¹ Cartledge, Paul, ‘The Silent Women of Thucydides: 2.45.2 re-viewed’, in Rosen, R.M. and Farrell, J. (eds.), Nomodeiktes. Greek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald (Ann Arbor 1993) 125–32Google Scholar at 128.

² See particularly Macleod, Colin, Collected Essays (Oxford 1983) 149–53,Google Scholar emphasizing the bitter echo of σῶμα αὔταρκες (2.41.1) at 2.51.3 (the parallel in Hdt. 1.32.9 was already noted by Kakrides, J.T., Der Thukydideische Epitaphios. Ein stilkritischer Kommentar (Munich 1961) 63)Google Scholar. More recently Brunt, P.A., Studies in Greek History and Thought (Oxford 1993) 159–80,Google Scholar has argued that the pattern of thought in the Epitaphios ‘is too redolent of Thucydides' own ideas and fits too neatly into the economy of his history to be a largely authentic report’ (160).

³ Flashar, H., Der Epitaphios des Perikles (Sitzb. Heidelberg 1969/1961) 33Google Scholar. There is an interesting qualification, ‘möglicherweise unter Verwendung einiger perikleischer Argumentationen’. Flashar cannot quite bring himself to break the link with the historical Pericles; the speech for him is Thucydides' own, as far as content goes, but it is sprinkled with Periclean mannerisms. That essentially seems the position of Loraux, Nicole, The Invention of Athens (Cambridge, Mass. 1986)Google Scholar, esp. 9: ‘transcribed or rather reconstituted, if not actually recomposed, by Thucydides’. But the same shift is evident in a later passage (191): ‘there are many clues to suggest that Pericles did in fact deliver a speech quite similar to the literary epitaphios’.

⁴ See now the lengthy and highly abstract treatment by Prinz, Karl, Epitaphios Logos. Struktur, Funktion und Bedeutung der Bestattungsreden im Athen des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts (Frankfurt 1997)Google Scholar, esp. 94–143. The best example of the generic interpretation of the Epitaphios, as a formative member of a literary genre, is Loraux's subtle study (n.3). Reservations have recently been expressed by Pelling, C.B.R., Greek Tragedy and the Historian (Oxford 1997) 229–32,Google Scholar and Mills, Sophie, Theseus, Tragedy and the Athenian Empire (Oxford 1997) 47–50Google Scholar.

⁵ This has recently been argued by Sicking, C.M.J., ‘The general purport of Pericles' Funeral Oration and last speech’, Hermes 123 (1995) 404–25,Google Scholar viewing the speech as a general answer by Pericles to critics of the war, who might deride the nugatory gains of the first year of the war. I quite agree that he ‘praises the dead not by celebrating their exploits (which would have been problematic anyhow), but rather by celebrating the city they died for’ (413). The argument, however, can be taken much further, and the political events of 431 have many more subtle resonances in the Funeral Oration than Sicking would perhaps admit.

⁶ Thuc. 1.22.1. Whatever view one takes of the nuances of this endlessly discussed passage, there is no doubt about Thucydides' dilemma with the speeches: it was difficult for him and his informants to remember ‘the exact tenor of what was said’ (χαλεπὸν τὴν ἀκρίβειαν αὐτὴν τῶν λεχθέντων διαμνημονεῦσαι). On this celebrated passage, see the recent contributions by Garrity, Thomas F., ‘Thucydides 1.22.1: content and form in the speeches’, AJP 119 (1998) 361–84,Google Scholar and Porciani, Leone, ‘Come si scrivono i discorsi. Su Tucidide I 22, 1 ἂν … μάλιστ' εἰπεῖν’, QS 49 (1999) 103–35Google Scholar. Though the authors approach the text from very different perspectives, they agree that Thucydides' aim is to obtain a close approximation to the speeches as they were actually delivered.

⁷ Hence Brunt's argument (n.2, 159) that the dictum is a ‘slip’ by Thucydides: it ‘would have come ill from Aspasia's lover’. But the statement is not an observation about women in general; it is specifically directed to the families of the deceased, the war widows, and the injunction is to self-control, above all in the funerary context. That is hardly inconsistent with Pericles' relationship to Aspasia, a hetaira not of Athenian birth.

⁸ Lacey, W.K., ‘Thucydides, II, 45, 2’, PCPS n.s. 10 (1964) 47–9;Google ScholarHardwick, Lorna, ‘Philomel and Pericles: silence in the Funeral Speech’, G&R 40 (1993) 147–62Google Scholar.

⁹ So Lys. 2.81; Plat. Menex. 249C; Dem. 40.37. Euripides' Supplices (1114 ff.) also ends with the funeral lament by the mothers and children of the dead (A.M. Bowie, ‘Tragic filters for history’, in Pelling (n.4) 39–62, esp. 51).

¹⁰ Plut. Sol. 21.5–6 (ἀπείργοντα τὸ ἄτακτον), 12.8; [Dem.] 43.62; Cic. De leg. 2.64 (mulierum genas ne radunto). Cf. Plat. Leg. 960a.

¹¹ Such appears to have been the general sentiment. The apocryphal laws of Charondas (Stob. 4.2.24, lines 73–9) clearly echo the Epitaphios, emphasizing that it is better to die honourably for one's country than to live in disgrace and shame (Thuc. 2.43.6). It adds that the dead should be honoured in memory (Thuc. 2.43.3) and through the annual offerings (2.35.1), not by tears and lamentation, ‘for immoderate grief is an affront to the chthonic powers’ (ὡς ἀχαριστίας οὔσης πρὸς δαίμονας χθονίους λύης ὑπὲρ τὸ μέτρον γιγνομένης).

¹² Both authors cite extreme examples of rhetorical exaggeration (Plut. Per. 8.9 = Stesimbrotus, FGrH 107 F 9; Plut. Per. 28.9; De glor. Ath. 350E = Ion, FGrH 392 F 16). The striking metaphor reported by Aristotle (Rhet. 1.1365a 31–3, 3.1411a 2–4) probably comes from this oration. Cf. Weber, L., ‘Perikles' Samische Leichenrede’, Hermes 57 (1922) 375–95;Google ScholarPohlenz, Max, ‘Zu den attischen Reden auf die Gefallenen’, SO 26 (1948) 46–74,CrossRefGoogle Scholar esp. 46–50, 65–6.

¹³ Plut. Per. 29.5. Compare Thuc. 4.121.1, where Brasidas is showered with ribbons by the people of Scione, who approach him as though he were an athlete (on the interpretation, see Hornblower, Simon, A Commentary on Thucydides (Oxford 1991 ) 2.380–5)Google Scholar. The practice is also attested for the Alexander period (Arr. 6.13.3; Ind. 36.3, 42.8—all passages derived from Nearchus).

¹⁴ Plut. Per. 28.6 (cf. Hardwick (n.8) 153–4). Elpinice is in the same camp as Gorgias, who declared in his own Epitaphios that trophies raised over barbarians called for hymns, those over Greeks for dirges (Philostr. VS 1.9 = Gorgias B 5b Diels/Kranz).

¹⁵ Plut. Per. 28.8 = Ion, FGrH 392 F 16. The comparison recurs in the Demosthenaic Epitaphios (Dem. 60.10— the contrast is with the Athenian victories of 490 and 480); by that time Isocrates had made it a virtual commonplace (Isocr. 4.83, 5.111, 9.65).

¹⁶ Hyp. Epitaph, col. 12.

¹⁷ On the events of the so-called Lamian War, see Hammond, N.G.L. and Walbank, F.W., A History of Macedonia (Oxford 1988) 3.109–13;Google ScholarSchmitt, O., Der Lamische Krieg (Bonn 1992),Google Scholar esp. 73–84; Habicht, Chr., Athen (Munich 1995) 47–53Google Scholar. On the patriotic fervour in Athens on the outbreak of this ‘Hellenic’ war, see Ashton, N.G., ‘The Lamian War—stat magni nominis umbra’, JHS 104 (1984) 152–7Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Even Lysias (2.67–8) supplies details about the achievements of the fallen. It is dangerous to characterize Hypereides' Epitaphios as ‘the least conformist’ of the genre (Loraux (n.3) 110), given that so few examples survive. Lysias and Plato's Menexenus, with their imbalance towards the glories of the past, may have been more atypical. As, in fairness, Loraux recognizes, the circumstances of delivery must always have affected the choice and arrangement of material.

¹⁹ Significantly, Thucydides dwells on the permanence of the Athenians in Attica (τὴν γὰρ χώραν οἱ αὐτοὶ αἰεὶ οἰκοῦντες), echoing his description at the very start of his History (1.2.5: ἀστασίαστον οὖσαν ἄνθρωποι ὤικουν οἱ αὐτοὶ αἰεί). The Athenians were uniquely associated with their land (cf. Hornblower (n.13) 1.12–13 for discussion and bibliography), and the burial ceremony restored the dead to the earth from which the people had sprung. It was a highly appropriate theme for a funeral oration.

²⁰ Hyp. Epitaph, col. 2, lines 19 ff. There is an echo in Demosthenes' comparison (Dem. 60.24) of the loss of the fallen with the failure of the light of day, in its turn a somewhat frigid exaggeration of Pericles' celebrated analogy of spring going out of the year (Arist. Rhet. 1.1365a 31–3, 3.1411a 2–4; see above, n.12).

²¹ Sicking (n.5) 406–10 even argues that the captatio benevolentiae at 2.35.2 is directed against Pericles' critics, implying that they were ‘motivated by jealousy and self-interest’. Quite the contrary. The reference to envy actually elevates the dead. Their achievement is such that his hearers might think it beyond belief, or beyond their capacity. The dead (that is, the collective dead over the years) have performed something almost superhuman, and the cohort of 431 belongs in that august company. With superb skill Pericles insinuates that the deeds of the fallen are quite outstanding, consistent with the city's glorious heritage, but he wisely refrains from spelling out what those deeds actually were.

²² 1.73.4–74.4, 6.82.3.

²³ 2.31.2. Later (6.31.2) Thucydides reinforces the point, emphasizing that the armament was larger than the force operating at Poteidaea and the Sicilian expedition itself.

²⁴ Despite the two invasions they suffered each year, the Megarians held out until late 424 before making overtures to Athens. Even then it was pressure from dissident exiles as much as the Athenian devastation of their land that broke their resistance (4.66.1–2).

²⁵ 2.29.7. The alliance was predictably of short duration. It did not prevent Perdiccas sending troops to the polyglot army which invaded Acarnania two summers later, in 429 (2.80.7).

²⁶ IG I³ 1179 = Tod, GHI no. 59: δ' οἱ μὲν ἔχοσι τάΦο μέρος, Ηọ [ι δὲ Φυγόντες] τεῖχος πιστοτάτεν Ηελπίς' ἔθεντο [βί ο].

²⁷ The discomfort emerges even in the most elevated passages of rhetoric. For instance, at 2.43.3, the immortal tribute of memory is paid to the resolution (γνώμη) of the fallen, rather than their actual achievement (ἔργον). There is, I think, no possibility that ἔργον here refers to the physical monument (as suggested by Stahl, Steup and others). Pericles is placing the morale of the fallen above their accomplishment, and it is a clear indication that in 431 their accomplishment was not outstanding. I am grateful to Dr. Leone Porciani for pointing this out to me.

²⁸ 2.42.2: Sicking (n.5) 415 gives a metrical analysis of a short passage of the speech.

²⁹ 2.16.2.

³⁰ It is noteworthy that the decision to evacuate the countryside was made by an assembly dominated by the voters of the central city, and the event probably inspired Xenophon's observation (Oec. 6.6–7) that in the face of an invasion of the countryside the landowners would vote to protect their property, while the urban technitai would refuse to fight for the land and stay within their walls. Cf. Whitehead, David, The Demes of Attica (Princeton 1986) 351Google Scholar n.6, citing Larsen, J.A.O., CPh 44 (1949) 175Google Scholar (‘the policy of Pericles…probably would have been voted down if the assembly had met out in the country and been attended chiefly by farmers’).

³¹ See particularly Pelling, C.B.R., ‘Thucydides' Archidamus and Herodotus' Artabanus’, in Georgica: Greek Studies in Honour of George Cawkwell (BICS Suppl. 58, 1991) 120–42,Google Scholar esp. 126–8; pointing out the irony in Thucydides' presentation of Archidamus' strategy; the Spartan king was entrapped in the very policy he had considered least desirable.

³² Thuc. 2.47.2, 55, 57. The sheer area covered by the Spartans in this, the longest of the invasions, would have undermined Athenian morale. It demonstrated that no area of Attica could be safely left unevacuated.

³³ The effectiveness of the Spartan strategy has come under serious questioning in recent years (see the survey by Foxhall, Lin, ‘Farming and fighting’, in Rich, J. and Shipley, G. (eds.), War and Society in the Greek World (London 1993) 134–45)Google Scholar. In general it may be said that the author of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (17.5 Bartoletti) was right to maintain that Attica suffered relatively little during the invasions of the Archidamian War; however, there were areas of special concentration, like Acharnae, which would have been seriously damaged, and probably suffered further devastation in 427, when land previously ravaged was cleared of any new growth (Thuc. 3.26.3).

³⁴ 2.23.3. Thucydides states that the Athenian subject territory of Oropus was ravaged, and a fortiori Athenian land would have suffered the same fate. There was no time to inflict the systematic devastation that Acharnae had experienced, but farmsteads could be burned and vines, if not uprooted, at least slashed. On the road to Oropus, see Ober, J., Fortress Attica: Defense of the Athenian Land Frontier (Leiden 1985) 112–14Google Scholar.

³⁵ 2.19.2,22.2–3; cf. 3.1. On this strategy of ‘mobile defence’, see Spence, I.G., ‘Perikles and the defence of Attika during the Peloponnesian War’, JHS 110 (1990) 91–109,CrossRefGoogle Scholar esp. 102–4, noting that the plain around Athens was a relatively secure area. That contrasted with the area around Acharnae, where the Peloponnesian army had free range. The light troops who presumably did most of the ravaging (Hanson, V.D., Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece (Pisa 1983) 21–5;Google Scholar Spence 97–102) were not subject to the cavalry harassment that was to prevent their ravaging the city plain in 428 (Thuc. 3.1.2).

³⁶ 2.22.2. The deme location is given by the scholiast.

³⁷ He presumably had property in his home deme of Cholargus, which was located outside the city walls, to the north-east of Mt. Aegaleos (Traill, J.S., The Political Organization of Attica (Hesperia Suppl. 14, Princeton 1975) 47)Google Scholar. That was some 12 km south-east of Athmonon, unlikely to have been affected by the Peloponnesian ravages.

³⁸ Of the invasions of Attica the second, in 430, was the longest, at 40 days (Thuc. 2.57.3), and the last, in 425, was the shortest, at 15 days (Thuc. 4.6.2), drastically curtailed by the Athenian occupation of Pylos. The invasion of 431 lost time at Oenoe, on the borders of Attica, and there is no way of calculating how long the army stayed at Eleusis and Acharnae.

³⁹ 2.37.1. Rhodes, Peter, Thucydides History Il (Warminster 1988) 220,Google Scholar has argued that Pericles' statement is deliberate misrepresentation, since the vast majority of offices were selected by lot, and even offices determined by sortition were denied to the thetic class. But, as he admits, Thucydides (or Pericles) would be guilty of an obvious lie. We should beware of taking the passage as a blanket statement. Thucydides does not state that all the poor are eligible for office, merely that poverty (a relative term) and lack of personal distinction are not barriers to office. Similarly, the man of outstanding ability can have his qualities recognized by election (so Hornblower (n.13) 1.300–1). This is a true enough generalization, the mirror image of which we find in the Old Oligarch ([Xen.] Ath. Pol. 1.3; cf. Loraux (n.3)213).

⁴⁰ See, however, Harris, E.M., ‘Pericles' praise of Athenian democracy: Thucydides 2.37.1’, HSCP 94 (1992) 157–67,Google Scholar esp. 165, where it is maintained that there is no reference to sortition: Pericles simply contrasts democracy and its unrestricted access to office with the exclusiveness of oligarchies (so, already, Loraux (n.3) 175, maintaining that ‘misthophoria and the drawing of lots…are totally ignored in the Epitaphioi’). If so, the passage is somewhat pleonastic, adding little to ἐς πλείονας οἰκεῖν. Nor can we argue from the small sample of Thucydidean parallels that ἀ πὸ μέ ρους cannot mean ‘in rotation’. The phrase does not recur elsewhere in Thucydides, and it is rash to assume that it cannot have a meaning similar to ἐν μέ ρει (8.86.3, 93.2; cf. κατὰ μέ ρος at 3.49.3 and 4.26.4), as it certainly does at Diod. 13.108.1. On my interpretation the passage echoes Theseus' proud boast in Eur. Suppl. 404–8 (cited by de Romilly, Gomme and by Harris himself, who concedes that Thucydides' reference to poverty does not exclude sortition; contra Loraux 215). It is true, as Harris claims, that sortition and rotation are not the same thing. However, the prohibition on iteration, given the large number of political offices in Athens, had much the same effect as sortition: it demanded a large pool of applicants for office.

⁴¹ 2.38.1. The Old Oligarch again provides a significant counterpoint: in the case of sacrifices and games it is not possible for the poor to fund them out of their resources, so the city provides for all, and the poor have the enjoyment of the sacrificial meat; similarly, some few rich individuals have private gymnasia and baths, whereas the demos makes such facilities the preserve of the poor ([Xen.] Ath. Pol. 2.9–10). For this writer, democracy is the great leveller, giving the poor the social advantages of the rich, whereas Pericles insists that the polis allows rich and poor to enjoy their own distinct lifestyles; the poor are not elevated but compensated for their poverty in a way unthinkable in other states. There is a distinctly hedonistic tinge to the passage, which is surely deliberate. The refugees are subtly reminded of the festivals which they had attended and presumably enjoyed—notably the Thargelia and Plynteria, which fell in the period of the invasion (cf. Mikalson, J.K., The Sacred and Civil Calendar of the Athenian Year (Princeton 1975) 151–64)Google Scholar.

⁴² That was indeed cold comfort (as a referee reminds me) for humble folk from remote areas like Anaphlystus or Thoricus, who would rarely, if ever, have the leisure to participate in the public life of central Athens. However, the people most affected by the invasion of 431, and most embittered, came from Acharnae and neighbouring areas north-west of the fortified city. With some effort even the poorest could derive some advantage from the amenities of the centre—and while they were refugees they could (in theory) participate fully in the polity.

⁴³ 2.39.2. That citizen soldiers fight best in defence of their own becomes almost commonplace. Aristotle (NE 3.1116b 15–19) contrasts the cowardly behaviour of the mercenaries in Boeotian service with the heroic resistance of the citizen troops at Coronea (cf. Buckler, J., Philip II and the Sacred War (Leiden 1989) 72)Google Scholar. See also the remarks of Aen.Tact. Praef. 2. In general, Aristotle's view of courage mirrors the sentiments of the Epitaphios, compare NE 3.1117^b8–21 and Thuc. 2.42.4, 43.5–6.

⁴⁴ See Hornblower's note on the matter (1.303–4), quoting Vidal-Naquet, P., The Black Hunter (Baltimore 1986) 89–90:Google Scholar ‘nowhere else is the ideology of non-professionalism pushed so far’. So Hardwick (n.8) 158–9.

⁴⁵ For all its sophistication I cannot accept the main thesis of Rusten, Jeffrey S., ‘Two lives or three? Pericles on the Athenian character (Thucydides 2.40.1–2)’, CQ 35 (1985) 14–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Rusten interprets the triple occurrence of τε as a device to mark off three separate styles of life. However, the first segment seems curiously bald: there is no attempt to enlarge on the striking combination, philosophy without softness, and these three words are the only allusion in the whole speech to speculative contemplation. It is surely better to read the passage as a series of antitheses, marked by the copulatives τε and καί. Φιλοκαλοῦμεν and ΦιλοσοΦοῦμεν mark different and contrasting occupations, both of which involve the whole community, rich and poor alike. The antithesis is continued in the following sentences, which refer first to the financial activity of the community and then to its political involvement; the separate but complementary roles of rich and poor are briefly defined and illustrated.

⁴⁶ For the connection between wealth and the love of beauty, see Xen.Mem. 3.11.9; Cyrop. 1.3.3; Isocr. 1 (ad Demonicum). 10. Note particularly Isocr. 1.27, where the Φιλόκαλος is defined as munificent (μεγαλοπρεπής), as opposed to the exhibitionist (καλλωπιστής). The latter corresponds to the κόμπος λόγου at Thuc. 2.40.2 and 41.2.

⁴⁷ I fail to see how Gomme (2.119–20) can argue that εὐτέλεια has a pejorative force, given the high praise Alcibiades (and presumably Thucydides) showers upon the economies which the Athenians imposed after 413 (Thuc. 8.86.8; cf. 8.1.3).

⁴⁸ Ar. Eccl. 571: νῦν δὴ δεῖ σε πυκνὴν Φρένα καὶ ϕιλόσοϕον ἐλείρειν ϕροντίς' ἐπισταμένην As Ussher points out in his commentary ad loc., the demand is not for ‘a harangue on philosophy, political or other (and they do not get it): the words merely mean “a bright idea”’.

⁴⁹ Ar. Ach. 32–3; cf. 302. There are also references to long-term refugees in later plays: Eq. 805–7, 1394–5; Pax 551–2, 562–3, 569–70. Cf. Edmunds, Lowell, ‘Aristophanes' “Acharnians”’, YCS 26 (1980) 1–41,Google Scholar esp. 26–32.

⁵⁰ Dicaeopolis would have been looking north-north-east, outwards over the bema. On the alignment of the Pnyx in the fifth century, see Thompson, H. A., ‘The Pnyx in models’, Hesperia Suppl. 19 (1982) 133–47,CrossRefGoogle Scholar esp. 134–6; Hansen, M. H., The Athenian Assembly in the Age of Demosthenes (Oxford 1987) 12, 131Google Scholar.

⁵¹ I take καὶ ἑτέροις at 2.40.2 to refer to a subsection of the Athenian demos; in the case of the rich, attention to public and personal affairs can be combined in the same individuals (ἔνι τε τοῖς αὐτοῖς οἰκείων ἅυα καὶ πολιτκῶν ἐπιμέλεια), while the rest have necessarily to concentrate on day to day labour, which does not prevent their acquiring some knowledge of public affairs καὶ ἑτέροις πρὸς ἔργα τετραμμένοις τὰ πολιτικὰ μὴ ἐνδεῶς γνῶναι—even if they are not directly involved in office. There is definitely no need for emendation (such as Richards' ἑτέροιδ ἕτερα), which destroys the contrast between the politically active and the rest of the population (so Rusten (n.45) 18; Hornblower (n.13) 1.305; contra Gomme 2.121).

⁵² 2.13.3–9 (indirect speech); cf. 62.1.

⁵³ 2.40.2–3. The message is progressively reinforced at 2.42.4 and 43.4–6, where Thucydides moves from encomium of the dead to exhortation of the survivors.

⁵⁴ Strasburger, H., ‘Thukydides und die politische Selbstdarstellung der Athener’, in Herter, H. (ed.), Thukydides (Darmstadt 1968) 498–530,Google Scholar esp. 517–19 = Schmitthenner, W. and Zoepffel, R. (eds.), Studien zur Alten Geschichte (Hildesheim 1982) 2.676–708,Google Scholar esp. 695–7.

⁵⁵ So Stahl, H.-R., Thukydides. Die Stellung des Menschen im geschichtlichen Prozeß (Munich 1966) 53:Google Scholar ‘Der Autor darf von seinem Leser erwarten, daß er diesen Fall nicht vergessen hat.’

⁵⁶ Thuc. 1.44.1; cf. 1.40.2–3. The Corcyreans attempt to anticipate and counter the threat (1.36.1), but their arguments are weak, inviting the Athenians to place their fears of an indefinite, general war above the immediate danger of a clash with Corinth (contrast the Corinthian riposte at 1.42.2).

⁵⁷ 1.32.1, 33.1–2. The later speech of Euphemus addresses the phenomenon from a different perspective: the islands of the west are left as free allies precisely because they are vulnerable to attack from the Peloponnese (6.85.2). Similarly, the cities of Sicily can rely on keeping their autonomy, because it is in Athens' interest that they remain so.

⁵⁸ The term recurs in the same sense in Archidamus' speech in Sparta: 1.84.3 (quoted below, n.67), 84.6 ἐν τοῖς ἀναγκαιοτάτοις παιδεύεται). It is taken up by Pericles at 2.39.1, where the hallmark of Spartan παιδείαis said to be ‘painful training’. These are the only instances of παιδεία and παίςευσις in Thucydides, and the passages are clearly contrived to mirror each other. Elsewhere Thucydides uses ἀπαιδευσία once, in the mouth of Diodotus, in the sense of indiscipline, the characteristic of unreasoning anger (3.42.1)—so in the spurious interpolation at 3.84.2 (ἀπαιδυσίαι ὀργῆς).

⁵⁹ 2.42.4. This difficult passage has been variously interpreted (see particularly Rusten, J.S., ‘Structure, style and sense in interpreting Thucydides: the soldier's choice (Thucydides 2.42.4)’, HSCP 90 (1986) 49–76)Google Scholar. The variations make little difference to the sense. What seems clear is that in antiquity the passage was understood with the verb ἀπαλλάγησαν used absolutely, and the two genitives were taken with the preceding dative (ἅμα ἀκμῆι τῆς δόξης μᾶλλον ἢ τοῦ δέους). So Arr. Anab. 7.16.7; Dio 66.18.5. Otherwise the phrasing seems to imply that the dead were quit of their glory rather than their fear, i.e. died sordidly and in fear (see the shifts to which Gomme's interpretation takes him, and also the recent essay by Alfageme, I. R., ‘Thucydides II 42,4: the soldiers as a paradigm of the democratic ARETH’, in Criscuolo, U. and Maisano, R. (eds.), Synodia: studia humanitatis Antonio Garzya…dedicata (Naples 1997) 37–52)Google Scholar. I would translate the sentence roughly thus: ‘in the most transitory moment of fortune, at the height of glory not of fear, they took their departure’.

⁶⁰ Euhemerus represented Zeus himself as originally a mortal, who established himself as a god through world conquest and euergetism. The key texts are Diod. 6.1.10 (T 61 Winiarczyk) and Lactant. Div. inst. 1.22.22 (T 64A Winiarczyk). See now Bosworth, , ‘Augustus, the Res Gestae and Hellenistic theories of apotheosis’, JRS 89 (1999) 1–18,Google Scholar esp. 10–12.

⁶¹ Plut. Per.8.9 = Stesimbrotus, FGrH 107 F 9: ἀθανάτους ἔλεγε γεγονέναι καθάπερ τοὺς θεούς' οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐκείνους αὐτοὺς ὁρῶμεν, ἀλλὰ ταῖς τιμαῖς ἃς ἔχουσι καὶ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ἃπαρέ χουσιν ἀθανάτους εἶναι τεκμαιρόμεθα' ταὔτ' οὖν ὑπάρχειν καὶ τοῖς ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος ἀποθανοοσιν.

⁶² Simonides F 26 = PMG 531; IGI ³ 1179 = Tod, GHI no. 59: the epigram begins with an emphatic ἀθάνατομ, alluding to the perpetuity of the memorial.

⁶³ Planud. ad Hermogen. 5.548 = Gorgias B6 (Diels/Kranz): memory remains immortal despite the mortal bodies of the fallen.

⁶⁴ Felix Jacoby drew attention to the Genesia, a festival of the dead apparently unique to Attica, which was held on 5 Boedromion (late August) and suggested that the burial of the fallen took place then (‘Patrios nomos: state burial in Athens and the public ceremony in the Kerameikos’, JHS 64 (1944) 37–66,CrossRefGoogle Scholar esp. 59–64 = Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtschreibung (Leiden 1956) 260–315)Google Scholar. The suggestion is implausible, for the date is too early in the year; one would expect hostilities to continue and the count of the dead to be incomplete at that point. The funeral ceremony is best left in winter, where Thucydides (2.34.1) places it. But there is probably an emotional linkage. The city first paid homage to the dead collectively, and then, a few months later, honoured the new contingent of the fallen.

⁶⁵ 2.43.6: ὁ μετά ῥώμης καὶ κοινῆς ἐλπίος ἂμα γιγνόμενος ἀναίσθητος θάνατος. The best commentary on ἀναίσθητος θάνατος is Arist. De resp. 479a21, where it is applied to death from old age without pain or sickness.

⁶⁶ This is well analysed by Pelling (n.31) 122–30, with a useful footnote (n.7) on the historicity of the speech.

⁶⁷ 1.84.3: ἀμαθέστερον τῶν νόμων τῆς ὐπεροψίας παιδευόμενοι καὶ ξὺν χαλεπότητι σωϕρονέστερον ἢ ὥστε αὐτῶν ἀνηκουστεῖν. The echo of 2.37.3 is palpable, and one thinks forward to such passages as 2.39.4 and 41.1, where Pericles commends the Athenian preparation for war and represents the entire city as the educative force of Hellas (see above, n.58).

⁶⁸ Both regard their citizens as unique (μόνοι), Archidamus for their σωϕροσύνη, which gives them stability in war (1.84.2), Pericles for their self-reliance based on ἐ λε υθε ρί α (2.40.5). For Archidamus (84.3) Spartan εὐψυχία is based on discipline and restraint; for Pericles (43.4) it is the product of freedom and felicity.