Herrman (2009) - Hyperides Funeral Oration

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 Dios Roman History Books
5556 (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
Homers 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 Universitys 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 ofces 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. HyperidesTranslations into English. 2. Funeral orationsTranslations
into English. 3. Funeral rites and ceremonies, AncientGreekAthens.
I. Herrman, Judson. II. Title.
PA4212.A36 2009
885.01dc22 2008045141
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
Preface
Hyperides Funeral Oration is arguably the most important surviving
example of anAthenian epitaphios logos both because of its ne quality
as an epideictic composition, and because it reveals that a state funeral
oration could transform the standard content of the genre and adapt it
to the immediate historical context. This volume presents a newcritical
edition of the text, accompanied by an extensive commentary aimed at
an audience of scholars and graduate students in classics and ancient
history. The commentary is both historical and philological; the notes
are designed to demonstrate the timeliness of the speech, and to empha-
size the difference between it and other funeral orations. I also include
an introduction, which situates the speech in its historical and rhetorical
context, and a translation.
Recent worknow further accelerated by the discovery of
extensive and previously unknown fragments of Hyperides in the
Archimedes Palimpsesthas reestablished Hyperides importance as
an orator and as a political gure. Most notably, David Whiteheads
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
ll a conspicuous gap arising from Professor Whiteheads 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 beneted from those parerga. I have designed and
typeset the book myself using open source software. I am grateful to
Stephanie Attia at Oxford University Press for expert advice on the
design, and to the creators and the community of support for X
E
T
E
X,
v
vi Preface
a unicode-based version of T
E
X, and for the edmac and Eplain macros
packages, which I have adapted and extended to produce camera-ready
copy of this volume.
It is a pleasure to acknowledge the generous help Ive received in
the course of writing this book. I would like to thank John Duffy, An-
drew Wolpert, and Harvey Yunis for helpful comments on early drafts
of this material. I am also grateful to the editorial board of of the APA
Publication Committee and especially to the editor of the APA Mono-
graph Series, Kathryn Gutzwiller, for encouragement and constructive
advice on the manuscript at a later stage. The book has beneted im-
mensely from the suggestions of two anonymous external referees, and
from the comments of Adele Scafuro and David Whitehead, who also
read the manuscript for theAPA. I amparticularly indebted to Professor
Scafuro for devoting an extraordinary amount of time to reading and
commenting on my manuscript. I am also grateful to Peter Hunt and
the students in his spring 2008 seminar on Greek oratory at the Uni-
versity of Colorado for their useful comments. These readers and those
named below may not agree with all of my arguments and conclusions
here; they have saved me from many mistakes and misunderstandings,
but I have not always followed their advice. Any remaining errors or
omissions are entirely my own.
I would like also to acknowledge and thank several institutions for
their nancial support. Harvard Universitys Graduate School of Arts
and Sciences awarded me a dissertation completion fellowship to nish
the rst full version of this material in spring 1999. A Fletcher Fam-
ily Research Grant from Bowdoin College enabled me to study the
papyrus for the rst time in person during the summer of 2003. Two
awards from the academic support committee of Allegheny College,
supplemented by an award from the Jonathan E. and Nancy L. Helm-
reich Research and Book Grant Fund, supported study at the Institute of
Classical Studies in London in 2005 and at Harvards Widener Library
in 2006. I am grateful to the librarians and staff at those institutions and
to the British Library. I completed nal revisions of this manuscript at
the National Humanities Center, where I held the Robert F. and Mar-
garet S. Goheen Fellowship during the academic year 2006/2007. My
time at the National Humanities Center was co-funded by a sabbatical
grant from the Loeb Classical Library Foundation. I am particularly
grateful to everyone at the Center for making my time there so produc-
tive and comfortable.
My greatest academic debts are to Albert Henrichs, who advised
Preface vii
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 selessly
helpful at every stage of writing and revision. My nal 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. 121139.
1. General
The following special abbreviations are used throughout the work.
Barrington atlas Talbert 2000.
CAH Cambridge ancient history, 2d edition (19702005).
FGrHist Jacoby 19231958.
IG Inscriptiones graecae. Berlin (1873).
LSJ Liddell and Scott 19251940.
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 editions 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, 111291.
Alcmaeon Diels and Kranz 1952, vol. I: 210216 no. 24.
Epicharmus Kaibel 1899, 88147.
Euripides Snell et al. 1971, vol. V (Kannicht).
Galen Khn 18211833.
Gorgias Diels and Kranz 1952, vol. II: 271307 no. 82.
Hecataeus FGrHist, vol. IIIa: 1164 no. 264.
Hyperides References to the older fragments use the enu-
meration of Jensen 1917 and Blass 1894. The
rst 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 18571866 vol. 91.
Philemo Kassel and Austin 1983, vol. VII: 221317.
Pseudo-Dionysius Usener and Radermacher 18851929, vol. 6
(Opuscula vol. 2). Russell and Wilson (1981,
362381) 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.
2931. 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
editors name is enclosed in brackets (viz. [Fuhr]).
p The papyrus, P. Lit. Lond. 133 = Brit. Mus. inv. 98
(Pack 1965, 1236).
Babington Babington 1859.
Blass Blass 1894.
Bcheler Bcheler 1875, 308309.
Bursian Bursian and Mller 1858.
Caesar Caesar 1857.
Cafaux Cafaux 1866.
Cobet Cobet 1858; Cobet 1873, 343 on 43.
Colin Colin 1946.
Comparetti Comparetti 1864. Many of his suggestions were
originally published in Comparetti 1858.
Desrousseaux Desrousseaux 1949.
Fritzsche Fritzsche 18611862.
[Fuhr] The reference is from Jensen 1917. His bibliogra-
phy lists seven items. I have checked six of those
and not been able to locate Fuhrs comments on the
Funeral Oration. The other reference, to Wochen-
schrift fr klassiche Philologie 1902 p. 1543, is in
error. Cited on pages xiii, 54, 75, 115, 116.
Graindor Graindor 1898.
van Herwerden van Herwerden 1895.
Hess Hess 1938.
Jensen Jensen 1917.
Kaibel Kaibel 1893, 56 n. 1.
Kayser Kayser 1858; Kayser 1868 on 6 and 31.
Kenyon Kenyon 1906.
Leopardi Leopardi 1835, 11.
Levi Levi 1892.
Maehly Maehly 1872.
Mller Bursian and Mller 1858.
Piccolomini Piccolomini 1882.
Post L. A. Posts conjectures are reported in Burtt 1954.
Radermacher Radermacher 1896.
Ruhnken Toup and Ruhnken 1806, 312313.
xiv Abbreviations
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.
Schfer Originally in Babington 1858, not fully repeated in
Schfer 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, 312313.
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 Philips son Alexander in
323, the Greeks revolted. The rebellion was initially successful, and the
Funeral Oration evinces the optimistic mood of Hyperides and other
Athenians at the time. We will nowcontextualize that optimism, rst 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 rst 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, 6166) 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, 328346
and Habicht 1997, 642.
3
On the case see Hansen 1975, 102103 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
conscated.
Hyperides successful attack on Philocrates and the Peace brought
him into partnership with Demosthenes, who prosecuted Aeschines
soon afterward on similar grounds.
7
In anticipation of the upcoming
conict with Philip, Demosthenes and other leading Athenian oppo-
nents of Macedon began reaching out to potential allies. In the late
340s Demosthenes himself made repeated diplomatic trips to the Pelo-
ponnese and elsewhere, while Hyperides went to the island of Rhodes.
8
Hyperides helped prepare the eet to face the Macedonians at Euboea
in 340, and after Philip laid siege to Byzantium and captured the Athe-
nian grain eet later that year, Hyperides served as trierarch and par-
ticipated in the expedition to Byzantium.
9
In 339 the lines were drawn for war with Philip in Greece. The
Macedonian king entered central Greece as the hgemn of the Am-
phictyonic League in the fourth Sacred War against Amphissa, while
Athens formed an opposing coalition with Thebes and several other
Greek states.
10
Demosthenes was proud of engineering this alliance
Whitehead 2000, 235.
4
Harris (1995, 5356) considers the Athenian motives for a treaty with Philip
at this point.
5
It is rst 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 ]
.
6
See also the note on 10 under [] .
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, 334335). Hy-
perides may also have visited Chios and/or Thasos on this trip; see Engels 1989,
8788.
9
[Plu.] Vit. X or. 848e and 849e.
10
For a narrative of these events see Ellis 1976, 186193 and CAH VI
2
, 778781.
Harris (1995, 126130) 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 Philips, and then Alexan-
ders, lead in the so-called League of Corinth.
13
Hyperides was a staunch supporter of Demosthenes before and af-
ter the battle. He proposed an honorary crown to award Demosthenes
for his good service to the city of Athens in the days leading up to
the confrontation.
14
As a member of the boul in 338/337 he remained
in the city during the battle,
15
and when news of the disaster reached
Athens, he put forward an emergency measure enfranchising slaves,
metics, and Athenians whose citizenship had been revoked.
16
At the
end of the campaign season the boul initiated the selection process
for the orator at the state funeral oration, and Hyperides likely had a
role in the presentation of Demosthenes as a candidate before the As-
before the battle. Sealey (1993, 196198) discusses the terms of the coalition (Athens
paid two-thirds of the expense according to Aesch. 3.143 and Dem. 18.238, and that
detail is now also found at Hyp. Dion. 145v/144r ll. 912).
11
On the alliance, see Dem. 18.153, 211226. Demosthenes enemies charged
him with cowardice in battle (a charge that could be leveled at any of the survivors),
but he was never prosecuted for lipotaxion: Aesch. 3.152, 159, 175176, 187, Din.
1.12, Plut. Dem. 20.2.
12
Diod. Sic. 16.86.5 provides gures for Athenian losses; Plut. Pel. 18.5 observes
the destruction of the entire Theban Sacred Band.
13
On the settlements with the individual Greek states after the battle see Ham-
mond et al. 19721988, II: 604623 and Roebuck 1948. Ryder (1965, 102105 and
150162) discusses the League of Corinth as a koin eirn and Hammond et al.
(19721988, II: 623646) provides a detailed overview.
14
Dem. 18.57, 223224 seems to place the proposal for a crown by Demomeles
and Hyperides before the battle. The proposal was indicted by Diondas in a graph
paranomn (Hansen 1974, 36 no. 26), but references to Theban exiles at Athens in the
fragments of Hyperides defense speech (Hyp. Dion. 176r/173v ll. 2526; cf. Aesch.
3.156 and Harp. s.v. on the exiles in Athens) indicate that the case did not
come to trial until after 335.
15
Luc. Par. 42 offers late and unspecic evidence for his membership on the
boul (which is accepted by, e.g., Develin (1989, 345)), which is now perhaps con-
rmed by the new text of the Against Diondas (Hyp. Dion. 145r/144v l. 25), which
uses the verb probouleuein in a non-technical sense (LSJ s.v. III, not I.2)
to describe Hyperides activity at the time of battle.
16
Osborne 1983, 6768 (T67); the measure was challenged for illegality and
never put into effect (Hansen 1974, 3637 no. 27).
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 Philips
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 nd Hyperides rmly 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 Alexanders 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 rst Philips, 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, 233235).
18
Hansen 1974, 37 no. 28.
19
Hyp. fr. 76.
20
Hansen 1974, 39 no. 32. Whitehead (2000, 2930 and 32) discusses the date
and those honored by the proedroi.
21
Plut. Dem. 22.12, Aesch. 3.77, 160.
22
Plut. Dem. 23.2, Diod. Sic. 17.5.1 and 17.3.2.
23
Diod. Sic. 17.3.24.6, with discussion by Bosworth (1988, 188189).
Introduction 7
ders, campaign against the Persian Empire, which was portrayed as
a panhellenic war of revenge for the invasion of 480.
24
With Greece
pacied, Alexander returned to the north to make nal 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 fty 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 Alexanders panhel-
lenism see Flower 2000.
25
For narratives of the Theban revolt and destruction see Arr. An. 1.78 and Diod.
Sic. 17.814, with the note on 17 under ] . On the garrison
see note on 17 under [ ] [][]. Worthington (2003a)
suggests that Alexanders treatment of Thebes was connected with Theban support
of a rival (Amyntas son of Perdiccas III) for the Macedonian throne.
26
See Diod. Sic. 17.8.67 and Plut. Dem. 23.12 with discussion by Worthington
(1992, 164165).
27
On Demades role see Diod. Sic. 17.15.34. Some sources put Hyperides on
the list of Athenians demanded, but Bosworth (1980, 9395) demonstrates that these
later accounts wrongly include Hyperides because of his activity during the Lamian
War.
28
Hyp. Dion. 145r/144v ll. 910 and 175r/174v ll. 3132 (on the speech see be-
low p. 18); [Plu.] Vit. X or. 848f.
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 Alexanders 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 ght 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 ght, but to no avail.
33
Without the support of the Athenian
navy, Agis revolt was easily defeated by Antipater, Alexanders
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, 175176) considers howstartling the news fromIssus must have
been for the Greeks.
31
On the date see Badian 1994, 268271.
32
Demades: Plut. Mor. 818e; Demosthenes: Plut. Dem. 24.1 and Aesch.
3.165166. Badian (1967, 181183) and Cawkwell (1969, 178180) suggest that
Demosthenes failed to appreciate the revolts potential. Worthington (2000, 9798)
is more sceptical of Agis chances and defends Demosthenes inactivity (cf. also
Harris 1995, 173).
33
Libanius summary of Dem. 17 attributes the speech to Hyperides (Lib. Arg.D.
or. 17), and the context is probably the debate in the Athenian Assembly over join-
ing Agis revolt; see Sealey 1993, 240 for references. Rhodes (2006, 342) suggests
that the mention of a contribution to this war in an honorary inscription proposed by
Lycurgus (IG II
2
351 = Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 474477 no. 94) indicates that
Lycurgus would have liked Athens to take part.
34
On the date see Badian 1994, 277.
35
Ctesiphon proposed a crown for Demosthenes in 337/336, and was indicted
soon afterward by Aeschines in a graph paranomn, but the case did not come to
trial until 330/329. Demosthenes delivered the main defense speech as Ctesiphons
syngoros, and by shorthand I refer to him as the defendant in this account. Hansen
(1974, 3739 no. 30) catalogues the testimonia for these events and Wankel (1976,
1337) provides a thorough analysis of the dates of Ctesiphons proposal, Aeschines
indictment, and the trial.
Introduction 9
ure to act in 331 by emphasizing his earlier leadership.
36
Since Philips
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 ght 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 citys 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 fortications, and were also used to increase the size of
the eet.
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 Ctesiphons decree of 336, and later events
are not strictly relevant. Still, Aeschines brings up the revolts of the 330s and Demos-
thenes does not respond; see the discussion on pp. 1920.
37
Harris (2000, 5967) demonstrates that Aeschines case was weak, and that the
judges voted in support of Demosthenes interpretation of the legal issue.
38
Worthington (2000, 101) summarizes the slight evidence for Demosthenes
activity between 330 and 324.
39
Rhodes (1993, 515516) provides a concise sketch of Lycurgus nancial ad-
ministration; Lambert (1997, 280291) offers a more full account with references
to recent discussion (most importantly, Faraguna 1992, 171194). On private con-
tributions see Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 474477 no. 94 on IG II
2
351 + 624 and
Heisserer and Moysey (1986) on a similar honorary decree.
40
Habicht (1997, 2326) and Bosworth (1988, 204211) provide useful brief
summaries of Lycurgus programs. For a more detailed account see Faraguna 1992,
257267 and Humphreys 2004, 77129 (a reprint of Humphreys 1985 with updated
notes and an extensive new afterword).
41
We have two forensic speeches of Hyperides from the period of 330 to 324 (he
spoke as a syngoros for Euxenippus, probably in 330 or not long afterward, and he
wrote a speech for a client in prosecution of Athenogenes), neither of which addresses
foreign policy.
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 Alexanders 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, Alexanders 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 eet 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 conned and that his assets be safe-
guarded on the Acropolis while Demosthenes himself would negoti-
ate with Alexanders 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, 220228) offers
a useful discussion.
43
Badian 1961, 2627.
44
See 13 with note under ] [] .
45
Shipley (1987, 165166) discusses Alexanders Exiles Decree and Samos. His
estimate of between 6,000 and 12,000 cleruchs (14) seems to be conrmed by a re-
cently discovered council list of the cleruchy (Habicht 1996, 401).
46
Diod. Sic. 18.8.6.
47
Hyp. Dem. 18, discussed by Bosworth (1988, 215216). The standard study
of the Harpalus scandal is Badian 1961; Whitehead (2000, 357 n. 246) lists more
recent work (add Blackwell 1999, 1317 and 134136 to his list). Worthington (1987,
4177) also provides a detailed discussion of the events and questions Demosthenes
guilt.
48
Diod. Sic. 17.108.7; [Plu.] Vit. X or. 846ab.
49
Hyp. Dem. 89; Din. 1.81, 103.
Introduction 11
and was murdered soon afterward in Crete.
50
Demosthenes was a central gure 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 condent of his innocence and called for an in-
vestigation by the Areopagus.
52
After that council declared its ndings
six months later, in spring of 323, Demosthenes and others were put
on trial, and eventually found guilty.
53
The procedure must have been
inuenced by political considerations, such as the debate over Alexan-
ders divinity (see the next paragraph), the negotiations with Macedon
on the exiles, or Demosthenes reluctance to join the ercest advocates
of war.
54
After the trial Demosthenes edAthens 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 Alexanders 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, 3132 and Bosworth 1988, 216217.
51
Diod. Sic. 17.108.8, Plut. Dem. 25, Hyp. Dem. 1213 with Whiteheads (2000,
400402) note.
52
See Hyp. Dem. 10 and [Plu.] Vit. X or. 846b on the missing gold, and Hyp.
Dem. 2 and Din. 1.4 on the Areopagus.
53
[Plu.] Vit. X or. 846c, Plut. Dem. 26.1. The prosecution speeches by Hyperides
and Dinarchus survive (Hyp. Dem. and Din. 1).
54
Badian 1961, 3236, Bosworth 1988, 218220, Worthington 2000, 104105.
55
Plut. Dem. 27.45.
56
See the notes to 21 under and []
.
57
Cawkwell (1994, 299302) explains that the Greeks were compelled to follow
the oracle, and that Demades proposed a cult for Alexander on his own initiative. Cf.
Bosworth 1988, 288.
out as a particularly goading incitement to the Greeks.
58
The Athenians resolved to go to war against Macedon before the
death of Alexander on June 10, 323.
59
Earlier that year the boul com-
missioned the Athenian Leosthenes to levy a mercenary army, and he
was elected general for the year 323/322.
60
He had ferried a large body
of mercenaries fromAsia to Cape Taenarum in the Peloponnese, prob-
ably in 325/324, and their numbers were increased by Harpalus men
and other exiles.
61
Alexanders 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
eet to join the mercenaries.
63
Leosthenes was in contact with the Aetolian League prior to
Alexanders 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 Ashtons (1983) suggestion that
the revolt was already in preparation before Harpalus arrived in Athens.
60
Diod. Sic. 17.111.3 (on his confused chronology here, see Worthington 1984,
142); Rhodes (1972, 42) notes that the secret ( ) arrangement must
have been approved by the Assembly. Badian (1961, 37 n. 164) infers that Leos-
thenes was the hoplite general. On his earlier career see the note on 1 under ]
[].
61
Paus. 1.25.5, 8.52.5. On Taenarum as a recognised mercenary center see Ba-
dian 1961, 2728.
62
Diod. Sic. 18.9.4. Badian (1961, 3740) suggests that Demosthenes used the
twenty talents he received from Harpalus to retain these soldiers in summer of 324;
see Whitehead 2000, 401 for references to further discussion of this hypothesis.
63
On Hyperides role see Plut. Phoc. 23.2 and Plut. Mor. 486d; P. Hib. 15 =
FGrHist 105 F6 may preserve a rhetorical piece purporting to be a speech by Leos-
thenes at this debate. Diod. Sic. 18.10.2 and 18.11.3 enumerate the Athenian forces.
Morrison (1987, 8993) discusses these passages and concludes that Athens, in the
hope of forming a new thalassocracy, immediately began developing a compara-
tively long-term programme of expanding the number of ships that could be sent to
sea by a newly organised Hellenic League (90).
64
Diod. Sic. 17.111.3, 18.9.5. A fragment of the stele survives: IG II
2
370. Wor-
thington (1984) discusses the chronology of the alliance.
65
Diod. Sic. 18.9.5 and 18.11.12. IG II
2
367 = Schwenk 1985, 394401 no. 81
records honors for the Athenian ambassador to Phocis (see Oikonomides 1982).
Introduction 13
allied forces to defeat them near Plataea.
66
The Greek forces then
occupied Thermopylae, where they planned to meet the Macedonian
army. The Macedonian commander Antipater requested reinforce-
ments fromAsia as he marched south to meet the Greeks.
67
He enlisted
the Thessalians en route, but they defected and joined the other
Greeks. After the Greeks defeated Antipater north of Thermopylae,
the Macedonians were forced to take refuge in Lamia and await
reinforcements.
68
As the winter approached the Greeks were condent of success.
Antipater offered to surrender, but would not agree to Leosthenes
unconditional terms.
69
In Athens the deme of Collytus voted a thank
offering to Agathe Tyche for the recent victories.
70
Hyperides was
busy recruiting allies in the Peloponnese, and Demosthenes supported
him there (and was consequently recalled from exile).
71
But as
the siege dragged on into the winter, misfortune struck when the
general Leosthenes was killed in a minor engagement.
72
In early 322
Antiphilus, Leosthenes replacement in command, lifted the siege and
led the Greeks in victory against the Macedonian reinforcements. The
Macedonian general Leonnatus was killed, but Antipater escaped in
retreat with his entire army.
73
Hyperides delivered the Funeral Oration in early 322,
74
when the
Greeks had every reason to be optimistic about defeating Macedon. The
speech was presented after the initial victory in Boeotia, the siege at
Lamia, and the defeat of Leonnatus (1214) and before the setbacks
later that year. The Athenian eet suffered two major losses at Abydus
and Amorgus in July of 322, and the army was defeated soon afterward
66
Diod. Sic. 18.11.5. See also the notes on 11 under and .
67
Diod. Sic. 18.11.512.2.
68
1213, Diod. Sic. 18.12.34. Tracy (1995, 29) emphasizes the critical con-
tribution of the Thessalian cavalry; see also the note on 13 under ]
[] .
69
Diod. Sic. 18.18.3, Plut. Phoc. 26.4.
70
See Tracys (1994, 242) discussion of an augmented text (Walbank 1994) of
IG II
2
1195 (lines 2830).
71
Just. 13.5.1011, Plut. Dem. 27.24. IG II
2
448 (912, 4549) refers to an al-
liance with Sicyon in late 323.
72
Diod. Sic. 18.13.45, Just. 13.5.12; see also the note on 1 under ]
[]. 23 describes the difculties of the winter siege.
73
Diod. Sic. 18.15.17; see also the note on 14 under []
.
74
There was not a xed calendar date for the ceremony; see Loraux 1986, 3738.
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 ght the Macedonians at Chaeronea by invoking pa-
triotic models from Athenian history, and at the same time his speech
reects its historical context in 338. From there we will turn to other
speeches of the 330s and nd 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 (18.15.89) is highly compressed). For Crannon
see Diod. Sic. 18.16.417.5.
76
Plut. Phoc. 28.1, Plut. Dem. 28.24.
77
The date at which the institution was rst introduced is notoriously controver-
sial and not relevant for my present purpose. Parker (1996, 134135) sensibly sug-
gests that it developed by stages and assumed its full formwith an oration after the
defeat of the Persians. Others have argued for specic dates in the late 470s or 460s
(see Jacoby 1944, 55; Gomme 1956, 94101; Stupperich 1977, 1.235238; Clair-
mont 1983, 1315; Loraux 1986, 5676). The fullest recent summary of the problem
is Pritchett 19711991, IV: 112124.
Introduction 15
in the public tomb (dmosion sma) followed by the funeral oration
(epitaphios logos) and games (epitaphios agn).
78
The remains were
divided into ten cofns, 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-
ed 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, 5356) argues against the common interpretation of dmosion sma
as national cemetery (cf. Rusten 1989, 137). Pritchett (19711991, IV: 102106)
discusses representations of the the prothesis and the ekphora in vase painting and
drama. Carey (2007a, 241) observes that the games take us into the world not just
of the early aristocrat . . . but also that of the hero; for the testimonia see Lys. 2.80,
Pl. Mx. 249b and Dem. 60.13 with Pritchett 19711991, IV: 107.
79
Stupperich (1977, 1.431) and Clairmont (1983, 6073) describe the polyan-
dria. For the epigrams see Peek 1955, nos. 137. On the iconography, Stupperich
1994. Bradeens work on the casualty lists is synthesized in Bradeen 1969, and
Tsirigoti-Drakotou (2000) describes a recently discovered casualty list fragment (I
am grateful to Adele Scafuro for this reference). A funeral monument with cremated
remains of several men, dated to the third quarter of the fth century, has recently
been discovered; see Blackman et al. 19971998, 811.
80
On the selection of the orator see Thuc. 2.34.6 and note 17 on p. 6.
81
Thuc. 2.34.6, Dem. 60.13. Bosworth (2000, 2) emphasizes the size of the au-
dience described in Thucydides introduction to Pericles speech.
82
Thuc. 2.3546 (cf. Plut. Per. 8 on an earlier Periclean speech), Gorg. fr. 56,
Lys. 2, Pl. Mx. 236d249c, Dem. 60, Hyp. 6. See Herrman 2004 for translations of
all of these with notes emphasizing their individual differences.
83
Thuc. 2.3742. Bosworth (2000) persuasively argues that Thucydides gives an
accurate reproduction of what Pericles actually said, and that the speech addresses
the audiences specic concerns in 431/430.
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 ghting. All
of the speeches have an introduction (prooimion) with commonplaces
regarding earlier speakers and the impossibility of praising the dead
sufciently, 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 states 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. 60.2731.
85
6 and 15; 1118.
86
Men. Rh. 418.5422.4; [D.H.] 277.6283.19. These accounts intermix discus-
sion of private and public funeral orations.
87
Ziolkowski (1981, 57) and Herrman (2004, 6) chart these divisions in the sur-
viving speeches.
88
Thuc. 2.35.12, Lys. 2.12, Pl. Mx. 236de, Dem. 60.1, 12 (with the note
to 1 under [ ] [ ). Carey (2007a,
245) observes that the self-referentiality of the speeches is reminiscent of verse
panegyric.
89
Now that you have lamented these men as each of you should, depart, Thuc.
2.46; cf. Pl. Mx. 249c and Dem. 60.37.
90
Men. Rh. 420.1112; [D.H.] 278.1518.
91
Thuc. 2.36.1, Lys. 2.17, Pl. Mx. 237c, Dem. 60.4, 7 with note under
[] [] .
92
Lys. 2.366 and Pl. Mx. 239a246b offer the most extensive narratives; cf.
also Dem. 60.611. Thomas (1989, 196236) discusses these accounts as examples
of an ofcial tradition. Burgess (1902, 150153) provides a detailed catalogue of
the elements in these narratives.
Introduction 17
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 conict with Philip as the latest in a long
series of Athenian efforts to protect the other Greeks from foreign in-
vaders. His narrative of Athenian history begins with an account of
how the ancestors of the dead drove Eumolpus and the Amazons out
of Greece and ends with a similar description of the Greek victory in
the Persian Wars.
95
Alater section of the speech, which relates inspiring
tales about each of the Eponymous Heroes of Athens, further associates
those who died at Chaeronea with the Athenian historical tradition.
96
The speech acknowledges that the Greeks lost the battle, but De-
mosthenes does not repudiate the policy that led them there; he instead
praises the Athenians for their foresight in following his guidance, and
he faults the Theban commanders for their performance in the eld.
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. 2.46, Pl. Mx. 239b, Dem. 60.8; Eumolpus: Pl. Mx. 239b;
Marathon: Lys. 2.21, Pl. Mx. 240ce; Heraclidae: Lys. 2.1116, Pl. Mx. 239b,
Dem. 60.8.
94
Dionysius of Halicarnassus denied the authenticity of Dem. 60 because its lan-
guage and sentiment seem uncharacteristic of Demosthenes (D.H. Dem. 44), and
many ancient and modern critics have followed his judgment. But the style and atti-
tude of the speech can be readily explained by the genre and the historical situation,
and there is no compelling reason to doubt that the speech is Demosthenic. McCabe
(1981, 169172) conrms that the prosody is statistically consistent with genuine
speeches. For recent discussion see Herrman 2008 and Worthington 2003b.
95
Dem. 60.811. Walters (1980, 1416) observes that the epitaphioi cast Eumol-
pus and the Amazons as aggressive invaders to serve as a precedent for the Persian
invasions.
96
Dem. 60.2731.
97
Dem. 60.18, 22.
98
Dem. 60.19.
99
Dem. 60.24. Section 20 refers to the peace negotiations between Philip and
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 specic 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. 67.
101
See above note 14 on p. 5 on the date of the Against Diondas.
102
Hyp. Dion. 137v/136r ll. 12.
103
Hyp. Dion. 145v/144r ll. 922. Cf. Dem. 18.238, and see below note 112 on
p. 19 on the relation of these two speeches.
104
Hyp. Dion. 137r/136v l. 32137v/136r l. 8. See below note 115 on p. 20 for the
Demosthenic parallels.
105
On the date of the trial see Harris (in Worthington et al. 2001, 159 n. 1). See
above p. 8 on Agis revolt. For details on the trial of Leocrates see Hansen 1975,
108 no. 121. He was charged with eeing Athens immediately after the battle of
Chaeronea, which explains why the speech concentrates on that period.
Introduction 19
along with the soldiers who died on the eld.
106
Like Demosthenes and
other funeral orators, he compares the campaign against Philip with
patriotic episodes fromAthenian myth, such as the sacrice of the Hy-
acinthidae to save Athens from Eumolpus.
107
From myth he moves to
the Persian Wars, singling out the two standard examples of Athenian
heroism, the battles of Marathon and Salamis.
108
Lycurgus may have
hoped the Athenians would join Agis revolt in 331 and put the defeat
of 338 behind them(see note 33 on p. 8), but his persuasive appeal to the
court in Athens in his prosecution of Leocrates, like earlier speeches of
Demosthenes and Hyperides, uses models from myth and the Persian
Wars to heroize the Athenian effort at Chaeronea.
109
A year after Lycurgus prosecution, Demosthenes delivered his
masterpiece On the Crown. As we have already observed (see p. 8),
his defense speech focuses on the period leading up to the battle
of Chaeronea, and avoids discussion of more recent events. In his
prosecution speech Aeschines blames Demosthenes for missing the
opportunity of Philips death in 336 and for failing to support Thebes
in 335 and Agis in 331.
110
But Demosthenes does not take the bait.
Early in the speech he makes a brief mention of the destruction of
Thebes, and promises to return to the topic later in his defense.
111
But
the promise is left unfullled: Demosthenes does not return to the
subject of the Theban revolt, nor does he mention the recent defeat of
Agis. Instead, he defends the policy that led to Chaeronea, by using
many of the same arguments that appeared in his Funeral Oration in
338, and also in Hyperides Against Diondas and Lycurgus Against
Leocrates.
112
Demosthenes shows no regret for his policy. He argues that con-
frontation with Philip was inevitable, and that the alliance with Thebes
106
Lycurg. 50; cf. Dem. 60.24, quoted above. Maas (1928) lists several other close
parallels and suggests that Lycurgus deliberately alludes to the (genuine, he believes)
Demosthenic speech.
107
Lycurg. 98100; cf. Dem. 60.27. Lycurg. 101 recalls Dem. 60.29 (on the
Leontidae).
108
Lycurg. 104 and 70.
109
Although his case was weak (on the legal issues see Harris 2000, 6775), Ly-
curgus lost by only a single vote (Aesch. 3.252).
110
Aesch. 3.160161, 156157, 165.
111
Dem. 18.4142; cf. Worthington 2000, 99.
112
Indeed, there are many close verbal echoes between On the Crown and Against
Diondas, as Eusebius had already noted (Eus. PE 10.3.1415 = Hyp. fr. 95).
was the best alternative for Athens.
113
Not only was this policy sensible,
according to Demosthenes, but it also lived up to the Athenian tradi-
tion. As we sawabove (p. 17) when considering Demosthenes Funeral
Oration, the war with Philip was compared to earlier Athenian efforts
against foreign invaders, especially the Persians. In On the Crown he
again invokes the model of those earlier heroes and presents Chaeronea
as a modern-day Marathon.
114
As before, he blames misfortune, or a
divine spirit, for the loss at Chaeronea.
115
This speech, like each of the
others considered in this section, demonstrates that the leading advo-
cates for Greek freedom preferred to dwell on the glorious ght for
freedom at Chaeronea, rather than more recent events that only con-
rmed 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 ght for the freedom lost at Chaeronea.
116
Hy-
perides speech reects the changed situation. With its focus on recent
events, it stands apart from Athenian speeches of the 330s and from
earlier funeral orations. The Athenians had nally put Chaeronea be-
hind them, and Hyperides shows them that the current campaign was
more important than any of their ancestors achievements.
Earlier funeral orations present an idealized history of Athens
that begins in the mythological past and culminates with the Persian
Wars.
117
They do sometimes describe more recent events, but only
briey, as if to emphasize that the current honorands play but a
small part in a great tradition. Lysias, for example, devotes nearly his
whole speech to the deeds of the dead (3), presenting an extensive
account of the Persian Wars as the centerpiece, while the Corinthian
113
Dem. 18.195.
114
Dem. 18.208, with discussion by Yunis (2000, 108109).
115
Dem. 18.192194, cf. Dem. 60.1920.
116
On these events see above pp. 912.
117
For details and references see above p. 16.
Introduction 21
War receives only a moments 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 eld,
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 rst compares Leosthenes with the Greek heroes
of the Trojan War, then with the Athenian generals Miltiades and
Themistocles, and nally with the tyrant-slayers Harmodius and
Aristogiton. Other epitaphioi praise the dead for matching the deeds of
118
Lys. 2.2047 and 6670. Similarly, in the Menexenus the Persian Wars receive
much more attention than the Corinthian War; see Pl. Mx. 239d241d and 244b245c.
119
Dem. 60.2731; cf. above p. 17. On the Eponymous Heroes, see Kearns 1989,
8092, with the individual entries in her appendix 1.
120
See 5 with the commentary notes.
121
As discussed above (pp. 1517), each of the funeral orations is idiosyncratic
in some way, and there may well have been earlier epitaphioi that also focused on
recent events; Bosworth (2000, 34) suggests that Pericles oration in 439 may have
been similar to Hyperides in this regard.
122
910. On Leosthenes see pp. 1213 and the note on section 1 under
] []. For discussion of this speechs unusual focus on
the general, see the note on 3 under . . . .
123
1214 with the commentary notes; see also above pp. 1213.
124
1718 with the commentary notes.
their ancestors,
125
but Hyperides emphatically argues that Leosthenes
deserved more praise than his predecessors. He greatly excelled
those who attacked Troy because the stakes were higher for Greece in
322; he was more courageous and foresighted than the generals of the
Persian Wars because he prevented the foreign invaders from reaching
Athens; and Harmodius and Aristogiton would prefer his company
because he accomplished even more than they by liberating all of
Greece.
126
Hyperides highlights the primacy of the Lamian War elsewhere
throughout the speech. He begins with the standard description of the
dead as andres agathoi (brave men) and then goes on to add that there
have never been [better] men than those who have died or more gen-
erous achievements.
127
Again at the end of his introduction he repeats
that recent accomplishments were more honorable and noble than
those of the ancestors (3). At the end of the narrative of the campaign
season he boldly makes an explicit claimthat no earlier effort was more
important: None of those who came before ever fought for more noble
goals or against stronger adversaries, or with fewer allies.
128
And later
he adds that the Lamian War displayed the soldiers virtue better than
any earlier campaigns had (23).
Statements such as these do not occur in earlier funeral orations;
in his Funeral Oration of 338 Demosthenes lamented that the freedom
and dignity of Greece died along with the souls of the fallen soldiers
at Chaeronea.
129
Hyperides positive attitude also stands in contrast to
the courtroom speeches delivered after the battle of Chaeronea; in 330
Lycurgus echoed Demosthenes tone of despondency, and added that
the souls of those who died in 338 were a crown for the fatherland.
130
125
For example, Lysias concludes his narrative by stating that the soldiers of
the Corinthian War preserved the glory of their ancestors (69: . . .
) and although Demosthenes argues that the soldiers of the Persian War
were superior to those of the Trojan War (Dem. 60.10), he makes no comparable
statement regarding the dead from Chaeronea. Currie (2005, 116118) lists passages
that describe the accomplishments of the war dead as being worthy (axios) of
comparison to the deeds of the epic heroes.
126
35, 38, 39. See also the note on 35 under ].
127
1; see the note there under [] on the restoration of the word. On an-
dres agathoi see the note on 8 under [].
128
19. See the note there under . . .
on the hyperbole.
129
Dem. 60.2324. See above p. 17.
130
Lycurg. 50.
Introduction 23
Hyperides responded in 322 that the soldiers in the Lamian war made
freedompublic property for all and that it was not the souls of the dead
at Chaeronea, but rather the glorious achievements of the Athenians in
the recent campaign that were a a crown for the fatherland.
131
His
clams for the excellence of those who fought in the rst season of the
Lamian War reveal a newfound optimism in Athenian prospects.
Hyperides also appropriates the language typically used for the Per-
sian Wars and applies it to the Lamian War. For example, his descrip-
tion of the courage of the Lamian War soldiers echoes Lycurgus praise
for the ghters at Marathon.
132
Similarly, Platos description of the
Persian offensive at Marathon as the insolence of all Asia becomes
the insolence of Macedon for Hyperides.
133
Hyperides further links
the two wars when he emphasizes that Miltiades and Themistocles
freed Greece, alluding to the Lamian War slogan of freedom for the
Greeks.
134
The circumstances of the war, with an alliance of Greek
states ghting a foreign monarch, and signicant battles near Ther-
mopylae and Plataea, invite such a comparison.
135
But Hyperides is not
content just to observe the parallels between the two conicts. His allu-
sions underline the fact that the typical epitaphic account of the Persian
Wars has been replaced by a narrative of recent events,
136
and they an-
ticipate the orations vivid nal scene of Leosthenes and his men in
the underworld, where they will be praised for their superiority to the
legendary generals of the Persian Wars.
137
Hyperides speech illustrates the Athenian attitude to the Macedo-
nian leadership of the League of Corinth in the 320s. The speech con-
stantly calls for the freedom of the Greeks and the overthrow of the
Macedonian rule. In one key passage Hyperides denes this concept
in constitutional terms, as he laments the Athenians loss, not just of
external freedom, but also of the basic right to determine their own do-
mestic politics within the city. He praises autonomia, the citys right
to govern itself, and the rule of law, which he sharply contrasts with
131
19. See the note there under [.
132
19, Lycurg. 108; see the note on 19 under
. . . .
133
20, Pl. Mx. 240d; see the note on 20 under .
134
37. On freedom as a Lamian War slogan see the note on 16 under [ ]
.
135
Cf. Loraux 1986, 127129.
136
See the note on 5 under [.
137
3738, with the note on 37 under .
the tyrannical rule of Alexander.
138
He decries the pernicious inuence
of Athenians who atter 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 sacrices 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 orators skill at arousing pity, and his smooth
and exible phrasing: He [Hyperides] was most suited to stirring pity,
and he was also extremely exible 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 exemplies this sort of epideictic period. The rst four
138
25 with the notes under and . . . .
139
25 with the note under and 10 with the note under
[] .
140
2022; for further discussion see the notes on 20 under
, on 21 under [ ]
. . . , and on 22 under . . .
.
141
Longin. 34: [] ,
,
, ,
, . For a list of references to other ancient and modern discussions
of the style of the Funeral Oration, see Whitehead 2000, 5 n. 17 and Worthington
1999, 31.
142
See D.H. Isoc. 20, cited and discussed by Dover (1968, 60). Carey (2007a,
245246) gives a few salient examples of marked language in funeral orations and
the conspicuous verbal craftsmanship of the genre.
Introduction 25
words ( [] , deserves to be praised) govern a
series of three parallel objects (the city, the dead, and Leosthenes),
which are closely connected by and (twice). The rst object
is explained with an articular innitive phrase ( [], for
making decisions), as is the second ( , for not dis-
honoring). The third object, Leosthenes, is then introduced and is the
subject of two new verbs ( and ), which respond to the
previous two objects; he was leader of the city and of the deceased
soldiers. These nal two clauses (
, -
, 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 ( and -
) 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 (
) and the power of justice ( ) in
20, and in 25 he similarly opposes the threat of a man (
) with the voice of law ( ) and compares the
abstract noun accusation () with proof (). 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 gures such as
the polyptoton in 26 ( ) and the exclamations in 40 (
. . . , . . . . . . , . . . -
. . . ).
145
The epideictic style is also
143
On the rhetorical gure of parisosis see on 13 under . . . . Both
and follow the same pattern of mono-
syllabic article followed by trisyllabic noun, followed by a trisyllabic noun or verb
that governs the immediately preceding noun as an object.
144
For other examples, see 13 with the note under . . . , 24 with
the note under . . . and 42 with the note under
. . . . Blass (18871893, 3334) comments on the long periods
in this speech and also discusses Hyperides tendency to use superuous verbiage
(auxsis).
145
On less complex similes in oratory, see the end of the introductory note on 5.
apparent in word usage. The Funeral Oration uses several vocabulary
items that do not appear in his forensic speeches; for example, the ad-
jective (glorious) and the noun (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:
13: introduction (prooimion)
440: praise (epainos)
45: the city ()
67: the Athenian race () and their nobility ()
8: upbringing ()
940: the achievements ( ) of the fallen
* 1014: Leosthenes deeds in battle
* 15: the virtue () of the other soldiers
* 1617: their service for all of Greece ghting in Boeotia
* 1819: the battles in Boeotia and at Lamia
* 2023: the importance of their victory
* 2426: the sacrices made by the dead for the living
* 27: the surviving family members
* 2829: attainment of nobility in death
* 3034: our memory of them as heroes
* 3540: their reception in Hades
4143: consolation (paramythia)
For polyptoton see the note on 26 under , and for exclamations see
on 40 under .
146
: 18, 27, 37, 40; : 3, 11, 35. Of course, the corpus is small
and fragmentary, so many of the words listed in Jensens index vocabularum occur
only once. But a number of the items in Dovers (1968, 6567) list of non-forensic
terms in Lysias Funeral Oration are used by Hyperides only in the Epitaphios: e.g.,
(43 and the fragmentum dubium, ageless), (twice in 35,
to welcome), and (3, 11, 35 leader).
Introduction 27
4. The Text and Translation
The Funeral Oration was one of the rst examples of Greek literature
rediscovered on papyrus in the middle of the nineteenth century.
147
It
was found near Egyptian Thebes and brought to London in late 1856
by H. Stobart.
148
The rst editor, Churchill Babington, arranged the f-
teen fragments into fourteen columns.
149
This arrangement is clearly
conrmed by the texts on both sides of the papyrus, and quickly won
wide assent.
150
Friedrich Blass made one important modication when
he recognized that the fragments Babington had classied as the rst
two columns in fact join to form one column.
151
Accepting this join,
the papyrus falls into three physical divisions: col. 1, cols. 211, and
cols. 1213. Hyperides text clearly continues directly from column 1
to 2 (2: . . . , the deeds), indicating that no mate-
rial has been lost between the rst two divisions of papyrus. The text
is more difcult at the end of the second division, but here, too, there
appears to be continuity. The conditional protasis (34, if) at
the end of column 11 is nicely completed by the verb (was)
at the start of column 12, and then answered by the optative question
(what speech would confer).
152
One addi-
tional small piece of the papyrus (my fragment 1a) has not been placed;
it must come from the right half of col. 11 or from an additional section
of the papyrus, otherwise lost, that came after col. 13.
153
The rst part (cols. 110) of the text of the Funeral Oration is writ-
ten against the vertical bers on the verso of a horoscope and astrolog-
147
P. Lit. Lond. 133 =Brit. Mus. inv. 98; Pack 1965, 1236. Turner (1980, 21) lists
the few literary nds before 1860.
148
Babington 1859, 3.
149
The details in Babington 1858 are summarized by Jensen (1917, xvi n. 2).
150
Blass (1894, xv) observes that neque quicquam fere reliqui ille fecit prox-
imis editoribus, nisi ut duo prima fragmenta ad unam columnam efciendam con-
iungerentur.
151
See the note on 12.
152
The proposed restorations for the end of col. 11 also support continuity between
cols. 11 and 12: see note on 34 under ].
153
The fragment is torn on all sides. The bers run parallel to its script, which
indicates that it cannot belong to any of the lacunae in cols. 110 (see next paragraph;
the modern mounting of the papyrus obscures the other side of this fragment, which
should presumably be blank, like the piece of papyrus that preserves cols. 1113).
Cf. Blass 1894, 93 and Jensen 1917, 113.
ical text in Greek and Coptic.
154
The second part of the papyrus text
(cols. 1113) comes after a glue-join (a synkollsis) and is written along
the bers on a separate piece of papyrus with nothing on the other side.
The columns are 18 to 19 cmhigh, and the width varies from6.25 (cols.
1, 10, 12) to 8.5 cm(col. 9), with the majority between 7 and 8 cmwide.
Most columns have 18 to 20 characters per line, but this ranges with the
width of the columns, from as few as 12 characters per line (e.g., cols.
5.40, 6.12) to as many as 31 (9.33 and 9.34). The rst three columns
contain only 33 or 34 lines, while most of the other columns have up
to 44 lines of text. The intercolumn divisions are highly unusual: the
scribe uses one or two vertical lines with virtually no blank space on
either side.
155
The top margin (2.5 cm) of the papyrus is well preserved,
but the bottom margin tapers off (1.5 cm for cols. 13, then very little).
The script is not cursive; each letter stands by itself. In general,
I would compare P. Oxy. 3.454,
156
although that hand is much more
careful and less cramped than this one. Kenyon (1899, 103104) de-
scribes our scribe as a private nonliterary hand and compares P. Oxy.
9.1175.
157
Here, the lines are roughly bilinear, with more adherence to
an upper rule. Letters such as , , , and drop below the bottom
rule. , , and often project above the upper rule. is especially dis-
tinguished by its height and narrowness. In general, the style seems
somewhat hurried, and the spacing is quite tight. Turners (1987, 5)
suggestion that it was written as a school exercise is very attractive.
The scribe seems careless and makes several mistakes (see appendix
A). There are a number of omissions, sometimes of only a character or
two, but in other places whole words or phrases need to be supplied to
make sense of the text. See appendix A for further details on scribal
mistakes, orthography, punctuation, and diacritics. A published fac-
simile of the entire manuscript may be found in Babington 1858; it is a
hand-drawn lithograph, and while it is very accurate for the most part,
it tends to hide physical blemishes in the papyrus and is occasionally
inaccurate.
158
Thompson and Warner (1881, pl. 4) provide an image of
154
The recto text is Neugebauer and Van Hoesen 1959, 2838 no. 95. Its vertical
orientation is opposite the verso.
155
Turner (1987, 5) comments on the rarity of this technique for column division,
with specic reference to this papyrus.
156
P. Oxy. 3.454 = Turner 1987, no. 62.
157
The same scribe also wrote P. Oxy. 9.1174 (Turner 1987, no. 34) and other
known rolls (Johnson 2004, 64 (scribe B1)).
158
There are instances where fairly clear readings in the facsimile are not apparent
Introduction 29
the right half of col. 6 and cols. 711, while Wattenbach (1897, pl. 3),
has a drawing of cols. 89.
The horoscope on the recto is important for the dating of the pa-
pyrus. It was prepared for a subject born in AD95, and then the papyrus
was reused for the Funeral Oration in the second century.
159
This dat-
ing is conrmed by the palaeographical parallels cited in the previous
paragraph, which editors assign to the late second century AD.
The Funeral Oration of Hyperides was rst edited and published in
England by Churchill Babington (1858). This exciting new text imme-
diately prompted several publications from some of the best Hellenists
on the continent,
160
and Babington reexamined the papyrus in light of
their suggestions and published a second edition in 1859. Within the
next decade four more editions and several short articles appeared,
which differed mainly in their restorations of the lacunose sections of
the speech.
161
The work of these early scholars did much to improve
the text of the speech, and the value and extent of their contributions
can be judged from the frequency of their names in the apparatuses of
all subsequent editions.
The collective work of all of these early scholars was synthesized
by Friedrich Blass, who further added numerous signicant improve-
ments of his own to the text, in the rst modern edition of the surviving
speeches and fragments of Hyperides, which appeared in the Teubner
series in 1869.
162
As new Hyperides papyri came to light, Blass pre-
pared updated editions of the Teubner volume,
163
and his third edition
remains valuable, not only because of the editors excellent skill as a
upon examination of the manuscript. For example, Babington (1858, 34) reads
[ in 8 and the image of the end of col. 4 line 21 reects that
reading (the horizontal crossbar of the theta is there in the facsimile, but not on the
papyrus, as Babington (1859, 24) himself agreed a year later in his second edition).
159
On the date of the horoscope, see Neugebauer and Van Hoesen 1959, 2829.
See Turner 1987, 1819 on the length of intervals between writing on the verso and
reuse of the recto of a papyrus roll.
160
Babington (1859, 56) refers specically to Kayser (1858), Spengel (1858),
Caesar (1857), Comparetti (1858), and Cobet (1858). Bursian and Mller (1858) and
Weil (1858) also published notes that year.
161
The most valuable editions are those of Sauppe (1860) and Comparetti (1864);
note also Tell (1861) and Cafaux (1866). Fritzsche (18611862), Schfer (1860),
Shilleto (1860) and Volckmar (1860) published notes.
162
Blass 1869, reviewed by Sandys (1870). Whitehead (2000, 1923) provides an
excellent survey of the editions of Blass and subsequent editors.
163
Blass 1881 and 1894; for reviews of the third edition see Sandys 1895 and
Radermacher 1896.
papyrologist and countless ingenious restorations, but also for the vol-
umes compendious account of all nineteenth-century work on Hype-
rides text.
Two twentieth-century editions of the Funeral Oration illustrate
different approaches to presenting the text. Frederic Kenyon (1906)
produced an Oxford Classical Text of Hyperides that was a marked de-
parture from Blass Teubner editions.
164
Kenyon aimed to present as
readable a text as possible; he does not indicate the lineation of the pa-
pyrus, and removes editorial brackets and dots from the text when they
pertain only to a few letters that can be restored with certainty. In the
most damaged sections of the Funeral Oration he follows two differ-
ent approaches. In 1 he prints short phrases separated by dots and does
not record many restorations for the lacunae. In 3134 he lls in all
of the lacunae, with square brackets as appropriate, to present a contin-
uous and intelligible text, but he does not record alternative proposals
for the gaps. Christian Jensen (1917) prepared the most recent Teubner
edition,
165
which is widely recognized as the best existing edition of
Hyperides. Jensen was an extremely skilled papyrologist, and his de-
tailed observations in his apparatus with regard to doubtful readings are
an important advance on Blass editions. He scrupulously preserves the
layout of the papyrus, printing his text in narrowcolumns that represent
the papyrus line by line.
Before describing my own approach to the text, a few other
twentieth-century editions deserve mention. None of these editions are
based on a fresh collation of the papyrus; they instead adapt Jensens
text. Most notably, Gaston Colin (1946) prepared a Bud edition that
features a full translation of the corpus, together with an extensive
introduction and a useful critical apparatus. His text incorporates many
highly speculative restorations, which are noted in my apparatus and
appendix B. Two other bilingual editions of the entire corpus aimed
at general readers have appeared since Colin. Burtts (1954) Loeb
provides a good English translation and brief explanatory notes, and
Marzi (1977) provides an Italian translation with very useful critical
notes on several textual cruces.
166
A few brief editions of the Funeral
Oration, with historical notes on the translation or on grammatical
points for students, have also appeared in recent years.
167
A nal notice
164
Reviewed by Fuhr (1907).
165
A new Teubner is in preparation by Lszl Horvth.
166
Marzi 1977, 5982.
167
Worthington 1999, Coppola 1996, and Rolando 1969.
Introduction 31
should be given to Bartolini (1977, 88101) 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 condent 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 Jensens. First, his text
was produced before the so-called Leiden system standardized edito-
rial markup for papyri and inscriptions, and his idiosyncratic system is
often unclear to modern readers (for example, his frequent usage of dot-
ted letters within square brackets).
170
Second, I have included a fuller
record of nineteenth- and twentieth-century editorial suggestions, and
I provide full bibliographic details for that material. The bulk of the
plausible restorations that are nowgenerally accepted were put forward
during the rst 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-
sied these modern supplements into three groups.
Restorations that seemto me extremely likely, because of their con-
168
I diverge from Jensens readings of the papyrus in the following places (refer-
ence to column and line of the papyrus): 1.12, 14, 19, 20, 21; 2.10, 21; 3.5, 6, 9, 13,
20; 4.27; 5.8, 11; 6.19, 24, 32, 33; 7.2, 7, 9, 10, 20; 8.17; 9.21; 10.5, 38, 40; 11.2, 21,
40; 13.30.
169
Viz., 1 ] . . . ] [, 5 [ ] [
(cf. Jensen 1917, xlvi) and 31 ]
.
[
. . . .
.
170
On the Leiden system, see Turner 1980, 187188 n. 22. For a criticism of Jen-
sens system, see Whitehead 2000, 21 n. 80.
sistency with surviving ink traces, and their physical t with holes
or damage in the manuscript, and because they seem to convey a
highly appropriate sense in context, are incorporated in the text be-
tween square brackets, and the editors are credited in the apparatus.
In order not to inate the size of the apparatus, obvious restorations
of only a letter or two, most of which go back to Babingtons rst
edition, are not listed in the apparatus.
Restorations that seem less certain but highly plausible, for the rea-
sons listed in the previous item, are recorded in the apparatus, but
not in the text. In situations where more than one plausible restora-
tion has been suggested, and the criteria of sense and physical t do
not support the strong likelihood of a single restoration in prefer-
ence to others, I have printed dots in the text and noted the various
restoration in the apparatus.
Proposals that seem to me least suitable to the physical remains or
the sense are recorded in appendix B. In particularly damaged ar-
eas of the papyrus (e.g., 1, 3134), I have tended to print dots
in the text, as noted in the previous item, to indicate the size of the
lacunae and I have listed the most plausible restoration in the appa-
ratus. Appendix B records restorations that I deem most unlikely. It
is important to record them, however, for two reasons: (1) readers
may doubt my judgement, and they should be able to consider all
of the proposed alternatives for themselves, and (2) these records
obviate the need to consult nineteenth-century editions (i.e., Blass
1894, which has a much fuller apparatus than Jensen).
The text is printed as continuous prose with embedded notation of
papyrus column and line breaks.
171
The right margin of the text enu-
merates the lines as printed in this edition, and these line numbers are
used in the apparatus and in appendix B, and appear in the commentary
lemmata. The standard section divisions are indicated by bold numbers
in the outer margin (the left margin of the text and the right margin of
the translation), and the commentary refers to these sections. In lacu-
nae, dots have been gathered into groups of ve (except for the last
group of the lacuna) for the readers convenience; these groupings are
not intended to signal the length of the individual words missing from
our manuscript. The scribe regularly writes mute iotas, and in the text
171
It is still quite common to encounter references by column and line, rather than
section number, in scholarship, and readers need references for both systems. Most
notably, the TLG refers to the papyrus layout.
Introduction 33
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.
.
Letters that partially survive, but for which alter-
native readings are possible.
[] Letters that are not now preserved on the papyrus,
but which the editor believes the scribe wrote.
Letters that the editor believes were mistakenly
omitted by the scribe.
{} Letters that the editor believes were mistakenly
written by the scribe.
]j Letters that were written and deleted by the scribe.
'' Letters written by the scribe above the line
(whether over a scribal erasure or as an abbrevia-
tion).
Letters (in 78) that were seen by Babington
and appear in his facsimile (Babington 1858), but
which have since been lost. See the note on 78
under [] . . . [].
[ 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 fth 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. xiixiv.
The following notation systemis used to indicate words and phrases
that are in doubt in the translation.
abc Material that is only partially preserved on the pa-
pyrus, the restoration of which is highly likely.
[abc] Material restored by modern conjecture and more
subject to doubt.
[ ] Lost text; the reader may consult the Greek text to
determine the length of the lacuna.
1 Numbered sections of the speech begin at sense
breaks (the start of a new sentence or clause) and
are indicated in the outer margins.
Text and Translation
Fragment 1a
[ ]
.
[ ]|[ ][ ]|[ ]
.
.
[ ]
Fragment 1b
1 [ [ ]|
.
[ ] | I
[ ] | []|
5

.
[] | []|
.
[ |],
.
[ | ],
.
.
[ 5
. . . . .
|
10
]
.
[
. . . . . . . . . .
|
. .
]
.
[
. . . . .
|
. .
]
[
. . . . . . . . .
|
. .
]
.
[
. . . . . . .
|
.
]
.

.
[
. .

|
15
]
.
[ | ][
. .
] |
.
[ ] |
.
.
[] | [
1257 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 -
Babington 3 Cobet et Sauppe 56 Colin,
Kenyon 6 Bcheler, Colin
Babington 67 ( . . .
Colin) Bcheler,
( Jensen ap. Hess) Sudhaus 78
Bcheler, Sudhaus 8 Bcheler
Colin 9 Bcheler 910 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 |
20
]
.
.
[. ] | [ ]|, 10
[ ] |
.
[ ]|
.

[] |
25
.
[]|. []|
[, ]| []|

.
|
30

.
|
.
|
|, | 15
3 [ []
.
. | []
.
II
| []
.
|[]
.
,
|
5
[] |[] |
[] |[], |[]
|
10
[] , | 20
| | |
|
15
|
|, | |
.
4 |
20
[] | [] 25
|[] |[]
.

|[] |
25
[]
.

|[], |[] |[]
.
|[] |
30
[].
|[ ]
.
| [] 30
5 | [] [
.
[]
.
|, III
[ ]
.
| [ ]
.
| [
]
.
, |
5

.
[ ]
.
| [
] | [ ]
.
|
.
[ ]
| []
.

.
[ ] |
10
.
[]
.
.
| 35
[] , |
.
[]
.
|
.
[ ]
.
|[, ]
.
|
15
[],
|
.
[ ]
.
|
.
[, ]
|[ ]
.
|[ ] |
20
10 Blass Jensen 11 Cobet 1213 . . . Cobet
13 Sudhaus 16 Sauppe 26 rest. Cobet,
Sauppe 29 tv p, Cobet 30
Babington 31 Babington 32 Blass, Jensen,
Kenyon 33 Cobet, Jensen Blass,
Sitzler 3334 Blass,
Jensen 34 ( van Herwerden) Bcheler,
Jensen 35 Blass Cobet
37 Piccolomini 38 Jensen Kaibel 3839
. . . 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 nd condence
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 its not easy
for one man alone to narrate and call to mind deeds so numer-
ous and so great. But I will not refrain from speaking about the
city summarily. Just as the sun goes over all the world, deter- 5
mining the seasons appropriately and establishing [all] the right
conditions, supplying reasonable and fair-minded humans with
birth and [sustenance] and [crops] and all other things needed
for life, in the same way too our city continuously punishes the
wicked, [gives aid] to the just, [dispenses] equality instead of
injustice to all, and provides [universal safety] to the Greeks at
[ ]
.
|. 40
6
.
[ ] | [ ] |
.
[, ]
.
|,
.
[ ]
.
|
25
[ ] |
.
[ . ]
| [ ]
.
, | ;
| [] |
30
; 45
7 | |
| , [ | IV
| | -
, |
5

.
|
|
.
| , 50
|
.
[] |
10
[]
| , [] | [
8 ] | . [] |
[], |
15

.
[]|
[ ]|
.
[,] | 55
[ ]|;
.
[] |
20

.
[] |
.
[,] |
[]|
.
[] |
[] |
25

.
[] |
9 [] | []|. 60
.
[ ]| [] |
30

|, | |
|.
|
35

10 |. | []
.
65
| [] [[]
.
, - V
| [] |[]
| [] , |
5
[
]
.
| [] , |[
] , |[ ]
.
, 70
40 Babington 41 Babington
Babington 4142 Blass 42 Kayser to p,
Mller Babington 43 Sauppe
4344 Babington, add. Colin 44 Cobet 45 txoc:o
.
p;
Babington, cf. Dem. 60.12 46 Schaefer ap. Babington 50 :ou
Xoyou totoutvov p, Cobet 5253 parvula fragmenta deest;
cf. comm. ad 78 55 rest. Babington, ttt6t p 56 Jensen,
Levi Babington 57 Babington 58 y[tvov]:ot p,
corr. Sauppe 61 Babington 66 Kenyon 70 Schfer
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 rst? 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 benets to their fatherland and to the other Greeks.
I will begin rst 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
| []
.
|
10
[],
11 |
.
[] |
|, |
|
15
|
| | 75
| |
20
.
12 | | |
[]
.
, |[ ] -
|
25
[], | []
|[]
.
, | []
.
- 80
|[] |
30
[]
13 | []
.
| []
.
|
| , |
35

| , | 85
| . |
[]|
40
, [
.
[] VI
14 | [.] | []
| [ ]
.
|
5

.
[ ]
.
| []
.
|
.
[ ] 90
| [ ]
.
|
.
[
] |
10
.
[]
.
[ ] |
.

[] | |
| .
15 |
15
| 95
[] , | []
|[]
.
. | [ ] |
20
[ ] | [ ]
| [ ]
.
|
.
[ ] ,
|
.
[ ] |
25
[ ]
.
100
|
.
[ ] | [ ] , |
[ ] | [ ]
.

16 |
30
.
[]
.
. |
.
[] |
.
[]
.
|
.
[ ]
.
,
| [] |
35
[ ] 105
|, [] |
.
[]
.

71 Kayser tv tvou:ov p, corr. Babington 73 Babington
78 Spengel 89 Jensen Blass 90 Babington
Mller 91 Babington Babington 96 Xtoc0tvg
tv tyxo p, corr. Sauppe 98 Babington 103 Sauppe
to his native city, and his city to the Greeks. After he raised a 11
mercenary force and was appointed general of the citys troops,
he defeated the rst opponents to the freedomof the Greeks, the
Boeotians, Macedonians, and Euboeans and their other allies,
at a battle in Boeotia.
From there he went to Thermopylae and occupied the pass, 12
through which the barbarians had marched against the Greeks
also before. He deniedAntipater entry into Greece, and after the
confrontation and victory there, he shut Antipater in at Lamia
and laid siege to the place. He enlisted the Thessalians, the Pho- 13
cians and the Aetolians and all the others in that region as al-
lies, and over those whom Philip and Alexander proudly com-
manded against their will, over those Leosthenes took com-
mand according to their will. But although he was able to master
any situation he chose, he could not prevail over fate. It is right 14
not only to always thank Leosthenes rst for what he did, but
also for the battle which was fought later after his death, and
for the [other] benets that came out of this campaign for the
Greeks. For on the foundations laid down by Leosthenes the
survivors build their future achievements.
No one should assume that I take no account of the other 15
citizens, [but instead] eulogize Leosthenes alone. My praise of
Leosthenes [in] these battles is also a eulogy for the others citi-
zens. For just as good planning depends on the general, so vic-
tory in the eld comes from those willing to risk their lives. As
a result, whenever I praise the victorious outcome, along with
the leadership of Leosthenes I also eulogize the virtue of the
other men. Who would not rightly praise the citizens who died 16
in the war and gave up their lives for the freedomof the Greeks?
They believed that the clearest proof of their willingness to pro-
|
.
[] | []
.

.
[] [VII
[] |
.
[.
17 ]
.
| [ ]
.
|
[]
.
|
5
[ ]| 110
[]
.
| .
.
[ ]
.
|
[ ]
.
| ,
.
[
]|
10

.
[]
.
[] | ,

.
.
| |,
| , |
15
115
| [] |
[].
18 | []
.
| -

.
[] |
20
[ ]
.
| [ ] |, [ 120
] |
.
.
[ ]
| [, ] |
25

[.]
.
.
| [ ]
.
|
[ ]
.
.
| [] |

.
[]
.
|
30

.
[ 125
] | [ ] | -
19 [. ]| |
|
35

| , |
| | . 130
|
40

.
| ,
| |

.
[ ]
.
.
20 [ | - VIII
| |. 135
|
5
| ,
| |
; | |
10
| | ,
| | 140
118125 Harp. s.v. : ,
. . . .
107 Babington 108 Sauppe 110 Sauppe 111 -
Sauppe Sauppe 118 Cobet 120 cuvptpgxtt p, corr.
Babington 122 Sauppe 127 ou6tvoc p, corr. Babington 132 Blass
133 Sauppe 140141 sequor p et Sauppe; ,
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 ght for Greece. For they saw the city of
Thebes pitiably obliterated from human society, its acropolis
garrisoned by the Macedonians, the bodies of the inhabitants
enslaved and others parceling out the land. As a result, the pres-
ence of these terrible sights before their eyes provided them
with the unwavering courage to risk their lives readily.
The battle that took place near Thermopylae and Lamia 18
proved to be no less glorious for them than that which they
fought in Boeotia, not only because they defeated Antipater
and his allies, but also because of the place, that is that
the battle happened there. All the Greeks who arrive at the
Amphictyonic meeting twice a year will be observers of the
accomplishments of these men. And as they assemble at that
place they will recall their virtue. None of those who came 19
before ever fought for more noble goals or against stronger
adversaries, or with fewer allies, judging that virtue was
strength and that couragebut not just a great number of
individual bodieswas mass. They made freedom a common
possession for everyone, but they offered the glory that came
from their deeds as a private crown for their fatherland.
Now it is worthwhile to consider also what we suppose 20
would have happened if they had not fought dutifully. Wouldnt
the whole world be subject to one master and wouldnt Greece
be forced to treat his whim as law? In short, the insolence of
Macedon, and not the power of justice, would prevail every-
where. As a result, the abuse of each and every woman, maiden,
21 |
15
|.
|
.
[]
.
|
[]
.
| ,
.
[ ] |
20

[ ] | ,
.

.
.
[] |
, [] |
.
145
22 | . |
25

| |,
| ; |
; |
30
|
, | | 150
23 | .
|
35
|
| , |
| , |
40

[]
.
[ | IX
| , |[]
|
5
[]
.
|[]
| []
.
, | []
.
| [] .
24 |
10
[] | 160
| ,
| | -
|
15
|
| ; |

.
[]| 165
.
[] |
20
[]| -
25
.
. | |
. |
|
25
, |
| , | 170
|
|
30
, |
26 . |
168170 Stob. 4.23.35: [Hyperides] , -
sub capite .
142 :ov p, corr. Babington Cobet, Sauppe, Kayser 145
Cobet 146 Cobet 152 Babington 153 : p, Babington 155 -
del. Cobet 158 tvgxtvot p, corr. Babington 167168 Fritzsche,
Jensen, Blass pos. lac. post
169 : 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 sacrices 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? Wouldnt 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
ght 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 difcult 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 ghters 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 atter their mas-
ters and slander their fellowcitizens, but rather upon faith in the
law. For all these reasons they performed labor after labor and 26
| |

.
|
35
175
| |
27 . | ,
| , |
40

| ,
.
.
|

.
[]| [] [X
| |
| |
5
.

| []
.
|[] .
28 | [ ]
.
| []
.
|
10

.
| |, 185
|
.
, | |
15
, | |
|; | |
20
29 , |
.
|
.

| |
.
|
25
190
, |
.
|
|
.
| .
30 |
30
| -
; | | -
| []|
35
; 195

.
| ;
.
|
[]
.
.
|
.
.
| -

.
|
40
;
.
.
| ;
31
.

.
| |.
|
.
[
.
[
. . . . . .
XI
]|
.
[
. . . . . . . . . . .
]| [
. . . . . . . . . . . .
] | [
. . . . .
. . . . . . .
] |
5
.
[
. . . . . . . . .
] | [; ]
|
.
[;
. . . . . . . . .
] |
.
[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
] |
.
[
. . . .
32
. . . . . . . .
] |
10

.
[
. . . . . . . . . .
]| [; ]
180 Cobet 183 Sauppe 184 Cobet
Babington 189190 toov _povot p, corr. Babington 191192 ooot p post
corr., oogv p ante corr.; Cobet, (aut ) . . .
Babington 193 Cobet 200201 ; Sauppe 201
Babington 201202
Jensen 202203 Sauppe
203204 ,
Radermacher 204205
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 diedno, it is not right to use that term for men who
lost their lives ghting on behalf of such a noble causerather,
of men who have exchanged life for a perpetual position, will
have their virtue as an asset for the good will of the people. If 28
death, which is most grievous for others, has been the founda-
tion of great advantages for them, how can we not judge them
fortunate, and how can we say that they have lost their lives,
instead of saying that they have been born anew in a better
birth than than their rst? Then they were senseless children,
but now they have become brave men. And then they displayed 29
their virtue over a long period of time and amid many perils,
but now as a result of this [ ] become known to everyone
and remembered for their courage.
On what occasion will we not recall the virtue of these men? 30
In what place will we not see them as the object of pride and
esteemed praise? Will they not come to mind if the city does
well? The things that were accomplished because of them will
cause what other men than these to be praised and remembered?
Perhaps they wont be remembered by those who are individ-
ually prosperous? Well, we will safely enjoy those successes
thanks to the virtue of these men. In the eyes of what genera- 31
tion will they not be blessed? [ ] among the [ ] fearless
[ ] life [ ] to have become [ ] because of them? [
among] their peers? [ ] death [ ] nobly [ ] by far [ ]
has [ among the] youth [ ] not the [ ] will be eager 32
|
.
[
. . . . . . . . . .
]|
.
[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
]|
.
[
. . . . . . . .
205
]|
15
[
. . . . . . . . . .
]|[
. . . . . . . . . . .
]|
.
[
. . . . . . . .
]| [
. . . . . . . . . . . .
]| [
. . . . . . . .
]|
20
33 [
. . . . . . . . . . . .
]| [
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
] | [
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
]
|
.

.
[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
] |
.
.
[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
] |
25
[
. . . . .
. . .
]| [
. . . . . . . .
] |
.
[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
]| 210
34 [
. . . . . . . . . . . .
] |
.
[ ]|
30
[
. . . . . . . . . .
. .
]| [
. . . . . . . . . . . .
] | [
. . . . . .
] |
[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
] | [.
. . . . . . . .
] |
35
[
. . . . .
. . .
]| [ ]|, [
. . . . . . . . . .
]|
[
. . . . . . . . . .
] |
.
[
. . . . . . . . . .
]|
40

.
[
. . . . .
215
. . . . . . .
]|; [ ]| [
. . . . . . . . . . . .
] [ - XII
, | |
| |
5
|
;
35 | | 220
| , |
10

| |, |
|
.
. |
15
| |
|
.
| [], 225
|
20
[] |
.
|
[], |
.
| []
, |
25
.
|[]
205 ; Blass
205206 Blass 206207
Jensen 207
Jensen 208210

;
; Colin 210211
. . . Kenyon 211
Cobet 212213
Colin 213216
,
; Cobet
216 Babington aut
Cobet 220 Xoyotc p, emend. Babington 223 oot0o p, corr. Shilleto 223224 o:ov
X. p ( in rasura), corr. Shilleto 224225 6tgyoptvov xoXoutvouc p,
Cobet 225 ttt c:p'o':ttov c:pocov:[
.
]c 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, its worthwhile to
consider who will welcome their leader in Hades. Dont 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
| [] | []
.

36 |[] . |
30
[] | [] 230
|[]
.
, |[] -
| [] |
35
[] |[]
|[] . | []
37 | [], |
40
[]
|[] , | [] |
.
235
|
.
[,
.
[] | XIII
| | ,
38
.
|
5
| ,
.
| | , |
|
10
| , 240
| . | |
|
15
, |
| .
39 | |
|
20
, | 245
|,
.
| {}
{} | |
25

|, | |
.
.

.
|
|
30
,
.
| . 250

.
|
.
.
|,
40 | . |
35

|
.
| , -
| | ,
.
|
40

.
.
| 255
, | |
.
| [ ]
Fragment 2
41
-
258277 Stob. 4.56.36
233 Kayser 238 Blass 244 Babington 246247 ou0tvouc ou:oc
ou:otc otxtto:tpouc uttv ttvot p, corr. Blass,
Sauppe, ( Post) Kenyon,
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 ghting 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 rmly 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 magnicent 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 difcult to console those who are so bereaved. Your 41
grief is not eased by a speech or a custom. Instead your individ-
, - 260
.
,
,
42 . -
, . 265
,
. -
,
. , -
. 270
43 , -
,
-
,
, - 275

.
Fragmentum dubium

273277 . . . Maximus 932c, non recte attribut. ad
278 Poll. 2.14 = Hyp. fr. 221: [] .
261 Sauppe 264 Leopardi, codd. 274
Maximus 275 Toup et Cobet, aut codd. 276 :
[Fuhr] sequens Plut. Thes. 33; aut aut codd.
277 aut codd.
ual nature and your love for the deceased denes the limits of
your grief. Even so, you must be courageous and control your
grief as much as you can, and think not only of their death, but
also of the virtue which they have left behind. Although their 42
sufferings are worthy of lamentations, their deeds are worthy of
great praises. Although they did not live to see old age in this
life, they have gained ageless glory and have become blessed in
every respect. For those who died without children, the praise
of the Greeks will serve as immortal offspring. As for those
who left behind children, the good will of their native city will
act as a guardian for them. In addition, if death is similar to not 43
existing, then they are released from sicknesses and suffering
and the other things which trouble mortal lives. If there is con-
sciousness in Hades and the dead enjoy the care of the divine, as
we suppose, then it is likely that those who defended the honors
of the gods when they were under attack will receive the utmost
attention and care from the divinity.
Possible Fragment
ageless time
Commentary
Fragment 1a. On this small piece of unplaced papyrus see p. 27.
12. 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 indicates that this joined column is the
rst of the speech. The rst 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, ][, more generous: the rst piece ends with
.
,
and the second begins
.
.
. I have examined the two pieces under a
microscope and the vertical papyrus bers conrm the join with near
certainty. Unfortunately, the mounting of the papyrus prevents an ex-
amination of the astrological text on the recto for further conrmation.
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 [ ] [ . The atypi-
cal nature of Hyperides speech is signaled in the rst 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 ]), Hyperides starts right off with a consid-
eration of how he will treat his subject, whom he specically 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 19711991, IV: 227228). Other orations avoid naming the dead
and they specically promise to treat their subject traditionally (Thuc.
2.35.1, Lys. 2.2, Dem. 60.1; Ziolkowski 1981, 6465). 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 ] []. The general of the Lamian
War who is praised in this speech should probably be identied 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, -
), is likely Leosthenes, son of Leosthenes of Kephal (-
, 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) 73100 nos. 9597), and in the other he is named as a recent
trierarch who had died in 323/322 (IG II
2
1631, lines 601604). For
discussion on the question of whether the epigraphic Leosthenes was
the general of the Lamian War, see Tracy 1995, 2426 (who accepts the
identication), and Jaschinski 1981, 5154, Bosworth 1988, 29394,
Habicht 1997, 3435, and Faraguna 2003, 129 (who believe that the
Lamian War general held no earlier ofcial appointment). The general
Leosthenes was killed by a slingers stone during an engagement at the
siege at Lamia in the winter of 323/322 according to Diod. Sic. 18.13.5
(cf. Just. 13.5.12, with OLDs.v. telum2c); on the importance of slingers
to both sides during a siege, see Pritchett 19711991, V: 5758 (with
20 on Leosthenes).
We also have some details regarding his family. A recently
published inscription introduces us to Leosthenes sister Philoumene
(Matthaiou 1994, 175182) and Davies (1971, 342343 no. 9142) has
suggested that our Leosthenes was the son of the man (Kirchner 1901,
no. 9141, Osborne and Byrne 1994, s.v. no. 5) who was condemned for
treason (Hyp. Eux. 1, Hansen 1975, 95 no. 88) and exiled fromAthens
[1] Commentary 59
after his defeat at the hands of Alexander of Pherae in Peparethos in
361 (Diod. Sic. 15.95.2; see also Sealey 1993, 92 and Develin 1989,
268). The elder Leosthenes lived out the rest of his life in Macedonia
(Aesch. 2.21, with the scholia, and 124).
5 [ ]. On this common phrase, see below on 8 under
[].
59 [ . . . ] . Hess (1938, 3) combines many of the earlier
proposals to print a readable text:
,
. . . (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 magnicent 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. 2.366, Pl. Mx. 239a246b, Dem. 60.611),
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: , excelled).
6 ]
.
[
. . . .
. Traces of a letter survive before the lacuna. Asingle
vertical stroke may be an iota, or could perhaps be the leftmost portion
of a sigma. The stroke is not curved, but the scribe sometimes writes
sigmas with a straight left edge. However that type of sigma tends to be
smaller in height than this stroke, and the surviving trace seems more
compatible with an iota than a sigma.
78
.
[
. .
] [. There is a small trace of a vertical
stroke after the rst omega, which appears to suit Sudhaus nu better
than Bchelers sigma. But Sudhaus relative pronoun requires a verb,
which is difcult to t in the lacuna. He makes space by deleting the ar-
ticle from Bchelers restoration . The phrase () -
is not very frequent in the TLG, but those usages usually include the
article (ve instances with the article, one without). Bchelers
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 []. The restoration (suggested by Bcheler) is uncertain, but
it ts the physical gap and the sense well. Hyperides also uses the same
verbal adjective again later in the speech (24).
9 []. Bchelers restoration ts the gap perfectly and makes
excellent sense. The comparative adjective is parallel to the following
][ (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
. . . form an attractive chiasmus.
10 ][. Aristotle discusses the ethical quality of
megaloprepeia in his Nicomachean Ethics, where he associates this
characteristic with nancial expenditure and situates it as a middle
ground between excessive spending and stinginess (Arist. EN 1122a
181123a 33; cf. Dover 1974, 194). In the epitaphioi the adjective
is used to describe the soldiers sacrice on the eld (here and 40),
as a result of which they receive a generous burial,
(Pl. Mx. 234c; Socrates is speaking before beginning Aspasias
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
on autochthony and eugeneia), the deeds of the fallen soldiers
are described in aristocratic terms. Von Reden (1995, 85) discusses
Aristotles denition of megaloprepeia as a democratic virtue, while
Kurke (1991, 176177) emphasizes the associations between private
civic expenditures and tyranny.
2, 10 ]. The supplements of Blass and van Herwerden (ap-
pendix B) do not t the size of the lacuna as well as Jensens restoration.
Jensen suggests that there may be a trace of ink after , which
he describes as a hastae rectae vestigium (91). Imnot convinced that
the trace is a letter (there is a similar mark immediately below it, be-
tween two lines of text, that does not appear to be a letter), and if it is,
it is so small that it would be compatible with nearly any character.
At Thuc. 2.35.2 Pericles worries about speaking with the proper de-
gree of moderation, so as not to disappoint the friends of the dead with
inadequate praise on the one hand, and not to make others who did not
know the fallen envious on the other hand. Here Hyperides vocalizes
[3] Commentary 61
only the former of those two concerns. In Pl. Lg. 717d the Athenian
speaker advises that children should give their parents a tting burial
(the opposite of this situation), neither too shabby nor too ostentatious.
Fraenkel (1950, 359360 on A. A. 786) notes such polarities in praise.
1112 . . . [. Speech and deeds were often contrasted in the
funeral orations and other Athenian literature of the fth and fourth cen-
turies (for example, Thuc. 2.42.12 and 42.4, Lys. 2.2, Pl. Mx. 244a).
The oration for the dead is regularly compared to the courageous acts
of the fallen soldiers. Parry (1981, 160 and passim) discusses this an-
tithesis in the Thucydidean epitaphios, and also provides a history of
its development with a focus on the rst two books of Thucydides
History.
11 ]. The size of the lacuna better suits this reading than
Babingtons ] (may be inferior).
13 . The form is extant as early as Callimachus, but it is
usually employed for metrical purposes. is the regular form in
Attic prose inscriptions until the Roman period (Threatte 19801996,
II: 395396).
3. On the structure of the sentence in this section see p. 24 above.
1621 . . . . The focus on the in-
dividual is unique to this epitaphios. Other epitaphioi do not name in-
dividual honorands or give any sort of personal detail about the dead.
Hyperides was probably inuenced by the development of prose en-
comia in the fourth century (Schiappa (1999, 186190) traces the de-
velopment of the genre, beginning with Gorgias Helen). These prose
encomia for contemporary gures were particularly popular in the 320s
(Momigliano (1993, 64 n. 21) refers to two examples from the period:
a work on Alexander of Epirus by Theodectes, and one on Lycurgus by
Philiscus). Like this speech, these works mixed historical narrative with
topical praise. The surviving examples of the genre, Isocrates Evago-
ras and Xenophons Agesilaus, were both written after the death of the
subjects, and like Isocrates and Xenophon, Hyperides was perhaps a
personal friend of his subject (Plut. Mor. 486d gives examples of po-
litical and military partnerships, including Leosthenes and Hyperides,
but this testimoniummay just be biographical speculation on the part of
the author; Engels (1989, 321 n. 676) considers the evidence for their
association). Although the death of an Athenian general in the eld
was somewhat uncommon (Hamel (1998, app. 14, 204209) 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 briey 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 []. Demosthenes regularly uses the noun -
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, rst 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 () to die for the city.
20 []. 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, 413418) 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: , courage and
cunning).
2021 . Ones present day
acts were thought to be capable of either bringing shame upon ones an-
cestors, as here and Lycurg. 110, or else adding to their glory (Thuc.
2.11.9 and 6.16.1; Dover 1974, 246). Demosthenes presents the Atheni-
[4] Commentary 63
ans opposition to Macedon as a continuation of the policy of their fore-
bears who protected Greece from foreign invaders during the Persian
Wars (Dem. 18.203210). Hyperides listeners expect to hear about the
Persian Wars in a funeral oration (see the note on 12 under
), 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 [) in the epitaphioi. But Hyperides will instead focus
on the present campaign as the culmination of Athenian greatness.
21 . . . . On the meaning of aret see the notes on 8 un-
der [] . . . [ and on 40 under
. 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 specic virtuous accomplishments on
the battleeld (also noted at Dover 1974, 164).
4, 26 . . . . . . . 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 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 , but do require a preposition to govern the accusative -
(all Greece). Alternatively, editors have emended
the denite article to the relative and supplied a nite verb for
that relative clause. Sauppe has suggested (it has done a
good service), which is followed by Blass (in his rst edition), Jensen,
Colin, and Marzi (1977). In that case, is an attracted relative, which
would originally have been a neuter accusative plural (Smyth 2522).
The verb sometimes takes an internal accusative (e.g., Ly-
curg. 140, where the city of Athens is the external object; LSJ, s.v.
II).
2729 [] . . . []. 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, 238240) 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 insufcient (Lys. 2.1, Pl. Mx. 246b,
Dem. 60.6; Ziolkowski 1981, 132), and the words of one man alone
are incapable of sufciently treating the topic at hand (Thuc. 2.35.1,
Lys. 2.54; Ziolkowski 1981, 6869). Other speakers refer to a fear of
envy () 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, 6061).
29 . Cobets correction is likely right, given Hyperides
predilection for this verb in this speech. See below on 9 under
.
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 condence of all of Greece as the sun provides the
material for life to all of the world. Hyperides description of the sun
reects the religious view of the Athenians, who believed that the gods
were responsible for the earths fertility. Athenian festivals celebrated
agricultural produce, and the calendar included a procession for the
sun and the seasons (see Parker 2005, 203204). In this single sen-
tence Hyperides also covers many of the traditional points of praise
that ll 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 benecial in the rst half
of the simile. Jensens (1917, xlvi) restoration of [ ]
[ 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 [ ] [. The top
[5] Commentary 65
left corner of the letter is preserved, with the top half of the vertical
stroke and a wide horizontal bar to its left, which appears to me to be
inconsistent with a pi or any other letter.
Perhaps the imbalance in the simile is to be explained by the formal
religious context here, which precludes Hyperides from describing the
punishments that the sun might inict upon the unjust. In less formal
contexts a poet like Hesiod can more explicitly describe both the aid
and the harm that the gods inict upon mortals (Hes. Op. 225247;
West (1978, 213 ad loc.) adduces many parallels from Greek, Near
Eastern and Irish traditions). But Hyperides does not need to explain
that nature blights the wicked, just as Athens punishes them, because
pollution and fertility are the two sides of a coin (Parker 2005, 418,
in the context of a helpful discussion of the Greek view of the gods
function in agriculture) and, in keeping with the overall optimistic tone
of the speech, the orator prefers to emphasize only the positive aspects
of the city and its relationship with the gods.
For a more pessimistic nature simile in a parallel context, see
Dem. 60.24, where the orator likens the loss of those who fell at
Chaeronea to sunlight () being removed from the universe. Loraux
(1986, 393 n. 206) suggests that Hyperides positive description of
the sun directly answers Demosthenes image of the bleak withdrawal
of light after the defeat at Chaeronea. If so, this simile epitomizes
Athenian optimism at this point in the Lamian War.
Pschl (1964, 558) collects bibliography on this and other sun sim-
iles. Colin (1938, 246247) admires the subtle poetic nature of its ex-
pression, and S. Kayser (1898, 225) compares Hyp. fr. 80, a much less
elaborate comparison of rhetores and snakes. Hyp. Phil. frg. 10 also
features a simile likening the city and the body (on which see White-
head 2000, 4142 ad loc. and Blass 1887, III.2: 33).
33 [. The curved left portion of the initial letter survives.
Blasss restoration of [ ts the space better than Sitzlers
suggestion of [. The adjective sphrn only occurs once in
the other surviving epitaphioi, but the context of that usage perhaps
supports the restoration here. At Pl. Mx. 247e248a, in the consolatory
section of that speech, Socrates describes a man who has everything
that contributes to happiness in his own hands . . . [who] is not joined
to other men as having the best prepared life and being moderate
(sphrn), brave and intelligent. Similarly in this passage, Hyperides
associates this adjective with the possession of everything . . . useful
for life. The adjectives sphrn and epieiks are frequently paired by
later writers, e.g., Plut. TG. 14.5 and Cic. 38.3.
33 ]. Epieiks is usually dened as exible, reasonable, fair.
The moral concept is an important element in Athenian self-identity. It
describes the citys attitude toward suppliants and its ability to adjust
to a particular situation. Thus, at Gorg. fr. B6 285.1516 the Athenian
war dead preferred to , that is
sympathetic fairness in contrast to authoritative justice (reading
Spengels emendation of , gentle, for the manuscripts ,
present). Arist. EN 1137a311138a3 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 ( ) toward him. Mills (1997, 7778) discusses the
concept of epieikeia in Athenian self-presentation. Her discussion is
supplemented by Gibert (1998). Lucas (1968, 140141) and Adkins
(1966, esp. 7980 and 9498) 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 specic legal sense, referring to the
judges consideration of extenuating circumstances in unusual cases.
On the legal doctrine of epieikeia, see Scafuro 1997, 5054, Brun-
schwig 1996 and especially Harris 2004c. The broad moral concept
is most relevant in the present passage, rather than the specic 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 [ is correct). Neither the noun epieikeia nor
the adjective epieiks occur elsewhere in the surviving epitaphioi.
3436 [ . . . ] [] []
. 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 rst state to learn the science of agriculture.
The fruits of Athens were a traditional feature in praises of the city.
Sophocles Triptolemus (frr. 596617 Radt) popularized the story of
the Eleusinian princes teaching of agricultural skills, and Demeters
mysteries were celebrated by the Athenians at Eleusis. Similarly, Isoc.
4.28 tells the story of Demeters two gifts to Athens, agriculture and
the Mysteries, as a reward for the citys help in the goddess search for
her daughter Kore. The theme also appears elsewhere in the epitaphioi,
[5] Commentary 67
at Pl. Mx. 238a, where Athens is celebrated for rst mastering agricul-
ture (Tsitsiridis (1998, 213214 ad loc.) surveys the importance of the
Eleusinian Mysteries for the Athenians civic identity).
The products of Athens were also a special source of pride among
the natives (see Schroeder 1914, 2023 and Burgess 1902, 154 for par-
allels). The chorus of Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus gives much at-
tention to the most famous fruit of Athens in its eulogy of the city in
the second stasimon of that play (668719). That chorus praise cul-
minates in its description of the olive, an important symbol for Athens
and a characteristic attribute of its patron goddess Athena. See also
Eur. Tr. 801, Eur. Ion 14331436, and cf. the depiction of the olive
on the Athenian tetradrachms of the fth century (photos in Kraay
and Hirmer 1966, pl. 19 nos. 359363, with discussion at Kraay 1976,
6566). The olive was one of the few crops that ourished in Attica
(see Hanson 1983, especially 53, rewritten at Hanson 1998, 64, where
the Sophoclean choral ode is discussed), since the trees are resistant
to drought and adapt well to poor soil (for details see Foxhall 2007,
59). Sophocles describes the olive as self-planting () and
child-rearing (), thus connecting the fruits of Athens
with the themes of autochthony and agriculture as the basis of civiliza-
tion (cf. Foxhall (2007, 248249), who associates the latter adjective
with Athenian ideals of the long-term).
In fact, the rocky soil of Attica was not always able to produce
enough grain for the city, and cash crops such as olives helped fund
grain imports. Moreno (2007) has demonstrated that the Athenians de-
pended on imported grain and that their foreign policy in the fth and
fourth centuries was an integral part of a complex organized system
designed to ensure its supply. Taken as a group, the funeral orations
illustrate the tension that existed in classical Athens between pride in a
distinctiveAthenian character and the states self-sufciency on the one
hand, and, on the other hand, a cosmopolitan interest in, and real need
for, foreign artists and goods: this passage and other traditional eulo-
gies extol the independent ability of Athens to provide for itself, while
in contrast the Thucydidean funeral oration boasts of the diversity of
imported products available to the Athenians during the empire of the
fth century (Thuc. 2.38.2; the old oligarch, [Xen]. Ath 2.7, presents a
negative counterpoint).
More generally, praise for the fertility of a region is a recurring
motif in all types of Greek literature. Kienzle (1936, 3940) collects
relevant passages. As here, many other examples of this device specif-
ically praise the karpos, fruit, of a locale.
3536 [] . The phrase is technical and ap-
pears in Democritean accounts of the origin of society. According to
that philosophers sociological theory, mankind formed social groups
in order to obtain the necessities for life (see Cole 1990, 131135).
Henrichs (1975, 107 n. 56) discusses the use of the specialized term
, material useful for life, in Prodicus and
collects numerous other examples of similar phrases.
3637 ] [. 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 specically refers to the accomplishments of
Theseus. At Eur. Supp. 341 Theseus boasts of being a punisher of the
wicked, (cf. also 253255), and in Eur. fr. 678
(Kannicht), Theseus murder of Sciron is described with the same for-
mulation found here, {} , to punish the wicked.
Loraux (1986, 6567) discusses the almost complete exclusion of
Theseus fromall the funeral orations. Instead of Theseus, it is the Athe-
nians who were glorious against the Amazons and recovered the bodies
of the seven chiefs before Thebes. Her thesis, that this replacement was
a reaction against the policy of the ostracized leader Cimon, who had
heralded Theseus as the city founder, is unpersuasive. She wants to
discern a democratic avor in support of her date for the institution of
the funeral oration in the 460s. Calame (1996, 416418) sensibly ar-
gues that the importance of Theseus in Athenian ideology cannot be
the result of any particular individuals advocacy for the hero. In any
case, the democracy of the late 460s and 450s continued to admire The-
seus. Walker (1995, 6466) 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 citys war casualties as a ho-
mogeneous body. In tragedy Theseus is a useful character who as an
individual can represent on stage values that might be ascribed to the
city as an abstract entity in nondramatic contexts such as the epitaphioi.
[5] Commentary 69
Thus Mills (1997, 5657) explains that the absence of Theseus fromthe
Eumenides of Aeschylus emphasizes the collective anonymity of the
plays Athenian court. Similarly, the epitaphioi celebrate the collective
unity of the civic community, and the absence of Theseus from the fu-
neral orations has nothing to do with any hypothetical rejection of the
policies of Cimon.
37 [. The catalogue of Athenian history that appears in other
epitaphioi tends to jump from the defeat of foreigners during mytho-
logical times to the Athenian role in the Persian Wars (for example,
Lys. 2.419 focuses on prehistoric exploits, and then 2047 immedi-
ately presents a long account of the Persian Wars). The verb kolazein,
to punish, links these mythological and historical events. It is used
both for the victories of Theseus (see previous note) and the defeat of
the Persians (Pl. Mx. 240d, discussed at Tsitsiridis 1998, 277). By using
this evocative verb here, Hyperides alludes to that traditional catalogue
of Athenian exploits, which he chooses to pass over in this simile so
that he can instead go on to provide a narrative of Leosthenes achieve-
ments. See p. 23 above for more parallels between Hyperides descrip-
tion of the conict with Macedon and others accounts of the Persian
Wars. For discussion of the catalogue of Athenian achievements that
appears in other funeral orations (most extensively in Lys. 2 and Platos
Menexenus) see Loraux 1986, 132171 and Thomas 1989, 196236.
37 ] [. Hyperides continues with his
condensed allusions to traditional themes in praise of Athens. The
aid given to the children of Heracles, the Seven against Thebes,
Orestes, Medea, Heracles, and Oedipus was the subject of numerous
fth-century tragedies in Athens. Surviving plays that treat the theme
of Athens help for those in need include Aeschylus Seven against
Thebes, Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus and Euripides Suppliants.
The theme is also common in funeral orations: Lys. 2.716, Pl. Mx.
239b, and Dem. 60.8 refer toAthenian aid for the Seven against Thebes
and the Heracleidae. Naiden (2006) has produced a comprehensive
study of ancient supplication (his detailed appendices of sources and
indexes can be used to locate discussion of these and numerous other
Athenian examples, both mythological and historical).
38 . 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 , birth equality, and , political
equality), or the political settlement of Theseus (Dem. 60.28 praises
the , political equality, he created), or the Athenian political
system in the classical period (Lys. 2.56 presents 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, 160162) has demonstrated
that Thucydides reference to , equality, refers to the equality
before the law all Athenian citizens enjoyed in judicial disputes. That
interpretation supports the reading of , injustice, here.
The substantive adjective , equality, may allude more
generally to the democratic ideal of isonomia, legal equality (as
argued by Gomme (1956, 109110); Ostwald (1969, 114 n. 3)
disagrees). Isonomia is regularly opposed to monarchia, or the rule
of one (Alcmaeon 4, Hdt. 3.142143, cf. also Hdt. 3.80.282, 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
(2022).
38 ]. Harris interpretation of as referring to the
courts at Thuc. 2.37.1 (see previous note) supports Jensens restora-
tion. The remaining traces of ink and the size of the lacuna better suit
Jensens restoration than those of Babington and Colin (appendix B).
38 [. Kaibel preferred the reading [ ]
(instead of [greed]) and proposed [ (dispenses) to
continue the nancial metaphor. Although ] (injustice) is
preferable to ] (greed) the remaining ink traces better suit
[ (dispenses) than Blass [ (protects) and
the verb (to dispense) makes good sense even without
the reference to greed.
3840 ] [ . . . ]. Blass restoration
is based on the echo of Lycurg. 104, who describes the Greeks who
fought at Marathon:
, with their own risks they acquired shared security
[6] Commentary 71
for all the Greeks. On the repeated contrast between private risk and
public safety, see the note on 24 under . . . .
6, 41 [ . There is a small dot of ink at the top left of the
line before the lacuna. As Jensen observes, it is consistent with the top
bar of a pi, and not an alpha (as Blasss restoration of [ ]
requires). For the phrase , LSJ, s.v. I.2 cites Isoc.
15.117.
42 ] . is Mllers plausible
correction of the papyrus, whose nonsensical reading oXto is likely
due to the scribes misreading of his source. The phrase
(I will refrain from speaking) offers a pointed contrast
to (I will . . . focus my speech) in the next
clause and anticipates the praeteritio below (on this rhetorical device
see the note on this section under ). Paraleipein usually takes
an accusative object, but later writers offer a few parallels for the
rst-person future with an active innitive (Gal. 2.450: . . .
and, a closer parallel also introducing rhetorical praeteritio,
Lib. Or. 12.27: ). Others have suggested that the
scribe may have misread (both) in his exemplar and written
oXto, but this suggestion entails other drastic changes to the papyrus
text. Kayser (1868) accepts the reading (both), which then
requires a verb to govern the rst (as for) phrase. He assumes
the scribe omitted further material at the beginning of the sentence and
reconstructs the passage thus: [
] [ ], [,
] . . . , [Since I am unable to speak about these men
and all] the shared [accomplishments of the] city [at the same time, as
I should, and to praise] both. . . .
4344 ] . The explicit deliberation about the act of prais-
ing is characteristic of epideictic oratory; see Carey 2007a, 245. This
short section is full of rhetorical tropes: it begins and ends with prae-
teritio (see above on this section under ] and
below under ) and here Hyperides employs the rhetorical de-
vice of aporia by suggesting that there is an abundance of potential
material to praise (see Usher 1999, index s.v. aporia for many other
examples of this rhetorical trope, which is common in all types of or-
atory). It also employs hypophora, a series of rhetorical questions and
answers (Usher (1999, 336) comments on the unusual combination of
hypophora and aporia; on hypophora see the note on 30 under
). Just as he passed over any lengthy praise of the
city in 5, Hyperides nowuses these various rhetorical devices to avoid
dwelling on the traditional themes of the genos (heritage) and the
paideia (upbringing) of the Athenians in 78 (on these typical sec-
tions in funeral orations see Ziolkowski 1981, 6465). Like the simile
in 5 that functions as a miniature epainos of the city, briey 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 ]. For the innitive, Cobet compares Eur. Med. 475. The in-
nitive with the verb (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 -
(speech) do not exclude the use of the innitive.
44 . 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 (18131889)
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, 4041 discusses Cobet and his ideal
of das reine Attische; see also Babingtons (1859, 6) tribute to Co-
bets textual work on the Funeral Oration). Here he proposes the gen-
itive of the adjective, (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 . On Hyperides usage of this verb, see the note on 9 under
. Praeteritio, or paraleipsis, is the rhetorical gure in which
the speaker states that he will not mention something, and in effect re-
minds his listeners of it with that denial. Hyperides puts special empha-
sis on this device by explicitly using the verb paraleipein (to refrain)
at the beginning of this section to close his brief praise of the city, and
here he uses the device again to bring up quickly and dismiss two of
the traditional themes of the funeral oration: the ancestors of the dead
and their noble and autochthonous origins, and the education of the
[7] Commentary 73
Athenians. In forensic cases litigants sometimes claim that constraints
of time prevent a detailed account of their opponents misdeeds; these
insinuating claims essentially functioned as accusations for which no
evidence was needed. Usher (1999, index s.v. paraleipsis) collects nu-
merous examples from the orators and tragedy.
4546 . See the note on 30 under
. . . on the frequent use of the particle (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. 60.2731).
7, 5152 [] []
. 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, 120121). 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, 1823) 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 , noble
birth, and Connor (1994, 3538) 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, 303304) has shown that the concept
of autochthony developed along with the Athenian Empire in the fth
century and that the legend was used as a justication 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)).
78, 5153 [] . . . []. 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 1922
(911). The fragment was lost by the time Jensen examined the papyrus.
8, 5355 [] . . . [. Loraux (1986,
109110) focuses on this passage as she argues that Hyperides, despite
the many innovations in this oration, here follows a time-honored de-
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 generals aret (1020), 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 rst ex-
posed to moderation (cf. Aesch. 1.67, 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 denition of complete virtue consisting rst
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 eld, 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. 60.1516), De-
mosthenes, too, as one must in an oration over the war dead, mainly
emphasizes their martial valor (Dem. 60.1824, aret in 23).
The special interest in the soldiers paideia in these two speeches is
perhaps reective of contemporary institutional reforms in Athens. In
335/334 the ephbeia was reformed, and male Athenian youths aged 18
[9] Commentary 75
to 20 participated in a systematic programof military and civic training.
For discussion of these reforms see Humphreys 2004, 8892, Fisher
2001, 6566, Rhodes 1993, 494495, and Faraguna 1992, 274280.
56 ]. A complementary innitive is needed with the verb -
, are accustomed. Sauppes 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 rst consonant of a syllable. Hess
adduces Isoc. 5.4 ( , which some are accus-
tomed to do) as a parallel for Jensens supplement of , some.
Levis , others, would also ll the gap nicely and make good
sense. Hyperides briey 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 [
] [ ).
5758 []. This honoric phrase is regularly
used in the funeral orations and other patriotic literature to describe sol-
diers death on the battleeld (see Loraux 1986, 99102 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 eld as
the singular dening moment of their adult lives. Rusten (1986, 7174)
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
for eternity (72). The phrase (he was a brave
man) was used as a formula in Athenian honoric decrees specically
to praise valor in battle (Veligianni-Terzi (1997, 265267) 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
.
9, 61 . 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 orators 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 ). 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 battleeld. This verb could perhaps be
classied as nonforensic in the Hyperidean corpus (see above p. 26;
outside of this speech it appears only as a conjectural restoration at
Hyp. Dem. 8), but it is quite common in the court speeches of other
authors.
63 . Hyperides repeatedly emphasizes the panhel-
lenic alliance during the Lamian (or Hellenic) War. See the note on
16 under [ ] . 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.
1012. For an outline of the events of the campaign, see pp. 1213. In
these sections Hyperides describes the events of late 323.
10, 66 . The verb is echoed below (see the note on 35
under ) to emphasize the change in circumstances as a re-
sult of the soldiers acts of valor.
6667 [] . 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, 8687 and 106107), 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, 6164 and 162163), 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. 34; Harris (1995, 116118) shows howweak the charge
of bribery was), and throughout his career he frequently referred to
Greeks who were corrupted by Philip (e.g., Dem. 18.295, now echoed
by Hyp. Dion. 176v/173r l. 32175r/174v l. 2; see also the passages
collected by Cargill (1985)). Just a year before the funeral oration was
delivered, Demosthenes became embroiled in scandal and was pros-
ecuted for accepting money from the Macedonian treasurer Harpalus
[12] Commentary 77
(see above p. 11). Hyperides was a prosecutor in that case and uses the
brutal verb drodokein to attack his former ally (see Whitehead 2000,
403 on this verb).
11, 72 . Leosthenes ferried a large body of merce-
naries from Asia to Cape Taenarum at the southern tip of the Pelopon-
nese, and probably maintained themthere until after Alexanders death,
whenAthens nally decided to initiate hostilities against Macedon. See
p. 12 of the introduction.
75 . After Alexander destroyed Thebes, in 335, he granted the
Thebans land to the neighboring Boeotians (see 17). Consequently,
the Boeotians sided with the Macedonians because they feared that the
Athenians would return that land to the Thebans if the Athenian cam-
paign was successful (Diod. Sic. 18.11.34).
75 . The Euboeans, under the leadership of Callias of Chalcis,
joined the Athenian alliance against Philip prior to the battle of
Chaeronea (Brunt (1969, 254264) gives a thorough analysis of why
and when Euboea shifted its alliances from Philip to Athens). After
Philips victory in 338 the pro-Athenian leaders of the Euboean League
went into exile and Philip installed sympathetic governments on the
island (Roebuck (1948, 82) provides more detail than Hammond et
al. (19721988, II: 615) on this point). Chalcis was the site of an
armed Macedonian garrison, one of the so-called fetters of Greece
(Plb. 18.11.5) that protected Macedonian interests (Hammond et al.
19721988, II: 612 n. 3). When Aristotle left Athens in 323 out of
anxiety over his Macedonian connections, he took refuge at Chalcis
(D.H. Amm. 1.5, D. L. 5.56, 5.10; Chroust (1966) emphasizes
political reasons for his move). Diod. Sic. 18.11.12 lists the Greek
allies in the Lamian War: from Euboea only the city of Carystus joined
the Greek alliance; the rest of the island sided with Macedon.
12, 77 . The pass of Thermopylae provides land access to
southern Greece from Thessaly, with steep mountains to the south and
the sea to the north. (Barrington atlas map 55 D3; the modern coast ex-
tends further north than it did in antiquity.) Leosthenes planned to con-
front the enemy here, and had already occupied the pass with that inten-
tion in mind (Diod. Sic. 18.11.5). Pritchett (1965, 7173) and MacKay
(1963) survey the present landscape and surviving remains in order to
make sense of ancient accounts of the area and correct modern misin-
terpretations of the difcult terrain. The latter provides a detailed map
of the pass.
7879 [ ]
[]. The Greeks, under the leadership of the Spartan
Leonidas, were overcome by the Persian forces at the pass of
Thermopylae in the autumn of 480. See the vivid account of Hdt.
7.201233.
Compared to other funeral orators, Hyperides devotes very little at-
tention to the Persian Wars. He instead describes contemporary events
using the same terms that his predecessors used to describe the famous
war against the barbarians. See the notes on 5 under [, on
20 under , and on 37 under
.
8182 . After the defeat at Plataea the Mac-
edonian forces ed and took refuge at Lamia for the winter (Diod.
Sic. 18.11.5). Antipater was awaiting reinforcements fromCraterus and
Leonnatus (see above p. 13 and Habicht 1997, 38). Lamia is about 10
kilometers northwest of Thermopylae, in the region of Phthiotis, near
the Malian Gulf (Barrington atlas map 55 C3; see Bquignon 1937,
263278 on the site).
13, 8283 ] []
. Neither the order of Hyperides list nor its
position in his narrative is historically accurate. Diod. Sic. 17.111.3 re-
ports that Leosthenes was in contact with the Aetolians prior toAlexan-
ders death in June 323. Then, after the Aetolians agreed to join his
cause, he approached the Locrians and the Phocians and other nearby
peoples (Diod. Sic. 18.9.5). According to Diodorus account, all these
negotiations were conducted prior to the Athenian decree declaring
war. (Diod. Sic. 18.11.1 repeats that the Aetolians were the rst to join
the alliance.) Diodorus source for Greek events in books 18 to 20 was
Hieronymus, and his narrative is generally accepted as trustworthy (see
Hornblower 1981, 3240; Hamilton (1977) argues that Cleitarchus is
the source for Diodorus Greek narrative in book 17). Oikonomides
(1982, 124) dates IG II
2
367, which honors ambassadors sent from
Athens to conduct a treaty with the Phocians, to late October 323. The
alliance must have been forged within just a few months of Alexan-
ders death. (See also p. 12 of the introduction. The precise date of the
agreement with the Aetolians is not certain.)
Both Phocis and Thessaly had reason not to join the alliance in 323.
Phocis had received aid from Athens in the third Sacred War against
[13] Commentary 79
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,
81101).
Thessaly also had reason not to sympathize with the Greek revolt.
Although the koinon of Thessaly formed a short-lived alliance with
Athens in 361/360 (IG II
2
116 = Rhodes and Osborne 2003, no. 44;
see also Tracy 1995, 29), later internal strife provided an opportunity
for Philip to intervene in Thessalian politics in either 344 or 342, and
the Thessalian cavalry played an important role in Alexanders army
during his Asian campaign (Bosworth 1988, 264). Perhaps Alexanders
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 specically 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 ] [), 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.
8486 . . . . These two clauses are closely parallel in rhythm
and structure. Both begin with correlative genitives ( and )
and then continue with the two contrasted subjects, the Macedonians
and Leosthenes. The nal portions of the two clauses, beginning with
the antithetical rhyming adverbs (, against their will, and
, 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 (commanded) in
(command).
8485
. 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 [), 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 [] . 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. 18.15.14). 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 signicant battles of Abydus and
Crannon that took place in July (on which see Habicht 1997, 3940).
15, 95 . This verb frequently refers to incorrect assumptions
(LSJ, s.v. III): Nobody should (wrongly) assume. . . .
Whitehead (2000, 450) collects parallel examples in the forensic
speeches of Hyperides.
97103 [] . . . . . . . . . [ . . . -
[]. Throughout this section Hyperides alternates between two
different types of praise: egkmion ( or , here
translated as eulogy) and epainos ( or , translated as
praise). Arist. Rh. 1367b 2832 distinguishes between these terms:
an epainos is praise for the quality of virtue (aret), while an egkmion
[17] Commentary 81
focuses on specic accomplishments. Hyperides usage is not so pre-
cise, in part because aret on the battleeld is exemplied in actual
deeds (see above on 3 under . . . ). Other funeral orations
refer to epainos ( or ) almost exclusively (
or occur elsewhere in the epitaphioi only at Pl. Mx. 235a,
237a and 241c). Hyperides repeated usage of egkmion (-
or at 7, 34 and probably 33) may be inuenced by
the development of the prose genre of encomia praising contemporary
individuals (see the note on 3 under . . .
).
101103 ] . . . []. Cobet suggests ] . . . -
[] (so as for me to praise), a consecutive clause with the in-
nitive (Smyth 2258). But the surviving trace of the rst letter after the
lacuna in line 30 of the papyrus (i.e., the last letter of [])
does not suit a nu.
16, 105106 [ ] . 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 ) and
repeatedly links the concept of freedom with Athens leadership of a
panhellenic campaign in 323 (see 910 with the note on 9 under
; cf. also 10, 11, 16, 19, 24, 40). Lycurgus uses
similar language in 331 as he bemoans the loss of the freedom of the
Greeks at Chaeronea (Lycurg. 50). A later Athenian inscription also
refers to the war as an Athenian effort for the freedom of the Greeks
(IG II
2
467, ll.68). See also the note on 25 under .
17, 111112 ] . A revolt against Macedonian rule
erupted in Thebes in mid-335 when the city heard a rumor of Alexan-
ders 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. 1.6.710.6, Diod. Sic.
17.815, Plut. Alex. 1112, and Habicht 1997, 1415. Aesch. 3.133
laments the citys 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 Alexanders 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 Philips arrangements after the battle of
Chaeronea, when Theban prisoners were sold for ransom, other Boeo-
tian cities were restored, and the garrison was rst put in place (see
Roebuck 1948, 7780, Hammond et al. 19721988, II: 610611 and
Buckler 2003, 506507). Hyperides here specically indicates that all
four of the punishments of 335 were still in effect in 322 (cf. Bosworth
1980, 90).
112 ] . Babington compares Lys. 2.11 (
, 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 ( . . . ,
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 ), that they have
now been reduced to seeing one of their own allies destroyed by such
a ruler.
112113 [ ] [][]. 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 ), these forts
secured Philips control of the entire Greek peninsula (on the forts
see Hammond et al. 19721988, II: 611613). As this passage shows,
these garrisons were maintained throughout the period of Alexanders
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 ).
114 . War cap-
tives were often enslaved and might be released for ransom. Pritchett
[18] Commentary 83
(19711991, V: 223245) catalogues and discusses dozens of exam-
ples. Alexander spared only a few Thebans and enslaved some 30,000
captives, whomhe sold for 440 talents of silver; for sources and discus-
sion see Pritchett 19711991, V: 244 and Hammond et al. 19721988,
III: 65.
114115 . By supporting the other
states in Boeotia, Alexander weakened the inuence of Thebes and won
future allies in the Lamian War; see the note on 11 under .
18, 119 . On Hyperides fondness for this adjective see the note
on 40 under .
123124 . . . [ ] [. 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 ght
against Macedon as a sacred war to expel the Macedonians from the
Amphictyony (for further discussion see Mari 2003, 8385).
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 ( and , Harp. s.v. ,
Dem. 18.147 and 151, IG II
2
1132.3 and 1163.2), and the geographic
distribution of the member states around Thermopylae (Lefvre 1998,
67 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 Lefvre 1998,
193204). 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, 108112. The early history of the amphictyony at Thermopylae
and then Delphi is discussed by Tausend (1992, 3443). Snchez (2001,
173268) provides a detailed institutional history of the amphictyony
during the period of Macedonian involvement.
124 . 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, 4551)
gives a useful summary of the duties of the the theroi and their hosts
(therodokoi), based on abundant epigraphic evidence; she also pro-
vides a map of the routes the theroi from Delphi would follow in
Thessaly (76). Rutherford (2000, 133138) categorizes various usages
of theros and related terms. Hyperides uses this term here to refer
specically to the Greek delegates who attended the meetings of the
Delphic amphictyony. The usage reinforces the characterization of the
Lamian War as a sacred war (see previous note).
125127 . . . . . . . These two clauses
are closely linked by the homoioteleuton (Volkmann 1885, 483 and
Smyth 3026) of the two nal verbs and parisosis (cf. above on 13
under . . . ).
19, 129130 . . . .
Hyperides echoes Lycurgus description of the Athenian defeat at
Marathon: they made it clear that courage is superior to wealth and
virtue to number (Lycurg. 108:
). See the
following note for another link between these two speeches.
As is typical in the epitaphioi (see Walters 1980, 46), Hyperides
may be distorting the historical record by suggesting that the Greeks
were outnumbered. At the start of the war the Greek forces were
probably comparable to the Macedonians at sea. Although the
Persian battle eet of 240 ships outnumbered the Greeks, in 323
the majority of Persian ships were in Asia, and the Athenians were
optimisticunrealistically, as it turned outthat they could build
up a comparable force of 240 ships with allied contributions (Diod.
Sic. 18.10.13, 18.12.2, and 18.15.89, following the interpretation
of Morrison (1987)). The Greeks were superior in number on land at
the start of the war (Diod. Sic. 18.12.4: . . .
, The Greeks . . . who far outnumbered the
Macedonians; for further details, see Diod. Sic. 18.10.2 and 18.12.2)
until the Macedonian general Leonnatus arrived with reinforcements
during the winter (see Diod. Sic. 18.14.5 and cf. above p. 13).
Worthington (1999, 216) offers a detailed assessment of the forces on
each side at the beginning and end of the war (but his gure for the
Athenian naval force in 323 is too large: see Morrison 1987).
132133 [. Cf. Lycurg. 50: ,
crown of the fatherland. The evocative phrase appears only in these
two passages (in the TLG), and, given the parallel contexts, may sug-
[20] Commentary 85
gest that Hyperides knew Lycurgus work. The Lycurgan phrase comes
in the course of a mini-epitaphios in praise of those who sacriced their
lives for Greek freedom at Chaeronea. Because they risked their indi-
vidual lives for the sake of the common freedom of the Greeks, their
souls are a crown for their fatherland. Both passages feature the com-
mon antithesis of private sacrice for the public good, and Hyperides
, [they made] freedom a common possession,
echoes Lycurgus , common freedom. Maas (1928,
260) suggests that the Lycurgus passage echoes Dem. 60.23, where the
virtue of the fallen is praised as being the soul of Greece. Hyperides
uses the motif to underline the Lamian Wars goal of recovering from
the defeat at Chaeronea.
20, 134135 . The particle must modify the
innitive in the contrary-to-fact condition. The optative verbs here and
at 22 (, we judge) should be classied as potential opta-
tives, either with the particle modifying both the optative and the
innitive apo koinou, or with the nite optative verb standing alone
without the particle. But the context seems to require a more declarative
sense than potential optatives usually have, as is reected in the transla-
tion here (rather than what would we suppose would have happened
and in 22 we would judge these expectations would be). Graindor
(1898, 342) and Hess (1938, 65) list parallel examples of potential op-
tatives without , but Rennie (1940, 22) insists that those examples are
all scribal mistakes that have been rightly emended. Nevertheless, as
Graindor, Jensen, and Hess have concluded, these two occurrences of
the same syntactic phenomenon are unlikely to be scribal errors. Wor-
thington (1999, 216217) more sensibly suggests we retain the opta-
tive and regard the usage as a Hyperidean idiom. Elsewhere Hype-
rides uses a potential optative without (Hyp. Phil. 10,
; Why should you spare this man?, discussed by
Salvaneschi 1972, 150154), and Bers (1984, 134135) observes the
frequency of the construction in the koin dialect and suggests that it
was colloquial in the fourth century. In other regards Hyperides seems
to reect the emergence of koin; see belowon 34 under .
Cf. also the note on 35 under .
135 . The participle serves
as the protasis of a contrafactual condition. This vivid picture of
what might have happened to Greece is unparalleled in the epitaphioi
(but cf. Lycurg. 60). Homer commonly uses conditions of the type
now X would have happened if Y had not intervened (e.g., Hom.
Il. 3.373382) as plot-changing devices and also to emphasize a
situation or make an editorial comment on a character (on Homers
contrafactuals see Louden 1993; Nesselrath (1992) studies this device
in epic poetry more generally). Hyperides usage here emphasizes the
heroic action of the fallen and their service to Greece.
135 . For this sense of the prepositional phrase see LSJ, s.v.
II.4.b.
138 . Or to put it briey. Hyperides is the rst to
use the accusative participle instead of the dative in this common idiom
(Pohle 1928, 93; LSJ s.v. 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 (
, to put it all together briey) justies retaining the
papyrus reading. Hyperides verbal usage is occasionally more similar
to later writers than earlier (cf. the note below on 34 under -
), 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 . Pl. Mx. 240d, describing the bat-
tle of Marathon, speaks of the insolence of all Asia (
). 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
conict with Macedon. For discussion, see above p. 23.
The term, insolence, here refers to the enemys over-
condence. In general the term expresses moral condemnation and is
often linked with hybris (MacDowell 1990, 302303 on Dem. 21.83).
Here there is also a sense of coercion, reinforced by , sub-
ject, and , forced in the previous sentence.
138139 . . . . . . . . . . This section of the
speech is especially full of pointed antitheses such as this. See below
on 24 under . . . .
138 . Macedonians, though native Greek speakers, were of-
ten characterized as foreign barbaroi by Demosthenes and his polit-
ical allies. Hall (2001) surveys the ancient and modern debate as to
whether the Macedonians were Greeks. He reasonably suggests that
in the fourth-century criteria such as language and genealogy mattered
[20] Commentary 87
less to the Greeks than cultural practice, and that these varied crite-
ria could be manipulated to argue that the Macedonians were or were
not Greek. Badian (1982) argues that Demosthenes characterization of
Philip as a barbarian (e.g., Dem. 3.17, 19.271) is an accurate reection
of the general Greek attitude at that time, and Borza (1996) has corrob-
orated his ndings with an analysis of how ancient writers distinguish
Macedonians from Greeks.
However he was perceived in Athens, Philip clearly wanted to be
thought of as a Greek, and by reviving earlier accounts that the Mac-
edonian kings descended from Argos, he provided genealogical evi-
dence for his claim. He also took advantage of his Olympic victory
of 356 to advertise his devotion to philhellenic culture, by building the
Philippeion in Olympia and minting a coin series featuring Zeus Olym-
pios and a victorious jockey (no. 16 in Yalouris et al. 1980). After the
battle of Chaeronea these Hellenic aspirations took on an increasing po-
litical signicance, when Philip formed the League of Corinth to sup-
port his planned panhellenic campaign against Persia (see above p. 7),
a plan that was carried out after his death by Alexander. By presenting
the Macedonians as barbarians in this speech (38), Hyperides justies
the Greek revolt in 323. The characterization is also rhetorically effec-
tive, since it allows the orator to mold his account of the Lamian War
after treatments of the great war against the Persian barbaroi.
140141 . . . . Sauppe keeps the papyrus reading of
ovtxXttt:ouc and prints . The adjective
is otherwise unattested, but it is easy to make sense of it meaning
lacking, as the opposite of , and it should be retained.
Other editors print , an adjective that is quite common
in post-classical Greek (and occasionally found in the classical
period: Alc. fr. 305.13 and Hecat. Abd. fr. 25.1360), but its meaning,
uninterrupted, is the opposite of what is required after the negative
conjunction . Those who prefer must also make
extensive, and unnecessary, emendations elsewhere in the clause (see
appendix B).
140141 . Hybris
can refer to a wide range of arrogant, offensive, or violent behavior
and attitudes. For general discussions see Fisher 1992 and MacDowell
1976.
It was regularly used as a term for sexual violence perpetrated with
the intent of humiliating victims and their families. Harris (2004b) ex-
plains the differences between the ancient idea of hybris and the mod-
ern concept of rape: rape refers to the victims lack of consent, whereas
hybris looks partly at the intention of the aggressor, partly at the ef-
fect on the honor of the victim and her relatives (319). Violent sexual
assaults were considered typical behavior of a tyrant. At Hdt. 3.80.5
Otanes criticizes the institution of monarchy, because one character-
istic of a king is that he, among other things, forces women (-
). Several other passages are collected and discussed
by Fisher (1992, 104111) and Doblhofer (1994, 3440). The addi-
tion of , even every child, emphasizes the savage bru-
tality of the Macedonians, which is also attested elsewhere. Pritchett
(19711991, V: 238242) describes the types of suffering that befell
defeated women and children, with specic examples of Macedonian
treatment of the captives from Olynthus and Thebes (cf. Din. 1.2324
and Dem. 19.193198, 305306, 309).
Hyperides encourages his audience to support the war against Mac-
edon by warning them that the Macedonians have no respect for Greek
cultural norms (cf. Cohen (1991, 174175) on sexual violence as a
transgression of social norms perpetrated by a tyrant or an enemy at
war), whether sexual or religious (for the latter see Hyperides next
sentence with the following notes on 21). Hyperides again praises the
fallen for protecting the women of Greece in 36.
21, 142 . Hyperides refers to the unprecedented
honors bestowed upon Philip and Alexander throughout Greece (
, 20). Perhaps already in the early 350s Philip was being wor-
shiped in Amphipolis, as is stated by second-century AD orator Aelius
Aristides (38, p. 480), who says that there they sacriced to him as a
god ( ) at the time of Philips capture of that city in late
357 (Habicht 1970, 1213; Fredricksmeyer 1979, 5051). Later, an in-
scription of 332 from Eresus on Lesbos refers to altars of Zeus Philip-
pios, which were erected there, probably in 336 (Rhodes and Osborne
2003, no. 83 ii.45). But it is more likely that Philip was presented as
a mortal championed by Zeus, not as a divine manifestation of the god
(Badian 1996, 13; cf. Habicht 1970, 1415 and Fredricksmeyer 1979,
5152).
For Athens there is one late piece of evidence for the worship of
Philip. Clement of Alexandria, a second-century AD convert to Chris-
tianity, in a catalogue of deied mortals reports that the Athenians
voted to worship () Philip (Clem. Al. Protr. 4.54.5). The
source is unreliable: see Badian 1981, 6771.
[21] Commentary 89
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 orators 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, 5459) (whom
Parker 1996, 256258 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,
2526) 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, 455457) and Worthing-
ton (1992, 262264) 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 []. The initial letter is slightly more likely an epsilon than an eta,
and the lacuna is too large for [, already (Sauppe) or [ still
(Kayser). Only a small trace of the top of the nal character survives.
143144 [ ] . . . . 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 eeing fromAthens af-
ter Chaeronea as if he believed that the entire city had been abandoned
and the temples were empty (Lycurg. 38).
Hyperides terminology emphasizes that the Athenians were treat-
ing the Macedonians as immortal gods. Isoc. 9.57 describes the statues
of the Athenian general Conon and Evagoras, the king of Cyprus, as
eikones, which he contrasts with statues of Zeus Soter in the Agora
of Athens, which were agalmata. These agalmata, just like the altars
and temples mentioned here, should honor gods, not mortals (see Nock
1972, 241244). The linguistic distinction was carefully maintained.
In the literary and epigraphic testimonia from the agora, agalmata are
always divine gures. 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 deied, their statues were referred to as
agalmata (Price 1984, 176179).
Were the representations of Philip or Alexander in Athens con-
sidered to be agalmata or eikones? The evidence is not strong. Paus.
1.9.4 refers to statues of both in the Agora without using a specic
noun ( , Philip and
Alexander are placed . . . ). Clement of Alexandria (see previous note
on this section) refers to worship of Philip in the sanctuary of Heracles
at Cynosarges, south of the Athenian Acropolis, and Fredricksmeyer
(1979, 4950) suggests that an agalma of Philip was put on display
there as a , a partner of the god. But Badian (1981,
7071) more plausibly suggests that the statue was a common hon-
orary dedication and not an object of worship, and that it was likely the
same work that Pausanias later saw in the Agora.
Outside of Athens (Hyperides refers to all of Greece; 20: -
, Greece), of course, there is the famous Philippeion in the pan-
hellenic sanctuary for Zeus at Olympia, begun by Philip after the battle
of Chaeronea (Paus. 5.20.9) and completed by Alexander after his fa-
thers death in 336. This building featured statues not only of Philip
and Alexander, but also Philips parents and wife. Pausanias refers to
the images of Olympias and Eurydice in the Philippeion as eikones, but
does not explicitly label the statues of Philip, Alexander, and Amyntas
as either eikones or agalmata. Miller (1973, 191) reasonably interprets
the Philippeion as a sort of statue garden, rather than a hero shrine.
Fredricksmeyer (1979, 58) speculates that at the Philippeum Philip
suggested and approximated his deication but stopped just short of
actually introducing it formally as a cult. The statues were made of
gold and ivory, and are the earliest known use of chryselephantine ma-
terial for mortals, but Lapatin (2001, 117118) rightly cautions against
reading too much into this fact and adds that there is no evidence that
chryselephantine materials alone signied divinity.
To summarize, there is ample evidence that Philip and Alexander
hinted at their divinity and perhaps encouraged cultic worship, but it is
very unlikely that any formal cult existed in Athens in 322.
144 [ ] , [] . The an-
[23] Commentary 91
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 . . . . . . ).
145146 [] . The most fa-
mous example of a divinely honored associate of the Macedonian rulers
was Alexanders closest companion, Hephaestion (discussed by Bick-
erman (1985, 473478) and Habicht (1970, 2934)). After his friends
death in Ecbatana in October 324 Alexander asked of the oracle of
Zeus Ammon in Siwah that Hephaestion be honored as a ,
literally cochair of the god, or a hero (Diod. Sic. 17.115.6, Arr. An.
7.23.6; Bickerman 1985, 481482). Hyperides description here con-
rms 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, 299300) 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 kings court as a slave
is typical of Greek views of the royal entourage at this time. The privi-
leged members of Alexanders court, who were often given heroic hon-
ors, were depicted as atterers, parasites, or sometimes even slaves, as
here (Price 1984, 3236). Not until the third century did these friends of
the court come to be identied by their titles instead of such pejorative
characterizations (Herman 19801981).
22, 146148 . . .
. 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, 5156 and Parker 1983, 170.
150 . See above, on 20 under .
23, 153158 . . . . 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 rst limb (
. . . , during which . . . go into battle every day) briey refers
to their daily toils; the second ( . . . , ght more battles
. . . times gone by) emphasizes the continuous battles and invokes a
comparison with past campaigns; the third and longest limb (-
. . . , to endure harsh storms . . . ) praises
the mens tolerance and strength. The trials of the campaign are a com-
mon rhetorical trope (e.g., A. A. 559566 and Pl. Sym. 219e220b) 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 ight, and consented to
sacrice 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 rst decided to submit (, to endure, cf. Thuc. loc.
cit. , endured) themselves to battle and then consciously
choose death to preserve Greek freedom. Dem. 60.26 also presents the
same sequence.
163164 . . . . The pair of clauses,
. . . (fortunate because of their display of virtue) and
. . . (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 at the beginning of each clause, each of which governs a
rhyming abstract noun of identical length compounded with ; then
both clauses end with antithetical compound adjectives formed on the
same stem (see Fehling 1969, 243244 on this sentence with parallel
examples of repetitive compounds). This sort of stiff symmetry, with
its sometimes cloying gures, was characteristic of Gorgias, and the
epideictic genre in general. On Gorgias and Gorgianic encomia, see
Denniston 1952, 1012 and MacDowell 1982, 1719. Pritchett (1975,
98101) discusses and illustrates individual Gorgianic gures and Cole
(1991, 7174) provides a stylistic analysis of the extensive fragment of
Gorgias Funeral Oration (Gorg. fr. B6) that emphasizes its stiff for-
mality and balanced echoing sentence structure (73), stylistic ten-
dencies that are prominent in all of the surviving examples of the genre.
Bons (2007) provides a recent account of Gorgias role in the sophistic
[25] Commentary 93
movement, with a focus on argumentation rather than prose style.
166 . . . . 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 170173) catalogues numerous
other Attic prose examples of the / (private/shared) and
/ (private/public) antitheses.
25, 168 . 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 [ ] ) refers to freedom from ex-
ternal rule, while autonomia, independence is a subordinate concept
describing the citys ability to maintain its own internal government;
for discussion and further bibliography see Raaaub 2004, 156157.
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, 166197, who emphasizes the importance of the Persian
campaign for the emergence of Philip and Alexanders 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, 7475), and
may also have been written by Hyperides (Lib. Arg.D. or. 17). See also
the note on 16 under [ ] .
168 . The sentiment of
Hyp. fr. 214 =Rut. Lup. 2.6 is closely related: non enimsimile est vivere
in aequa civitate, ubi ius legibus valeat, et devenire sub unius tyranni
imperium, ubi singularis libido dominetur. Sed necesse est aut legibus
fretum meminisse libertatis, aut unius potestati traditum quotidianam
commentari servitutem, life in a just state, where the law prevails, is
not at all like submission to the rule of one ruler, where an individuals
desire reigns. We must trust in the law and be mindful of our freedom,
or hand ourselves over to one mans command and complain of our
slavery every day. The pride in an aequa civitas, just state, is well
illustrated in the simile of 5. This passage of the funeral oration was
evidently often quoted: Stobaeus also cites it (see apparatus). Its neat
contrast between the rule of one and the rule of the lawis particularly at
home in this oration, in which Hyperides repeatedly characterizes the
Macedonian kings as tyrants (e.g., 20 and 40).
168172 . . . . The rule of law was a cen-
tral tenet in Athenian democratic ideology. The nomoi, laws, were
seen as a basic element of a free society. All Athenian men swore
the Ephebic oath as young men, in which they vowed to obey and de-
fend the laws of Athens (the oath is preserved in a mid-fourth-century
inscription, Rhodes and Osborne 2003, no. 88 i.520; a literary ver-
sion is quoted by Pollux and Stobaeus; Harding 1985, no. 109 trans-
lates all three), and citizen judges in the courts swore to vote in accor-
dance with established laws, which were more authoritative than the
orders of a single individual (And. 1.91; Harris (2004a, 5859) con-
trasts established laws with the orders of a tyrant). The rule of law
protected the people in a democracy, and the existence of law distin-
guished democracy from tyranny, where the , a mans
threat, held sway. The funeral orations regularly emphasize the im-
portance of law as a guarantor of democratic equality and the rights
of individuals (Thuc. 2.37.1, Lys. 2.1819; cf. Harris 2004a, 4142),
and in this speech the despotic rule of the Macedonians is pointedly
contrasted with the rule of law (here and 20; the same antithesis also
appears at Eur. Supp. 429437).
169171 . . . . , accusation, and ,
slander, are regularly linked (hendiadys), and the negative con-
notation of the latter rubs off on the former to give it the sense of
ungrounded accusation (Yunis 2001, 110111). Here that sense is
intensied by the contrast with , proof. Whitehead (2000,
396) notes other collocations of accusations and slanders in
Hyperides.
170 . Hyperides repeatedly uses this verb and the cog-
nate noun , attery, to denounce any advocate of Macedon
as a toady (see Whitehead 2000, 216217 on Hyp. Eux. 19; cf. also
Hyp. Eux. 20 and 23).
[27] Commentary 95
26, 173 . Polyptoton is the repetition of one word in
different cases. Usher (1999, 20) observes that this rhetorical gure
is more common in tragedy than prose, and Worthington (1999,
219220) compares Eur. And. 802803: , evil
after evil. Mastronarde (2002, 96) collects other tragic examples; see
Fehling 1969, 3739 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
).
27, 177179 . . . . 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 nal consolation (the , Thuc. 2.4445, Lys. 2.7576, Pl.
Mx. 246d249c, Dem. 60.3237). 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 . On this adjective see below on 40 under .
179 . 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 -
).
179 . 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 fth century, in a fragment of the
comic poet Epicharmus: ,
a pious life is the greatest asset for mortals (Epich. fr. 261). Then the
metaphorical usage emerges again after 350, both in Hyperides and also
at Dem. 34.35. For later examples and further discussion, see Gromska
1927, 64 and Pohle 1928, 72.
180 []. Cobets restoration is likely correct, since Hyperides fre-
quently refers to the goodwill of the dmos (Hyp. Dem. 29, Hyp. Phil.
7 with Whitehead 2000, 5960). Eunoia regularly describes an indi-
viduals patriotic loyalty to the state and was a cardinal virtue in
the fourth century (Whitehead 1993, 5254) and was often paired with
aret. The phrase (of the people) may echo fourth-
century honorary decrees: Veligianni-Terzi (1997, 218219) collects
examples of the phrase
(because of virtue and good will toward the Athenian
people) in Athenian inscriptions (e.g., IG II
2
448 = Schwenk 1985,
407418 no. 83 (lines 1314), from the same year as this speech). Here
and later in this speech (42) Hyperides describes a reciprocal obliga-
tion that the city owed the children of the dead because of their fathers
public contribution.
The Athenian state nancially supported war orphans (Lys. frr.
128129 (P. Hib. 14) and SEG 28.46 (Harding 1985, 1315 no. 8);
see also Thuc. 2.46.1, Pl. Mx. 249a, Arist. Ath. 24.3). The orphans
were displayed to the entire city at the beginning of the City Dionysia,
dressed in full armor as they undertook their Ephebic service. The
practice may have originated with Solon (D. L. 1.55 is followed by
Stroud (1971, 288)) and continued in the fourth century. Aeschines
describes this honorable custom as a thing of the past (Aesch.
3.154155; cf. Isoc. 8.82), which he contrasts with the proposed
crowning of Demosthenes at the Dionysia. But his rhetorical purpose
is to emphasize the inappropriate award for Demosthenes, and this
passage of the Funeral Oration (together with 42) suggests that state
support for war orphans continued at least until 322. For a discussion
of the evidence and the administration of the practice see Stroud 1971,
288290.
183 . The military metaphor describes the dead holding an eternal
post in the afterlife. Dem. 60.34 uses the same metaphor to describe
the dead among the islands of the blessed. The funeral orations min-
imize reference to immortality; see the note on 43 under . . .
.
28, 185 . The word archgos (foundation, cause, beginning)
is synonymous with archgets, a technical term for the founder of a
family or race. Here, before his unusual description of Leosthenes in the
afterworld (3540), Hyperides boldly describes the soldiers death as
a new birth. His use of archgos, with its connotations of origins and
foundations, reinforces that assertion.
187 . The phrase here has the sense of anew or again (LSJ,
s.v. notes only Ar. Pl. 221 for this meaning).
[30] Commentary 97
189 . On this phrase see the note on 8 under
[].
29, 190192 . . . . On the distinction between these
overlapping terms see the note on 40 under .
191 . The papyrus offers the senseless reading oo0ot, which
appears to be corrected from an original reading, also meaningless, of
oo0gv. Most editors have supplied an indicative verb to govern the in-
nitive (become). Cobets (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 innitive, either (to begin) or (to deserve),
and then either emend 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 . Hypophora is a rhetorical gure in which
the speaker asks a series of rhetorical questions and then provides an-
swers for them. Volkmann (1885, 492494) 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 2023; 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).
196198 . . . . . . . Denniston (1954, 1011) discusses the
use of the particle to introduce various alternatives as the speaker
holds a dialogue with himself. In 6 Hyperides used to introduce
the answer to his own question, but here it emphatically prefaces both
question and answer.
196198 . . . . 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-
ce of the fallen soldiers as an , contribution (Thuc. 2.43.1).
The reference to both public and private benets amplies the praise
at 26, , so that others could live well. The
substantive adjective is neuter here; forensic speeches regu-
larly use the phrase to refer to the prosperity
of the city (Lys. 12.47, Dem. 18.323 and 24.155, Din. 3.22).
199 . For the active usage of this verb see the note on
34 under . Hyperides uses several future active forms for
verbs that are typically future deponents during the classical period.
3134. More than half of the right portion of the entire column is miss-
ing. The text cannot be recovered with any certainty; numerous recon-
structions by earlier editors are listed in the apparatus and appendix B.
We do not know how wide the column was, and the scribe writes much
more densely in the last columns of the manuscript. I have indicated
that about twelve characters are missing at the end of each line, but
even that assumption is highly uncertain. Much of the general sense
seems clear: Hyperides details the benets the fallen have bestowed
upon the Athenians, distinguishing the latter into age groups. First he
probably refers to the elder citizens and the secure life they will enjoy
(col. 11.16 =200202). Then he turns to the soldiers peers, who can live
without fear (611 = 202204), and the young Athenians, who will ben-
et from the good example set by the dead (1119 = 204207). Next the
orator probably refers to the praise the soldiers will receive in speeches
and songs (cf. Lys. 2.3 and Pl. Mx. 239c), which will be comparable
to the songs sung of the Trojan campaign (2030 = 207211). Finally the
speech emphasizes how pleasant and protable it will be to recall the
valor of the fallen (3012.6 = 211219).
31, 200 . . . [. The interrogative adjective and the fu-
ture tense continue the hypophora from the previous section.
200205 . . . [ . . . [. Again, the sense contin-
ues from the previous section. In section 30 the orator surveyed vari-
ous benets the dead provided to Greece and Athens. Now he divides
those who received these favors into age groups (cf. Lycurg. 144). At
col. 11.2 (201) editors plausibly restore [ (those older,
Sauppe), [ (the elders, Cobet) or [
(the aged, Babington) to complete the division into elders, peers, and
juniors. The remaining traces of the last letter of col. 11.2 (201) could
be read either as a gamma or a pi.
201 [
. . . . . . . . . . . .
] . Editors restore ] , their remain-
ing life, most with some form of the verb , to lead, to govern
it. For example: ] [ ] (Sauppe), They
[the elders?] will live the rest of their lives without fear as a result of
the sacrice of the fallen soldiers.
202 [
. . . . . . . . .
. The left half of the nal character of col. 11.5
(202) is curved, and well suits a sigma (Jensen, Blass), but not a mu
(Babington, Cobet) or a tau (Sauppe). The innitive should certainly
[32] Commentary 99
be read, probably with a verb to govern it in the following lacuna. For
example, Blass proposes [ , They [the elders?]
will be condent that [their life?] has been made ...
202203 ] [. The restoration of (among)
is based on col. 11.12 (200201), 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 . . . [ . . . [.
203
. . . . . . . . .
]
.
[
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. A relative or demonstrative pronoun
likely introduces a new clause here, connecting the dead to their peers
( ). 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 (death) may be followed by
another noun or adjective, but the participle (dying)
is equally possible. Some sort of verbal element, either the participle
(dying) or a nite verb with (death) as its
subject, may have preceded (nobly). Radermachers recon-
struction, which seems too long for the gap, may give the sense:
] [ ], The death of these men has
struck them [their peers] with envy . . . But any reconstruction here is
highly uncertain.
204
.
[
. . . . . . . . . .
] [. The reading [ (by
far) appears quite likely; the nal character of col. 11.10 (204) is not
a lambda (as Sitzlers restoration requires). Col. 11.11 (204) reads ,
not (Kayser). A perfect form of (to become), probably
nite, but perhaps a participle, is preceded either by an innitive or a
dative singular rst declension noun.
32, 204206 ] [ . . . ] [
. . . . . . . . . .
. For
the restoration of (among), see the note on 31 under
] [. The hypophora continues here with questions con-
cerning the last age group, those younger than the dead. An initial
question probably introduces the [ (the youth), with a new
clause adding additional queries. Blasss restoration is attractive: -
[ ; ] [ ] [
] [; What about their juniors and chil-
dren? Wont they envy their death and themselves strive to imitate it?
206 ]. See below on 34 under on the future
active usage of this verb.
206207 ][ . . .
. . . . . . . .
]. Editors take as the termina-
tion of a third plural perfect verb, with the fallen soldiers as the subject.
Jensens restoration seems plausible: ][
] [ ], If they have handed down the
virtue of their lives as a model . . .
207 [
. . . . . . . . . . . .
] [
. . . . . . . .
]. An innitive ends in -,
and [ (them) is needed as the accusative subject. Editors treat
- as a dative singular rst declension ending (with the mute iota
omitted, as the scribe often does). Jensens restoration nicely captures
the likely sense: [ ] [
], must we not believe that they enjoy an immortal memorial
. . . For the phrase (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 ([) and the Phrygians ().
Pl. Mx. 239bc 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. Colins highly speculative restoration is preferable
to Blass (appendix B) for palaeographic reasons (explained in the
following note). Colin suggests: [ ]
[ ] [ ]
[ ;] [ ]
[ ] [; 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?
Kenyons restoration, equally uncertain, may provide some sense of
the rest of the section: ] [ ]
[] [ ] [,
Everywhere in Greece these accomplishments will be be praised by
all their descendents both in prose and in song.
208 [
. . . . .
. I follow Jensens reading of (but I see no sign of the
following iota he reports). Earlier editors read (and the hand-drawn
image in Babington 1858 reects that reading), but the papyrus is some-
what abraded on the right side of the letter in question. A round shape
is clearly visible, but it does not fully close on the right and there is a
trace of the cross stroke of an epsilon.
[34] Commentary 101
210 [
. . . . .
. This is quite likely a form of the noun or the
verb . See the note on 15 under [] . . . for the
sense.
34, 211213
. . . . . . .
] . . . [. Colin builds upon restora-
tions of Cobet, Sauppe and Kenyon: ] [ -
] [ ] []
[, 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 ] (for both these reasons)
is unclear, and (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
. . . . . . . .
] . Cobets supplements are very attractive:
] [ ] [ ],
[ ] [ ] [ -
] [ ]; 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 nal character in col. 11.40 (215216) is a small raised dot of ink,
most likely an upsilon, but a pi or tau is quite possible.
214 [ ]. The restoration is based on the same phrase
at 24. However, Cobets [ (such great) might better ll
the lacuna.
216 ]. Babingtons restoration perfectly ts the lacuna
and seems to be conrmed by the verb (confer . . . advan-
tage).
216 [
. . . . . . . . . . . .
]. Pl. Mx. 236e draws a relationship between the
logos of the funeral oration and a memorial () for the dead, which
Cobet echoes with his restoration of [ (such a memo-
rial). He has also proposed [ (such a recollec-
tion), which better ts the size of the gap.
217 . This is the earliest attested usage of an active form of
the future of the verb (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 -
(30, will enjoy) and ] (32, will be eager)
earlier in the speech, both of which are also future middle deponents
in the classical period. Gromska (1927, 3637) and Pohle (1928, 21)
discuss this aspect of Hyperides and the emergence of the koin dialect.
218219 . On this phrase see the note on 8 under
[].
35, 220 . The particles mark a new point in the argument; for
examples (including this passage) and discussion see Denniston 1954,
344345. 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 . The papyrus reads oot0o, which Shilleto
corrects to (we suppose), an easy visual confusion on the part
of the scribe. Levi proposes reading the optative , to accord
with the unusual usages of the optative in 20 and 22 (on which see
the note on 20 under ).
224225 -
[]. The papyrus reads (without any word divisions) 6tgyoptvov
xoXoutvouc :ouc ttt c:po:ttov c:pocov:[
.
]c. The rst two words
are plainly corrupt; Cobet compared Isoc. 4.84 and proposed reading
(of the so-called demi-gods, on which
Blass commented audacter, sed optima sententia). Babington had al-
ready emended (army) to (Troy). The correc-
tions are indeed bold, but the following material, specically the one
woman assaulted ([] [], 36), must refer to
the Trojan war. For the phrase (of the so-
called demi-gods) Jensen compares Hes. Op. 159160 and also Pl. Ap.
28c, which labels those who died at Troy as , demi-gods.
227 ]. Hyperides boldly asserts that Leosthenes excelled the
heroes of the past. His superiority is again emphasized in excelled
(, 38) and even greater ( , 39; cf. also 19 and
23). It was commonplace for writers of elegy or encomiumto compare
their subjects with the heroic past (e.g., Simonides fragments 1018
(West) on the battle of Plataea, with discussion on the epic comparisons
by Boedecker (1996, 229232)). But Hyperides, with his pronounced
emphasis on Leosthenes and his troops, goes much further than oth-
ers when he asserts that his subjects were superior to those who fought
[37] Commentary 103
at Troy and in the Persian Wars. Typically the dead are not elevated
above, but rather equated with, their illustrious ancestors. Thus, for
example, Lys. 2.6770 speaks of the dead in the same terms as their
ancestors earlier in the speech, as does Pl. Mx. 246a (see Ziolkowski
1981, 8083 on the motif; Plut. Per. 28.7 employs an argument similar
to Hyperides when he compares the Samian campaign of 440 and 439
with the Trojan War). Hyperides initial sidestepping of the traditional
themes of the prooemium allowed him to focus on the individual Leos-
thenes and the particular events of the rst season of the Lamian War.
That special emphasis in this speech culminates in this declaration of
superiority.
228 [] . In other epitaphioi this sort of
hyperbole is reserved for the battle of Marathon (Lys. 2.20 and Pl. Mx.
240c ignore Plataean aid in 490; see Schroeder 1914, 2930). Here,
Hyperides continues to assert the superiority of his subjects, despite
his own earlier account of the mercenary army and the Athenian allies
(11, 13).
228229 . The repeated contrast between one and many
is emphasized by this juxtaposition.
230 . In 10 the same verb was used to describe the weak-
ened condition of Greece before Leosthenes came along. Now the ta-
bles are turned and Leosthenes has conquered the conquerer.
36, 230231 ] []. On sexual violence as typical
behavior for a tyrant, see above, on 20 under
.
231232 [] . Other funeral orations describe
Athens as the savior of all of Greece during the Persian Wars (Lys.
2.20, Dem. 60.10). Once again, Hyperides adapts language usually
used of the Persian Wars to praise Leosthenes and his troops.
37, 235236 . Like Harmodius and Aristogi-
ton (see below on 39 under ), these two
generals of the Persian Wars were famed for saving Greece from a
despotic ruler (cf. Hdt. 6.109.3, where Miltiades asserts that a victory at
Marathon would surpass the deeds of the tyrant slayers). See above on
5 and 20 for other cases where Leosthenes and his men are implicitly
compared to the Greeks who warded off the Persians.
These two generals are singled out to represent the battles of
Marathon and Salamis, the two most important victories for Athens
during the Persian Wars. Pl. Mx. 241bc well summarizes the typical
account in the funeral orations: The other Greeks were taught by the
men in the army at Marathon and those in the navy at Salamis. They
learned to become used to not fearing the barbarians on land or at
sea. Unlike other funeral orations, Hyperides singles out the generals
who led the campaigns in order to compare them with Leosthenes.
238 . See below on 40 under .
38, 239 . On this assertion see above on 35 under ].
239 . On this pairing, see the note on 3 under
[].
240 . The repetition of dynamis from
35, where it referred to the Trojans, reinforces the characterization
of the Macedonians as foreign barbarians. See the note on 20 under
.
241243 . . . . Hyperides refers to
the invasions of Attica during the Persian Wars. In autumn of 490 the
Persians landed at Marathon in northeast Attica (Hdt. 6.102103). In
autumn of 480 Xerxes invaded by land and burned the abandonedAthe-
nian acropolis prior to the battle of Salamis (Hdt. 8.5155). Again in
spring of 479 the Persian general Mardonius invaded (Hdt. 9.3). Hype-
rides contrasts these events with the Lamian War, in which the Atheni-
ans and their allies met the invaders in Boeotia and drove them north to
Thermopylae (1114). The Thucydidean funeral oration makes the
same point about the Athenian ability to defeat the enemy in hostile
territory (Thuc. 2.39.2).
39, 245246 . This is the only epitaphios lo-
gos that compares the war dead with Harmodius and Aristogiton. For
the story of the tyrant slayers who were credited with ending the rule
of the Pisistratids in the late sixth century, see Thuc. 6.5359 and Hdt.
5.5557. The famous tyrant slayers were celebrated for their efforts to
liberate Athens from the rule of the Pisistratidae, and here the compar-
ison contributes to the characterization of the Macedonians as tyrants.
They were also venerated as heroes (on their honors, see Dem. 19.280
with MacDowell (2000, 326) and Arist. Ath. 58.1 with Rhodes (1993,
651652)) and regular sacrices for these two heroes took place in con-
junction with the ceremony for the war dead (Currie 2005, 9596, Tay-
[40] Commentary 105
lor 1991, 78). These sacrices were conduced by the polemarch and
probably took place at their grave in the Ceramicus (Kearns 1989, 55
and 150). The emphasis in this passage on the close relation between
the war dead and Harmodius and Aristogiton suggests that the fallen
soldiers also received heroic honors; for further discussion of this point
see the note on 43 under . . .
.
246247 {} {} . The
papyrus reads, without word breaks, ou0tvouc ou:oc ou:otc
otxtto:tpouc uttv ttvot. The transmitted text is plainly corrupt
and various solutions have been proposed. I have followed Blass in
correcting ou0tvouc to (nobody), deleting uttv (to
you) and changing the adjective otxtto:tpouc from the comparative
to the positive degree. The rst change can be explained as a simple
morphological mistake on the part of the scribe, who confused the
accusative plural endings of the second and third declensions. The
insertion of is more difcult to explain, and its presence may
indicate more serious problems with the text here (those who keep
it change to ; e.g., Kenyon prints
, they are in no way closer to you [than Leosthenes
. . . ]). The positive adjective is restored because does not
regularly modify comparatives. The clause is an indirect statement
depending on (consider), and (to them) refers to
Harmodius and Aristogiton.
246 . The spelling , rst appears on Athenian in-
scriptions in 378/377 and completely replaces , by the end
of the fourth century, but forms of begin to reappear in the rst
century BC (Threatte 19801996, I: 472476). This is the only exam-
ple of the usage of by the scribe of this papyrus, but it may well
be the form Hyperides actually wrote.
250 . See the note on 35 under ].
40, 252253 . Exclamatory is
uncommon in Attic prose, especially introducing such a lengthy excla-
mation. The particle is only found twice elsewhere in the orators, both
times in an oath (by the gods, [] , Dem. 21.98, 166).
For other poetic usages in this speech see the note on 26 under
. Here the exclamations signal a shift in the speech. The orator
has nished his comparison of Leosthenes and his predecessors in the
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. 2.4243,
Lys. 2.7677, Pl. Mx. 246ab, Dem. 60.3132; see also above p. 16).
253254 . 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 . For the sense of see
above on 1 under ][. On the soldiers decision to
volunteer their lives for Athens, see the note above on 24. On Hyperi-
des use of the noun in this speech, see the note on 3 under
[].
255 . Aesch. 3.42 and 49 suggests that these two
nouns were regularly paired in honoric 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 , a noble
man (for discussion see Veligianni-Terzi 1997, 270272 and Dover
1974, 164165), but they are not simple synonyms. Whitehead (1993,
5762) discusses the development of the concept of andragathia in the
late fth century. He distinguishes semantic differences between aret
and andragathia. Aret had a long-standing connection with heroic
death and the term carried an aristocratic avor. Andragathia was more
egalitarian and praised men for what they had done rather than who
they were (Whitehead 1993, 5762) and was often used generally to
describe military valor (see Pritchett 19711991, III: 280283 for ex-
amples) or more specically for death in the eld (see note on 1 under
[ ]). 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, 364365.
4143. On the amount of material missing between 40 and 41, see
the note on 40 under . This
[41] Commentary 107
fragment is preserved in Stobaeus Anthology as an example of a conso-
latory () passage. He attributes the passage to Hyperides
without specifying a speech title. Babington (1859, 4648) assigned it
to the Funeral Oration, on the basis of several similarities to the epi-
logues of other epitaphioi (e.g., for . . . cf. Dem. 60.35
and Thuc. 2.44.2; on the adjective see the note below on
43 under ; see also the link between this pas-
sage and Dem. 60.34 discussed below in the note on 43 under
), and he is followed by all subsequent editors.
More information on the readings of individual manuscripts may be
found in Wachsmuth and Hense 18841912. The Anthology, probably
compiled in the fth 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 (), the brief conclusion addressed to the rela-
tives of the dead (cf. Thuc. 2.4345, Lys. 2.7780, Pl. Mx. 246b2249c,
Dem. 60.3237). 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, 1419)).
41, 259261 . . . . . . . Sourvinou-Inwood (1995,
191195) nicely contrasts the attitudes toward the war dead as
displayed in fth-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 reects that attitude as he systematically
compares the positive benets of dying for the city with the individual
losses of the men and their families.
259 . The logos (speech) is the funeral oration
itself, the nomos (custom) is the entire ceremony (Thuc. 2.34.1: -
, ancestral custom), including the speech. See pp. 1415
for a description of the ceremony.
261 . This noun contributes to the philosophical tone. Aristotle
frequently uses it to dene terms (see LSJ s.v. II for examples).
42, 264267 . . . . The series of parallel clauses fea-
ture highly stylized rhetorical devices that signal the closure of the
speech. In the rst pair of clauses ( . . . , Although
their sufferings . . . great praises) the parallelism is reinforced by ho-
moioteleuton and the alliteration of the nal verbs ( and
). The second sentence ( . . . , Although
they did not live . . . in every respect) is a tricolon interlinked by rep-
etition of the - (age) stem and the two - compounds (glory
and blessed). See Denniston 1954, 1113 on the use of the particle
to mean on the other hand, still. For other examples of short
antithetical clauses such as these see the note on 24 under
. . . .
267269 . . . . 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: , , , ; them: , , -
; the - compounds in the second alternative). The parallel po-
sition, structure and sense of (the
praise of the Greeks) and (the good will of
their native city) further link the two alternatives.
269270 . . . . The state
supported the war orphans; see the note on 27 under []. On
the good will of their native city ( ) see the
note on 27 under [].
43, 271 . This rationalization of death is
rst found at Pl. Ap. 40c541c7, 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, 7677). Socrates muses at length about meeting the
heroes of old in Hades, just as Hyperides has done earlier in the speech
(3540). Dover (1974, 243246) conveniently collects the evidence
for Greek views on death. It was widely held that the dead did have
[43] Commentary 109
some perception of the world of the living, and that the living should
treat them respectfully. The development and practice of hero cult in
Greece also reects this sort of attitude toward the dead.
273274 . This view was more commonly
held than Hyperides alternative (see previous note). The same sen-
timent is expressed in very similar terms at Isoc. 19.42, Lycurg. 136
and Philem. fr. 118. Demosthenes similarly refers to the afterlife of the
fallen soldiers in the islands of the blessed (Dem. 60.34). Parker (2005,
364) discusses these and other examples as a clich of the culture re-
garding doubt about the afterlife. Sourvinou-Inwood (1995, 298302)
suggests that the concern for an individuals happy afterlife (299) de-
veloped as a cultural trend during the archaic period and the fth cen-
tury, and in these fourth-century passages we see a continued concern
with the fate of the dead.
275277 . . .
. The funeral orations typically focus on the eternally
glorious reputation of the dead among the living (e.g., Lys. 2.8081,
Pl. Mx. 243c-d, Dem. 60.27), and only hint at divine honors for
the war dead and an eternal afterlife as heroes in the most tentative
fashion (Dem. 60.34, 27). In this passage the restoration of , it
is likely, adds a similar note of caution. But the previous scene of
Leosthenes in the underworld (3540) is much more explicit in as-
sociating him with the heroes of the Trojan War and Athenians such as
Harmodius and Aristogiton, who were honored as heroes (see the note
on 39 under ). Parker (1996, 135137)
discusses the inconsistency of the treatment of the war dead in the
epitaphioi. He concludes that they received honors indistinguishable
from those of heroes and that they might eventually over time be
labeled as such. See also Currie 2005, 96, Loraux 1986, 3941, and
Versnel 1989, 169171.
275276 . Cf.
21 above on the impiety of the Macedonians.
Fragmentum dubium. Sauppe plausibly assigns the phrase -
, attributed by Pollux to Hyperides without a speech title,
to the Funeral Oration. The adjective is better suited to epideictic than
forensic oratory, and it appears elsewhere in this speech and the epi-
taphioi (42; Thuc. 2.43.2, 44.4, Lys. 2.79, Dem. 60.36). Dover (1968,
6567) categorizes the adjective as non-forensic (cf. above p. 26).
Appendix A: Papyrological Notes
The scribe often makes obvious errors (some of which he corrects him-
self). These manuscript readings have been corrected without comment
in the text and critical apparatus. There is little reason for themto crowd
the apparatus, but they may be of interest to papyrologists and others,
and it may be useful to have them gathered together. References in this
appendix are to the columns and lines of the papyrus (for example, 6.3
= line 3 of column 6). For an explanation of the editorial symbols used
here, see pp. 3334.
1.14 t]o
.
poxt]vj 16 y]tytvvg 23 tXXo::[o 25 ytytvvg[ 29 uttv
.
33 ou:ot'c' 34 :]o
.
j'o'v ttvot'c
.
'
2.6 xoXXto t'v'o 16 tytv't' 18 toXtt:otc 21 xo0 corrected
from xo: 22 tpo:]tp]oj'o'v 28 :]oj'o'c 31 oxvgco
33 'g'Xtoctocovtocov
3.3 t]ptto'v' 4 xo0t]c:o'c' 56 t]t
.
tttxtct 1314 xoX'o'(o[uco
22 toX]to'c' 26 to0t'v' 31 't'tvot 32 :tvoc corrected from:tvouc
4.2 cuvcuv 5 o
.
v]:j'6'po 9 o
.
[u:o_]0oct'v' 2223 y[tvov]:ot
23 ytytvvg
.
[ 33 to:pt:t
5.2 6opo6ovouv:ov 67 oXXo[6o 13 toX't't:txgc 1920 o-
_otvo]ujc 22 xo:oXoXopov 33 cuo_ou'c' 36 tctvu'v'ov:o
38 cuv]
.
j'g'pg 40 xpo:gcot corrected from xpo:gcgc
6.1 ouy 33 :t]Xtu:gc
.
ov:]tj'o'c 34 tvo[u:o]v
.
, cf. col. 5.9
7.2 ou:o
.
7 ttopov 10 tou:gc 11 :o:t 2021 cuvptpgxtt
28 0topotytvgcov[:ot]xot]:gc:ouj, cf. col. 7.31 3031 op-
111
0potc0gcov:ot corrected from ov0potc0gcov:ot 34 xoXXttovov
38 coo:o'v' 39 xpttvov:tc 41 tu]:j'6'otov
8.34 oyovtocotvov 4 6'c't 7 :ou:ot 11 6uvottv 12 t:t
16 t:ov 1617 ovoyxo(otc0o 18 yt[tvo]
.
tvoc 19 topov
corrected fromtopoc 23 otxg:oc 25 tpo']uj'c octocorrected
from oto 27 ov0potou'c' 34 o6ttoyop]cj
9.23 topttopXgXu0o:t 4 ]tppuXoc 7 uttptvgxtvot
10
..
]o:tptoc 11 toXtt:oc 12 :otou:ot]cj 1314 cuvoyo-
vt'c':oc 15 opouou 23 ovtu:gcou:ovottvoc ov6'oc'p
26 the nal sigma is mistakenly written at the beginning of
10.29 29 toXtt:oc 37 :ou:ou:ouc 4142 t
.
o
.
:'6'tov
43 otoXoXo:o[v
10.6 oto[v]tov corrected from oto[v]ov 9 ovtt[o:]o
.
:oc
13 6txoto'v' 15 oXXo corrected from oX6o 16 xoXXtto
2728 vgovovtu:
.
ouc 33 tv:tto:o:ov 36 oyo'c'0otc
39 vgvgc 43 :o'v'
11.11 y]oj't'yov 20 g'g':tvt 38 g6tt[ov
12.1 yttvt:ot 5 :ou'c' 7 gttv 10 tvtpov 14 oot0o
15 o:ovXtoc0tvg with vX written over an erasure 16 0ouo(ov:o'c'
21 :o'v' 29 nal nu is a later addition 37 ov6po'v' 39 ytytvvg-
tvov corrected from ytytvvgtvouc 41 6totttpoytvo'v'
13.23 tv:ttov 6 ctotgcov 9 tttX0ouctv corrected from
tt0X0ouctv 1920 ptpoto:o:o corrected from 6tpoto:o:o
2122 opt:oytt]6j':'ovo 22 ou:o'c' 23 uttv 2425 Xtoc0tgxot
corrected from Xtoc0t
..
ot 28 o:outtxo:
.
31 tt(ov
39 tpocttXov:o
The scribe has inserted paragraphoi after the following lines: 3.11,
21, 26; 4.6, 13, 28, 34; 6.13, 26, 30; 7.18, 32; 8.1, 20; 9.14; 10.18, 29;
11.26; 12.9, 35; 13.17, 36.
The scribe occasionally uses an angular stroke to punctuate a stop
(here printed as ). These periods are sometimes accompanied by a
paragraphos: 3.21 co, 4.6 ytvtoXoyttv, 4.13 tyxoto(ttv, 4.28
cov, 4.34 Xgctv. More often the stops are unaccompanied by a
paragraphos: 3.2 _t:ot, 3.28 vgc0o, 4.19 ttv, 6.2 [c0ot], 8.4
tvov, 9.10 x]op:tptoc, 9.12 Xtoc0tvg, 10.25 ott6ttov,
10.35 to:tpov, 12.10 tc:tv, 12.43 to, 13.39 tpocttXov:o.
The scribe frequently uses a diairesis mark over iota: 3.6 xtct, 4.3
Appendix A: Papyrological Notes 113
6tov, 4.22 vo, 6.1 t
.
[op]tvgc, 6.27 uov, 7.34 c, 7.36 c_uv, 7.42
6tov, 8.11 c_uttv, 9.20 6tov, 10.6 c, 10.40 6totc.
Two breathings are indicated: 7.7 ttopov, 9.14 ou:ouc; and one
circumex accent: 10.12 toc.
Line llers, 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 ] Babington.
56 Bcheler.
58

Sudhaus, -

; Schroeder.
6 Cobet.
6 : Kenyon.
79
Bcheler.
10 ] Sauppe, ] Bcheler.
10 Blass, van Herwerden.
11 : Babington.
1720 . . . corr. Volckmar.
25 Cobet.
26 [] Comparetti.
29 Desrousseaux, Babington, Sauppe.
30 Cobet.
3235 -
, ,
Jensen, xlvi.
34 Blass, [Fuhr].
38 : Colin, anon. apud Babing-
115
ton.
38 Blass.
39 : ] Cobet.
41 . . . Blass.
41 Fritzsche,
Sauppe.
4142 Kayser, {} Sauppe.
42 Bcheler.
4344 Sauppe et Shilleto.
44 : Sauppe, Caesar; Graindor.
44 Cobet.
45 Piccolomini.
49 p, Cobet.
50 Bursian.
56 [Fuhr], Sauppe.
56 Cobet.
58 Babington.
66 : Babington,
Sandys, . Maehly, . Cobet et Schenkl, -
. Piccolomini.
70 : Piccolomini.
71 Kayser.
73 : Kayser.
78 : Sandys ap. Blass.
89 : Jensen, Kayser, Sauppe.
90 : Babington.
91 Mller, . Maehly.
96 Cobet, Shilleto,
Babington.
98 Babington.
103 Stahl.
107 ]: Jensen.
108 Babington.
110 Babington.
111 Babington, Cobet.
111 Babington.
115 Cobet.
118 : Babington.
128 {} Cobet.
130 del. Mller.
134135 Kayser.
138 Babington.
140141 ci. Tarrant; . . .
add. Colin; , Hess;
, Cobet;
, Kayser.
140 : Fritzsche; cf. Smyth 2949.
142 Tell.
142 : Cafaux, Babington.
148 Fritzsche.
150 Kayser.
155156
Blass, Maehly,
Colin.
165 Caesar.
165 Maehly.
167168 Weil;
Piccolomini; ,
Schenkl; aut -
Mller.
171172 Cobet.
180 Caesar.
183 Shilleto, . Cobet, . Fritzsche,
. Caesar.
184 Cobet.
191 Cobet.
191192 : Kenyon, Jensen, -
Colin, Thalheim, Comparetti,
Caesar, Blass leg. cum lacuna postea.
198 {} Cobet.
199 Sauppe.
200201 Blass, Babington,
Fritzsche.
201 ; Cobet, . ; Sauppe.
201202 -
Blass, Colin,

Sauppe,
-
Cobet,
Babington.
202203 Blass, -
Fritzsche, Babington.
203204
Kayser, -
-
Sitzler.
204205 Blass, ;
Fritzsche.
205 ; Jen-
sen, ;
Kayser.
205206 Babington, -
Kayser.
206207 , -
; Blass,
; Kayser.
207208
Kayser.
207 Blass,
; Babington.
208210 (aut )
;

; Blass.
209210 Sauppe.
210211 Blass,
-
Colin, Cobet, -
Babington,
Sitzler.
212 Cobet,
Kenyon, -
Babington,

Schroeder, -
Sauppe, -
Fritzsche.
212213 Sauppe,
Babington.
213216 Blass, -
. . .
Sauppe.
216 Sauppe, Fritzsche.
223 Levi.
223224 Cobet.
224225 Schenkl,
Fritzsche, Post, Kenyon scribit
cum obelis .
225 Tell.
232233 Blass.
235 p et Cobet, Colin, Blass.
258 Maehly.
262 aut codd.
263264 Maehly.
276 Ruhnken leg. solum; cf. Phot. Bibl. codex 251
(463a.13f Bekker):
.
Bibliography
Adkins, A. W. H. (1966), Aristotle and the best kind of tragedy, Clas-
sical Quarterly 16: 78102. Cited on page 66.
Ashton, N. G. (1983), The Lamian Wara false start?, Antichthon
17: 4763. Cited on page 12.
Babington, C. (1858), , Cambridge. Cited
on pages xiv, 2729, 33, 40, 100, 124, 130, 136.
(1859), , 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, 115118.
Badian, E. (1961), Harpalus, Journal of Hellenic Studies 81: 1643.
Cited on pages 1012.
(1967), Agis III, Hermes 95: 170192. Cited on page 8.
(1981), The deication of Alexander the Great, in Ancient
Macedonian studies in honor of Charles F. Edson, Thessaloniki,
Institute for Balkan Studies 158, 2771. 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, 3351. Cited on page 87.
(1994), Agis III: revisions and reections, in I. Wothing-
ton (ed.), Ventures into Greek history, Oxford, 258292. 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, 1126. Cited
on pages 88, 89.
121
122 Bibliography
Balot, R. (2004), Courage in the democratic polis, Classical Quar-
terly 54: 406423. Cited on page 62.
Bartolini, G. (1977), Iperide: rassegna di problemi e di studi
(19121972), Proagones: Studi 13, Padua. Cited on page 31.
Bquignon, Y. (1937), La valle du Spercheios des origines au IVe
sicle. tudes darchologie et de topographie, Bibliothque des
coles franaises dAthnes 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 (19971998), Archaeol-
ogy in Greece 199798, Archaeological Reports 44: 1136. 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.
(18871893), 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 xiixiv, 27, 31, 32, 36, 38, 40,
42, 44, 46, 50, 52, 57, 60, 64, 65, 70, 71, 74, 97100, 102, 105,
115119, 134, 135.
Blass, F. and A. Debrunner (1961), A Greek grammar of the New Tes-
tament, Chicago, translation of the ninthtenth German edition by
R. W. Funk. Cited on page 101.
Boedeker, D. (1996), Simonides and Herodotus on Plataea, Arethusa
29: 223242. 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, 3746.
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, 360146
BC in honor of E. Badian, Norman, Oklahoma series in classical
culture 21, 122139. Cited on page 87.
Bosworth, A. B. (1980), A historical commentary on Arrians History
of Alexander. Volume I: commentary on books IIII, Oxford. Cited
on pages 7, 82.
(1988), Conquest and empire: the reign of Alexander the Great,
Cambridge. Cited on pages 6, 911, 58, 79.
(2000), The historical context of Thucydides Funeral Ora-
tion, Journal of Hellenic Studies 120:116. Cited on pages 15, 21.
Bradeen, D. W. (1969), The Athenian casualty lists, Classical Quar-
terly 19: 145159. 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, 115155. Cited on page 66.
Brunt, P. (1969), Euboea in the time of Philip II, Classical Quarterly
19: 245265. Cited on page 77.
Bcheler, F. (1875), Coniectanea, Neue Jahrbcher fr Philologie
und Paedagogik 111: 305340. 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. Mller (1858), Zu Hypereides Epitaphios, Neue
Jahrbcher fr Philologie und Paedagogik 77: 471472. 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 fr die Al-
terthumswissenschaft 8485: 667675. Cited on pages xiii, 29,
116, 117.
Cafaux, H. (1866), Recension nouvelle du texte de loraison funbre
dHypride, Paris. Cited on pages xiii, 29, 117, 130.
Calame, C. (1996), Thse et limaginaire athnien, Lausanne, 2d ed.
Cited on page 68.
Carey, C. (2007a), Epideictic oratory, in I. Worthington (ed.), A com-
panion to Greek rhetoric, Malden, 236252. 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. Horvth, G. Mayer,
T. Mszros, P. J. Rhodes, and N. Tchernetska (2008), Fragments
of Hyperides Against Diondas from the Archimedes Palimpsest,
Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 165: 119. Cited on
page xii.
Cargill, J. (1985), Demosthenes, Aischines, and the crop of traitors,
Ancient World 11: 7585. Cited on page 76.
Cawkwell, G. L. (1961), A note on Ps. Demosthenes 17.20, Phoenix
15: 7478. Cited on page 93.
(1969), The crowning of Demosthenes, Classical Quarterly
19: 163180. Cited on pages 8, 82.
(1994), The deication of Alexander the Great: a note,
in I. Worthington (ed.), Ventures into Greek history, Oxford,
293306. Cited on pages 11, 91.
Chroust, A. H. (1966), Aristotles ight from Athens in the year 323
BC, Historia 15: 185192. Cited on page 77.
Clairmont, C. W. (1983), Patrios nomos: public burial in Athens dur-
ing the fth and fourth centuries BC. The archaeological, epi-
graphicliterary, and historical evidence, British archaeological
reports 63, Oxford, 2 vols. Cited on pages 14, 15, 58.
Cobet, C. G. (1858), . 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, 115119.
(1873), Variae lectiones quibus continentur observationes crit-
icae in scriptores graecos, Leiden. Cited on pages xiii, 54.
Cohen, D. (1991), Sexuality, violence and theAthenian lawof hubris,
Greece & Rome 38: 171188. 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), Lorasion funbre dHypride: ses rapports avec les
autres oraisons funbres athniennes, Revue des tudes Grecques
51: 209266 and 305394. Cited on page 65.
(1946), Hypride. Discours, Les Belles Lettres, Paris. Cited on
pages xiii, 30, 31, 36, 40, 50, 52, 63, 70, 100, 101, 115, 117119.
Comparetti, D. (1858), Observationes in Hyperidis orationem fune-
brem, Rheinisches Museum 13: 533545. Cited on pages xiii, 29.
(1864), Il discorso dIperide 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. Hellstrm 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,
115120. 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, 3444. Cited on page 73.
Coppola, A. (1996), Epitao 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, 600300 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), Hypride, 4, Annuaire
de lInstitut de philologie et dhistoire orientales et slaves 9:
207209. Cited on pages xiii, 115.
Develin, R. (1989), Athenian ofcials 684321 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, Beitrge 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 nellet di Alessandro: problemi politici,
economici, nanziari, Rome. Cited on pages 9, 75.
(2003), Alexander and the Greeks, in J. Roisman (ed.), Brills
companion to Alexander the Great, Leiden, 99130. Cited on
page 58.
Fehling, D. (1969), Die Wiederholungsguren 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 ction, Oxford, 96135. 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: 3961. Cited
on pages 88, 90.
Fritzsche, F. V. (18611862), De Hyperidis laudatione funebri, Index
Lectionum in Academia Rostochiensi, Literis Adlerianis, 2d ed.
Cited on pages xiii, 29, 46, 116119.
Fuhr, C. (1907), Review of Kenyon 1906, Berliner philologische
Wochenschrift 27: 769774. 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 IIIII. Cited on pages 6, 14, 70.
Graindor, P. (1898), Notes critiques sur lpitaphios dHypride, Re-
vue de linstruction publique en Belgique 41: 341344. 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 Stdte, 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: 397405. 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 denitions of Greek identity, in I. Malkin (ed.),
Ancient perceptions of Greek ethnicity, Cambridge, Mass, Center
for Hellenic Studies colloquia 5, 159186. 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, 126146. Cited on page 78.
Hammond, N. G. L., G. T. Grifth, and F. W. Walbank (19721988), A
history of Macedonia, Oxford, 3 volumes. Cited on pages 5, 77,
82, 83.
Hansen, M. H. (1974), The sovereignty of the Peoples 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 Peoples Court in
Athens in the fourth century BC and the impeachment of generals
and politicians, Odense. Cited on pages 3, 18, 58.
128 Bibliography
(1989), The Athenian Ecclesia II, Copenhagen. Cited on
page 3.
(1991), The Athenian democracy in the age of Demosthenes,
Oxford. Cited on page 6.
Hanson, V. D. (1983), Warfare and agriculture in classical Greece,
Biblioteca di studi antichi 40, Pisa. Cited on page 67.
(1998), Warfare and agriculture in classical Greece, Berkeley
and Los Angeles, revised ed. Cited on page 67.
Harding, P. (1985), Fromthe end of the Peloponnesian War to the battle
of Ipsus, Translated documents of Greece & Rome 2, Cambridge.
Cited on pages 94, 96.
Harris, E. M. (1992), Pericles praise of Athenian democracy.
Thucydides 2.37.1, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 94:
157167, reprinted in Harris 2006, 2939. 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: 2779. 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, 1956, page references to reprint in
Harris 2006, 4180. Cited on pages 91, 94.
(2004b), Did rape exist in classical Athens? Further reec-
tions on the laws about sexual violence, Dike 7: 4183, page ref-
erences to reprint in Harris 2006, 297332. Cited on page 88.
(2004c), Le rle de lepieikeia dans les tribunaux athniens,
Revue historique de droit franais et tranger 82: 113. 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, 76117. Cited on page 76.
Heisserer, A. J. and R. A. Moysey (1986), An Athenian decree hon-
oring foreigners, Hesperia 55: 177182. 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. (19801981), The friends of the early Hellenistic rulers:
servants or ofcials?, Talanta 1213: 103149. 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: 162166.
Cited on pages xiii, 38, 60, 115.
Hess, H. (1938), Textkritische und erklrende Beitrge 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. (19231958), 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 demEindruck
der Flucht des Harpalos, Bonn. Cited on page 58.
Jebb, S. (1722), Aelius Aristides. Opera omnia Graece & Latine, Ox-
ford, 2 vols. Cited on page xii.
Jehne, M. (1994), Koine Eirene: Untersuchungen zu den Befriedungs-
und Stabilisierungsbemhungen 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 xiixiv, 26, 27, 3032, 36, 38, 40,
42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 59, 60, 63, 64, 70, 71, 74, 75, 85, 98, 100, 102,
115118, 137.
Johnson, W. A. (2004), Bookrolls and scribes in Oxyrhynchus, Toronto.
Cited on page 28.
130 Bibliography
Kaibel, G. (1893), Stil und Text der 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 rmischen
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 Jahrbcher fr
Philologie und Paedagogik 77: 369383. Cited on pages xiii, 29,
40, 42, 46, 52, 89, 99, 116118.
(1868), Review of Comparetti 1864 and Cafaux 1866, Hei-
delberger Jahrbcher 241. Cited on pages xiii, 71, 99.
Kayser, S. (1898), Lart oratoire, le style et la langue dHypride,
Muse Belge 2: 4993 and 210229. 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, Beitrge zur historischen Syntax der griechischen
Sprache 14, Wrzburg. Cited on page 93.
Kenyon, F. G. (1893), The orations against Athenogenes and Philippi-
des, London. Cited on page 135.
(1899), The palaeography of Greek papyri, Oxford. Cited on
page 28.
(1906), Hyperidis orationes et fragmenta, Scriptorumclassico-
rum bibliotheca Oxoniensis, Oxford. Cited on pages xiii, 30, 36,
38, 40, 50, 52, 100, 101, 115, 117119, 126.
Kienzle, E. (1936), Der Lobpreis von Stdten und Lndern in der l-
teren griechischen Dichtung, Kallmnz. 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
Khn, K. G. (18211833), Claudii Galeni opera omnia, Medicorum
Graecorum opera quae exstant 120, Leipzig. Cited on page xii.
Kurke, L. (1991), The trafc 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.
Lefvre, F. (1998), Lamphictionie pylo-delphique: histoire et institu-
tions, Athens. Cited on page 83.
Leopardi, J. (1835), Excerpta ex schedis criticis, Rheinisches Mu-
seum 3: 114. Cited on pages xiii, 54.
Levi, L. (1892), Osservazioni sul testo dellEpitao dIperide, Pisa,
reprinted, Rome, 1978. Cited on pages xiii, 40, 75, 102, 119.
Liddell, H. G. and R. Scott (19251940), A GreekEnglish 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: 181198. 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: 258260. 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 Aediciis and the topography of
Thermopylae, American Journal of Archaeology 67: 241255.
Cited on page 77.
132 Bibliography
Maehly, J. (1872), ZumEpitaphios des Hypereides, Neue Jahrbcher
fr Philologie und Paedagogik 105: 607612. Cited on pages xiii,
116, 117, 119.
Mari, M. (2003), Macedonians and pro-Macedonians in early Hel-
lenistic Athens: reections on , in O. Palagia and S. V.
Tracy (eds.), The Macedonians in Athens, 322229 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 newAttic inscriptions, in R. Osborne and
S. Hornblower (eds.), Ritual, nance, politics. Athenian demo-
cratic accounts presented to David Lewis, Oxford, 175188. Cited
on page 58.
McCabe, D. F. (1981), The prose-rhythmof Demosthenes, Monographs
in classical studies, New York. Cited on page 17.
Migne, J.-P. (18571866), Patrologia Graeca, Paris, 161 vols. Cited
on page xii.
Miller, S. (1973), The Philippeion and Macedonian Hellenistic ar-
chitecture, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts
(Athen. Abt.) 88: 189218. 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 fth 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: 8897. 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 rmischen Epos von Homer bis
zur Sptantike, Beitrge zur Altertumskunde 27, Stuttgart. Cited
on page 86.
Neugebauer, O. and H. Van Hoesen (1959), Greek horoscopes,
Philadelphia. Cited on pages 28, 29, 57.
Nock, A. D. (1972), Essays on religion and the ancient world, Cam-
bridge, Mass., edited by Z. Stewart. 2 vols. Cited on page 89.
Bibliography 133
Oikonomides, A. N. (1982), Athens and the Phokians at the outbreak
of the Lamian War (= IG II
2
367), Ancient World 5: 123127.
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 purication 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: 4856. 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, Gttingen. Cited
on page 84.
Piccolomini, E. (1882), Osservazioni sul testo dellEpitao dIperide,
in Studi di Filologia Greca, Turin, 1, 107132. 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.
Pschl, V. (1964), Bibliographie zur antiken Bildersprache, Bibliothek
der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, neue Folge, 1 Reihe,
Heidelberg, edited by H. Grtner 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.
(19711991), 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.
Raaaub, K. (2004), The discovery of freedom in ancient Greece,
Chicago. Cited on page 93.
Radermacher, L. (1896), Review of Blass 1894, Deutsche Liter-
aturzeitung 11631164. 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: 2122.
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, 478323 BC,
Malden. Cited on pages 3, 8.
Rhodes, P. J. and R. Osborne (2003), Greek historical inscriptions
404323 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: 7392. 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: 294306. 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 soldiers choice (Thuc.2.42.4), Harvard Studies in
Classical Philology 90: 4976. 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: 133146. 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: 149160. Cited on page 85.
Snchez, P. (2001), LAmphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes.
Recherches sur son rle historique, des origines au IIe sicle
de notre re, Historia Einzelschriften 148, Stuttgart. Cited on
page 83.
Sandys, J. E. (1870), Review of Blass 1869, The Academy 220221.
Cited on pages xiv, 29, 116.
(1895), Review of Kenyon 1893 and Blass 1894, Classical Re-
view 9: 7174. Cited on pages xiv, 29.
Sauppe, H. (1860), . Hyperides
Grabrede, Philologus Supplementband 1: 160. Cited on pages
xiv, 29, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 52, 54, 63, 75, 87, 89, 98, 101,
109, 115119.
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 fr
die sterreichischen Gymnasien 28: 896898. 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., Gttingen. Cited on pages
67, 68, 70, 103.
(1922), Beitrge zur Weiderherstellung des Hyperides-
Textes, Hermes 57: 450464. Cited on pages xiv, 115, 118.
Schwenk, C. J. (1985), Athens in the age of Alexander. The dated laws
& decrees of the Lykourgan era 338322 BC, Chicago. Cited
on pages 12, 96.
Schfer, A. (1860), Zu Hyperides Epitaphios, Philologus 15:
150151. 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: 318323. Cited on pages xiv, 29, 50, 102, 116, 117.
136 Bibliography
Shipley, D. G. A. (1987), A history of Samos, 800188 BC, Oxford.
Cited on page 10.
Sitzler, J. (1883), Review of Piccolomini 1882, Philologische Rund-
schau 3.33: 10251030. Cited on pages xiv, 38, 65, 99, 118.
Smyth, H. W. (1920), Greek grammar, Cambridge, Mass. Cited on
pages xi, 63, 72, 80, 81, 84, 91, 92, 117.
Snell, B., R. Kannicht, and S. L. Radt (1971), TragicorumGraecorum
fragmenta, Gttingen, 5 vols. Cited on page xii.
Soffel, J. (1974), Die Regeln Menanders fr die Leichenrede, Beitrge
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 4850: 385406.
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: 280301. Cited on page 96.
Stroud, R. and D. M. Lewis (1979), Athens honors king Evagoras of
Salamis, Hesperia 48: 180193. Cited on page 90.
Stupperich, R. (1977), Staatsbegrbnis und Privatgrabmal im klassis-
chen Athen, Diss., Mnster, 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, 93103. 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:
5366 and 154172. Cited on page 76.
Taylor, M. W. (1991), The tyrant slayers: the heroic image in fth cen-
tury BCAthenian art and politics, Monographs in classical studies,
Salem, 2d ed. Cited on page 104.
Bibliography 137
Tchernetska, N. (2005), New fragments of Hyperides from the
Archimedes Palimpsest, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigra-
phik 154: 16. 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: 289291. 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. (19801996), The grammar of Attic inscriptions, Berlin, 2
vols. Cited on pages 61, 105.
Toup, J. and D. Ruhnken (1806), -
. Dionysii Longini quae supersunt, Oxford, 3d ed. Cited
on pages xiii, xiv, 54, 119.
Tracy, S. V. (1994), IGII
2
1195 and Agathe Tyche in Attica, Hesperia
63: 241244. 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: 5657. Cited on page 91.
Tsirigoti-Drakotou, I. (2000), Nea stili pesonton apo to Dimosion
Sima, Archaiologikon Deltion 55: 87112. Cited on page 15.
Tsitsiridis, S. (1998), Platons Menexenos. Einleitung, Text und Kom-
mentar, Beitrge 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 (18851929), 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-
trge und epigraphische Studien 25, Stuttgart. Cited on pages 75,
96, 106.
Versnel, H. S. (1989), Quid Athenis et Hierosolymis? Bemerkungen
ber die Herkunft vonAspekten des effective death, in J. W. van
Henten (ed.), Die Entstehung der jdischen Martyrologie, Leiden,
Volckmar, C. (1860), Zu Hyperides Grabrede, Philologus 15:
151152. Cited on pages xiv, 29, 115.
Volkmann, R. (1885), Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Rmer in sys-
tematischer bersicht, Leipzig, 2d ed. Cited on pages 80, 84, 91,
92, 97.
Wachsmuth, C. and O. Hense (18841912), 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: 233239. Cited on page 13.
Walcot, P. (1978), Envy and the Greeks: a study of human behaviour,
Warminster. Cited on page 64.
Walker, H. J. (1995), Theseus and Athens, NewYork and Oxford. Cited
on page 68.
Walters, K. R. (1980), Rhetoric as ritual: the semiotics of the Attic
funeral oration, Florilegium 2: 127. Cited on pages 17, 84.
Wankel, H. (1976), Demosthenes, Rede fr Ktesiphon ber 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 Jahrbcher fr
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: 3775.
(2000), Hypereides. The forensic speeches, Oxford. Cited on
pages v, 3, 4, 6, 1012, 24, 29, 31, 65, 77, 80, 89, 94, 95.
von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. (1998), Geschichte der Philolo-
gie, Stuttgart and Leipzig, 3d ed., reprint of 1927 edition with
postscript and indexes by Albert Henrichs. Cited on page 72.
Bibliography 139
Worthington, I. (1984), IG II
2
370 and the date of the Athenian al-
liance with Aetolia, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik
57: 139144. Cited on page 12.
(1987), The earlier career of Leosthenes and IG II
2
1631,
Historia 36: 489491. Cited on page 10.
(1992), A historical commentary on Dinarchus: rhetoric and
conspiracy in later fourth-century Athens, Ann Arbor. Cited on
pages 7, 89.
(1994), The Harpalus affair and the Greek response to the
Macedonian hegemony, in I. Worthington (ed.), Ventures into
Greek history, Oxford, 307330. Cited on page 12.
(1999), Dinarchus and Hyperides, Greek orators 2, Warmin-
ster. Cited on pages 24, 30, 84, 85, 95.
(2000), Demosthenes (in)activity during the reign of Alexan-
der the Great, in I. Worthington (ed.), Demosthenes: statesman
and orator, London and New York, 90113. Cited on pages 8, 9,
11, 19, 82.
(2003a), Alexanders destruction of Thebes, in W. Heckel
and L. A. Tritle (eds.), Crossroads of history: the age of Alexan-
der, Claremont, 6586. Cited on page 7.
(2003b), The authorship of the Demosthenic Epitaphios, Mu-
seum Helveticum 60: 152157. Cited on page 17.
Worthington, I., C. R. Cooper, and E. M. Harris (2001), Dinarchus, Hy-
perides, and Lycurgus, The oratory of classical Greece 5, Austin.
Yalouris, N., M. Andronikos, K. Rhomiopoulou, A. Herrmann, and
C. Vermeule (1980), The search for Alexander. An exhibition,
Boston. Cited on page 87.
Yunis, H. (2000), Politics as literature: Demosthenes and the burden
of the Athenian past, Arion 8: 97118. Cited on page 20.
(2001), Demosthenes. On the crown, Cambridge. Cited on
page 94.
Ziolkowski, J. E. (1981), Thucydides and the tradition of funeral
speeches at Athens, Monographs in classical studies, New York.
Cited on pages 16, 58, 64, 72, 73, 103.
General Index
abstract nouns, 63
Abydus, 13, 80
Aelius Aristides, 88
Aeschines, 46, 8, 9, 19, 59,
62, 74, 76, 79, 81, 96, 106
Aeschylus, 61, 69, 92
Aetolian League, 10, 12, 78
Agis, 8, 9, 18, 19, 79, 82, 93
Alcaeus, 87
Alcmaeon, 70
Alexander, 3, 512, 20, 24,
7679, 8183, 8791, 93
Alexander of Epirus, 61
Alexander of Pherae, 59
Amazons, 17, 68
Amorgus, 13
Amphictyony, 4, 21, 79, 83, 84
Amphipolis, 88
Amphissa, 4
Amyntas, 90
ancestors, 16, 17, 2022, 59,
62, 63, 72, 103
Andocides, 94
andragathia, 75, 106
Antipater, 8, 13, 14, 21, 78, 80
Antiphilus, 13
Areopagus, 11
aret, 63, 66, 74, 81, 84, 96,
106
aristocratic values, 15, 60, 73,
106
Aristophanes, 96
Aristotle, 60, 66, 77, 80, 96,
104, 108
Arrian, 7, 8, 81, 82, 91
Artemisium, 18
Athens
defense of Greece, 17, 19,
63, 79, 103
fertility, 6468
funeral orations, 1517
punishes injustice, 64, 65,
6870
rule of law, 23, 25, 70, 93,
94
state burials, 1415
Attalus, 6
autochthony, 16, 60, 67, 70,
7273, 80
Boeotia, 12, 13, 21, 26, 77, 79,
82, 83, 104, 106
141
142 General Index
bribes, 3, 4, 11, 24, 76
Byzantium, 4
Callias, 62
Callias of Chalcis, 77
Carystus, 77
Ceramicus, 14, 105
Chaeronea, 3, 59, 14, 1720,
22, 23, 62, 65, 77, 7982,
85, 87, 89, 90
Chalcis, 77
chryselephantine material, 90
Cimon, 6869
City Dionysia, 96
Cleitarchus, 78
Clement of Alexandria, 88, 90
Conon, 89
Corinthian War, 2022
Crannon, 14, 80
Craterus, 78
Q. Curtius Rufus, 8
death, views of, 108, 109
Delian League, 70
Delos, 83
Delphi, 8384
Demades, 68, 11, 14, 89
Democritus, 68
dmosion sma, 15, 58
Demosthenes, 422, 40, 58, 59,
6265, 6870, 7274, 76,
7981, 83, 8589, 92, 93,
9597, 100, 103107, 109
Dinarchus, 5, 10, 11, 88, 89,
97
Diodorus Siculus, 57, 1014,
58, 59, 77, 78, 80, 81, 84,
91
Diogenes Laertius, 77, 96
Diondas, 5, 7, 18
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 16,
17, 24, 77, 107
Ecbatana, 91
egkmion, 80, 81, 101
encomia in prose, 6162, 81,
92
epainos, 16, 26, 64, 72, 80, 81,
95, 106
ephbeia, 75
Ephebic oath, 94
Epicharmus, 95
epieikeia, 65, 66
Eponymous Heroes, 15, 17, 21,
73
equality, 64, 69, 70, 73, 94
Eresus, 88
Euboea, 4, 12, 77
Eumolpus, 17, 19
Euripides, 67, 68, 72, 94, 95
Eurydice, 90
Eurystheus, 68
Eusebius, 19
Euthycrates, 6
Evagoras, 61, 89
Exiles Decree, 10, 11, 79
family members, 95
freedom, 8, 17, 18, 20, 2224,
81, 82, 85, 9294, 101, 107
Galen, 71
genos, 72, 73, 75
Gorgias, 15, 64, 66, 68, 92, 93
Harmodius and Aristogiton, 21,
22, 103105, 109
Harpalus, 1012, 77, 89
Harpocration, 5, 44, 83
Hecataeus of Abdera, 87
Hephaestion, 11, 91
General Index 143
Heracles and the Heraclidae,
17, 69, 82, 90
hero cult, 24, 9091, 104105,
108, 109
Herodotus, 70, 78, 86, 88, 103,
104
Hesiod, 65, 102
Hieronymus, 78
Homer, 86
Hyacinthidae, 19
hybris, 8688
Hyperides, xi, xiii, xiv, 47,
1013, 15, 16, 18, 19,
2127, 2933, 40, 54,
5860, 6265, 7091, 9399,
101109, 125
Hyperides Funeral Oration
koin dialect, 85, 86, 98, 99,
101102
structure, 26
style, 2426, 6364, 7172,
80, 9293, 108, see also
rhetorical devices
superiority of Lamian War
soldiers, 2223, 59, 60,
102103
Illyria, 7, 81
Isocrates, 61, 66, 70, 71, 75,
82, 89, 96, 102, 109
Issus, 8
Justinus, 13, 58
koin eirn, 5, 93
Lamia, 13, 58, 7880
Lamian War, 3, 7, 11, 22, 23,
58, 65, 76, 77, 8385, 87,
103, 104
League of Corinth, 5, 6, 10,
17, 23, 82, 87, 93
Leocrates, 18, 19, 89
Leonidas, 78
Leonnatus, 13, 21, 78, 80, 84
Leosthenes, 12, 13, 2123, 25,
26, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 69,
74, 7680, 96, 101105, 109
Libanius, 8, 71, 93
Locris, 12, 78, 79
logos, 101, 108
Longinus, 24
Lucian, 5
Lycurgus, 8, 9, 18, 19, 22, 23,
6163, 70, 80, 81, 8486,
89, 98, 109
Lysias, 1517, 2022, 58, 59,
61, 64, 6870, 73, 79, 82,
9398, 100, 103, 106, 107,
109
Lysicles, 62
Macedon, 3, 4, 614, 18,
23, 25, 59, 63, 69, 7684,
8689, 91, 94, 101, 104, 109
Marathon, 17, 19, 20, 23, 70,
84, 86, 103, 104
Mardonius, 104
Maximus, 54
Medea, 69
Megalopolis, 8
megaloprepeia, 60, 106
Menander Rhetor, 16
mercenaries, 8, 10, 12, 73, 77,
103
Miltiades, 21, 23, 62, 103
Nicanor, 10
Oedipus, 66, 69
Oeniadae, 10
144 General Index
Olympia, 87, 90
Olympias, 90
Orestes, 69
orphans, 96, 108
paideia, 7274
paramythia, 16, 26, 107
Pausanias, 12, 58, 90
Peparethos, 59
Persia, 7, 8, 10, 84, 87
Persian Wars, 7, 14, 1623, 63,
68, 69, 78, 79, 81, 86, 103,
104, 106
Phalaecus, 79
Philemo, 109
Philip, 37, 9, 17, 19, 20, 24,
76, 77, 79, 82, 83, 8791
Philippeion, 87, 90
Philippides, 6, 7
Philiscus, 61
Philocrates, 3, 4, 76
Phocis, 4, 12, 78, 79
Photius, 119
Phrygians, 100
Pindar, 64
Pisistratids, 104
Plataea, 13, 23, 78, 102, 103
Plato, 6, 1517, 21, 23, 5861,
64, 65, 6770, 73, 81, 86,
92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 100104,
106109
Plutarch, 48, 1015, 54, 61,
66, 81, 103
Pollux, 54
Polyaenus, 62
Polybius, 77
Poseidon, 89
Potidaea, 62
Prodicus, 68
rape, see sexual violence
rhetorical devices
alliteration, 108
antithesis, 61, 70, 74, 80, 85,
86, 91, 93, 94, 108
aporia, 71
chiasmus, 60
exclamations, 25, 26, 105
homoioteleuton, 84, 91, 108
hyperbole, 22, 103
hypophora, 71, 73, 9799
juxtaposition, 103
metaphor, 70, 95, 96
parechesis, 91
parisosis, 25, 80, 84
paromoiosis, 92
polyptoton, 25, 95
praeteritio, 71, 72, 75
repetition, 80, 92, 95, 104,
108
simile, 21, 25, 64, 65, 69,
72, 80, 9395
tricolon, 91, 108
Rhodes, 4
P. Rutilius Lupus, 93
Sacred War, 4, 79, 8384
sacrice, 19, 24, 88, 104, 105
Salamis, 18, 19, 104
Samian War, 103
Samos, 10
sexual violence, 24, 8788, 91,
95, 102, 103
Simonides, 102
Siwah, 91
Solon, 96
Sophocles, 66, 67, 69
sphrosyn, 6566, 74
Stobaeus, 46, 52, 107
Stratocles, 62
suppliants, 17, 64, 66
General Index 145
Taenarum, 10, 12, 77
Thebes, 4, 5, 7, 8, 1719, 21,
68, 69, 77, 79, 8183
Themistocles, 21, 23, 62
Theodectes, 61
theros, 83
Thermopylae, 13, 23, 7779,
83, 104
Theseus, 17, 66, 6870
Thessaly, 13, 7780
Thucydides, 15, 16, 58, 6064,
67, 68, 70, 73, 9297, 101,
104, 106109
Trojan War, 21, 22, 98, 100,
102104, 109
tyranny, 21, 24, 60, 70, 82, 88,
93, 94, 103, 104
underworld, 21, 23, 26, 62,
102, 106, 108, 109
Xenophon, 61, 67
Xerxes, 104
Zeus, 8791
Index of Greek Words
, 97
, 89, 90
, 26, 109
, 94
, 101
, 73, 97, 102, 108
, 85
, 106
, 62, 104
, 59, 75, 97, 102
, 87
, 97
, 63, 66, 74, 81, 84, 106
, 96
, 96
, 93
, 82 102
, 26
, 94
, 64, 75, 76
, 74
, 104
, 76, 77
, 80, 81, 101
, 89, 90
, 87
, 94
, 85, 93
, 26, 106
, 80, 81
, 65, 66
, 97
, 61
, 60, 73
, 63
, 95
, 95
, 26
, 102
, 83
, 71, 93
, 70
, 68
, 71, 93
, 69
, 94
, 61, 101, 108
, 60, 106
, 100, 101
, 60
, 108
, 105
147
148 Index of Greek Words
, 61
, 91
, 71
, 62, 106
, 5
, 88
, 80
, 99
, 84
, 86
, 6566, 74
, 96
, 76, 103
, 86
, 8688
, 86
, 80
, 64
, 71
, 68
, 105

Herrman (2009) - Hyperides Funeral Oration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Herrman (2009) - Hyperides Funeral Oration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HYPERIDES

AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

You might also like