(American Philological Association American Classical Studies 53) Hyperides., Hyperides - Herrman, Judson-Hyperides - Funeral Oration-Oxford University Press (2009) PDF

HYPERIDES
AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

AMERICAN CLASSICAL STUDIES
VOLUME 53
Series Editor
Kathryn J. Gutzwiller
Studies in Classical History and Society

Meyer Reinhold
Sextus Empiricus
The Transmission and Recovery of Pyrrhonism
Luciano Floridi
The Augustan Succession

An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman History Books
55–56 (9 B.C.–A.D. 14)
Peter Michael Swan
Greek Mythography in the Roman World

Alan Cameron
Virgil Recomposed
The Mythological and Secular Centos in Antiquity
Scott McGill
Representing Agrippina
Constructions of Female Power in the Early Roman Empire
Judith Ginsburg
Figuring Genre in Roman Satire

Catherine Keane
Homer’s Cosmic Fabrication

Choice and Design in the Iliad
Bruce Heiden
Hyperides
Funeral Oration
Judson Herrman
HYPERIDES
Funeral Oration
Edited with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary by
Judson Herrman
2009
Oxford University Press, Inc. publishes works that further
Oxford University’s objective of excellence
in research, scholarship, and education.
Oxford New York

Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Copyright © 2009 by the American Philological Association
Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.

198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
www.oup.com
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Hyperides.
[Epitaphios. English & Greek]
Funeral oration / Hyperides ; edited with introduction, translation,
and commentary by Judson Herrman.
p. cm.—(American classical studies ; no. 53)
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 978-0-19-538865-7
1. Hyperides—Translations into English. 2. Funeral orations—Translations
into English. 3. Funeral rites and ceremonies, Ancient—Greek—Athens.
I. Herrman, Judson. II. Title.
PA4212.A36 2009
885’.01—dc22 2008045141
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
Preface
Hyperides’ Funeral Oration is arguably the most important surviving

example of an Athenian epitaphios logos both because of its fine quality
as an epideictic composition, and because it reveals that a state funeral
oration could transform the standard content of the genre and adapt it
to the immediate historical context. This volume presents a new critical
edition of the text, accompanied by an extensive commentary aimed at
an audience of scholars and graduate students in classics and ancient
history. The commentary is both historical and philological; the notes
are designed to demonstrate the timeliness of the speech, and to empha-
size the difference between it and other funeral orations. I also include
an introduction, which situates the speech in its historical and rhetorical
context, and a translation.
Recent work—now further accelerated by the discovery of
extensive and previously unknown fragments of Hyperides in the
Archimedes Palimpsest—has reestablished Hyperides’ importance as
an orator and as a political figure. Most notably, David Whitehead’s
excellent commentary on the forensic speeches (Whitehead 2000)
has done much to satisfy a long-standing need for a detailed guide
to the Hyperidean corpus. I hope that the present book will suitably
fill a conspicuous gap arising from Professor Whitehead’s decision to
concentrate on the surviving courtroom speeches.
This book has grown out of a doctoral dissertation. The revisions
have sometimes been slowed by work on other projects, but I hope the
present volume has benefited from those parerga. I have designed and
typeset the book myself using open source software. I am grateful to
Stephanie Attia at Oxford University Press for expert advice on the
design, and to the creators and the community of support for XETEX,
v
vi Preface
a unicode-based version of TEX, and for the edmac and Eplain macros
packages, which I have adapted and extended to produce camera-ready
copy of this volume.
It is a pleasure to acknowledge the generous help I’ve received in
the course of writing this book. I would like to thank John Duffy, An-
drew Wolpert, and Harvey Yunis for helpful comments on early drafts
of this material. I am also grateful to the editorial board of of the APA
Publication Committee and especially to the editor of the APA Mono-
graph Series, Kathryn Gutzwiller, for encouragement and constructive
advice on the manuscript at a later stage. The book has benefited im-
mensely from the suggestions of two anonymous external referees, and
from the comments of Adele Scafuro and David Whitehead, who also
read the manuscript for 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 financial support. Harvard University’s Graduate School of Arts
and Sciences awarded me a dissertation completion fellowship to finish
the first full version of this material in spring 1999. A Fletcher Fam-
ily Research Grant from Bowdoin College enabled me to study the
papyrus for the first time in person during the summer of 2003. Two
awards from the academic support committee of Allegheny College,
supplemented by an award from the Jonathan E. and Nancy L. Helm-
reich Research and Book Grant Fund, supported study at the Institute of
Classical Studies in London in 2005 and at Harvard’s Widener Library
in 2006. I am grateful to the librarians and staff at those institutions and
to the British Library. I completed final revisions of this manuscript at
the National Humanities Center, where I held the Robert F. and Mar-
garet S. Goheen Fellowship during the academic year 2006/2007. My
time at the National Humanities Center was co-funded by a sabbatical
grant from the Loeb Classical Library Foundation. I am particularly
grateful to everyone at the Center for making my time there so produc-
tive and comfortable.
My greatest academic debts are to Albert Henrichs, who advised
Preface vii
the dissertation and has continued to be supportive and inspiring, and

to Edward Harris, who, as an outside reader on the dissertation commit-
tee, essentially served as a second advisor, and who has been selflessly
helpful at every stage of writing and revision. My final thanks go to my
wife, Robin Orttung, for all of her love and support as this book was
born and matured.
This page intentionally left blank
Contents
Abbreviations
1. General xi
2. Editions of Fragments xii
3. In the Critical Apparatus xii
Introduction
1. The Historical Background 3
2. The Rhetorical Background 14
3. Hyperides’ Funeral Oration 20
4. The Text and Translation 27
Text and Translation 35
Commentary 57
Appendix A: Papyrological Notes 111
Appendix B: Critical Conjectures 115
Bibliography 121
General Index 141
Index of Greek Words 147
Abbreviations
Ancient authors are cited according to the abbreviations in the LSJ and
OLD, except that Demosthenes is abbreviated as “Dem.” and Plutarch
as “Plut.” Sections of Hyperides’ Funeral Oration are referred to with
a section sign only, e.g., “§1” rather than “Hyp. Epit. 1.” References to
all modern works by author and year of publication may be found in
the comprehensive bibliography below on pp. 121–139.
1. General
The following special abbreviations are used throughout the work.

Barrington atlas Talbert 2000.
CAH Cambridge ancient history, 2d edition (1970–2005).
FGrHist Jacoby 1923–1958.
IG Inscriptiones graecae. Berlin (1873–).
LSJ Liddell and Scott 1925–1940.
OLD Glare 1982.
Smyth Smyth 1920. References are to section numbers.
TLG Thesaurus linguae graecae electronic data bank
of ancient Greek literature, available online at
<http://www.tlg.uci.edu/>. A printed catalogue
of the contents may be found in Berkowitz and
Squitier 1990.
xi
xii Abbreviations
2. Editions of Fragments
In references to ancient authors which depend upon particular editions,

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

the commentary, the following abbreviations are used for the publica-
tions of modern scholars. For a history of editions of the text, see pp.
29–31. In the case of editors who have published more than one edi-
Abbreviations xiii
tion (e.g., Babington and Blass), I usually refer only to the most recent
publication, unless there is something noteworthy in the earlier work
not included in the later edition. In one instance I have been unable to
locate the original publication for some editorial suggestions, and the
editor’s name is enclosed in brackets (viz. [Fuhr]).
p The papyrus, P. Lit. Lond. 133 = Brit. Mus. inv. 98
(Pack 1965, 1236).
Babington Babington 1859.
Blass Blass 1894.
Bücheler Bücheler 1875, 308–309.
Bursian Bursian and Müller 1858.
Caesar Caesar 1857.
Caffiaux Caffiaux 1866.
Cobet Cobet 1858; Cobet 1873, 343 on §43.
Colin Colin 1946.
Comparetti Comparetti 1864. Many of his suggestions were
originally published in Comparetti 1858.
Desrousseaux Desrousseaux 1949.
Fritzsche Fritzsche 1861–1862.
[Fuhr] The reference is from Jensen 1917. His bibliogra-
phy lists seven items. I have checked six of those
and not been able to locate Fuhr’s comments on the
Funeral Oration. The other reference, to Wochen-
schrift für klassiche Philologie 1902 p. 1543, is in
error. Cited on pages xiii, 54, 75, 115, 116.
Graindor Graindor 1898.
van Herwerden van Herwerden 1895.
Hess Hess 1938.
Jensen Jensen 1917.
Kaibel Kaibel 1893, 56 n. 1.
Kayser Kayser 1858; Kayser 1868 on §6 and §31.
Kenyon Kenyon 1906.
Leopardi Leopardi 1835, 11.
Levi Levi 1892.
Maehly Maehly 1872.
Müller Bursian and Müller 1858.
Piccolomini Piccolomini 1882.
Post L. A. Post’s conjectures are reported in Burtt 1954.
Radermacher Radermacher 1896.
Ruhnken Toup and Ruhnken 1806, 312–313.
xiv Abbreviations
Sandys Sandys 1895 on §10. The §12 suggestion is re-

ported in Blass 1894 and I have not been able to
verify it elsewhere.
Sauppe Sauppe 1860.
Schäfer Originally in Babington 1858, not fully repeated in
Schäfer 1860.
Schenkl Schenkl 1877.
Schroeder Schroeder 1922.
Shilleto Shilleto 1860.
Sitzler Sitzler 1883.
Spengel Spengel 1858.
Stahl Stahl 1907, 476.
Sudhaus All readings reported in Jensen 1917.
Tarrant Tarrant 1930.
Tell Tell 1861.
Thalheim Thalheim 1918.
Toup Toup and Ruhnken 1806, 312–313.
Volckmar Volckmar 1860.
Weil Weil 1858.
HYPERIDES
Introduction
1. The Historical Background
Hyperides (born in 390/389) delivered the Funeral Oration in Athens

in early 322. For more than twenty years he had been one of the leading
opponents of Macedonian involvement in Greek affairs,1 and the Fu-
neral Oration marks the pinnacle of the Athenian policy of resistance
to Macedon. Philip defeated the Greek allies at Chaeronea in August
338 and afterward instituted a league of Greek states under Macedonian
control. Fifteen years later, after the death of Philip’s son Alexander in
323, the Greeks revolted. The rebellion was initially successful, and the
Funeral Oration evinces the optimistic mood of Hyperides and other
Athenians at the time. We will now contextualize that optimism, first by
examining Hyperides’ role in the decades-long Athenian debate over
relations with Macedon, and then by considering the events that led to
the Lamian War in 323.2
Hyperides first came to prominence as an opponent of Macedon in
343 when he prosecuted Philocrates in a case of treason (eisangelia) for
accepting bribes from Philip.3 Philocrates was one of the ten Athenian
1
Hansen (1989, 60) gives an outline of Hyperides’ political activity and Engels
(1989) has produced an exhaustive political biography; Cooper (Worthington et al.
2001, 61–66) provides a shorter summary of his life. For further biographical refer-
ences see Whitehead 2000, 1 n. 2.
2
For more comprehensive treatments of the period, see Rhodes 2006, 328–346
and Habicht 1997, 6–42.
3
On the case see Hansen 1975, 102–103 no. 109, MacDowell 2000, 207, and
3
4 Hyperides: Funeral Oration
ambassadors who negotiated peace terms with Philip in early 346.4 The
so-called Peace of Philocrates became an embarrassment for Athens
when Philip gained a foothold in central Greece by replacing Phocis,
Athens’ ally, on the Amphictyonic Council at the end of the third Sa-
cred War in late 346.5 Hyperides convinced the court that Philocrates
accepted bribes from Philip and acted against the interest of Athens.6
Philocrates was sentenced to death in absentia and his property was
confiscated.
Hyperides’ successful attack on Philocrates and the Peace brought
him into partnership with Demosthenes, who prosecuted Aeschines
soon afterward on similar grounds.7 In anticipation of the upcoming
conflict with Philip, Demosthenes and other leading Athenian oppo-
nents of Macedon began reaching out to potential allies. In the late
340s Demosthenes himself made repeated diplomatic trips to the Pelo-
ponnese and elsewhere, while Hyperides went to the island of Rhodes.8
Hyperides helped prepare the fleet to face the Macedonians at Euboea
in 340, and after Philip laid siege to Byzantium and captured the Athe-
nian grain fleet later that year, Hyperides served as trierarch and par-
ticipated in the expedition to Byzantium.9
In 339 the lines were drawn for war with Philip in Greece. The
Macedonian king entered central Greece as the hgemn of the Am-
phictyonic League in the fourth Sacred War against Amphissa, while
Athens formed an opposing coalition with Thebes and several other
Greek states.10 Demosthenes was proud of engineering this alliance
Whitehead 2000, 235.

4
Harris (1995, 53–56) considers the Athenian motives for a treaty with Philip
at this point.
5
It is first labeled “the peace of Philocrates” at Dem. 19.150. MacDowell
(2000, 14) explains why Demosthenes, one of the ambassadors in 346, sought to
distance himself from the Peace by prosecuting Aeschines in 343. For relations
between Athens and Phocis see the note on §13 under Θ]ετταλοὺς δὲ καὶ Φωκέας
κτλ.
6
See also the note on §10 under κατεφθαρμένη ὑπὸ [τῶν] δωροδο‹κ›ούντων.
7
For the sequence of the two trials see Dem. 19.116 and Aesch. 2.6.
8
The evidence for these missions is collected by Develin (1989, 334–335). Hy-
perides may also have visited Chios and/or Thasos on this trip; see Engels 1989,
87–88.
9
[Plu.] Vit. X or. 848e and 849e.
10
For a narrative of these events see Ellis 1976, 186–193 and CAH VI2 , 778–781.
Harris (1995, 126–130) demonstrates the complete implausibility of Demosthenes’
later allegations that Aeschines deliberately precipitated the fourth Sacred War as
an opportunity for Philip to invade central Greece. Dem. 18.237 lists Athens’ allies
Introduction 5
and he was among the Athenian troops who fought at the battle of
Chaeronea in 338.11 The battle was a complete failure for the Greeks.
More than one thousand Athenians died and two thousand more were
taken hostage; the other Greek allies also suffered heavy losses.12 In the
aftermath Athens, along with the other Greek states, lost its autonomy
in foreign policy and was forced to follow Philip’s, and then Alexan-
der’s, lead in the so-called League of Corinth.13
Hyperides was a staunch supporter of Demosthenes before and af-
ter the battle. He proposed an honorary crown to award Demosthenes
for his good service to the city of Athens in the days leading up to
the confrontation.14 As a member of the boul in 338/337 he remained
in the city during the battle,15 and when news of the disaster reached
Athens, he put forward an emergency measure enfranchising slaves,
metics, and Athenians whose citizenship had been revoked.16 At the
end of the campaign season the boul initiated the selection process
for the orator at the state funeral oration, and Hyperides likely had a
role in the presentation of Demosthenes as a candidate before the As-
before the battle. Sealey (1993, 196–198) discusses the terms of the coalition (Athens
paid two-thirds of the expense according to Aesch. 3.143 and Dem. 18.238, and that
detail is now also found at Hyp. Dion. 145v/144r ll. 9–12).
11
On the alliance, see Dem. 18.153, 211–226. Demosthenes’ enemies charged
him with cowardice in battle (a charge that could be leveled at any of the survivors),
but he was never prosecuted for lipotaxion: Aesch. 3.152, 159, 175–176, 187, Din.
1.12, Plut. Dem. 20.2.
12
Diod. Sic. 16.86.5 provides figures for Athenian losses; Plut. Pel. 18.5 observes
the destruction of the entire Theban Sacred Band.
13
On the settlements with the individual Greek states after the battle see Ham-
mond et al. 1972–1988, II: 604–623 and Roebuck 1948. Ryder (1965, 102–105 and
150–162) discusses the League of Corinth as a koin eirn and Hammond et al.
(1972–1988, II: 623–646) provides a detailed overview.
14
Dem. 18.57, 223–224 seems to place the proposal for a crown by Demomeles
and Hyperides before the battle. The proposal was indicted by Diondas in a graph
paranomn (Hansen 1974, 36 no. 26), but references to Theban exiles at Athens in the
fragments of Hyperides’ defense speech (Hyp. Dion. 176r/173v ll. 25–26; cf. Aesch.
3.156 and Harp. s.v. ἰσοτελής on the exiles in Athens) indicate that the case did not
come to trial until after 335.
15
Luc. Par. 42 offers late and unspecific evidence for his membership on the
boul (which is accepted by, e.g., Develin (1989, 345)), which is now perhaps con-
firmed by the new text of the Against Diondas (Hyp. Dion. 145r/144v l. 25), which
uses the verb probouleuein in a non-technical sense (LSJ s.v. προβουλεύω III, not I.2)
to describe Hyperides’ activity at the time of battle.
16
Osborne 1983, 67–68 (T67); the measure was challenged for illegality and
never put into effect (Hansen 1974, 36–37 no. 27).
sembly.17 The people selected Demosthenes to give the funeral oration

in late 338, and we will consider the content of the speech in the next
section of the introduction.
In the years after the battle of Chaeronea, much of the Athenian de-
bate over Macedon took place in the courts. Some time before Philip’s
death in autumn of 336, Hyperides prosecuted Demades, an Athenian
politician who helped negotiate with Philip after the battle, for propos-
ing a decree to honor Euthycrates of Olynthus.18 He alleged that Eu-
thycrates colluded with Philip and was a traitor to his own city, and
that he failed to support Athens after its defeat.19 Another case at about
the same time indicates how divisive the Macedonian question was
in Athens, and where Hyperides stood. He prosecuted Philippides for
proposing honors for the proedroi of the Assembly, who presided when
that body approved honors for leading Macedonians and/or their sup-
porters in Athens.20 The outcome of both trials is unknown, but in both
cases we find Hyperides firmly opposed to Athenian appeasement of
Macedon.
The Athenian opponents of Macedon were encouraged by the
murder of Philip in October 336. When the news reached Athens,
Demosthenes celebrated publicly and the city awarded crowns to the
assassins.21 Demosthenes also made secret contact with Attalus, a
Macedonian commander in Asia and Alexander’s chief rival for the
throne, and encouraged the other Greek states to rebel.22 The League
of Corinth now appeared to be a dead letter and agitations arose
throughout Greece. But Alexander rose to the occasion. He reconciled
some with his promises and others by show of force. By the end of 336
the League of Corinth was reinstated and Alexander was recognized
as the new hgemn of the Greeks.23
The League was designed to support first Philip’s, and then Alexan-
17
The probouleuma probably suggested a few suitable candidates for the elec-
tion in the Assembly (perhaps implied at Pl. Mx. 234b). Gomme (1956, 102) asserts
that the boul appointed the speaker, but Dem. 18.285 describes an election in the
Assembly with alternative candidates (on the procedure for electing magistrates see
Hansen 1991, 233–235).
18
Hansen 1974, 37 no. 28.
19
Hyp. fr. 76.
20
Hansen 1974, 39 no. 32. Whitehead (2000, 29–30 and 32) discusses the date
and those honored by the proedroi.
21
Plut. Dem. 22.1–2, Aesch. 3.77, 160.
22
Plut. Dem. 23.2, Diod. Sic. 17.5.1 and 17.3.2.
23
Diod. Sic. 17.3.2–4.6, with discussion by Bosworth (1988, 188–189).
Introduction 7
der’s, campaign against the Persian Empire, which was portrayed as

a panhellenic war of revenge for the invasion of 480.24 With Greece
pacified, Alexander returned to the north to make final preparations. In
spring of 335 he traveled to quell a revolt in Illyria, and in the course
of that action a rumor of his death reached Thebes. Enemies of Philip,
exiled after the battle of Chaeronea, had recently returned to the city,
and they were quick to provoke a rebellion against the garrison sta-
tioned there to maintain Macedonian hegemony.25 Demosthenes him-
self sent arms, and convinced the Athenian Assembly to support the
Theban cause, but that support did not materialize in time.26 Before
Athens could join the rebellion, Alexander arrived with his army. In
autumn of 335 the Macedonian army, with the support of Thebes’ en-
emies in Greece, razed the city and killed or enslaved its inhabitants.
After the destruction of Thebes the enemies of Macedon were re-
luctant to risk further rebellion. Alexander demanded the surrender of
his most prominent opponents in Athens, and only the diplomacy of
Demades, Hyperides’ recent opponent in court, saved them.27 Despite
the ineffectiveness of military resistance, Athenian politicians contin-
ued to debate policy toward Macedon in the courts. Hyperides had pro-
posed an honorary crown for Demosthenes before Chaeronea and was
indicted by Diondas (see p. 5 above), who waited until after the de-
struction of Thebes to bring the case to court. As in the prosecution of
Philippides, we continue to see sharp divisions over attitudes toward
Macedon. Hyperides refers to some fifty unsuccessful indictments of
anti-Macedonian politicians by Diondas, and in this case the court up-
held his award for Demosthenes.28
The citizen judges supported the anti-Macedonian stance of
24
Diod. Sic. 16.89.2, cf. Arr. An. 2.14.4 and 3.18.12. On Alexander’s panhel-
lenism see Flower 2000.
25
For narratives of the Theban revolt and destruction see Arr. An. 1.7–8 and Diod.
Sic. 17.8–14, with the note on §17 under τὴν π]όλιν τῶν Θηβαίων. On the garrison
see note on §17 under τ[ὴν δὲ ἀ]κρόπολιν φρουρουμ[έ]ν[ην]. Worthington (2003a)
suggests that Alexander’s treatment of Thebes was connected with Theban support
of a rival (Amyntas son of Perdiccas III) for the Macedonian throne.
26
See Diod. Sic. 17.8.6–7 and Plut. Dem. 23.1–2 with discussion by Worthington
(1992, 164–165).
27
On Demades’ role see Diod. Sic. 17.15.3–4. Some sources put Hyperides on
the list of Athenians demanded, but Bosworth (1980, 93–95) demonstrates that these
later accounts wrongly include Hyperides because of his activity during the Lamian
War.
28
Hyp. Dion. 145r/144v ll. 9–10 and 175r/174v ll. 31–32 (on the speech see be-
low p. 18); [Plu.] Vit. X or. 848f.
Demosthenes and Hyperides, but there is little sign of concerted

resistance in Athens as Alexander marched east into Asia for his
twelve-year campaign beginning in 334. Athens and other Greek
states sent ambassadors to Persia in 333 to request support for a
Greek rebellion,29 but any prospects for an alliance of Greeks and
Persians collapsed soon afterward with Alexander’s victory at Issus.30
When Agis III of Sparta led a huge army of Greeks and mercenaries
in revolt in 331,31 Athenian politicians were divided. Some saw the
revolt as an opportunity to fight for freedom, but others were more
cautious. Demades convinced the city not to antagonize Macedon, and
Demosthenes, despite his initial support for the revolt, did not press
the issue.32 Hyperides and Lycurgus probably did urge the Athenians
to join the fight, but to no avail.33 Without the support of the Athenian
navy, Agis’ revolt was easily defeated by Antipater, Alexander’s
regent in Macedonia, at Megalopolis in early 330.34
The following year Aeschines called Demosthenes to account for
his failed policy of resistance.35 In his speech On the Crown Demos-
thenes focuses on the events leading to the battle of Chaeronea and
he has next to nothing to say about more recent history. He diverts
attention from Athens’ tardy response to Thebes in 335 and the fail-
29
Arr. An. 2.15.2 and Curt. 3.13.15.
30
Badian (1967, 175–176) considers how startling the news from Issus must have
been for the Greeks.
31
On the date see Badian 1994, 268–271.
32
Demades: Plut. Mor. 818e; Demosthenes: Plut. Dem. 24.1 and Aesch.
3.165–166. Badian (1967, 181–183) and Cawkwell (1969, 178–180) suggest that
Demosthenes failed to appreciate the revolt’s potential. Worthington (2000, 97–98)
is more sceptical of Agis’ chances and defends Demosthenes’ inactivity (cf. also
Harris 1995, 173).
33
Libanius’ summary of Dem. 17 attributes the speech to Hyperides (Lib. Arg.D.
or. 17), and the context is probably the debate in the Athenian Assembly over 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, 474–477 no. 94) “indicates that
Lycurgus would have liked Athens to take part.”
34
On the date see Badian 1994, 277.
35
Ctesiphon proposed a crown for Demosthenes in 337/336, and was indicted
soon afterward by Aeschines in a graph paranomn, but the case did not come to
trial until 330/329. Demosthenes delivered the main defense speech as Ctesiphon’s
syngoros, and by shorthand I refer to him as the defendant in this account. Hansen
(1974, 37–39 no. 30) catalogues the testimonia for these events and Wankel (1976,
13–37) provides a thorough analysis of the dates of Ctesiphon’s proposal, Aeschines’
indictment, and the trial.
Introduction 9
ure to act in 331 by emphasizing his earlier leadership.36 Since Philip’s

death the Macedonians had repeatedly suppressed every Greek rebel-
lion, and by 330 it would have seemed increasingly unrealistic and fu-
tile to continue advocating resistance. The court overwhelmingly re-
jected Aeschines’ prosecution and in doing so endorsed Demosthenes’
nostalgic depiction of Athenian opposition to Philip in the years lead-
ing up to Chaeronea.37
Demosthenes was the most prominent opponent of Alexander in
Athens, and after his victory against Aeschines he appears to have
abandoned, or at least postponed, the fight against Macedon.38 In 330
Athenians looked back at the Demosthenic policy of the early 330s
with approval, but at the same time, as we saw in the reaction to Agis’
revolt, other leaders such as Hyperides and Lycurgus were unable to
convince their fellow citizens to pursue an active policy of confronta-
tion in 331. As the debate over Macedon grew quieter, the city pur-
sued internal reforms. The city’s revenues, under the administration of
Lycurgus, increased dramatically, and Lycurgus also recruited private
donors.39 These funds underwrote the construction of several public
buildings and fortifications, and were also used to increase the size of
the fleet.40 While the city was building its strength, the opponents of
Macedon waited for their opportunity.41
Several factors severely aggravated relations between Athens and
36
Admittedly, the case only concerns Ctesiphon’s decree of 336, and later events
are not strictly relevant. Still, Aeschines brings up the revolts of the 330s and Demos-
thenes does not respond; see the discussion on pp. 19–20.
37
Harris (2000, 59–67) demonstrates that Aeschines’ case was weak, and that the
judges voted in support of Demosthenes’ interpretation of the legal issue.
38
Worthington (2000, 101) summarizes the slight evidence for Demosthenes’
activity between 330 and 324.
39
Rhodes (1993, 515–516) provides a concise sketch of Lycurgus’ financial ad-
ministration; Lambert (1997, 280–291) offers a more full account with references
to recent discussion (most importantly, Faraguna 1992, 171–194). On private con-
tributions see Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 474–477 no. 94 on IG II2 351 + 624 and
Heisserer and Moysey (1986) on a similar honorary decree.
40
Habicht (1997, 23–26) and Bosworth (1988, 204–211) provide useful brief
summaries of Lycurgus’ programs. For a more detailed account see Faraguna 1992,
257–267 and Humphreys 2004, 77–129 (a reprint of Humphreys 1985 with updated
notes and an extensive new “afterword”).
41
We have two forensic speeches of Hyperides from the period of 330 to 324 (he
spoke as a syngoros for Euxenippus, probably in 330 or not long afterward, and he
wrote a speech for a client in prosecution of Athenogenes), neither of which addresses
foreign policy.
Alexander beginning in early 324. First, Alexander abandoned the for-

mal terms of the League of Corinth and decreed that all Greek ex-
iles must be allowed to repatriate in their native cities.42 Thousands of
Greek mercenaries served in the Persian army, and in the wake of the
Macedonian conquest, many of these troops were discharged (others
were incorporated into Alexander’s army).43 The Exiles Decree caused
great anxiety throughout Greece, but especially for Athens and the Ae-
tolian League, who would soon ally in revolt.44 Not only would they be
affected by the return of long-absent mercenaries to Greece, but also
the Exiles Decree required Athens to abandon Samos, which it had oc-
cupied since 365, and repatriate thousands of cleruchs, who would need
homes and livelihoods in Athens,45 while the Aetolians were ordered
to quit Oeniadae.46
The next source of friction between Athens and Alexander was the
arrival of Harpalus, Alexander’s former treasurer, who came as a fugi-
tive seeking asylum at Athens in spring of 324, at the same time as
news of the Exiles Decree began to reach the Greeks.47 After station-
ing his private army and most of his fleet at Taenarum, Harpalus was
admitted to the city and then, almost immediately, he was demanded
by various Macedonian envoys.48 Athens was nervous about the Ex-
iles Decree and reluctant to surrender Harpalus too quickly. Demo-
sthenes proposed that Harpalus be confined and that his assets be safe-
guarded on the Acropolis while Demosthenes himself would negoti-
ate with Alexander’s agent (Nicanor, who came to Olympia in early
August 324 to announce formally the Exiles Decree).49 But Harpalus
slipped out of the city in late summer, before he could be surrendered,
42
Diod. Sic. 17.109.1 and 18.8; cf. Dem. 17.16. Bosworth (1988, 220–228) offers
a useful discussion.
43
Badian 1961, 26–27.
44
See §13 with note under Θ]ετταλοὺς δὲ καὶ Φωκέας καὶ [Αἰ]τωλοὺς κτλ.
45
Shipley (1987, 165–166) discusses Alexander’s Exiles Decree and Samos. His
estimate of between 6,000 and 12,000 cleruchs (14) seems to be confirmed by a re-
cently discovered council list of the cleruchy (Habicht 1996, 401).
46
Diod. Sic. 18.8.6.
47
Hyp. Dem. 18, discussed by Bosworth (1988, 215–216). The standard study
of the Harpalus scandal is Badian 1961; Whitehead (2000, 357 n. 246) lists more
recent work (add Blackwell 1999, 13–17 and 134–136 to his list). Worthington (1987,
41–77) also provides a detailed discussion of the events and questions Demosthenes’
guilt.
48
Diod. Sic. 17.108.7; [Plu.] Vit. X or. 846a–b.
49
Hyp. Dem. 8–9; Din. 1.81, 103.
Introduction 11
and was murdered soon afterward in Crete.50

Demosthenes was a central figure in all these events and he became
embroiled in the scandal that Harpalus left in his wake. There were
widespread allegations that Harpalus won his exit from Athens with
bribes, and Demosthenes admitted to accepting funds for public use.51
When half of the 700 talents deposited by Harpalus were found miss-
ing, Demosthenes was confident of his innocence and called for an in-
vestigation by the Areopagus.52 After that council declared its findings
six months later, in spring of 323, Demosthenes and others were put
on trial, and eventually found guilty.53 The procedure must have been
influenced by political considerations, such as the debate over Alexan-
der’s divinity (see the next paragraph), the negotiations with Macedon
on the exiles, or Demosthenes’ reluctance to join the fiercest advocates
of war.54 After the trial Demosthenes fled Athens and lived in exile until
he was recalled at the end of the year to help the Lamian War effort.55
The third factor accelerating the war came in late 324, as the Are-
opagus was investigating the Harpalus incident, when the Athenian as-
sembly hotly debated an award of divine honors for Alexander and
heroic cult for his recently deceased associate Hephaestion.56 Alexan-
der himself, following the oracle at Ammon, requested this treatment
for Hephaestion, while others voluntarily proposed similar honors for
Alexander in Athens.57 The Macedonian king had already begun to dis-
play a more autocratic attitude toward the Greeks with the Exiles De-
cree, and now the Athenian debate on Alexander’s divinity further gal-
vanized his opponents. Hyperides would soon attack Demosthenes for
his acquiescence on this issue and in the Funeral Oration he singles it
50
Diod. Sic. 17.108.8 and 18.19.2. For further details on all these events see
Badian 1961, 31–32 and Bosworth 1988, 216–217.
51
Diod. Sic. 17.108.8, Plut. Dem. 25, Hyp. Dem. 12–13 with Whitehead’s (2000,
400–402) note.
52
See Hyp. Dem. 10 and [Plu.] Vit. X or. 846b on the missing gold, and Hyp.
Dem. 2 and Din. 1.4 on the Areopagus.
53
[Plu.] Vit. X or. 846c, Plut. Dem. 26.1. The prosecution speeches by Hyperides
and Dinarchus survive (Hyp. Dem. and Din. 1).
54
Badian 1961, 32–36, Bosworth 1988, 218–220, Worthington 2000, 104–105.
55
Plut. Dem. 27.4–5.
56
See the notes to §21 under ἐξ ὧν ἀναγκαζόμεθα κτλ and [τ]οὺς ‹τού›των
οἰκ‹έ›τας ὥσπερ ἥρωας τιμᾶν.
57
Cawkwell (1994, 299–302) explains that the Greeks were compelled to follow
the oracle, and that Demades proposed a cult for Alexander on his own initiative. Cf.
Bosworth 1988, 288.
out as a particularly goading incitement to the Greeks.58

The Athenians resolved to go to war against Macedon before the
death of Alexander on June 10, 323.59 Earlier that year the boul com-
missioned the Athenian Leosthenes to levy a mercenary army, and he
was elected general for the year 323/322.60 He had ferried a large body
of mercenaries from Asia to Cape Taenarum in the Peloponnese, prob-
ably in 325/324, and their numbers were increased by Harpalus’ men
and other exiles.61 Alexander’s death came as a surprise, and at that
point Athens seized the opportunity. They openly moved toward war
with the support of Harpalus’ gold.62 The Assembly, under the guid-
ance of Hyperides, approved provisions for a large Athenian army and
fleet to join the mercenaries.63
Leosthenes was in contact with the Aetolian League prior to
Alexander’s death, and a formal alliance was concluded at the start
of the war.64 The Locrians and the Phocians and many of the other
neighboring Greeks soon joined the coalition.65 Euboea and Boeotia
sided with Macedon, and the Athenians joined Leosthenes and his
58
Hyp. Dem. 31; §21. The religious motivation for the war may be emphasized
over the other factors because of the ceremonial context of the Funeral Oration.
59
Worthington (1994) has convincingly refuted Ashton’s (1983) suggestion that
the revolt was already in preparation before Harpalus arrived in Athens.
60
Diod. Sic. 17.111.3 (on his confused chronology here, see Worthington 1984,
142); Rhodes (1972, 42) notes that the “secret” (ἐν ἀπορρήτοις) arrangement must
have been approved by the Assembly. Badian (1961, 37 n. 164) infers that Leos-
thenes was the hoplite general. On his earlier career see the note on §1 under περί τε]
Λεωσθένους τοῦ στ[ρατη]γοῦ.
61
Paus. 1.25.5, 8.52.5. On Taenarum as a “recognised mercenary center” see Ba-
dian 1961, 27–28.
62
Diod. Sic. 18.9.4. Badian (1961, 37–40) suggests that Demosthenes used the
twenty talents he received from Harpalus to retain these soldiers in summer of 324;
see Whitehead 2000, 401 for references to further discussion of this hypothesis.
63
On Hyperides’ role see Plut. Phoc. 23.2 and Plut. Mor. 486d; P. Hib. 15 =
FGrHist 105 F6 may preserve a rhetorical piece purporting to be a speech by Leos-
thenes at this debate. Diod. Sic. 18.10.2 and 18.11.3 enumerate the Athenian forces.
Morrison (1987, 89–93) discusses these passages and concludes that Athens, in the
hope of forming a new thalassocracy, immediately began developing “a compara-
tively long-term programme of expanding the number of ships that could be sent to
sea by a newly organised Hellenic League” (90).
64
Diod. Sic. 17.111.3, 18.9.5. A fragment of the stele survives: IG II2 370. Wor-
thington (1984) discusses the chronology of the alliance.
65
Diod. Sic. 18.9.5 and 18.11.1–2. IG II2 367 = Schwenk 1985, 394–401 no. 81
records honors for the Athenian ambassador to Phocis (see Oikonomides 1982).
Introduction 13
allied forces to defeat them near Plataea.66 The Greek forces then
occupied Thermopylae, where they planned to meet the Macedonian
army. The Macedonian commander Antipater requested 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 confident of success.
Antipater offered to surrender, but would not agree to Leosthenes’
unconditional terms.69 In Athens the deme of Collytus voted a thank
offering to Agathe Tyche for the recent victories.70 Hyperides was
busy recruiting allies in the Peloponnese, and Demosthenes supported
him there (and was consequently recalled from exile).71 But as
the siege dragged on into the winter, misfortune struck when the
general Leosthenes was killed in a minor engagement.72 In early 322
Antiphilus, Leosthenes’ replacement in command, lifted the siege and
led the Greeks in victory against the Macedonian reinforcements. The
Macedonian general Leonnatus was killed, but Antipater escaped in
retreat with his entire army.73
Hyperides delivered the Funeral Oration in early 322,74 when the
Greeks had every reason to be optimistic about defeating Macedon. The
speech was presented after the initial victory in Boeotia, the siege at
Lamia, and the defeat of Leonnatus (§§12–14) and before the setbacks
later that year. The Athenian fleet suffered two major losses at Abydus
and Amorgus in July of 322, and the army was defeated soon afterward
66
Diod. Sic. 18.11.5. See also the notes on §11 under Βοιωτούς and Εὐβοέας.
67
Diod. Sic. 18.11.5–12.2.
68
§§12–13, Diod. Sic. 18.12.3–4. Tracy (1995, 29) emphasizes the critical con-
tribution of the Thessalian cavalry; see also the note on §13 under Θ]ετταλοὺς δὲ καὶ
Φωκέας καὶ [Αἰ]τωλοὺς κτλ.
69
Diod. Sic. 18.18.3, Plut. Phoc. 26.4.
70
See Tracy’s (1994, 242) discussion of an augmented text (Walbank 1994) of
IG II2 1195 (lines 28–30).
71
Just. 13.5.10–11, Plut. Dem. 27.2–4. IG II2 448 (9–12, 45–49) refers to an al-
liance with Sicyon in late 323.
72
Diod. Sic. 18.13.4–5, Just. 13.5.12; see also the note on §1 under περί τε]
Λεωσθένους τοῦ στ[ρατη]γοῦ. §23 describes the difficulties of the winter siege.
73
Diod. Sic. 18.15.1–7; see also the note on §14 under τῆς ὕστερον [γενομέ]νης
μάχης.
74
There was not a fixed calendar date for the ceremony; see Loraux 1986, 37–38.
at Crannon.75 Athens was forced to submit to the Macedonian terms,

which included a garrison in the Piraeus. Demosthenes and Hyperides
were condemned to death by the Assembly, under the leadership of
Demades, and subsequently arrested and killed by agents of Antipater,
who cut out Hyperides’ tongue.76
2. The Rhetorical Background
Hyperides’ Funeral Oration was addressed to a large audience of Athe-

nians and foreigners at the public ceremony for the burial of the war
dead in early 322. We will now consider the institutional setting of the
speech and the characteristic elements found in Athenian state funeral
orations. We will then focus on the Demosthenic Funeral Oration and
examine the coexistence of traditional motifs and current attitudes to-
ward Macedon in that speech. We will see that Demosthenes defends
the decision to fight the Macedonians at Chaeronea by invoking pa-
triotic models from Athenian history, and at the same time his speech
reflects its historical context in 338. From there we will turn to other
speeches of the 330s and find a similar attitude of nostalgic patriotism
alongside acknowledgment of the Macedonian hegemony. This discus-
sion of the rhetorical background to Hyperides’ speech will help illumi-
nate the innovative techniques and newfound optimism of Hyperides’
Funeral Oration, on which we will concentrate in the following sec-
tion.
In the years after the Persian Wars, Athens institutionalized state
burials for those who died in service each year.77 The ceremony took
place in the winter (or whenever the campaign season came to a close)
and included a mourning period (prothesis) in the agora, a proces-
sion (ekphora) to the Ceramicus, and burial of the cremated remains
75
Habicht (1997, 39 n. 7) and Tracy (1995, 28 n. 34) list the epigraphic sources for
the naval battles (Diodorus’ version (18.15.8–9) is highly compressed). For Crannon
see Diod. Sic. 18.16.4–17.5.
76
Plut. Phoc. 28.1, Plut. Dem. 28.2–4.
77
The date at which the institution was first introduced is notoriously controver-
sial and not relevant for my present purpose. Parker (1996, 134–135) sensibly sug-
gests that it “developed by stages” and assumed its full form with an oration “after the
defeat of the Persians.” Others have argued for specific dates in the late 470s or 460s
(see Jacoby 1944, 55; Gomme 1956, 94–101; Stupperich 1977, 1.235–238; Clair-
mont 1983, 13–15; Loraux 1986, 56–76). The fullest recent summary of the problem
is Pritchett 1971–1991, IV: 112–124.
Introduction 15
in the public tomb (dmosion sma) followed by the funeral oration

(epitaphios logos) and games (epitaphios agn).78 The remains were
divided into ten coffins, one for each of the Cleisthenic tribes, and the
monument featured sepulchral epigrams, sculptural decoration, and ca-
sualty lists inscribed with the names of the dead, who were again classi-
fied according to their tribes.79 The Assembly selected an orator to give
a public speech of praise for the dead and consolation for the living.80
The ceremony was attended by a large audience of Athenian citizens,
including female family members and foreign guests.81
Before considering the typical elements of Athenian funeral ora-
tions, it is necessary to note that only a handful of speeches survive
from a period of approximately 150 years, and the few speeches that
we have contain several unique passages.82 The best known funeral
oration, the Periclean oration in Thucydides’ history, differs from the
others (except that of Hyperides) in its omission of the typical account
of Athenian history, which is replaced by an extended description of
the Athenian politeia.83 Demosthenes’ speech is the only one we have
that was delivered after a serious defeat, and in a passage without paral-
lel in Attic literature, it features a lengthy catalogue of the Eponymous
78
Thuc. 2.34; Dem. 20.141 describes the oration as a uniquely Athenian custom.
Patterson (2006, 53–56) argues against the common interpretation of dmosion sma
as “national cemetery” (cf. Rusten 1989, 137). Pritchett (1971–1991, IV: 102–106)
discusses representations of the the prothesis and the ekphora in vase painting and
drama. Carey (2007a, 241) observes that the games “take us into the world not just
of the early aristocrat . . . but also that of the hero”; for the testimonia see Lys. 2.80,
Pl. Mx. 249b and Dem. 60.13 with Pritchett 1971–1991, IV: 107.
79
Stupperich (1977, 1.4–31) and Clairmont (1983, 60–73) describe the polyan-
dria. For the epigrams see Peek 1955, nos. 1–37. On the iconography, Stupperich
1994. Bradeen’s work on the casualty lists is synthesized in Bradeen 1969, and
Tsirigoti-Drakotou (2000) describes a recently discovered casualty list fragment (I
am grateful to Adele Scafuro for this reference). A funeral monument with cremated
remains of several men, dated to the third quarter of the fifth century, has recently
been discovered; see Blackman et al. 1997–1998, 8–11.
80
On the selection of the orator see Thuc. 2.34.6 and note 17 on p. 6.
81
Thuc. 2.34.6, Dem. 60.13. Bosworth (2000, 2) emphasizes the size of the au-
dience described in Thucydides’ introduction to Pericles’ speech.
82
Thuc. 2.35–46 (cf. Plut. Per. 8 on an earlier Periclean speech), Gorg. fr. 5–6,
Lys. 2, Pl. Mx. 236d–249c, Dem. 60, Hyp. 6. See Herrman 2004 for translations of
all of these with notes emphasizing their individual differences.
83
Thuc. 2.37–42. Bosworth (2000) persuasively argues that Thucydides gives an
accurate reproduction of what Pericles actually said, and that the speech addresses
the audience’s specific concerns in 431/430.
Heroes.84 Hyperides’ speech is the only one that focuses on an individ-

ual and provides a detailed narrative of the recent campaign season.85
But despite these idiosyncrasies, the surviving speeches share a
similar structure and many of the same topics and motifs recur in sev-
eral speeches. Ancient rhetorical handbooks discuss the standard for-
mat of an epitaphios logos.86 A speech for the war dead should have
an extended section of praise (the epainos), followed by a consolatory
address (paramythia) to the families of the dead.87 Lamentation should
be avoided in a speech exhorting the listeners to continue fighting. All
of the speeches have an introduction (prooimion) with commonplaces
regarding earlier speakers and the impossibility of praising the dead
sufficiently, due to the abundance of worthy material.88 The closing
words of the speeches are also often formulaic: Thucydides, Plato, and
Demosthenes conclude with slight variations on the same theme.89
The praise section occupies the bulk of the funeral orations, and
it, too, is full of standard material. The usual topics are the city, the
ancestors of the dead, and their nature, education, and accomplish-
ments.90 The orators often assert that their Athenian ancestors were
autochthonous (“born of the earth”) and that this shared local origin
was responsible for the state’s unity and advanced civilization.91 This
section of the speech regularly contains an idealized history of Athens,
extending from mythological times to the Persian Wars and beyond.92
This narrative emphasizes Athens as the savior of the other Greeks,
84
Dem. 60.27–31.
85
§6 and §15; §§11–18.
86
Men. Rh. 418.5–422.4; [D.H.] 277.6–283.19. These accounts intermix discus-
sion of private and public funeral orations.
87
Ziolkowski (1981, 57) and Herrman (2004, 6) chart these divisions in the sur-
viving speeches.
88
Thuc. 2.35.1–2, Lys. 2.1–2, Pl. Mx. 236d–e, Dem. 60.1, §§1–2 (with the note
to §1 under τῶν μὲν λόγων τ[ῶν μελ]λόντων ῥηθήσεσ[θαι κτλ). Carey (2007a,
245) observes that the self-referentiality of the speeches is “reminiscent of verse
panegyric.”
89
“Now that you have lamented these men as each of you should, depart,” Thuc.
2.46; cf. Pl. Mx. 249c and Dem. 60.37.
90
Men. Rh. 420.11–12; [D.H.] 278.15–18.
91
Thuc. 2.36.1, Lys. 2.17, Pl. Mx. 237c, Dem. 60.4, §7 with note under οἷς ἡ
κοινὴ γένεσις α[ὐτόχ]θοσιν οὖσιν ἀνυπέρβλητ[ον] τὴν εὐγένειαν ἔχει.
92
Lys. 2.3–66 and Pl. Mx. 239a–246b offer the most extensive narratives; cf.
also Dem. 60.6–11. Thomas (1989, 196–236) discusses these accounts as examples
of an “official tradition.” Burgess (1902, 150–153) provides a detailed catalogue of
the elements in these narratives.
Introduction 17
from Theseus’ expeditions against the Amazons and Eumolpus to the

battle of Marathon, and as a refuge for suppliants such as the children
of Heracles.93
Demosthenes’ Funeral Oration, delivered in autumn of 338, em-
ploys many of these standard elements, but it also provides a view to
Athenian attitudes immediately after the defeat at Chaeronea.94 Demo-
sthenes presents the recent conflict with Philip as the latest in a long
series of Athenian efforts to protect the other Greeks from foreign in-
vaders. His narrative of Athenian history begins with an account of
how the ancestors of the dead drove Eumolpus and the Amazons out
of Greece and ends with a similar description of the Greek victory in
the Persian Wars.95 A later section of the speech, which relates inspiring
tales about each of the Eponymous Heroes of Athens, further associates
those who died at Chaeronea with the Athenian historical tradition.96
The speech acknowledges that the Greeks lost the battle, but De-
mosthenes does not repudiate the policy that led them there; he instead
praises the Athenians for their foresight in following his guidance, and
he faults the Theban commanders for their performance in the field.97
In the end he attributes the defeat to misfortune (tych), or the will
of a god (a daimn), and he praises the citizen soldiers for their brav-
ery.98 But amid these words of praise, he also offers a vision of the
immediate reaction to defeat in Athens. Even before the creation of the
League of Corinth, Demosthenes observes that Greece has lost its free-
dom (eleutheria) and dignity (axima) and fallen into darkness (skotos)
and disgrace (dyskleia).99
93
Amazons: Lys. 2.4–6, Pl. Mx. 239b, Dem. 60.8; Eumolpus: Pl. Mx. 239b;
Marathon: Lys. 2.21, Pl. Mx. 240c–e; Heraclidae: Lys. 2.11–16, Pl. Mx. 239b,
Dem. 60.8.
94
Dionysius of Halicarnassus denied the authenticity of Dem. 60 because its lan-
guage and sentiment seem uncharacteristic of Demosthenes (D.H. Dem. 44), and
many ancient and modern critics have followed his judgment. But the style and atti-
tude of the speech can be readily explained by the genre and the historical situation,
and there is no compelling reason to doubt that the speech is Demosthenic. McCabe
(1981, 169–172) confirms that the prosody is statistically consistent with genuine
speeches. For recent discussion see Herrman 2008 and Worthington 2003b.
95
Dem. 60.8–11. Walters (1980, 14–16) observes that the epitaphioi cast Eumol-
pus and the Amazons as aggressive invaders to serve as a precedent for the Persian
invasions.
96
Dem. 60.27–31.
97
Dem. 60.18, 22.
98
Dem. 60.19.
99
Dem. 60.24. Section 20 refers to the peace negotiations between Philip and
The Athenians were unable to challenge the Macedonian hege-

mony in the years after the battle of Chaeronea, and especially after
the destruction of Thebes in 335.100 A handful of important speeches,
delivered not as formal funeral orations but rather in political court
cases in the 330s, continue to illustrate the Athenian mood toward
Macedonia. Fragments of a newly discovered speech of Hyperides,
Against Diondas, show that the leading enemies of the Macedonians in
Athens continued to use historical precedent to defend the policy that
led to Chaeronea.101 Demosthenes’ speech of 338, as a funeral oration,
avoided specific discussion of policy, but Hyperides’ is primarily
concerned with a defense of the political decisions leading to battle.
Like Demosthenes, he praises the Athenian dmos for following
a policy aimed at the freedom of the Greeks “just as [Athens did]
before,” 102 and then makes a more explicit analogy between the cam-
paign of 338 and the Persian Wars. When his accuser alleges that the
terms of the alliance with Thebes were unfair for Athens, Hyperides
answers with an account of the Athenian contribution to the allied
forces at the battles of Artemisium and Salamis.103 He describes the
effort as “noble” (chrstos) and, just as Demosthenes did, he blames
the defeat on misfortune (tych).104 Demosthenes’ Funeral Oration
and Hyperides’ Against Diondas both concentrate on Chaeronea and
neither offers any prospect of renewed resistance to Macedon. Taken
together, they suggest that in the years after Chaeronea the Athenian
enemies of Macedon focused on the past as they grew resigned to the
Macedonian hegemony.
Lycurgus’ prosecution of Leocrates in 331, delivered after the erup-
tion of Agis’ revolt, continues to dwell on the loss at Chaeronea seven
years before.105 In one brief passage he closely echoes Demosthenes’
Funeral Oration as he laments that “the liberty of the Greeks” perished
Athens immediately after the battle, not the creation of the League in early 337.
100
For a narrative of these events see above pp. 6–7.
101
See above note 14 on p. 5 on the date of the Against Diondas.
102
Hyp. Dion. 137v/136r ll. 1–2.
103
Hyp. Dion. 145v/144r ll. 9–22. Cf. Dem. 18.238, and see below note 112 on
p. 19 on the relation of these two speeches.
104
Hyp. Dion. 137r/136v l. 32–137v/136r l. 8. See below note 115 on p. 20 for the
Demosthenic parallels.
105
On the date of the trial see Harris (in Worthington et al. 2001, 159 n. 1). See
above p. 8 on Agis’ revolt. For details on the trial of Leocrates see Hansen 1975,
108 no. 121. He was charged with fleeing Athens immediately after the battle of
Chaeronea, which explains why the speech concentrates on that period.
Introduction 19
along with the soldiers who died on the field.106 Like Demosthenes and
other funeral orators, he compares the campaign against Philip with
patriotic episodes from Athenian myth, such as the sacrifice of the Hy-
acinthidae to save Athens from Eumolpus.107 From myth he moves to
the Persian Wars, singling out the two standard examples of Athenian
heroism, the battles of Marathon and Salamis.108 Lycurgus may have
hoped the Athenians would join Agis’ revolt in 331 and put the defeat
of 338 behind them (see note 33 on p. 8), but his persuasive appeal to the
court in Athens in his prosecution of Leocrates, like earlier speeches of
Demosthenes and Hyperides, uses models from myth and the Persian
Wars to heroize the Athenian effort at Chaeronea.109
A year after Lycurgus’ prosecution, Demosthenes delivered his
masterpiece On the Crown. As we have already observed (see p. 8),
his defense speech focuses on the period leading up to the battle
of Chaeronea, and avoids discussion of more recent events. In his
prosecution speech Aeschines blames Demosthenes for missing the
opportunity of Philip’s death in 336 and for failing to support Thebes
in 335 and Agis in 331.110 But Demosthenes does not take the bait.
Early in the speech he makes a brief mention of the destruction of
Thebes, and promises to return to the topic later in his defense.111 But
the promise is left unfulfilled: Demosthenes does not return to the
subject of the Theban revolt, nor does he mention the recent defeat of
Agis. Instead, he defends the policy that led to Chaeronea, by using
many of the same arguments that appeared in his Funeral Oration in
338, and also in Hyperides’ Against Diondas and Lycurgus’ Against
Leocrates.112
Demosthenes shows no regret for his policy. He argues that con-
frontation with Philip was inevitable, and that the alliance with Thebes
106
Lycurg. 50; cf. Dem. 60.24, quoted above. Maas (1928) lists several other close
parallels and suggests that Lycurgus deliberately alludes to the (genuine, he believes)
Demosthenic speech.
107
Lycurg. 98–100; cf. Dem. 60.27. Lycurg. 101 recalls Dem. 60.29 (on the
Leontidae).
108
Lycurg. 104 and 70.
109
Although his case was weak (on the legal issues see Harris 2000, 67–75), Ly-
curgus lost by only a single vote (Aesch. 3.252).
110
Aesch. 3.160–161, 156–157, 165.
111
Dem. 18.41–42; cf. Worthington 2000, 99.
112
Indeed, there are many close verbal echoes between On the Crown and Against
Diondas, as Eusebius had already noted (Eus. PE 10.3.14–15 = Hyp. fr. 95).
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 fight for
freedom at Chaeronea, rather than more recent events that only con-
firmed their impotence against Alexander.
3. Hyperides’ Funeral Oration
As we have just seen, the speeches of the 330s focus on the defeat
at Chaeronea, which they present as the most recent event in a long
tradition of Athenian accomplishments. These orations pay little atten-
tion to subsequent developments, as Philip and Alexander consolidated
their control of Greece. But in the 320s Athenian prospects improved
dramatically, and the death of Alexander in 323 provided an ideal op-
portunity to renew the fight for the freedom lost at Chaeronea.116 Hy-
perides’ speech reflects the changed situation. With its focus on recent
events, it stands apart from Athenian speeches of the 330s and from
earlier funeral orations. The Athenians had finally put Chaeronea be-
hind them, and Hyperides shows them that the current campaign was
more important than any of their ancestors’ achievements.
Earlier funeral orations present an idealized history of Athens
that begins in the mythological past and culminates with the Persian
Wars.117 They do sometimes describe more recent events, but only
briefly, as if to emphasize that the current honorands play but a
small part in a great tradition. Lysias, for example, devotes nearly his
whole speech to “the deeds of the dead” (3), presenting an extensive
account of the Persian Wars as the centerpiece, while the Corinthian
113
Dem. 18.195.
114
Dem. 18.208, with discussion by Yunis (2000, 108–109).
115
Dem. 18.192–194, cf. Dem. 60.19–20.
116
On these events see above pp. 9–12.
117
For details and references see above p. 16.
Introduction 21
War receives only a moment’s attention.118 Demosthenes’ speech

nicely illustrates the typical emphasis on the past found in earlier
funeral orations. He presents an extended description of each of the
Eponymous Heroes of Athens, and in each instance adds the refrain
that the members of the tribe were inspired by their distant ancestors.119
Hyperides refuses to narrate the past deeds of the city at all, explain-
ing that “there is not enough time now to survey individually its earlier
[accomplishments]” (§4). He offers instead a simile comparing the city
of Athens with the sun, and this short comparison encompasses many
of the standard topoi found in the longer narratives of other speeches.120
The narrative that follows does not append recent accomplishments to
a long catalogue of older achievements, but instead focuses exclusively
on recent events.121 He begins with the general Leosthenes, who played
a leading role in the revolt and was killed in the field,122 and then nar-
rates the events of the year: the initial success in Boeotia, the siege
of Antipater at Lamia, and the defeat of Leonnatus.123 Whereas De-
mosthenes had emphasized the tribal heroes as inspirational models,
Hyperides points to the current situation in Thebes and emphasizes the
future meetings of the Amphictyonic Council as stimuli for the sol-
diers’ efforts.124
Although his narrative focuses exclusively on the most recent
campaign season, Hyperides concludes his praise of Leosthenes
and his men with an account of the reception that the general will
receive in Hades. He first compares Leosthenes with the Greek heroes
of the Trojan War, then with the Athenian generals Miltiades and
Themistocles, and finally with the tyrant-slayers Harmodius and
Aristogiton. Other epitaphioi praise the dead for matching the deeds of
118
Lys. 2.20–47 and 66–70. Similarly, in the Menexenus the Persian Wars receive
much more attention than the Corinthian War; see Pl. Mx. 239d–241d and 244b–245c.
119
Dem. 60.27–31; cf. above p. 17. On the Eponymous Heroes, see Kearns 1989,
80–92, with the individual entries in her appendix 1.
120
See §5 with the commentary notes.
121
As discussed above (pp. 15–17), each of the funeral orations is idiosyncratic
in some way, and there may well have been earlier epitaphioi that also focused on
recent events; Bosworth (2000, 3–4) suggests that Pericles’ oration in 439 may have
been similar to Hyperides’ in this regard.
122
§§9–10. On Leosthenes see pp. 12–13 and the note on section §1 under περί
τε] Λεωσθένους τοῦ στ[ρατη]γοῦ. For discussion of this speech’s unusual focus on
the general, see the note on §3 under ἐπαινεῖν . . . τὸν δὲ στρατηγὸν Λεωσθένη.
123
§§12–14 with the commentary notes; see also above pp. 12–13.
124
§§17–18 with the commentary notes.
their ancestors,125 but Hyperides emphatically argues that Leosthenes

deserved more praise than his predecessors. He “greatly excelled”
those who attacked Troy because the stakes were higher for Greece in
322; he was more courageous and foresighted than the generals of the
Persian Wars because he prevented the foreign invaders from reaching
Athens; and Harmodius and Aristogiton would prefer his company
because he accomplished “even more” than they by liberating all of
Greece.126
Hyperides highlights the primacy of the Lamian War elsewhere
throughout the speech. He begins with the standard description of the
dead as andres agathoi (“brave men”) and then goes on to add that there
have never been “[better] men than those who have died or more gen-
erous achievements.”127 Again at the end of his introduction he repeats
that recent accomplishments were “more honorable and noble” than
those of the ancestors (§3). At the end of the narrative of the campaign
season he boldly makes an explicit claim that no earlier effort was more
important: “None of those who came before ever fought for more noble
goals or against stronger adversaries, or with fewer allies.”128 And later
he adds that the Lamian War displayed the soldiers’ virtue better than
any earlier campaigns had (§23).
Statements such as these do not occur in earlier funeral orations;
in his Funeral Oration of 338 Demosthenes lamented that the freedom
and dignity of Greece died along with the souls of the fallen soldiers
at Chaeronea.129 Hyperides’ positive attitude also stands in contrast to
the courtroom speeches delivered after the battle of Chaeronea; in 330
Lycurgus echoed Demosthenes’ tone of despondency, and added that
the souls of those who died in 338 were a “crown for the fatherland.”130
125
For example, Lysias concludes his narrative by stating that the soldiers of
the Corinthian War “preserved the glory” of their ancestors (69: τήν . . . δόξαν
διασώσαντες) and although Demosthenes argues that the soldiers of the Persian War
were superior to those of the Trojan War (Dem. 60.10), he makes no comparable
statement regarding the dead from Chaeronea. Currie (2005, 116–118) lists passages
that describe the accomplishments of the war dead as being “worthy” (axios) of
comparison to the deeds of the epic heroes.
126
§35, §38, §39. See also the note on §35 under δ]ιήνεγκε.
127
§1; see the note there under [ἀμείνους] on the restoration of the word. On an-
dres agathoi see the note on §8 under ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί γ[ίγνων]ται.
128
§19. See the note there under τὴν ἀρετὴν ἰσχὺν καὶ τὴν ἀνδρείαν πλῆθος . . .
κρίνοντες on the hyperbole.
129
Dem. 60.23–24. See above p. 17.
130
Lycurg. 50.
Introduction 23
Hyperides responded in 322 that the soldiers in the Lamian war “made
freedom public property for all” and that it was not the souls of the dead
at Chaeronea, but rather the glorious achievements of the Athenians in
the recent campaign that were a “a crown for the fatherland.” 131 His
clams for the excellence of those who fought in the first season of the
Lamian War reveal a newfound optimism in Athenian prospects.
Hyperides also appropriates the language typically used for the Per-
sian Wars and applies it to the Lamian War. For example, his descrip-
tion of the courage of the Lamian War soldiers echoes Lycurgus’ praise
for the fighters at Marathon.132 Similarly, Plato’s description of the
Persian offensive at Marathon as “the insolence of all Asia” becomes
the “insolence of Macedon” for Hyperides.133 Hyperides further links
the two wars when he emphasizes that Miltiades and Themistocles
freed Greece, alluding to the Lamian War slogan of “freedom for the
Greeks.”134 The circumstances of the war, with an alliance of Greek
states fighting a foreign monarch, and significant battles near Ther-
mopylae and Plataea, invite such a comparison.135 But Hyperides is not
content just to observe the parallels between the two conflicts. His allu-
sions underline the fact that the typical epitaphic account of the Persian
Wars has been replaced by a narrative of recent events,136 and they an-
ticipate the oration’s vivid final scene of Leosthenes and his men in
the underworld, where they will be praised for their superiority to the
legendary generals of the Persian Wars.137
Hyperides’ speech illustrates the Athenian attitude to the Macedo-
nian leadership of the League of Corinth in the 320s. The speech con-
stantly calls for the “freedom of the Greeks” and the overthrow of the
Macedonian rule. In one key passage Hyperides defines this concept
in constitutional terms, as he laments the Athenians’ loss, not just of
external freedom, but also of the basic right to determine their own do-
mestic politics within the city. He praises autonomia, the city’s right
to govern itself, and the rule of law, which he sharply contrasts with
131
§19. See the note there under στέφανον τῆι πατρίδ[ι.
132
§19, Lycurg. 108; see the note on §19 under τὴν ἀρετὴν ἰσχὺν καὶ τὴν ἀνδρείαν
πλῆθος . . . κρίνοντες.
133
§20, Pl. Mx. 240d; see the note on §20 under τὴν Μακεδόνων ὑπερηφανίαν.
134
§37. On freedom as a Lamian War slogan see the note on §16 under τῆ[ς τῶ]ν
Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας.
135
Cf. Loraux 1986, 127–129.
136
See the note on §5 under κολάζο[υσα.
137
§§37–38, with the note on §37 under Μιλτιάδην καὶ Θεμιστοκλέα.
the tyrannical rule of Alexander.138 He decries the pernicious influence

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

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

items that do not appear in his forensic speeches; for example, the ad-
jective ἔνδοξος (“glorious”) and the noun ἡγεμών (“leader”) are used
repeatedly here but not elsewhere in the corpus.146 In sum, the Funeral
Oration stands apart from the rest of the Hyperidean corpus not only
because of the subject and purpose of the speech, but also because of
its style of composition.
All of the surviving funeral orations follow a similar structure (see
above p. 16) and it may be useful to conclude this section with an out-
line summary of Hyperides’ speech:
• §§1–3: introduction (prooimion)
• §§4–40: praise (epainos)
— §§4–5: the city (πάτρις)
— §§6–7: the Athenian race (γένος) and their nobility (εὐγένεια)
— §8: upbringing (παιδεία)
— §§9–40: the achievements (τὰ πεπραγμένα) of the fallen
* §§10–14: Leosthenes’ deeds in battle
* §15: the virtue (ἀρετή) of the other soldiers
* §§16–17: their service for all of Greece fighting in Boeotia
* §§18–19: the battles in Boeotia and at Lamia
* §§20–23: the importance of their victory
* §§24–26: the sacrifices made by the dead for the living
* §27: the surviving family members
* §§28–29: attainment of nobility in death
* §§30–34: our memory of them as heroes
* §§35–40: their reception in Hades
• §§41–43: consolation (paramythia)
For polyptoton see the note on §26 under πόνους πόνων, and for exclamations see
on §40 under ὢ καλῆς μὲν καὶ παραδόξου τόλμης κτλ.
146
ἔνδοξος: §§18, 27, 37, 40; ἡγεμών: §§3, 11, 35. Of course, the corpus is small
and fragmentary, so many of the words listed in Jensen’s index vocabularum occur
only once. But a number of the items in Dover’s (1968, 65–67) list of “non-forensic”
terms in Lysias’ Funeral Oration are used by Hyperides only in the Epitaphios: e.g.,
ἀγήρατος (§43 and the fragmentum dubium, “ageless”), δεξιοῦσθαι (twice in §35,
“to welcome”), and ἡγεμών (§§3, 11, 35 “leader”).
Introduction 27
4. The Text and Translation
The Funeral Oration was one of the first examples of Greek literature
rediscovered on papyrus in the middle of the nineteenth century.147 It
was found near Egyptian Thebes and brought to London in late 1856
by H. Stobart.148 The first editor, Churchill Babington, arranged the fif-
teen fragments into fourteen columns.149 This arrangement is clearly
confirmed by the texts on both sides of the papyrus, and quickly won
wide assent.150 Friedrich Blass made one important modification when
he recognized that the fragments Babington had classified as the first
two columns in fact join to form one column.151 Accepting this join,
the papyrus falls into three physical divisions: col. 1, cols. 2–11, and
cols. 12–13. Hyperides’ text clearly continues directly from column 1
to 2 (§2: τῶν . . . πεπραγμένων, “the deeds”), indicating that no mate-
rial has been lost between the first two divisions of papyrus. The text
is more difficult at the end of the second division, but here, too, there
appears to be continuity. The conditional protasis εἰ δέ (§34, “if”) at
the end of column 11 is nicely completed by the verb γίνεται (“was”)
at the start of column 12, and then answered by the optative question
τίς ἂν λόγος ὠφελήσειεν (“what speech would confer”).152 One addi-
tional small piece of the papyrus (my fragment 1a) has not been placed;
it must come from the right half of col. 11 or from an additional section
of the papyrus, otherwise lost, that came after col. 13.153
The first part (cols. 1–10) of the text of the Funeral Oration is writ-
ten against the vertical fibers on the verso of a horoscope and astrolog-
147
P. Lit. Lond. 133 = Brit. Mus. inv. 98; Pack 1965, 1236. Turner (1980, 21) lists
the few literary finds before 1860.
148
Babington 1859, 3.
149
The details in Babington 1858 are summarized by Jensen (1917, xvi n. 2).
150
Blass (1894, xv) observes that neque quicquam fere reliqui ille fecit prox-
imis editoribus, nisi ut duo prima fragmenta ad unam columnam efficiendam con-
iungerentur.
151
See the note on §§1–2.
152
The proposed restorations for the end of col. 11 also support continuity between
cols. 11 and 12: see note on §34 under ὠφελείας ἕνε]κεν.
153
The fragment is torn on all sides. The fibers run parallel to its script, which
indicates that it cannot belong to any of the lacunae in cols. 1–10 (see next paragraph;
the modern mounting of the papyrus obscures the other side of this fragment, which
should presumably be blank, like the piece of papyrus that preserves cols. 11–13).
Cf. Blass 1894, 93 and Jensen 1917, 113.
ical text in Greek and Coptic.154 The second part of the papyrus text
(cols. 11–13) comes after a glue-join (a synkollsis) and is written along
the fibers on a separate piece of papyrus with nothing on the other side.
The columns are 18 to 19 cm high, and the width varies from 6.25 (cols.
1, 10, 12) to 8.5 cm (col. 9), with the majority between 7 and 8 cm wide.
Most columns have 18 to 20 characters per line, but this ranges with the
width of the columns, from as few as 12 characters per line (e.g., cols.
5.40, 6.12) to as many as 31 (9.33 and 9.34). The first three columns
contain only 33 or 34 lines, while most of the other columns have up
to 44 lines of text. The intercolumn divisions are highly unusual: the
scribe uses one or two vertical lines with virtually no blank space on
either side.155 The top margin (2.5 cm) of the papyrus is well preserved,
but the bottom margin tapers off (1.5 cm for cols. 1–3, then very little).
The script is not cursive; each letter stands by itself. In general,
I would compare P. Oxy. 3.454,156 although that hand is much more
careful and less cramped than this one. Kenyon (1899, 103–104) de-
scribes our scribe as a private nonliterary hand and compares P. Oxy.
9.1175.157 Here, the lines are roughly bilinear, with more adherence to
an upper rule. Letters such as γ, ι, φ, and ψ drop below the bottom
rule. β, λ, and φ often project above the upper rule. ξ is especially dis-
tinguished by its height and narrowness. In general, the style seems
somewhat hurried, and the spacing is quite tight. Turner’s (1987, 5)
suggestion that it was written as a school exercise is very attractive.
The scribe seems careless and makes several mistakes (see appendix
A). There are a number of omissions, sometimes of only a character or
two, but in other places whole words or phrases need to be supplied to
make sense of the text. See appendix A for further details on scribal
mistakes, orthography, punctuation, and diacritics. A published fac-
simile of the entire manuscript may be found in Babington 1858; it is a
hand-drawn lithograph, and while it is very accurate for the most part,
it tends to hide physical blemishes in the papyrus and is occasionally
inaccurate.158 Thompson and Warner (1881, pl. 4) provide an image of
154
The recto text is Neugebauer and Van Hoesen 1959, 28–38 no. 95. Its vertical
orientation is opposite the verso.
155
Turner (1987, 5) comments on the rarity of this technique for column division,
with specific reference to this papyrus.
156
P. Oxy. 3.454 = Turner 1987, no. 62.
157
The same scribe also wrote P. Oxy. 9.1174 (Turner 1987, no. 34) and other
known rolls (Johnson 2004, 64 (scribe B1)).
158
There are instances where fairly clear readings in the facsimile are not apparent
Introduction 29
the right half of col. 6 and cols. 7–11, while Wattenbach (1897, pl. 3),
has a drawing of cols. 8–9.
The horoscope on the recto is important for the dating of the pa-
pyrus. It was prepared for a subject born in AD 95, and then the papyrus
was reused for the Funeral Oration in the second century.159 This dat-
ing is confirmed by the palaeographical parallels cited in the previous
paragraph, which editors assign to the late second century AD.
The Funeral Oration of Hyperides was first edited and published in
England by Churchill Babington (1858). This exciting new text imme-
diately prompted several publications from some of the best Hellenists
on the continent,160 and Babington reexamined the papyrus in light of
their suggestions and published a second edition in 1859. Within the
next decade four more editions and several short articles appeared,
which differed mainly in their restorations of the lacunose sections of
the speech.161 The work of these early scholars did much to improve
the text of the speech, and the value and extent of their contributions
can be judged from the frequency of their names in the apparatuses of
all subsequent editions.
The collective work of all of these early scholars was synthesized
by Friedrich Blass, who further added numerous significant improve-
ments of his own to the text, in the first modern edition of the surviving
speeches and fragments of Hyperides, which appeared in the Teubner
series in 1869.162 As new Hyperides papyri came to light, Blass pre-
pared updated editions of the Teubner volume,163 and his third edition
remains valuable, not only because of the editor’s excellent skill as a
upon examination of the manuscript. For example, Babington (1858, 3–4) reads τοὺς
παῖδας παιδευθ[ῆναι in §8 and the image of the end of col. 4 line 21 reflects that
reading (the horizontal crossbar of the theta is there in the facsimile, but not on the
papyrus, as Babington (1859, 24) himself agreed a year later in his second edition).
159
On the date of the horoscope, see Neugebauer and Van Hoesen 1959, 28–29.
See Turner 1987, 18–19 on the length of intervals between writing on the verso and
reuse of the recto of a papyrus roll.
160
Babington (1859, 5–6) refers specifically to Kayser (1858), Spengel (1858),
Caesar (1857), Comparetti (1858), and Cobet (1858). Bursian and Müller (1858) and
Weil (1858) also published notes that year.
161
The most valuable editions are those of Sauppe (1860) and Comparetti (1864);
note also Tell (1861) and Caffiaux (1866). Fritzsche (1861–1862), Schäfer (1860),
Shilleto (1860) and Volckmar (1860) published notes.
162
Blass 1869, reviewed by Sandys (1870). Whitehead (2000, 19–23) provides an
excellent survey of the editions of Blass and subsequent editors.
163
Blass 1881 and 1894; for reviews of the third edition see Sandys 1895 and
Radermacher 1896.
papyrologist and countless ingenious restorations, but also for the vol-
ume’s compendious account of all nineteenth-century work on Hype-
rides’ text.
Two twentieth-century editions of the Funeral Oration illustrate
different approaches to presenting the text. Frederic Kenyon (1906)
produced an Oxford Classical Text of Hyperides that was a marked de-
parture from Blass’ Teubner editions.164 Kenyon aimed to present as
readable a text as possible; he does not indicate the lineation of the pa-
pyrus, and removes editorial brackets and dots from the text when they
pertain only to a few letters that can be restored with certainty. In the
most damaged sections of the Funeral Oration he follows two differ-
ent approaches. In §1 he prints short phrases separated by dots and does
not record many restorations for the lacunae. In §§31–34 he fills in all
of the lacunae, with square brackets as appropriate, to present a contin-
uous and intelligible text, but he does not record alternative proposals
for the gaps. Christian Jensen (1917) prepared the most recent Teubner
edition,165 which is widely recognized as the best existing edition of
Hyperides. Jensen was an extremely skilled papyrologist, and his de-
tailed observations in his apparatus with regard to doubtful readings are
an important advance on Blass’ editions. He scrupulously preserves the
layout of the papyrus, printing his text in narrow columns that represent
the papyrus line by line.
Before describing my own approach to the text, a few other
twentieth-century editions deserve mention. None of these editions are
based on a fresh collation of the papyrus; they instead adapt Jensen’s
text. Most notably, Gaston Colin (1946) prepared a Budé edition that
features a full translation of the corpus, together with an extensive
introduction and a useful critical apparatus. His text incorporates many
highly speculative restorations, which are noted in my apparatus and
appendix B. Two other bilingual editions of the entire corpus aimed
at general readers have appeared since Colin. Burtt’s (1954) Loeb
provides a good English translation and brief explanatory notes, and
Marzi (1977) provides an Italian translation with very useful critical
notes on several textual cruces.166 A few brief editions of the Funeral
Oration, with historical notes on the translation or on grammatical
points for students, have also appeared in recent years.167 A final notice
164
Reviewed by Fuhr (1907).
165
A new Teubner is in preparation by László Horváth.
166
Marzi 1977, 59–82.
167
Worthington 1999, Coppola 1996, and Rolando 1969.
Introduction 31
should be given to Bartolini (1977, 88–101) which is not an edition

of the speech, but rather an invaluable summary of textual and other
work on the Funeral Oration between 1912 and 1972.
The text of the Funeral Oration presented in this volume is based
on my own examination of the papyrus at the British Library in 2003
and 2005. I cannot claim to be as experienced or skilled a papyrologist
as Jensen, but I have carefully double-checked all of his readings, and
I would claim some independent value for the perception of a second
set of eyes. By and large I follow his expert opinions, but there are
several places where I see things slightly differently.168 Most of these
differences involve adding or, less often, subtracting dots, and occa-
sionally I am not confident that the traces can be read as a particular
letter. Only a few of these adjustments affect the wording of the text or
restorations adopted in the text.169 But in some other respects I would
suggest that my edition is an improvement upon Jensen’s. First, his text
was produced before the so-called Leiden system standardized edito-
rial markup for papyri and inscriptions, and his idiosyncratic system is
often unclear to modern readers (for example, his frequent usage of dot-
ted letters within square brackets).170 Second, I have included a fuller
record of nineteenth- and twentieth-century editorial suggestions, and
I provide full bibliographic details for that material. The bulk of the
plausible restorations that are now generally accepted were put forward
during the first decade after the discovery of the papyrus, and after the
subsequent improvements of Blass, Jensen, and Colin there seems to
be little fertile ground left for editorial inventiveness. I do not propose
any new restorations; I have rather endeavored to provide an accurate
account of the papyrus’ readings and of modern editors’ restorations in
my text and apparatus.
In many places the papyrus is damaged and scholars have proposed
conjectural restorations for areas that are lost or illegible. I have clas-
sified these modern supplements into three groups.
• Restorations that seem to me extremely likely, because of their con-
168
I diverge from Jensen’s readings of the papyrus in the following places (refer-
ence to column and line of the papyrus): 1.12, 14, 19, 20, 21; 2.10, 21; 3.5, 6, 9, 13,
20; 4.27; 5.8, 11; 6.19, 24, 32, 33; 7.2, 7, 9, 10, 20; 8.17; 9.21; 10.5, 38, 40; 11.2, 21,
40; 13.30.
169
Viz., §1 ὁ χ]ρόνος . . . π]αντί αἰῶν[ι, §5 τ[ῶν ἀνθρώπ]ων ἐπιμ[ελούμενος
(cf. Jensen 1917, xlvi) and §31 πα]ρὰ τοῖς . [ .... .
170
On the Leiden system, see Turner 1980, 187–188 n. 22. For a criticism of Jen-
sen’s system, see Whitehead 2000, 21 n. 80.
sistency with surviving ink traces, and their physical fit with holes
or damage in the manuscript, and because they seem to convey a
highly appropriate sense in context, are incorporated in the text be-
tween square brackets, and the editors are credited in the apparatus.
In order not to inflate the size of the apparatus, obvious restorations
of only a letter or two, most of which go back to Babington’s first
edition, are not listed in the apparatus.
• Restorations that seem less certain but highly plausible, for the rea-
sons listed in the previous item, are recorded in the apparatus, but
not in the text. In situations where more than one plausible restora-
tion has been suggested, and the criteria of sense and physical fit do
not support the strong likelihood of a single restoration in prefer-
ence to others, I have printed dots in the text and noted the various
restoration in the apparatus.
• Proposals that seem to me least suitable to the physical remains or
the sense are recorded in appendix B. In particularly damaged ar-
eas of the papyrus (e.g., §1, §§31–34), I have tended to print dots
in the text, as noted in the previous item, to indicate the size of the
lacunae and I have listed the most plausible restoration in the appa-
ratus. Appendix B records restorations that I deem most unlikely. It
is important to record them, however, for two reasons: (1) readers
may doubt my judgement, and they should be able to consider all
of the proposed alternatives for themselves, and (2) these records
obviate the need to consult nineteenth-century editions (i.e., Blass
1894, which has a much fuller apparatus than Jensen).
The text is printed as continuous prose with embedded notation of
papyrus column and line breaks.171 The right margin of the text enu-
merates the lines as printed in this edition, and these line numbers are
used in the apparatus and in appendix B, and appear in the commentary
lemmata. The standard section divisions are indicated by bold numbers
in the outer margin (the left margin of the text and the right margin of
the translation), and the commentary refers to these sections. In lacu-
nae, dots have been gathered into groups of five (except for the last
group of the lacuna) for the reader’s convenience; these groupings are
not intended to signal the length of the individual words missing from
our manuscript. The scribe regularly writes mute iotas, and in the text
171
It is still quite common to encounter references by column and line, rather than
section number, in scholarship, and readers need references for both systems. Most
notably, the TLG refers to the papyrus layout.
Introduction 33
the iota adscript is employed throughout; scribal omissions of mute

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

1 Numbered sections of the speech begin at sense
breaks (the start of a new sentence or clause) and
are indicated in the outer margins.
For bibliographic information on the editors listed in the apparatus, see
pp. xii–xiv.
The following notation system is used to indicate words and phrases
that are in doubt in the translation.
abc Material that is only partially preserved on the pa-
pyrus, the restoration of which is highly likely.
[abc] Material restored by modern conjecture and more
subject to doubt.
[– –] Lost text; the reader may consult the Greek text to
determine the length of the lacuna.
1 Numbered sections of the speech begin at sense
breaks (the start of a new sentence or clause) and
are indicated in the outer margins.
Text and Translation
Fragment 1a
[ – – ]αλλοτ.[ – – ]|[ – – ]πολλ[ – – ]|[ – – ]γ.εν.[ – – ]
Fragment 1b
1 τῶν μὲν λόγων τ[ῶν μελ]|λ.όντων ῥηθήσεσ[θαι ἐπὶ] | τῶιδε I

τῶι τάφω[ι περί τε] | Λεωσθένους τοῦ στ[ρατη]|5 γοῦ καὶ
περὶ τῶν ἄλ.[λων] | τῶν μετ’ ἐκείνου [τετε]|λ.ευτηκότων
ἐν τ[ῶι πο|λ]έμωι, ὡς ἦσαν ἄ.ν[δρες | ἀ]γαθοί, μάρ.τ.[υς 5
..... ὁ | χ]ρόνος ὁ . [ .... ..... . | .. ]ωι τὰς πρ.[άξεις ..... | .. ]ς
10
ἄνθρω[π ..... .... | .. ] . ν πω κα[λλί ..... .. | . ἑ]ώ.ρακε ω . [ .. οὐδ’

ἐν τῶι |15 π]αντὶ αἰῶν.[ι νομιστέον | γ]εγενῆ[σθαι .. οὔτε] |
ἄ.νδρας [ἀμείνους τῶν] | τετελ.ε‹υ›τ.[ηκότων] | οὔτε πρ[άξεις
1–257 P. Lit. Lond. 133 = Brit. Mus. inv. 98 (Pack 1965, 1236)
1 fragmentum ponendum est in col. XI aut post col. XIII, cf. p. 27 2 τῶν μελλόν-
των Babington 3 περί τε Cobet et Sauppe 5–6 μάρτυς ἔστω Colin, μάρτυς αὐτὸς
Kenyon 6 ὁ ἰδὼν ἐν τῶι πολέμωι Bücheler, ὁ συνειδὼς ἔργωι Colin τὰς πράξεις
Babington 6–7 ὧν οὐδεὶς ἄνθρωπος οὐδὲν ἔργον πω καλλίον (οὐδεμίαν . . . καλλίω
Colin) καθεόρακεν Bücheler, οὐ γάρ τις ἀνθρώπων προαίρεσίν πω καλλίω τῆσδ’
(πρότερόν πω καλλίονας Jensen ap. Hess) ἑώρακε Sudhaus 7–8 ὥστε οὐδ’ ἐν τῶι
παντὶ αἰῶνι Bücheler, ὧν ἴσμεν οὐδ’ ἐν παντὶ αἰῶνι Sudhaus 8 νομιστέον Bücheler
ποτ’ οὔτε Colin 9 ἀμείνους τῶν Bücheler 9–10 πράξεις μεγαλοπρεπεστέρας Jensen
seq. Blass
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
2 μεγα|20 λ]οπ.ρ.επεσ.τ.[έρας. διὸ] | καὶ μάλιστα [νῦν φοβοῦ]|μαι, 10

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

especially, I [am now anxious] that my speech may appear infe-
rior to their accomplishments. But then again I find confidence
in the fact that you, the audience, will supply whatever details I
omit. For I do not address just any audience, no, I speak before
men who are themselves witnesses to the deeds of those men.
Our city deserves to be praised because of its policy, for making 3
decisions that were similar, and yet even more honorable and
noble than its earlier accomplishments, and the dead deserve
praise for their courage in war, for not dishonoring the virtuous
acts of their ancestors. The general Leosthenes deserves praise
on both counts: he initiated the policy for the city and he was
appointed leader of the expedition for the citizens.
As for the city, there is not enough time now to survey in- 4
dividually its earlier [accomplishments throughout] all Greece
nor does this occasion call for a long speech. And it’s not easy
for one man alone to narrate and call to mind deeds so numer-
ous and so great. But I will not refrain from speaking about the
city summarily. Just as the sun goes over all the world, deter- 5
mining the seasons appropriately and establishing [all] the right
conditions, supplying reasonable and fair-minded humans with
birth and [sustenance] and [crops] and all other things needed
for life, in the same way too our city continuously punishes the
wicked, [gives aid] to the just, [dispenses] equality instead of
injustice to all, and provides [universal safety] to the Greeks at
Ἕλλη[σιν παρασκε]υ.άζου|σα. 40
6 π.[ερὶ μὲν οὖ]ν τῶν | κοινῶ[ν ἔργων τῆς πόλ]εως | ὥσπερ
π.[ροεῖπον, φρά]σ.αι ‹παρ›αλ‹ε›ί|‹ψ›ω, περ.[ὶ δὲ Λεωσθέ]ν.ους
καὶ |25 τῶν ἄ[λλων τοὺς λόγ]ους ποι|ήσομ.[αι ἤδη. νῦ]ν
δὲ πόθεν | ἄρξωμα[ι λέγει]ν., ἢ τίνος | πρῶτον μνησθῶ;
πότε|ρα περ[ὶ] τοῦ γένους αὐτῶν |30 ἑκάστ‹ου› διεξέλθω; ἀλλ’ 45
7 εὔ|ηθες εἶναι ὑπολαμβάνω· | τὸ‹ν› μὲν ‹γὰρ› ἄλλους τινὰς
ἀν|θρώπους ἐγκωμιάζοντα,
οἳ πολλαχόθεν εἰς μίαν | πόλιν IV
συνεληλυθότες | οἰκοῦσι γένος ἴδιον ἕκασ|τος συνεισενεγκά-
μενος, |5 τούτων μὲν δεῖ κατ’ ἄ.νδρα | γενεαλογεῖν ἕκαστον·
| περὶ δὲ Ἀθηναίων ἀνδρῶν. | τοὺ‹ς› λόγου‹ς› ποιούμενον, 50
οἷς | ἡ κοινὴ γένεσις α.[ὐτόχ]θοσιν |10 οὖσιν ἀνυπέρβλητ[ον]
τὴν | εὐγένειαν ἔχει, πε[ρ]ίεργον | ἡγοῦμαι εἶναι ἰδία[ι
8 τὰ] γένη | ἐγκωμιάζειν. ἀλλὰ [πε]ρὶ τῆς | παιδείας αὐτῶν
ἐπι[μνη]σθῶ, |15 καὶ ὡς ἐν πολλῆι σ.[ωφρο]|σύνηι παῖδες
ὄντ[ες ἐτρά]|φησαν καὶ ἐπ‹αι›δε.[ύθησαν,] | ὅπερ εἰώθασιν 55
[τινες ποι]|εῖν; ἀλλ’ οἶμαι π.[άντας] |20 εἰδέναι ὅτι τούτου.
[ἕνεκα] | τοὺ‹ς› παῖδας παιδεύομ.[εν,] | ἵνα ἄνδρες ἀγαθοὶ
γ[ίγνων]|ται· τοὺς δὲ γεγενημ.[ένους] | ἐν τῶι πολέμωι
ἄνδρ[ας] |25 ὑπερβάλλοντας τῆι ἀρ.[ετῆι] | πρόδηλόν ἐστιν
9 ὅτι πα[ῖδες] | ὄντες καλῶς ἐπαιδε[ύθη]|σαν. ἁπλούστατον 60
ο.[ὖν ἡ]|γοῦμαι εἶναι τὴν ἐν τ[ῶι] |30 πολέμωι διεξελθεῖν
ἀ|ρετήν, καὶ ὡς πολλῶν ἀ|γαθῶν αἴτιοι γεγένη‹ν›ται | τῆι
πατρίδι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις Ἕλ|λησιν.
ἄρξομαι δὲ πρῶτον ἀ|35 πὸ τοῦ στρατηγοῦ· καὶ γὰρ
10 δίκαι|ον. Λεωσθένης γὰρ ὁρῶν | τὴν Ἑλλάδα πᾶ[σ]α.ν 65
τεταπει|νωμένην καὶ [ὥσπερ] ἐπτη
[χ]υ.ῖαν, κατεφθαρμέ- V
νην ὑπὸ | [τῶν] δωροδο‹κ›ούντων παρὰ Φι|[λίπ]που καὶ
Ἀλεξάνδρου κατὰ | [τῶν] πατρίδων τῶν αὑτῶν, |5 [καὶ
τ]ὴ.ν μὲν πόλιν ἡμῶν | [δεομέ]νην ἀνδρός, τὴν δ’ ‹Ἑ›λλά|[δα
πᾶ]σαν πόλεως, ἥτις προστῆν|[αι δυ]ν.ήσεται τῆς ἡγεμονίας, 70
40 παρασκευάζουσα Babington 41 περὶ μὲν οὖν Babington κοινῶν ἔργων τῆς

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

As for the public [deeds of the] city as [I said, I will re- 6
frain from detailing them]. Instead I will now focus my speech
on Leosthenes and the [others. Now] where should I begin [my
speech]; what should I bring up first? Should I discuss in detail
the ancestry of each of them? No, I suppose that is facile. If I 7
were praising some other people, who came from many places
to settle one city, each contributing a different heritage to the
mix, then I would need to trace the background of each, man by
man. But since I am speaking about Athenian men, who, thanks
to their common origin in their birth from the land itself, have
unsurpassable nobility, I believe that praising the ancestors in-
dividually is beside the point. Should I mention their education, 8
and how they were raised and educated in great moderation
when they were children, as [some] are accustomed to [do]?
But I suppose [everyone] knows that we educate our children
[with this goal], that they may become brave men. Since these
men were distinguished in wartime virtue, it is obvious that they
were taught well as children. I think therefore it is simplest to 9
narrate their courage in war, and how they were responsible for
many benefits to their fatherland and to the other Greeks.
I will begin first with the general, as is right. Leosthenes saw 10
all of Greece humbled and cowering [so to speak], destroyed by
men working against their own fatherland and accepting bribes
from Philip and Alexander. When he saw that our city needed
a man, and all Greece needed a city that would be able to take
a position as leader, for the sake of freedom he offered himself
| [ἐπέ]δ.ωκεν ἑαυτὸν μὲν τῆι |10 [πατρί]δι, τὴν δὲ πόλιν τοῖς

11 Ἕλλη|σ.[ιν] εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν· καὶ ξε|νικὴν μὲν δύναμιν
‹συ›στησά|μενος, τῆς δὲ πολιτικῆς ἡγε|μὼν καταστὰς τοὺς
πρώτου|15 ς ἀντιταξαμένους τῆι τῶν | Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίαι
Βοι|ωτοὺς καὶ Μακεδόνας καὶ | Εὐβοέας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους 75
συμ|μάχους αὐτῶν ἐνίκησε μα|20 χόμενους ἐν τῆι Βοιωτίαι.
12 | ἐντεῦθεν δ’ ἐλθὼν εἰς Πύ|λας καὶ καταλαβὼν τὰς |
[πα]ρ.όδους, δι’ ὧν καὶ πρότερον ἐ|[πὶ τ]οὺς Ἕλληνας οἱ βάρ-
βαροι ἐ|25 [πο]ρεύθησαν, τῆς μὲν ἐπὶ | [τὴν] Ἑλλάδα πορείας
Ἀντί|[π]α.τρον ἐκώλυσεν, αὐτὸν δὲ | [κα]τ.αλαβὼν ἐν τοῖς τό- 80
ποις τού|[τοι]ς καὶ μάχηι νικήσας ἐπολι|30 [όρ]κει κατακλείσας
13 εἰς Λαμίαν· | [Θ]ε.τταλοὺς δὲ καὶ Φωκέας καὶ | [Α]ἰ.τωλοὺς
καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἅπαν|τας τοὺς ἐν τῶι τόπωι συμμάχους
| ἐποιήσατο, καὶ ὧν Φίλιππος |35 καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος ἀκόντων
ἡγού|μενοι ἐσεμνύνοντο, τούτων Λε|ωσθένης ἑκόντων τὴν 85
ἡγε|μονίαν ἔλαβεν. συνέβη δ’ αὐτῶι | τῶν μὲν πραγμάτων
ὧν προε[ί]|40 λετο κρατῆσαι,
τῆς δὲ εἱμ.[αρ]μένης οὐ‹κ› ἦν VI
14 | περιγενέ[σθαι.] δίκαιον δ’ ἐσ|τὶν μὴ μ[όνον] ὧν ἔπραξεν
| Λεωσθέν[ης ἀε]ὶ. χάριν ἔχειν |5 αὐτῶι πρ.[ώτωι ἀ]λ.λὰ
καὶ τῆς | ὕστερον [γενομέ]ν.ης μάχης | μετὰ τὸ.[ν ἐκείνο]υ 90
θάνατον | καὶ τῶν [ἄλλων ἀγ]α.θῶν τῶν | ἐν τῆι στ.[ρατείαι
τ]αύτηι συμ|10 βάντων. [τ]ο.[ῖς Ἕλ]λησιν· ἐπὶ | γ.ὰρ τοῖς ὑπὸ
[Λε]ωσθένους | ‹τε›θεῖσιν θεμελίοις οἰκοδο|μοῦσιν οἱ νῦν τὰς
ὕστερον | πράξεις.
15 καὶ μηδεὶς ὑπολά|15 βη‹ι› με τῶν ἄλλων πολιτῶν | 95
[μη]δένα λόγον ποιεῖσθαι, | [ἀλλὰ] Λεωσθένη μ‹ό›ν‹ον›
ἐγκω|[μιάζ]ε.ιν. συμβαίνει γὰρ | [τὸν Λε]ωσθένους ἔπαινον |20
[ἐπὶ ταῖ]ς μάχαις ἐγκώμιον | [τῶν ἄλ]λων πολιτῶν εἶναι·
| το[ῦ μὲν] γ.ὰρ βουλεύεσθαι | καλ.[ῶς ὁ στρα]τηγὸς αἴτιος,
τοῦ | δὲ νι.[κᾶν μαχ]ομένους οἱ κιν|25 δυν[εύειν ἐθ]έ.λοντες τοῖς 100
σώ|μασι.[ν· ὥστ]ε ὅταν | ἐπαιν[ῶ τὴν γ]εγονυῖαν νίκην, | ἅμα
τ[ῆι Λε]ωσθένους ἡγεμονί|αι καὶ [τὴν τ]ῶ.ν ἄλλων ἀρετὴν
16 |30 ἐγκωμ.[ιάζ]ω.. τίς γὰρ οὐ|κ ἂν δικα.[ίως] ἐπαινοίη τῶν |
πολιτῶν. [το]ὺ.ς ἐν τῶιδε τῶι | πολέμω.[ι τε]λευτήσ.αντας, οἳ
| τὰς ἑα[υτῶ]ν ψυχὰς ἔδωκαν |35 ὑπὲρ τῆ[ς τῶ]ν Ἑλλήνων 105
ἐλευ|θερίας, [φα]νερωτάτην ἀπό|δειξιν τ.[αύτ]η.ν ἡγούμενοι
71 ἐπέδωκεν Kayser μ p, corr. Babington 73 συστησάμενος Babington

78 παρόδους Spengel 89 ἀεὶ Jensen πρώτωι Blass 90 γενομένης Babington
ἐκείνου Müller 91 ἄλλων ἀγαθῶν Babington στρατείαι Babington 96

μ p, corr. Sauppe 98 ἐπὶ ταῖς Babington 103 ἐγκωμιάζω Sauppe
to his native city, and his city to the Greeks. After he raised a 11
mercenary force and was appointed general of the city’s troops,
he defeated the first opponents to the 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 first for what he did, but
also for the battle which was fought later after his death, and
for the [other] benefits that came out of this campaign for the
Greeks. For on the foundations laid down by Leosthenes the
survivors build their future achievements.
No one should assume that I take no account of the other 15
citizens, [but instead] eulogize Leosthenes alone. My praise of
Leosthenes [in] these battles is also a eulogy for the others citi-
zens. For just as good planning depends on the general, so vic-
tory in the field comes from those willing to risk their lives. As
a result, whenever I praise the victorious outcome, along with
the leadership of Leosthenes I also eulogize the virtue of the
other men. Who would not rightly praise the citizens who died 16
in the war and gave up their lives for the freedom of the Greeks?
They believed that the clearest proof of their willingness to pro-
εἶ|ναι τοῦ β.[ούλ]εσθαι τῆι Ἑλλάδι | [τὴ]ν. ἐλε.[υθερ]ίαν VII

περιθεῖναι τὸ μαχομ[ένους] | τελευτῆσαι. ὑπὲρ αὐτ‹ῆ›[ς.
17 μ]έ.|γα δ’ αὐτοῖς συνεβάλετ[ο εἰ]ς. | τὸ προθύμως ὑπὲρ τῆς
[Ἑλλ]ά.|5 δος ἀγωνίσασθαι τὸ ἐν τῆ[ι Βοιω]|τίαι τὴν μάχην 110
τὴν π[ροτέρα]ν. | γενέσθαι. ἑώρων γὰ.[ρ τὴν π]ό.|λιν τῶν
Θηβαίων οἰκτ[ρῶς ἠφα]ν.ισ|μένην ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, τ.[ὴν δὲ
ἀ]κρό|10 πολιν αὐτῆς φρουρουμ.[έ]ν.[ην] ὑ|πὸ τῶν Μακεδόνων,
τὰ ‹δ›ὲ σ.ώ.μα|τα τῶν ἐνοικούντων ἐξηνδρα|ποδισμένα, τὴν
δὲ χώραν ἄλ|λους διανεμομένους, ὥστε πρὸ ὀ|15 φθαλμῶν 115
ὁρώμενα αὐτοῖς τὰ δει|νὰ ἄοκνον π[αρ]εῖχε τόλμα‹ν› εἰς τὸ |
κινδυνεύειν [πρ]οχείρως.
18 ἀλλὰ | μὴν τήν γε π[ερὶ] Π.ύλας καὶ Λαμί|αν μά-
χην γεν.[ομέν]ην οὐχ ἧττον |20 αὐτοῖς ἔνδο[ξον γε]ν.έσθαι
συμ|βέβηκεν ἧς [ἐν Βοιω]τοῖς ἠγωνίσαν|το, οὐ μόνον [τῶι 120
μαχο]μένους νικᾶν | Ἀντίπατρον κ.α.[ὶ τοὺς σ]υμμάχους
| ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶι τόπω[ι, τῶι ἐ]νταυθοῖ γε|25 γενῆσθαι τὴν
μ[άχην.] ἀ.φ.ικνού|μενοι γὰρ οἱ Ἕλλη[νες ἅπ]α.ντες | δὶς τοῦ
ἐνιαυτοῦ εἰς [τὴν Π]υ.λ.αίαν | θεωροὶ γενήσοντ[αι] | τῶν
ἔργων τῶν πε.[πρα]γ.μένων |30 αὐτοῖς· ἅμα γὰρ εἰς τὸ.[ν 125
τό]πον ἁ|θροισθήσονται καὶ τ[ῆς το]ύτων ἀ|ρετῆς μνησθή-
19 σοντ[αι. ο]ὐ|δέν‹ε›ς γὰρ πώποτε τῶν γεγονότων | οὔτε περὶ
καλλίονων οὔτε πρὸς ἰσ|35 χυροτέρους οὔτε μετ’ ἐλαττόνων
| ἠγωνίσαντο, τὴν ἀρετὴν ἰσχὺν | καὶ τὴν ἀνδρείαν πλῆθος
ἀλλ’ οὐ | τὸν πολὺν ἀριθμὸν τῶν σωμάτων | εἶναι κρίνοντες. 130
καὶ τὴν μὲν ἐ|40 λευθερίαν εἰς τὸ κοι.νὸν πᾶσιν | κατέθεσαν,
τὴν δ’ εὐδοξίαν ‹τὴν› ἀπὸ | τῶν πράξεων ἴδιον στέφανον |
τῆι πατρίδ.[ι περ]ι.έθηκαν.
20 ἄξιον τοίνυν συλλογίσασθαι καὶ τί ἂν | συμβῆναι νομί- VIII
ζοιμεν μὴ κα|τὰ τρόπον τούτων ἀγωνισα|μένων. ἆρ’ οὐκ ἂν 135
ἑνὸς μὲν δεσ|5 πότου τὴν οἰκουμένην ὑπήκο|ον ἅπασαν εἶναι,
νόμωι δὲ τῶι | τούτ‹ου› τρόπωι ἐξ ἀνάγκης χρῆσ|θαι τὴν
Ἑλλάδα; συνελόντα | δ’ εἰπεῖν τὴν Μακεδόνων ὑ|10 περφανί.αν
καὶ μὴ τὴν τοῦ | δικαίου δύναμιν ἰσχύειν | παρ’ ἑκάστοις,
ὥστε μήτε | γυνα‹ι›κῶν μήτε παρθένων | μηδὲ παίδων 140
118–125 Harp. s.v. Πύλαι: ὅτι δέ τις ἐγίγνετο σύνοδος τῶν Ἀμφικτυόνων εἰς Πύλας,
Ὑπερείδης τε ἐν ἐπιταφίωι καὶ Θεόπομπος . . . εἰρήκασιν.
107 βούλεσθαι Babington 108 μαχομένους Sauppe 110 Ἑλλάδος Sauppe 111 προ-
τέραν Sauppe τὴν πόλιν Sauppe 118 περὶ Cobet 120 p, corr.
Babington 122 τῶν τόπων Sauppe 127
p, corr. Babington 132 ‹τὴν› Blass
133 περιέθηκαν Sauppe 140–141 sequor p et Sauppe; μήτε παίδων ‹ἀσφάλειαν εἶναι,
ἀλλ’› ὕβρεις ἀνεκλείπτους καθεστάναι Jensen
vide freedom to Greece was dying for it in battle. The fact that 17
their prior battle took place in Boeotia contributed greatly to
their eagerness to fight for Greece. For they saw the city of
Thebes pitiably obliterated from human society, its acropolis
garrisoned by the Macedonians, the bodies of the inhabitants
enslaved and others parceling out the land. As a result, the pres-
ence of these terrible sights before their eyes provided them
with the unwavering courage to risk their lives readily.
The battle that took place near Thermopylae and Lamia 18
proved to be no less glorious for them than that which they
fought in Boeotia, not only because they defeated Antipater
and his allies, but also because of the place, that is that
the battle happened there. All the Greeks who arrive at the
Amphictyonic meeting twice a year will be observers of the
accomplishments of these men. And as they assemble at that
place they will recall their virtue. None of those who came 19
before ever fought for more noble goals or against stronger
adversaries, or with fewer allies, judging that virtue was
strength and that courage—but not just a great number of
individual bodies—was mass. They made freedom a common
possession for everyone, but they offered the glory that came
from their deeds as a private crown for their fatherland.
Now it is worthwhile to consider also what we suppose 20
would have happened if they had not fought dutifully. Wouldn’t
the whole world be subject to one master and wouldn’t Greece
be forced to treat his whim as law? In short, the insolence of
Macedon, and not the power of justice, would prevail every-
where. As a result, the abuse of each and every woman, maiden,
21 ὕβρ‹ε›ις ἂν ἐκ|15 λείπτους ἑκάστοις καθεστά|ναι. φανερὸν δ’

ἐξ ὧν ἀναγ|καζόμεθα καὶ νῦν ἔ.[στ]ι.· θυσί|ας μὲν ἀνθρώποις
γ[ινο]μ.έ|νας ἐφορᾶν, ἀγάλμα.[τα δὲ] καὶ |20 βωμοὺς καὶ ναοὺς
τοῖ[ς μὲν] θεοῖς | ἀμελῶς, τοῖς δὲ ἀνθρώ.π.ο.[ις] ἐπι|μελῶς
συντελούμενα, καὶ [τ]οὺς | ‹τού›των οἰκ‹έ›τας ὥσπερ ἥρωας. 145
22 τι|μᾶν ἡμᾶς ἀναγκαζομένους. |25 ὅπου δὲ τὰ πρὸς ‹τοὺς›
θεοὺς ὅσια διὰ | τὴν Μακεδόνων τόλμαν ἀν|ή‹ι›ρηται, τί τὰ
πρὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους | χρὴ νομίζειν; ἆρ’ οὐκ ἂν παν|τελῶς
καταλελύσθαι; ὥστε |30 ὅσω‹ι› δεινότερα τὰ προ‹σ›δοκώ|μεν’
ἂν γενέσθαι κρίνοιμεν, | τοσούτω‹ι› μειζόνων ἐπαίνων | 150
23 τοὺς τετελευτηκότας ἀξίους | χρὴ νομίζειν. οὐδεμία γὰρ
|35 στρατεία τὴν ‹τῶν› στρατευομένων ἀρε|τὴν ἐνεφάνισεν
μᾶλλον τῆς νῦν | γεγενημένης, ἐν ἧι ‹γ›ε παρατάτ|τεσθαι μὲν
ὁσημέραι ἀναγκαῖ|ον ἦ‹ν›, πλείους δὲ μάχας ἠγωνίσ|40 θαι διὰ
μιᾶς στρατ[εία]ς. ἢ τοὺς ἄλλους πάντας πληγὰς λαμ|βάνειν IX
ἐν τῶι παρεληλυ|θότι χρόνωι, χειμώνων δ’ ὑ|[π]ερβολὰς
καὶ τῶν καθ’ ἡμέ|5 [ρ]α.ν ἀναγκαίων ἐνδείας τοσ|[αύ]τας καὶ
τηλικαύτας οὕτως | [ἐγ]κ.ρατῶς ὑπ‹ο›μεμ‹ε›νηκέναι, | [ὥσ]τ.ε
καὶ τῶι λόγωι χαλεπὸν | [εἶν]αι φράσαι.
24 τὸν δὴ τοιαύτας |10 [κ]αρτερίας ἀόκνως ὑπομεῖναι | τοὺ‹ς› 160
πολίτας προτρεψάμενον | Λεωσθένη, καὶ τοὺς τῶι τοιούτωι
| στρατηγῶι προθύμως συναγωνισ|τὰς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς παρα-
σχόντας |15 ἆρ’ οὐ διὰ τὴν τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀπόδειξιν | εὐτυχεῖς
μᾶλλον ἢ διὰ τὴν τοῦ ζῆν | ἀπόλειψιν ἀτυχεῖς νομιστέον; |
οἵτινες θνητοῦ σώματος ἀθάν.[α]|τον δόξαν ἐκτήσαντο καὶ διὰ 165
τὴ.[ν] |20 ἰδίαν ἀρετὴν τὴν κοινὴν ἐλ[ευ]|θερίαν τοῖς Ἕλλη-
25 σιν ἐβεβαίωσα.ν. | φέρει γὰρ ‹οὐδὲν› πᾶσαν εὐδαιμονίαν | ἄνευ
τῆς αὐτονομίας. ο‹ὐ› γὰρ ἀνδρὸς | ἀπειλὴν ἀλλὰ νόμου φωνὴν
κυρι|25 εύειν δεῖ τῶν εὐδαιμόνων, οὐδ’ αἰ|τίαν φοβερὰν εἶναι
τοῖς ἐλευθέροις | ἀλλ’ ἔλεγχον, οὐδ’ ἐπὶ τοῖς κολακεύ|ουσιν 170
τοὺς δυνάστας καὶ διαβάλλου|σιν τοὺ‹ς› πολίτας τὸ τῶν
πολιτῶν ἀσ|30 φαλές, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῆι τῶν νόμων πίστει |
26 γενέσθαι. ὑπὲρ ὧν ἁπάντων οὗτοι πό|νους πόνων διαδόχους
168–170Stob. 4.23.35: τοῦ αὐτοῦ [Hyperides]· οὐκ ἀνδρὸς ἀπειλὴν, ἀλλὰ νόμου φω-
νὴν κυριεύειν δεῖ τῶν ἐλευθέρων sub capite γαμικὰ παραγγέλματα.
142 p, corr. Babington ἔστι Cobet, ἤδη Sauppe, ἔτι Kayser 145 τοὺς τούτων
Cobet 146 ‹τοὺς› Cobet 152 ‹τῶν› Babington 153 p, γε Babington 155 πλη-
γὰς del. Cobet 158 μμ p, corr. Babington 167–168 ‹οὐδὲν› Fritzsche,
φέρει γὰρ πᾶσαν εὐδαιμονίαν ἡ αὐτονομία Jensen, Blass pos. lac. post εὐδαιμονίαν
169 εὐδαιμόνων: ἐλευθέρων Stobaeus
and even every child, would be unceasing. That is clear from 21

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

ἅπαντα χρόνον φόβους τ.ῶν πολιτῶν |35 καὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων 175
παραιρούμενοι τὸ | ζῆν ἀνήλωσαν εἰς τὸ τοὺς ἄλλους | καλῶς
27 ζῆν. διὰ τούτους πατέρες | ἔνδοξοι, μητέρες περίβλε‹π›τοι τοῖς
| πολίταις γεγόνασι, ἀδελφαὶ γάμων |40 τῶν προσηκόντων
ἐννόμως τετυ|χήκασι καὶ τεύξονται, παῖδες ἐφ.ό.|διον εἰς τὴν
πρὸς τὸν δῆμον ε.[ὔνοι]|αν τὴν τῶν οὐκ ἀπολωλότω[ν] X
ἀρετήν—οὐ γὰρ θεμιτὸν | τούτου τοῦ ὀνόματος τυ|χεῖν τοὺς
οὕτως ὑπὲρ | καλῶν τὸ‹ν› βίον ἐκλιπόν|5 τας—ἀλλὰ. τῶν
τὸ ζῆν | ‹ε›ἰς αἰώ[ν]ι.ον τάξιν με|τηλλα[χό]των ἕξουσιν.
28 | εἰ γὰρ [ὁ τοῖ]ς ἄλλοις. ὢν | ἀνιαρ[ότ]α.τος θάνατος |10
τούτοις ἀρχηγὸς μ.εγά|λων ἀγαθῶν γέγον|ε, πῶς τούτους 185
ο‹ὐ›κ εὐ|τυχεῖς κρίνειν δ.ίκαιον, | ἢ πῶς ἐκλελοιπέναι |15 τὸν
βίον, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐξ ἀρ|χῆς γεγονέναι καλλίω | γένεσιν τῆς
πρώτης ὑ|παρξάσης; τότε μὲν | γὰρ παῖδες ὄντες ἄφρο|20 νες
29 ἦσαν, νῦν δ’ ἄνδρες | ἀ.γαθοὶ γεγόνασι· καὶ | τ.ότε μὲν ‹ἐν›
πολλῶ‹ι› χρό|νωι καὶ διὰ πολλῶν | κινδύνων τὴν ἀρετὴ.ν |25 190
ἀπέδειξαν, νῦν δ’ ἀπὸ | ταύτης †αξαθαι γνωρί.|μους πᾶσι καὶ
μνημο|νευτ.οὺς διὰ ἀνδραγαθί|αν γεγονέναι.
30 τίς ‹γὰρ› κα‹ι›ρὸς ἐν |30 ὧι τῆς τούτων ἀρετῆς οὐ | μνη-
μονεύσομεν; τίς τό|πος ἐν ὧ‹ι› ζήλου καὶ τῶν | ἐντιμοτά-
των ἐπαίνων | τυγχάνοντας οὐκ ὀψόμ[ε]|35 θα; πότερον οὐκ 195
ἐν τοῖς τῆς. | πόλεως ἀγαθοῖς; ἀλλὰ τὰ. | διὰ τούτους γεγονότα
τ[ίν]α.ς. | ἄλλους ἢ τούτους ἐπαινεῖσθ.α.ι | καὶ μνήμης τυγχά-
νειν ποι.|40 ήσει; ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐν ταῖς ἰδία.ι.ς | εὐπραξίαις; ἀλλ’ ἐν
31 τῆ‹ι› τούτω.ν. | ἀρετῆι βεβαίως αὐτῶν ἀπο|λαύσομεν. παρὰ
ποία‹ι› δὲ τῶν | ἡλικιῶν οὐ μακαριστοὶ. γενήσο.[νται ..... . XI
πα]|ρὰ τοῖς . [ .... ..... .. ἄ]|φοβον α[ ..... ..... .. ] | βίον κα[ .....
..... .. ] | γεγενῆσ.[θαι ..... .... ] | διὰ τούτ[ους; ἢ παρὰ τοῖς]
5
| ἡλικιώτ.[αις; ..... .... ] | τελευτη . [ .... ..... ... ] | καλῶς . [ ....

..... ... ] | παρὰ πο.[λὺ ..... ..... ]|αι γέγον[εν; ἢ παρὰ τοῖς]
10
32
180 εὔνοιαν Cobet 183 εἰς αἰώνιον Sauppe 184 ὁ τοῖς Cobet ἀνιαρότατος
Babington 189–190

p, corr. Babington 191–192 p post
corr., p ante corr.; ὑπάρχει εὐθὺς Cobet, ἄρξασθαι (aut ἀξιωθῆναι) . . . γέγονε
Babington 193 ‹γὰρ› Cobet 200–201 γενήσονται οὗτοι; ἢ παρὰ Sauppe 201 παρὰ
τοῖς γέρουσιν Babington 201–202 ἀλλ’ ἄφοβον αὑτοῖς τὸν λοιπὸν βίον καὶ εὐδαίμονα
γεγενῆσθαι νομίζουσα διὰ τούτους Jensen 202–203 ἢ παρὰ τοῖς ἡλικιώταις Sauppe
203–204 οἷς ἐκείνων ἡ τελευτὴ φθόνον ἐμβέβληκε καλῶς, ὡς ἐπιφανεστάτων παρὰ
πολὺ τῆι αὑτῶν ἀνδρείαι γεγονότων Radermacher 204–205 ἢ παρὰ τοῖς νεωτέροις
Sauppe
with their daily risks they lessened the fears for all time of the
citizens and the Greeks. They gave up their lives so that others
could live well. Because of them their fathers have become fa- 27
mous and their mothers are admired among the citizens. Their
sisters have justly entered into suitable marriages according to
the law and will continue to do so. The children of these men
who have died—no, it is not right to use that term for men who
lost their lives fighting on behalf of such a noble cause—rather,
of men who have exchanged life for a perpetual position, will
have their virtue as an asset for the good will of the people. If 28
death, which is most grievous for others, has been the founda-
tion of great advantages for them, how can we not judge them
fortunate, and how can we say that they have lost their lives,
instead of saying that they have been born anew in a better
birth than than their first? Then they were senseless children,
but now they have become brave men. And then they displayed 29
their virtue over a long period of time and amid many perils,
but now as a result of this [ – – ] become known to everyone
and remembered for their courage.
On what occasion will we not recall the virtue of these men? 30
In what place will we not see them as the object of pride and
esteemed praise? Will they not come to mind if the city does
well? The things that were accomplished because of them will
cause what other men than these to be praised and remembered?
Perhaps they won’t be remembered by those who are individ-
ually prosperous? Well, we will safely enjoy those successes
thanks to the virtue of these men. In the eyes of what genera- 31
tion will they not be blessed? [ – – ] among the [ – – ] fearless
[ – – ] life [ – – ] to have become [ – – ] because of them? [– –
among] their peers? [ – – ] death [ – – ] nobly [ – – ] by far [ – – ]
has [– – among the] youth [ – – ] not the [ – – ] will be eager 32
| νεωτέρο.[ις ..... ..... ]|τα οὐ τὸν. [ ..... ..... .. ]|σιν αὐτ . [ .... .... 205
σπου]|15 δάσουσιν [ ..... ..... πα]|ράδειγμ[α ..... ..... . ]|ου τὴν
ἀρ.[ετὴν ..... ... ]|πασι οὐκ [ ..... ..... .. ]|ζειν αὐ[τοὺς ..... ... ]|20 μη
33 ἢ τίνε[ς ..... ..... .. ]|φοι λε[ ..... ..... .... ] | Ἑλλην[ ..... ..... ... ]
| τῶν. π.ε[ ..... ..... .. ] | παρὰ π.ο.[ ..... ..... .. ] |25 Φρυγῶν κ[ .....
... στρα]|τείας ἐγ[κωμι ..... ... ] | δὲ τῆς ελ.[ ..... ..... .. ]|τατοις 210
34 ε[ ..... ..... .. ] | ἅπασιν κα.[ὶ λόγοις καὶ ὠι]|30 δαῖς ἐπα[ ..... .....
.. ]|τερα γὰρ ε[ ..... ..... .. ] | περὶ Λεωσ[θένους ..... . ] | καὶ τῶν
τ[ ..... ..... .. ] | ἐν τῶι πολ[έμωι. ..... ... ] |35 ἡδονῆς ἕν[εκεν .....
... ]|ουσιν τὰς τ[οιαύτας καρ]|τερίας, τί γε[ ..... ..... Ἕλ]|λησιν
ἥδι[ον ..... ..... ] | τὴν ἐλευθερί.[αν ..... ..... ]|40 σάντων ἀ . [ ..... 215
..... .. ]|νων; εἰ δὲ [ὠφελείας ἕνε]|κεν ἡ τοια[ ..... ..... .. ] γίνε- XII
ται, τίς ἂν λόγος | ὠφελήσειεν μᾶλλον | τὰς τῶν ἀκουσόντων
| ψυχὰς τοῦ τὴν ἀρετὴν |5 ἐγκωμιάσοντος καὶ τοὺς | ἀγαθοὺς
ἄνδρας;
35 ἀλλὰ μὴν | ὅτι παρ’ ἡμῖν καὶ τοῖς λο|‹ιπ›οῖς πᾶσιν 220
εὐδοκιμεῖν | αὐτοὺς ἀναγκαῖον, ἐκ τού|10 των φανερόν ἐστιν·
ἐν | Ἅιδου δὲ λογίσασθαι ἄ|ξιον, τίνες οἱ τὸν ἡγεμόν|α
δεξιωσόμενοι τὸν τού|τ.ων. ἆρ’ οὐκ ἂν ‹οἰ›όμεθα |15 ὁ‹ρ›ᾶν
Λεωσθένη δεξιου|μένους καὶ θαυμάζοντας | τῶν ‹ἡμιθέ›ων
κα|λ.ουμέν‹ων› τοὺς ἐπὶ ‹Τρο›ίαν | στρα‹τεύ›σαντ[α]ς, ὧν 225
|20 οὗτος ἀδελφὰς π[ρ]άξεις | ἐ.νστησάμενος τοσοῦτον |
[δ]ιήνεγκε, ὥστε οἱ μὲν | μ.ετὰ πάσης τῆς Ἑλλάδος | [μ]ίαν
πόλιν εἷλον, ὁ δὲ |25 μ.ετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ πα|[τ]ρίδος μόνης
205 νεωτέροις καὶ παισίν; ἔπειτα οὐ τὸν θάνατον ζηλώσουσν αὐτῶν Blass
205–206 καὶ αὐτοὶ σπουδάσουσιν μιμεῖσθαι Blass 206–207 εἰ γὰρ παράδειγμα
ἐκείνοις τοῦ βίου τὴν ἀρετὴν καταλελοίπασι Jensen 207 οὐκ ἀθανάτωι δεῖ νομίζειν
αὐτοὺς χρήσεσθαι τῆι μνήμηι Jensen 208–210 ἢ τίνες ποιηταὶ καὶ λογογράφοι
λείψονταί ποτε κατὰ τοὺς Ἕλληνας πασῶν εὐλογιῶν παρὶ τῶν πεπραγμένων
ἐκείνοις; παρὰ τίσι δ’ οὐ μᾶλλον αὐτὰ τῆς Φρυγῶν κρατησάσης στρατείας
ἐγκωμιασθήσεται; Colin 210–211 πανταχοῦ δὲ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἐξέσται ταῦτα
τοῖς ἐπιγιγνομένοις ἅπασιν . . . ἐπαινεῖσθαι Kenyon 211 καὶ λόγοις καὶ ὠιδαῖς
Cobet 212–213 δι’ ἀμφότερα γὰρ ἐξέσται αὐτοῖς τὰ περὶ Λεωσθένους ὑμνεῖν καὶ
τῶν τελευτησάντων ἐν τῶι πολέμωι Colin 213–216 εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἡδονῆς ἕνεκεν
ἐγκωμιάσουσιν τὰς τηλικαύτας καρτερίας, τί γένοιτ’ ἂν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἥδιον ἢ
ἔπαινος τῶν τὴν ἐλευθερίαν παρασκευασάντων ἀπὸ τῶν Μακεδόνων; Cobet
216 εἰ δὲ ὠφελείας ἕνεκεν Babington ἡ τοιαύτη μνήμη aut ἡ τοιάδε ἀνάμνησις
Cobet 220 p, emend. Babington 223 μ p, corr. Shilleto 223–224

. p (νλ in rasura), corr. Shilleto 224–225 μ μ p, ἡμιθέων
καλουμένων Cobet 225

[.] p, emend. Babington
[ – – ] example [ – – ] the virtue [ – – ], not [ – – ] to [ – – ] them

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

36 δύ|[ν]αμιν ἐταπείνωσεν. |30 [κ]ἀκεῖνοι μὲν ἕνεκα | [μ]ιᾶς 230
γυναικὸς ὑβρισθεί|[σ]η.ς ἤμυναν, ὁ δὲ πα|[σ]ῶν τῶν Ἑλλη-
νίδων | [τ]ὰς ἐπιφερομένας |35 [ὕ]βρεις ἐκώλυσεν με|[τὰ]
τῶν συνθαπτομέ|[ν]ων νῦν αὐτῶι ἀνδρῶν. | [τ]ῶν ‹δὲ›
37 μετ’ ἐκείνους μὲν | [γ]εγενημένων, ἄξια |40 [δ]ὲ τῆς ἐκείνων
ἀρε|[τ]ῆς διαπεπραγμένων, | [λ]έγω δὴ τοὺς περὶ Μιλ|τ.ιάδην 235
καὶ Θεμισ|τ.οκλέα καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους, οἳ τὴν Ἑλλάδ.[α] | XIII
ἐλευθερώσαντες ἔν|τιμον μὲν τὴν πα|τρίδα κατέστησαν,
38 ἔν.|5 δοξον ‹δὲ› τὸν αὑτῶν βίον | ‹ἐ›ποίησαν, ὧν οὗτος
το.σ.|οῦτον ὑπερέσχεν ἀν|δρείαι καὶ φρονήσει, ὅσ|ον οἱ μὲν
ἐπελθοῦσαν |10 τὴ‹ν› τῶν βαρβάρων δύνα|μιν ἠμύναντο, ὁ δὲ 240
μη|δ’ ἐπελθεῖν ἐποίησεν. | κἀκεῖνοι μὲν ἐν τῆ‹ι› οἰ|κ‹ε›ίαι τοὺς
ἐχθ‹ρ›οὺς ἐπεῖδον |15 ἀγωνιζομένους, οὗτος | δὲ ἐν τῆι τῶν
ἐχθρῶν περι|εγένετο τῶν ἀντιπάλων.
39 | οἶμαι δὲ καὶ ‹τοὺς› τὴν πρὸς ἀλλή|λους φιλίαν τῶι
δήμωι βε|20 βαιότατα ἐνδειξαμένους, | λέγω δὲ Ἁρμόδιον καὶ 245
Ἀρισ|τογείτονα, οὐθέν.‹α›ς οὕτως | αὑτοῖς οἰκεί{οτερ}ους
{ὑμῖν} | εἶναι νομίζειν ὡς Λεωσ|25 θέ‹ν›η καὶ τοὺς ἐκείνωι
συν|αγωνισαμένους, οὐδὲ ἔστι|ν οἷς ἂν μᾶλλον ἢ τούτοις |
πλησιάσειαν ἐν Ἅιδου. εἰκότω.ς.· | οὐκ ἐλάττω γὰρ ἐκείνων
ἔργα |30 διεπράξαντο, ἀλλ’ εἰ δέον εἰπεῖν. | καὶ μείζω. οἱ μὲν 250
γὰρ τοὺς. | τῆς πατρίδος τυράννους κ.α.|τέλυσαν, οὗτοι δὲ
40 τοὺς τῆς Ἑλ|λάδος ἁπάσης. ὢ καλῆς μὲν |35 καὶ παραδόξου
τόλμης τῆς | πραχθείσης ὑπὸ τῶνδε τῶν. | ἀνδρῶν, ἐνδό-
ξου δὲ καὶ με|γαλοπρεποῦς προαιρέσεως | ἧς προείλοντο,
ὑπερβ.αλ|40 λούσης δὲ ἀρετῆς καὶ ἀνδ.ρα.|γαθίας τῆς ἐν τοῖς 255
κινδύνοις, | ἣν οὗτοι παρασχόμενοι εἰς | τὴν κοινὴν ἐλευθερίαν.
| τῶν Ἑλλήνων [ – – ]
Fragment 2
41 χαλεπὸν μὲν ἴσως ἐστὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις ὄντας πάθεσι

παραμυθεῖσθαι· τὰ γὰρ πένθη οὔτε λόγωι οὔτε νόμωι κοι-
258–277 Stob. 4.56.36
233 ‹δὲ›
Kayser 238 ‹δὲ› Blass 244 ‹τοὺς› Babington 246–247

μ

p, corr. Blass, οὐδένας οὕτως αὑτοῖς οἰκείους ἂν
Sauppe, οὐδαμῶς αὑτοὺς οἰκειοτέρους (οἰκείους ἑτέρους Post) ὑμῖν Kenyon, οὐθένας
οὕτως αὑτοῖς οἰκείους οὐδαμῶς ἂν Colin
ruling power of Europe and Asia. They came to the defense of 36

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

grief is not eased by a speech or a custom. Instead your individ-
μίζεται, ἀλλ’ ἡ φύσις ἑκάστου καὶ φιλία πρὸς τὸν τελευτή- 260
σαντα ‹τὸν› ὁρισμὸν ἔχει τοῦ λυπεῖσθαι. ὅμως δὲ χρὴ θαρρεῖν
καὶ τῆς λύπης παραιρεῖν εἰς τὸ ἐνδεχόμενον, καὶ μεμνῆσθαι
μὴ μόνον τοῦ θανάτου τῶν τετελευτηκότων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς
42 ἀρετῆς ἧς καταλελοίπασιν. ‹εἰ› γὰρ θρήνων ἄξια πεπόνθα-
σιν, ἀλλ’ ἐπαίνων μεγάλων πεποιήκασιν. εἰ δὲ γήρως θνητοῦ 265
μὴ μετέσχον, ἀλλ’ εὐδοξίαν ἀγήρατον εἰλήφασιν εὐδαίμονές
τε γεγόνασι κατὰ πάντα. ὅσοι μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν ἄπαιδες τε-
τελευτήκασιν, οἱ παρὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἔπαινοι παῖδες αὐτῶν
ἀθάνατοι ἔσονται. ὅσοι δὲ παῖδας καταλελοίπασιν, ἡ τῆς πα-
τρίδος εὔνοια ἐπίτροπος αὐτοῖς τῶν παίδων καταστήσεται. 270
43 πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, εἰ μέν ἐστι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν ὅμοιον τῶι μὴ γε-
νέσθαι, ἀπηλλαγμένοι εἰσὶ νόσων καὶ λύπης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων
τῶν προσπιπτόντων εἰς τὸν ἀνθρώπινον βίον· εἰ δ’ ἔστιν αἴ-
σθησις ἐν Ἅιδου καὶ ἐπιμέλεια παρὰ τοῦ δαιμονίου, ὥσπερ
ὑπολαμβάνομεν, ‹εἰκὸς› τοὺς ταῖς τιμαῖς τῶν θεῶν καταλυ- 275
ομέναις βοηθήσαντας πλείστης ἐπιμελείας ‹καὶ κηδεμονίας›
ὑπὸ τοῦ δαιμονίου τυγχάνειν.
Fragmentum dubium
τὸν ἀγήρατον χρόνον
273–277 εἰ δ’ ἔστιν . . . τυγχάνειν Maximus 932c, non recte attribut. ad Ἀπολλώνιον

278 Poll. 2.14 = Hyp. fr. 221: Ὑπερείδης [εἴρηκε] δὲ τὸν ἀγήρατον χρόνον.
261 ‹τὸν›Sauppe 264 εἰ Leopardi, οὐ codd. 274 ἐπιμέλεια τῶν οἰχομένων παρὰ
Maximus 275 εἰκὸς Toup et Cobet, εἶναι aut εἴη codd. 276 ἐπιμελείας καὶ κηδεμονίας:
[Fuhr] sequens Plut. Thes. 33; ἐπιμελείας aut εὐδαιμονίας aut ἐπιμελείας καὶ codd.
277 δαιμονίου aut δαίμονος codd.
ual nature and your love for the deceased defines the limits of
your grief. Even so, you must be courageous and control your
grief as much as you can, and think not only of their death, but
also of the virtue which they have left behind. Although their 42
sufferings are worthy of lamentations, their deeds are worthy of
great praises. Although they did not live to see old age in this
life, they have gained ageless glory and have become blessed in
every respect. For those who died without children, the praise
of the Greeks will serve as immortal offspring. As for those
who left behind children, the good will of their native city will
act as a guardian for them. In addition, if death is similar to not 43
existing, then they are released from sicknesses and suffering
and the other things which trouble mortal lives. If there is con-
sciousness in Hades and the dead enjoy the care of the divine, as
we suppose, then it is likely that those who defended the honors
of the gods when they were under attack will receive the utmost
attention and care from the divinity.
Possible Fragment
ageless time
Commentary
Fragment 1a. On this small piece of unplaced papyrus see p. 27.

1–2. Blass (1894, xv and 78) ingeniously recognized that two separate
fragments of the papyrus should be combined to create one column.
Previous editors treated these two pieces as parts of separate columns,
which would require that a full column of text is completely missing
between sections 1 and 2. All editors since Blass have accepted this
join. The introductory nature of the general content and the complete
sentence beginning with μέν indicates that this joined column is the
first of the speech. The first fragment has no surviving margin on the
left side, while the second fragment has a left margin of less than a cen-
timeter from lines 24 to 34. The join occurs in the last word of section
1, μεγαλ]οπρεστ[έρας, “more generous”: the first piece ends with οπ.,
and the second begins ρ.επεσ.τ.. I have examined the two pieces under a
microscope and the vertical papyrus fibers confirm the join with near
certainty. Unfortunately, the mounting of the papyrus prevents an ex-
amination of the astrological text on the recto for further confirmation.
The most recent editors of the horoscope (Neugebauer and Van Hoe-
sen 1959, no. 95) also accept the join, and although they thank T. C.
Skeat, then curator of papyri at the British Museum, for information on
the papyrus, their text and notes indicate that they have no readings for
whatever writing may be hidden by the mounting.
1, 1 τῶν μὲν λόγων τ[ῶν μελ]λόντων ῥηθήσεσ[θαι κτλ. The atypi-
cal nature of Hyperides’ speech is signaled in the first sentence. Unlike
other orators, who refer to funeral orations of the past (cf. the note be-
57
58 Hyperides: Funeral Oration [§1–]
low on §8 under τινες ποι]εῖν), Hyperides starts right off with a consid-
eration of how he will treat his subject, whom he specifically names.
None of the other funeral orations name the dead at all, but the speeches
were delivered at the grave, where the public monument (dmosion
sma) included a list of the fallen (Paus. 1.29.13 refers to the grave
for Leosthenes and his men; see also Clairmont 1983, 219 and Pritch-
ett 1971–1991, IV: 227–228). Other orations avoid naming the dead
and they specifically promise to treat their subject traditionally (Thuc.
2.35.1, Lys. 2.2, Dem. 60.1; Ziolkowski 1981, 64–65). They usually re-
fer to previous speakers and the “ancestral custom” (patrios nomos) of
the oration (Thuc. 2.35.1, Pl. Mx. 236d, Dem. 60.2; Ziolkowski 1981,
67).
2 περί τε] Λεωσθένους τοῦ στ[ρατη]γοῦ. The general of the Lamian
War who is praised in this speech should probably be identified with an
epigraphically attested near contemporary Athenian of the same name.
Our general, whose patronymic and deme are unknown (Diod. Sic.
17.111.3 and Paus. 1.25.5 simply describe him as an Athenian, Ἀθη-
ναῖος), is likely Leosthenes, son of Leosthenes of Kephal (Λεωσθέ-
νης Λεωσθένους Κεφᾶληθεν, Kirchner 1901, nos. 9142, 9144; Davies
1971, no. 9142; Osborne and Byrne 1994, s.v. no. 6), who appears in
two inscriptions of the 320s. In one he is listed as a general, the strat-
gos epi ti chri (Reinmuth 1971, no. 15 = Archaiologik Ephmeris
(1918) 73–100 nos. 95–97), and in the other he is named as a recent
trierarch who had died in 323/322 (IG II2 1631, lines 601–604). For
discussion on the question of whether the epigraphic Leosthenes was
the general of the Lamian War, see Tracy 1995, 24–26 (who accepts the
identification), and Jaschinski 1981, 51–54, Bosworth 1988, 293–94,
Habicht 1997, 34–35, and Faraguna 2003, 129 (who believe that the
Lamian War general held no earlier official appointment). The general
Leosthenes was killed by a slinger’s stone during an engagement at the
siege at Lamia in the winter of 323/322 according to Diod. Sic. 18.13.5
(cf. Just. 13.5.12, with OLD s.v. telum 2c); on the importance of slingers
to both sides during a siege, see Pritchett 1971–1991, V: 57–58 (with
20 on Leosthenes).
We also have some details regarding his family. A recently
published inscription introduces us to Leosthenes’ sister Philoumene
(Matthaiou 1994, 175–182) and Davies (1971, 342–343 no. 9142) has
suggested that our Leosthenes was the son of the man (Kirchner 1901,
no. 9141, Osborne and Byrne 1994, s.v. no. 5) who was condemned for
treason (Hyp. Eux. 1, Hansen 1975, 95 no. 88) and exiled from Athens
[–§1] Commentary 59
after his defeat at the hands of Alexander of Pherae in Peparethos in

361 (Diod. Sic. 15.95.2; see also Sealey 1993, 92 and Develin 1989,
268). The elder Leosthenes lived out the rest of his life in Macedonia
(Aesch. 2.21, with the scholia, and 124).
5ἄν[δρες ἀ]γαθοί. On this common phrase, see below on §8 under
ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί γ[ίγνων]ται.
5–9 μάρτ[υς . . . ] ἄνδρας. Hess (1938, 3) combines many of the earlier
proposals to print a readable text: μάρτυς ἄριστος ὁ χρόνος ὁ σώιζων
ἐπαίνωι τὰς πράξεις, ὧν οὐδὲ εἷς ἄνθρωπος πρότερόν πω καλλίονας
ἑώρακεν· ὥστε οὐδ’ ἐν τῶι παντὶ αἰῶνι νομιστέον γεγενῆσθαι. . . (“the
best witness is time, which preserves their deeds for praise, deeds bet-
ter than which no man has ever before seen, so that it is impossible
to believe that there were in all eternity either better men than those
who have died or more magnificent deeds”). Numerous reconstructions
have been proposed (see the apparatus and appendix B), but the text
cannot be fully recovered. The orator appears to be emphasizing that
the achievements of the dead set them apart from all of their predeces-
sors. Other epitaphioi describe the dead as part of a long tradition of
Athenian greatness (Lys. 2.3–66, Pl. Mx. 239a–246b, Dem. 60.6–11),
but both here and in his conclusion Hyperides rejects the traditional
narrative of Athenian history and emphasizes the superiority of his sub-
jects (cf. §38: ὑπερέσχεν, “excelled”).
6ὁ χ]ρόνος ὁ . [ .... . Traces of a letter survive before the lacuna. A single
vertical stroke may be an iota, or could perhaps be the leftmost portion
of a sigma. The stroke is not curved, but the scribe sometimes writes
sigmas with a straight left edge. However that type of sigma tends to be
smaller in height than this stroke, and the surviving trace seems more
compatible with an iota than a sigma.
7–8 ω . [ .. οὐδ’ ἐν τῶι π]αντὶ αἰῶν[ι. There is a small trace of a vertical
stroke after the first omega, which appears to suit Sudhaus’ nu better
than Bücheler’s sigma. But Sudhaus’ relative pronoun requires a verb,
which is difficult to fit in the lacuna. He makes space by deleting the ar-
ticle from Bücheler’s restoration ἐν τῶι. The phrase ἐν (τῶι) παντὶ αἰ-
ῶνι is not very frequent in the TLG, but those usages usually include the
article (five instances with the article, one without). Bücheler’s ὥστε
seems preferable in sense, but the vertical trace of ink after the omega,
although too minute to be certainly incompatible with a sigma, dictates
caution.
8 [νομιστέον]. The restoration (suggested by Bücheler) is uncertain, but

it fits the physical gap and the sense well. Hyperides also uses the same
verbal adjective again later in the speech (§24).
9 [ἀμείνους]. Bücheler’s restoration fits the gap perfectly and makes
excellent sense. The comparative adjective is parallel to the following
μεγαλ]οπρεπεστ[έρας (“more generous”), and the tone is consistent
with the emphasis on the superiority of the campaign elsewhere in the
speech (see above p. 22). The two noun phrases coordinated by οὔτε
. . . οὔτε form an attractive chiasmus.
10 μεγαλ]οπρεπεστ[έρας. Aristotle discusses the ethical quality of
megaloprepeia in his Nicomachean Ethics, where he associates this
characteristic with financial expenditure and situates it as a middle
ground between excessive spending and stinginess (Arist. EN 1122a
18–1123a 33; cf. Dover 1974, 194). In the epitaphioi the adjective
is used to describe the soldiers’ sacrifice on the field (here and §40),
as a result of which they receive a “generous burial,” μεγαλοπρεπὴς
ταφή (Pl. Mx. 234c; Socrates is speaking before beginning Aspasia’s
epitaphios and uses the term to sum up the whole public ceremony, not
just the actual burial). The burial ceremony is described as payment
of the debt owed to the soldiers who valued the city of Athens more
than their own personal security. Megaloprepeia was one of the
virtues that motivated Athenian aristocrats to participate in liturgies.
Here, as elsewhere (see the note on §7 under οἷς ἡ κοινὴ γένεσις
κτλ on autochthony and eugeneia), the deeds of the fallen soldiers
are described in aristocratic terms. Von Reden (1995, 85) discusses
Aristotle’s definition of megaloprepeia as a democratic virtue, while
Kurke (1991, 176–177) emphasizes the associations between private
civic expenditures and tyranny.
2, 10 νῦν φοβοῦ]μαι. The supplements of Blass and van Herwerden (ap-
pendix B) do not fit the size of the lacuna as well as Jensen’s restoration.
Jensen suggests that there may be a trace of ink after μάλιστα, which
he describes as a “hastae rectae vestigium” (91). I’m not convinced that
the trace is a letter (there is a similar mark immediately below it, be-
tween two lines of text, that does not appear to be a letter), and if it is,
it is so small that it would be compatible with nearly any character.
At Thuc. 2.35.2 Pericles worries about speaking with the proper de-
gree of moderation, so as not to disappoint the friends of the dead with
inadequate praise on the one hand, and not to make others who did not
know the fallen envious on the other hand. Here Hyperides vocalizes
only the former of those two concerns. In Pl. Lg. 717d the Athenian
speaker advises that children should give their parents a fitting burial
(the opposite of this situation), neither too shabby nor too ostentatious.
Fraenkel (1950, 359–360 on A. A. 786) notes such polarities in praise.
11–12λόγον . . . ἔρ[γων. Speech and deeds were often contrasted in the
funeral orations and other Athenian literature of the fifth and fourth cen-
turies (for example, Thuc. 2.42.1–2 and 42.4, Lys. 2.2, Pl. Mx. 244a).
The oration for the dead is regularly compared to the courageous acts
of the fallen soldiers. Parry (1981, 160 and passim) discusses this an-
tithesis in the Thucydidean epitaphios, and also provides a history of
its development with a focus on the first two books of Thucydides’
History.
11φαί]νεσθαι. The size of the lacuna better suits this reading than
Babington’s γε]νέσθαι (“may be inferior”).
13 πάλι‹ν›. The form πάλι is extant as early as Callimachus, but it is
usually employed for metrical purposes. πάλιν is the regular form in
Attic prose inscriptions until the Roman period (Threatte 1980–1996,
II: 395–396).
3. On the structure of the sentence in this section see p. 24 above.
16–21 ἐπαινεῖν . . . τὸν δὲ στρατηγὸν Λεωσθένη. The focus on the in-
dividual is unique to this epitaphios. Other epitaphioi do not name in-
dividual honorands or give any sort of personal detail about the dead.
Hyperides was probably influenced by the development of prose en-
comia in the fourth century (Schiappa (1999, 186–190) traces the de-
velopment of the genre, beginning with Gorgias’ Helen). These prose
encomia for contemporary figures were particularly popular in the 320s
(Momigliano (1993, 64 n. 21) refers to two examples from the period:
a work on Alexander of Epirus by Theodectes, and one on Lycurgus by
Philiscus). Like this speech, these works mixed historical narrative with
topical praise. The surviving examples of the genre, Isocrates’ Evago-
ras and Xenophon’s Agesilaus, were both written after the death of the
subjects, and like Isocrates and Xenophon, Hyperides was perhaps a
personal friend of his subject (Plut. Mor. 486d gives examples of po-
litical and military partnerships, including Leosthenes and Hyperides,
but this testimonium may just be biographical speculation on the part of
the author; Engels (1989, 321 n. 676) considers the evidence for their
association). Although the death of an Athenian general in the field
was somewhat uncommon (Hamel (1998, app. 14, 204–209) lists 38
Athenian generals who died in battle between 501/500 and 322/321),

we know of one or perhaps two such deaths that are not mentioned in
surviving epitaphioi. The general Callias died in 432/431 during the
revolt of Potidaea (Thuc. 1.63.3) and is not mentioned in the Periclean
oration at the end of the season. Very slight evidence perhaps implies
that the general Stratocles fell in battle at Chaeronea (his command
is briefly mentioned at Aesch. 3.143 and Polyaen. 4.2.2; Harris (Wor-
thington et al. 2001, 215) tentatively suggests that “Stratocles may have
died in battle,” presumably because we hear nothing else about him, al-
though his colleague Lysicles was prosecuted after the battle), but he
is not mentioned in the Demosthenic epitaphios. Hyperides’ lavish at-
tention to Leosthenes in his speech is novel, and perhaps inspired by
the model of fourth-century prose encomia.
17 ‹τ›ῆς προαιρέ[σε]ως. Demosthenes regularly uses the noun προ-
αίρεσις to describe his public policy (for example, in On the Crown,
where his long-term policy is the main topic of debate, the noun occurs
more than a dozen times). Hyperides uses the noun only in this speech,
twice in this sentence, and again in §40. As he describes Leosthenes
and his men in the underworld, he picks up the vocabulary of this sec-
tion again, first by comparing their courage with that of the Persian War
generals (see the following note), and then in an exclamation of praise
for their choice (προαίρεσις) to die for the city.
20 ἀνδρεί[α]ς. Hyperides has just praised the city for its policy, and now
he praises the dead for the courage not to dishonor their ancestors. Balot
(2004, 413–418) discusses rationality and shame as key components of
the popular conception of courage in classical Athens. He focuses espe-
cially on the Periclean funeral oration and argues that the conception
of courage in that speech is closely tied to Athenian democratic ide-
ology. Thuc. 2.40.3 emphasizes that Athenian courage was grounded
in rational deliberation, and in his funeral oration Demosthenes simi-
larly links bravery and intelligence (Dem. 60.17). Hyperides likewise
pairs intellectual ability and martial courage here and again below in
his comparison of Leosthenes with the generals Miltiades and Themis-
tocles in the underworld (§38: ἀνδρείαι καὶ φρονήσει, “courage and
cunning”).
20–21τὸ μὴ καταισχῦναι τὰς τῶν προγόνων ἀρετάς. One’s present day
acts were thought to be capable of either bringing shame upon one’s an-
cestors, as here and Lycurg. 110, or else adding to their glory (Thuc.
2.11.9 and 6.16.1; Dover 1974, 246). Demosthenes presents the Atheni-
ans’ opposition to Macedon as a continuation of the policy of their fore-

bears who protected Greece from foreign invaders during the Persian
Wars (Dem. 18.203–210). Hyperides’ listeners expect to hear about the
Persian Wars in a funeral oration (see the note on §12 under δι’ ὧν καὶ
πρότερον κτλ), and when reminded of the “glories of their ancestors,”
they will think of the Persian Wars and the other items that typically
appear in the catalogues of Athenian achievements (see the note on §5
under κολάζο[υσα) in the epitaphioi. But Hyperides will instead focus
on the present campaign as the culmination of Athenian greatness.
21 τὰς. . . ἀρετάς. On the meaning of aret see the notes on §8 un-
der ἀλλὰ [περ]ὶ τῆς παιδείας . . . ἐπ‹αι›δε[ύθησαν and on §40 under
ἀρετῆς καὶ ἀνδραγαθίας. The plural of abstract nouns, when used in
prose, usually refers to a plurality of concrete demonstrations of the ab-
stract quality (Bers 1984, 39; Smyth 1000; Rusten 1989, 150 on Thuc.
2.39.1); in other words aretai are specific virtuous accomplishments on
the battlefield (also noted at Dover 1974, 164).
4, 26 τῶν . . . ‹ἀνὰ›. . . ‹πεπραγμένων›. Something must have fallen out
of the text here. These words have been added as a supplement by edi-
tors, and the text printed here is exempli gratia. The reconstructions of
Cobet and Sauppe (apparatus) both require adding a verb to the text,
and neither are very certain. The manuscript reading of τῶν requires
a participle, which is provided by the supplements of Cobet and Com-
paretti (appendix B). These suggestions do not entail a correction to the
article τῶν, but do require a preposition to govern the accusative πᾶ-
σαν τὴν Ἑλλάδα (“all Greece”). Alternatively, editors have emended
the definite article τῶν to the relative ὧν and supplied a finite verb for
that relative clause. Sauppe has suggested εὐηργέτηκεν (“it has done a
good service”), which is followed by Blass (in his first edition), Jensen,
Colin, and Marzi (1977). In that case, ὧν is an attracted relative, which
would originally have been a neuter accusative plural (Smyth 2522).
The verb εὐεργετεῖν sometimes takes an internal accusative (e.g., Ly-
curg. 140, where the city of Athens is the external object; LSJ, s.v.
εὐεργετέω II).
27–29οὔτε ὁ χρόνος ὁ παρ[ὼ]ν ἱκανὸς . . . μνη[μο]νεῦσαι. After empha-
sizing the daunting task before him, the orator admits his anxiety about
being unable to provide due praise for the city of Athens. Epideictic or-
ators faced pressure both to provide worthy praise for the dead and to
outperform previous orators (Carey (2007a, 238–240) nicely stresses
the high stakes for epideictic orators). Hyperides here addresses the
former concern, employing two commonplaces that are typically used

to express this sentiment: time is insufficient (Lys. 2.1, Pl. Mx. 246b,
Dem. 60.6; Ziolkowski 1981, 132), and the words of one man alone
are incapable of sufficiently treating the topic at hand (Thuc. 2.35.1,
Lys. 2.54; Ziolkowski 1981, 68–69). Other speakers refer to a fear of
envy (φθόνος) from their audience, because of jealousy for the exces-
sive praise granted in the speech (Thuc. 2.35.2; cf. Bulman 1992, 22
(on Pi. I. 2) and 85 n. 23 (on Gorg. fr. B6 285.13 and Thuc. 2.35.2),
and also Walcot 1978, 60–61).
29 ‹διεξ›ελθεῖν. Cobet’s correction is likely right, given Hyperides’
predilection for this verb in this speech. See below on §9 under
διεξελθεῖν.
5. The extended simile, comparing the city of Athens with the sun, com-
prises the entirety of Hyperides’ praise of the polis. Unlike the oration
of Pericles in Thucydides, where the epainos focuses wholly on the city
of Athens, Hyperides prefers to devote his attention to Leosthenes and
his soldiers. Athens sorts out the just and the unjust in the same way
that the sun distinguishes the seasons; and Athens dispenses equality
and sustains the confidence of all of Greece as the sun provides the
material for life to all of the world. Hyperides’ description of the sun
reflects the religious view of the Athenians, who believed that the gods
were responsible for the earth’s fertility. Athenian festivals celebrated
agricultural produce, and the calendar included a “procession for the
sun and the seasons” (see Parker 2005, 203–204). In this single sen-
tence Hyperides also covers many of the traditional points of praise
that fill out the bulk of other epitaphioi. Despite its brevity, this praise
of Athens alludes to many of the elements typically found in eulogies
of Athens (laudes Athenarum) in the tragedians and epideictic oratory
(for example, Athenian succor for suppliants, or the invention of agri-
culture); on these points see the individual notes below.
If we accept the restorations in the text, Hyperides celebrates
Athenian efforts to punish the wicked and eradicate injustice on the
one hand, after presenting the sun as purely beneficial in the first half
of the simile. Jensen’s (1917, xlvi) restoration of π[λείω παρέχ]ων
ἐπιμ[έλειαν attempts to balance the two limbs of the simile more
precisely, by stating that the sun gives greater rewards to those who
deserve them, and implying that others are punished with less produce.
But following Blass and earlier editors, I clearly read a tau at the
beginning of the phrase τ[ῶν ἀνθρώπ]ων ἐπιμ[ελούμενος. The top
left corner of the letter is preserved, with the top half of the vertical
stroke and a wide horizontal bar to its left, which appears to me to be
inconsistent with a pi or any other letter.
Perhaps the imbalance in the simile is to be explained by the formal
religious context here, which precludes Hyperides from describing the
punishments that the sun might inflict upon the unjust. In less formal
contexts a poet like Hesiod can more explicitly describe both the aid
and the harm that the gods inflict upon mortals (Hes. Op. 225–247;
West (1978, 213 ad loc.) adduces many parallels from Greek, Near
Eastern and Irish traditions). But Hyperides does not need to explain
that nature blights the wicked, just as Athens punishes them, because
“pollution and fertility are the two sides of a coin” (Parker 2005, 418,
in the context of a helpful discussion of the Greek view of the gods’
function in agriculture) and, in keeping with the overall optimistic tone
of the speech, the orator prefers to emphasize only the positive aspects
of the city and its relationship with the gods.
For a more pessimistic nature simile in a parallel context, see
Dem. 60.24, where the orator likens the loss of those who fell at
Chaeronea to sunlight (φῶς) being removed from the universe. Loraux
(1986, 393 n. 206) suggests that Hyperides’ positive description of
the sun directly answers Demosthenes’ image of the bleak withdrawal
of light after the defeat at Chaeronea. If so, this simile epitomizes
Athenian optimism at this point in the Lamian War.
Pöschl (1964, 558) collects bibliography on this and other sun sim-
iles. Colin (1938, 246–247) admires the subtle poetic nature of its ex-
pression, and S. Kayser (1898, 225) compares Hyp. fr. 80, a much less
elaborate comparison of rhetores and snakes. Hyp. Phil. frg. 10 also
features a simile likening the city and the body (on which see White-
head 2000, 41–42 ad loc. and Blass 1887, III.2: 33).
33 σ[ώφροσι. The curved left portion of the initial letter survives.
Blass’s restoration of σ[ώφροσι fits the space better than Sitzler’s
suggestion of σ[πουδαίοις. The adjective sphrn only occurs once in
the other surviving epitaphioi, but the context of that usage perhaps
supports the restoration here. At Pl. Mx. 247e–248a, in the consolatory
section of that speech, Socrates describes a man who “has everything
that contributes to happiness in his own hands . . . [who] is not joined
to other men” as having the “best prepared life” and being “moderate
(sphrn), brave and intelligent.” Similarly in this passage, Hyperides
associates this adjective with the possession of “everything . . . useful
for life.” The adjectives sphrn and epieiks are frequently paired by
later writers, e.g., Plut. TG. 14.5 and Cic. 38.3.

33 ἐ]πιεικέσι. Epieiks is usually defined as “flexible, reasonable, fair.”
The moral concept is an important element in Athenian self-identity. It
describes the city’s attitude toward suppliants and its ability to adjust
to a particular situation. Thus, at Gorg. fr. B6 285.15–16 the Athenian
war dead preferred τὸ πρᾶον ἐπιεικὲς to τὸ αὐθάδες δίκαιον, that is
“sympathetic fairness” in contrast to “authoritative justice” (reading
Spengel’s emendation of πρᾶον, “gentle,” for the manuscripts’ παρόν,
“present”). Arist. EN 1137a31–1138a3 similarly considers epieikeia as
a type of moderate justice. As an illustration of this quality, at Soph.
OC 1127 the suppliant Oedipus praises Theseus and Athens for dis-
playing it (τὸ ἐπιεικές) toward him. Mills (1997, 77–78) discusses the
concept of epieikeia in Athenian self-presentation. Her discussion is
supplemented by Gibert (1998). Lucas (1968, 140–141) and Adkins
(1966, esp. 79–80 and 94–98) also consider the term, demonstrating
that the quality was especially prized in fourth-century Athens, where
it was considered to be an important aspect of individual virtue (aret).
See also the discussion of Dover (1974, 191).
Epieikeia also has a more specific legal sense, referring to the
judges’ consideration of extenuating circumstances in unusual cases.
On the legal doctrine of epieikeia, see Scafuro 1997, 50–54, Brun-
schwig 1996 and especially Harris 2004c. The broad moral concept
is most relevant in the present passage, rather than the specific legal
usage, since Hyperides uses the adjective, not the noun, and seems to
link the quality with another abstract moral adjective, “reasonable” (if
the restoration σ[ώφροσι is correct). Neither the noun epieikeia nor
the adjective epieiks occur elsewhere in the surviving epitaphioi.
34–36 ἐπι[μελούμενος . . . τῶν ἄ]λλων ἁ[πά]ντων τῶν εἰς τὸν β[ίο]ν
χρησίμων. Although Hyperides is describing the sun here, in the midst
of this dense cluster of topics traditionally found in eulogies of Athens
the listener is reminded of the motif of the fertility of Attic soil and the
legend that Athens was the first state to learn the science of agriculture.
The fruits of Athens were a traditional feature in praises of the city.
Sophocles’ Triptolemus (frr. 596–617 Radt) popularized the story of
the Eleusinian prince’s teaching of agricultural skills, and Demeter’s
mysteries were celebrated by the Athenians at Eleusis. Similarly, Isoc.
4.28 tells the story of Demeter’s two gifts to Athens, agriculture and
the Mysteries, as a reward for the city’s help in the goddess’ search for
her daughter Kore. The theme also appears elsewhere in the epitaphioi,
at Pl. Mx. 238a, where Athens is celebrated for first mastering agricul-
ture (Tsitsiridis (1998, 213–214 ad loc.) surveys the importance of the
Eleusinian Mysteries for the Athenians’ civic identity).
The products of Athens were also a special source of pride among
the natives (see Schroeder 1914, 20–23 and Burgess 1902, 154 for par-
allels). The chorus of Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus gives much at-
tention to the most famous fruit of Athens in its eulogy of the city in
the second stasimon of that play (668–719). That chorus’ praise cul-
minates in its description of the olive, an important symbol for Athens
and a characteristic attribute of its patron goddess Athena. See also
Eur. Tr. 801, Eur. Ion 1433–1436, and cf. the depiction of the olive
on the Athenian tetradrachms of the fifth century (photos in Kraay
and Hirmer 1966, pl. 19 nos. 359–363, with discussion at Kraay 1976,
65–66). The olive was one of the few crops that flourished in Attica
(see Hanson 1983, especially 53, rewritten at Hanson 1998, 64, where
the Sophoclean choral ode is discussed), since the trees are resistant
to drought and adapt well to poor soil (for details see Foxhall 2007,
5–9). Sophocles describes the olive as “self-planting” (αὐτοποιός) and
“child-rearing” (παιδότροφος), thus connecting the fruits of Athens
with the themes of autochthony and agriculture as the basis of civiliza-
tion (cf. Foxhall (2007, 248–249), who associates the latter adjective
with Athenian “ideals of the long-term”).
In fact, the rocky soil of Attica was not always able to produce
enough grain for the city, and cash crops such as olives helped fund
grain imports. Moreno (2007) has demonstrated that the Athenians de-
pended on imported grain and that their foreign policy in the fifth and
fourth centuries was an integral part of a complex organized system
designed to ensure its supply. Taken as a group, the funeral orations
illustrate the tension that existed in classical Athens between pride in a
distinctive Athenian character and the state’s self-sufficiency on the one
hand, and, on the other hand, a cosmopolitan interest in, and real need
for, foreign artists and goods: this passage and other traditional eulo-
gies extol the independent ability of Athens to provide for itself, while
in contrast the Thucydidean funeral oration boasts of the diversity of
imported products available to the Athenians during the empire of the
fifth century (Thuc. 2.38.2; the old oligarch, [Xen]. Ath 2.7, presents a
negative counterpoint).
More generally, praise for the fertility of a region is a recurring
motif in all types of Greek literature. Kienzle (1936, 39–40) collects
relevant passages. As here, many other examples of this device specif-
ically praise the karpos, “fruit,” of a locale.

35–36 τῶν εἰς τὸν β[ίο]ν χρησίμων. The phrase is technical and ap-
pears in Democritean accounts of the origin of society. According to
that philosopher’s sociological theory, mankind formed social groups
in order to obtain the necessities for life (see Cole 1990, 131–135).
Henrichs (1975, 107 n. 56) discusses the use of the specialized term
τὰ χρήσιμα πρὸς τὸν βίον, “material useful for life,” in Prodicus and
collects numerous other examples of similar phrases.
36–37 το]ὺς μὲν κακοὺ‹ς› κολάζο[υσα. Athens’ punishment of wrongdo-
ers is a common theme in the epitaphioi. Sometimes they go unnamed
(Thuc. 2.42.4, Gorg. fr. B6 286.4, Lys. 2.19), as here. The orators have
in mind either the legend of the defeat of the Amazons (Lys. 2.6 and
Dem. 60.8), or the punishment of Eurystheus (Lys. 2.16), or the his-
toric victory over the Persians (Dem. 60.11, Pl. Mx. 240d). The leg-
endary king Theseus was often celebrated in classical Athens for the
former two deeds, and Schroeder (1914, 14) discusses two passages in
which a similar phrase specifically refers to the accomplishments of
Theseus. At Eur. Supp. 341 Theseus boasts of being a “punisher of the
wicked,” κολαστὴς τῶν κακῶν (cf. also 253–255), and in Eur. fr. 678
(Kannicht), Theseus’ murder of Sciron is described with the same for-
mulation found here, {τοὺς} κακοὺς κολάζειν, “to punish the wicked.”
Loraux (1986, 65–67) discusses the almost complete exclusion of
Theseus from all the funeral orations. Instead of Theseus, it is the Athe-
nians who were glorious against the Amazons and recovered the bodies
of the seven chiefs before Thebes. Her thesis, that this replacement was
a reaction against the policy of the ostracized leader Cimon, who had
heralded Theseus as the city founder, is unpersuasive. She wants to
discern a democratic flavor in support of her date for the institution of
the funeral oration in the 460s. Calame (1996, 416–418) sensibly ar-
gues that the importance of Theseus in Athenian ideology cannot be
the result of any particular individual’s advocacy for the hero. In any
case, the democracy of the late 460s and 450s continued to admire The-
seus. Walker (1995, 64–66) refers to a number of state-commissioned
representations of Theseus in Athens at that time.
Theseus’ absence from the orations is not surprising, given the im-
mediate purpose of honoring all of the city’s war casualties as a ho-
mogeneous body. In tragedy Theseus is a useful character who as an
individual can represent on stage values that might be ascribed to the
city as an abstract entity in nondramatic contexts such as the epitaphioi.
Thus Mills (1997, 56–57) explains that the absence of Theseus from the
Eumenides of Aeschylus emphasizes “the collective anonymity” of the
play’s Athenian court. Similarly, the epitaphioi celebrate the collective
unity of the civic community, and the absence of Theseus from the fu-
neral orations has nothing to do with any hypothetical rejection of the
policies of Cimon.
37 κολάζο[υσα. The catalogue of Athenian history that appears in other
epitaphioi tends to jump from the defeat of foreigners during mytho-
logical times to the Athenian role in the Persian Wars (for example,
Lys. 2.4–19 focuses on prehistoric exploits, and then 20–47 immedi-
ately presents a long account of the Persian Wars). The verb kolazein,
“to punish,” links these mythological and historical events. It is used
both for the victories of Theseus (see previous note) and the defeat of
the Persians (Pl. Mx. 240d, discussed at Tsitsiridis 1998, 277). By using
this evocative verb here, Hyperides alludes to that traditional catalogue
of Athenian exploits, which he chooses to pass over in this simile so
that he can instead go on to provide a narrative of Leosthenes’ achieve-
ments. See p. 23 above for more parallels between Hyperides’ descrip-
tion of the conflict with Macedon and others’ accounts of the Persian
Wars. For discussion of the catalogue of Athenian achievements that
appears in other funeral orations (most extensively in Lys. 2 and Plato’s
Menexenus) see Loraux 1986, 132–171 and Thomas 1989, 196–236.
37 τοῖς] δὲ δικαίο‹ι›ς β[οηθοῦσα. Hyperides continues with his
condensed allusions to traditional themes in praise of Athens. The
aid given to the children of Heracles, the Seven against Thebes,
Orestes, Medea, Heracles, and Oedipus was the subject of numerous
fifth-century tragedies in Athens. Surviving plays that treat the theme
of Athens’ help for those in need include Aeschylus’ Seven against
Thebes, Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus and Euripides’ Suppliants.
The theme is also common in funeral orations: Lys. 2.7–16, Pl. Mx.
239b, and Dem. 60.8 refer 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 τὸ δὲ ἴσον. All Athenian citizens shared equal political rights,
whether they were rich or poor, or whether they came from the
countryside of Attica or the city of Athens. Athenian political equality
is another common motif in the epitaphioi and elsewhere. There were
various overlapping explanations for this equality: autochthony (Pl.

Mx. 239a connects ἰσογονία, “birth equality,” and ἰσονομία, “political
equality”), or the political settlement of Theseus (Dem. 60.28 praises
the ἰσηγορία, “political equality,” he created), or the Athenian political
system in the classical period (Lys. 2.56 presents τὸ ἴσον as the goal
of the Delian League). On equality as an Athenian ideal, Schroeder
1914 also refers to Isoc. 7.20, 69 and Isoc. 12.178.
The Thucydidean funeral oration also celebrates the ideal of Athe-
nian equality (Thuc. 2.37.1). Harris (1992, 160–162) has demonstrated
that Thucydides’ reference to τὸ ἴσον, “equality,” refers to the equality
before the law all Athenian citizens enjoyed in judicial disputes. That
interpretation supports the reading of τῆς ἀδικίας, “injustice,” here.
The substantive adjective τὸ ἴσον, “equality,” may allude more
generally to the democratic ideal of isonomia, “legal equality” (as
argued by Gomme (1956, 109–110); Ostwald (1969, 114 n. 3)
disagrees). Isonomia is regularly opposed to monarchia, or the rule
of one (Alcmaeon 4, Hdt. 3.142–143, cf. also Hdt. 3.80.2–82, where
isonomia is an alternative to both monarchy and oligarchy). That
antithesis colors the usage here, where the sun, and Athens, provides
the opportunity for all the Greek states to be self-governing, instead
of being subject to an unjust tyrant. The brief allusion to equality and
the Athenian political system anticipates the more extensive contrast
between Athenian democracy and barbarian tyranny later in the speech
(§§20–22).
38 τῆς ἀδι]κιάς. Harris’ interpretation of τὸ ἴσον as referring to the
courts at Thuc. 2.37.1 (see previous note) supports Jensen’s restora-
tion. The remaining traces of ink and the size of the lacuna better suit
Jensen’s restoration than those of Babington and Colin (appendix B).
38 ἀ[πονέμουσα. Kaibel preferred the reading ἀντ[ὶ τῆς πλεονε]ξίας
(“instead of [greed]”) and proposed ἀ[πονέμουσα (“dispenses”) to
continue the financial metaphor. Although ἀδι]κιάς (“injustice”) is
preferable to πλεονε]ξίας (“greed”) the remaining ink traces better suit
ἀ[πονέμουσα (“dispenses”) than Blass’ φ[υλάττουσα (“protects”) and
the verb ἀπονέμειν (“to dispense”) makes good sense even without
the reference to greed.
38–40τοῖ]ς δὲ ἰδί[οις κινδύνοις . . . παρασκε]υάζουσα. Blass’ restoration
is based on the echo of Lycurg. 104, who describes the Greeks who
fought at Marathon: τοῖς ἰδίοις κινδύνοις κοινὴν ἄδειαν ἅπασι τοῖς
Ἕλλησι κτώμενοι, “with their own risks they acquired shared security
for all the Greeks.” On the repeated contrast between private risk and
public safety, see the note on §24 under ἰδίαν . . . κοινήν.
6, 41 π[ερὶ μὲν οὖν. There is a small dot of ink at the top left of the
line before the lacuna. As Jensen observes, it is consistent with the top
bar of a pi, and not an alpha (as Blass’s restoration of [ἀλλὰ περὶ μέ]ν
requires). For the phrase φράσαι περί, LSJ, s.v. φράζω I.2 cites Isoc.
15.117.
42 φρά]σαι ‹παρ›αλ‹ε›ί‹ψ›ω. ‹παρ›αλ‹ε›ί‹ψ›ω is Müller’s plausible
correction of the papyrus, whose nonsensical reading is likely
due to the scribe’s misreading of his source. The phrase φράσαι
παραλείψω (“I will refrain from speaking”) offers a pointed contrast
to τοὺς λόγους ποιήσομαι (“I will . . . focus my speech”) in the next
clause and anticipates the praeteritio below (on this rhetorical device
see the note on this section under διεξέλθω). Paraleipein usually takes
an accusative object, but later writers offer a few parallels for the
first-person future with an active infinitive (Gal. 2.450: παραλείψω . . .
ἐξελέγχειν and, a closer parallel also introducing rhetorical praeteritio,
Lib. Or. 12.27: εἰπεῖν παραλείψω). Others have suggested that the
scribe may have misread ἄμφω (“both”) in his exemplar and written
, but this suggestion entails other drastic changes to the papyrus
text. Kayser (1868) accepts the reading ἄμφω (“both”), which then
requires a verb to govern the first περί (“as for”) phrase. He assumes
the scribe omitted further material at the beginning of the sentence and
reconstructs the passage thus: [οὐκ ἔχων δὲ ὁμοῦ περὶ τούτων εἰπεῖν
καὶ περὶ πασῶ]ν τῶν κοινῶ[ν πράξεων τῆς πόλ]εως, ὥσπερ [χρή,
καὶ ὑμνῆ]σαι ἄμφω . . . , “[Since I am unable to speak about these men
and all] the shared [accomplishments of the] city [at the same time, as
I should, and to praise] both. . . .”
43–44 νῦ]ν δὲ πόθεν κτλ. The explicit deliberation about the act of prais-
ing is characteristic of epideictic oratory; see Carey 2007a, 245. This
short section is full of rhetorical tropes: it begins and ends with prae-
teritio (see above on this section under φρά]σαι ‹παρ›αλ‹ε›ί‹ψ›ω and
below under διεξέλθω) and here Hyperides employs the rhetorical de-
vice of aporia by suggesting that there is an abundance of potential
material to praise (see Usher 1999, index s.v. aporia for many other
examples of this rhetorical trope, which is common in all types of or-
atory). It also employs hypophora, a series of rhetorical questions and
answers (Usher (1999, 336) comments on the unusual combination of
hypophora and aporia; on hypophora see the note on §30 under τίς
‹γὰρ› κα‹ι›ρὸς κτλ). Just as he passed over any lengthy praise of the
city in §5, Hyperides now uses these various rhetorical devices to avoid
dwelling on the traditional themes of the genos (“heritage”) and the
paideia (“upbringing”) of the Athenians in §§7–8 (on these typical sec-
tions in funeral orations see Ziolkowski 1981, 64–65). Like the simile
in §5 that functions as a miniature epainos of the city, briefly touching
upon many typical topics, here, too, Hyperides’ treatment of traditional
themes in his prooemium is highly abbreviated, allowing time for the
unusual extended narrative of the achievements of the dead that begins
in §9.
44 λέγει]ν. For the infinitive, Cobet compares Eur. Med. 475. The in-
finitive with the verb ἄρχομαι (“to begin”) implies that the speaker is
beginning to do something which will be continued, as opposed to the
supplementary participle, which is used when the speaker will then go
on to do something else (Smyth 2128). The parallels (Dem. 18.3 and
Dem. Ep. 1.1) adduced by Graindor in support of reading the noun λό-
γων (“speech”) do not exclude the use of the infinitive.
44 πρῶτον. Here is a typical instance in which nineteenth-century edi-
tors erred in their efforts to bring Hyperides’ Greek into line with earlier
classical authors. The Dutch scholar Carel Gabriel Cobet (1813–1889)
perhaps best epitomizes this tendency. He made many brilliant restora-
tions in this speech, but he sometimes went too far, suggesting correc-
tions to accord with his idealized standards of classical Attic usage (von
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1998, 40–41 discusses Cobet and his ideal
of “das reine Attische”; see also Babington’s (1859, 6) tribute to Co-
bet’s textual work on the Funeral Oration). Here he proposes the gen-
itive of the adjective, πρώτου (appendix B). But the neuter accusative
adverb is perfectly intelligible and does not require correction. An ad-
verbial accusative may be used instead of the adjective “when one ac-
tion is opposed to another in sequence” (Smyth 1042N).
45 διεξέλθω. On Hyperides’ usage of this verb, see the note on §9 under
διεξελθεῖν. Praeteritio, or paraleipsis, is the rhetorical figure in which
the speaker states that he will not mention something, and in effect re-
minds his listeners of it with that denial. Hyperides puts special empha-
sis on this device by explicitly using the verb paraleipein (“to refrain”)
at the beginning of this section to close his brief praise of the city, and
here he uses the device again to bring up quickly and dismiss two of
the traditional themes of the funeral oration: the ancestors of the dead
and their noble and autochthonous origins, and the education of the
Athenians. In forensic cases litigants sometimes claim that constraints

of time prevent a detailed account of their opponents’ misdeeds; these
insinuating claims essentially functioned as accusations for which no
evidence was needed. Usher (1999, index s.v. paraleipsis) collects nu-
merous examples from the orators and tragedy.
45–46 ἀλλ’ εὔηθες εἶναι ὑπολαμβάνω. See the note on §30 under ἀλλά
. . . on the frequent use of the particle ἀλλά (here “no”) in hypophora.
The avoidance here of the common theme of the genos is very
different from other funeral orators and particularly Demosthenes,
who discusses the Eponymous Heroes of the Athenian people at length
(Dem. 60.27–31).
7, 51–52 οἷς ἡ κοινὴ γένεσις α[ὐτόχ]θοσιν οὖσιν ἀνυπέρβλητ[ον] τὴν
εὐγένειαν ἔχει. Autochthony is employed in all the funeral orations
except the short fragment of Gorgias to emphasize the homogeneity
of the Athenian citizen body, because they were born from Attica and
have always dwelled there (Thuc. 2.36.1, Lys. 2.17, Pl. Mx. 237b,
Dem. 60.4; Ziolkowski 1981, 120–121). Because the Athenians have
been settled in one place for longer than other peoples, they were
able to become civilized sooner and are thus superior. Hyperides
makes explicit contrast between the heterogeneity of other states
and Athenian unity, much like Dem. 60.4, who likens the citizens of
other states to adopted children. Loraux (2000, 18–23) discusses these
passages and related ones from the epitaphioi and tragedy, highlighting
the “discourse of exclusion” (20) that distinguishes Athens from other
Greek cities. She also observes (21) that the myth of common origin
granted to all Athenians the aristocratic ideal of εὐγένεια, “noble
birth,” and Connor (1994, 35–38) similarly emphasizes that the myth
of autochthony glosses over social differences in order to celebrate
the anonymous “collective excellence” of Athens (38). The myth was
also hortative: Rosivach (1987, 303–304) has shown that the concept
of autochthony developed along with the Athenian Empire in the fifth
century and that the legend was used as a justification for Athenian
military activity.
Hyperides gives short shrift to many common topoi, but this one
in particular may seem a little out of place, since the orator will soon
praise the mercenary soldiers and foreign allies (§11, §13) who helped
Athens. This tension between Athens’ exclusive pride in its homogene-
ity and dependence on foreign goods and specialists also appears at
Thuc. 2.38.2 (with discussion by Connor (1993, 120)).
7–8, 51–53 ἀνυπέρβλητ[ον] . . . ἀλλὰ [πε]ρὶ. A tiny fragment of the pa-

pyrus has been lost here. My text indicates the state of the manuscript as
seen by early editors, but the underlined material has now disappeared,
presumably because of the loss of a small piece of the papyrus. In the
edition of Babington that fragment is reported in this location without
comment, but it must have been separated by the time of the third edi-
tion of Blass, who incorrectly inserts the fragment in col. 1 lines 19–22
(9–11). The fragment was lost by the time Jensen examined the papyrus.
8, 53–55 ἀλλὰ [περ]ὶ τῆς παιδείας . . . ἐπ‹αι›δε[ύθησαν. Loraux (1986,
109–110) focuses on this passage as she argues that Hyperides, despite
the many innovations in this oration, here follows a time-honored defi-
nition of aret as purely military excellence. She sees this narrow con-
ception of aret as a reaction against Dem. 60.17, and current trends
in civic epitaphs, in which aret is equated with other qualities, most
importantly sphrosyn, “moderation.” The war context of the speech
requires Hyperides to focus on Leosthenes’ military exploits in his
praise of the general’s aret (§§10–20), but his initial account of the
education of the commander and his men begins with a reminder of
the sphrosyn with which they were raised as children, before they
learned their military skills (§8). The Athenian soldiers were first ex-
posed to moderation (cf. Aesch. 1.6–7, where the speaker asserts that
sphrosyn was the primary focus in the education of young Atheni-
ans), and then they learned to be soldiers. The course of development is
parallel to Demosthenes’ definition of complete virtue consisting first
of learning, and then of bravery (Dem. 60.17). Similarly, in §29, Hy-
perides states that the dead demonstrated their virtues both through a
great length of time and amidst many dangers. These two categories
correspond to the antithesis of his previous sentence: they were born
senseless and died as brave soldiers. As children they learned quali-
ties such as sphrosyn and dikaiosyn, “justice,” and then they went
to war, where they demonstrated their military skill. It is only to be
expected that Hyperides focuses on the apex of his subjects’ virtue,
their death in the field, but this emphasis hardly constitutes “an attack
on mistaken predecessors” (Loraux 1986, 110). For all his attention to
the life of the deceased before going into battle (Dem. 60.15–16), De-
mosthenes, too, as one must in an oration over the war dead, mainly
emphasizes their martial valor (Dem. 60.18–24, aret in 23).
The special interest in the soldiers’ paideia in these two speeches is
perhaps reflective of contemporary institutional reforms in Athens. In
335/334 the ephbeia was reformed, and male Athenian youths aged 18
to 20 participated in a systematic program of military and civic training.

For discussion of these reforms see Humphreys 2004, 88–92, Fisher
2001, 65–66, Rhodes 1993, 494–495, and Faraguna 1992, 274–280.
56τινες ποι]εῖν. A complementary infinitive is needed with the verb εἰ-
ώθασιν, “are accustomed.” Sauppe’s restoration is too long for the la-
cuna, and [Fuhr]’s (both in appendix B) is unlikely because the scribe
does not usually break a line after the first consonant of a syllable. Hess
adduces Isoc. 5.4 (ὅπερ εἰώθασί τινες ποιεῖν, “which some are accus-
tomed to do”) as a parallel for Jensen’s supplement of τινες, “some.”
Levi’s ἄλλοι, “others,” would also fill the gap nicely and make good
sense. Hyperides briefly refers to other orators at earlier burial cer-
emonies, but most of the epitaphioi begin with more explicit refer-
ence to earlier speakers (see note on §1 under τῶν μὲν λόγων τ[ῶν
μελ]λόντων ῥηθήσεσ[θαι κτλ).
57–58 ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί γ[ίγνων]ται. This honorific phrase is regularly
used in the funeral orations and other patriotic literature to describe sol-
diers’ death on the battlefield (see Loraux 1986, 99–102 for discussion
and examples). Hyperides repeats the phrase again at §28 (cf. §1 and
§34), and in both instances he contrasts the heroic death of the soldiers
with their childhood. He presents their voluntary death on the field as
the singular defining moment of their adult lives. Rusten (1986, 71–74)
observes that “even without maintaining consistent and unchanging
goodness through a lifetime, but rather by performing a single appro-
priate action at the end of that life . . . one can earn the title ἀγαθός
for eternity” (72). The phrase ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς ἐγένετο (“he was a brave
man”) was used as a formula in Athenian honorific decrees specifically
to praise valor in battle (Veligianni-Terzi (1997, 265–267) collects ex-
amples and emphasizes the military associations of the phrase). By vol-
unteering to die the fallen attain the same status as these honorands. On
the related abstract quality of andragathia see the note on §40 under
ἀρετῆς καὶ ἀνδραγαθίας.
9, 61 διεξελθεῖν. Hyperides uses this verb in the aorist with the sense of
“narrate individually” here, and at §6 and probably at §4. The earlier
usages link the orator’s avoidance of standard treatments of the city (in
§4) and of the genos (in §6). Hyperides began this paragraph by asking,
“Should I discuss [their] ancestry?” (§6), a question that served as a
praeteritio allowing him to mention that topic only in passing (see the
note on §6 under διεξέλθω). Hyperides now repeats the same verb to
signal that he will focus on an alternative topic at unusual length: the
achievements of the men on the battlefield. This verb could perhaps be

classified as “nonforensic” in the Hyperidean corpus (see above p. 26;
outside of this speech it appears only as a conjectural restoration at
Hyp. Dem. 8), but it is quite common in the court speeches of other
authors.
63τοῖς ἄλλοις Ἕλλησιν. Hyperides repeatedly emphasizes the panhel-
lenic alliance during the Lamian (or Hellenic) War. See the note on
§16 under τῆ[ς τῶ]ν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας. Above, at §4, the orator
refrained from looking back to Athens’ previous benefactions to the
rest of Greece. Below, at §10 and §39, he highlights the current ac-
complishments of Athens and Leosthenes.
10–12. For an outline of the events of the campaign, see pp. 12–13. In
these sections Hyperides describes the events of late 323.
10, 66 τεταπεινωμένη. The verb is echoed below (see the note on §35
under ἐταπείνωσεν) to emphasize the change in circumstances as a re-
sult of the soldiers’ acts of valor.
66–67 κατεφθαρμένη ὑπὸ [τῶν] δωροδο‹κ›ούντων. The verb
drodokein, literally “to receive gifts,” always refers to bribes in
classical usage. The ambassadors to Philip and Alexander were
particularly susceptible to accusations of bribery and corruption,
(Harvey 1985, 86–87 and 106–107), since foreign kings would
commonly offer gifts to visiting ambassadors. But these accusations
of bribery in Athens usually arose in the midst of broader personal or
political feuds (see C. Taylor 2001, 61–64 and 162–163), and there is
no reason to believe that Athenian politicians were often persuaded
to serve the Macedonians against the interests of Athens (as Cargill
(1985) suggests).
Demosthenes, the most famous opponent of Macedon in the 340s,
laid charges of bribery against Aeschines in 343 to distance himself
from the embarrassing peace of Philocrates after Hyperides had suc-
cessfully prosecuted a similar case against Philocrates that same year
(see above pp. 3–4; Harris (1995, 116–118) shows how weak the charge
of bribery was), and throughout his career he frequently referred to
Greeks who were corrupted by Philip (e.g., Dem. 18.295, now echoed
by Hyp. Dion. 176v/173r l. 32–175r/174v l. 2; see also the passages
collected by Cargill (1985)). Just a year before the funeral oration was
delivered, Demosthenes became embroiled in scandal and was pros-
ecuted for accepting money from the Macedonian treasurer Harpalus
(see above p. 11). Hyperides was a prosecutor in that case and uses the
“brutal verb” drodokein to attack his former ally (see Whitehead 2000,
403 on this verb).
11, 72 ξενικὴν μὲν δύναμιν. Leosthenes ferried a large body of merce-
naries from Asia to Cape Taenarum at the southern tip of the Pelopon-
nese, and probably maintained them there until after Alexander’s death,
when Athens finally decided to initiate hostilities against Macedon. See
p. 12 of the introduction.
75 Βοιωτούς. After Alexander destroyed Thebes, in 335, he granted the
Thebans’ land to the neighboring Boeotians (see §17). Consequently,
the Boeotians sided with the Macedonians because they feared that the
Athenians would return that land to the Thebans if the Athenian cam-
paign was successful (Diod. Sic. 18.11.3–4).
75 Εὐβοέας. The Euboeans, under the leadership of Callias of Chalcis,
joined the Athenian alliance against Philip prior to the battle of
Chaeronea (Brunt (1969, 254–264) gives a thorough analysis of why
and when Euboea shifted its alliances from Philip to Athens). After
Philip’s victory in 338 the pro-Athenian leaders of the Euboean League
went into exile and Philip installed sympathetic governments on the
island (Roebuck (1948, 82) provides more detail than Hammond et
al. (1972–1988, II: 615) on this point). Chalcis was the site of an
armed Macedonian garrison, one of the so-called fetters of Greece
(Plb. 18.11.5) that protected Macedonian interests (Hammond et al.
1972–1988, II: 612 n. 3). When Aristotle left Athens in 323 out of
anxiety over his Macedonian connections, he took refuge at Chalcis
(D.H. Amm. 1.5, D. L. 5.5–6, 5.10; Chroust (1966) emphasizes
political reasons for his move). Diod. Sic. 18.11.1–2 lists the Greek
allies in the Lamian War: from Euboea only the city of Carystus joined
the Greek alliance; the rest of the island sided with Macedon.
12, 77 εἰς Πύλας. The pass of Thermopylae provides land access to
southern Greece from Thessaly, with steep mountains to the south and
the sea to the north. (Barrington atlas map 55 D3; the modern coast ex-
tends further north than it did in antiquity.) Leosthenes planned to con-
front the enemy here, and had already occupied the pass with that inten-
tion in mind (Diod. Sic. 18.11.5). Pritchett (1965, 71–73) and MacKay
(1963) survey the present landscape and surviving remains in order to
make sense of ancient accounts of the area and correct modern misin-
terpretations of the difficult terrain. The latter provides a detailed map
of the pass.
78–79 δι’ ὧν καὶ πρότερον ἐ[πὶ τ]οὺς Ἕλληνας οἱ βάρβαροι
ἐ[πο]ρεύθησαν. The Greeks, under the leadership of the Spartan
Leonidas, were overcome by the Persian forces at the pass of
Thermopylae in the autumn of 480. See the vivid account of Hdt.
7.201–233.
Compared to other funeral orators, Hyperides devotes very little at-
tention to the Persian Wars. He instead describes contemporary events
using the same terms that his predecessors used to describe the famous
war against the barbarians. See the notes on §5 under κολάζο[υσα, on
§20 under τὴν Μακεδόνων ὑπερηφανίαν, and on §37 under Μιλτιάδην
καὶ Θεμιστοκλέα.
81–82 κατακλείσας εἰς Λαμίαν. After the defeat at Plataea the Mac-
edonian forces fled and took refuge at Lamia for the winter (Diod.
Sic. 18.11.5). Antipater was awaiting reinforcements from Craterus and
Leonnatus (see above p. 13 and Habicht 1997, 38). Lamia is about 10
kilometers northwest of Thermopylae, in the region of Phthiotis, near
the Malian Gulf (Barrington atlas map 55 C3; see Béquignon 1937,
263–278 on the site).
13, 82–83 Θ]ετταλοὺς δὲ καὶ Φωκέας καὶ [Αἰ]τωλοὺς καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους
ἅπαντας τοὺς ἐν τῶι τόπωι. Neither the order of Hyperides’ list nor its
position in his narrative is historically accurate. Diod. Sic. 17.111.3 re-
ports that Leosthenes was in contact with the Aetolians prior to Alexan-
der’s death in June 323. Then, after the Aetolians agreed to join his
cause, he approached the Locrians and the Phocians and other nearby
peoples (Diod. Sic. 18.9.5). According to Diodorus’ account, all these
negotiations were conducted prior to the Athenian decree declaring
war. (Diod. Sic. 18.11.1 repeats that the Aetolians were the first to join
the alliance.) Diodorus’ source for Greek events in books 18 to 20 was
Hieronymus, and his narrative is generally accepted as trustworthy (see
Hornblower 1981, 32–40; Hamilton (1977) argues that Cleitarchus is
the source for Diodorus’ Greek narrative in book 17). Oikonomides
(1982, 124) dates IG 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-
der’s death. (See also p. 12 of the introduction. The precise date of the
agreement with the Aetolians is not certain.)
Both Phocis and Thessaly had reason not to join the alliance in 323.
Phocis had received aid from Athens in the third Sacred War against
the Amphictyonic League a generation earlier, in the 350s, but in 346

the Phocian general Phalaecus broke off ties with Athens. At the end of
the war Phocis was severely punished by the Amphictyony for its war
against Thebes and Athens condoned that settlement (see Harris 1995,
81–101).
Thessaly also had reason not to sympathize with the Greek revolt.
Although the koinon of Thessaly formed a short-lived alliance with
Athens in 361/360 (IG II2 116 = Rhodes and Osborne 2003, no. 44;
see also Tracy 1995, 29), later internal strife provided an opportunity
for Philip to intervene in Thessalian politics in either 344 or 342, and
the Thessalian cavalry played an important role in Alexander’s army
during his Asian campaign (Bosworth 1988, 264). Perhaps Alexander’s
Exiles Decree in March 324 weakened the loyalty of the Thessalians
and contributed to their emerging antipathy toward the Macedonian
regime (Bosworth 1988, 227). Earlier, during the revolt of Agis in 331,
the Thessalians may have considered turning on Macedon, if we can
infer anything from an alleged boast of Demosthenes that he brought
about such a rebellion there (reported and rejected at Aesch. 3.167).
Hyperides does not specifically mention the Locrians, who also
joined the Athenian alliance in 323. The Eastern Locrians must have
been especially valuable allies, since East Locris commands the ap-
proach to the pass at Thermopylae and isolates the Boeotians to the
south, who sided with the Macedonians.
Loraux (1986, 170) singles out Hyperides for breaking all the rules
of the funeral oration by naming Athens’ allies and describing some of
the nontraditional techniques employed by the hoplite forces during the
siege operation at Lamia. But Dem. 60.22 criticizes the Theban allies
by name for their share in the defeat at Chaeronea. Loraux makes an
unconvincing attempt to explain away Lys. 2.49, which refers to sieges
and names the Corinthian allies (cf. also Lys. 2.67). The point in listing
the allies here, after presenting a narrative of the battle season, is to
portray Athens and Leosthenes as liberators of greater Greece. Funeral
orations regularly boasted of Athens’ efforts to save the other Greeks
in the mythological past and during the Persian Wars (see above, on
§5 under το]ὺς μὲν κακοὺ‹ς› κολάζο[υσα), and here Hyperides appro-
priates that motif and applies it to the present campaign. He presents
Athens as the savior of Greece in the conclusion of this list of allies by
presenting the eagerness of the other Greeks to aid the Athenian cause
as a contrast to their previous submission to the Macedonians.
84–86 καὶ ὧν . . . ἔλαβεν. These two clauses are closely parallel in rhythm
and structure. Both begin with correlative genitives (ὧν and τούτων)
and then continue with the two contrasted subjects, the Macedonians
and Leosthenes. The final portions of the two clauses, beginning with
the antithetical rhyming adverbs (ἀκόντων, “against their will,” and
ἑκόντων, “according to their will”), are identical in syllabic length
(parisosis, see Volkmann 1885, 482 and Smyth 3038), which is em-
phasized by the repetition of ἡγούμενοι (“commanded”) in ἡγεμονίαν
(“command”).
84–85 καὶ ὧν Φίλιππος καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος ἀκόντων ἡγούμενοι
ἐσεμνύνοντο. Lycurg. 41 uses the same verb, semnunein (“to
be proud”), to describe the pride Athens took in being free and
autochthonous before the defeat at Chaeronea. That passage of
Lycurgus’ speech is modeled after the state funeral orations and
praises those who died at Chaeronea. Hyperides may have known his
speech (see the note on §19 under στέφανον τῆι πατρίδ[ι), and may
be deliberately emphasizing the change in Athens’ fortune since the
defeat at Chaeronea (cf. the note on the simile in §5 as an answer to
Demosthenes’ pessimism).
14, 90 τῆς ὕστερον [γενομέ]νης μάχης. In early 322 the Greeks
abandoned the long siege of Lamia and engaged in battle with the
Macedonian general Leonnatus, who was coming to aid Antipater
in Lamia; see above p. 13. The Thessalian cavalry was particularly
effective in winning victory for the Greeks and killing Leonnatus
(Diod. Sic. 18.15.1–4). But despite their losses, the Macedonian troops
managed to reach Antipater and help him escape from the siege at
Lamia (Habicht 1997, 39). Hyperides’ speech was delivered early in
322 and he does not refer to the more significant battles of Abydus and
Crannon that took place in July (on which see Habicht 1997, 39–40).
15, 95 ὑπολάβη‹ι›. This verb frequently refers to incorrect assumptions
(LSJ, s.v. ὑπολαμβάνω III): “Nobody should (wrongly) assume. . . .”
Whitehead (2000, 450) collects parallel examples in the forensic
speeches of Hyperides.
97–103ἐγκω[μιάζ]ειν . . . ἔπαινον . . . ἐγκώμιον . . . ἐπαιν[ῶ . . . ἐγ-
κωμ[ιάζ]ω. Throughout this section Hyperides alternates between two
different types of “praise”: egkmion (ἐγκωμιάζειν or ἐγκώμιον, here
translated as “eulogy”) and epainos (ἐπαινεῖν or ἔπαινος, translated as
“praise”). Arist. Rh. 1367b 28–32 distinguishes between these terms:
an epainos is praise for the quality of virtue (aret), while an egkmion
focuses on specific accomplishments. Hyperides’ usage is not so pre-

cise, in part because aret on the battlefield is exemplified in actual
deeds (see above on §3 under τὰς. . . ἀρετάς). Other funeral orations
refer to epainos (ἐπαινεῖν or ἔπαινος) almost exclusively (ἐγκωμιάζειν
or ἐγκώμιον occur elsewhere in the epitaphioi only at Pl. Mx. 235a,
237a and 241c). Hyperides’ repeated usage of egkmion (ἐγκωμιά-
ζειν or ἐγκώμιον at §7, §34 and probably §33) may be influenced by
the development of the prose genre of encomia praising contemporary
individuals (see the note on §3 under ἐπαινεῖν . . . τὸν δὲ στρατηγὸν
Λεωσθένη).
101–103ὥστ]ε . . . ἐγκωμ[ιάσ]ω. Cobet suggests ὥστ’ ἐμ]ὲ . . . ἐγκω-
μ[ιάζει]ν (“so as for me to praise”), a consecutive clause with the in-
finitive (Smyth 2258). But the surviving trace of the first letter after the
lacuna in line 30 of the papyrus (i.e., the last letter of ἐγκωμ[ιάσ]ω)
does not suit a nu.
16, 105–106 τῆ[ς τῶ]ν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας. The slogan “freedom for
the Greeks” was a prominent rallying cry. Hyperides depicts the Greek
cooperation as a reincarnation of the alliance that defeated the Persians
in 480 and 479 (see the note on §12 under δι’ ὧν καὶ πρότερον κτλ) and
repeatedly links the concept of freedom with Athens’ leadership of a
panhellenic campaign in 323 (see §§9–10 with the note on §9 under τοῖς
ἄλλοις Ἕλλησιν; cf. also §10, §11, §16, §19, §24, §40). Lycurgus uses
similar language in 331 as he bemoans the loss of the “freedom of the
Greeks” at Chaeronea (Lycurg. 50). A later Athenian inscription also
refers to the war as an Athenian effort for “the freedom of the Greeks”
(IG II2 467, ll.6–8). See also the note on §25 under τῆς αὐτονομίας.
17, 111–112 τὴν π]όλιν τῶν Θηβαίων. A revolt against Macedonian rule
erupted in Thebes in mid-335 when the city heard a rumor of Alexan-
der’s death. Many Athenians, including Demosthenes, supported the
rebels. But Alexander reacted before Athenian support arrived. In late
summer of 335 he quickly marched his army from Illyria to central
Greece as reinforcement for the Macedonian garrison already stationed
at Thebes. The leaders of the rebellion were unbowed, and Alexan-
der reduced the city. For narratives see Arr. An. 1.6.7–10.6, Diod. Sic.
17.8–15, Plut. Alex. 11–12, and Habicht 1997, 14–15. Aesch. 3.133
laments the city’s destruction, which he of course attributes to Demo-
sthenes’ failed policies.
The terms of punishment were determined by the synedrion of the
League of Corinth (under Alexander’s leadership). Arr. An. 1.9.9 de-
scribes four penalties: destruction of the city, the continued presence

of a Macedonian garrison at Thebes, enslavement of the Theban popu-
lation, and redistribution of Theban land to other Boeotians. The harsh
settlement was not dissimilar to Philip’s arrangements after the battle of
Chaeronea, when Theban prisoners were sold for ransom, other Boeo-
tian cities were restored, and the garrison was first put in place (see
Roebuck 1948, 77–80, Hammond et al. 1972–1988, II: 610–611 and
Buckler 2003, 506–507). Hyperides here specifically indicates that all
four of the punishments of 335 were still in effect in 322 (cf. Bosworth
1980, 90).
112ἠφα]νισμένη ἐξ ἀνθρώπων. Babington compares Lys. 2.11 (ἐπειδὴ
Ἡρακλῆς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἠφανίσθη, “after Heracles was obliterated
from human society”) for his restoration. Isocrates provides two closer
parallels, in which he also uses a similar phrase with the perfect partici-
ple: Isoc. 5.108 and 8.113 (τὸ γένος . . . ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἠφανισμένον,
“the family was obliterated from human society” in both). In both pas-
sages he refers to the overthrow of Greek tyrants. Hyperides alludes to
these passages to emphasize the despotic nature of a potential Mace-
donian rule over Greece. Hyperides reminds the Athenians, who are so
proud of having deposed their own tyrants in the late sixth century (see
the note on §39 under Ἁρμόδιον καὶ Ἀριστογείτονα), that they have
now been reduced to seeing one of their own allies destroyed by such
a ruler.
112–113 τ[ὴν δὲ ἀ]κρόπολιν φρουρουμ[έ]ν[ην]. After the battle of
Chaeronea, Philip created a permanent Macedonian military station at
Thebes to safeguard his arrangements in central Greece. Together with
the “fetters of Greece” (see above on §11 under Εὐβοέας), these forts
secured Philip’s control of the entire Greek peninsula (on the forts
see Hammond et al. 1972–1988, II: 611–613). As this passage shows,
these garrisons were maintained throughout the period of Alexander’s
rule, and beyond. Sealey (1993, 207) suggests that the garrison at
Thebes was the primary deterrent to Athenian participation in Agis’
revolt in 331 (on the revolt see also p. 8 above), but Cawkwell (1969,
179) and Worthington (2000, 110 n. 37) doubt that the garrisons
were a major factor in the Athenian response. Regardless of its actual
strength, Hyperides resents the garrison as a symbol of the loss of
Greek freedom (on which see below on §25 under τῆς αὐτονομίας).
114 τὰ ‹δ›ὲ σώματα τῶν ἐνοικούντων ἐξηνδραποδισμένα. War cap-
tives were often enslaved and might be released for ransom. Pritchett
(1971–1991, V: 223–245) catalogues and discusses dozens of exam-

ples. Alexander spared only a few Thebans and enslaved some 30,000
captives, whom he sold for 440 talents of silver; for sources and discus-
sion see Pritchett 1971–1991, V: 244 and Hammond et al. 1972–1988,
III: 65.
114–115 τὴν δὲ χώραν ἄλλους διανεμομένους. By supporting the other
states in Boeotia, Alexander weakened the influence of Thebes and won
future allies in the Lamian War; see the note on §11 under Βοιωτούς.
18, 119 ἔνδοξον. On Hyperides’ fondness for this adjective see the note
on §40 under ἐνδόξου.
123–124ἀφικνούμενοι . . . εἰς [τὴν Π]υλαίαν θεωροὶ γενήσοντ[αι. In late
346 Philip assumed a seat on the Amphictyonic Council, much to the
distress of anti-Macedonian politicians in Athens such as Demosthe-
nes and Hyperides (see above p. 4). Now Hyperides depicts the fight
against Macedon as a sacred war to expel the Macedonians from the
Amphictyony (for further discussion see Mari 2003, 83–85).
Thermopylae was the original meeting place of the Delphic amph-
ictyony, as is indicated by the Greek terms for the meetings and the del-
egates, Pylaia and Pylagoroi (Πυλαία and πυλαγόροι, Harp. s.v. Πύλαι,
Dem. 18.147 and 151, IG II2 1132.3 and 1163.2), and the geographic
distribution of the member states around Thermopylae (Lefèvre 1998,
6–7 provides maps). The biannual meetings of the council began at the
shrines of Demeter and Amphictyon at Anthela, just west of the pass
at Thermopylae, and then changed venue to the sanctuary of Apollo
at Delphi (on the meeting location and schedule see Lefèvre 1998,
193–204). The Delphic amphictyony was the most important of many
such political and religious alliances in ancient Greece. The league may
have originally formed to safeguard access to the pass at Thermopylae,
which was of vital economic and strategic importance to all the sur-
rounding states. For a general discussion of these unions see Ehrenberg
1969, 108–112. The early history of the amphictyony at Thermopylae
and then Delphi is discussed by Tausend (1992, 34–43). Sánchez (2001,
173–268) provides a detailed institutional history of the amphictyony
during the period of Macedonian involvement.
124 θεωροί. The word theros refers to the pilgrimage of state-sponsored
sacred delegates who invited guests to come to religious festivals or
sanctuaries, especially to Delphi or Delos, and also to those invited
guests who came to the festivals as spectators. Perlman (2001, 45–51)
gives a useful summary of the duties of the the theroi and their hosts
(therodokoi), based on abundant epigraphic evidence; she also pro-
vides a map of the routes the theroi from Delphi would follow in
Thessaly (76). Rutherford (2000, 133–138) categorizes various usages
of theros and related terms. Hyperides uses this term here to refer
specifically to the Greek delegates who attended the meetings of the
Delphic amphictyony. The usage reinforces the characterization of the
Lamian War as a sacred war (see previous note).
125–127ἅμα . . . ἁθροισθήσονται . . . μνησθήσονται. These two clauses
are closely linked by the homoioteleuton (Volkmann 1885, 483 and
Smyth 3026) of the two final verbs and parisosis (cf. above on §13
under καὶ ὧν . . . ἔλαβεν).
19, 129–130 τὴν ἀρετὴν ἰσχὺν καὶ τὴν ἀνδρείαν πλῆθος . . . κρίνοντες.
Hyperides echoes Lycurgus’ description of the Athenian defeat at
Marathon: “they made it clear that courage is superior to wealth and
virtue to number” (Lycurg. 108: καταφανῆ ἐποίησαν τὴν ἀνδρείαν
τοῦ πλούτου καὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν τοῦ πλήθους περιγιγνομένην). See the
following note for another link between these two speeches.
As is typical in the epitaphioi (see Walters 1980, 4–6), Hyperides
may be distorting the historical record by suggesting that the Greeks
were outnumbered. At the start of the war the Greek forces were
probably comparable to the Macedonians at sea. Although the
Persian battle fleet of 240 ships outnumbered the Greeks, in 323
the majority of Persian ships were in Asia, and the Athenians were
optimistic—unrealistically, as it turned out—that they could build
up a comparable force of 240 ships with allied contributions (Diod.
Sic. 18.10.1–3, 18.12.2, and 18.15.8–9, following the interpretation
of Morrison (1987)). The Greeks were superior in number on land at
the start of the war (Diod. Sic. 18.12.4: οἱ μὲν Ἕλληνες . . . πολὺ τῶν
Μακεδόνων ὑπερέχοντες, “The Greeks . . . who far outnumbered the
Macedonians”; for further details, see Diod. Sic. 18.10.2 and 18.12.2)
until the Macedonian general Leonnatus arrived with reinforcements
during the winter (see Diod. Sic. 18.14.5 and cf. above p. 13).
Worthington (1999, 216) offers a detailed assessment of the forces on
each side at the beginning and end of the war (but his figure for the
Athenian naval force in 323 is too large: see Morrison 1987).
132–133 στέφανον τῆι πατρίδ[ι. Cf. Lycurg. 50: στέφανον τῆς πατρίδος,
“crown of the fatherland.” The evocative phrase appears only in these
two passages (in the TLG), and, given the parallel contexts, may sug-
gest that Hyperides knew Lycurgus’ work. The Lycurgan phrase comes
in the course of a mini-epitaphios in praise of those who sacrificed their
lives for Greek freedom at Chaeronea. Because they risked their indi-
vidual lives for the sake of the common freedom of the Greeks, their
souls are a crown for their fatherland. Both passages feature the com-
mon antithesis of private sacrifice for the public good, and Hyperides’ ἡ
ἐλευθερία εἰς τὸ κοινόν, “[they made] freedom a common possession,”
echoes Lycurgus’ κοινὴ ἐλευθερία, “common freedom.” Maas (1928,
260) suggests that the Lycurgus passage echoes Dem. 60.23, where the
virtue of the fallen is praised as being the soul of Greece. Hyperides
uses the motif to underline the Lamian War’s goal of recovering from
the defeat at Chaeronea.
20, 134–135 τί ἂν συμβῆναι νομίζοιμεν. The particle ἄν must modify the
infinitive in the contrary-to-fact condition. The optative verbs here and
at §22 (κρίνοιμεν, “we judge”) should be classified as potential opta-
tives, either with the particle ἄν modifying both the optative and the
infinitive apo koinou, or with the finite optative verb standing alone
without the particle. But the context seems to require a more declarative
sense than potential optatives usually have, as is reflected in the transla-
tion here (rather than “what would we suppose would have happened”
and in §22 “we would judge these expectations would be”). Graindor
(1898, 342) and Hess (1938, 65) list parallel examples of potential op-
tatives without ἄν, but Rennie (1940, 22) insists that those examples are
all scribal mistakes that “have been rightly emended.” Nevertheless, as
Graindor, Jensen, and Hess have concluded, these two occurrences of
the same syntactic phenomenon are unlikely to be scribal errors. Wor-
thington (1999, 216–217) more sensibly suggests we retain the opta-
tive and regard the usage as a “Hyperidean idiom.” Elsewhere Hype-
rides uses a potential optative without ἄν (Hyp. Phil. 10, διὰ τί γὰρ
τούτου φείσαισθε; “Why should you spare this man?”, discussed by
Salvaneschi 1972, 150–154), and Bers (1984, 134–135) observes the
frequency of the construction in the koin dialect and suggests that it
was colloquial in the fourth century. In other regards Hyperides seems
to reflect the emergence of koin; see below on §34 under ἀκουσόντων.
Cf. also the note on §35 under ἆρ’ οὐκ ἂν ‹οἰ›όμεθα.
135 μὴ κατὰ τρόπον τούτων ἀγωνισαμένων. The participle serves
as the protasis of a contrafactual condition. This vivid picture of
what might have happened to Greece is unparalleled in the epitaphioi
(but cf. Lycurg. 60). Homer commonly uses conditions of the type
“now X would have happened if Y had not intervened” (e.g., Hom.

Il. 3.373–382) as plot-changing devices and also to emphasize a
situation or make an editorial comment on a character (on Homer’s
contrafactuals see Louden 1993; Nesselrath (1992) studies this device
in epic poetry more generally). Hyperides’ usage here emphasizes the
heroic action of the fallen and their service to Greece.
135κατὰ τρόπον. For this sense of the prepositional phrase see LSJ, s.v.
τρόπος II.4.b.
138 συνελόντα δ’ εἰπεῖν. Or “to put it briefly.” Hyperides is the first to
use the accusative participle instead of the dative in this common idiom
(Pohle 1928, 93; LSJ s.v. συναιρέω I.2.b). Babington (appendix B) sug-
gests correcting the case to accord with earlier usage of the phrase, but
a similar phrase with the accusative at Hdt. 3.82.5 (ἐνὶ δὲ ἔπεϊ πάντα
συλλαβόντα εἰπεῖν, “to put it all together briefly”) justifies retaining the
papyrus reading. Hyperides’ verbal usage is occasionally more similar
to later writers than earlier (cf. the note below on §34 under ἀκουσόν-
των), and the idiom occurs regularly with the accusative in later writ-
ers, especially in scholia and commentaries (e.g., scholion ap. Hom.
Od. 13.429).
138 τὴν Μακεδόνων ὑπερηφανίαν. Pl. Mx. 240d, describing the bat-
tle of Marathon, speaks of the “insolence of all Asia” (ὑπερηφανία
ὅλης Ἀσίας). In this oration Hyperides avoids dwelling upon the Per-
sian Wars, so prominent in other epitaphioi, and assimilates the topoi
that recur in Athenian treatments of the Persian Wars to the present
conflict with Macedon. For discussion, see above p. 23.
The term ὑπερηφανία, “insolence,” here refers to the enemy’s over-
confidence. In general the term expresses moral condemnation and is
often linked with hybris (MacDowell 1990, 302–303 on Dem. 21.83).
Here there is also a sense of coercion, reinforced by ὑπήκοον, “sub-
ject,” and ἐξ ἀνάγκης, “forced” in the previous sentence.
138–139 τὴν . . . ὑπερηφανίαν . . . μὴ τὴν . . . δύναμιν. This section of the
speech is especially full of pointed antitheses such as this. See below
on §24 under ἰδίαν . . . κοινήν.
138 Μακεδόνων. Macedonians, though native Greek speakers, were of-
ten characterized as foreign barbaroi by Demosthenes and his polit-
ical allies. Hall (2001) surveys the ancient and modern debate as to
whether the Macedonians were Greeks. He reasonably suggests that
in the fourth-century criteria such as language and genealogy mattered
less to the Greeks than cultural practice, and that these varied crite-
ria could be manipulated to argue that the Macedonians were or were
not Greek. Badian (1982) argues that Demosthenes’ characterization of
Philip as a barbarian (e.g., Dem. 3.17, 19.271) is an accurate reflection
of the general Greek attitude at that time, and Borza (1996) has corrob-
orated his findings with an analysis of how ancient writers distinguish
Macedonians from Greeks.
However he was perceived in Athens, Philip clearly wanted to be
thought of as a Greek, and by reviving earlier accounts that the Mac-
edonian kings descended from Argos, he provided genealogical evi-
dence for his claim. He also took advantage of his Olympic victory
of 356 to advertise his devotion to philhellenic culture, by building the
Philippeion in Olympia and minting a coin series featuring Zeus Olym-
pios and a victorious jockey (no. 16 in Yalouris et al. 1980). After the
battle of Chaeronea these Hellenic aspirations took on an increasing po-
litical significance, when Philip formed the League of Corinth to sup-
port his planned panhellenic campaign against Persia (see above p. 7),
a plan that was carried out after his death by Alexander. By presenting
the Macedonians as barbarians in this speech (§38), Hyperides justifies
the Greek revolt in 323. The characterization is also rhetorically effec-
tive, since it allows the orator to mold his account of the Lamian War
after treatments of the great war against the Persian barbaroi.
140–141ὥστε . . . καθεστάναι. Sauppe keeps the papyrus reading of

and prints ἂν ἐκλείπτους. The adjective ἔκλειπτος
is otherwise unattested, but it is easy to make sense of it meaning
“lacking,” as the opposite of ἀνέκλειπτος, and it should be retained.
Other editors print ἀνεκλείπτους, an adjective that is quite common
in post-classical Greek (and occasionally found in the classical
period: Alc. fr. 305.13 and Hecat. Abd. fr. 25.1360), but its meaning,
“uninterrupted,” is the opposite of what is required after the negative
conjunction μηδέ. Those who prefer ἀνεκλείπτους must also make
extensive, and unnecessary, emendations elsewhere in the clause (see
appendix B).
140–141μήτε γυνα‹ι›κῶν μήτε παρθένων μηδὲ παίδων ὕβρ‹ε›ις. Hybris
can refer to a wide range of arrogant, offensive, or violent behavior
and attitudes. For general discussions see Fisher 1992 and MacDowell
1976.
It was regularly used as a term for sexual violence perpetrated with
the intent of humiliating victims and their families. Harris (2004b) ex-
plains “the differences between the ancient idea of hybris and the mod-
ern concept of rape”: rape refers to the victim’s lack of consent, whereas
hybris “looks partly at the intention of the aggressor, partly at the ef-
fect on the honor of the victim and her relatives” (319). Violent sexual
assaults were considered typical behavior of a tyrant. At Hdt. 3.80.5
Otanes criticizes the institution of monarchy, because one character-
istic of a king is that he, among other things, “forces women” (βι-
ᾶται γυναῖκας). Several other passages are collected and discussed
by Fisher (1992, 104–111) and Doblhofer (1994, 34–40). The addi-
tion of μηδὲ παίδων, “even every child,” emphasizes the savage bru-
tality of the Macedonians, which is also attested elsewhere. Pritchett
(1971–1991, V: 238–242) describes the types of suffering that befell
defeated women and children, with specific examples of Macedonian
treatment of the captives from Olynthus and Thebes (cf. Din. 1.23–24
and Dem. 19.193–198, 305–306, 309).
Hyperides encourages his audience to support the war against Mac-
edon by warning them that the Macedonians have no respect for Greek
cultural norms (cf. Cohen (1991, 174–175) on sexual violence as “a
transgression of social norms” perpetrated by a tyrant or an enemy at
war), whether sexual or religious (for the latter see Hyperides’ next
sentence with the following notes on §21). Hyperides again praises the
fallen for protecting the women of Greece in §36.
21, 142 ἐξ ὧν ἀναγκαζόμεθα κτλ. Hyperides refers to the unprecedented
honors bestowed upon Philip and Alexander throughout Greece (τὴν
Ἑλλάδα, §20). Perhaps already in the early 350s Philip was being wor-
shiped in Amphipolis, as is stated by second-century AD orator Aelius
Aristides (38, p. 480), who says that there “they sacrificed to him as a
god” (ἔθυον ὡς θεῶι) at the time of Philip’s capture of that city in late
357 (Habicht 1970, 12–13; Fredricksmeyer 1979, 50–51). Later, an in-
scription of 332 from Eresus on Lesbos refers to altars of Zeus Philip-
pios, which were erected there, probably in 336 (Rhodes and Osborne
2003, no. 83 ii.4–5). But it is more likely that Philip was presented as
a mortal championed by Zeus, not as a divine manifestation of the god
(Badian 1996, 13; cf. Habicht 1970, 14–15 and Fredricksmeyer 1979,
51–52).
For Athens there is one late piece of evidence for the worship of
Philip. Clement of Alexandria, a second-century AD convert to Chris-
tianity, in a catalogue of deified mortals reports that the Athenians
voted to worship (προσκυνεῖν) Philip (Clem. Al. Protr. 4.54.5). The
source is unreliable: see Badian 1981, 67–71.
We have contemporary evidence for the possibility of a cult of

Alexander in Athens. In the fall of 324, there was debate over whether
Alexander was to be declared a god. From Athenaeus (6.251b) we
hear that Demades brought such a proposal to the Athenian Assem-
bly. (There is no evidence that Alexander demanded divine orders: see
Badian 1996, 26.) Both of the surviving speeches prosecuting Demos-
thenes for his role in the Harpalus affair discuss the orator’s role in this
debate (Din. 1.94; Hyp. Dem. 31). Despite his objections Demosthe-
nes seems to have grudgingly acquiesced in the worship of Alexander,
but we should note the ironic tone in his famous remark that Alexan-
der could be called the son of Zeus and Poseidon too if he likes (Hyp.
Dem. 31). The debate is best discussed by Badian (1981, 54–59) (whom
Parker 1996, 256–258 follows), who points out that the cult of Alexan-
der, if it was in fact instituted in Athens, “did not survive long enough
to leave any traces we could expect to recognize” (55). Badian (1996,
25–26) revisits the question and suggests that the Athenians set up
a portrait statue that depicted Alexander as a god, but they did not
adopt actual cult worship. Whitehead (2000, 455–457) and Worthing-
ton (1992, 262–264) summarize the large bibliography on this issue.
The present passage provides the most explicit indication of Hyperi-
des’ attitude to the worship of Alexander.
142 ἔ[στ]ι. The
initial letter is slightly more likely an epsilon than an eta,
and the lacuna is too large for ἤ[δη, “already” (Sauppe) or ἔ[τι “still”
(Kayser). Only a small trace of the top of the final character survives.
143–144ἀγάλμα[τα δὲ] καὶ βωμοὺς . . . ἀμελῶς. The rites of the gods
are neglected, while Philip and Alexander improperly receive the at-
tentions that should rightfully be devoted to divinities. In a similar
vein, the orator Lycurgus accuses Leocrates of fleeing from Athens af-
ter Chaeronea as if he believed that the entire city had been abandoned
and “the temples were empty” (Lycurg. 38).
Hyperides’ terminology emphasizes that the Athenians were treat-
ing the Macedonians as immortal gods. Isoc. 9.57 describes the statues
of the Athenian general Conon and Evagoras, the king of Cyprus, as
eikones, which he contrasts with statues of Zeus Soter in the Agora
of Athens, which were agalmata. These agalmata, just like the altars
and temples mentioned here, should honor gods, not mortals (see Nock
1972, 241–244). The linguistic distinction was carefully maintained.
In the literary and epigraphic testimonia from the agora, agalmata are
always divine figures. Conversely, honorary dedications (Price (1984,
177) observes that the word eikon may refer to “a statue, a bust, a tondo
or a painting”) are never referred to with this term. Similarly, both Pau-
sanias and Athenian honorary decrees of all periods meticulously rec-
ognize this precise meaning of agalma (Stroud and Lewis 1979, 193;
cf. Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 54). Much later, when the Roman em-
perors came to be routinely deified, their statues were referred to as
agalmata (Price 1984, 176–179).
Were the representations of Philip or Alexander in Athens con-
sidered to be agalmata or eikones? The evidence is not strong. Paus.
1.9.4 refers to statues of both in the Agora without using a specific
noun (Φίλιππός τε καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Φιλίππου κεῖνται, “Philip and
Alexander are placed . . . ”). Clement of Alexandria (see previous note
on this section) refers to worship of Philip in the sanctuary of Heracles
at Cynosarges, south of the Athenian Acropolis, and Fredricksmeyer
(1979, 49–50) suggests that an agalma of Philip was put on display
there as a σύνναος θεοῦ, a “partner of the god.” But Badian (1981,
70–71) more plausibly suggests that the statue was a common hon-
orary dedication and not an object of worship, and that it was likely the
same work that Pausanias later saw in the Agora.
Outside of Athens (Hyperides refers to all of Greece; §20: τὴν Ἑλ-
λάδα, “Greece”), of course, there is the famous Philippeion in the pan-
hellenic sanctuary for Zeus at Olympia, begun by Philip after the battle
of Chaeronea (Paus. 5.20.9) and completed by Alexander after his fa-
ther’s death in 336. This building featured statues not only of Philip
and Alexander, but also Philip’s parents and wife. Pausanias refers to
the images of Olympias and Eurydice in the Philippeion as eikones, but
does not explicitly label the statues of Philip, Alexander, and Amyntas
as either eikones or agalmata. Miller (1973, 191) reasonably interprets
the Philippeion as a sort of statue garden, rather than a hero shrine.
Fredricksmeyer (1979, 58) speculates that “at the Philippeum Philip
suggested and approximated his deification but stopped just short of
actually introducing it formally as a cult.” The statues were made of
gold and ivory, and are the earliest known use of chryselephantine ma-
terial for mortals, but Lapatin (2001, 117–118) rightly cautions against
reading too much into this fact and adds that “there is no evidence that
chryselephantine materials alone signified divinity.”
To summarize, there is ample evidence that Philip and Alexander
hinted at their divinity and perhaps encouraged cultic worship, but it is
very unlikely that any formal cult existed in Athens in 322.
144 τοῖ[ς μὲν] θεοῖς ἀμελῶς, τοῖς δὲ ἀνθρώπο[ις] ἐπιμελῶς. The an-
tithesis between gods and men is reinforced by repeated word endings

(homoioteleuton, Volkmann 1885, 483 and Smyth 3026) and sounds
(parechesis, Volkmann 1885, 515 and Smyth 3037; cf. above on §18
under ἅμα . . . ἁθροισθήσονται . . . μνησθήσονται).
145–146 [τ]οὺς ‹τού›των οἰκ‹έ›τας ὥσπερ ἥρωας τιμᾶν. The most fa-
mous example of a divinely honored associate of the Macedonian rulers
was Alexander’s closest companion, Hephaestion (discussed by Bick-
erman (1985, 473–478) and Habicht (1970, 29–34)). After his friend’s
death in Ecbatana in October 324 Alexander asked of the oracle of
Zeus Ammon in Siwah that Hephaestion be honored as a πάρεδρος,
literally “cochair” of the god, or a hero (Diod. Sic. 17.115.6, Arr. An.
7.23.6; Bickerman 1985, 481–482). Hyperides’ description here con-
firms that Arrian was correct to describe the honors as hero worship,
and this passage also demonstrates that these honors spread quickly
in the Greek world (Treves 1939; Cawkwell (1994, 299–300) explains
that the Greeks were “inescapably obliged by ... religious attitudes”
(300) to follow the oracle at Siwah, regardless of their attitude toward
Alexander). The reference to a member of the king’s court as a slave
is typical of Greek views of the royal entourage at this time. The privi-
leged members of Alexander’s court, who were often given heroic hon-
ors, were depicted as flatterers, parasites, or sometimes even slaves, as
here (Price 1984, 32–36). Not until the third century did these friends of
the court come to be identified by their titles instead of such pejorative
characterizations (Herman 1980–1981).
22, 146–148 ὅπου δὲ τὰ πρὸς ‹τοὺς› θεοὺς ὅσια . . . τί τὰ πρὸς τοὺς
ἀνθρώπους χρὴ νομίζειν. Hyperides suggests that the decay in reli-
gious morality under Philip and Alexander would inevitably lead to
widespread social decay too. He has already forecast Macedonian dis-
ruption of Greek social norms with his warning regarding sexual vio-
lence in §21, and now he pairs human and divine morality in order to
emphasize that the Macedonians threaten all aspects of Greek culture.
On the close relationship between the laws of the gods and the laws of
men see Harris 2004a, 51–56 and Parker 1983, 170.
150 κρίνοιμεν. See above, on §20 under τί ἂν συμβῆναι νομίζοιμεν.
23, 153–158 ἐν ἧι . . . ‹ὑπο›μεμ‹ε›νηκένα‹ι›. The various hardships the sol-
diers endured are summarized in an ascending tricolon in which each
of the three members expands upon its predecessor. The first limb (ἐν
ἧι . . . ἦ‹ν›, “during which . . . go into battle every day”) briefly refers
to their daily toils; the second (πλείους . . . χρόνωι, “fight more battles
. . . times gone by”) emphasizes the continuous battles and invokes a
comparison with past campaigns; the third and longest limb (χειμώ-
νων . . . ‹ὑπο›μεμ‹ε›νηκένα‹ι›, “to endure harsh storms . . . ”) praises
the men’s tolerance and strength. The trials of the campaign are a com-
mon rhetorical trope (e.g., A. A. 559–566 and Pl. Sym. 219e–220b) for
praising soldiers.
24. Rusten (1986) analyzes a similar passage in Thucydides’ funeral
oration. In that passage (Thuc. 2.42.4) Rusten considers Thucydides’
description of the progression of the soldiers’ decision. First they con-
sciously decided to enter battle, recognizing the glory to be won there
in victory. Then they put aside consideration of their own future and
devoted themselves wholly to the matter at hand. Finally they put more
importance on a glorious death than cowardly flight, and consented to
sacrifice their lives. Here, the progression is not as detailed as at Thuc.
2.42.4, but nonetheless the same sequence of thought is apparent. The
citizens first decided to submit (ὑπομεῖναι, “to endure,” cf. Thuc. loc.
cit. ὑπέμειναν, “endured”) themselves to battle and then consciously
choose death to preserve Greek freedom. Dem. 60.26 also presents the
same sequence.
163–164 διὰ τὴν τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀπόδειξιν . . . ἀτυχεῖς. The pair of clauses,
διὰ . . . εὐτυχεῖς (“fortunate because of their display of virtue”) and διὰ
. . . ἀτυχεῖς (“unfortunate because of their loss of life”), are balanced by
parallel structure (paromoiosis, see Volkmann 1885, 482, Smyth 3039).
Furthermore, the parallelism is reinforced by repetition of the prepo-
sition διά at the beginning of each clause, each of which governs a
rhyming abstract noun of identical length compounded with ἀπό; then
both clauses end with antithetical compound adjectives formed on the
same stem (see Fehling 1969, 243–244 on this sentence with parallel
examples of repetitive compounds). This sort of stiff symmetry, with
its sometimes cloying figures, was characteristic of Gorgias, and the
epideictic genre in general. On Gorgias and Gorgianic encomia, see
Denniston 1952, 10–12 and MacDowell 1982, 17–19. Pritchett (1975,
98–101) discusses and illustrates individual Gorgianic figures and Cole
(1991, 71–74) provides a stylistic analysis of the extensive fragment of
Gorgias’ Funeral Oration (Gorg. fr. B6) that emphasizes its “stiff for-
mality” and “balanced echoing sentence structure” (73), stylistic ten-
dencies that are prominent in all of the surviving examples of the genre.
Bons (2007) provides a recent account of Gorgias’ role in the sophistic
movement, with a focus on argumentation rather than prose style.

166 ἰδίαν . . . κοινήν. This antithesis is common throughout the
epitaphioi (e.g., Thuc. 2.42.2, Pl. Mx. 236d, Lys. 2.44, Dem. 60.10).
In the Menexenus, where the pairing occurs most frequently, there is
a distinction in meaning between (1) Athens in contrast to the rest
of Greece and (2) the Athenian soldiers in contrast to their civilian
fellow-citizens (Tsitsiridis 1998, 181). In this speech both senses
are also present, with this passage distinguishing the soldiers from
the other Athenian citizens, while the adjectives are used in §5 and
§19 to distinguish Athens as a collective whole from the rest of
Greece. Kemmer (1903, 121 and 170–173) catalogues numerous
other Attic prose examples of the ἴδιος/κοινός (“private/shared”) and
ἴδιος/δημόσιος (“private/public”) antitheses.
25, 168 τῆς αὐτονομίας. Hyperides’ next sentence makes it clear that au-
tonomia refers to the political constitution of Athens. In this context of
a war against external domination, eleutheria, “freedom” (see above on
§16 under τῆ[ς τῶ]ν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας) refers to freedom from ex-
ternal rule, while autonomia, “independence” is a subordinate concept
describing the city’s ability to maintain its own internal government;
for discussion and further bibliography see Raaflaub 2004, 156–157.
As a koin eirn, the League of Corinth guaranteed freedom and au-
tonomy to member states (cf. Ryder 1965, 103 and 151, Rhodes and
Osborne 2003, 377), but with Alexander as the hgemn of the coun-
cil this provision was a dead letter (for a recent study of this issue see
Jehne 1994, 166–197, who emphasizes the importance of the Persian
campaign for the emergence of Philip and Alexander’s role as leaders
of the league). Dem. 17.8 provides an earlier parallel of an Athenian
advocate for rebellion decrying the loss of freedom and independence
under Alexander. That earlier complaint probably belongs to a debate
on Agis’ revolt in 331 (Sealey 1993, 240, Cawkwell 1961, 74–75), and
may also have been written by Hyperides (Lib. Arg.D. or. 17). See also
the note on §16 under τῆ[ς τῶ]ν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας.
168ο‹ὐ› γὰρ ἀνδρὸς ἀπειλὴν ἀλλὰ νόμου φωνὴν κτλ. The sentiment of
Hyp. fr. 214 = Rut. Lup. 2.6 is closely related: non enim simile est vivere
in aequa civitate, ubi ius legibus valeat, et devenire sub unius tyranni
imperium, ubi singularis libido dominetur. Sed necesse est aut legibus
fretum meminisse libertatis, aut unius potestati traditum quotidianam
commentari servitutem, “life in a just state, where the law prevails, is
not at all like submission to the rule of one ruler, where an individual’s
desire reigns. We must trust in the law and be mindful of our freedom,
or hand ourselves over to one man’s command and complain of our
slavery every day.” The pride in an aequa civitas, “just state,” is well
illustrated in the simile of §5. This passage of the funeral oration was
evidently often quoted: Stobaeus also cites it (see apparatus). Its neat
contrast between the rule of one and the rule of the law is particularly at
home in this oration, in which Hyperides repeatedly characterizes the
Macedonian kings as tyrants (e.g., §20 and §40).
168–172 νόμου φωνήν . . . νόμων πίστει. The rule of law was a cen-
tral tenet in Athenian democratic ideology. The nomoi, “laws,” were
seen as a basic element of a free society. All Athenian men swore
the Ephebic oath as young men, in which they vowed to obey and de-
fend the laws of Athens (the oath is preserved in a mid-fourth-century
inscription, Rhodes and Osborne 2003, no. 88 i.5–20; a literary ver-
sion is quoted by Pollux and Stobaeus; Harding 1985, no. 109 trans-
lates all three), and citizen judges in the courts swore to vote in accor-
dance with established laws, which were more authoritative than the
orders of a single individual (And. 1.91; Harris (2004a, 58–59) con-
trasts “established laws” with the orders of a tyrant). The rule of law
protected the people in a democracy, and the existence of law distin-
guished democracy from tyranny, where the ἀνδρὸς ἀπειλή, “a man’s
threat,” held sway. The funeral orations regularly emphasize the im-
portance of law as a guarantor of democratic equality and the rights
of individuals (Thuc. 2.37.1, Lys. 2.18–19; cf. Harris 2004a, 41–42),
and in this speech the despotic rule of the Macedonians is pointedly
contrasted with the rule of law (here and §20; the same antithesis also
appears at Eur. Supp. 429–437).
169–171 αἰτίαν . . . διαβάλλουσιν. αἰτία, “accusation,” and διαβολή,
“slander,” are regularly linked (hendiadys), and the negative con-
notation of the latter rubs off on the former to give it the sense of
“ungrounded accusation” (Yunis 2001, 110–111). Here that sense is
intensified by the contrast with ἔλεγχον, “proof.” Whitehead (2000,
396) notes other collocations of “accusations” and “slanders” in
Hyperides.
170 τοῖςκολακεύουσιν. Hyperides repeatedly uses this verb and the cog-
nate noun κολακεία, “flattery,” to denounce any advocate of Macedon
as a toady (see Whitehead 2000, 216–217 on Hyp. Eux. 19; cf. also
Hyp. Eux. 20 and 23).
26, 173 πόνους πόνων. Polyptoton is the repetition of one word in

different cases. Usher (1999, 20) observes that this rhetorical figure
is more common in tragedy than prose, and Worthington (1999,
219–220) compares Eur. And. 802–803: κακὸν κακῶι διάδοχον, “evil
after evil.” Mastronarde (2002, 96) collects other tragic examples; see
Fehling 1969, 37–39 for further discussion. Such poeticisms are at
home in epideictic poetry and are quite common in this speech (see the
note on the simile in §5 and on §40 under ὢ καλῆς μὲν καὶ παραδόξου
τόλμης κτλ).
27, 177–179 πατέρε‹ς› . . . παῖδες. Hyperides’ funeral oration is the
only one that refers to the family members of the deceased during the
epainos section of the oration. Others address the surviving family
members, usually at much greater length, at the end of the oration, in
the final consolation (the παραμυθία, Thuc. 2.44–45, Lys. 2.75–76, Pl.
Mx. 246d–249c, Dem. 60.32–37). The failure to address the widows
in this speech is also unusual, and this passage is the only one in the
epitaphioi to refer to the subjects’ sisters.
177 ἔνδοξοι. On this adjective see below on §40 under ἐνδόξου.
179ἐννόμως. The reference to lawful marriages is an emphatic contrast
with the sexual violence that Hyperides feared from Macedonian rulers
(see the note on §20 under μήτε γυνα‹ι›κῶν μήτε παρθένων μηδὲ παί-
δων ὕβρ‹ε›ις).
179ἐφόδιον. Literally “means, provisions” for a trip or journey. This is
a favorite metaphor of Hyperides’ (Whitehead (2000, 216) discusses
examples at Hyp. Eux. 19 and Hyp. Dem. 40; cf. also Hyp. fr. 219a)
and his usage anticipates a common idiom of the Hellenistic and Ro-
man periods. The meaning seems to be something like an “asset for”
a particular situation, or perhaps an “introduction to” something. The
earliest such usage is from the early fifth century, in a fragment of the
comic poet Epicharmus: εὐσεβὴς βίος μέγιστον ἐφόδιον θνατοῖς ἐστιν,
“a pious life is the greatest asset for mortals” (Epich. fr. 261). Then the
metaphorical usage emerges again after 350, both in Hyperides and also
at Dem. 34.35. For later examples and further discussion, see Gromska
1927, 64 and Pohle 1928, 72.
180ε[ὔνοι]αν. Cobet’s restoration is likely correct, since Hyperides fre-
quently refers to the goodwill of the dmos (Hyp. Dem. 29, Hyp. Phil.
7 with Whitehead 2000, 59–60). Eunoia regularly describes an indi-
vidual’s patriotic loyalty to the state and was a “cardinal virtue” in
the fourth century (Whitehead 1993, 52–54) and was often paired with
aret. The phrase πρὸς τὸν δῆμον (“of the people”) may echo fourth-
century honorary decrees: Veligianni-Terzi (1997, 218–219) collects
examples of the phrase ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα καὶ εὐνοίας τῆς εἰς τὸν δῆμον
τὸν Ἀθηναίων (“because of virtue and good will toward the Athenian
people”) in Athenian inscriptions (e.g., IG II2 448 = Schwenk 1985,
407–418 no. 83 (lines 13–14), from the same year as this speech). Here
and later in this speech (§42) Hyperides describes a reciprocal obliga-
tion that the city owed the children of the dead because of their fathers’
public contribution.
The Athenian state financially supported war orphans (Lys. frr.
128–129 (P. Hib. 14) and SEG 28.46 (Harding 1985, 13–15 no. 8);
see also Thuc. 2.46.1, Pl. Mx. 249a, Arist. Ath. 24.3). The orphans
were displayed to the entire city at the beginning of the City Dionysia,
dressed in full armor as they undertook their Ephebic service. The
practice may have originated with Solon (D. L. 1.55 is followed by
Stroud (1971, 288)) and continued in the fourth century. Aeschines
describes this honorable custom as a thing of the past (Aesch.
3.154–155; cf. Isoc. 8.82), which he contrasts with the proposed
crowning of Demosthenes at the Dionysia. But his rhetorical purpose
is to emphasize the inappropriate award for Demosthenes, and this
passage of the Funeral Oration (together with §42) suggests that state
support for war orphans continued at least until 322. For a discussion
of the evidence and the administration of the practice see Stroud 1971,
288–290.
183τάξιν. The military metaphor describes the dead holding an “eternal
post” in the afterlife. Dem. 60.34 uses the same metaphor to describe
the dead among the islands of the blessed. The funeral orations min-
imize reference to immortality; see the note on §43 under ‹εἰκὸς›. . .
ἐπιμελείας ‹καὶ κηδεμονίας› ὑπὸ τοῦ δαιμονίου τυγχάνειν.
28, 185 ἀρχηγός. The word archgos (“foundation, cause, beginning”)
is synonymous with archgets, a technical term for the founder of a
family or race. Here, before his unusual description of Leosthenes in the
afterworld (§§35–40), Hyperides boldly describes the soldiers’ death as
a new birth. His use of archgos, with its connotations of origins and
foundations, reinforces that assertion.
187 ἐξ ἀρχῆς. The phrase here has the sense of “anew” or “again” (LSJ,
s.v. ἀρχή notes only Ar. Pl. 221 for this meaning).
189ἄνδρες ἀγαθοὶ γεγόνασι. On this phrase see the note on §8 under

ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί γ[ίγνων]ται.
29, 190–192 ἀρετὴν . . . ἀνδραγαθίαν. On the distinction between these
overlapping terms see the note on §40 under ἀρετῆς καὶ ἀνδραγαθίας.
191 †αξαθαι. The papyrus offers the senseless reading
, which
appears to be corrected from an original reading, also meaningless, of
. Most editors have supplied an indicative verb to govern the in-
finitive γεγονέναι (“become”). Cobet’s ‹ὑπάρχει εὐθὺς› (“they can im-
mediately”) seems most elegant (for other suggestions see appendix B).
Alternatively, others have preferred to emend the corrupt form here to
an infinitive, either ἄρξασθαι (“to begin”) or ἀξιωθῆναι (“to deserve”),
and then either emend γεγονέναι to an indicative form (Babington), or
else posit a lacuna at the end of the sentence that could provide the main
verb for the sentence (Blass).
30, 193 τίς ‹γὰρ› κα‹ι›ρὸς κτλ. Hypophora is a rhetorical figure in which
the speaker asks a series of rhetorical questions and then provides an-
swers for them. Volkmann (1885, 492–494) and Usher (1999, index s.v.
hypophora) note several examples from the orators. Hyperides is very
fond of the device and employs it above at §6 and §§20–23; cf. also
Hyp. Phil. 10. Here the rhetorical questions emphasize that the dead
will always be celebrated everywhere (cf. Lys. 2.74, a close parallel).
196–198 ἀλλά . . . ἀλλ’ . . . ἀλλ’ . Denniston (1954, 10–11) discusses the
use of the particle ἀλλά to introduce various alternatives as the speaker
holds a dialogue with himself. In §6 Hyperides used ἀλλά to introduce
the answer to his own question, but here it emphatically prefaces both
question and answer.
196–198τοῖς τῆς πόλεως ἀγαθοῖς . . . ταῖς ἰδίαις εὐπραξίαις. The de-
scription of the private and public rewards for the city and its citizens
is unparalleled in the other epitaphioi. Thucydides describes the sacri-
fice of the fallen soldiers as an ἔρανος, “contribution” (Thuc. 2.43.1).
The reference to both public and private benefits amplifies the praise
at §26, εἰς τὸ ἄλλους καλῶς ζῆν, “so that others could live well.” The
substantive adjective ἀγαθοῖς is neuter here; forensic speeches regu-
larly use the phrase τὰ τῆς πόλεως ἀγαθά to refer to “the prosperity
of the city” (Lys. 12.47, Dem. 18.323 and 24.155, Din. 3.22).
199ἀπολαύσομεν. For the active usage of this verb see the note on
§34 under ἀκουσόντων. Hyperides uses several future active forms for
verbs that are typically future deponents during the classical period.
31–34. More than half of the right portion of the entire column is miss-
ing. The text cannot be recovered with any certainty; numerous recon-
structions by earlier editors are listed in the apparatus and appendix B.
We do not know how wide the column was, and the scribe writes much
more densely in the last columns of the manuscript. I have indicated
that about twelve characters are missing at the end of each line, but
even that assumption is highly uncertain. Much of the general sense
seems clear: Hyperides details the benefits the fallen have bestowed
upon the Athenians, distinguishing the latter into age groups. First he
probably refers to the elder citizens and the secure life they will enjoy
(col. 11.1–6 = 200–202). Then he turns to the soldiers’ peers, who can live
without fear (6–11 = 202–204), and the young Athenians, who will ben-
efit from the good example set by the dead (11–19 = 204–207). Next the
orator probably refers to the praise the soldiers will receive in speeches
and songs (cf. Lys. 2.3 and Pl. Mx. 239c), which will be comparable
to the songs sung of the Trojan campaign (20–30 = 207–211). Finally the
speech emphasizes how pleasant and profitable it will be to recall the
valor of the fallen (30–12.6 = 211–219).
31, 200 ποία‹ι› . . . γενήσο[νται. The interrogative adjective and the fu-
ture tense continue the hypophora from the previous section.
200–205 ἡλικιῶν . . . ἡλικιώτ[αις . . . νεωτέρο[ις. Again, the sense contin-
ues from the previous section. In section §30 the orator surveyed vari-
ous benefits the dead provided to Greece and Athens. Now he divides
those who received these favors into age groups (cf. Lycurg. 144). At
col. 11.2 (201) editors plausibly restore τοῖς γ[εραιτέρους (“those older,”
Sauppe), τοῖς π[ρεσβυτέροις (“the elders,” Cobet) or τοῖς γ[έρουσιν
(“the aged,” Babington) to complete the division into elders, peers, and
juniors. The remaining traces of the last letter of col. 11.2 (201) could
be read either as a gamma or a pi.
201 α[ ..... ..... .. ] βίον. Editors restore τὸν λοιπὸν] βίον, “their remain-
ing life,” most with some form of the verb ἄγειν, “to lead,” to govern
it. For example: ἄ]φοβον ἄ[ξουσιν τὸν λοιπὸν] βίον (Sauppe), “They
[the elders?] will live the rest of their lives without fear” as a result of
the sacrifice of the fallen soldiers.
202 γεγενῆσ[θαι ..... .... . The left half of the final character of col. 11.5
(202) is curved, and well suits a sigma (Jensen, Blass), but not a mu
(Babington, Cobet) or a tau (Sauppe). The infinitive should certainly
be read, probably with a verb to govern it in the following lacuna. For

example, Blass proposes γεγενῆσ[θαι ἡγήσονται, “They [the elders?]
will be confident that [their life?] has been made ...”
202–203 παρὰ τοῖς] ἡλικιώτ[αις. The restoration of παρὰ τοῖς (“among”)
is based on col. 11.1–2 (200–201), where the papyrus preserves the last
part of the preposition and the article in the parallel phrase “among
their elders” (whatever restoration is accepted for “elders”; see the note
above under ἡλικιῶν . . . ἡλικιώτ[αις . . . νεωτέρο[ις.
203 ..... .... ] τελευτη . [ .... ..... ... . A relative or demonstrative pronoun
likely introduces a new clause here, connecting the dead to their peers
(τοῖς ἡλικιώταις). The last character of col. 11.8 (203) is curved, pos-
sibly a phi (Radermacher), an alpha (Sitzler), a sigma (Kayser 1868),
or even an omega. The noun τελευτή (“death”) may be followed by
another noun or adjective, but the participle τελευτήσαντες (“dying”)
is equally possible. Some sort of verbal element, either the participle
τελευτήσαντες (“dying”) or a finite verb with τελευτή (“death”) as its
subject, may have preceded καλῶς (“nobly”). Radermacher’s recon-
struction, which seems too long for the gap, may give the sense: οἷς
ἐκείνων ἡ] τελευτὴ φ[θόνον ἐμβέβληκε], “The death of these men has
struck them [their peers] with envy . . . ” But any reconstruction here is
highly uncertain.
204 παρὰ πο.[λὺ ..... ..... ]αι γέγον[εν. The reading παρὰ πο[λὺ (“by
far”) appears quite likely; the final character of col. 11.10 (204) is not
a lambda (as Sitzler’s restoration requires). Col. 11.11 (204) reads γον,
not τον (Kayser). A perfect form of γίγνεσθαι (“to become”), probably
finite, but perhaps a participle, is preceded either by an infinitive or a
dative singular first declension noun.
32, 204–206 ἢ παρὰ τοῖς] νεωτέρο[ις . . . σπου]δάσουσιν [ ..... ..... . For
the restoration of ἢ παρὰ (“among”), see the note on §31 under παρὰ
τοῖς] ἡλικιώτ[αις. The hypophora continues here with questions con-
cerning the last age group, those younger than the dead. An initial
question probably introduces the νεωτέρο[ις (“the youth”), with a new
clause adding additional queries. Blass’s restoration is attractive: νεω-
τέρο[ις καὶ παισίν; ἔπει]τα οὐ τὸν [θάνατον ζηλώσου]σιν αὐτ[ῶν καὶ
αὐτοὶ σπου]δάσουσιν [μιμεῖσθαι; “What about their juniors and chil-
dren? Won’t they envy their death and themselves strive to imitate it?”
206σπου]δάσουσιν. See below on §34 under ἀκουσόντων on the future
active usage of this verb.
206–207 πα]ράδειγμ[α . . . ..... ... ]πασι. Editors take πασι as the termina-
tion of a third plural perfect verb, with the fallen soldiers as the subject.
Jensen’s restoration seems plausible: εἰ γὰρ πα]ράδειγμ[α ἐκείνοις τοῦ
βί]ου τὴν ἀ[ρετὴν καταλελοί]πασι, “If they have handed down the
virtue of their lives as a model . . . ”
207 οὐκ [ ..... ..... .. ]ζειν αὐ[τοὺς ..... ... ]μη. An infinitive ends in -ζειν,
and αὐ[τοὺς (“them”) is needed as the accusative subject. Editors treat
-μη as a dative singular first declension ending (with the mute iota
omitted, as the scribe often does). Jensen’s restoration nicely captures
the likely sense: οὐκ [ἀθανάτωι δεῖ νομί]ζειν αὐ[τοὺς χρήσεσθαι τῆι
μνή]μη‹ι›, “must we not believe that they enjoy an immortal memorial
. . . ” For the phrase ἀθάνατος μνήμη (“immortal memorial”), cf. Lys.
2.6 and 81.
33. Colin cautions that this section is “the most uncertain part of the
entire column” (“incertissima pars totius columnae”). The only clear
words refer to the Greeks (Ἕλλην[ας) and the Phrygians (Φρυγῶν).
Pl. Mx. 239b–c and Dem. 60.9 provide possible parallels. Both
passages refer to the mythical accomplishments of the Greeks that
were celebrated by the poets, and both also contrast the media of poets
and prose writers. Colin’s highly speculative restoration is preferable
to Blass’ (appendix B) for palaeographic reasons (explained in the
following note). Colin suggests: ἢ τίνε[ς ποιηταὶ καὶ λογογρά]φοι
λεί[ψονται ποτε κατὰ τοὺς] Ἕλλην[ας πασῶν εὐλογιῶν περὶ]
τῶν πε[πραγμένων ἐκείνοις;] παρὰ τίσ[ι δ’ οὐ μᾶλλον αὐτὰ τῆς]
Φρυγῶν κ[ρατησάσης στρα]τείας ἐγ[κωμιασθήσεται; “What writers
of poetry or prose among the Greeks will ever lack any praise for
the accomplishments of these men? Among whom will these deeds
not be praised more than that campaign that conquered the Trojans?”
Kenyon’s restoration, equally uncertain, may provide some sense of
the rest of the section: πανταχοῦ] δὲ τῆς Ἑλ[λάδος ἐξέσται ταῦ]τα
τοῖς ἐ[πιγιγνομένοις] ἅπασιν κ[αὶ λόγοις καὶ ὠι]δαις ἐπα[ινεῖσθαι,
“Everywhere in Greece these accomplishments will be be praised by
all their descendents both in prose and in song.”
208 λε[ ..... . I follow Jensen’s reading of λε (but I see no sign of the
following iota he reports). Earlier editors read λο (and the hand-drawn
image in Babington 1858 reflects that reading), but the papyrus is some-
what abraded on the right side of the letter in question. A round shape
is clearly visible, but it does not fully close on the right and there is a
trace of the cross stroke of an epsilon.
210ἐγ[κωμι ..... . This is quite likely a form of the noun ἐγκώμιον or the
verb ἐγκωμιάζειν. See the note on §15 under ἐγκω[μιάζ]ειν . . . for the
sense.
34, 211–213 ..... .. ]τερα . . . ἐν τῶι πολ[έμωι. Colin builds upon restora-
tions of Cobet, Sauppe and Kenyon: δι’ ἀμφό]τερα γὰρ ἐ[ξέσται αὐ-
τοῖς τὰ] περὶ Λεωσ[θένους ὑμνεῖν] καὶ τῶν τ[ελευτησάντων] ἐν τῶι
πολ[έμωι, “For both these reasons it will be possible for them [later
writers] to praise the achievements of Leosthenes and those who have
died in this war.” The general sense is appropriate, but much remains
uncertain. The reference of δι’ ἀμφό]τερα (“for both these reasons”)
is unclear, and ὑμνεῖν (“to praise”) seems to leave out prose works
(cf. Thuc. 2.41.4, where the orator rejects the need for the praise of
poets like Homer).
213 ..... ... ] ἡδονῆς κτλ. Cobet’s supplements are very attractive: εἰ μὲν
γὰρ] ἡδονῆς ἕν[εκεν ἐγκωμιάσ]ουσιν τὰς τ[ηλικαύτας καρ]τερίας, τί
γέ[νοιτ’ ἂν τοῖς Ἕλ]λησιν ἥδι[ον ἢ ἔπαινος τῶν] τὴν ἐλευθερί[αν πα-
ρασκευα]σάντων ἀπ[ὸ τῶν Μακεδό]νων; “If they enjoy praising such
great endurance, what could be sweeter for the Greeks than praise of
those who acquired freedom from the Macedonians.” All that remains
of the final character in col. 11.40 (215–216) is a small raised dot of ink,
most likely an upsilon, but a pi or tau is quite possible.
214 τ[οιαύτας καρ]τερίας. The restoration is based on the same phrase
at §24. However, Cobet’s τ[ηλικαύτας (“such great”) might better fill
the lacuna.
216ὠφελείας ἕνε]κεν. Babington’s restoration perfectly fits the lacuna
and seems to be confirmed by the verb ὠφελήσειεν (“confer . . . advan-
tage”).
216 ἡ τοια[ ..... ..... .. ]. Pl. Mx. 236e draws a relationship between the
logos of the funeral oration and a memorial (μνήμη) for the dead, which
Cobet echoes with his restoration of ἡ τοια[ύτη μνήμη (“such a memo-
rial”). He has also proposed ἡ τοιά[δε ἀνάμνησις (“such a recollec-
tion”), which better fits the size of the gap.
217 ἀκουσόντων. This is the earliest attested usage of an active form of
the future of the verb ἀκούειν (“to hear”). Several classical future mid-
dle deponent verbs regularly occur in the active voice in koin Greek
(examples at Blass and Debrunner 1961, 42 no. 77; see also Browning
1983, 29) and this example is not a scribal accident (as Rennie (1940,
22) supposed), as we can see from the similar examples of ἀπολαύ-

σομεν (§30, “will enjoy”) and σπου]δάσουσιν (§32, “will be eager”)
earlier in the speech, both of which are also future middle deponents
in the classical period. Gromska (1927, 36–37) and Pohle (1928, 21)
discuss this aspect of Hyperides and the emergence of the koin dialect.
ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας. On this phrase see the note on §8 under ἄνδρες
218–219
ἀγαθοί γ[ίγνων]ται.
35, 220 ἀλλὰ μήν. The particles mark a new point in the argument; for
examples (including this passage) and discussion see Denniston 1954,
344–345. In this transitional sentence Hyperides summarizes his de-
scription of the glory of the dead among the living and then turns to
their reception in the underworld.
223 ἆρ’ οὐκ ἂν ‹οἰ›όμεθα. The papyrus reads μ, which Shilleto
corrects to οἰόμεθα (“we suppose”), an easy visual confusion on the part
of the scribe. Levi proposes reading the optative οἰοίμεθα, to accord
with the unusual usages of the optative in §20 and §22 (on which see
the note on §20 under τί ἂν συμβῆναι νομίζοιμεν).
224–225τῶν ‹ἡμιθέ›ων καλουμέν‹ων› τοὺς ἐπὶ ‹Τρο›ίαν στρα‹τεύ›σαν-
τ[α]ς. The papyrus reads (without any word divisions)
μ
μ

[.]. The first two words
are plainly corrupt; Cobet compared Isoc. 4.84 and proposed reading
τῶν ἡμιθέων καλουμένων (“of the so-called demi-gods,” on which
Blass commented “audacter, sed optima sententia”). Babington had al-
ready emended στρατειαν (“army”) to Τροίαν (“Troy”). The correc-
tions are indeed bold, but the following material, specifically the “one
woman assaulted” ([μ]ιᾶς γυναικὸς ὑβρισθεί[σ]ης, §36), must refer to
the Trojan war. For the phrase τῶν ἡμιθέων καλουμένων (“of the so-
called demi-gods”) Jensen compares Hes. Op. 159–160 and also Pl. Ap.
28c, which labels those who died at Troy as ἡμιθέοι, “demi-gods.”
227 δ]ιήνεγκε. Hyperides boldly asserts that Leosthenes excelled the
heroes of the past. His superiority is again emphasized in “excelled”
(ὑπερέσχεν, §38) and “even greater” (καὶ μείζω, §39; cf. also §19 and
§23). It was commonplace for writers of elegy or encomium to compare
their subjects with the heroic past (e.g., Simonides fragments 10–18
(West) on the battle of Plataea, with discussion on the epic comparisons
by Boedecker (1996, 229–232)). But Hyperides, with his pronounced
emphasis on Leosthenes and his troops, goes much further than oth-
ers when he asserts that his subjects were superior to those who fought
at Troy and in the Persian Wars. Typically the dead are not elevated
above, but rather equated with, their illustrious ancestors. Thus, for
example, Lys. 2.67–70 speaks of the dead in the same terms as their
ancestors earlier in the speech, as does Pl. Mx. 246a (see Ziolkowski
1981, 80–83 on the motif; Plut. Per. 28.7 employs an argument similar
to Hyperides’ when he compares the Samian campaign of 440 and 439
with the Trojan War). Hyperides’ initial sidestepping of the traditional
themes of the prooemium allowed him to focus on the individual Leos-
thenes and the particular events of the first season of the Lamian War.
That special emphasis in this speech culminates in this declaration of
superiority.
228μετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ πα[τ]ρίδος μόνης. In other epitaphioi this sort of
hyperbole is reserved for the battle of Marathon (Lys. 2.20 and Pl. Mx.
240c ignore Plataean aid in 490; see Schroeder 1914, 29–30). Here,
Hyperides continues to assert the superiority of his subjects, despite
his own earlier account of the mercenary army and the Athenian allies
(§11, §13).
μόνης πᾶσαν. The repeated contrast between “one” and “many”
228–229
is emphasized by this juxtaposition.
230ἐταπείνωσεν. In §10 the same verb was used to describe the weak-
ened condition of Greece before Leosthenes came along. Now the ta-
bles are turned and Leosthenes has conquered the conquerer.
36, 230–231 μ]ιᾶς γυναικὸς ὑβρισθεί[σ]ης. On sexual violence as typical
behavior for a tyrant, see above, on §20 under ὥστε μήτε γυνα‹ι›κῶν
μήτε παρθένων μηδὲ παίδων ὕβρ‹ε›ις.
231–232πα[σ]ῶν τῶν Ἑλληνίδων. Other funeral orations describe
Athens as the savior of all of Greece during the Persian Wars (Lys.
2.20, Dem. 60.10). Once again, Hyperides adapts language usually
used of the Persian Wars to praise Leosthenes and his troops.
37, 235–236 Μιλτιάδην καὶ Θεμιστοκλέα. Like Harmodius and Aristogi-
ton (see below on §39 under Ἁρμόδιον καὶ Ἀριστογείτονα), these two
generals of the Persian Wars were famed for saving Greece from a
despotic ruler (cf. Hdt. 6.109.3, where Miltiades asserts that a victory at
Marathon would surpass the deeds of the tyrant slayers). See above on
§5 and §20 for other cases where Leosthenes and his men are implicitly
compared to the Greeks who warded off the Persians.
These two generals are singled out to represent the battles of
Marathon and Salamis, the two most important victories for Athens
during the Persian Wars. Pl. Mx. 241b–c well summarizes the typical
account in the funeral orations: “The other Greeks were taught by the
men in the army at Marathon and those in the navy at Salamis. They
learned to become used to not fearing the barbarians on land or at
sea.” Unlike other funeral orations, Hyperides singles out the generals
who led the campaigns in order to compare them with Leosthenes.
238 ἔνδοξον. See below on §40 under ἐνδόξου.
38, 239 ὑπερέσχεν. On this assertion see above on §35 under δ]ιήνεγκε.
239ἀνδρείαι καὶ φρονήσει. On this pairing, see the note on §3 under
ἀνδρεί[α]ς.
240 τὴ‹ν› τῶν βαρβάρων δύναμιν. The repetition of dynamis from
§35, where it referred to the Trojans, reinforces the characterization
of the Macedonians as foreign barbarians. See the note on §20 under
Μακεδόνων.
241–243 ἐν τῆ‹ι› οἰκ‹ε›ίαι . . . ἐν τῆι τῶν ἐχθρῶν. Hyperides refers to
the invasions of Attica during the Persian Wars. In autumn of 490 the
Persians landed at Marathon in northeast Attica (Hdt. 6.102–103). In
autumn of 480 Xerxes invaded by land and burned the abandoned Athe-
nian acropolis prior to the battle of Salamis (Hdt. 8.51–55). Again in
spring of 479 the Persian general Mardonius invaded (Hdt. 9.3). Hype-
rides contrasts these events with the Lamian War, in which the Atheni-
ans and their allies met the invaders in Boeotia and drove them north to
Thermopylae (§§11–14). The Thucydidean funeral oration makes the
same point about the Athenian ability to defeat the enemy in hostile
territory (Thuc. 2.39.2).
39, 245–246 Ἁρμόδιον καὶ Ἀριστογείτονα. This is the only epitaphios lo-
gos that compares the war dead with Harmodius and Aristogiton. For
the story of the tyrant slayers who were credited with ending the rule
of the Pisistratids in the late sixth century, see Thuc. 6.53–59 and Hdt.
5.55–57. The famous tyrant slayers were celebrated for their efforts to
liberate Athens from the rule of the Pisistratidae, and here the compar-
ison contributes to the characterization of the Macedonians as tyrants.
They were also venerated as heroes (on their honors, see Dem. 19.280
with MacDowell (2000, 326) and Arist. Ath. 58.1 with Rhodes (1993,
651–652)) and regular sacrifices for these two heroes took place in con-
junction with the ceremony for the war dead (Currie 2005, 95–96, Tay-
lor 1991, 7–8). These sacrifices were conduced by the polemarch and
probably took place at their grave in the Ceramicus (Kearns 1989, 55
and 150). The emphasis in this passage on the close relation between
the war dead and Harmodius and Aristogiton suggests that the fallen
soldiers also received heroic honors; for further discussion of this point
see the note on §43 under ‹εἰκὸς›. . . ἐπιμελείας ‹καὶ κηδεμονίας› ὑπὸ
τοῦ δαιμονίου τυγχάνειν.
246–247 οὐθέν‹α›ς οὕτως αὑτοῖς οἰκεί{οτερ}ους {ὑμῖν} εἶναι. The
papyrus reads, without word breaks,

μ

. The transmitted text is plainly corrupt
and various solutions have been proposed. I have followed Blass in
correcting to οὐθέν‹α›ς (“nobody”), deleting μ
(“to
you”) and changing the adjective

from the comparative
to the positive degree. The first change can be explained as a simple
morphological mistake on the part of the scribe, who confused the
accusative plural endings of the second and third declensions. The
insertion of ὑμῖν is more difficult to explain, and its presence may
indicate more serious problems with the text here (those who keep
it change οὕτως to οὐδαμῶς; e.g., Kenyon prints οὐδαμῶς αὑτοὺς
οἰκειοτέρους ὑμῖν, “they are in no way closer to you [than Leosthenes
. . . ]). The positive adjective is restored because οὕτως does not
regularly modify comparatives. The clause is an indirect statement
depending on νομίζειν (“consider”), and αὑτοῖς (“to them”) refers to
Harmodius and Aristogiton.
246 οὐθέν‹α›ς. The spelling οὐθείς, οὐθέν first appears on Athenian in-
scriptions in 378/377 and completely replaces οὐδείς, οὐδέν by the end
of the fourth century, but forms of οὐδείς begin to reappear in the first
century BC (Threatte 1980–1996, I: 472–476). This is the only exam-
ple of the usage of οὐθείς by the scribe of this papyrus, but it may well
be the form Hyperides actually wrote.
250 καὶ μείζω. See the note on §35 under δ]ιήνεγκε.
40, 252–253 ὢ καλῆς μὲν καὶ παραδόξου τόλμης κτλ. Exclamatory ὤ is
uncommon in Attic prose, especially introducing such a lengthy excla-
mation. The particle is only found twice elsewhere in the orators, both
times in an oath (“by the gods,” ὢ πρὸς [τῶν] θεῶν, Dem. 21.98, 166).
For other poetic usages in this speech see the note on §26 under πόνους
πόνων. Here the exclamations signal a shift in the speech. The orator
has finished his comparison of Leosthenes and his predecessors in the
underworld, and now prepares to conclude the praise section (epainos)

of the speech. If indeed these exclamations mark the conclusion of Hy-
perides’ praise for the dead, there may be very little text missing be-
tween the end of fragment 1b (§40) and fragment 2 (§41), which comes
from the consolatory section (the paramythia) of the speech that typ-
ically immediately follows the end of the epainos (cf. Thuc. 2.42–43,
Lys. 2.76–77, Pl. Mx. 246a–b, Dem. 60.31–32; see also above p. 16).
253–254ἐνδόξου. Hyperides is especially fond of this adjective in this
speech. It does not occur in any of the other epitaphioi or elsewhere
in Hyperides. He uses it here to describe the generous contribution the
dead made to the state. Previously it was used to praise the victory in
Boeotia (§18), the glory acquired by the fathers of the fallen (§27), and
the achievement of the soldiers of the Persian Wars (§37).
254 μεγαλοπρεποῦς προαιρέσεως. For the sense of μεγαλοπρεπής see
above on §1 under μεγαλ]οπρεπεστ[έρας. On the soldiers’ decision to
volunteer their lives for Athens, see the note above on §24. On Hyperi-
des’ use of the noun προαίρεσις in this speech, see the note on §3 under
‹τ›ῆς προαιρέ[σε]ως.
255 ἀρετῆς καὶ ἀνδραγαθίας. Aesch. 3.42 and 49 suggests that these two
nouns were regularly paired in honorific decrees (for the epigraphic ev-
idence see Whitehead 1993, 49 n. 38 and Veligianni-Terzi 1997, 217).
Both abstract nouns refer to the qualities of an ἀγαθὸς ἀνήρ, a “noble
man” (for discussion see Veligianni-Terzi 1997, 270–272 and Dover
1974, 164–165), but they are not simple synonyms. Whitehead (1993,
57–62) discusses the development of the concept of andragathia in the
late fifth century. He distinguishes semantic differences between aret
and andragathia. Aret had a long-standing connection with heroic
death and the term carried an aristocratic flavor. Andragathia was more
egalitarian and praised men for “what they had done rather than who
they were” (Whitehead 1993, 57–62) and was often used generally to
describe military valor (see Pritchett 1971–1991, III: 280–283 for ex-
amples) or more specifically for death in the field (see note on §1 under
ἄν[δρες ἀ]γαθοί). Hyperides also links the two terms above (§29). An-
dragathia is also a very common term in decrees awarding Athenian
citizenship to foreigners; for discussion and references see Kapparis
1999, 364–365.
41–43. On the amount of material missing between §40 and §41, see
the note on §40 under ὢ καλῆς μὲν καὶ παραδόξου τόλμης κτλ. This
fragment is preserved in Stobaeus’ Anthology as an example of a conso-

latory (παρηγορικόν) passage. He attributes the passage to Hyperides
without specifying a speech title. Babington (1859, 46–48) assigned it
to the Funeral Oration, on the basis of several similarities to the epi-
logues of other epitaphioi (e.g., for χάλεπον . . . ἐστι cf. Dem. 60.35
and Thuc. 2.44.2; on the adjective ἀγήρατος see the note below on
§43 under τὸν ἀγήρατον χρόνον; see also the link between this pas-
sage and Dem. 60.34 discussed below in the note on §43 under εἰ μέν
ἐστι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κτλ), and he is followed by all subsequent editors.
More information on the readings of individual manuscripts may be
found in Wachsmuth and Hense 1884–1912. The Anthology, probably
compiled in the fifth century AD, catalogues literary quotations under
a number of such headings, but unfortunately it does not provide any
context or discussion of the individual quotations which it preserves.
This passage probably comprises the entirety of the consolation section
of the speech (παραμυθία), the brief conclusion addressed to the rela-
tives of the dead (cf. Thuc. 2.43–45, Lys. 2.77–80, Pl. Mx. 246b2–249c,
Dem. 60.32–37). D.H. Rh. 6.4 advises that the consolation not consist
of mourning and lamentation, since that would only increase the sur-
vivors’ sorrow. Rather, the paramythia should emphasize that the dead
fell quick and painlessly, and that they earned a glorious burial and
escaped the miseries of later illnesses. The surviving epitaphioi gener-
ally follow this pattern and emphasize that it is the idyllic state of the
dead in the afterlife that comforts the bereaved (further discussed by
Kassel (1958, 41)). This passage has a philosophical quality to it, with
its avoidance of direct address to the survivors and its emphasis on the
universal fate of all men, the freedom from mortal illness for the dead,
and the possibility that they may be enjoying a better existence after
death (discussed by Soffel (1974, 14–19)).
41, 259–261 τὰ . . . πένθη . . . λυπεῖσθαι. Sourvinou-Inwood (1995,
191–195) nicely contrasts the attitudes toward the war dead as
displayed in fifth-century public epitaphs with archaic epitaphs for
private individuals. Whereas private epitaphs present a negative
characterization of death that is often “dominated by grief and
lament” (192), the epitaphs for the war dead depict death as a positive
event, and emphatically eschew grief and lamentation. Here and in the
following sections, Hyperides reflects that attitude as he systematically
compares the positive benefits of dying for the city with the individual
losses of the men and their families.
259 οὔτε λόγωι οὔτε νόμωι. The logos (“speech”) is the funeral oration
itself, the nomos (“custom”) is the entire ceremony (Thuc. 2.34.1: πα-
τρίος νόμος, “ancestral custom”), including the speech. See pp. 14–15
for a description of the ceremony.
261 ὁρισμόν. This noun contributes to the philosophical tone. Aristotle
frequently uses it to define terms (see LSJ s.v. ὁρισμός II for examples).
42, 264–267 ‹εἰ› γὰρ . . . κατὰ πάντα. The series of parallel clauses fea-
ture highly stylized rhetorical devices that signal the closure of the
speech. In the first pair of clauses (‹εἰ› γὰρ . . . πεποιήκασιν, “Although
their sufferings . . . great praises”) the parallelism is reinforced by ho-
moioteleuton and the alliteration of the final verbs (πεπόνθασιν and
πεποιήκασιν). The second sentence (εἰ δέ . . . κατὰ πάντα, “Although
they did not live . . . in every respect”) is a tricolon interlinked by rep-
etition of the γηρ- (“age”) stem and the two εὐ- compounds (“glory”
and “blessed”). See Denniston 1954, 11–13 on the use of the particle
ἀλλά to mean “on the other hand, still.” For other examples of short
antithetical clauses such as these see the note on §24 under διὰ τὴν τῆς
ἀρετῆς ἀπόδειξιν . . . ἀτυχεῖς.
267–269ὅσοι μέν . . . ὅσοι δέ κτλ. These two alternative statements con-
tinue the Gorgianic antithesis. As in the previous section, these two
sentences have the same structure and are linked by repetition (“chil-
dren”: ἄπαιδες, παῖδες, παῖδας, παίδων; “them”: αὐτῶν, αὐτῶν, αὐ-
τοῖς; the κατα- compounds in the second alternative). The parallel po-
sition, structure and sense of οἱ παρὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἔπαινοι (“the
praise of the Greeks”) and ἡ τῆς πατρίδος εὔνοια (“the good will of
their native city”) further link the two alternatives.
269–270 ὅσοι δὲ παῖδας καταλελοίπασιν . . . καταστήσεται. The state
supported the war orphans; see the note on §27 under ε[ὔνοι]αν. On
“the good will of their native city” (ἡ τῆς πατρίδος εὔνοια) see the
note on §27 under ε[ὔνοι]αν.
43, 271 εἰ μέν ἐστι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κτλ. This rationalization of death is
first found at Pl. Ap. 40c5–41c7, where Socrates suggests that death is
either like a dreamless sleep or else a migration to another place, and
appears as a regular theme in Greek and Roman consolation literature
(see Kassel 1958, 76–77). Socrates muses at length about meeting the
heroes of old in Hades, just as Hyperides has done earlier in the speech
(§§35–40). Dover (1974, 243–246) conveniently collects the evidence
for Greek views on death. It was widely held that the dead did have
some perception of the world of the living, and that the living should
treat them respectfully. The development and practice of hero cult in
Greece also reflects this sort of attitude toward the dead.
273–274εἰ δ’ ἔστιν αἴσθησις ἐν Ἅιδου. This view was more commonly
held than Hyperides’ alternative (see previous note). The same sen-
timent is expressed in very similar terms at Isoc. 19.42, Lycurg. 136
and Philem. fr. 118. Demosthenes similarly refers to the afterlife of the
fallen soldiers in the islands of the blessed (Dem. 60.34). Parker (2005,
364) discusses these and other examples as a “cliché of the culture” re-
garding doubt about the afterlife. Sourvinou-Inwood (1995, 298–302)
suggests that the concern for an individual’s “happy afterlife” (299) de-
veloped as a cultural trend during the archaic period and the fifth cen-
tury, and in these fourth-century passages we see a continued concern
with the fate of the dead.
275–277 ‹εἰκὸς›. . . ἐπιμελείας ‹καὶ κηδεμονίας› ὑπὸ τοῦ δαιμονίου
τυγχάνειν. The funeral orations typically focus on the eternally
glorious reputation of the dead among the living (e.g., Lys. 2.80–81,
Pl. Mx. 243c-d, Dem. 60.27), and only hint at divine honors for
the war dead and an eternal afterlife as heroes in the most tentative
fashion (Dem. 60.34, §27). In this passage the restoration of εἰκός, “it
is likely,” adds a similar note of caution. But the previous scene of
Leosthenes in the underworld (§§35–40) is much more explicit in as-
sociating him with the heroes of the Trojan War and Athenians such as
Harmodius and Aristogiton, who were honored as heroes (see the note
on §39 under Ἁρμόδιον καὶ Ἀριστογείτονα). Parker (1996, 135–137)
discusses the inconsistency of the treatment of the war dead in the
epitaphioi. He concludes that they received honors “indistinguishable
from those of heroes” and that they might eventually over time be
labeled as such. See also Currie 2005, 96, Loraux 1986, 39–41, and
Versnel 1989, 169–171.
τοὺς ταῖς τιμαῖς τῶν θεῶν καταλυομέναις βοηθήσαντας. Cf.
275–276
§21 above on the impiety of the Macedonians.
Fragmentum dubium. Sauppe plausibly assigns the phrase τὸν ἀγή-
ρατον χρόνον, attributed by Pollux to Hyperides without a speech title,
to the Funeral Oration. The adjective is better suited to epideictic than
forensic oratory, and it appears elsewhere in this speech and the epi-
taphioi (§42; Thuc. 2.43.2, 44.4, Lys. 2.79, Dem. 60.36). Dover (1968,
65–67) categorizes the adjective as “non-forensic” (cf. above p. 26).
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. 33–34.
1.14 ]. 16 ] 23
[ 25 [ 29 μ .
33 34 . .
2.6
16 18
21 corrected
from 22 ] 28 31
33

3.3 ] 4 ] 5–6 ]. 13–14
[
22
] 26 31 32 corrected from
4.2 5 . 9 . [] 22–23 [ ]
23 μ.[ 33
5.2 6–7
[ 13
19–20 μ-
μ 22

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

38 μ 39 41
8.3–4 μ 4 7 11 μ 12 μ
16 16–17 μ 18 [ ]μ. 19
corrected from 23 25 corrected
from 27 34 μ
9.2–3

4 ]
7 μμ
10 ..] 11
12 13–14 -
15 23 μ
26 the final sigma is mistakenly written at the beginning of
10.29 29
37 41–42 . .
43

[
10.6 [] corrected from [] 9 [].
13 15
corrected from
16

27–28 μ μ. 33 μ 36
39 μ μ 43
11.11 20 μ 38 [
12.1 5 7 μ 10 14 μ
15
with
written over an erasure 16 μ
21 29 final nu is a later addition 37 39 -
μ corrected from μ 41 μ
13.2–3 μ 6 9
corrected from

19–20 corrected from
21–22 22 23 μ 24–25

corrected from
.. 28 . 31 μ
39

The scribe has inserted paragraphoi after the following lines: 3.11,
21, 26; 4.6, 13, 28, 34; 6.13, 26, 30; 7.18, 32; 8.1, 20; 9.14; 10.18, 29;
11.26; 12.9, 35; 13.17, 36.
The scribe occasionally uses an angular stroke to punctuate a stop
(here printed as /). These periods are sometimes accompanied by a
paragraphos: 3.21 /, 4.6
/, 4.13 μ /, 4.28
/, 4.34
/. More often the stops are unaccompanied by a
paragraphos: 3.2 /, 3.28 μ /, 4.19 /, 6.2 [ ]/, 8.4
μ/, 9.10 ] /, 9.12
/, 10.25 /,
10.35 /, 12.10 /, 12.43 /, 13.39
/.
The scribe frequently uses a diairesis mark over iota: 3.6 , 4.3
Appendix A: Papyrological Notes 113

, 4.22 , 6.1 μ.[ ]μ , 6.27 , 7.34 , 7.36
, 7.42

, 8.11
, 9.20
, 10.6 , 10.40
.
Two breathings are indicated: 7.7 , 9.14 ; and one
circumflex accent: 10.12 .
Line fillers, usually resembling a right angle bracket, but sometimes
a long dash, are used very frequently, especially toward the bottom of
columns.
Appendix B: Critical Conjectures
Nb. For an explanation of what criteria determine whether restorations

are recorded here or in the main apparatus, see p. 32.
3 περὶ] Λεωσθένους Babington.
5– 6 μάρτυς ἀκριβὴς Bücheler.
5–8 μάρτυς αὐτὸς ὁ Χρόνος ὁ σώιζων ἐπαίνωι τὰς πράξεις· οὐ γάρ
τις ἀνθρώπων προαίρεσίν πω καλλίω τῆσδ’ ἑώρακε ὧν ἴσμεν
οὐδ’ ἐν παντὶ αἰῶνι πεπύσμεθα γεγενημένους Sudhaus, ὁ σώι-
ζων ἐπαίνωι τὰς πράξεις τὰς καλὰς· ἄνθρωπος δὲ τίς πρᾶξίν πω
καλλίω τῆσδε ἑώρακε; Schroeder.
6 ὁ σύμπας Cobet.
6 τὰς πράξεις: τὰ ὅπλα Kenyon.
7–9 ὥστε οὐδ’ ἐν τῶι παντὶ αἰῶνι νομιστέον γεγενῆσθαι οὔτε ἄνδρας
ἀμείνους τῶν τετελευτηκότων τῶνδε Bücheler.
10 ὃ] καὶ Sauppe, διόπερ] Bücheler.
10 γε φοβοῦμαι Blass, πεφόβημαι van Herwerden.
11 φαίνεσθαι: γενέσθαι Babington.
17–20 τοῦ προελέσθαι . . . τοῦ μὴ καταισχῦναι corr. Volckmar.
25 τὰ καθ’ ἕκαστον Cobet.
26 τῶν πρό[τε]ρον ‹διασωσάντων› Comparetti.
29 ἀνελθεῖν Desrousseaux, ἐπελθεῖν Babington, διελθεῖν Sauppe.
30 κεφαλαίων Cobet.
32–35 τὰς μὲν ὥρας διακρίνων καὶ τὸ πρέπον καὶ καλῶς ἔχον παρι-
στάς, τοῖς δὲ σώφροσι καὶ ἐπιεικέσι πλείω παρέχων ἐπιμέλειαν,
ὥστε καὶ γενέσθαι σίτων αἴτιος καὶ καρπῶν Jensen, xlvi.
34 καὶ γενέσεως τῆς τροφῆς Blass, καὶ αὔξης [Fuhr].
38 τῆς ἀδικίας: τῆς δεσποτείας Colin, πλεονεξίας anon. apud Babing-
115
ton.
38 φυλάττουσα Blass.
39 κοινὴν ἄδειαν: τὴν ἐλευθερί]αν Cobet.
41 ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τῶν κοινῶν . . . Blass.
41 κοινῶν πράξεων τῆς πόλεως Fritzsche, κοινῶν τῶν τῆς πόλεως
Sauppe.
41–42 εἶπον φράσαι ‹χαλεπόν› Kayser, χρὴ δηλῶσαι {αλιφω} Sauppe.
42 παραλείπω Bücheler.
43–44 ποιησόμενος ἐνθάδε πόθεν Sauppe et Shilleto.
44 λέγειν: λέγων Sauppe, Caesar; λόγων Graindor.
44 πρώτου Cobet.
45 ἑκάστων Piccolomini.
49 τουτων p, τοῦτον Cobet.
50 τοῦ λόγου ποιουμένου Bursian.
56 παῖδες μαθεῖν [Fuhr], παιδεύειν Sauppe.
56 πάντας ὑμᾶς Cobet.
58 γένωνται Babington.
66 ὥσπερ επτηχυῖαν: κατεπτηχυῖαν Babington, δέει κατεπτηχυῖαν
Sandys, φόβωι κατεπ. Maehly, ἔτι κατεπ. Cobet et Schenkl, σφό-
δρα κατεπ. Piccolomini.
70 δυνήσεται: βουλήσεται Piccolomini.
71 ἐπέδωκεν μὲν ἑαυτὸν Kayser.
73 συστησάμενος: κτησάμενος Kayser.
78 παρόδους: διόδους Sandys ap. Blass.
89 ἀεὶ: καὶ Jensen, ζῶν Kayser, τὴν Sauppe.
90 ἐκείνου: τούτου Babington.
91 πάντων ἀγαθῶν Müller, πολλῶν ἀγ. Maehly.
96 διὰ τὸ Λεωσθένη μόνον Cobet, φάσκων Λεωσθένη μ’ ἕν’ Shilleto,
ἐν τῶι Λεωσθένη μὲν Babington.
98 ‹καὶ› τῶν ἄλλων Babington.
103 ἐγκωμιάσω Stahl.
107 βούλ]εσθαι: προελέσθαι Jensen.
108 μαχόμενοι Babington.
110 πατρίδος Babington.
111 πρότερον Babington, πρώτην Cobet.
111 τὴν μὲν πόλιν Babington.
115 διανενεμημένους Cobet.
118 περὶ: πρὸς Babington.
128 {οὔτε} μετ’ ἐλαττόνων Cobet.
130 εἶναι del. Müller.
134–135 νομίζομεν Kayser.

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

202–203 ἀλλ’ οὐ παρὰ τοῖς ἡλικιώταις Blass, ἢ οὐ παρὰ τοῖς ἡλικιώ-
ταις Fritzsche, ἔπειτα παρὰ τοῖς ἡλικιώταις Babington.
203–204 οἷς οὗτοι τελευτήσαντες οὕτω καλῶς συνεβάλοντο εἰς τὸ
παρὰ πολὺ κουφισθῆναί γε τὸν ἀγῶνα Kayser, οἷς ἡ τούτων τε-
λευτὴ ἀφορμὴ μεγίστη τοῦ καλῶς ὠφελεῖν τὴν πατρίδα καὶ πα-
ραπλησίως τῆι ἀρετῆι διενέγκαι γέγονεν Sitzler.
204–205 ἀλλ’ οὐ παρὰ τοῖς νεωτέροις Blass, ἢ οὐ παρὰ τοῖς νεωτέροις;
ἀλλὰ Fritzsche.
205 καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ἔπειτα; οὐ τὸν θάνατον ζηλώσουσιν αὐτῶν Jen-
sen, νεωτέροις δόξουσιν; εἶτα οὐ τὸν θυμὸν θαυμάσουσιν αὐτῶν
Kayser.
205–206 αὐτοὶ μιμεῖσθαι σπουδάσουσιν Babington, καὶ σφόδρα σπου-
δάσουσιν μιμεῖσθαι Kayser.
206–207 ὡς παράδειγμα τὸν τούτων βίον, ἀνθ’ οὗ τὴν ἀρετὴν κατα-
λελοίπασι; Blass, παράδειγμα γενόμενον οὐ τὴν ἀρετὴν σωτήριον
πᾶσι; Kayser.
207–208 οὐκ ἐγκωμιάζειν ἀεὶ χρὴ ὧν οὐ δέδοικα μή τινες συγγραφεῖς
σοφοὶ λόγων ἄλλους τῶν Ἑλλήνων προκρίνωσι Kayser.
207 οὐκοῦν ἄξιον εὐδαιμονίζειν αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τοσαύτηι τιμῆι Blass, οὐκ
ἄξιον ἐγκωμιάζειν αὐτούς; Babington.
208–210 ἢ τίνες (aut τίνες δὲ) ποιηταὶ καὶ φιλόσοφοι λόγων καὶ ὠιδῶν
εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἀπορήσουσι περὶ τῶν πεπραγμένων αὐτοῖς;
παρὰ τίσι δ’ οὐ μᾶλλον αὕτη τῆς Φρυγῶν κρατησάσης στρατείας
ἐγκωμιασθήσεται; Blass.
209–210 Φρυγῶν καὶ τῆς ἐπὶ Τροίαν στρατείας Sauppe.
210–211 ποῦ δὲ τῆς Ἑλλάδος Blass, ποῦ δὲ τῆς Ἑλλάδος παύσονται
ταῦτα τοῖς ἐπιγιγνομένοις ἀεὶ ἅπασιν καὶ λόγοις καὶ ὠιδαῖς ἐπαι-
νοῦνες Colin, ἐν ἅπασιν καὶ λόγοις καὶ ὠιδαῖς ἐπαινεῖν Cobet, ὠι-
δαῖς ἐπάιδοντες Babington, οὐκ εὐπρεπεστάτοις ἐπαίνοις εἰς ἀεὶ
παρὰ ἅπασιν καὶ λόγοις καὶ ὠιδαῖς ἐπαινεθήσονται Sitzler.
212 ἐπ’ ἀμφότερα γὰρ ἐξέσται ὑμνεῖν περὶ Λεωσθένους Cobet, δι’
ἀμφότερα γὰρ ἔστιν ὑμνῆσαι τὰ περὶ Λεωσθένους Kenyon, ἀμ-
φότερα γὰρ ἔξεσται ἐντεῦθεν περὶ Λεωσθένους εἰπεῖν Babington,
ἀμφότερα γὰρ ἔστι μαθεῖν ἐκ τῶν περὶ Λεωσθένους ἱστοριῶν
Schroeder, ἀγαστότερα γὰρ ἔνεστι πολλῶι περὶ Λεωσθένους λέ-
γειν Sauppe, δημοτικώτερα γὰρ ἔστι τοῖς ποιηταῖς περὶ Λεωσθέ-
νους ἄιδειν Fritzsche.
212–213 καὶ τῶν τελευτησάντων ἐν τῶι πολέμωι Sauppe, καὶ τῶν
τετελευτηκότων ἐν τῶι πολέμωι τῶιδε Babington.
213–216 μνημονεύουσιν τὰς τοιαύτας Blass, εἴτε γὰρ τῆς ἡδονῆς ἕνε-
κεν ἐγκωμιάζουσι τὰς τούτων καρτερίας . . . ἢ τούτων τῶν τὴν
ἐλευθερίαν πᾶσι βεβαιωσάντων ἀκούειν ὑμνουμένων Sauppe.
216 ἡ τοιαύτη σπουδὴ Sauppe, ἡ τοιαύτη μελέτη αὐτοῖς Fritzsche.
223 οἰοίμεθα Levi.
223–224 φοιτᾶν Cobet.
224–225 τῶν διογενῶν καλουμένων Schenkl, τῶν ἡρώων καλουμένων
Fritzsche, τῶνδε ἡγούμενον καὶ καλουμένους Post, Kenyon scribit
cum obelis τῶν διηγημένων καὶ ὑμνουμένων.
225 ἐπὶ ‹Τροίαν τὴν› στρατεῖαν στρα‹τεύ›σαντας Tell.
232–233 μετὰ γ’ ὧν συνθάπτομεν νῦν αὐτὸν ἀνδρῶν Blass.
235 λέγω δὴ p et Cobet, λέγω δὲ Colin, λέγω δὴ καὶ Blass.
258 πένθεσι Maehly.
262 παραιρεῖν aut παραινεῖν codd.
263–264 τῆς ἀρετῆς ‹ἧς ἀποδεδείχασι καὶ τῆς δόξης› ἧς Maehly.
276 Ruhnken leg. κηδεμονίας solum; cf. Phot. Bibl. codex 251
(463a.13f Bekker): ἀνάγκη πλείστης ἐπιτροφῆς καὶ κηδεμονίας
τυγχάνειν.
Bibliography
Adkins, A. W. H. (1966), “Aristotle and the best kind of tragedy,” Clas-

sical Quarterly 16: 78–102. Cited on page 66.
Ashton, N. G. (1983), “The Lamian War—a false start?,” Antichthon
17: 47–63. Cited on page 12.
Babington, C. (1858), Ὑπερείδου λόγος ἐπιτάφιος, Cambridge. Cited
on pages xiv, 27–29, 33, 40, 100, 124, 130, 136.
(1859), Ὑπερείδου λόγος ἐπιτάφιος, Cambridge, 2d ed. Cited
on pages xiii, 27, 29, 32, 33, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 61,
70, 72, 74, 82, 86, 97, 98, 101, 102, 107, 115–118.
Badian, E. (1961), “Harpalus,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 81: 16–43.
Cited on pages 10–12.
(1967), “Agis III,” Hermes 95: 170–192. Cited on page 8.
(1981), “The deification of Alexander the Great,” in Ancient
Macedonian studies in honor of Charles F. Edson, Thessaloniki,
Institute for Balkan Studies 158, 27–71. Cited on pages 89, 90.
(1982), “Greeks and Macedonians,” in Macedonia and Greece
in late classical and early Hellenistic times, Washington, D.C.,
Studies in the history of art 10, 33–51. Cited on page 87.
(1994), “Agis III: revisions and reflections,” in I. Wothing-
ton (ed.), Ventures into Greek history, Oxford, 258–292. Cited on
page 8.
(1996), “Alexander the Great between two thrones and heaven:
variations on an old theme,” in A. Small (ed.), Subject and ruler:
the cult of the ruling power in classical antiquity, Ann Arbor, Jour-
nal of Roman Archaeology supplementary series 17, 11–26. Cited
on pages 88, 89.
121
122 Bibliography
Balot, R. (2004), “Courage in the democratic polis,” Classical Quar-

terly 54: 406–423. Cited on page 62.
Bartolini, G. (1977), Iperide: rassegna di problemi e di studi
(1912–1972), Proagones: Studi 13, Padua. Cited on page 31.
Béquignon, Y. (1937), La vallée du Spercheios des origines au IVe
siècle. Études d’archéologie et de topographie, Bibliothèque des
écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 144, Paris. Cited on
page 78.
Berkowitz, L. and K. A. Squitier (1990), Thesaurus Linguae Graecae:
canon of Greek authors and works, New York, 3d ed. Cited on
page xi.
Bers, V. (1984), Greek poetic syntax in the classical age, Yale classical
monographs 5, New Haven. Cited on pages 63, 85.
Bickerman, E. J. (1985), Religions and politics in the Hellenistic and
Roman periods, Biblioteca di Athenaeum 5, Como, edited by E.
Gabba and M. Smith. Cited on page 91.
Blackman, D. J., J. Baker, and N. Hardwick (1997–1998), “Archaeol-
ogy in Greece 1997–98,” Archaeological Reports 44: 1–136. Cited
on page 15.
Blackwell, C. W. (1999), In the absence of Alexander. Harpalus and the
failure of Macedonian authority, Lang classical studies 12, New
York. Cited on page 10.
Blass, F. (1869), Hyperidis orationes quattuor cum ceterarum frag-
mentis, Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teub-
neriana, Leipzig. Cited on pages 29, 63, 135.
(1881), Hyperidis orationes quattuor cum ceterarum fragmen-
tis, Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneri-
ana, Leipzig, 2d ed. Cited on page 29.
(1887–1893), Die attische Beredsamkeit, Leipzig, 2d ed., 3 vol-
umes. Cited on pages 25, 65.
(1894), Hyperidis orationes sex cum ceterarum fragmentis,
Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana,
Leipzig, 3d ed. Cited on pages xii–xiv, 27, 31, 32, 36, 38, 40,
42, 44, 46, 50, 52, 57, 60, 64, 65, 70, 71, 74, 97–100, 102, 105,
115–119, 134, 135.
Blass, F. and A. Debrunner (1961), A Greek grammar of the New Tes-
tament, Chicago, translation of the ninth–tenth German edition by
R. W. Funk. Cited on page 101.
Boedeker, D. (1996), “Simonides and Herodotus on Plataea,” Arethusa
29: 223–242. Cited on page 102.
Bibliography 123
Bons, J. A. E. (2007), “Gorgias the sophist and early rhetoric,” in I. Wor-

thington (ed.), A companion to Greek rhetoric, Malden, 37–46.
Cited on page 93.
Borza, E. N. (1996), “Greeks and Macedonians in the age of Alexander.
The source traditions,” in E. M. Harris and R. W. Wallace (eds.),
Transitions to empire: essays in Greco-Roman history, 360–146
BC in honor of E. Badian, Norman, Oklahoma series in classical
culture 21, 122–139. Cited on page 87.
Bosworth, A. B. (1980), A historical commentary on Arrian’s History
of Alexander. Volume I: commentary on books I–III , Oxford. Cited
on pages 7, 82.
(1988), Conquest and empire: the reign of Alexander the Great,
Cambridge. Cited on pages 6, 9–11, 58, 79.
(2000), “The historical context of Thucydides’ Funeral Ora-
tion,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 120:1–16. Cited on pages 15, 21.
Bradeen, D. W. (1969), “The Athenian casualty lists,” Classical Quar-
terly 19: 145–159. Cited on page 15.
Browning, R. (1983), Medieval and modern Greek, Cambridge, 2d ed.
Cited on page 101.
Brunschwig, J. (1996), “Rule and exception: on the Aristotelian theory
of exception,” in M. Frede and G. Striker (eds.), Rationality in
Greek thought, Oxford, 115–155. Cited on page 66.
Brunt, P. (1969), “Euboea in the time of Philip II,” Classical Quarterly
19: 245–265. Cited on page 77.
Bücheler, F. (1875), “Coniectanea,” Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie
und Paedagogik 111: 305–340. Cited on pages xiii, 36, 38, 59,
60, 115, 116.
Buckler, J. (2003), Aegean Greece in the fourth century, Leiden and
Boston. Cited on page 82.
Bulman, P. (1992), Phthonos in Pindar, University of California publi-
cations: classical studies 35, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Cited on
page 64.
Burgess, T. C. (1902), Epideictic literature, Chicago. Cited on pages
16, 67.
Bursian, C. and E. Müller (1858), “Zu Hypereides Epitaphios,” Neue
Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik 77: 471–472. Cited
on pages xiii, 29, 40, 42, 71, 116, 117.
Burtt, J. O. (1954), Minor Attic orators, Loeb classical library, Cam-
bridge, Mass., volume 2: Lycurgus, Dinarchus, Demades, Hype-
rides. Cited on pages xiii, 30, 52, 119.
124 Bibliography
Caesar, J. (1857), Review of Babington 1858, Zeitschrift für die Al-

terthumswissenschaft 84–85: 667–675. Cited on pages xiii, 29,
116, 117.
Caffiaux, H. (1866), Recension nouvelle du texte de l’oraison funèbre
d’Hypéride, Paris. Cited on pages xiii, 29, 117, 130.
Calame, C. (1996), Thésée et l’imaginaire athénien, Lausanne, 2d ed.
Cited on page 68.
Carey, C. (2007a), “Epideictic oratory,” in I. Worthington (ed.), A com-
panion to Greek rhetoric, Malden, 236–252. Cited on pages 15,
16, 24, 63, 71.
(2007b), Lysiae orationes, Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca
Oxoniensis, Oxford. Cited on page xii.
Carey, C., M. Edwards, Z. Farkas, J. Herrman, L. Horváth, G. Mayer,
T. Mészáros, P. J. Rhodes, and N. Tchernetska (2008), “Fragments
of Hyperides’ Against Diondas from the Archimedes Palimpsest,”
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 165: 1–19. Cited on
page xii.
Cargill, J. (1985), “Demosthenes, Aischines, and the crop of traitors,”
Ancient World 11: 75–85. Cited on page 76.
Cawkwell, G. L. (1961), “A note on Ps. Demosthenes 17.20,” Phoenix
15: 74–78. Cited on page 93.
(1969), “The crowning of Demosthenes,” Classical Quarterly
19: 163–180. Cited on pages 8, 82.
(1994), “The deification of Alexander the Great: a note,”
in I. Worthington (ed.), Ventures into Greek history, Oxford,
293–306. Cited on pages 11, 91.
Chroust, A. H. (1966), “Aristotle’s flight from Athens in the year 323
BC,” Historia 15: 185–192. Cited on page 77.
Clairmont, C. W. (1983), Patrios nomos: public burial in Athens dur-
ing the fifth and fourth centuries BC. The archaeological, epi-
graphic–literary, and historical evidence, British archaeological
reports 63, Oxford, 2 vols. Cited on pages 14, 15, 58.
Cobet, C. G. (1858), Ὑπερείδου λόγος ἐπιτάφιος. Hyperidis oratio fu-
nebris recens reperta, Leiden. Cited on pages xiii, 29, 36, 38, 40,
44, 46, 48, 50, 63, 64, 72, 81, 95, 97, 98, 101, 102, 115–119.
(1873), Variae lectiones quibus continentur observationes crit-
icae in scriptores graecos, Leiden. Cited on pages xiii, 54.
Cohen, D. (1991), “Sexuality, violence and the Athenian law of hubris,”
Greece & Rome 38: 171–188. Cited on page 88.
Bibliography 125
Cole, T. (1990), Democritus and the sources of Greek anthropology,

American Philological Association monograph series 25, Atlanta,
reprint of 1967 edition. Cited on page 68.
(1991), The origins of rhetoric in ancient Greece, Baltimore.
Cited on page 92.
Colin, G. (1938), “L’orasion funèbre d’Hypéride: ses rapports avec les
autres oraisons funèbres athéniennes,” Revue des études Grecques
51: 209–266 and 305–394. Cited on page 65.
(1946), Hypéride. Discours, Les Belles Lettres, Paris. Cited on
pages xiii, 30, 31, 36, 40, 50, 52, 63, 70, 100, 101, 115, 117–119.
Comparetti, D. (1858), “Observationes in Hyperidis orationem fune-
brem,” Rheinisches Museum 13: 533–545. Cited on pages xiii, 29.
(1864), Il discorso d’Iperide dei morti nella guerra Laminea,
Pisa. Cited on pages xiii, 29, 63, 115, 117, 130.
Connor, W. R. (1993), “Theseus and his city,” in P. Hellström and
B. Alroth (eds.), Religion and power in the ancient Greek world.
Proceedings of the Uppsala symposium 1993, Uppsala, Uppsala
studies in ancient mediterranean and near eastern civilizations 24,
115–120. Cited on page 73.
(1994), “The problem of Athenian civic identity,” in A. L.
Boegehold and A. C. Scafuro (eds.), Athenian identity and civic
ideology, Baltimore, 34–44. Cited on page 73.
Coppola, A. (1996), Epitafio per i caduti di Lamia, Venice, introduction
by L. Braccesi. Cited on page 30.
Currie, B. (2005), Pindar and the cult of heroes, Oxford. Cited on pages
22, 104, 109.
Davies, J. K. (1971), Athenian propertied families, 600–300 BC, Ox-
ford. Cited on page 58.
Denniston, J. D. (1952), Greek prose style, Oxford. Cited on page 92.
(1954), The Greek particles, Oxford, 2d ed. Cited on pages 97,
102, 108.
Desrousseaux, A. M. (1949), “Hypéride, Ἐπιτάφιος §4,” Annuaire
de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves 9:
207–209. Cited on pages xiii, 115.
Develin, R. (1989), Athenian officials 684–321 BC, Cambridge. Cited
on pages 4, 5, 59.
Diels, H. and W. Kranz (1952), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker,
Berlin, 6th ed., 3 vols. Cited on page xii.
Dindorf, W. (1829), Aristides, Leipzig, 3 vols. Cited on page xii.
126 Bibliography
Doblhofer, G. (1994), Vergewaltigung in der Antike, Beiträge zur Al-

tertumskunde 46, Stuttgart and Leipzig. Cited on page 88.
Dover, K. J. (1968), Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum, Berkeley and
Los Angeles. Cited on pages 24, 26, 109.
(1974), Greek popular morality in the time of Plato and Aris-
totle, Oxford. Cited on pages 60, 62, 63, 66, 106, 108.
Ehrenberg, V. (1969), The Greek state, Oxford, 2d ed. Cited on page 83.
Ellis, J. R. (1976), Philip II and Macedonian imperialism, London.
Cited on page 4.
Engels, J. (1989), Studien zur politischen Biographie des Hypereides:
Athen in der Epoche der lykurgischen Reformen und des make-
donischen Universalreiches, Quellen und Forschungen zur an-
tiken Welt 2, Munich. Cited on pages 3, 4, 61.
Faraguna, M. (1992), Atene nell’età di Alessandro: problemi politici,
economici, finanziari, Rome. Cited on pages 9, 75.
(2003), “Alexander and the Greeks,” in J. Roisman (ed.), Brill’s
companion to Alexander the Great, Leiden, 99–130. Cited on
page 58.
Fehling, D. (1969), Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei
den Greichen vor Gorgias, Berlin. Cited on pages 92, 95.
Fisher, N. R. E. (1992), Hybris. A study in the values of honour and
shame in ancient Greece, Warminster. Cited on pages 87, 88.
(2001), Aeschines, Against Timarchos, Oxford. Cited on
page 75.
Flower, M. (2000), “Alexander the Great and panhellenism,” in A. B.
Bosworth and E. J. Baynham (eds.), Alexander the Great in fact
and fiction, Oxford, 96–135. Cited on page 7.
Foxhall, L. (2007), Olive cultivation in ancient Greece: seeking the
ancient economy, Oxford. Cited on page 67.
Fraenkel, E. (1950), Agamemnon. Edited with a commentary, Oxford,
3 vols. Cited on page 61.
Fredricksmeyer, E. A. (1979), “Divine honors for Philip II,” Transac-
tions of the American Philological Association 109: 39–61. Cited
on pages 88, 90.
Fritzsche, F. V. (1861–1862), De Hyperidis laudatione funebri, Index
Lectionum in Academia Rostochiensi, Literis Adlerianis, 2d ed.
Cited on pages xiii, 29, 46, 116–119.
Fuhr, C. (1907), Review of Kenyon 1906, Berliner philologische
Wochenschrift 27: 769–774. Cited on page 30.
Bibliography 127
Gibert, J. (1998), Review of Mills 1997, Bryn Mawr Classical Re-

view 9, available electronically at <http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/
/bmcr/1998/1998-07-06.html>. Cited on page 66.
Glare, P. G. W. (ed.) (1982), Oxford Latin dictionary, Oxford. Cited on
pages xi, 58.
Gomme, A. W. (1956), A historical commentary on Thucydides, Ox-
ford, vol 2: books II–III. Cited on pages 6, 14, 70.
Graindor, P. (1898), “Notes critiques sur l’épitaphios d’Hypéride,” Re-
vue de l’instruction publique en Belgique 41: 341–344. Cited on
pages xiii, 72, 85, 116.
Gromska, D. (1927), De sermone Hyperidis, Studia Leopolitana 3,
Lemberg. Cited on pages 95, 102.
Habicht, C. (1970), Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte, Zetem-
ata 14, Munich, 2d ed. Cited on pages 88, 91.
(1996), “Athens, Samos, and Alexander the Great,” Proceed-
ings of the American Philosophical Society 140: 397–405. Cited
on page 10.
(1997), Athens from Alexander to Antony, Cambridge, Mass.
Cited on pages 3, 9, 14, 58, 78, 80, 81.
Hall, J. M. (2001), “Contested ethnicities: perceptions of Macedonia
within evolving definitions of Greek identity,” in I. Malkin (ed.),
Ancient perceptions of Greek ethnicity, Cambridge, Mass, Center
for Hellenic Studies colloquia 5, 159–186. Cited on page 86.
Hamel, D. (1998), Athenian generals: military authority in the clas-
sical period, Mnemosyne supplementa 182, Leiden. Cited on
page 61.
Hamilton, J. R. (1977), “Cleitarchus and Didorus 17,” in K. Kinzl (ed.),
Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in ancient history and pre-
history: studies presented to Fritz Schachermeyr on the occasion
of his eightieth birthday, Berlin, 126–146. Cited on page 78.
Hammond, N. G. L., G. T. Griffith, and F. W. Walbank (1972–1988), A
history of Macedonia, Oxford, 3 volumes. Cited on pages 5, 77,
82, 83.
Hansen, M. H. (1974), The sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens
in the fourth century BC and the public action against unconstitu-
tional proposals, Odense. Cited on pages 5, 6, 8.
(1975), Eisangelia: the sovereignty of the People’s Court in
Athens in the fourth century BC and the impeachment of generals
and politicians, Odense. Cited on pages 3, 18, 58.
128 Bibliography
(1989), The Athenian Ecclesia II , Copenhagen. Cited on

page 3.
(1991), The Athenian democracy in the age of Demosthenes,
Oxford. Cited on page 6.
Hanson, V. D. (1983), Warfare and agriculture in classical Greece,
Biblioteca di studi antichi 40, Pisa. Cited on page 67.
(1998), Warfare and agriculture in classical Greece, Berkeley
and Los Angeles, revised ed. Cited on page 67.
Harding, P. (1985), From the end of the Peloponnesian War to the battle
of Ipsus, Translated documents of Greece & Rome 2, Cambridge.
Cited on pages 94, 96.
Harris, E. M. (1992), “Pericles’ praise of Athenian democracy.
Thucydides 2.37.1,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 94:
157–167, reprinted in Harris 2006, 29–39. Cited on page 70.
(1995), Aeschines and Athenian politics, New York and Ox-
ford. Cited on pages 4, 8, 76, 79.
(2000), “Open texture in Athenian law,” Dike 3: 27–79. Cited
on pages 9, 19.
(2004a), “Antigone the lawyer, or the ambiguities of nomos,”
in E. M. Harris and L. Rubinstein (eds.), The law and the courts
in ancient Greece, London, 19–56, page references to reprint in
Harris 2006, 41–80. Cited on pages 91, 94.
(2004b), “Did rape exist in classical Athens? Further reflec-
tions on the laws about sexual violence,” Dike 7: 41–83, page ref-
erences to reprint in Harris 2006, 297–332. Cited on page 88.
(2004c), “Le rôle de l’epieikeia dans les tribunaux athéniens,”
Revue historique de droit français et étranger 82: 1–13. Cited on
page 66.
(2006), Democracy and the rule of law in classical Athens,
Cambridge. Cited on page 128.
Harvey, F. D. (1985), “Dona ferentes: some aspects of bribery in Greek
politics,” in P. A. Cartledge and F. D. Harvey (eds.), Crux: essays
presented to G. E. M. de Ste. Croix on his 75th birthday, Exeter,
History of Political Thought 6, 76–117. Cited on page 76.
Heisserer, A. J. and R. A. Moysey (1986), “An Athenian decree hon-
oring foreigners,” Hesperia 55: 177–182. Cited on page 9.
Henrichs, A. (1975), “Two doxographical notes: Democritus and Prod-
icus on religion,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 79:
Bibliography 129
Herman, G. (1980–1981), “The ‘friends’ of the early Hellenistic rulers:

servants or officials?,” Talanta 12–13: 103–149. Cited on page 91.
Herrman, J. (2004), Athenian funeral orations, Newburyport. Cited on
pages 15, 16.
(2008), “The authenticity of the Demosthenic Funeral Ora-
tion,” Acta antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 48:
van Herwerden, H. (1895), “Ad Hyperidem,” Mnemosyne 23: 162–166.
Cited on pages xiii, 38, 60, 115.
Hess, H. (1938), Textkritische und erklärende Beiträge zum Epitaphios
des Hypereides, Klassisch-philologische Studien 11, Leipzig.
Cited on pages xiii, 36, 59, 75, 85, 117, 134.
Hornblower, J. (1981), Hieronymus of Cardia, Oxford. Cited on
page 78.
Humphreys, S. C. (1985), “Lycurgus of Boutadai: an Athenian aris-
tocrat,” in J. W. Eadie and J. Ober (eds.), The craft of the an-
cient historian: essays in honor of Chester G. Starr, Lanham, Md.,
(2004), The strangeness of gods: historical perspectives on the
interpretation of Athenian religion, Oxford. Cited on pages 9, 75.
Jacoby, F. (1923–1958), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker,
Berlin, 15 vols. Cited on pages xi, xii, 12.
(1944), “Patrios nomos: state burial in Athens and the pub-
lic cemetery in the Kerameikos,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 64:
Jaschinski, S. (1981), Alexander und Griechenland unter dem Eindruck
der Flucht des Harpalos, Bonn. Cited on page 58.
Jebb, S. (1722), Aelius Aristides. Opera omnia Graece & Latine, Ox-
ford, 2 vols. Cited on page xii.
Jehne, M. (1994), Koine Eirene: Untersuchungen zu den Befriedungs-
und Stabilisierungsbemühungen in der griechischen Poliswelt des
4. Jahrhunderts v. Ch, Historia Einzelschriften 63, Stuttgart. Cited
on page 93.
Jensen, C. C. (1917), Hyperidis orationes sex cum ceterarum fragmen-
tis, Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneri-
ana, Leipzig. Cited on pages xii–xiv, 26, 27, 30–32, 36, 38, 40,
42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 59, 60, 63, 64, 70, 71, 74, 75, 85, 98, 100, 102,
115–118, 137.
Johnson, W. A. (2004), Bookrolls and scribes in Oxyrhynchus, Toronto.
Cited on page 28.
130 Bibliography
Kaibel, G. (1893), Stil und Text der ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑ ΑΘΗΝΑΙΩΝ des Aris-
toteles, Berlin. Cited on pages xiii, 38, 70.
(1899), Comicorum graecorum fragmenta, Berlin. Cited on
page xii.
Kapparis, K. (1999), Apollodoros “Against Neaira” [D. 59], Unter-
suchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 53, Berlin. Cited
on page 106.
Kassel, R. (1958), Untersuchungen zur griechischen und römischen
Konsolationsliteratur, Zetemata 18, Munich. Cited on pages
107, 108.
Kassel, R. and C. Austin (1983–), Poetae comici Graeci, Berlin, 8 vols.
Cited on page xii.
Kayser, L. (1858), Review of Babington 1858, Neue Jahrbücher für
Philologie und Paedagogik 77: 369–383. Cited on pages xiii, 29,
40, 42, 46, 52, 89, 99, 116–118.
(1868), Review of Comparetti 1864 and Caffiaux 1866, Hei-
delberger Jahrbücher 241. Cited on pages xiii, 71, 99.
Kayser, S. (1898), “L’art oratoire, le style et la langue d’Hypéride,”
Musée Belge 2: 49–93 and 210–229. Cited on page 65.
Kearns, E. (1989), The heroes of Attica, University of London Institute
of Classical Studies Bulletin supplements 57, London. Cited on
pages 21, 105.
Kemmer, E. (1903), Die polare Ausdrucksweise in der griechis-
chen Literatur, Beiträge zur historischen Syntax der griechischen
Sprache 14, Würzburg. Cited on page 93.
Kenyon, F. G. (1893), The orations against Athenogenes and Philippi-
des, London. Cited on page 135.
(1899), The palaeography of Greek papyri, Oxford. Cited on
page 28.
(1906), Hyperidis orationes et fragmenta, Scriptorum classico-
rum bibliotheca Oxoniensis, Oxford. Cited on pages xiii, 30, 36,
38, 40, 50, 52, 100, 101, 115, 117–119, 126.
Kienzle, E. (1936), Der Lobpreis von Städten und Ländern in der äl-
teren griechischen Dichtung, Kallmünz. Cited on page 67.
Kirchner, J. (1901), Prosopographia Attica, Berlin. Cited on page 58.
Kraay, C. M. (1976), Archaic and classical Greek coins, The Library
of numismatics, London. Cited on page 67.
Kraay, C. M. and M. Hirmer (1966), Greek coins, New York. Cited on
page 67.
Bibliography 131
Kühn, K. G. (1821–1833), Claudii Galeni opera omnia, Medicorum

Graecorum opera quae exstant 1–20, Leipzig. Cited on page xii.
Kurke, L. (1991), The traffic in praise. Pindar and the poetics of social
economy, Ithaca. Cited on page 60.
Lambert, S. D. (1997), Rationes centesimarum: sales of public land in
Lykourgan Athens, Archaia Ellas 3, Amsterdam. Cited on page 9.
Lapatin, K. (2001), Chryselephantine statuary in the ancient Mediter-
ranean world, Oxford. Cited on page 90.
Lefèvre, F. (1998), L’amphictionie pyléo-delphique: histoire et institu-
tions, Athens. Cited on page 83.
Leopardi, J. (1835), “Excerpta ex schedis criticis,” Rheinisches Mu-
seum 3: 1–14. Cited on pages xiii, 54.
Levi, L. (1892), Osservazioni sul testo dell’Epitafio d’Iperide, Pisa,
reprinted, Rome, 1978. Cited on pages xiii, 40, 75, 102, 119.
Liddell, H. G. and R. Scott (1925–1940), A Greek–English lexicon, Ox-
ford, 9th ed. Cited on pages xi, 5, 63, 71, 80, 86, 96, 108.
Lobel, E. and D. L. Page (1955), Poetarum Lesbiorum fragmenta, Ox-
ford. Cited on page xii.
Loraux, N. (1986), The invention of Athens: the funeral oration in the
classical city, Cambridge, Mass., translation of 1981 French edi-
tion by A. Sheridan. Cited on pages 13, 14, 23, 65, 68, 69, 74, 75,
79, 109.
(2000), Born of the earth: myth and politics in Athens, Ithaca,
translation of 1981 French edition by S. Stewart. Cited on page 73.
Louden, B. (1993), “Pivotal contrafactuals in Homeric epic,” Classical
Antiquity 12: 181–198. Cited on page 86.
Lucas, D. W. (1968), Aristotle. Poetics, Oxford. Cited on page 66.
Maas, P. (1928), “Zitate aus Demosthenes’ Epitaphios bei Lykurgos,”
Hermes 63: 258–260. Cited on pages 19, 85.
MacDowell, D. M. (1976), “Hybris in Athens,” Greece & Rome 23:
(1982), Gorgias. Encomium of Helen, Bristol. Cited on
page 92.
(1990), Demosthenes, Against Meidias (Oration 21), Oxford.
Cited on page 86.
(2000), Demosthenes. On the false embassy (Oration 19), Ox-
ford. Cited on pages 3, 4, 104.
MacKay, P. (1963), “Procopius’ De Aedificiis and the topography of
Thermopylae,” American Journal of Archaeology 67: 241–255.
Cited on page 77.
132 Bibliography
Maehly, J. (1872), “Zum Epitaphios des Hypereides,” Neue Jahrbücher

für Philologie und Paedagogik 105: 607–612. Cited on pages xiii,
116, 117, 119.
Mari, M. (2003), “Macedonians and pro-Macedonians in early Hel-
lenistic Athens: reflections on ἀσέβεια,” in O. Palagia and S. V.
Tracy (eds.), The Macedonians in Athens, 322–229 BC, Oxford,
Marzi, M. (1977), Oratori attici minori, Turin, volume 1: Iperide, Es-
chine, Lycurgo. Cited on pages 30, 63.
Mastronarde, D. J. (2002), Euripides. Medea, Cambridge. Cited on
page 95.
Matthaiou, A. (1994), “Two new Attic inscriptions,” in R. Osborne and
S. Hornblower (eds.), Ritual, finance, politics. Athenian demo-
cratic accounts presented to David Lewis, Oxford, 175–188. Cited
on page 58.
McCabe, D. F. (1981), The prose-rhythm of Demosthenes, Monographs
in classical studies, New York. Cited on page 17.
Migne, J.-P. (1857–1866), Patrologia Graeca, Paris, 161 vols. Cited
on page xii.
Miller, S. (1973), “The Philippeion and Macedonian Hellenistic ar-
chitecture,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
(Athen. Abt.) 88: 189–218. Cited on page 90.
Mills, S. (1997), Theseus, tragedy, and the Athenian empire, Oxford.
Cited on pages 66, 69, 127.
Momigliano, A. (1993), The development of Greek biography, Cam-
bridge, Mass., expanded ed. Cited on page 61.
Moreno, A. (2007), Feeding the democracy: the Athenian grain supply
in the fifth and fourth centuries BC, Oxford. Cited on page 67.
Morrison, J. S. (1987), “Athenian sea-power in 323/2 BC: dream and
reality,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 107: 88–97. Cited on pages
12, 84.
Naiden, F. S. (2006), Ancient supplication, Oxford. Cited on page 69.
Nesselrath, H.-G. (1992), Ungeschehenes Geschehen. ‘Beinahe-
Episoden’ im griechischen und römischen Epos von Homer bis
zur Spätantike, Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 27, Stuttgart. Cited
on page 86.
Neugebauer, O. and H. Van Hoesen (1959), Greek horoscopes,
Philadelphia. Cited on pages 28, 29, 57.
Nock, A. D. (1972), Essays on religion and the ancient world, Cam-
bridge, Mass., edited by Z. Stewart. 2 vols. Cited on page 89.
Bibliography 133
Oikonomides, A. N. (1982), “Athens and the Phokians at the outbreak

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

University of California publications: classical studies 1, Berkeley
and Los Angeles. Cited on page 77.
(1971–1991), The Greek state at war, Berkeley and Los Ange-
les, 5 volumes. Cited on pages 14, 15, 58, 83, 88, 106.
(1975), Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Thucydides, Berkeley
and Los Angeles. Cited on page 92.
Raaflaub, K. (2004), The discovery of freedom in ancient Greece,
Chicago. Cited on page 93.
Radermacher, L. (1896), Review of Blass 1894, Deutsche Liter-
aturzeitung 1163–1164. Cited on pages xiii, 29, 48, 99.
von Reden, S. (1995), Exchange in ancient Greece, London. Cited on
page 60.
Reinmuth, O. W. (1971), The ephebic inscriptions of the fourth century
BC, Mnemosyne supplementa 14, Leiden. Cited on page 58.
Rennie, W. (1940), Review of Hess 1938, Classical Review 54: 21–22.
Rhodes, P. J. (1972), The Athenian boule, Oxford. Cited on page 12.
(1993), A commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia,
Oxford, revised ed. Cited on pages 9, 75, 104.
(2006), A history of the classical Greek world, 478–323 BC,
Malden. Cited on pages 3, 8.
Rhodes, P. J. and R. Osborne (2003), Greek historical inscriptions
404–323 BC, Oxford. Cited on pages 8, 9, 79, 88, 90, 93, 94.
Roebuck, C. (1948), “The settlements of Philip II with the Greek states
in 338 BC,” Classical Philology 43: 73–92. Cited on pages 5,
77, 82.
Rolando, C. (1969), Per i caduti della guerra lamiaca, Turin. Cited on
page 30.
Rosivach, V. (1987), “Autochthony and the Athenians,” Classical
Quarterly 37: 294–306. Cited on page 73.
Russell, D. A. and N. G. Wilson (1981), Menander Rhetor, Oxford.
Cited on page xii.
Rusten, J. S. (1986), “Structure, style, and sense in interpreting Thucy-
dides: the soldier’s choice (Thuc.2.42.4),” Harvard Studies in
Classical Philology 90: 49–76. Cited on pages 75, 92.
(1989), Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War: book II , Cam-
bridge. Cited on pages 15, 63.
Bibliography 135
Rutherford, I. (2000), “Theoria and Daran: pilgrimage and vision in

Greece and India,” Classical Quarterly 50: 133–146. Cited on
page 84.
Ryder, T. T. B. (1965), Koine eirene. General peace and local inde-
pendence in ancient Greece, Oxford. Cited on pages 5, 93.
Salvaneschi, E. (1972), “Osservazioni su alcuni passi di Iperide,” Maia
24: 149–160. Cited on page 85.
Sánchez, P. (2001), L’Amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes.
Recherches sur son rôle historique, des origines au IIe siècle
de notre ère, Historia Einzelschriften 148, Stuttgart. Cited on
page 83.
Sandys, J. E. (1870), Review of Blass 1869, The Academy 220–221.
Cited on pages xiv, 29, 116.
(1895), Review of Kenyon 1893 and Blass 1894, Classical Re-
view 9: 71–74. Cited on pages xiv, 29.
Sauppe, H. (1860), “ΥΠΕΡΕΙΔΟΥ ΕΠΙΤΑΦΙΟΣ. Hyperides
Grabrede,” Philologus Supplementband 1: 1–60. Cited on pages
xiv, 29, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 52, 54, 63, 75, 87, 89, 98, 101,
109, 115–119.
Scafuro, A. (1997), The forensic stage: settling disputes in Graeco-
Roman new comedy, Cambridge. Cited on page 66.
Schenkl, K. (1877), “Zum Epitaphios des Hypereides,” Zeitschrift für
die österreichischen Gymnasien 28: 896–898. Cited on pages xiv,
116, 117, 119.
Schiappa, E. (1999), The beginnings of rhetorical theory in classical
Greece, New Haven. Cited on page 61.
Schroeder, O. (1914), De laudibus Athenarum a poetis tragicis et ab
oratoribus epidicticis excultis, Diss., Göttingen. Cited on pages
67, 68, 70, 103.
(1922), “Beiträge zur Weiderherstellung des Hyperides-
Textes,” Hermes 57: 450–464. Cited on pages xiv, 115, 118.
Schwenk, C. J. (1985), Athens in the age of Alexander. The dated laws
& decrees of “the Lykourgan era” 338–322 BC, Chicago. Cited
on pages 12, 96.
Schäfer, A. (1860), “Zu Hyperides Epitaphios,” Philologus 15:
150–151. Cited on page xiv.
Sealey, R. (1993), Demosthenes and his time: a study in defeat, New
York and Oxford. Cited on pages 5, 8, 59, 82, 93.
Shilleto, R. (1860), “Hyperides,” Journal of Classical and Sacred
Philology 4: 318–323. Cited on pages xiv, 29, 50, 102, 116, 117.
136 Bibliography
Shipley, D. G. A. (1987), A history of Samos, 800–188 BC, Oxford.

Cited on page 10.
Sitzler, J. (1883), Review of Piccolomini 1882, Philologische Rund-
schau 3.33: 1025–1030. Cited on pages xiv, 38, 65, 99, 118.
Smyth, H. W. (1920), Greek grammar, Cambridge, Mass. Cited on
pages xi, 63, 72, 80, 81, 84, 91, 92, 117.
Snell, B., R. Kannicht, and S. L. Radt (1971–), Tragicorum Graecorum
fragmenta, Göttingen, 5 vols. Cited on page xii.
Soffel, J. (1974), Die Regeln Menanders für die Leichenrede, Beiträge
zur klassischen Philologie 57, Meisenheim am Glan. Cited on
page 107.
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. (1995), “Reading” Greek death to the end of
the classical period, Oxford. Cited on pages 107, 109.
Spengel, L. (1858), Review of Babington 1858, Gelehrte Anzeigen der
K. Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 48–50: 385–406.
Cited on pages xiv, 29, 42.
Stahl, J. M. (1907), Kritisch-historische Syntax des griechischen Ver-
bums der klassischen Zeit, Heidelberg. Cited on pages xiv, 116.
Stroud, R. (1971), “Greek inscriptions. Theozotides and the Athenian
orphans,” Hesperia 40: 280–301. Cited on page 96.
Stroud, R. and D. M. Lewis (1979), “Athens honors king Evagoras of
Salamis,” Hesperia 48: 180–193. Cited on page 90.
Stupperich, R. (1977), Staatsbegräbnis und Privatgrabmal im klassis-
chen Athen, Diss., Münster, 2 parts in 1. Cited on pages 14, 15.
(1994), “The iconography of Athenian state burials in the clas-
sical period,” in W. D. E. Coulson, O. Palagia, T. L. Shear, H. A.
Shapiro, and F. J. Frost (eds.), The archaeology of Athens and At-
tica under the democracy, Oxford, 93–103. Cited on page 15.
Talbert, R. (2000), Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world,
Princeton and Oxford. Cited on pages xi, 77, 78.
Tarrant, D. (1930), “Hyperides, Epitaphios 20 (col. 8),” Classical Re-
view 44: 42. Cited on pages xiv, 117.
Tausend, K. (1992), Amphiktyonie und Symmachie: Formen zwischen-
staatlicher Beziehungen im archaischen Griechenland, Historia
Einzelschriften 73, Stuttgart. Cited on page 83.
Taylor, C. (2001), “Bribery in Athenian politics,” Greece & Rome 48:
53–66 and 154–172. Cited on page 76.
Taylor, M. W. (1991), The tyrant slayers: the heroic image in fifth cen-
tury BC Athenian art and politics, Monographs in classical studies,
Salem, 2d ed. Cited on page 104.
Bibliography 137
Tchernetska, N. (2005), “New fragments of Hyperides from the

Archimedes Palimpsest,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigra-
phik 154: 1–6. Cited on page xii.
Tell, W. (1861), Hyperidis orationis funebris quae supersunt, Nord-
hausen. Cited on pages xiv, 29, 117, 119.
Thalheim, T. (1918), Review of Jensen 1917, Berliner philologische
Wochenschrift 38: 289–291. Cited on pages xiv, 117.
Thomas, R. (1989), Oral tradition and written record in classical
Athens, Cambridge. Cited on pages 16, 69.
Thompson, E. M. and G. F. Warner (1881), Catalogue of ancient
manuscripts in the British Museum, London, volume 1: Greek.
Cited on page 28.
Threatte, L. (1980–1996), The grammar of Attic inscriptions, Berlin, 2
vols. Cited on pages 61, 105.
Toup, J. and D. Ruhnken (1806), ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΟΥ ΛΟΓΓΙΝΟΥ ΤΑ ΣΩ-
ΖΟΜΕΝΑ. Dionysii Longini quae supersunt, Oxford, 3d ed. Cited
on pages xiii, xiv, 54, 119.
Tracy, S. V. (1994), “IG II2 1195 and Agathe Tyche in Attica,” Hesperia
63: 241–244. Cited on page 13.
(1995), Athenian democracy in transition: Attic letter-cutter of
340 to 290 BC, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Cited on pages 13, 14,
58, 79.
Treves, P. (1939), “Hyperides and the cult of Hephaestion,” Classical
Review 53: 56–57. Cited on page 91.
Tsirigoti-Drakotou, I. (2000), “Nea stili pesonton apo to Dimosion
Sima,” Archaiologikon Deltion 55: 87–112. Cited on page 15.
Tsitsiridis, S. (1998), Platons Menexenos. Einleitung, Text und Kom-
mentar, Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 107, Stuttgart and Leipzig.
Turner, E. G. (1980), Greek papyri, Oxford, revised ed. Cited on pages
27, 31.
(1987), Greek manuscripts of the ancient world, University
of London Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin supplements 46,
London, 2d ed., edited by P. J. Parsons. Cited on pages 28, 29.
Usener, H. and L. Radermacher (1885–1929), Dionysii Halicarnasei
quae exstant, Leipzig, 6 volumes. Cited on page xii.
Usher, S. (1999), Greek oratory. Tradition and originality, Oxford.
Cited on pages 71, 73, 95, 97.
138 Bibliography
Veligianni-Terzi, C. (1997), Wertbegriffe in den attischen Ehren-

dekreten der Klassischen Zeit, Heidelberger althistorische Bei-
träge und epigraphische Studien 25, Stuttgart. Cited on pages 75,
96, 106.
Versnel, H. S. (1989), “Quid Athenis et Hierosolymis? Bemerkungen
über die Herkunft von Aspekten des ‘effective death’,” in J. W. van
Henten (ed.), Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie, Leiden,
Volckmar, C. (1860), “Zu Hyperides Grabrede,” Philologus 15:
151–152. Cited on pages xiv, 29, 115.
Volkmann, R. (1885), Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer in sys-
tematischer Übersicht, Leipzig, 2d ed. Cited on pages 80, 84, 91,
92, 97.
Wachsmuth, C. and O. Hense (1884–1912), Ioannis Stobaei An-
thologium, Berlin, 5 vols. Cited on page 107.
Walbank, M. B. (1994), “A Lex Sacra of the state and of the deme
Kollytos,” Hesperia 63: 233–239. Cited on page 13.
Walcot, P. (1978), Envy and the Greeks: a study of human behaviour,
Warminster. Cited on page 64.
Walker, H. J. (1995), Theseus and Athens, New York and Oxford. Cited
on page 68.
Walters, K. R. (1980), “Rhetoric as ritual: the semiotics of the Attic
funeral oration,” Florilegium 2: 1–27. Cited on pages 17, 84.
Wankel, H. (1976), Demosthenes, Rede für Ktesiphon über den Kranz,
Heidelberg, 2 vols. Cited on page 8.
Wattenbach, W. (1897), Scripturae Graecae specimina, Berlin, 3d ed.
Cited on page 29.
Weil, H. (1858), “Zu Hypereides Epitaphios,” Neue Jahrbücher für
Philologie und Paedagogik 77: 746. Cited on pages xiv, 29, 117.
West, M. L. (1978), Hesiod. Works & Days. Edited with prolegomena
and commentary, Oxford. Cited on page 65.
Whitehead, D. (1993), “Cardinal virtues: the language of public appro-
bation in democratic Athens,” Classica et Mediaevalia 44: 37–75.
(2000), Hypereides. The forensic speeches, Oxford. Cited on
pages v, 3, 4, 6, 10–12, 24, 29, 31, 65, 77, 80, 89, 94, 95.
von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. (1998), Geschichte der Philolo-
gie, Stuttgart and Leipzig, 3d ed., reprint of 1927 edition with
postscript and indexes by Albert Henrichs. Cited on page 72.
Bibliography 139
Worthington, I. (1984), “IG II2 370 and the date of the Athenian al-
liance with Aetolia,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
57: 139–144. Cited on page 12.
(1987), “The earlier career of Leosthenes and IG II2 1631,”
Historia 36: 489–491. Cited on page 10.
(1992), A historical commentary on Dinarchus: rhetoric and
conspiracy in later fourth-century Athens, Ann Arbor. Cited on
pages 7, 89.
(1994), “The Harpalus affair and the Greek response to the
Macedonian hegemony,” in I. Worthington (ed.), Ventures into
Greek history, Oxford, 307–330. Cited on page 12.
(1999), Dinarchus and Hyperides, Greek orators 2, Warmin-
ster. Cited on pages 24, 30, 84, 85, 95.
(2000), “Demosthenes’ (in)activity during the reign of Alexan-
der the Great,” in I. Worthington (ed.), Demosthenes: statesman
and orator, London and New York, 90–113. Cited on pages 8, 9,
11, 19, 82.
(2003a), “Alexander’s destruction of Thebes,” in W. Heckel
and L. A. Tritle (eds.), Crossroads of history: the age of Alexan-
der, Claremont, 65–86. Cited on page 7.
(2003b), “The authorship of the Demosthenic Epitaphios,” Mu-
seum Helveticum 60: 152–157. Cited on page 17.
Worthington, I., C. R. Cooper, and E. M. Harris (2001), Dinarchus, Hy-
perides, and Lycurgus, The oratory of classical Greece 5, Austin.
Yalouris, N., M. Andronikos, K. Rhomiopoulou, A. Herrmann, and
C. Vermeule (1980), The search for Alexander. An exhibition,
Boston. Cited on page 87.
Yunis, H. (2000), “Politics as literature: Demosthenes and the burden
of the Athenian past,” Arion 8: 97–118. Cited on page 20.
(2001), Demosthenes. On the crown, Cambridge. Cited on
page 94.
Ziolkowski, J. E. (1981), Thucydides and the tradition of funeral
speeches at Athens, Monographs in classical studies, New York.
Cited on pages 16, 58, 64, 72, 73, 103.
General Index
abstract nouns, 63 Areopagus, 11

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

Byzantium, 4 17, 24, 77, 107
Callias, 62 Ecbatana, 91
Callias of Chalcis, 77 egkmion, 80, 81, 101
Carystus, 77 encomia in prose, 61–62, 81,
Ceramicus, 14, 105 92
Chaeronea, 3, 5–9, 14, 17–20, epainos, 16, 26, 64, 72, 80, 81,
22, 23, 62, 65, 77, 79–82, 95, 106
85, 87, 89, 90 ephbeia, 75
Chalcis, 77 Ephebic oath, 94
chryselephantine material, 90 Epicharmus, 95
Cimon, 68–69 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, 20–22 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, 83–84
Demades, 6–8, 11, 14, 89 family members, 95
Democritus, 68 freedom, 8, 17, 18, 20, 22–24,
dmosion sma, 15, 58 81, 82, 85, 92–94, 101, 107
Demosthenes, 4–22, 40, 58, 59,
62–65, 68–70, 72–74, 76, Galen, 71
79–81, 83, 85–89, 92, 93, genos, 72, 73, 75
95–97, 100, 103–107, 109 Gorgias, 15, 64, 66, 68, 92, 93
Dinarchus, 5, 10, 11, 88, 89,
97 Harmodius and Aristogiton, 21,
Diodorus Siculus, 5–7, 10–14, 22, 103–105, 109
58, 59, 77, 78, 80, 81, 84, Harpalus, 10–12, 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
Heracles and the Heraclidae, League of Corinth, 5, 6, 10,

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

Olympias, 90 rhetorical devices
Orestes, 69 alliteration, 108
orphans, 96, 108 antithesis, 61, 70, 74, 80, 85,
86, 91, 93, 94, 108
paideia, 72–74 aporia, 71
paramythia, 16, 26, 107 chiasmus, 60
Pausanias, 12, 58, 90 exclamations, 25, 26, 105
Peparethos, 59 homoioteleuton, 84, 91, 108
Persia, 7, 8, 10, 84, 87 hyperbole, 22, 103
Persian Wars, 7, 14, 16–23, 63, hypophora, 71, 73, 97–99
68, 69, 78, 79, 81, 86, 103, juxtaposition, 103
104, 106 metaphor, 70, 95, 96
Phalaecus, 79 parechesis, 91
Philemo, 109 parisosis, 25, 80, 84
Philip, 3–7, 9, 17, 19, 20, 24, paromoiosis, 92
76, 77, 79, 82, 83, 87–91 polyptoton, 25, 95
Philippeion, 87, 90 praeteritio, 71, 72, 75
Philippides, 6, 7 repetition, 80, 92, 95, 104,
Philiscus, 61 108
Philocrates, 3, 4, 76 simile, 21, 25, 64, 65, 69,
Phocis, 4, 12, 78, 79 72, 80, 93–95
Photius, 119 tricolon, 91, 108
Rhodes, 4
Phrygians, 100
P. Rutilius Lupus, 93
Pindar, 64
Pisistratids, 104 Sacred War, 4, 79, 83–84
Plataea, 13, 23, 78, 102, 103 sacrifice, 19, 24, 88, 104, 105
Plato, 6, 15–17, 21, 23, 58–61, Salamis, 18, 19, 104
64, 65, 67–70, 73, 81, 86, Samian War, 103
92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 100–104, Samos, 10
106–109 sexual violence, 24, 87–88, 91,
Plutarch, 4–8, 10–15, 54, 61, 95, 102, 103
66, 81, 103 Simonides, 102
Pollux, 54 Siwah, 91
Polyaenus, 62 Solon, 96
Polybius, 77 Sophocles, 66, 67, 69
Poseidon, 89 sphrosyn, 65–66, 74
Potidaea, 62 Stobaeus, 46, 52, 107
Prodicus, 68 Stratocles, 62
suppliants, 17, 64, 66
General Index 145
Taenarum, 10, 12, 77 104, 106–109

Thebes, 4, 5, 7, 8, 17–19, 21, Trojan War, 21, 22, 98, 100,
68, 69, 77, 79, 81–83 102–104, 109
Themistocles, 21, 23, 62 tyranny, 21, 24, 60, 70, 82, 88,
Theodectes, 61 93, 94, 103, 104
theros, 83
underworld, 21, 23, 26, 62,
Thermopylae, 13, 23, 77–79,
102, 106, 108, 109
83, 104
Theseus, 17, 66, 68–70 Xenophon, 61, 67
Thessaly, 13, 77–80 Xerxes, 104
Thucydides, 15, 16, 58, 60–64,
67, 68, 70, 73, 92–97, 101, Zeus, 87–91
Index of Greek Words
τὰ ἀγαθά, 97 ἔλεγχος, 94
ἄγαλμα, 89, 90 ἐλευθερία, 85, 93
ἀγήρατος, 26, 109 ἔνδοξος, 26, 106
αἰτία, 94 ἔπαινος, 80, 81
ἀκούειν, 101 ἐπιείκεια, 65, 66
ἀλλά, 73, 97, 102, 108 ἔρανος, 97
ἄν, 85 ἔργον, 61
ἀνδραγαθία, 106 εὐγένεια, 60, 73
ἀνδρεία, 62, 104 εὐεργετεῖν, 63
ἄνδρες ἀγαθοί, 59, 75, 97, 102 εὔνοια, 95
ἀνέκλειπτος, 87 ἐφόδιον, 95
ἀπολαύειν, 97 ἡγεμών, 26
ἀρετή, 63, 66, 74, 81, 84, 106 ἡμίθεος, 102
ἀρχή, 96 θεωρός, 83
ἀρχηγός, 96 ἴδιος, 71, 93
αὐτονομία, 93 τὸ ἴσον, 70
ἀφανίζειν, 82 102 κακοί, 68
δεξιοῦσθαι, 26 κοινός, 71, 93
διαβολή, 94 κολάζειν, 69
διεξελθεῖν, 64, 75, 76 κολακεία, 94
δικαιοσύνη, 74 λόγος, 61, 101, 108
δύναμις, 104 μεγαλοπρέπεια, 60, 106
δωροδοκεῖν, 76, 77 μνήμη, 100, 101
ἐγκώμιον, 80, 81, 101 νομίζειν, 60
εἰκών, 89, 90 ὁρισμός, 108
ἔκλειπτος, 87 οὐθείς, 105
147
148 Index of Greek Words
πάλιν, 61 σωφροσύνη, 65–66, 74

πάρεδρος, 91 τάξις, 96
παραλείπειν, 71 ταπεινοῦν, 76, 103
προαίρεσις, 62, 106 τρόπος, 86
προβουλεύειν, 5 ὕβρις, 86–88
προσκυνεῖν, 88 ὑπερηφανία, 86
ὑπολαμβάνειν, 80
σεμνύνειν, 80
φθόνος, 64
σπουδάζειν, 99 φράζειν, 71
στέφανος, 84 χρήσιμος, 68
συνελεῖν δ’ εἰπεῖν, 86 ὤ, 105

(American Philological Association American Classical Studies 53) Hyperides., Hyperides - Herrman, Judson-Hyperides - Funeral Oration-Oxford University Press (2009) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(American Philological Association American Classical Studies 53) Hyperides., Hyperides - Herrman, Judson-Hyperides - Funeral Oration-Oxford University Press (2009) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HYPERIDES

AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Studies in Classical History and Society

The Augustan Succession

Greek Mythography in the Roman World

Figuring Genre in Roman Satire

Homer’s Cosmic Fabrication

Edited with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary by

Oxford New York

Copyright © 2009 by the American Philological Association

Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Hyperides’ Funeral Oration is arguably the most important surviving

the dissertation and has continued to be supportive and inspiring, and

The following special abbreviations are used throughout the work.

In references to ancient authors which depend upon particular editions,

3. In the Critical Apparatus

In the critical apparatus and appendix B, and also textual discussion in

Sandys Sandys 1895 on §10. The §12 suggestion is re-

1. The Historical Background

Hyperides (born in 390/389) delivered the Funeral Oration in Athens

Whitehead 2000, 235.

sembly.17 The people selected Demosthenes to give the funeral oration

der’s, campaign against the Persian Empire, which was portrayed as

Demosthenes and Hyperides, but there is little sign of concerted

ure to act in 331 by emphasizing his earlier leadership.36 Since Philip’s

Alexander beginning in early 324. First, Alexander abandoned the for-

and was murdered soon afterward in Crete.50

out as a particularly goading incitement to the Greeks.58

at Crannon.75 Athens was forced to submit to the Macedonian terms,

2. The Rhetorical Background

Hyperides’ Funeral Oration was addressed to a large audience of Athe-

in the public tomb (dmosion sma) followed by the funeral oration

Heroes.84 Hyperides’ speech is the only one that focuses on an individ-

from Theseus’ expeditions against the Amazons and Eumolpus to the

The Athenians were unable to challenge the Macedonian hege-

3. Hyperides’ Funeral Oration

War receives only a moment’s attention.118 Demosthenes’ speech

their ancestors,125 but Hyperides emphatically argues that Leosthenes

the tyrannical rule of Alexander.138 He decries the pernicious inﬂuence

words (ἄξιον δέ [ἐσ]τιν ἐπαινεῖν, “deserves to be praised”) govern a

apparent in word usage. The Funeral Oration uses several vocabulary

4. The Text and Translation

should be given to Bartolini (1977, 88–101) which is not an edition

the iota adscript is employed throughout; scribal omissions of mute

gins; every ﬁfth line is numbered.

[ – – ]αλλοτ.[ – – ]|[ – – ]πολλ[ – – ]|[ – – ]γ.εν.[ – – ]

1  τῶν μὲν λόγων τ[ῶν μελ]|λ.όντων ῥηθήσεσ[θαι ἐπὶ] | τῶιδε I

ἄνθρω[π ..... .... | .. ] . ν πω κα[λλί ..... .. | . ἑ]ώ.ρακε ω . [ .. οὐδ’

2 μεγα|20 λ]οπ.ρ.επεσ.τ.[έρας. διὸ] | καὶ μάλιστα [νῦν φοβοῦ]|μαι, 10

have died or more generous achievements. [For this reason] too 2

40 παρασκευάζουσα Babington 41 περὶ μὲν οὖν Babington κοινῶν ἔργων τῆς

its own [risk] and expense.

| [ἐπέ]δ.ωκεν ἑαυτὸν μὲν τῆι |10 [πατρί]δι, τὴν δὲ πόλιν τοῖς

71 ἐπέδωκεν Kayser μ  p, corr. Babington 73 συστησάμενος Babington

εἶ|ναι τοῦ β.[ούλ]εσθαι τῆι Ἑλλάδι | [τὴ]ν. ἐλε.[υθερ]ίαν VII

21 ὕβρ‹ε›ις ἂν ἐκ|15 λείπτους ἑκάστοις καθεστά|ναι. φανερὸν δ’

and even every child, would be unceasing. That is clear from 21

ποιούμενοι | καὶ τοῖς καθ’ ἡμέραν κινδύνοις τοὺ‹ς› εἰς | τὸν

| ἡλικιώτ.[αις; ..... .... ] | τελευτη . [ .... ..... ... ] | καλῶς . [ ....

[ – – ] example [ – – ] the virtue [ – – ], not [ – – ] to [ – – ] them

πᾶσαν | [τ]ὴν τῆς Εὐρώπης καὶ | [τ]ῆ.ς Ἀσίας ἄρχουσαν

41 χαλεπὸν μὲν ἴσως ἐστὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις ὄντας πάθεσι

1 τῶν μὲν λόγων τ[ῶν μελ]|λ.όντων ῥηθήσεσ[θαι ἐπὶ] | τῶιδε I

71 ἐπέδωκεν Kayser μ p, corr. Babington 73 συστησάμενος Babington

corrected from 34