¹ That the year is the war year— ‘das totenjahr’ as Kolbe, Herm. 72, 1937, p. 250Google Scholar calls it—is evident from Thucydides' description of the νόμος and from the speech itself. The fact was clearly stated by Wilamowitz, Ar. u. Ath. II 1893, p. 292Google Scholar n. 4: ‘Das Totenfest der Epitaphien (see section 4 of this paper) fällt auf den 6./7. Pyanopsion, und die jahre der listen laufen selbstverständlich von fest zu fest, sind also ebenso wenig attische kalenderjahre wie die von den Panathenaeen laufenden der Schatzmeister. Deshalb steht auch niemals ein archon auf den verlustlisten.’ Unfortunately Wilamowitz makes hash of a fact which he justly called self-evident by his next sentence: ‘Unmöglich konnte man die gebeine der in den drei monaten gefallenen über jahr und tag der grabesruhe entziehen, damit sie nach dem kalender sortiert auf dem friedhof lägen.’ If the dead of a whole year, whether war year or archon year, were buried on the same day, most of them had in any case to wait a long time for their final burial. It will have been the duty of the strategoi to take care that the remains of the dead were sent back in time for the burial on the fifth of Boedromion, which (as I am going to argue in this paper) was the date for the common burial. We do not know where and how one kept the remains till the ritual day arrived (Weber, L.Philol. 84, 1929, p. 37Google Scholar speaks not very clearly of a provisional burial ‘either abroad or at home’); but they had to wait for this day. It is again unfortunate that Wilamowitz mixes up the facts of the public burial with his chronology of the Pentekontaetia: a sentence like the following, ‘denn dass die gebeine der auf Kypros im sommer 459 gefallenen alle [my italics] schon 459 anfang Oktober zum totenfeste heimgeführt gewesen wären, istwirklich nicht zu verlangen,’ contradicts his thesis, is probably wrong as to the facts (cp. n. 118) and faulty in logic. Small wonder that Domaszewski (‘Der Staatsfriedhof der Athener’ Sb. Heidelberg 1917, no. 7Google Scholar) does not refute the thesis but simply contradicts it: ‘die μνήματα waren nach attischen archonten geordnet, nicht nach kriegsjahren.’ For proof he refers to Busolt, Gr. G. III p. 305Google Scholar n., who thinks it extremely doubtful that ‘die leichen der gefallenen in der heissen jahreszeit überhaupt nach Athen überführt wurden, da sie für die weite fahrt umständlich hätten präpariert werden müssen.’ This is a rather astonishing argument: if correct it would dispose of the whole nomos, as most battles were fought in summer. In fact, the question of preserving the corpses by embalming them does not even arise: one did not transfer the corpses, but (Thuc. 2, 34, 2); the bodies were burnt immediately after the battle (id. 6, 71, 1. In Xenoph. Hell. 1, 2, 11 after the battle of Ephesos in 409 B.C., where the Athenians lost 400 men, among whom were at least a hundred hoplites, , we have to assume either a slip of the pen or a loose expression for the provisional incineration). Therefore one coffin (λάρναξ) sufficed for the dead of each phyle (Thuc. 2, 34, 3) and one tomb for the dead of the whole year. This is confirmed by Thucydides and the casualty lists. It is again no recommendation for Domaszewski's reconstruction of the cemetery that he has repeatedly to assign more than one tomb for the dead of one year (l.l. p. 7; 10). It is curious how vague moderns are about elementary conditions; see e.g. the speculations of Raubitschek, A. E.Hesperia 12, 1943, pp. 23 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. about the Poteidaia grave: ‘since it was hardly possible to bury 150 bodies in a tomb the length of which was c. 1, 34 m., it may be assumed that the tomb was a cenotaph or that it contained only the urns with the ashes.’

² Wilamowitz, Griech. Lesebuch II 1, 1902, p. 93Google Scholar, ‘da das totenfest allen seelen gilt die die Athener als ihre ahnen verehren, so ist es herkömmlich dass die πρόγονοι und ihre toten, von der autochthonie des Kekrops und Erechtheus an, ausführlich behandelt werden, woran sich als zweiter teil der preis derer schliesst, die nun zu diesem heroenkreise hinzutreten.’ That is correct as far as it goes. But it makes sense only if the burial of the men killed in action took place at a general festival of the dead of which Wilamowitz knows nothing and further in the light of the development of this festival (the Genesia) which I have tried to adumbrate below (section 4).

³ Aristot., Ath. Pol. 58Google Scholar, 1. The text where Kaibel corrected την τε τηι to τηι τε has been defended by Wilamowitz, Ar. u. Ath. I p. 249Google Scholar n. 130. The καὶ before τοῑς τετελευτηκόσιν is indispensable; we need not waste time by correcting or refuting the careless or abbreviated excerptors (Pollux 8, 91; Lex. Rhet. p. 290, 28 Bkr.). Harmodios and Aristogeiton have their tomb (or cenotaph; see n. 64) in the Kerameikos (Pausan. 1, 29, 25); Aristotle does not say that they receive the ἐναγίσματα at the same time with the fallen in war, and that the ἐπιτάφιος is meant for them, too (as Mommsen, Feste d. Stadt Athen p. 302 fGoogle Scholar. has it). It is possible, but does not matter here. The important point is that the ἐναγίσματα for the fallen are offered not by the family but by the polemarch, a fact which is known even to Heliodor. Aethiop. I, 17 ἔνθα (sc. .

⁴ Menex. 249 B. About the part taken by the relatives in the public burial see below p. 61 f.; about the circle of persons for whom the funeral speech is held see n. 2.

⁵ It has been discussed fully and carefully by Busolt, Gr. G. III 2, pp. 675 ffGoogle Scholar. In my opinion the passage 5, 20, 3 can only mean that summer and winter are of equal duration for the purpose of calculating a given period. In 6, 21, 2 Steup has taken τῶν χειμερινῶν as a partitive genitive; others expel the words from the text. In any case they mean the of Herodotos (2, 68, 1). The attempts to fix the beginnings of the two parts of the year on a calendar date have not only ‘not yet succeeded’ (Classen-Steup, Thukydides⁵ I 1919, p. lviiiGoogle Scholar), they cannot succeed, except in a few exceptional cases, because the division relates to natural seasons, not to the artificial periods of the calendar. The discussion is hampered to some extent by some persistent obstacles. Many modern writers do not seem to be able to imagine a narrative built on the natural seasons which vary in every year, just as they cannot imagine the time of day if it is given in relation to the natural day as and the like, without trying to translate it into clock-time (a typical case: Busolt p. 688). It is the natural dislike of scholars to admit that (even quite apart from the state of the Attic calendar) all these statements of parts of the day and of the year must remain vague and to a certain degree obscure for the non-contemporary reader. Incidentally, the same vagueness obtains for most of the topographical statements in battle-reports. It is a regrettable fact, but it is a fact, that in the fifth century there did not exist a standardised calendar, as there was no universally acknowledged era, and that (which is even more to the point) Thucydides did not make use of the Attic calendar such as it was. If he had done, it would help considerably, as it would help if he had dated events by the archon. As he did not, attempts to get an exact measure are out of place; except in the few cases where the mention of a natural phenomenon permits of accurate definition, we have to be content with a rough measure and approximate results. Moreover, the decisive point for our problem (viz. whether the common funeral of the war dead took place on the day of the Genesia) is not the delimitation of Thucydides' war-year, nor, for the matter of that, the naval year in the time of Perikles, who kept the squadrons in commission for eight months (Plutarch, , Perikl. 11Google Scholar, 4), but the time in which the general festival of the dead was introduced. It seems wrong to assume that the military conditions of the fifth century were the same as they were in Solon's time, or to identify the possible duration of warfare on land and sea. But it seems quite conceivable (as a possibility which may however be substantiated by the requirements of agriculture and agrarian cults) that in Solon's time, which did not wage war aversea or far from home, the war-year coincided with the real summer, that the troops returned at the latest with the early rising of Arcturos (‘der am meisten verbreiteten und allein volkstümlichen herbstepoche,’ i.e. in the middle of September, when ‘bereits regengüsse zu fallen und die nächte kühler zu werden pflegen’; the evidence in Busolt p. 682 n.). Even in 429 B.C. the war-year of the Peloponnesians ends (Thuc. 2, 78) they would then be at home when the crops are sown for next year. This is done in Attica in the month of Pyanopsion, and the Boedromion would separate the two halve of the year, a convenient time for a festival of the dead. The reasons for Thucydides' dating of the public funeral ‘in the winter’ will be discussed below.

⁶ Section 3.

⁷ 2, 35, 1.

⁸ It seems superfluous to engage in a controversy with the book of Leo Weber (to whom I refer several times ‘because to my mind he represents the powers of darkness’) Solon und die Schöpfung der attischen Grabrede 1935, where one finds the earlier hypotheses (pp. 43 ff.). Weber himself ‘unhesitatingly’ (p. 66) ascribes the introduction of the speech to Solon. In the course of our investigation it will appear that even the cautious formula of Krueger, K. W. (Hist.-philol. Studien 1836 p. 68Google Scholar ‘der ursprung der sitte war schon Thukydides unbekannt’) is hardly correct. We had better say that Thucydides did not examine the chronological question (see section 3). Our evidence for funeral speeches is very poor (see n. 92). The first to be reliably attested is the speech made by Perikles for the fallen of Samos in 439 B.C.; we infer with some probability an earlier one for the fallen of Drabeskos in 465/4 from Pausan. 1, 29, 4–5; if the public burial was established in this year it was actually the very first. Ancient tradition does not help. The date of the scholiast on Thuc. 2, 35, 1 () is an autoschediasma, though it derives from ‘the rhetor Anaximenes’ (Plutarch., Public. 9, 11Google Scholar = FGrHist 72 F 24): in fourth-century Athens no attribution of an old institution to Solon is surprising. Surprising rather that it did not meet with any approval: neither historiography nor biography has paid any attention to it. True that the latter says (wrongly) that Solon increased the and reduced those of the victors in national games; but the only τιμή mentioned consists in the of their sons (Diog. Laert. 1, 55; cp. Thuc. 2, 46, 1; Plato, Menex. 248 CDGoogle Scholar). The general opinion, extant already in Ephoros (Diodor. 11, 13, 3; Dionys. Hal. A.R. 5, 17, 4), distinguishes with (following?) Thucydides the nomos itself and the later additions of funeral speech and agon in the Persian Wars. The wording of Dionysios is curiously vague: . Diodorus gives a more accurate date: . But he hardly found the exact year 479/8 in Ephoros, who perhaps spoke comprehensively about the honours for victors and fallen of the Persian Wars in connexion with the battle of Plataiai. It is also possible that he spoke about the generally, meaning by it (as Plato, Menex. 242 CGoogle Scholar) the whole period down to the double battle on the Eurymedon (actually the battles of Cyprus and the peace of Kallias). In any case, this dating, too, is merely conjectural and, if referring to the battles of the Persian War in the narrower sense, wrong, as the dead from the Xerxes war were not buried in the Kerameikos (see p. 45; 51 ff.).

⁹ The testimonies collected in n. 8 refer to the additions, not to the nomos itself. This distinction need not have been a true one (cp. n. 10) and most probably was not (see n. 99), but it is made by Thucydides and Ephoros. For the time of the introduction of the nomos itself we have no direct evidence at all, for Pausan, 1, 29, 4–5 cannot be regarded as such (see p. 53 f.), and Thucydides says αἰεί; neither the fictitious nor the genuine Epitaphioi of the fourth century mention an ‘inventor’ or founder. This is surprising, but they may have known of the late origin and found it inconvenient. That seems to be the case in the Atthides, too: apparently their writers did not dare to invent a mythical founder for a custom of admittedly late (fifth century) origin. They had no such hesitation for institutions introduced in the first half of the sixth century, as e.g. the Panathenaia. For Philostratos see n. 16.

¹⁰ One really cannot understand differently from (Ephoros)—Diodoros and Dionysios. Perhaps the idea of the speech being a later addition is merely a convenient τόπος for a prooimion. Anyhow, the vague phrasing does not permit of the confident assertion that Thucydides had a definite name in his mind. I do not think he had, for the same half-light obtains in the next phrase, (2, 35, 3).

¹¹ We have the formal evidence of Herodotos 9, 85 that the Athenians (SC. ἔθαπτον), in contrast to the Spartans, who ; and that the Athenian tomb is one of the πλήρεες τάφοι, in contrast to the alleged cenotaphs or rather fictitious tombs of the Aeginetans and some other States. From Thuc. 3, 58 we know that the cult at the graves was in the hands of the Plataeans (who in their speech, of course, only mentioned the Spartan graves), and in the second century A.D. Pausanias (9, 2, 5–6) saw them . The tradition is confirmed by the notice (dubious in itself) that the cult of Zeus Eleutherios, with which the agon in honour of the dead seems to have been connected in some manner, had been established by a motion of Aristeides (Plutarch, Aristeid. 21Google Scholar, 1; Hitzig-Bluemner, Pausanias III 1, p. 396Google Scholar). It is amazing by what means one has tried to remove ‘the curious error’ of Thucydides: Krueger l.c. pp. 70 ff. (after other conjectures which he himself rejected because they do not exonerate Thucydides enough) put the blame on Herodotos, accusing him, of all men, of having mistaken a cenotaph for a ‘full grave’; and Stein improves on this lunatic hypothesis by suggesting that Thucydides contradicted Herodotos ‘perhaps deliberately.’ Wilamowitz, Griech. Lesebuch II 1 p. 92Google Scholar conversely asserts with the greatest assurance (but unfortunately without even an attempt to prove the assertion or to define the nature of the alleged μνήματα) that ‘for the Athenians killed in Panhellenic battles there must have been set up μνήματα in the Kerameikos.’ Others, too, are even more lavish in adorning the Kerameikos with cenotaphs. The evidence (see below) proves conclusively that such cenotaphs were not set up, not even in Hellenistic and Roman times, when commemorative monuments would be conceivable. In the fifth century cenotaphs are conceivable only for those dead whose bodies were not available. Normally and generally the place of a cenotaph for men killed in action is the battlefield; and as in modern discussions even the most elementary facts are not heeded, I shall give one example for the custom which is in complete accordance with the general Hellenic usage of dealing with the war dead: Xenoph., Anab. 6, 4, 9Google Scholar, . There is one, and only one, exception, viz. Athens; but of course not even in Athens can there be an exception before the rule is established. Since the nomos patrios exists one carries in the funeral procession a (Thuc. 2, 43, 3), and one acts consistently by erecting a cenotaph, e.g. for the whole expeditionary force which perished in Sicily and of which the remains could not be recovered (Pausan. 1, 29, 11–12; another cenotaph for the dead of the Arginusai not mentioned by Pausanias we infer from Plato, , Menex. 243 CGoogle Scholar; about the alleged cenotaph of the Marathonomachoi see below). If the grave of the men killed in the Aeginetan war of 487/6 B.C. (Pausan. 1, 29, 7) was a cenotaph (which might be arguable), a special reason has to be found, which does not seem to be difficult, as the grave itself is an exceptional case (see p. 51 f.). For the cenotaphs of Corinthians and Megarians, killed in the Xerxes war, it is also easy to find a special reason (see n. 21). There are only these three cases, and they are doubtlessly exceptiones probantes regulam.

¹² I. 29, 3–16. There is no need to dispute his autopsy here or in similar cases, though there is no certain trace of it, and although the description as a whole is anything but a periegesis. Topographical statements are not altogether lacking, as, e.g., §3; , and § 6; §11. But they are few and mostly relative. Even these relative statements give place in the course of the description more and more to plain and (as far as we see) quite unsystematic enumerations— etc. Even the is not accurately determined as to its position besides the general statement that the graves are situated between the Dipylon and the Academy. Fortunately the impossibility of obtaining a clear picture of the arrangement of the tombs in the public cemetery (Judeich, Topogr.² p. 406Google Scholar; see Gebauer, K.JDAI 53, 1938, col. 612 ffGoogle Scholar. Beilage 4: Karo, G.An Attic Cemetery 1943, p. 24Google Scholar, ‘hardly anything is known as yet of the ancient cemetery on the ancient road to the Academy’; the great Kerameikos work 1939–1940 relates almost exclusively to the Oberlaender excavations on the Eridanos between the southern roads to the Peiraieus and Eleusis) does not affect our problem. Of course, Pausanias saw the cemetery as it was in his own time, when (probably) it had been restored to its original state as far as possible after the devastations made by Philip V (Diodor. 28, 7; Livius 31, 24, 17–18; Drexel, AM 37, 1912, p. 122Google Scholar) and Sulla. Again, Pausanias himself does not mention either the devastation or the restoration; but if he tells us e.g. in § 11 that the same stele covered the tombs of the dead of Euboia, Chios, the and Sicily, hardly another explanation than a restoration can be found (see Domaszewski l.l. p. 4; 6; 18). Therefore the assumption (which in Pausanias is anyhow a matter of course) seems indispensable that for the original cemetery (which he professes to describe) he had to consult literary sources. In fact, the statement in § 11 is followed by a notice about the Sicilian casualty list with a quotation from Philistos which Pausanias (of course) did not hunt up himself. It is generally admitted that he owes these (unfortunately rare) statements to an author who described the Kerameikos before 200 B.C. Actually one can go farther, and maintain that Pausanias' own description is nothing but an excerpt of a more detailed periegesis, from which he took over (without apparent order or system) a certain number of single graves and polyandria, arranging their enumeration according to the stylistic principles of the oratio variata (against Domaszewski; see Weber, L.Rh. Mus. 75, 1926, 322Google Scholar). The result is, in fact, pitiful. The single items are mostly of an annoying brevity and vagueness; in some cases we cannot even refer or date them securely. The ultimate source (which Pausanias need not have excerpted himself) was most probably the only work on this subject known to us, viz. Περὶ μνημάτων by one Diodoros, who is called ὁ περιηγητής and assigned by Schwartz, RE V 662Google Scholar nr. 37 to the third century B.C., before the establishment of the phylai Attalis and Ptolemais. It favours this date that the enumeration of the polyandria breaks off with 287 B.C., and that Pausanias adds two later tombs, presumably from the middle of the second century, apparently from his own knowledge, quoting , which, of course, may mean a later book. As to other authors suggested as possible sources, Heliodoros of Athens (Jacoby, RE VIII 1913, col. 15 nr. 11Google Scholar; Drexel, AM 37, 1912, pp. 119 ffGoogle Scholar.; Pasquali, Herm. 48, 1913, pp. 165 ffGoogle Scholar.) has not written Περὶ μνημάτων, but is the authority for the Akropolis; nor is it very credible that Polemon in should have treated the State cemetery. It is extremely doubtful whether Menekles-Kallikrates in their one (?) book Περὶ Ἀθηνῶν (RE X 1638 nr. 9) should have found, room for a detailed description of the cemetery. Schol. Aristoph. Aves 935 (Equit. 772) do not prove it.

¹³ The singular is protected against C. F. Hermann's μνήματα by (§ 6). With Pausanias apparently renders the of Thucydides. The Epitaphioi have either μνῆμα (e.g. Ps. Lysias 2, 63; Plato, Menex. 242 CGoogle Scholar) or (Demosth. 18, 208; 57, 37). But in a number of cases the singular μνῆμα certainly designates the respective single tomb, being synonymous with τάφος, which is sometimes used also for burial (Thuc. 2, 47, 1 34, 1). Brueckner's contention (AM 35, 1910, p. 189) that ‘die überlieferung vom 5. vorchristlichen bis zum 3. nachchristlichen jahrhundert diese massengräber durchweg singularisch bezeichnet’ is erroneous (see Wenz, Studien Zu d. att. Kriegergräbern, diss. Muenster 1913 pp. 17 ffGoogle Scholar.; Weber, Rh.M. 75, pp. 293 ffGoogle Scholar.); and neither the general usage nor Pausanias' singular justifies the conclusion of Curtius (Ges. Schr. I p. 84Google Scholar; Stadtgesch pp. 119 f.), followed more cautiously and with new arguments by Brueckner, that ‘the τάφος’ was one coherent construction: ‘ein besonderer gemeinsamer raum, ein grosses polyandrion’ (Curtius) ‘ein grabbezirk’ (Brueckner). Judeich p. 406 calls it the cemetery proper (‘der eigentliche statsfriedhof’) and takes for its original, (IG ² II 1006, 22) for the later official name. Judeich's treatment seems to me to be contradictory in itself, but (as has been said before) the problem fortunately does not matter for us.

¹⁴ IG ² I 928.

¹⁵ Krueger, K. W.Histor.-philol. Studien 1836, pp. 64 ffGoogle Scholar.; Curtius, E. ‘Zur Gesch. d. Wegebaus bei d. Griech.’ Abh. Berl. Ak. 1854Google Scholar (²Ges. Abh. I pp. 184 fGoogle Scholar.; see also Stadtgesch. pp. 119 ff. 181). Of later authors Weber, L.Rh. Mus. 75, 1926, pp. 291 ffGoogle Scholar. came in the main back to their opinion and muddled it up. Krueger has ‘formulated the main problem accurately’ (as Weber himself admits), and it is a very real problem (not at all ‘created by himself with hair-splitting sublety,’ as the same Weber puts it). Curtius proposed a different but equally precise solution. The solution of Weber (n. 16) lacks this very precision. I confess to not having understood parts of his argumentation, and I do not think that this is my fault.

¹⁶ In his view (Rh. Mus. 75, pp. 305 fGoogle Scholar.; Solon pp. 47 f.; the italics in the quotations are mine) the tomb of the Athenians , presumably in 487 B.C. (Pausan. 1, 29, 7) ‘steht im besten einklang mit dem zeugnis des Thukydides, das die regelmässige beisetzung der gefallenen in staatsfriedhof bereits vor Marathon unwiderleglich bestätigt. Für die kenntnis des älteren attischen sepulkralwesens hat es geradezu fundamental bedeutung. Denn nun zeigt sich dass mindestens schon geraume zeit vor 490 im Kerameikos nach festem brauch die im kriege gefallenen δημοσίαι bestattet werden; dass man aber dort schon jahrhunderte vorher tote zur ruhe gebettet hat, beweisen aufs klarste die Dipylonvasen.’ Any polemics do seem superfluous. Actually Weber deviates from strict orthodoxy by supplementing Thucydides from Anaximenes (n. 8) and assigning the introduction of the funeral speech to Solon. A true orthodoxy should infer from Thucydides' ἀεί that the πάτριος νόμος dates from the reign of Kekrops (Thuc. 2, 15, 1; cp. 36, 1), and that the funeral speech was added by one of his pre-Trojan successors. For does not Philostratos (Heroic. 11) know that in the Trojan War the Athenians προύθεντο the body of their countryman Aias, The evidence is such that one has either to believe Thucydides or disbelieve him; there is no half-way house.

¹⁷ Ar. u. Ath. II 1893, p. 292Google Scholar n. 4; Griech. Tragoedien übers, I 1899, p. 193Google Scholar; Griech. Lesebuch I 1, 1903, p. 134Google Scholar; Aischylos Interpretationen 1914, p. 241Google Scholar n. 1. Actually this belief also goes back to E. Curtius, who (Stadtgesch. 1891, p. 119Google Scholar) was the first to date the establishment of the State cemetery in ‘die zeit des thrakischen krieges, als Kimon in Athen mächtig war.’ The difference is that Curtius did not forget the contradiction between Thucydides and Pausanias, and proposed a theory which (by suggesting a development), though it did not abolish the contradiction, tried to explain it. He did not see that even so we have to admit at least a grave inaccuracy in Thucydides' statement. In the form which Wilamowitz gave the hypothesis it becomes at once impossible by the existence of the grave from the Aeginetan War.

¹⁸ The fact is well known, and Wenz, (Studien z.d. att. Kriegergräbern diss. Münster 1913)Google Scholar did right to begin with it. But his treatment is short, superficial, and wrong as to the decisive point. ‘The polyandria from Mycenaean times on which are dispersed over all Greece’ do not teach us anything, as we do not know who is buried in them. The general assertion that ideas changed since one began to wage war more frequently far from home, and that ‘most Greek States’ proceeded to bring home their dead, is demonstrably wrong. This custom is known only for Athens, and we are told of its being specifically Athenian (cf. p. 63). As to its time, the assertion put forth without examination of the evidence and without proof that ‘since the sixth century Athens buried her war dead jointly and at the expense of the State’ is again demonstrably wrong.

¹⁹ H 327 ff. (about v. 334/5 see n. 30). This is the only passage to mention a burial of the common dead, and what is later called technically ; it probably reflects the practice of the poet's own time (see also Π 457). Everywhere else the corpses are left lying on the battlefield to be devoured by birds and dogs; and this holds good for friends and enemies alike. Later generations were shocked, and interpreters (e.g. Istros) inferred a common usage from the one passage in H ( Schol. T on H 338), but were rightly refuted by Aristarchos (Schol. A on K 298). In fact, it is quite conceivable that in the Heroic Age one disregarded the common man, erecting all the more gorgeous tombs for the kings and their noble friends. But even they are not brought home; Schol. A on H 334/5 draw the correct conclusion from the evidence: (the Herodotean ). There is only one exception— the case of Sarpedon: the poet describes it as such (Zeus himself intervenes), and in vase-paintings it appears as the prototype of the later custom (Wolters, Sb. Muenchen 1913 nr. V pp. 7 fGoogle Scholar.). No use to collect the evidence from the Iliad (e.g. Patroklos in Ψ, Hektor in Ω), the Odyssey (Achilleus ω 35 ff.) and the Kyklos; but there is a generic difference between the tomb of a ‘heros’ and the later polyandrion. The consequence is (since the ‘heros’ enters the society of the ‘heroes’) that the transfer of the remains of a heros occurs at a relatively early time (e.g. Orestes to Sparta: Herod., I, 67 f.); they have been correctly treated under the heading ‘Cults of Relics’ by Pfister, RVV VGoogle Scholar). About the genuineness of the relics nobody has any illusions to-day; it does not matter whether and how long Antiquity believed in them. But if in Argos one exhibited the polyandrion of , even a Pausanias (2, 20, 6) knows it for a τάφος κενός.

²⁰ Plut., Alex. 9Google Scholar, 3 ; Pausan. 9, 40, 10 . (inaccurately Strabo 9, 2, 34). But the Athenian dead from the same battle are buried in the Kerameikos (Pausan. 1, 29, 13), and the funeral speech was delivered by Demosthenes (De Cor. 285/8).

²¹ There is no doubt about the fact, since the funeral inscription has been found on Salamis (IG ² I 927). One might say it is obvious that the dead from other contingents, not excluding the Athenians, whose country was in the hand of the enemy, were also buried there. The grave on the Isthmos for all Corinthian dead from the Xerxes war which (as Plutarch, De Herod. mal. 39Google Scholar states) was a cenotaph, was (in my opinion) constructed not before 462 B.C., when Corinth broke with Athens. The matter is somewhat involved, because (to judge from Herodotos 9, 85) the Corinthians had no tomb in Plataiai, though their troops probably fought in the battle (Busolt, Gr. G.² II p. 736Google Scholar n. 3). But as Herodotos does not explicitly mention the Corinthians it may be a case of forgetfulness; for I cannot believe in κακοήθεια when it is a matter of his own ἱστορίη).

²² See n. 11.

²³ Herod. 7, 228 (i.e., on the hill where the last fight had taken place), (225, 2) or (as Strabo 9, 14, 16 has it) . The monument must have been erected (by the Amphictyons: Herodt. 8, 228, 4) after the battle of Plataiai; and the grave contained, of course, the bones then found on the battlefield (cp. the case of Hermokrates n. 28). Hardly all could have been found (which does not make a cenotaph of the polyandrion); it must have been difficult to distinguish between Spartan and other remains, and certainly the single dead could not be identified. In Herodotos' view Leonidas is also buried there, in spite of 7,238: he certainly does not know of a transfer of the remains of the king. I am now doubtful whether it was performed at all in the fifth century (in that case n. 19 about the relics would hold good): Pausan. 3, 14, 1 is either more corrupt than is generally assumed, or (rather) his report followed a later tradition, invented in Sparta. A joint annual festival for Leonidas and Pausanias (the Λεωνίδαια?) with λόγοι and ἀγών is hardly conceivable before the reign of Augustus. The names of the three hundred Herodotos doubtless got in Sparta; there was no casualty list on the μνῆμα at Thermopylai, at least not in Strabo's time.

²⁴ We are not informed about Mykale (Herodt. 9, 106, 1). Plutarch (Themistokl. 8; De Her. mal. 24) knows about a dedication to Artemis Proseoia in the Artemision on the north-east cape of Euboia commemorating the first naval engagements. Wilamowitz explains the σήματα ταῦτα in its inscription with ‘die σημεῖα νεῶν, die bilder von denen die schiffe ihre namen hatten’ (cp. Wade-Gery, JHS 1933, pp. 99 fGoogle Scholar. for dedications of ἄφλαστα). It remains an open question whether the dedication dates from after 479 B.C. One expects that the corpses, as far as they were driven ashore, were buried at once; if net, they were not recoverable at all. We do not hear about a cenotaph.

²⁵ According to Pausan. 1, 32, 3 the Plataians fallen at Marathon were buried separately. About the δοῦλοι, who according to him would have been buried in the same tomb (cp. 7, 15, 7; 10, 20, 2; for 1, 29, 7 see n. 63), see Notopulos, AJP 62, 1941, pp. 352 ffGoogle Scholar. In the Kerameikos the separate grave seems to have been the rule: the men of Argos and Kleonai from the battle of Tanagra 457 B.C. (Pausan. 1, 29, 7; 8–9; IG ² I 931/2; Meritt, Hesperia 14, 1945, pp. 134 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.); Thessalian horsemen from 431 B.C. (Pausan. 1, 29, 6).

²⁶ Plutarch, Thes. 29Google Scholar, 4/5 . Cp. Plin., NH. 7, 202Google Scholarfoedera Theseus invenit and the Chrestomathy P. Ox. 1241 col. III 12 ff. (unfortunately defective). Iliad. Ω obviously does not yet know the rule, but it may have been known to the poet of the Odyssey (χ 409 ff.). Of course, the rule obtained only towards Greeks: the bodies of the Persians remained on the battlefield of Plataiai until later (Herod. 9, 83). For Marathon we have a rather amusing tradition in Pausanias 1, 32, 5, who himself distrusted it: . If the tetrapolis had not a progressive sanitary police, the story is a later invention, one of the many illustrations of Athenian humanity or of their observance of the νόμοι ΒουӠυγῶν. The different treatment is not surprising (for the Romans see Dionys. Hal. AR 5, 17, I, if true). But the assertion of Wilamowitz, (Gr. Trag. I 189Google Scholar; Aischylos Interpretationen p. 91) that the Boeotians had no share in the progress has no real foundation: the events after the battle of Delion in 424 B.C. present a special case which is sufficiently explained by the very detailed report of Thucydides (4, 91 ff.); and the story of the Seven reflects the conditions in the Heroic Age which does not yet know the rule (see above and n. 19). One may admit that the Thebans did not adhere to the rule as a matter of course, but were inclined to quibble: after the battle of Haliartos in 395 B.C. they answered the Spartan demand with a condition (Xenoph., Hell. 3, 5, 24Google Scholar).

²⁷ Note the sarcastic questions of Eurip., TheseusHiket. 542 ffGoogle Scholar. .

²⁸ It is a seeming exception that Hermokrates ordered the remains of the fallen at Himera to be collected, (Diodor. 13, 75, 2; 408/7 B.C.), where, after a remarkable debate, they are buried with all due honours. Hermokrates could only do so because the general Diokles had not buried his dead on the battlefield, but left them ἀτάφους. So he used the negligence of his predecessor for his own propaganda. For the general usage one example will be sufficient. The Spartans from the army of King Pausanias in 403 B.C.—and among them were two polemarchs and an Olympionikes—were buried (Xenoph., Hell. 2, 4, 33Google Scholar), (Lysias, Ps.Epitaph. 63Google Scholar); the tomb which is missing in Pausanias' enumeration has been found (Arch. Anz. 1930, pp. 90 ffGoogle Scholar.; 102; Wrede, Att. Mauern 1933, pp. 19 fGoogle Scholar.). The Athenians treated them as they were wont to treat their allies (n. 25). It would have been easy to bring their ashes (or even the corpses) home, if it had been the practice in Sparta and the other States concerned, or if the wish to be buried at home was as natural and universal as is generally assumed. Obviously the (later) Athenian custom (for which we shall have to seek the reason) did not exist, and was not taken over by other States (I pass by Weber's, treatment in Herm. 52, 1917, pp. 545 ffGoogle Scholar. of IG V 2, 173 and the cemetery of Tegea), and the wish was not so strong that it brought about a change in the general νόμος Ἑλλήνων. Tombstones from Sparta with the name and ἐν πολέμωι (IG V 1, 701 ff.) do not contradict (we do not know where they fell, and they may even have died from wounds); and, of course, they bring their kings back (Xenoph., Hell. 5, 3, 19Google Scholar about Agesipolis in 380/79 B.C.: ). It is also worth mentioning that in 513/2 B.C. (?) the Spartan leader Anchimolos was buried in Athenian soil—of course (at least for us and now) not in the Kerameikos. His grave was . As the battle took place near Phaleron, an Athenian friend of his may have buried him privately. We do not hear about the graves of the who were killed in the battle; probably they were not extant any more in Herodotos' time.

²⁹ Agamemn. 429 f. .

³⁰ Wilamowitz, Ilias und Homer p. 55Google Scholar n. 1 did not stress the main point that the custom was but recently introduced in Athens when the Agamemnon was produced in 458 B.C. That Aischylos wrote the verses under the impression made by the heavy losses in Egypt (Droysen, Aischylos übersetzt³ p. 558Google Scholar; cp. Wilamowitz, Gr. Trag. übers. II 307Google Scholar) is chronologically possible, if one accepts Kolbe's date (Herm. 72, 1937, pp. 266 fGoogle Scholar.) for IG ² I 929. But (as a question of principle) the assumption of an allusion to contemporary events is convincing only if the idea is not suggested by the subject-matter of the play. This is the case here: the war against Troy, as Aischylos sees it, was ill-starred from its very beginning; I very much doubt that the poet who in the last play of the trilogy commended the democratic reform of the Areopagus, saw the first great venture of the new government under the same aspect. What we actually have to ask is whether we have to acknowledge the influence of Homer over and above the (implicit) recommendation of the new Athenian nomos. The answer depends on the decision whether Aischylos read the lines H 334/5 in his copy of Homer. It is certain that the lines are interpolated (Schol. A; the defence in Schol. BT is childish), and the question concerning them is rather important for the history of the text of the Iliad. If the addition was made in Greece proper (which I should not maintain with the assurance of Wilamowitz, Ilias und Homer p. 55Google Scholar), it can only have been made in Athens. For Athens alone did transfer her dead from abroad after 464 B.C.; the grave in Argos (n. 19), if it is as early as all that, was a cenotaph. If the interpolation was made in Athens, it is at least fifty years later than the Theseus line Il. A 265 which I should put in the last decades of the sixth century. But these problems lead us too far. The Hiketides of Euripides do not furnish another example for the transfer in the Heroic Age, much as has been said about their connexion with the Athenian funeral speech. Here only the leaders (their corpses, not their ashes) are brought home to Argos, while the common soldiers are buried in Eleutherai (v. 754 f.). Either is as far from the heroic as from the Athenian usage, and the former statement is demonstrably late invention. Euripides did not think either of Il. H or of the Athenian nomos (or only in so far as he mentioned the fate of the common soldiers too); he thought of the divergent claims of Eleutherai, Harma and Eleusis (the last having been introduced into tragedy by Aischylos), and he supplanted them by Argos for reasons of contemporary policy (v. 1183 ff.).

³¹ It is correctly dated by Geffcken, Griech. Epigramme 1916 nr. 17Google Scholar. This was hardly the only epigram of its kind, but the inscription on a black-figured pinax with a procession of men at an ἐκφορά (Eph. Arch. 1888 tb. XI; Kretschmer, Griech. Vaseninschr. p. 92 nr. 5Google Scholar; Bull. Metropol. Museum of Art New York 1942 p. 82Google Scholar; missing in IG ² I) is still unexplained.

³² Herod, I, 30, 5. No need to doubt the historical person whose ‘memory was kept alive by the grave’ (Wilamowitz, Ar. u. Ath. I p. 208 n. 16Google Scholar; Premerstein, v.Oesterr. Jahresh. 13 p. 41, 49Google Scholar; the name is not in PA). The date cannot be determined, and was not known to Herodotos either. It may be mentioned as a curiosity that Weber (Solon p. 75; see n. 8) asks whether Solon ‘has spoken at the grave of Tellos.’

³³ Of course, he had seen the public cemetery when he was in Athens, and from 9, 27 one would like to infer (the inference has been made more than once) that he had heard at least one funeral speech. One really must not infer from 7, 162 that it was the funeral speech of Perikles on the fallen of Samos in 439 B.C. I am now prepared to admit (though not very confidently) that Herodotos returned to Athens from Thourioi (Wilamowitz, Gl. d. Hell. II. 205 n. 1Google Scholar); but that was hardly before 434/3 B.C. He might have been present at the burial ceremony of 431. But I think it far more probable that the burial of the fallen of Koroneia in 446 B.C. coincided with his (first and) rather long residence at Athens. We have now the funeral epigram (Peek, AM 57, 1932, pp. 142 ffGoogle Scholar.; 59, 1934, pp. 252 ff.; Herm. 68, 1933, pp. 353 ffGoogle Scholar.; Bowra, Cl. Qu. 32, 1938, pp. 80 ffGoogle Scholar.; Reinhardt, Herm. 73, 1938, pp. 234 ffGoogle Scholar.) to which (judging from I, 27, 5) the annoyingly short and vague mention of Pausan. 1, 29, 13 probably refers.

³⁴ 2, 34, 5, (CP. Pausan. 1, 29, 4; 1, 32, 3): . It does not matter here that he gives a wrong reason for their burial on the battlefield. This in itself is not a special honour, though particular conditions can make it such (cp. about the grave of 506 B.C. at the Euripos no. 6). The monument for Miltiades (for that is presumably what Pausan. 1, 32, 4 means by μνῆμα) would have been a special honour if it were contemporary (which it was not).

³⁵ See n. 11.

³⁶ Herod. 9, 105. About the statue of (Pausan. 1, 23, 10) and the IG ² I 527 (Pausan. 1, 29, 3?) see PA 5163; Hitzig-Bluemner, Pausanias I 1, pp. 255Google Scholar f.; Hiller von Gaertringen on IG ² I 527; Stevens, Hesperia 5, 1936, pp. 443 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁷ Kolbe, too (Herm. 72, 1937, pp. 253 f.Google Scholar), dates the revolt of Naxos in the beginning of the 'sixties, perhaps 469/8 B.C. The war against Karystos is dated by Walker, CAH V p. 51Google Scholar before 470 B.C.; by Beloch, Gr. Gesch.² II 1, p. 185Google Scholar (probably too early) at 474 B.C.

³⁸ Anthol. Plan. 26 = Diehl, Anthol. Lyr. Gr. II 92Google Scholar nr. 87.

³⁹ Pace Wilamowitz in Hiller, Hist. griech. Epigr. 1926Google Scholar nr. 9. Weber, Philol. 84, 1929, p. 38Google Scholar (who at least remembered his grave) had, of course, to take it as an exception from the rule of burying in the Kerameikos, and to rack his brains for an explanation. About the ‘Dareios epigram,’ which in any case is later than the Euripos epigram, see n. 57.

⁴⁰ See section 2.

⁴¹ Herod. 5, 77. Remains of both versions IG ² I 394, where literature is to be found. See further Diehl l.c. p. 97 nr. 100 and Raubitschek, Hesperia 8, 1939, p. 158CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 3.

⁴² With the poem which was engraved on these Herms I have dealt in another paper (Hesperia 1945).

⁴³ Wilamowitz, Ar. u. Ath. I p. 155Google Scholar n. 59. Plutarch, , Kimon 13, 6–7Google Scholar speaks about Kimon's building activity in connexion with the battle of the Eurymedon: he paid for the building of the south wall of the Acropolis. It is quite conceivable that this date is authentic and official, but it yields no date for the adornment of the town. The items mentioned by Plutarch may well belong to the 'seventies. But (and this alone is here pertinent) he does not mention the Kerameikos (see above).

⁴⁴ Ar. u. Ath. II p. 292Google Scholar n. 4. The thesis, first advanced by Curtius (see n. 62; 75), has become (through Wilamowitz' authority) the general opinion, shared by Brueckner, AM 35, p. 184Google Scholar; Judeich, Topogr.² pp. 404 fGoogle Scholar.; Swoboda, RE XIGoogle Scholar col. 445; Wenz op. cit. p. 30; Weber, Solon p. 48Google Scholar and many others. Gebauer, K.JDAI 53 1938, col. 612 ffGoogle Scholar., Beilage 4 in dating an aqueduct in the Kerameikos uses as his main argument that ‘Kimon der gründer der einheitlich gestalteten staatsgräberanlagen gewesen sein muss’ (my italics).

⁴⁵ Plutarch., Thes. 36Google Scholar. Wilamowitz did not realise this obstacle to his thesis even in Gr. Trag. I p. 193Google Scholar, where it becomes obvious; or if he realised it he obliterated it by the irrelevant n. 1 (which incidentally is not quite clear to me). In this connexion it is worth while to point out that we are not sure that Kimon himself was buried in the Kerameikos. In any case he seems not to have got a honorary tomb here; else (one should imagine) Pausan. 1, 29 would have mentioned it. It is true that the tradition is surprisingly indefinite: Pausan. 1, 29, 13, though he does not mention a special tomb of Kimon, gives a grave as that of the . That might mean ‘Kimon and the men who fell in Cyprus,’ though there surely is a difference between in the same section and . in § 14. That Kimon died cannot be the reason; for he died πολιορκῶν Κίτιον—that is in war (Plutarch, Kimon 19Google Scholar, 1). Nor indeed is Plutarch, Kimon 19Google Scholar, 5 a conclusive argument for his being buried in the tomb of his family (as e.g. Busolt, Gr. Gesch. III p. 344Google Scholar; Kirchner PA 8429 p. 563; Swoboda, RE XIGoogle Scholar col. 452 maintain). On the other hand, the τάφος τις in Kition (Plutarch. l.c.) looks suspiciously like a hero-grave and might be later.

⁴⁶ About this context see section 2. It is not at all credible that Pausanias referred the passage of Herodotos 9, 75, ‘auf das wirklich älteste grab, weil seine inschrift eine niederlage in Thrakien erwähnte, während das grab den toten von 475 gait.’ Pausanias designates by the words the actual place of the catastrophe of 465/4 B.C.; Herodotos refers by the general Leagros to the same battle, which he localises ἐν Δάτωι(which may be the name of the district: Philippson, RE IV col. 2229 fGoogle Scholar; cp. Busolt, Gr. Gesch. III p. 203Google Scholar n. 1). In both writers (as in Thuc. 1, 100, 3) the enemies are the Ἠδωνοί; they supplement each other as to the details of the action. There is no doubt that Pausanias copied here, too, his learned source (n. 12). If there is a confusion between Drabeskos and Enneahodoi (which I take leave to doubt), the mistake is committed by Herodotos, not by Pausanias' learned author who could make use of the Atthides which accurately distinguished the several defeats, dating them by the archons and giving details (Schol. Aischin. 2, 31 which agree with Pausanias). In the face of the evidence the assumption of an error in Pausanias is quite incredible—sheer arbitrariness. Nevertheless it is now the general opinion: Meyer, E.GdA III 901 § 275 AGoogle Scholar; Wenz op. cit. pp. 30 ff.; Weber, Rh. Mus. 75, pp. 302 ffGoogle Scholar.; Solon p. 48; Judeich, Topogr.¹ p. 368Google Scholar n. 2; ²p. 405 n. 2; and others. The prejudice shows quite naked in Judeich: his note opens with the statement ‘massgebend für die datierung (viz. of the cemetery) ist … Pausan. 1, 29, 4’; but a few lines after the initial statement is forgotten: ‘ob das denkmal (viz. for the fallen at Drabeskos) tatsachlich nur auf die niederlage von Drabeskos zu beziehen sei, ist für die entstehung des staatsfriedhofs nicht von bedeutung; für ihn bleibt die kimonische zeit’ (my italics). Judeich himself evidently did not feel happy, for he finally proposes the impossible compromise that ‘das kenotaph für die toten von Enneahodoi wohl mit denen von Drabeskos vereinigt war.’ Nobody as much as asks whether the dead of Enneahodoi were, or could have been, buried in the Kerameikos at all: the rather ample and detailed evidence about the defeats in Thrace is replaced everywhere by the arbitrary assertion that it was Kimon who established the public cemetery in the Kerameikos.

⁴⁷ 13, 6–7; cp. n. 43.

⁴⁸ It is not quite ‘in his line,’ at least not yet. When Kimon and his colleagues came back from Thrace in 475 B.C. they asked the people for a victory monument in the Agora and got it (see Hesperia 1945). It is a very different attitude of mind and a man of different political persuasion who moved for a cemetery for the sons of the people (see p. 51 f.).

⁴⁹ See Berve, Miltiades 1937, pp. 75 ffGoogle Scholar. As the cult of these war dead dates from 490/89 B.C., it becomes intelligible that in 465/4 B.C. the Athenians entrusted the same official with the performance of the new cult for all fallen. An exception was made (probably at once) for the funeral speech, the speaker of which was designated by the Boule. About the practice in Roman times see section 4.

⁵⁰ Section 3.

⁵¹ See n. 12.

⁵² Thus Justus Lipsius has characterised the compiler of the Suda.

⁵³ Section 4.

⁵⁴ See about this πρῶτοι p. 53 f.

⁵⁵ I leave aside two evident additions made by Pausanias himself; see p. 66.

⁵⁶ It is almost generally agreed at present that it was the war the outbreak of which is dated at ‘about 487’ because of the oracle Herod. 5, 89 (but see Andrewes, A.BSA 37, 1940, p. 1Google Scholar): Wilamowitz, Ar. u. Ath. II p. 281Google Scholar; Meyer, E.GdA III §204Google Scholar; 488/7 Koehler, Rh. Mus. 46, 1891, pp. 6 fGoogle Scholar.; Busolt, Gr. Gesch. ² II 1896, p. 644Google Scholar n. 3; Beloch, Gr. Gesch. ² II, p. 25Google Scholar; II 2 p. 57.

⁵⁷ The tomb of the horsemen who fell (Pausan. 1, 29, 6) is now (since Judeich, Topogr.² p. 405Google Scholar n. 1 has also given up the relation to Herodotos 5, 64 and 510 B.C.) generally regarded as referring to the cavalry battle of 431 B.C. (Thuc. 2, 22) mentioned by Pausanias a few lines earlier: . It is not impossible that in 510, too, Athenian knights were killed (see Aristoph., Lysistr. 1150 ffGoogle Scholar.), but Herodotos does not mention it, and even in Pausanias the connexion would be surprising. I leave aside the miserable remains of the ‘Dareios epigram’ from a monument in the Agora which was probably demolished in 480/79 B.C. (Agora Inv. 4476 I 555; Oliver, Hesperia 4, 1935, p. 53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; JOAI 31, 1938Google Scholar, Beibl. col. 4; Robinson, C. A.AJP 60, 1939, pp. 232 fGoogle Scholar.). Raubitschek, AJA 44, 1940, pp. 58 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. (see also Hesperia 12, 1943, p. 23Google Scholar nr. 46) restored and regarded the poem as the epitaph for the men fallen in Ionia 498 B.C., who (in his opinion) were buried in the Kerameikos. As the fragment has been found on the Agora its site is as doubtful as its character. But it seems more probable that it was a commemorative monument to be classified with the Marathon epigrams from the Agora, not an ‘early Attic public grave.’

⁵⁸ It is natural that one generally refers the notice Pausanias 1, 29, 14 to the battle of the Eurymedon, because the double victory at the Cyprian Salamis is already recorded in § 13 (scil. ἐτάφησαν). But I cannot suppress the suspicion that there is some kind of disturbance. Not because of the contradiction to πρῶτοι ἐτάφησαν in § 4; nor because the actual μέγα ἔργον was the later battle glorified to excess by the (undoubtedly authentic) funeral epigram AP 7, 296 in order to veil the fact that the glorious battle led to a peace which almost universally was felt as something to be ashamed of. The epigram for the Eurymedon battle (AP 7, 258), the authenticity of which has been doubted far more often, uses much more moderate terms. My suspicion arises from reasons of style and comoosition. The brief sentence is rather awkwardly placed between the tomb of the men fallen with Tolmides ( reads like a conclusive formula of the enumeration of the polyandria), and the second series of single graves (. § 15–16). This section evidently and without a break continues the first series of single graves in § 3. Although the tomb of Thrasyboulos is twice emphatically said to be ‘the first,’ I should not venture to use the two groups for a topographical reconstruction of the cemetery, as Domaszewski pp. 14 f. and others do. They form a clear literary unit: consisting for the most part of mere names with (at the utmost) a quite short characterisation, it opens with a detailed treatment of Thrasyboulos in § 3 and ends with another quite as detailed of Lykourgos in § 16. The enumeration of the polyandria (inserted into that of the single graves) in § 4–14 begins in exactly the same manner with a detailed treatment of the tomb of Drabeskos (§ 4–5), but it lacks a corresponding conclusion. I suggest that Pausanias intended to work it in, and began with changing the dry note in § 13 about the πλεύσαντες to the μέγα ἔργον at the end of § 14 (an apt contrast to the defeat in § 4–5), but (from whatever reason) omitted to finish it. It is easy to imagine how he intended to conclude this enumeration: the praise of Kimon might have been opportune, but a praise of the victory which is; for I am not prepared to believe that the learned periegete also connected the Kallias peace with the battle of the Eurymedon. Whether this suggestion be accepted or not, in no case does the position of the alleged Eurymedon tomb at the end of the enumeration allow of the deduction of Weber l.l. p. 309 that ‘the two oldest tombs were placed at the two ends of the μνῆμα,’ corresponding with each other in the same manner as the grave of Kleisthenes (§ 6) with the grave of the tyrannicides (§ 15).

⁵⁹ See p. 52 f.

⁶⁰ About destructions see n. 12; about the natural rise of the ground ‘through accumulated dust and debris, of about a centimetre a year’ (in the Eridanos cemetery) see Brueckner l.c. p. 190; Karo, , An Attic Cemetery 1943, pp. 23 f.Google Scholar

⁶¹ We need not enumerate them separately here; Wenz pp. 26 ff. gives a useful list.

⁶² See Curtius, Stadtgesch. p. 119Google Scholar; Wenz pp. 31 f.; Judeich, Topogr.² pp. 404 ffGoogle Scholar.; who all try to combine the existence of earlier tombs with the hypothesis of the establishment of the cemetery by Kimon. Domaszewski p. 11 even speaks of a State cemetery ‘aus vorpersischer zeit,’ while Wilamowitz, (Ar. u. Ath. II p. 292Google Scholar; Gr. Trag. I p. 193Google Scholar) has consistently forgotten the Aegina tomb, giving the hypothesis a form which precludes any pre-Persian burial in the Kerameikos.

⁶³ The technical term is still used by Silius Italicus Pun. 13, 484 f. Cecropidae ob patriam Mavortis sorte peremptos/decrevere simul communibus urere flammis in an enumeration of funeral customs taken from an obviously good source (a book Περὶ νόμων: the ταγαί are a regular chapter already in the earliest ethnography). It is obvious that any public funeral before 465/4 B.C. required a special decree, and any later if it was for a single person, or else if it departed from the principles laid down in 465/4 B.C. The decree communicated by Pausan. 1, 29, 7 . evidently refers to a definite case which we are not able to determine, since Pausanias (taken up with the well-known topos about Athenian humanity) forgot to mention it. The date of Domaszewski p. 14 is absurd (my italics): ‘jünger als die zeit der quelle, der Pausanias sein geschichtliches wissen entnahm, da er den anlass nicht kennt; wahrscheinlich stammt es daher aus der agonie des staates, wo im griechischen gemeinwesen freigelassene sklaven für ihre herren fochten.’ As if slaves had not manned the ships, e.g. in 406 B.C., and got civic rights as a recompense! The sequence in Pausanias, of course, does not prove the usual relation to the Aiginetan war. Because of the στήλη the most plausible relation is to the slaves of Marathon repeatedly mentioned by Pausanias (n. 25). They were not buried in the Kerameikos, but we may assume that the source of Pausanias dealt with the tombs of slaves in a copious digression.

⁶⁴ Even then it will hardly be much later than 508/7 B.C. It probably belongs to the same time as the statue by Antenor. We do not know about the fate of the bodies in 513 B.C., whether Hippias allowed the families to bury them in the normal manner, or whether the remains were transferred to the Kerameikos after the expulsion of the tyrant. There is (in my opinion) no sufficient reason to reject a limine a contemporary public funeral of Kleisthenes. Wilamowitz' term ‘erinnerungsgrab’ is surely not a happy one, and the notion of a memorial grave (that is a non-contemporary cenotaph) seems to me to be alien to fifth-century thinking. The reasons of Domaszewski (l.l. p. 15) or assigning both graves and that of Ephialtes (Pausan. 1, 29, 15) to the fourth century are flatly absurd. As to the latter, I have not the least doubt that the people in 462/1 B.C. reacted (on the motion of Perikles) to the assassination of their champion with the public burial. Solon was most certainly not buried in the Kerameikos, or (to be quite accurate) in the public cemetery on the road to the Academy: it is inconceivable even for Pausanias to have omitted his grave, if his source had it. The evidence shows clearly that one did not know a grave of him in Athens: it tells either of death abroad (in voluntary or forced exile like Lykourgos: Diog. Laert. 1, 62; Suda s.v.; Valer. Max. 5. 3, ext. 3; cp. Gellius 17, 21, 5) or that his ashes were dispersed over Salamis (Aristotle and other ἄνδρες ἀξιόλογοι in Plutarch., Solon 32Google Scholar, 4; Diog. Laert. 1, 62 quoting Kratinos I 82, 228 K.). The latter story, of course, excludes a grave on Salamis. Again I pass by Weber, Herm. 52, 1917, pp. 551 ffGoogle Scholar., who has found the epitaph of the non-existent grave. There is only one seeming testimony for Athens: Aelian, VH 8, 16Google Scholar (cf. Pausan. 1, 16, 1) (-ται Wil.) αὐτῶι ὁ τάφος. Here the name of the gate has dropped out, if it was not omitted on purpose; for it seems evident that Aelianus' author (whoever he was; Androtion, Phainias, and others have been suggested), who perhaps knew of the destruction wrought in the several cemeteries by the building of the Themistoclean wall (this much, I think, one must concede), wishes to explain why a grave of Solon was not found in the place where it was assumed to be (Wilamowitz, Ar. u. Ath. I p. 262Google Scholar, n. 3). Wenz has completely misunderstood Aelian, , and Judeich, Topogr.² p. 410Google Scholar (cp. p. 405 and Karo op. cit. p. 24) had better have abstained from a conjectural localisation. There was no grave of Solon at Athens, or at least nobody knew where it was. For my part I become more and more doubtful whether the date of Phainias for the death of Solon (under Hegestratos in 560/59 B.C.), although it may well derive from an Atthis, is worth more than the divergent statements about his grave, or the place of his death. I submit that it is possible, even probable, that Solon, after having left Athens (at the time of the tyrant Damasias 582/0 B.C.?), did not return, but died abroad, perhaps a considerable time before 560 B.C. Consequently there was no documentary evidence for his death. The date of Phainias is conjectural: it belongs to the Solon-Peisistratos legend.

⁶⁵ See n. 56.

⁶⁶ Thuc. 1, 94–95. These chapters are not sufficiently appreciated in forming an opinion about the real Sparta in the first decades of the fifth century or (one may well say) for an all-round estimation of the spirit of Lycurgean Sparta.

⁶⁷ Beloch, Gr. Gesch. ² II 1 p. 151Google Scholar; see also Walker, CAH V p. 58; 68 f.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Chronology shows (Kolbe, Herm. 72, 1937, pp. 263 ffGoogle Scholar.) that the new men (I avoid speaking in these years of Perikles alone) have to bear the responsibility for the Egyptian enterprise which resumed the offensive war against Persia on another front. The reasons for this policy do not matter here; enough that the democratic government (bolder than the conservatives) had no doubt that Athens was strong enough to fight Persia and Sparta at the same time. If Perikles was of the same opinion in 460 B.C. he learnt from the events and changed the tack as soon as he was able to do so. With the conclusion of the Kallias peace he returned to a foreign policy which (in my opinion) closely resembled the ideas of Themistokles. To this programme he kept himself, and was followed by his successors, who (see Wade-Gery, Ath. Stud. Ferguson 1940, pp. 121 ffGoogle Scholar.) renewed the treaty with Dareios.

⁶⁹ Thucydides knew why he wrote 1, 3, 5–6, and 2, 14–16; he was well aware of the continuity of Attic life beyond the catch-phrase of autochthony (1, 3, 5; 2, 36, 1). Because of Wilamowitz, (Gr. Trag. I p. 194Google Scholar; Griech. Lesebuch I 1, p. 134Google Scholar; II 1, p. 92) and Weber, (Rh. Mus. 75, pp. 304 fGoogle Scholar.) it has to be strongly emphasised that the State cult of the fallen (like any other cult of the dead) is unconditionally and essentially bound up with the burial of the body. The decree of 465/4 B.C. arranged for the remains to be brought home, and the trial of the generals in 406 B.C. sufficiently shows that the sentiment of the people was still the same at the end of the century. It is the sentiment of the people which matters in everyday questions of religious belief. Nothing justifies the opinion that (for the people at least) the cult of the dead ‘had become more and more a cult of the soul’ (Wilamowitz), to leave aside the almost incredible crudity of Weber's assertion that ‘der totenkult auch in dem strengen und zäh festgehaltenen zeremoniell des staatsfriedhofs bereits zu beginn des jahrhunderts (my italics) sich so weit vergeistigt haben muss, dass er der hulle des abgeschiedenen zu seinem kultus schon garnicht mehr bedurfte.’ Whatever conceptions may have led to the institution of the cenotaph (not at first, and not only in Athens; cp. n. 11), the in the burial procession certainly did not mean that one intended ‘to bury their souls together with the others.’ At no time did a Greek believe that ‘the soul’ lived in the grave. The grave belongs to the dead, however one imagined his condition there to be (as far as one imagined it at all, which was actually the case only as long as one believed that the dead lived in his grave); ‘the soul,’ since one distinguishes it from the body, never dwells in the tomb. This distinction one may call spiritualisation; but the Athenian epigram , as well as e.g. Euripides, Hiket. 532 fGoogle Scholar. , acknowledges the rights and the importance of the body too. The people is very far from the ‘progressive’ spirit, for which the grave is a secondary consideration, because the memory and the glory of the dead are not attached to the grave (whether full or empty; Odyss. δ 584), but consists in the δόξα and the ἄγραφος μνήμη which are not attached to a certain place. Thus the Thucydidean Perikles may have felt; the people of Athens felt differently: they did not ask for ‘the souls,’ but for the material remains of their dead. To understand the πάτριος νόμος of Athens no great excavations (demanded by Wilamowitz, in 1880, PhU 1, p. 83) are necessary, but at least an elementary knowledge of the religious belief is required.

⁷⁰ Cp. n. 58.

⁷¹ Δραβησκοῦ Lepaulmier βραβίσκου MSS.

⁷² Σωφάνης Sylbur σωφονής MSS.

⁷³ Ἐλεωνίας Boeckh ὲλευσινίας MSS.

₇₄ Hist.-philol. Studien I pp. 69 fGoogle Scholar. He is followed by Wachsmuth, Stadt Athen I pp. 262 fGoogle Scholar.; Hitzig-Bluemner, Pausanias I 1, p. 320Google Scholar; Thalheim, RE VI col. 218Google Scholar; Wenz l.l. pp. 14 f.; Schroeder, O. De Laudibus Athenarum diss Goettingen 1914, pp. 71 ffGoogle Scholar., and others. Krueger naturally referred to other local determinations in the description. I shall not take them up here. The results of a close examination have so far brought no results as to the topography of this suburban area (see n. 12). It is sad, but a fact that there are few sections in Pausanias of a less periegetic character than 1, 29.

⁷⁵ Stadtgesch. pp. 119 f. This, of course, is a ‘leerschluss.’ The true problem is why one brought home the fallen of Drabeskos (or, why one gave them a grave, or, for that matter, a cenotaph in the Kerameikos). The temporal interpretation is accepted by Wilamowitz, Ar. u. Ath. II p. 292 n. 4Google Scholar; Hauvette, Mélanges H. Weil p. 163Google Scholar; Weber, Rh. Mus. 75, pp. 296 ffGoogle Scholar.; Judeich, Topogr.² p. 405Google Scholar n. 2 and others. Their enumeration amounts to little, because they differ among themselves. It is clear at once that both solutions are only seeming: apart from not explaining the contradiction with Thucydides, they do not put the true question at all. The thesis of Krueger is perhaps the weaker, since one asks at once why the dead of Drabeskos were buried ‘ganz vorn,’ and where the older tombs are. Curtius, when speaking of the ‘particularly tragic’ disaster at Drabeskos, had an inkling of the true problem; his thesis is really ingenious and meant a great step forward because it took Pausanias seriously. No doubt, Wilamowitz had it subconsciously in mind when basing his assumption on Pausanias only and treating Thucydides as non-existent, But in fact Curtius' thesis, too, has its own difficulties: where are the graves of the dead not fallen abroad from the time before Drabeskos, or of those fallen abroad and transferred in 465/4 B.C.? If together with the dead of Drabeskos, why does Pausanias not mention the fact? And finally, was such a comprehensive transfer as Curtius assumed practicable?

⁷⁷ It is understandable (though I confess not quite to understand him) that Brueckner (l.l. p. 197) tried to unite both interpretations: Pausanias' statement, although in the first line meant temporality, ought, in view of the arrangement of his description, to be taken also in the local sense. For my part, I have thought for a long time that πρῶτοι is used neither in the local nor in the purely temporal sense, being rather a qualified temporal statement which obtains its limitation out of the context: the first men fallen outside Attica who were buried at home. The often compared passage in Plato's, Menexenos 242Google Scholar would furnish the parallel: . There is no doubt about Plato's meaning: the fallen of Tanagr a and Oinophyta are not the first occupants of the Mnema, they are the first among those who had died fighting with Greeks for the liberty of the Greeks. But what suits the context of Plato, who had the rather difficult task of praising the internal wars as also being fought for liberty, is not suitable for the simple task of Pausanias; and moreover it raises a similar dilemma to the other solutions (n. 76): where are the older graves of men fallen in or near Attica? Now, the independent evidence makes all artificial explanations unnecessary: πρῶτοι is, in fact, purely temporal.

⁷⁸ See n. 12; 74.

⁷⁹ Aristoph., Schol.Aves 395Google Scholar (Equit. 772).

⁸⁰ This is typical for him, and not at all surprising, because he uses Thucydides not as a source for facts, but for rhetorical ornament.

⁸¹ It is a well-known conception that death by thunderbolt made a sacred object of the slain and originally perhaps conferred immortality on them (Rohde, Psyche² I pp. 320 ff.Google Scholar; Usener, Kl. Schr. IV pp. 478 ff.Google Scholar; Cook, Zeus II P. 9Google Scholar). But I do not believe in Weber's explanation (l.l. p. 304 with naïve inferences, as to the time of the catastrophe). He calls it ‘a beautiful and consolatory legend’ which assured the Athenians that their fallen ‘had not become the prey of dogs and vultures.’ Legends are not always consolatory (see e.g. the story of Epizelos at Marathon Herod. 6, 117), and in historic times the troops feel a thunderstorm during he battle to be an unfavourable sign (see e.g. Thuc. 6, 70, 1, interesting because according to his custom he adds the natural explanation of the ἐμπειρότεροι; Xenoph., Hell. 4, 7Google Scholar, 7 ∼ Pausan. 4, 5, 9). At Drabeskos, too, the thunderbolts presumably mean that the gods were hostile to the enterprise, because it was undertaken before its time: . (Schol. Aischin. 2, 31; cp. the more general oracle in the Aeginetan war, Herod. 5, 89; the motif is frequent). The story probably simply expresses the comforting idea tha t the defeat was not the fault of the men who fought the battle, but the mysterious decision of the gods against which no human fortitude can prevail. The idea that ‘man proposes, god disposes’ as a solace for the wounded national honour suits the funeral speech and the funeral epigram. I t has been recognised by Reinhardt (n. 33) as the central thought in the funeral epigram on the dead of Korone a who fell ; and it forms the conclusion of the Chaironeia epigram (; cp. Demosth. 18, 208). See also Pausan. 1, 29, 10; ibd. 11.

⁸² The Thracian enterprise is an Athenian one, even if the ten thousand colonists consisted of Athenians and ξύμμαχοι (Thuc. 1, 100, 3). The second enterprise is curiously misinterpreted by Raubitschek, AJA 44, 1940, p. 59 n. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who thinks of the onian revolt. Of course, it refers to the Ionic migration.

⁸³ Weber l.l. p. 319 considered an Atthis which may well have been the immediate source of Pausanias' main author, but (because of the detail about the strategoi) need not have been the only one. The funeral epigram (ibid. p. 325), if there was any, can also have been used by an Atthidographer, but does not suffice alone. One must not think of the tradition used by the Atthidographers and the learned antiquarians as being quite simple and homogeneous. Pausanias, for instance, seems to agree with Herodotos (9, 75) as to the names of the generals and some details about them; but in the name of the battle he goes with Thucydides (1, 100, 3; 4, 102, 2) against Herodotos and Isokrates, who say ἐν Δάτωι. These and other particulars do not interest us here; I only mention the variants because they, too, show the unsoundness of the general opinion which refers Pausan. 1, 29, 4 to Enneahodoi (see n. 46). It is a pity that we do not know whether the funeral speech mentioned the Φυλλίδος άραί (n. 81) and the earlier defeat.

⁸⁴ I do not think that Thucydides' compels us to distinguish between the introduction of the public burial and that of the funeral speech (op. n. 8); and, of course, the funeral speech (about the agon see n. 99) cannot be earlier than the public burial. Again of course, the prohibition nec de mortui laude nisi in publicis sepulturis nec ab alio, nisi qui publice ad earn rem constitutus esset dici licebat (Cicero, De legg. 2, 65Google Scholar) presupposes the funeral speech; but this and other prohibitions which Cicero dates post aliquanto probably derive from the laws of Demetrios of Phaleron.

⁸⁵ IG ² I 928. I cannot entirely agree with the latest treatment by Kolbe, Herm. 72, 1937, pp. 249 fGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁷ 2, 65. I am speaking here about the work as it has come down to us, and abstain from any hypothesis as to the tendency of the last redaction. The successors of Ed. Schwartz' book (Das Geschichtswerk des Thukydides 1919, p. 137Google Scholar), lacking in discernment, arrived at a theory about Thucydides' attitude towards the policy of Perikles which in my opinion is quite fantastical. In the face of their palpabl e misconstructions it is worth while to remind scholars of the book by Bruns, Ivo (Das literarische Porträt der Griechen Berlin 1896)Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ Theoretically the prooimion or (in a Universal History) the end of a chapter would offer another possibility. But ancient history seldom, if ever, used the prooimion for this purpose. Its main task is to give the reasons for the choice of the subject, discuss its (factual or stylistic) treatment and define the position of the writer towards his predecessors and contemporaries. The reason is almost exclusively the importance of the subject which is usually compared with other subjects—a form of σύγκρισις which even in Theopompos, (FGrHist 115 F 27Google Scholar) need not derive from the technique of the λόγος ἐπιδεικτικός, and in Thucydides (1, 1; 23) certainly did not. The ‘greatness’ of a wa r (cp. also Gomme, Essays 1937, pp. 116 ff.Google Scholar) is usually dependent on its duration, which therefore is a topic of the prooimion. In this respect, too, Thucydides disappoints the expectations of the average reader. Th e wherefore of his peculiarities does not matte r here (it is mostly obvious for the willing reader), but the facts must be emphasised.

⁸⁹ 5, 25–26.

⁹⁰ 1, 23, 1 .

⁹¹ For example 1, 68–78.

⁹² I repeat that I have to discuss neither the question when Thucydides arrived at this conception, nor the modern thesis (cp. n. 87) of a development in his opinion about Perikles and the Athenian Empire. I only wish to emphasise as strongly as possible that these are his conception and his ideas. Considering the time and the purpose of the Funeral Speech, I am even doubtful (or at least I do not venture to maintain with full assurance), whether it was really Perikles who made the speech in 431 B.C. If it was, we shall not doubt that in 431 B.C. he knew what to say as suitably and impressively as in 439 B.C. But from the speech of 431 not one sentence and not one idea is preserved; and what we know of the speech of 439 merely confirms what I regard as a matter of course, that Perikles did not say what Thucydides makes him say. I am not prepared to admit the thesis of Taeger, (Thukydides, 1925)Google Scholar— nor, for that matter, any of the opinions of Finley, J. H. (Thucydides, Cambridge, Mass., 1942)CrossRefGoogle Scholar—either in full or to moderate extent. Incidentally, the importance of the actual funeral speeches for the development of Athenian eloquence seems to me to be over-estimated. The funeral speech is hardly either ‘the’ nor even ‘one of its’ roots, and the year 475 B.C. is surely not, not even ‘in a manner of speaking the natal hour of Athenian eloquence’ (as Wilamowitz, (Gr. Trag. I p. 194Google Scholar has it). On the contrary, it is surprising (though only as long as one has not read the extant speeches and realised how the orator was bound to a traditional form) that tradition yields only a very few names of speakers and almost nothing from their speeches. In the course of a century Perikles in 439 B.C. and Demosthenes in 338 B.C. are the only certain orators, provided one does not believe that the Boule chose the alien Gorgias (Vorsokr. ⁵ 82 [76] B 5–6) to speak at a real funeral (427/6?). Thucydides probably would not have mentioned the custom at all were it not for the belated addition of Perikles' speech; he did not even mention it in the description of the Sicilian catastrophe, and is duly blamed for it by Dionysios, (De Thucydide 18)Google Scholar. We have to conclude that he did not think this official speechifying very important. We cannot date the speech of Archinos (Phot., Bibl. p. 487 b 34Google Scholar; cp. Plato, Menex. 234Google Scholar). Was it for the fallen of Phyle? Demosthenes highly valued the honour of being chosen orator for the dead of Chaironeia (De Cor. 285/8), but did not publish his speech (though one begins again to believe in the authenticity of Or. 60: Sykutris, Herm. 63, 1928, pp. 241 ff.Google Scholar; cp. Wüst, Philipp II, 1935, p. 175Google Scholar). The first certain example of a real funeral speech published by its author is the Epitaphios of Hypereides from the beginning of the time of the Diadochs; and it does not seem accidental that it is mainly a funeral speech on the general.

⁹³ 2, 37, 1.

⁹⁴ 2, 65, 9.

⁹⁵ Everybody knows how utterly different is the presentation of the antecedents of the πόλεμος δεκαετής in the first book of Thucydides from that of the expedition to Sicily, the turning point of the Great War.

⁹⁶ The criticism of Dionys. Hal. De Thucyd. 18 is interesting because it shows that the ancients took exception both to the position of the Funeral Speech and the lack of any later mention of the custom (cp. n. 92). The solution offered by him . is not wrong, but merely superficial. Dionysios did not doubt that the nomos was observed in 431 B.C. The opinion of Wilamowitz, (Criech. Lesebuch II 1, p. 92Google Scholar) in his note on (Thuc. 2, 34, 7) ‘der rat wird die verluste zuweilen für die grosse veranstaltung nicht als hoch genug betrachtet haben’ is open to the gravest doubt; for the fact that it was the Boule which elected the orator (Plato, Menex. 234 BGoogle Scholar; 235 C; Thuc. 2, 34, 6) surely does not justify this assumption. It seems all the more incredible that the Boule could deprive even one of the war dead of a right which was guaranteed by a decree of the people, as the sacrifices had to be offered annually, and the speech embraced all war dead, not those of one year alone. obviously means ‘whenever opportunity presented itself,’ that is, whenever there were .

⁹⁷ There are some cases (not many) where he did. The most illuminating example is the report 1, 139 introducing the first speech of Perikles—a stumbling-block for the interpreters, who do not realise that a conflict between accuracy and artistic necessity is at all possible in Thucydides.

⁹⁸ Aristot. Ath. Pol. 58, 1.

⁹⁹ In my opinion both are wrong. As to the alleged distinction between the public burial and an annual commemorative festival see n. 114. As to the ἀγὼν ἐπιτάφιος, it must be admitted that the attempt of Brueckner (AM 35, pp. 200 ff. cp. Malten RM 38/9, 1923/4, pp. 315 f.; Deubner AF p. 230) to prove its existence in the fifth century from pictorial evidence has failed: the rf. amphora from, the Beazley, KerameikosARV 682Google Scholar, 8 and the white-ground lekythos ibid. 821, 8 do not refer to the ἀγών; see Wenz l.l. 107 ff.; Busolt, Muench. Jahresber. 2, 1925, pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar; Beazley, ‘White Attic Lekythoi’ The William Henry Charlton Mem. Lect. 1937 p. 9Google Scholar (to which P. Jacobsthal directed my attention). But the literary evidence sufficiently confirms what general considerations make probable: the funeral agon at the fresh grave, particularly the agon of the hoplites (see Malten l.l. pp. 304 ff.) is everywhere a very old institution in the cult of the dead, the Dipylon vases bearing evidence for its performance at the private funerals of the Athenian aristocracy. How long the custom lasted we cannot say; but it (or the knowledge of it) may well have been the starting point when in 465/4 B.C. one drew up a programme for an impressive burial of the men killed in war. It was hardly an item of the programme of the Genesia, which was a festival of the dead, not a burial ceremony. The silence of Thucydides, as we now see, does not prove anything, and Euripides' Hiketides are (pace Wilamowitz, Ar. u. Ath. I p. 249 n. 131Google Scholar; cp. Pfuhl, De pompis p. 54 n. 108Google Scholar) really not a ‘tragischer epitaphios’; they represent a heroic burial, not the ceremonial of the πάτριος νόμος (cp. n. 30). The terminus ante for the άγών is furnished by Aristotle (n. 98); the Menexenos moves it up to at least 386 B.C. (the date of the dialogue recently argued by Mathieu, Mél. Glotz 1932, p. 556)Google Scholar. As this excludes an innovation in Lykourgos' time, the evidence of Ephoros, vague as it is (n. 8), remains probable in so far as the funeral speech and the agon were introduced at the same time, vix. 465/4 B.C.

¹⁰⁰ Of course, the funeral and the speech which is part of it are also honours (κοσμεῖν); and the άθλα may include a everything. But the attitude of the orator is sceptical about the value both of the speech (ch. 35) and the grave (ch. 43) and, in fact, neither is ‘profitable’ in the sense of 46, 1.

¹⁰¹ As to the ceremonies, we accidentally hear from Demosthenes De Cor. 288 about the περίδειπνον of the male relatives. The passage is not quite clear because the orator takes the acquaintance with the custom for granted. But the fact that the committee ἐπί τὰς ταφάς, which is elected by the people, is composed of the nearest relatives of the fallen, serves as a further proof for the compromising character of the whole institution. We cannot expect to be informed about al l the particulars of the cult; perhaps the details we have about the cul t of the dead of Plataiai (Thuc. 3, 58, 4; Pausan. 9, 2, 5–6) may help to form an idea of the Athenian cult.

¹⁰² Wilamowitz, in Gl. d. Hell. I p. 307 n. 2Google Scholar; II p. 220 n. 1 has given up this opinion (expressed in a general form by Reinhardt, Herm. 72, 1942, p. 234Google Scholar) which he formerly treated as self-evident. I am afraid that in speaking now of the ‘fehlen aller kultischen zuge’ and the ‘verzicht auf den heroenkult, den Harmodios noch erfuhr’ he not only has overlooked the evidence, but he has misunderstood Thucydides as gravely as the time which introduced the nomos. He actually ascribes to Ephialtes the thinking of Thucydides; and he is very modern in acclaiming the allegedly cultless ceremony as ‘echte und schlichte frömmigkeit.’

¹⁰³ Cp. in the description (34, 4) . Plato, Menex. 249Google Scholar C ; [Demosth.] 60, 37 ; [Lysias] 2, 81 , . The last section of the Epitaphios of Hypereides is lost.

¹⁰⁴ It is sufficient to quote Plato, (Menex. 248 E–249 CGoogle Scholar) . See also [Lysias] 2, 80 and [Demosth.] 60, 32 ff.

¹⁰⁶ As in the first speech of Perikles he eliminated the divine component in favour of his own notion of chance (1, 140, 1).

¹⁰⁶ See n. 126.

¹⁰⁷ Wenz gives a survey of it.

¹⁰⁸ A mention in the Νόμοι literature see n. 63.

¹¹⁰ Backed by Martin, A.Rev. Phil. 10, 1886, p. 25Google Scholar; Wilamowitz, Ar. u. Ath. II 1893, p. 292 n. 4Google Scholar (see also Griech. Lesebuch I 1, p. 135Google Scholar); Mommsen, Feste d. Stadt Athen 1898, pp. 298, 304 ff.Google Scholar; Pfuhl, , De Athen. pompis sacris 1900, pp. 53 ff.Google Scholar; Weber, Solon 1935, pp. 49 f., 113 f.Google Scholar, and many others.

¹¹¹ It seems sufficient to copy Dittenberger's note on IG ² II 1028, as Kirchner, on Syll. ³717Google Scholar did: ‘at illam coniunctionem omnino non in temporis continuitate, sed in caerimoniarum et ludorum similitudine positam esse eo certius mihi persuasum est quia hie omnino sacra neutiquam ex temporum ordine enumerari patet. Neque credibile est duo certamina tam ampla et magnifica quam Theseorum et Epitaphiorum fuisse tituli docent, sine ulla intermissione temporis se excepisse.’

¹¹² Sauppe, GGN 1864, p. 215Google Scholar suggested the Maimakterion; see also Weber, Philol. 84, 1929, p. 36Google Scholar; Busolt-Swoboda, Griech. Staatskunde II 1926, p. 1093Google Scholar; Deubner, AF p. 230Google Scholar.

¹¹³ See p. 1.

¹¹⁴ The attempt to evade this demand by distinguishing between an annual Memorial Day on a fixed calendar date and a Burial Festival variable in its date, because ‘adapted to the respective events of the war,’ and (of course) performed only , that is when there were new war dead (Mommsen, Feste p. 299 f.Google Scholar; Brueckner, AM 35, p. 210Google Scholar; Wenz l.l. pp. 38 ff.; Busolt-Swobods l.l.; Weber, Solon pp. 113 fGoogle Scholar. and others) is an arbitrary hypothesis. It does not seem in agreement with ancient religious thought: if the public burial is meant to introduce the new dead into a community with the war dead who are assembled in the and enjoy a public cult there, it is difficult to see how one could separate the introduction of new heroes from the day on which the old ones were worshipped. In so far, but only in so far, I agree with Pfuhl l.l. p. 53 n. 53: ‘qui fieri potuit ut funera non semper a viris doctis cum Epitaphiis (i.e. the permanent festival) coniungerentur, parum intellego.’

¹¹⁶ 2, 34, 2 ; 34, 4 . There is moreover the consolation of the surviving relatives proper to all Epitaphia, which even in Thucydides fills a whole section of his speech (ch. 44/5); the final exhortation addressed to them to perform the ritual lamentation, each family for its own dead (ch. 46; cp. n. 103); and the περίδειπνον of the male relatives (see n. 101).

¹¹⁷ The σκηνή is not a scaffolding, but a tent—that is, a building without a solid wall (Frickenhaus, RE III A col. 470, 37 ff.Google Scholar) which represents the private house of the mourners. The πρόθεσις lacks its proper sense for the ὀστᾶ; for the πρόθεσις of the body Tzietzschmann, AM 53, 1928, pp. 17 ffGoogle Scholar. has collected the pictorial evidence.

¹¹⁸ Cp. n. 1. One sometimes reads astonishing estimates of the time needed for bringing home the ashes. In fact, a larger expeditionary force (which one should not forget stayed sometimes more than one year and over one and even two winters abroad) was in permanent connexion with Athens by means of dispatch boats. These surely had room, if need were, for the urns.

¹²⁰ See n. 5.

¹²¹ Plutarch dates both the battle (Camill. 19, 5; De Herod. malign. 26 p. 861 F)Google Scholar and the celebration of the victory at the sixth of Boedromion: De glor. Ath. 7 p. 349Google Scholar E ; De Herod, malign. 26 p. 862Google Scholar A . Aelian., VH 2, 25Google Scholar, who has the sixth of Thargelion is muddled. In the second passage of Plutarch Valckenaer has changed Ἑκάτηι to ἕκτηι. I am afraid that πρὸς Ἄγρας is also corrupt; one expects the Agrotera who receives the goat sacrifice vowed by the polemarch: Ariestoph., Equit. 600 c. scholGoogle Scholar; Xenophon, Anab. 3, 2, 12Google Scholar. This is presumably also meant in Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 58, 1Google Scholar, where . The locality was probably the sanctuary of Artemis in Marathon both here and for the of the epheboi (IG ² II 1028 a. 101/0 B.C.). The date of the religious ceremony is of course documentary; it is understandable that “one assigned the battle to the same day. Modern scholars almost unanimously refuse to believe in the Boedromion as the month of the battle (see e.g. Busolt, Gr. Gesch.² II p. 596 n. 4Google Scholar; Beloch, Gr. Gesch. ² II, 2, pp. 55 ff.)Google Scholar. They infer from Herodotos that the battle was fought immediately after the full moon, and from general considerations about the chronology of Mardonios' expedition that it was the full moon either of August 10th or September 9th; they partly admit an earlier date as possible (e.g. Beloch midsummer 489), but not a later one. This calculation is not absolutely certain (for who knows how the Athenian calendar looked in 490/89 B.C.; the sixth Boedromion may have been a day soon after September gth; Keil, Herm. 29, 358Google Scholar calculated that the year 490/89 began on July 14th); but it is probable indeed that the battle was fought one or two months before the traditional date. Then the fact that the sixth is sacred to Artemis would not help much; for it does not explain the month. The festival of the dead on the fifth of Boedromion (together with the sixth as the Artemis day) would furnish a perfect explanation.

¹²² See Cl. Q. 38, 1944, pp. 65 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹²³ This is valid, of course, for the λόγος ἐπιτάφιος, as stated by Demosth. 20, 141 (the interpolation has been eliminated by G. H. Schaefer followed by the Oxoniensis). Later institutions as for instance Λεωνίδαια in Sparta (n. 23) do not contradict.

¹²⁴ See n. 116.

¹²⁵ Aristot., Ath. Pol. 23, 1Google Scholar; 25, 1. We must reject out of hand the suggestion of Wilamowitz, Gr. Trag. I p. 195Google Scholar n. 1 that during the years 475–461 B.C. the orator for the public burial was elected by the Areopagus and not by the Boule.

¹²⁶ IG ² II 1006, 22; 77 (a. 123/1 B.C.); 1008, 16(118/7?); 1009, 4 (116/5); 1011, 10 (106/5); 1028, 20 (101/0); 1029, 1 (94/3); 1030, 9; 19 (?). Cf. 2997; 2998; 3151 (second hal f of the first century B.C.).

¹²⁷ See Cl. Q. 38, 1944, pp. 65 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹²⁸ Mommsen, Feste 298 ff.Google Scholar; Wilamowitz, Ar. u. Ath. II p. 292 n.4Google Scholar; Pfuhl, De Ath. pompis sacris 53f.Google Scholar; Brueckner, AM 35, p. 184Google Scholar (who, p. 186, paraphrases Aristotle's ἐναγίσματα with ‘opfer der Epitaphien für Harmodios, Aristogeiton und die gesamtheit der heroisierten krieger’); Busolt-Swoboda, Staatskunde, Index p. 10Google Scholar; Deubner, AF pp. 230 fGoogle Scholar. and many others. Perhaps later on Wilamowitz, (Gr. Trag. I p. 193Google Scholar; Gr. Lesebuch I 1, p. 135Google Scholar; Gl. d. Hell. I, p. 307 n. 2)Google Scholar deliberately avoided the name Epitaphia. See also Thalheim RE VI col. 219, 60. An article ‘Epitaphia’ is missing in the RE.

¹²⁹ Ath. Pol. 58, 1Google Scholar. He merely mentions the ἀγὼν ἐπιτάφιος, since in his time the λόγος ἐπιτάφιος did not belong among the duties of the polemarch (cp. n. 137). The technical term ἐπιτάφιος λόγος is already used by Plato, Manex. 236 BGoogle Scholar and Demosthenes 20, 141 (n. 127). Thucydides says λέγε ἔπαινον (2, 34, 6; but see 35, 1; 46, 1) and Ephoros λέγειν ἐγκώμια (Diodor. 11, 33, 3); Dionysios (n. 8) alternates between , and .

¹³⁰ See n. 8.

¹³¹ Or. 41, 11. The scholia unfortunately omit the calendar date: ( = Harpokr. Suda s.v.). ( = Lex. rhet. p. 282, 23 Bkr.; Phot. Sud. s.v.). See Herter, RE XVI, 1935, col. 2328 fGoogle Scholar.

¹³² Isaios 2, 46 . Epicurus in his testament (Diog. Laert. 10, 18) who is a good authority for the correct usage of language leaves money .

¹³³ See Hesych. s.v. Γενέσια; s.v. ὡραῑα; Stengel, Opferbräuche pp. 163 ff.Google Scholar; Ziehen, RE XVI 2 col. 2266 f.Google Scholar; Deubner, AF p. 229Google Scholar. Their equation with the Γενέσια and (or) Νεμέσεια (Mommsen, Feste p. 172Google Scholar; Gruppe, Gr. Myth. p. 45Google Scholar n. 12) was rightly rejected by Rohde, Psyche² I p. 236 n. 1Google Scholar. I see no reason to confine them entirely or ‘chiefly’ to the ἡμέραι ἀποφράδες at the end of the month, as Rohde l.l. p. 234 n. 1 and Stengel RE VII col. 1131 do because of [Plutarch, ] Prov. Alex. 8Google Scholar. The sequence in Pollux 3, 102: , does not recommend the restriction.

¹³⁴ The burials of citizen soldiers were less frequent in the fourth century tha n in the fifth; but Domaszewski, Der Staatsfriedhof p. 14Google Scholar is exaggerating. Pausanias gives tombs of the Corinthian war, of Chaironeia, of the Lamian War; there are fewer gaps than in his selection from the fifth-century tombs.

¹³⁵ Pausan. 1, 29, 8 (a. 306/5 B.C. ? cf. I, 26, 3; Domaszewski erroneously talks of mercenaries) (§7; 9). Ibd. 10 (295 B.C.), (287/6 B.C.). Ibd. 13 (280 B.C.).

¹³⁶ We fail to find in Pausanias the dead of the Chremonidean war, while among the single tombs there is the grave of Zenon (who died in the year after the capitulation of Athens under Arrheneides in 262 B.C.; see on FGrHist 244 F 44–45 and Diog. Laert. 7, 11 ) and that of Chrysippos, who died in 208/4 B.C. I do not venture to decide whether this is mere negligence on the part of Pausanias, or whether his main source, the time of which we cannot determine accurately (n. 12), stopped in the 'eighties. It is not at all certain that all single graves were taken from the main source.

¹³⁷ In the time of Aristeides (the Athens of Hadrian ?) it was the polemarch wh o delivered the funeral speech: Menander Π. ἐπιδεικτ. III. 418 Sp. , . If this is correct (and one can hardly doubt it), there has been a change, the time of which cannot be determined with certainty. It is more difficult to decide what to do with Cicero, Orator 151Google Scholar (Plato) in populari oratione qua mos ist in contione eos qui sint in proeliis interfecti, quae sic probata est in earn quotannis, ut scis, illo die recitari necesse sit. This is certainly not an interpolation and hardly an invention (Bake whom Kroll, Ciceronis Orator 1913 p. 135Google Scholar approves is quite mistaken); it might be a confusion with an annual lecture for the epheboi. The lecture may have been established by a clause in the decree assumed above; and it would be a parallel to the alleged use made of the elegies of Tyrtaios in fourth-century Sparta (see Lykourg, . In Leokrat. 107Google Scholar; Philochoros in Athen. XIV 630 F). Else we should have to assume an intermediate stage which supplanted the speech by the lecture, and a revival of the old practice in the time of the new eloquence. Anyhow, Cicero does not say. who the lecturer was, and it is extremely doubtful whether it was the polemarch (Weber, Rh. Mus. 75, p. 295Google Scholar interprets inaccurately what he calls ‘Ciceros unanfechtbares zeugnis’).

¹³⁸ 1,29, 14 . Pausanias interpolated them near the end of his enumeration of polyandria. We do not know (and do not much care) from whom he got them.

¹³⁹ Domaszewski, Der Staatsfriedhof pp. 13 f.Google Scholar, who does not mention the earlier tomb. Ὄμορος may simply mean a war on land and in Greece proper. Was it the Perseus war? Ferguson, Hell. Athens. 1913Google Scholar (who p. 227 n. 3 can ‘make nothing whatever’ of Pausanias' statement) observes p. 271 that no Romans appear in Athenian inscriptions ‘before the outbreak of the third Macedonian war.’ The ships and men which they sent in this war P. Licinio consuli et C. Lucretio praetori were not used in action (Liv. 43, 6, 2); the Atticae naves Liv. 45, 10, 2 are more than doubtful (pace Ferguson pp. 314?.); the MSS. have adticis, and no Athenian ships are mentioned in Liv. 40, 29.

¹⁴⁰ IG ² II 1006, 19 ff. (123/2 B.C.).