¹ Cf. M. Fantuzzi and D. Konstan, ‘From Achilles’ horses to a cheese-seller shop: on the history of the guessing game in Greek drama’, in E. Bakola, L. Prauscello and M. Telò (edd.), Comic Interactions: Genres in Comedy and Comedy in Genres (Cambridge, 2012), 256–74.

² As it was defined by V. Liapis, A Commentary on the Rhesus Attributed to Euripides (Oxford, 2012), 108.

³ J. Hesk, ‘Euripidean euboulia and the problem of “tragic politics”’, in D. Carter (ed.), Why Athens? A Reappraisal of Tragic Politics (Oxford, 2011), 119–43, at 141 correctly concludes from the analysis of the dialogue between Hector and Aeneas that ‘the play models the importance of dialogue and debate in the specific situation of decision-making within a polis at war’. There is no need to think, with Liapis (n. 2), 102, that Hector's about-face constitutes ‘a reflection of the play's Macedonian milieu, where the soldiers had as much a right to free speech as the king himself’; see also Liapis, V., ‘ Rhesus revisited: the case for a fourth-century Macedonian context’, JHS 129 (2011), 71–88 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. First of all, Aeneas is not just a soldier (like the watchmen of the chorus or Dolon), but is rather presented as Hector's peer, and he changes Hector's initial inclination to a night attack precisely by expressing—albeit unawares—at least a basic level of agreement with Hector's main ideas (he agrees with Hector's assessment of the risk posed by the watchmen leaving their post—they would have provoked agitation, and hence panic, in the army—and shares Hector's fear that the watchmen have come to announce some nocturnal plot by the enemies). More in general, Liapis's idea that the Rhesus was composed to be performed for a Macedonian audience is one of those propositions that can be neither disproved nor proved (there are good objections, however, in A. Fries, Pseudo-Euripides, ‘Rhesus’ [Berlin and Boston, 2014], 19, 20). In any case, this interpretation is not crucial to clarify some features of the play that it aims at explaining. The evident interest of the Rhesus in ‘Realien’ of northern Greece, Thrace and Macedonia is also perfectly suitable to a tragedy staged at Athens in the second half of the fourth century, a time when the Macedonians and their ethno-geographic context were still a relative mystery for most of the Athenians and the other Greeks, though they had suddenly become a major power with which the politicians of almost every state of central Greece had unavoidably to come to grips.

⁴ The standard reference on this approach to reading tragedy is C. Meier, The Political Art of Greek Tragedy (Oxford, 1993). A thoughtful bibliographical survey is in R. Scodel, ‘Political approach to Greek tragedy’, in H.M. Roisman (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Tragedy (Chichester, 2014), 988–91.

⁵ On the lack of necessity to conjecture that the Rhesus was conceived for a Macedonian audience, see n. 3 above.

⁶ All translations from the Rhesus are by D. Kovacs, with occasional modifications.

⁷ First attested in poetry as an epithet for gods as protectors of the city (Aesch. Sept. 176 and Pind. Ol. 4.16), φιλόπολις frequently expresses the Athenian ideal of the patriotic citizen in Aristophanes, Thucydides, Plato, Xenophon and the orators.

⁸ This ‘memorial’ presentation of Dolon as the hero of δόλος makes us think of the synecdochical iconography of some of the statues erected for benefactors of the city, which focussed on a single gesture or feature of the benefactor pointed out as the quintessence of his benefaction: Chabrias was portrayed either as resting on one knee or as standing—either way, his shield sat on one knee and the spear pointed forward at an angle of 45 degrees, in the position which he had ordered his troops to adopt as a stratagem to defeat the Spartan hoplites of Agesilaus II in 378; Pindar was portrayed seated with a cloak and lyre, with a rolled-up scroll on his knees to symbolize his literary services to the city; Demochares, an orator who fought hard to help Athenian resistance against the encroachments of Macedon, was girded in cloak and sword, and so on. Cf. J. Tanner, The Invention of Art History in Ancient Greece: Religion, Society, and Artistic Rationalization (Cambridge, 2009), 113.

⁹ Trans. D.E. Gerber.

¹⁰ As M. Cropp suggests to me per litteras, both texts exemplify a gnomic truth formulated by Arist. Rh. 1390b and alluded to in Eur. TrGF 739: a man of good birth will typically want to add to the τιμή which his good birth gives him. Hector, then, is congratulating Dolon on behaving like a true εὐγενής—which makes Dolon's reply demanding κέρδος all the more disappointing.

¹¹ Even when Dolon expresses his preference for the horses, Hector does not admit that his claim of omniscient competence is compromised by Dolon's choice. He never mentioned these horses among the recommendations he made to Dolon, but after Dolon suggests this prize, the Hector of Rhesus (no hint in this direction by the Iliadic Hector) avers that he has always considered Achilles’ horses most valuable (184–90), and promptly reinterprets them in terms of glory: filtered through Hector's noble/heroic mentality, Achilles’ horses, whose relevance Dolon does not qualify, turn into a symbol of prestige for a nobleman's house (190).

¹² As observed by B. Hainsworth, The Iliad: A Commentary, Volume III: Books 9–12 (Cambridge, 1993), 173 (on Il. 10.212-17).

¹³ See e.g. Hdt. 8.136; Thuc. 1.136.1.

¹⁴ In the epigram by ‘Simonides’ about the Corinthians fallen at Salamis, FGE 12, and in one of the three epigrams commemorating the victory of the Athenians led by Cimon at Eion in 475 (‘Simonides’, FGE 40.c.1-2).

¹⁵ M. Domingo Gygax, Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City. The Origins of Euergetism (Cambridge, 2016), which I could read only after my paper was submitted for publication, is now fundamental on this evolution.

¹⁶ In many of these inscriptions εὐεργέτης seems to be both the motivation for the title of πρόξενος and itself a title (‘the boulē expressed praise for X, who is πρόξενος and εὐεργέτης’). Cf. e.g. IG I³.81, IG I³.95, IG I³.159, IG I³.97, IG I³.98, IG I³.126, IG I³.174, IG II/III².1.54 (fourth century), IG II/III².1.149 (fourth century; compare, from outside Athens, e.g. Inschriften von Ilion 23 Frisch of the mid fourth century; IG VII.208 (third century). In a few cases εὐεργέτης is the title that the inscription celebrates, without mentioning προξενία: cf. IG I³.102 (410/409), IG II/III².1.29 (387/386), IG II/III².1.351 (330–329 b.c.). In some other instances, mainly from the fourth century, being εὐεργέτης towards Athens is the motivation of προξενία and not itself a title (‘the boulē expressed praise for X, πρόξενος because of the εὐεργεσία’). Cf. IG I³.27,¹⁶ IG I³.101, IG II/III².1.252 (fourth century), IG II/III².1.425 (fourth century).

¹⁷ FGE p. 205.

¹⁸ No actual inscription concerning these men survives, but Demosthenes quotes the stele for Conon at 20.69, and at 20.70 and 20.86 he has the decrees for Conon and for Chabrias (respectively) read out. Cf. Domingo Gygax (n. 15), 192–9.

¹⁹ A helpful collection of these inscriptions is found in C. Veligianni-Terzi, Wertbegriffe in den attischen Ehrendekreten der klassischen Zeit (Stuttgart, 1997), 107–62. Of the over 250 extant decrees of the period 403–352 inscribed at the initiative of the state, none exists whose main purpose was to honour an Athenian citizen: C. Lambert, Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees 352/1-322/1 BC (Leiden and Boston, 2012), 5. Reasons of the rarity of Athenian (and other) inscriptions honouring their own citizens as benefactors are investigated by Gygax, M. Domingo, ‘Contradictions et asymétrie dans l’évergétisme grec: bienfaiteurs étrangers et citoyens entre image et réalité’, DHA 32 (2006), 9–23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Domingo Gygax (n. 15), ch. III.1. However, as Lambert (this note), 5–6 correctly remarks, ‘it is clear that decrees honouring Athenians were not a wholly new phenomenon in the 340s; it was the regular inscribing of the decrees by the city that was new.’

²⁰ Cf. P. Gauthier, Les Cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (IVe-Ier siècle avant J.-C.) (Paris, 1985), 28–39, 103–9; Domingo Gygax (n. 15), 111–12. The emphasis on φιλοτιμία is in agreement with the ‘hortatory intention’ (below, p. 8) of the decrees honouring the benefactors; cf. Lambert (n. 19), 96 and n. 6.

²¹ IG II/III².1.1182 (mid fourth century) and IG II/III².1.1252 (after mid fourth century) are only apparent exceptions, as they both characterize their benefactors’ actions through the noun εὐεργετήματα or the verb εὐεργετεῖν, but never call them εὐεργέται. Outside Athens inscriptions for ‘benefactor’ citizens also remain extremely few, date from the Hellenistic age, and come from marginal cities such as Istros, Lissa, Amyzon and Hanisa: see on them Gauthier (n. 20), 33–9.

²² Cf. Ar. Eq. 573–6; Aeschin. 3.183.

²³ Cf. Gauthier (n. 20), 103–28; C. Kremmydas, Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines (Oxford, 2012), 10; Domingo Gygax (n. 15), 109–10. Civic benefactors, in particular, enjoyed privileges such as crowns, σίτησις, προεδρία and a statue; foreign benefactors enjoyed the title(s) of πρόξενος/εὐεργέτης, ἔγκτησις, sometimes citizenship, very rarely a statue.

²⁴ Cf. Σ Ar. Av. 1073.

²⁵ Inschriften von Milet 187 Rehm.

²⁶ Inschriften von Ilion 25 Frisch.

²⁷ Cf. Gauthier (n. 20), 31–3 on this point in connection with the Ilion inscription.

²⁸ The addition of these ‘hortatory clauses’ occurs at the same time that the narratives of the benefactors’ actions were being extended, which has been investigated by N. Luraghi, ‘The demos as narrator: public honors and the construction of future and past’, in L. Foxhall, H.-J. Gehrke and N. Luraghi (edd.), Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece (Stuttgart, 2010), 247–63. Both obviously increased the exemplary relevance of the honorary inscriptions: by making public both the good deeds performed and the honours that repaid them, the political community created a corpus of examples of good behaviour and encouraged its citizens to follow them (Luraghi [this note], 251).

²⁹ See, for instance, among the earliest εὐεργέτης-inscriptions, IG I³.181 (410 ? b.c.) πρόχσενος καὶ] | εὐεργέτης … hόπος δ’ ἂν μὲ | [ἀδικο̃νται] ἐπιμ[έλεσθαι τέν τε βολὲν τὲν | αἰεὶ βολεύοσαν; IG I³.101 (410–409 b.c.) ἀντὶ τῆς εὐεργε[σίας ταύτης τὸ νῦ|ν εἶν]αι καὶ ἐν το̃ι λοιπο̃ι χρόνο[ι] παρ᾽ Ἀθηνα[ίον χάριτας εἶναι αὐ]|[τ]ο̣ῖς ὁς ἀνδράσιν οὖσιν ἀγαθο[ῖ]ς καὶ τὴ[ν πρόσοδον εἶναι αὐτ]|οῖς πρὸς τὴμ βουλὴν καὶ τὸν δῆ[μ]ον π[ρότοις μετὰ τὰ ἱερὰ ὁς] | εὐεργέταις οὖσιν Ἀθηναίον. Among the late fourth-century inscriptions: IG II/III².1.300 (before 336–335) ὅπως [ἂν κα]|[ὶ τὸ λοιπὸν ἅπαντ]ες ϕιλοτιμῶνται εἰδό[τ]|[ες ὅ]τι ὁ δῆμος χάριτας ἀποδ[ί]δωσιν τοῖς ε|ἰς ἑαυτὸν ϕιλοτι[μο]υμένοις, IG II/III².1.392 (321–319 b.c.) ὅπως] | [ἂν ϕανερὸν ἦι πᾶσι τοῖς] ϕιλο[τιμου]|[μένοις ὅτι ὁ δῆμος ἀ]πο[δ]ίδωσ[ιν χάρ]|[ιτας ἀξίας τῶν εὐε]ρ[γε]τημάτων, IG II/III².1.391 (319–318 b.c.) ὅπως δ’ ἂν εἰδῶσι κα|[ὶ] οἱ ἄλλοι [ὅ]τι χ[άριτας ἀποδίδωσιν ὁ δ]|[ῆμ]ος [τ]οῖς ἑ[α]υτ[ὸν εὐεργετοῦσι ἀξίας]. More or less these same formulas occur, with very few variations, at least in IG II/III².1.183 (before 353/352); IG II/III².1.425 (after 336–335 b.c.); IG II/III².1.222 A141 (334 b.c.), SEG XXVIII.52 (333 b.c.), IG II/III².1.448 (323–322 b.c.), IG I II/III².1.501 (302–301 b.c.), IG II/III².1.509 (after 307–306), and IG II/III².1.566, II/III².1.579, II/III².1.580, I II/III².1.586 (all from the end of the fourth century). Full analysis of the variants in A.S. Henry, ‘The hortatory intention in Athenian state decrees’, ZPE (1996), 105–19.

³⁰ Even popular juries were expected to feel gratitude for the benefactors, and be benevolent to them in trials, as the orators often point out; cf. J. Ober, Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens (Princeton, 1990), 226–30.

³¹ Perhaps the elite to which the fourth-century benefactors belonged was less aristocratic than the fifth-century elite, and found in the privileges and awards from benefactions a new way to improve their image; also, probably Athens more than before needed to avail itself of financial support from its elites. Cf. Gygax, M. Domingo, ‘Les origines de l’évergetisme: échanges et identités sociales dans la cité grecque’, Métis 4 (2006), 269–95Google Scholar, at 290–5; also Gygax, M. Domingo, ‘Euergetismus und Gabentausch’, Métis 1 (2003), 181–200 Google Scholar; Domingo Gygax (n. 15), ch. V.2.

³² P. Liddel, Civic Obligation and Individual Liberty in Ancient Athens (Oxford, 2007), 161.

³³ Liddel (n. 32), 162, after M.H. Hansen, Sovereignty of the People's Court in Athens in the Fourth Century B.C. and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals (Odense, 1974), 22–7, 62.

³⁴ Cf. H.J. Mette, Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Griechenland (Berlin, 1977), 94–102, quoted by P.J. Wilson, ‘The use of tragedy in the fourth century’, in M.S. Silk (ed.), Tragedy and the Tragic: Greek Theatre and Beyond (Oxford, 1996), 321–2; P. Ceccarelli, ‘Changing contexts: tragedy in the civic and cultural life of Hellenistic city-states’, in I. Gildenhard and M. Revermann (edd.), Beyond the Fifth Century: Interactions with Greek Tragedy from the Fourth Century BCE to the Middle Ages (Berlin and New York, 2010), 105–38.

³⁵ This paper profited from comments by Angelos Chaniotis, James Diggle, David Konstan, Marc Domingo Gygax, Nino Luraghi and Martin Cropp, whom I thank wholeheartedly. CQ's referee also perfectioned the logic of the argumentation in more than one point. Mathias Hanses revised the English expression and the style.