . .
add. Colin; , Hess;
, Cobet;
, Kayser.
140 : Fritzsche; cf. Smyth 2949.
142 Tell.
142 : Cafaux, Babington.
148 Fritzsche.
150 Kayser.
155156
Blass, Maehly,
Colin.
165 Caesar.
165 Maehly.
167168 Weil;
Piccolomini; ,
Schenkl; aut -
Mller.
171172 Cobet.
180 Caesar.
183 Shilleto, . Cobet, . Fritzsche,
. Caesar.
184 Cobet.
191 Cobet.
191192 : Kenyon, Jensen, -
Colin, Thalheim, Comparetti,
Caesar, Blass leg. cum lacuna postea.
198 {} Cobet.
199 Sauppe.
200201 Blass, Babington,
Fritzsche.
201 ; Cobet, . ; Sauppe.
201202 -
Blass, Colin,
Sauppe,
-
Cobet,
118 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
Babington.
202203 Blass, -
Fritzsche, Babington.
203204
Kayser, -
-
Sitzler.
204205 Blass, ;
Fritzsche.
205 ; Jen-
sen, ;
Kayser.
205206 Babington, -
Kayser.
206207 , -
; Blass,
; Kayser.
207208
Kayser.
207 Blass,
; Babington.
208210 (aut )
;
; Blass.
209210 Sauppe.
210211 Blass,
-
Colin, Cobet, -
Babington,
Sitzler.
212 Cobet,
Kenyon, -
Babington,
Schroeder, -
Sauppe, -
Fritzsche.
212213 Sauppe,
Babington.
Appendix B: Critical Conjectures 119
213216 Blass, -
. . .
Sauppe.
216 Sauppe, Fritzsche.
223 Levi.
223224 Cobet.
224225 Schenkl,
Fritzsche, Post, Kenyon scribit
cum obelis .
225 Tell.
232233 Blass.
235 p et Cobet, Colin, Blass.
258 Maehly.
262 aut codd.
263264 Maehly.
276 Ruhnken leg. solum; cf. Phot. Bibl. codex 251
(463a.13f Bekker):
.
This page intentionally left blank
Bibliography
121
122 Bibliography
Worthington, I. (1984), IG II2 370 and the date of the Athenian al-
liance with Aetolia, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik
57: 139144. Cited on page 12.
(1987), The earlier career of Leosthenes and IG II2 1631,
Historia 36: 489491. 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, 307330. Cited on page 12.
(1999), Dinarchus and Hyperides, Greek orators 2, Warmin-
ster. Cited on pages 24, 30, 84, 85, 95.
(2000), Demosthenes (in)activity during the reign of Alexan-
der the Great, in I. Worthington (ed.), Demosthenes: statesman
and orator, London and New York, 90113. Cited on pages 8, 9,
11, 19, 82.
(2003a), Alexanders destruction of Thebes, in W. Heckel
and L. A. Tritle (eds.), Crossroads of history: the age of Alexan-
der, Claremont, 6586. Cited on page 7.
(2003b), The authorship of the Demosthenic Epitaphios, Mu-
seum Helveticum 60: 152157. Cited on page 17.
Worthington, I., C. R. Cooper, and E. M. Harris (2001), Dinarchus, Hy-
perides, and Lycurgus, The oratory of classical Greece 5, Austin.
Cited on pages 3, 18, 62.
Yalouris, N., M. Andronikos, K. Rhomiopoulou, A. Herrmann, and
C. Vermeule (1980), The search for Alexander. An exhibition,
Boston. Cited on page 87.
Yunis, H. (2000), Politics as literature: Demosthenes and the burden
of the Athenian past, Arion 8: 97118. 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
141
142 General Index
Callias, 62 Ecbatana, 91
Callias of Chalcis, 77 egkmion, 80, 81, 101
Carystus, 77 encomia in prose, 6162, 81,
Ceramicus, 14, 105 92
Chaeronea, 3, 59, 14, 1720, epainos, 16, 26, 64, 72, 80, 81,
22, 23, 62, 65, 77, 7982, 95, 106
85, 87, 89, 90 ephbeia, 75
Chalcis, 77 Ephebic oath, 94
chryselephantine material, 90 Epicharmus, 95
Cimon, 6869 epieikeia, 65, 66
City Dionysia, 96 Eponymous Heroes, 15, 17, 21,
Cleitarchus, 78 73
Clement of Alexandria, 88, 90 equality, 64, 69, 70, 73, 94
Conon, 89 Eresus, 88
Corinthian War, 2022 Euboea, 4, 12, 77
Crannon, 14, 80 Eumolpus, 17, 19
Euripides, 67, 68, 72, 94, 95
Craterus, 78
Eurydice, 90
Q. Curtius Rufus, 8
Eurystheus, 68
death, views of, 108, 109 Eusebius, 19
Euthycrates, 6
Delian League, 70
Evagoras, 61, 89
Delos, 83
Exiles Decree, 10, 11, 79
Delphi, 8384
Demades, 68, 11, 14, 89 family members, 95
Democritus, 68 freedom, 8, 17, 18, 20, 2224,
dmosion sma, 15, 58 81, 82, 85, 9294, 101, 107
Demosthenes, 422, 40, 58, 59,
6265, 6870, 7274, 76, Galen, 71
7981, 83, 8589, 92, 93, genos, 72, 73, 75
9597, 100, 103107, 109 Gorgias, 15, 64, 66, 68, 92, 93
Dinarchus, 5, 10, 11, 88, 89,
97 Harmodius and Aristogiton, 21,
Diodorus Siculus, 57, 1014, 22, 103105, 109
58, 59, 77, 78, 80, 81, 84, Harpalus, 1012, 77, 89
91 Harpocration, 5, 44, 83
Diogenes Laertius, 77, 96 Hecataeus of Abdera, 87
Diondas, 5, 7, 18 Hephaestion, 11, 91
General Index 143
, 97 , 94
, 89, 90 , 85, 93
, 26, 109 , 26, 106
, 94 , 80, 81
, 101 , 65, 66
, 73, 97, 102, 108 , 97
, 85 , 61
, 106 , 60, 73
, 62, 104 , 63
, 59, 75, 97, 102 , 95
, 87 , 95
, 97 , 26
, 63, 66, 74, 81, 84, 106 , 102
, 96 , 83
, 96 , 71, 93
, 93 , 70
, 82 102 , 68
, 26 , 71, 93
, 94 , 69
, 64, 75, 76 , 94
, 74 , 61, 101, 108
, 104 , 60, 106
, 76, 77 , 100, 101
, 80, 81, 101 , 60
, 89, 90 , 108
, 87 , 105
147
148 Index of Greek Words
, 61 , 6566, 74
, 91 , 96
, 71 , 76, 103
, 62, 106 , 86
, 5 , 8688
, 88 , 86
, 80
, 80
, 64
, 99 , 71
, 84 , 68
, 86 , 105