¹ All translations are my own.

² Hellenica 5.4.1: πολλα νεν ονμ ονμ αμ τισ εξοι και αλλα λεμειμ εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και απελενøεþοσ ελενεπ[ο]/ καιμαþοσ ιμα οπικια λαβ[πα.

³ Tuplin, Christopher (The Failings of Empire: A Reading of Xenophon Hellenica 2.3.11-7.5.27 [Historia Einzelschriften 76; Stuttgart: Steiner, 1993] 215Google Scholar ) appends a list, with cross references to Xenophon's other works, of the incidents of divine intervention in the Hellenica. Tuplin's list is superior to that of Marta Sordi ( “I caratteri dell'opera storiografica di Senofonte nelle Elleniche,” Athenaeum 29 [1951] at 337 n. 1)Google Scholar , who makes no distinction between statements that Xenophon makes himself and those that he attributes to historical characters.

⁴ See especially Higgins, William E., Xenophon the Athenian: The Problem of the Individual and the Society of the Polis (Albany: SUNY Press, 1977) 119–20Google Scholar ; and Riedinger, Jean-Claude, ttude sur les Helleniques: Xenophon et I'histoire (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1991) 250–51Google Scholar . Dietzfelbinger, Rudolf (“Religiose Kategorien in Xenophons Geschichtsverstandnis,” Wurzburger Jahrbiicher fur die Altertumswissenschaft 18 [1992] 133–45Google Scholar esp. 138-40) and Dillery, John (Xenophon and the History of His Times [London and New York: Routledge, 1995] 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar ) argue that Xenophon uses divine intervention to explain the otherwise inexplicable on certain occasions, but not, it should be noted, in Hellenica 5.4.1.

⁵ Note Xenophon's introduction of this statement with the particle combination ννμ με ννμ (“now, at any rate”), which strongly suggests that he does know of a certain number of other examples, but restricts himself here.

⁶ , Tuplin, Failings of Empire, 215.Google Scholar

⁷ See, e.g., Grayson, C. H., “Did Xenophon Intend to Write History?” in Levick, Barbara, ed., The Ancient Historian and His Materials (Westmead: Gregg International, 1975) 31–43Google Scholar ; , Higgins, Xenophon the Athenian, 99–127Google Scholar ; Gray, Vivienne, The Character of Xenophon's Hellenica (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989)Google Scholar ; Krentz, Peter, Xenophon: Hellenika I-11.3.10 (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1989) 7–9Google Scholar ; , Tuplin, Failings of EmpireGoogle Scholar ; , Dillery, Xenophon and the History of his TimesGoogle Scholar; and Krentz, Peter, Xenophon: Hellenika 11.3.11-1V.2.8 (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1995) 3–8Google Scholar.

⁸ , Tuplin, Failings of Empire, 99.Google Scholar

⁹ Cf., e.g. , Dover, Kenneth J., Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1974) 247Google Scholar : “It was possible to offend gods directly and immediately, e.g., by desecration of their sanctuaries, by violation of what were believed to be the divinely ordained rules of their cults and festivals (cf. Ar. Thesm. 672ff.), by omitting to perform a customary rite, or by breaking a vow.” Cohen, David (Law, Sexuality, and Society: The Enforcement of Morals in Classical Athens [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991] 203–17)CrossRefGoogle Scholar observes that the very vagueness of the term doegtia and its cognates allows considerable latitude in both ordinary and legal usage.

¹⁰ For the distinction between αμομιοσ and αμομιοσ, see , Tuplin, Failings of Empire, 100Google Scholar n.39: “…the latter specifically concerns sins directly against divine observance or against the ‘persons’ of the gods (Cyr. 8.8.7; Hell. 2.3.53; Anab.2.5.20), whereas the former relates to crimes of which the gods disapprove but which are not primarily committed against them. (Such crimes will be worse than mere αμομιοσ, however: cf. Hell. 1.7.19; 4.1.33; 7.3.6).” See also Burkert, Walter, Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical (Oxford: Blackwell, 1985) 269-70 and 274Google Scholar.

¹¹ Hellenica 5.1.30-36.

¹² For the divine protection extended to oaths, see , Dover, Greek Popular Morality, 248–50Google Scholar ; Mikalson, Jon D., Athenian Popular Religion (Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1983) 31–38Google Scholar ; and Parker, Robert, Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983) 186–88Google Scholar.

¹³ Hirsch, Steven W. (The Friendship of the Barbarians: Xenophon and the Persian Empire [Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 1985] esp. 18–38Google Scholar ) explains the centrality of treachery and faithlessness in the Anabasis by Xenophon's exposure to Persia and the Zoroastrian ethical code; one could perhaps extend this conclusion to Xenophon's other works.

¹⁴ On the significance of oath-breaking for Xenophon, see , Dillery, Xenophon and the History of His Times, esp. 24, 184Google Scholar , 188, and 217.

¹⁵ , XenophonHellenica 4.4.2, 6Google Scholar . For Athenian unwillingness to execute condemned criminals during a festival, see , Plato, Phaed. 58a-cGoogle Scholar . Plutarch uses the same term as , Xenophon, “most unholy”Google Scholar (αμομιοσ), to denounce the execution of Phocion during a festival (Phoc. 37.2).

¹⁶ Ibid. 4.4.2. Xenophon appears more convinced than other historians that the choice of a festival day for assassination constitutes impiety. Herodotus (5.56) and the author of the Aristotelian Constitution of the Athenians (18.3) mention without comment that Hipparchus was assassinated during the Panathenaea; Thucydides remarks specifically upon the practical convenience of planning an assassination for this occasion (6.56.2). In a similar vein, Aeneas Tacticus somewhat pragmatically comments that festivals present the ideal opportunity for a revolution (22.17); on at least one occasion, this advice is even offered by a god (Thucydides 1.126.4). The drinking song in honor of Harmodius and Aristogeiton praises them for slaying the tyrant during the sacrifices to Athena ( Page, Denys L., ed., Poetae Melici Graeci [Oxford: Clarendon, 1962] 895)Google Scholar . As , Parker (Miasma, 160Google Scholar ) judiciously remarks, however, “if political developments had been different, of course, more might have been heard of how the accursed pair ‘polluted the hieromenia.’”

¹⁷ See, e.g..Herodotus 1.157-60; 5.71,6.75-81; and 6.91; Thucydides 1.126; 1.128; 1.134, and 3.81.5. Note that these passages reveal that this offense includes the killing of suppliants even after their removal (whether voluntary or forcible) from a sanctuary in which they have invoked the protection of a deity; see Gould, John, “Hiketeia,” JHS 93 (1973) 82–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ Immediately preceding this episode, Xenophon comments upon Agesilaus's pious behavior after the Battle of Coronea. Upon learning that about eighty of the enemy had taken refuge in the temple of Athena, Agesilaus, although wounded, did not forget his duty toward the goddess, but gave strict orders that no one was to harm them (4.3.20); in Agesilaus 2.13, Xenophon adds that he even provided his own escort of cavalry to convey these suppliants to safety.

¹⁹ For an examination of Xenophon's use of the divine as a historical agent, see , Dillery, Xenophon and the History of His Times, esp. 179–94Google Scholar . For criticism of his use of the divine, see Cawkwell, George L., introduction and notes to Xenophon: A History of my Times (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979) 45Google Scholar ; Cartledge, Paul, Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987) 65Google Scholar ; and , Krentz, Xenophon: Hellenika IU.ll-IV.2.8, 9Google Scholar.

²⁰ , XenophonHellenica 4.4.5.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid. 4.4.11.

²² Throughout the Hellenica, Xenophon appears not to be concerned with one particular deity (or deities) so much as with “the divine” as an abstract force that reinforces human moral conduct. As Riedinger (Étude sur les Helleniques, 250 n. 4) observes, “l'agent surnaturel” goes by different names, including αμομιοσαμομιοσαμομιοσ, and αμομιοσ. Herodotus's practice is similar; see the (still important) discussion of Linforth, Ivan M., “Named and Unnamed Gods in Herodotus,” University of California Publications in Classical Philology 9 (1928) 201–43Google Scholar.

²³ , XenophonHellenica 4.4.12.Google Scholar

²⁴ εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και απελενøεþοσ ελενεπ[ο]/ καιμαþοσ ιμα οπικια λαβ[πν.

²⁵ Gray, Vivienne (Character of Xenophon's Hellenica, 154–57)Google Scholar discusses the literary techniques Xenophon employs in this episode to highlight the link between crime and divine punishment.

²⁶ As Riedinger hints (Étude sur les Helléniques, 252 n. 3).

²⁷ , XenophonCyr. 1.6.1–6.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ibid. 1.6.44-46; compare idemEq. Mag. 9.7-9. As observes, Bodil Due (The Cyropaedia: Xenophon's Aims and Methods [Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1989] 92–4)Google Scholar , Cyrus exemplifies the piety of a good leader throughout the rest of the work.

²⁹ The corollary, that continued success is the mark of piety, also holds true; see , Dillery, Xenophon and the History of His Times, 188–90.Google Scholar

³⁰ , XenophonHellenica 6.3.18–19.Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid. 6.4.2. For the interconnection throughout the Hellenica of good behavior towards both the gods and human beings, see , Dietzfelbinger, “Religiose Kategorien,” esp. 136–38, and 143.Google Scholar

³² Ibid. 6.4.3. , Tuplin (Failings of Empire, 134Google Scholar ) notes that the word νσν signifies the responsibility of the divine for the disaster at Leuctra.

³³ , XenophonHellenica 6.4.7–8Google Scholar

³⁴ See, most recently , , Tuplin, Failings of Empire, esp. 125–40Google Scholar , and , Dillery, Xenophon and the History of His Times, esp. 221–37Google Scholar , with , Dietzfelbinger, “Religiose Kategorien,” esp. 141Google Scholar.

³⁵ , XenophonHellenica 3.4.11Google Scholar . Cf. the similar sentiment voiced by Xenophon to encourage the Greek troops in An. 3.1.21-22.

³⁶ , XenophonHellenica 3.4.21–24.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibid. 3.4.25.

³⁸ Xenophon's narrative of this campaign in the Agesilaus is very similar (1.13-35), but, because this work takes the form of an encomium, he is able to contrast more explicitly the perjury of Tissaphernes with the trustworthiness of Agesilaus (1.12).

³⁹ , XenophonHellenica 5.4.8.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid. 5.4.11.

⁴¹ Ibid. 5.4.12.

⁴² Ibid. 5.4.14.

⁴³ Ibid. 7.4.36.

⁴⁴ Ibid. 7.4.37.

⁴⁵ Ibid. 7.4.39.

⁴⁶ Ibid. 7.5.1-27 . , Tuplin, Failings of Empire, 155–57Google Scholar . Breitenbach, Hans R. (“Xenophon von Athen,” PW 9A2 [1967] 1698Google Scholar ) draws attention to the unusual concentration of references to the divine in the Mantinea campaign ; Westlake, Henry D. (“Xenophon and Epaminondas,” GRBS 16 [1975] 23–40Google Scholar ) oversimplifies the matter by attributing Xenophon's insistence upon divine intervention in this episode to his prejudice against Epaminondas.

⁴⁷ , XenophonHellenica 2.3.51.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Ibid. 2.3.52.

⁴⁹ Ibid. 2.3.53 κεομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και απελενøεþοσ ελενεπ[ο]/ καιμαþοσ ιμα οπικια λαβ[πι

⁵⁰ Delebecque, Edouard (Essai sur la vie de Xenophon [Paris: Klincksieck, 1957] 57; cf. 69–73Google Scholar ) argues that Xenophon puts his criticism of the Thirty into Theramenes' mouth in order to pander to the restored democracy, without having to play false to his own political sentiments. For a refutation of this argument, see Henry, William P., Greek Historical Writing: A Historiographical Essay Based on Xenophon's Hellenica (Chicago: Argonaut, 1966) 74–81Google Scholar . Note also that Xenophon uses third-party condemnation in other, less politically sensitive, sections of the Hellenica.

⁵¹ , XenophonHellenica 2.3.55–56.Google Scholar

⁵² Similar expressions of concern for appropriate subject matter occur at Hellenica 4.8.1, 5.1.4, and7.2.1; see Rahn, Peter J., “Xenophon's Developing Historiography,” TAPA 102 (1971) 497–508Google Scholar , esp. 498-99 , Rahn's arguments are more convincing than those of Tuplin (Failings of Empire, 36–40)Google Scholar , who argues that these passages offer no clear indication of a positive historiographical program, and , Krentz (Xenophon: Hellenika II.3.11-IV.2.8, 139)Google Scholar , who views the comment in Hellenica 2.3.56 as a rhetorical flourish only.

⁵³ , XenophonHellenica 2.4.3.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Ibid. 2.4.14.

⁵⁵ Ibid. 2.4.18.

⁵⁶ Ibid. 2.4.19. Note that Xenophon uses the same verb (d'yco) to indicate divine agency in the case of the Spartans before Leuctra (Hellenica 6.4.3).

⁵⁷ , Krentz (Xenophon: Hellenika 11.3.11-IV.2.28, 144Google Scholar ) suggests that Xenophon leaves the seer unnamed in order to emphasize the role of the divine in this episode, which confirms Thrasybulus's claim that the gods are on his side.

⁵⁸ , XenophonHellenica 2.4.20–22.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ For the relationship between Cleocritus's speech and those of Thrasybulus in Xenophon's narrative of the Thirty, see , Gray, Character of Xenophon's Hellenica, 99–106Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ , Dillery (Xenophon and the History ofHis Times, 146–63)Google Scholar and , Krentz (Xenophon: Hellenika 11.3.1 l-IV.2.28, 122Google Scholar ) emphasize the paradigmatic function of Xenophon's treatment of the Thirty as rulers who fail, but do not sufficiently take into account his disapproval of their impiety.

⁶¹ , XenophonAgesilaus 11.1Google Scholar “He used no force against suppliants of the gods, not even enemies, believing it to be unreasonable to call those who steal from sanctuaries temple robbers, but to consider pious those wh o drag suppliants fro m altars” (εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και απελενøεþοσ ελενεπ[ο]/ καιμαþοσ ιμα οπικια λαβ[πι).

⁶² , XenophonHellenica 4.4.5.Google Scholar

⁶³ See , Krentz (Xenophon: Hellenika 11.3.1 l-IV.2.8, 138)Google Scholar : “Agesilaos's behavior is at least questionable and its juxtaposition to the disaster of the mora at Lechaion deserves notice.”

⁶⁴ It should perhaps be noted that Agesilaos also at this time treats contemptuously (εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και) some Boeotian ambassadors (Hellenica 4.5.6); see , Tuplin, Failings of Empire, 71–72.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ , XenophonHellenica 4.5.7.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Ibid. 4.5.7,10,18-19. For the way in which Xenophon creates suspense by unfolding the details of the terrible disaster gradually, see , Gray, Character of Xenophon's Hellenica, 157–63Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ , XenophonHellenica 4.5.19.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Ibid. 7.2.1-7.3.1, esp. 7.3.1.

⁶⁹ See Legon, Ronald P., “Phliasian Politics and Policy in the Early Fourth Century B.C.,” Historia 16 (1967) 324–37, esp. 335-37.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ , XenophonHellenica 7.2.5–9.Google Scholar

⁷¹ , Dillery (Xenophon and the History of His Times, 132–33)Google Scholar draws attention to the similarity between this scene and that between Hector and Andromache in the Iliad, where the same mixture of joy with tears occurs ( , HomerIliad 6.484)Google Scholar.

⁷² , XenophonHellenica 4.4.2–3.Google Scholar

⁷³ Ibid. 5.2.29.

⁷⁴ Ibid. 1.4.12. As Bodil Due remarks ( “The Return of Alcibiades in Xenophon's Hellenica,” Classica et Mediaevalia 42 [1991] 39–53)Google Scholar (42): “For a man who had been accused of a serious religious offence and condemned to death in absentia, it was, to say the least, not a clever thing simply to forget a religious feast of great importance, thus suggesting a lack of care for the festival.” Nagy, Blaise (“‘Alcibiades’ Second ‘Profanation’,” Historia 43 [1994] 275–85)Google Scholar implausibly suggests that, unbeknownst to Alcibiades, his supporters, and the crowd gathered at the Piraeus, Alcibiades' enemies postponed the celebration of the Plynteria to coincide with his return to Athens.

⁷⁵ , XenophonHellenica 1.4.14.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Ibid. 1.4.20.

⁷⁷ Ibid. 1.5.16-17 . , Krentz (Xenophon: Hellenika 1-113.10, esp. 91, 92, and 99)Google Scholar , believes that Xenophon's view of Alcibiades in the Hellenica is wholly favorable; Xenophon, however, like Thucydides, takes an ambiguous view of Alcibiades, as Due (“The Return of Alcibiades,” 39-53) demonstrates.

⁷⁸ , XenophonHellenica 1.6.35, 1.7.5-6, 17–18Google Scholar . Both living and dead (who would then be deprived of the proper funeral rites); compare Andrewes, Antony, “The Arginousai Trial,” Phoenix 28 (1974) 112–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar , esp. 115-16.

⁷⁹ , XenophonHellenica 1.7.4Google Scholar . Not necessarily resorting to the “Big Lie,” as Buck, Robert J. claims (“On the Character of Theramenes,” Ancient History Bulletin 9 [1995], 14–24Google Scholar , esp. 20).

⁸⁰ , XenophonHellenica 1.7.6–10.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Ibid. 1.7.15. On the prominence that Xenophon accords to Socrates in this scene, see , Henry, Greek Historical Writing, 194–200Google Scholar.

⁸² , XenophonHellenica 1.7.16–33.Google Scholar

⁸³ Ibid. 1.7.19, 25, and 33.

⁸⁴ argues, Bodil Due (“The Trial of the Generals in Xenophon's Hellenica,” Classica et Mediaevalia 34 [1983] 33–44)Google Scholar , that Euryptolemus is presented as a manipulative demagogue. Although caution is necessary in assigning views expressed in speeches to Xenophon himself (See , Dietzfelbinger, “Religiose Kategorien,” 136–37)Google Scholar , the fact that Euryptolemus elaborates upon Socrates's views indicates that Xenophon endorses the sentiments he expresses.

⁸⁵ , XenophonHellenica 1.7.35.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ On the paradigmatic importance of this episode, see , Krentz, Xenophon: Hellenika I-11.3.10, 158–59Google Scholar (who does not, however, take sufficient note of the impiety committed by the Theramenes faction). Lang's, Mabel (“Theramenes and Arginusai,” Hermes 120 [1992] 267–79)Google Scholar recent attribution of the “peculiarities of Xenophon's account” to a whitewashing of the Athenian demos' collective guilt is puzzling; as an oligarch and a member of Socrates' circle, Xenophon is unlikely to have fallen victim to a revisionist version of this kind.

⁸⁷ , XenophonHellenica 7.1.27.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Ibid. 3.1.17-18; 4.8.35-39. Conversely, those who are properly attentive to the results of sacrifices are successful, e.g., Dercylidas (3.1.17-19), Agesilaus (3.4.15); compare An. 6.4.12-6.5.52. On the role of sacrifice during military campaigns, see Jameson, Michael H., “Sacrifice before Battle,” in Hanson, Victor Davis, ed., Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience (London: Routledge, 1991) 197–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar . Pritchett, W. Kendrick (The Greek State at War [5 vols.; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971-1991])Google Scholar provides lists of the prebattle sacrifices (1. 114) and the εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και, the sacrifices preceeding the crossing of a border (1. 113 and 3. 70-71), contained in the Hellenica. Most of the pre-battle sacrifices and all of the εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και are performed by Spartans ; , Pritchett (The Greek State at War, 1. 113Google Scholar ) suggests that the εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και is peculiar to the Spartans. Thus, Xenophon's choice of Spartans as the examples of proper respect toward religious ritual is probably due not so much to Xenophon's alleged pro-Spartan bias as to the fact that the Spartans were particularly conscientious in their observance of religious scruples (see Holladay, A. J. and Goodman, Martin D., “Religious Scruples in Ancient Warfare,” Classical Quarterly 36 n.s. [1986] 151–71Google Scholar , esp. 152-60; and Parker, Robert, “Spartan Religion,” in Powell, Anton, ed., Classical Sparta: Techniques Behind Her Success [London: Routledge, 1989] 142–72)Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ , XenophonHellenica 3.2.22–24.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ To achieve success in the Hellenica, it is necessary to obey the wishes of the gods as indicated not only by the results of sacrifices, bu t also by natural phenomena; see, e.g., Agesipolis's proper behavior while on campaign against Argos (4.7.2-7; cf. Cyr. 1.6.1-6 and 46; Eq. mag. 9.8-9).

⁹¹ , XenophonHellenica 4.2.18.Google Scholar

⁹² Ibid. 4.7.2-3, and 7. Cf. 4.7.3: …εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και (“he caused much consternation and terror both in the country and in the city”); 4.7.7: …εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και, εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και (“he led away his army and disbanded it, having caused much harm to the Argives, inasmuch as he invaded them unexpectedly”). Compare 5.1.29 and 5.3.27.

⁹³ Ibid. 5.2.2-5.

⁹⁴ Ibid. 4.4.15.

⁹⁵ There are numerous examples in Greek literature of divine anger striking down those guilty of harming temple buildings; see , Parker, Miasma, 168Google Scholar n. 133. Note also that the first item for which Xenophon praises Agesilaus in the summary of his virtues at the end of the Agesilaus is his reverent treatment even of enemy sanctuaries (Ag. 11.1).

⁹⁶ , XenophonHellenica 7.4.30.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Ibid. 7.4.30-31.

⁹⁸ Ibid. 7.4.32.

⁹⁹ …εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και.

¹⁰⁰ , Gray (Character of Xenophon's Hellenica, 211 n. 8) argues that the gods put a limit on the Eleans' success when they push the fight into the sanctuary itself; but, while the concept of divine limit upon human success appears elsewhere in the Hellenica (e.g., 7.5.13), it is not present in this passage. BothGoogle Scholar, Riedinger (Éude sur les Helleniques, 251 n. 3)Google Scholar and , Dietzfelbinger (“Religiose Kategorien,” 139–40)Google Scholar argue that Xenophon provides two possibilities to explain the Eleans' valor in Hellenica 7.4.32, one divine and one human, and incline toward the human explanation. But because Xenophon has already indicated (7.4.30) that the Eleans are not normally brave, there seems to be only one possibility offered in this passage: the gods provided them with extraordinary courage specifically for this occasion.

¹⁰¹ , XenophonHellenica 7.4.33–40.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Compare the results of the accidental burning of the temples of Athena at Assesus and of Cybebe in Herodotus at Sardis (Herodotus 1.19-22 and 5.101-2).

¹⁰³ , XenophonHellenica 4.5.4.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Ibid. 4.5.4. εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και (“On this occasion indeed Agesilaus also got a good reputation for his timely thoughtfulness even in a small matter”).

¹⁰⁵ Even when the gods prevent the impiety, they still punish the intent; see , Parker, Miasma, 178–79 and n. 93.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ , XenophonHellenica 6.4.28–30.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Ibid. 6.4.30.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid. 6.4.31-32.

¹⁰⁹ Pace , Tuplin, Failings of Empire, 120Google Scholar . See also , Dillery, Xenophon and the History of His Times, 174Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ On some of the other differences between Xenophon's portrayal of Jason and Euphron, see , Tuplin, Failings of Empire, 122Google Scholar.

¹¹¹ , XenophonHellenica 7.1.44–45.Google Scholar

¹¹² Ibid. 7.1.46.

¹¹³ Ibid. 7.2.1 -7.3.1. On the position of the Euphron digressions in Xenophon's narrative, see , Tuplin, Failings of Empire, 121–22Google Scholar.

¹¹⁴ , XenophonHellenica 7.3.4.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Ibid. 7.3.5.

¹¹⁶ Ibid. 7.3.6.

¹¹⁷ Ibid. 7.3.7-11 . , Gray (Character of Xenophon's Hellenica, 136Google Scholar ) suggests that Xenophon presents this account of the trial of Euphron's killers “as a memorial to the impeccable justice of the killer, revealing hidden virtue where at first sight there was only apparent vice”; while this interpretation is certainly valid, Xenophon seems equally concerned to present Euphron himself as a negative exemplum.

¹¹⁸ , XenophonHellenica 7.3.12.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Ibid. 7.4.33.

¹²⁰ Ibid. 7.4.34.

¹²¹ Ibid. 7.4.34-40.

¹²² Ibid. 7.5.1-27.

¹²³ Ibid. 3.4.3.

¹²⁴ Ibid. 3.4.4.

¹²⁵ , Dillery, Xenophon and the History of His Times, 99–119.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Proietti, Gerald, Xenophon's Sparta: An Introduction (LeidenrBrill, 1987) 97.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ , XenophonHellenica 5.3.7.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Ibid. 3.5.5. , Krentz (Xenophon: Hellenika 11.3.11-IV.2.8, 197Google Scholar ) notes the parallels between the Spartans' reasons for mounting this campaign and the War, Elean (Hellenica 3.2.21–23)Google Scholar . As he observes, however, “the results, of course, are quite different.”

¹²⁹ , XenophonHellenica 7.1.34.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Ibid. 6.5.6-9.

¹³¹ Ibid. 6.5.7.

¹³² Ibid. 6.5.8-9.

¹³³ Xenophon's narrative of this relatively minor incident occupies more than a page of the Oxford text. The explanation of Underhill, George E. (A Commentary on the Hellenica of Xenophon [Oxford: Clarendon, 1900] 255)Google Scholar , that Xenophon relates this episode in detail because it ends with the first Theban army in the Peloponnese, is not sufficient.

¹³⁴ , XenophonHellenica 6.5.10.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Ibid. 6.5.11-21.

¹³⁶ Ibid. 6.5.22-32.

¹³⁷ Ibid. 6.5.28.

¹³⁸ Ibid. 6.5.36.

¹³⁹ Ibid. 6.5.49-52.

¹⁴⁰ Thucydides 3.82-83.

¹⁴¹ , XenophonHellenica 3.2.22–26.Google Scholar

¹⁴² Ibid. 4.4.2-3.

¹⁴³ On deferred divine punishment, see , Dover, Greek Popular Morality, 258–62Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁴ , XenophonMemorabilia 4.4.21Google Scholar. . Compare Clearchus's words in the Anabasis (2.5.5-7).

¹⁴⁵ , XenophonHellenica 1.1.4.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Herodotus 7.43.2 . , Krentz, Xenophon: Hellenika l-H.3.10, 90Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁷ , XenophonHellenica 2.3.56Google Scholar ; 4.8.1; 5.1.4; and 7.2.1. , Rahn, “Xenophon's Developing Historiography,” 497–508Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁸ See now Gray, Vivienne J., “Continuous History and Xenophon, Hellenica 1-2.3.10,” AJP 112 (1991) 201–28.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ On the consequences of Thucydides' neglect of the religious factor for our understanding of the Peloponnesian War, see Hornblower, Simon, “The Religious Dimension to the Peloponnesian War, Or, What Thucydides Does not Tell Us,” HSCP 94 (1992) 169–97Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁰ As scholars have recognized since the important study by Breitenbach, Hans Rudolf, Historiographische Anschauungsformen Xenophons (Freiburg, Switzerland: Paulusdruckerei, 1950)Google Scholar ; see also , Dillery, Xenophon and the History of His Times, 127–30Google Scholar.

¹⁵¹ Gould, John, “Herodotus and Religion,” in Hornblower, Simon, ed., Greek Historiogra-phy (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994) 91–106Google Scholar , esp. 91-98; compare Gould, John, “Making Sense of Greek Religion,” in Easterling, P. E. and Muir, John V., eds., Greek Religion and Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) 1-33, esp. 8–14Google Scholar.

¹⁵² On the influence of Herodotus upon Xenophon's Hellenica in general, see , Gray, Character of Xenophon's HellenicaGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵³ See above n. 22.

¹⁵⁴ Hellenica 7.4.34.

¹⁵⁵ See the early expressions in , Hesiod (Op. 284 and 325-26) and Solon (13.11-32 West).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ Note too that the Croesus logos contains the only reference to nemesis in the Histories (1.34.1): εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και (“after Solon departed, a great nemesis seized Croesus, at a guess, because he believed himself to be the most fortunate of all humans”).

¹⁵⁷ See, for example, Hellmann, Fritz, Herodots Kroisos-Logos (Berlin: Weidmann, 1934)Google Scholar and Immerwahr, Henry R., Form and Thought in Herodotus (Cleveland: American Philological Association, 1966) esp. 154–61Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁸ Herodotus 1.13.2; 1.91.1; and 6.86y.

¹⁵⁹ For Herodotus's respect for the Delphic oracle, see Hart, John, Herodotus and Greek History (London: Croom Helm, 1982) 33–44Google Scholar and Flower, Harriet I., “Herodotus and Delphic Traditions about Croesus,” in Flower, Michael A. and Toher, Mark, eds., Georgica: Greek Studies in Honour of George Cawkwell (London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1991) 57–77, and 61Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁰ Herodotus 1.13.2.

¹⁶¹ Ibid. 1.91.6 and 6.866.

¹⁶² Ibid. 7.137.1-2. εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και (“the following seems to me in these matters to be most divine”); εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και (“it is clear t o me that the matter was divine”). Compare the case of Artyncte (9.109.2): εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και (“she was doomed to end badly, along with all her house”).

¹⁶³ Note, however, that the doctrine survives in the popular culture of the fourth century, particularly with respect to perjurers; see , Mikalson, Athenian Popular Religion, 36Google Scholar (with examples, mainly drawn from oratory, cited in nn. 13 and 15).

¹⁶⁴ Ephorus explicitl y states (FGH 70 F 42 = Strabo 7.3.9) tha t while other writers tell of the terrible and the marvelous for their shock value, he believes that it is necessary to tell the opposite qualities too and to make them paradigms (εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και); in reply to Fornara, Charles William (The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983] 109–12)Google Scholar , who claims that this passage does not provide evidence that Ephorus was writing paradigmatic history, see Walbank, Frank W., review of Fornara in JHS 105 (1985) 211CrossRefGoogle Scholar . As for Theopompus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Pomp. 6.4 = FGH 115 T 20a) tells us that he intended his work not for entertainment, but for practical benefit (εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και), and that he reflected at length on justice, piety, and the other virtues (Pomp. 6.6 = FGH 115 T 20a); on Theopompus's use of the moral lesson as a tool of historical analysis, see Flower, Michael Attyah, Theopompus of Chios: History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century BC (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994) 148–53Google Scholar and 169-83.

¹⁶⁵ For examples in Ephorus, see FGH 70 FF 31, 34, and 96 (from the thirtieth book of Ephorus's History, which some authorities attribute to his son, Demophilus; Diodorus 16.14.3 and Athenaeus 6.232d = T9a and b); compare FGH 105 F 2 (a papyrus fragment which could be attributed to Ephorus). In FF 31 and 34, Ephorus rationalizes the transfer of the punishment of the victims from the supernatural to the human realm; for Ephorus's rationalizions in general, see Meister, Klaus (Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung: Von den Anfdngen bis zum Ende des Hellenismus [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1990] 88)Google Scholar , although he attributes to Ephorus some later Hellenistic tendencies. For Theopompus, see FGH 115 FF 248 and 312 with 232, and the discussion of , Flower, Theopompus of Chios, 70–71Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁶ Ephorus FF 31 and 34; Theopompus FF 248 and 312.

¹⁶⁷ See Walbank, Frank W., “Profit or Amusement: Some Thoughts on the Motives of Hellenistic Historians,” in Verdin, H., Schepens, G., and Keyser, E. de, eds., Purposes of History: Studies in Greek Historiography from the 4th to the 2nd Centuries BC (Louvain: Studia Hellenistica, 1990) 253–66Google Scholar (who, however, considers Polybius to be the lone exception to this general trend).

¹⁶⁸ See, e.g. , Walbank, Frank W., Polybius (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972)Google Scholar ; and Sacks, Kenneth, Polybius on the Writing of History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981)Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁹ Eckstein, Arthur M., Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995) 16–25Google Scholar (a useful summary of earlier views on Polybius) and 248-54.

¹⁷⁰ See, e.g. , Walbank, Frank W., “Supernatural Paraphernalia in Polybius' Histories,” in Worthington, Ian, ed., Ventures into Greek History (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994) 28–42Google Scholar ; and , Eckstein, Moral Vision in The Histories of Polybius, 254–71Google Scholar ; Eckstein, following an earlier suggestion of Walbank, Frank W. (A Historical Commentary on Polybius [3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1957-1979] 1. 16–26)Google Scholar , suggests that the capricious Tyche occurs in Polybius's Histories whenever he is discussing an event of special personal relevance.

¹⁷¹ For his “improvements” upon Polybius in two cases of impiety, see Drews, Robert, “Diodorus and His Sources,” AJP 83 (1962) 383–92Google Scholar , esp. 384-85. For examples of divine causality and xuxn as agents of moral retribution in Diodorus, see Sacks, Kenneth, Diodorus Siculus and the First Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990) 36 n. 56 and 40 n. 73Google Scholar.

¹⁷² See Gabba, Emilio, Dionysius and the History of Archaic Rome (Berkeley 1991) 118–38.Google Scholar