¹ HCT iii 523 with 733 (cf. More essays (Oxford 1962) 126), discussing Hermocrates' speech at Th. iv 59–65 and the problem, why does Polybius xii 25k criticise Timaeus' account of this speech without mentioning Th.? Polybius does not make against Timaeus the obvious points that Timaeus' version differed from Th.'s, therefore one or the other, and more likely Timaeus, must be wrong. This raises the question whether Polybius knew Th.'s work, cf. below p. 49 with n. 10.

² Herodotus: Murray, O., ‘Herodotus and Hellenistic culture’, CQ xxii (1972) 200–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Xenophon: Münscher, K., ‘Xenophon in der griechisch-römischen Literatur’, Philologus. Supp. xiii (2) (1920).Google Scholar Note also Hornblower, J., Hieronymus of Cardia (Oxford 1981) 196–201Google Scholar, in real life, Eumenes of Cardia influenced by Xenophon's writings; also Lewis, D.M., Sparta and Persia (Leiden, 1977) 149–52.Google Scholar Knowledge of Th. as evidenced by the papyri: n. 74.

³ Hornblower, S., Thucydides (London 1987) 47–50Google Scholar; Comm…Th. i (Oxford 1991) 75 f.

⁴ Macleod, C., Collected essays (Oxford 1982)Google Scholar esp. chs. 10, 11 (Mytilene, Plataea debates).

⁵ Heath, M., ‘Justice in Thucydides' Athenian speeches’, Historia xxxix (1990) 385–400, at 396 n. 21.Google Scholar

⁶ Luschnat, O., ‘Thukydides der Historiker’, RE suppl. xii (1971) 1085–1354Google Scholar, esp. 1266–97, ‘Die Nachwirkung’. (Luschnat).

⁷ Strebel, H.G., Wertung und Wirkung des Thukydideischen Geschichtswerkes in der griechisch-römischen Literatur (Diss. Munich, 1935).Google Scholar (Strebel.)

⁸ Strebel 26.

⁹ Homblower, S., ‘Thucydides' use of Herodotus’, in Sanders, J.M. (ed), ΦΙΛΟΛΑΚΩΝ (London 1992) 141–54Google Scholar; Rubincam, C.R., ‘The Theban Attack on Plataia: Herodotus 7.233.2 and Thucydides 2.2.1 and 5.8–9’, LCM vi (1981) 47–9.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Hornblower, S. (ed.), Greek historiography (Oxford 1994) 54–72Google Scholar, esp. 60 f. for Polybius' knowledge of Th. See now Eckstein, A.M., Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius (Berkeley, 1994) 60.Google Scholar

¹¹ Momigliano, A., ‘The historians of the classical world and their audiences: some suggestions’, Sesto contributo (Rome 1980) 361–76Google Scholar; Thomas, R., Literacy and orality in ancient Greece (Cambridge 1992) 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² For Jacoby's principle, and an acknowledgment that he often broke it, see Vorrede to FGrH ii.A at v; cf. Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtsschreibung ed. Bloch, H. (Leiden 1956) 16–64 at 60 n. 114.Google Scholar Cp. Brunt, P.A., ‘On historical fragments and epitomes’, CQ xxx (1980) 477–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar = Alonso-Núñez, J.M. (ed.) Geschichtsbild und Geschichtsdenken im Altertum (Darmstadt 1991) 334–62.Google Scholar

¹³ Posidonius: Kidd, I., Posidonius vol. ii: the commentary i (Cambridge 1988) 295Google Scholar: ‘There is still no control over the possible extent and fidelity of this use [sc. Diodorus' use of Posidonius], nor has there been any recent study on Diodorus and Posidonius on the scale of Jane Hornblower for Hieronymus of Cardia, and there is still no alternative between printing the whole of Diodorus as Posidonius, or none of him apart from the sentence in [Diod. book] 34’. Cp. Malitz, J., Die Historien des Posidonius (Munich, 1983).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Bloch, H., ‘Studies in the historical literature of the fourth-century BC’, Ath. Studies … Ferguson, HSCP supp. i (1940) 303–76 at 303–41.Google Scholar Cratippus disliked Th.'s speeches (FGrH 64 Fl)—but evidently read them!

¹⁵ Schepens, G., Anc. Soc. xxiv (1993) 169–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 202 says Th.'s continuators are really his discontinuators. Oxyrhynchus Historian (HO): see the ref. to Pedaritus at ch. v line 40 Bartoletti-Chambers (Leipzig 1993). Wade-Gery, H.T. ap. HCT v (1981) 84Google Scholar ingeniously suggested that Pedaritos formed part of a disquisition by HO on the private empire-building of successive Spartan commanders. Note the explicit reference to Th., also at v line 40 of the Florentine fragment of HO, This is remarkable as the only explicit reference to Th. in the surviving HO but as Andrewes observes (HCT. loc. cit.) it is ‘peculiarly frustrating that we cannot make out this reference’. (For U. Schinde's guess at a supplement see Chambers' apparatus). Cp. Luschnat 1267.

¹⁶ The Old Oligarch has many parallels to Th., see de Romilly, J., ‘Le Pseudo-Xénophon et Thucydide: étude sur quelques divergences de vues’, RPh xxxvi (1962) 225–41.Google Scholar She omits the most striking, OO i 8, cp. Th. iii 45.6 Th. iii 45.6 It is often held (see e.g. A. Momigliano, Secondo contributo 59) that Th., especially in his early chapters on sea-power, knew of and was responding to the Old Oligarch. Not plausible. I shall return elsewhere to the intertextual relationship between the two works.

The Anabasis of Xenophon does not feature in Luschnat. As J.K. Davies notes, APF xxix n.l, the inferior mss of Anab. vii 1.27 have 400 triremes. Davies also notes that Aeschines (ii 175) also has 300, or rather ‘not fewer than 300’; so again (cp. above on the Hellenica) we must reckon with common knowledge, cf. Ar.Ach. 545.

Ehrhardt, C.T.H.R., ‘Retreat in Xenophon and Thucydides’, AHB viii (1994) 3 f.Google Scholar suggests Xenophon ‘stylised his own narrative [of the 10,000's retreat] to some extent as a response to Thucydides’; but at 4 he wonders—heretically, from the composition point of view—whether Th. wrote his account of the Athenian retreat after news of the escape reached Greece.

¹⁷ Bloch (n. 14) 308–16; contra. Shrimpton, G., Theopompus the historian (Montreal 1991) 190 f.Google Scholar

¹⁸ For Hieronymus, J. Hornblower (n. 2) 101. Shrimpton (n. 17) notes that Bloch overlooked Xenophon, then tries to save Dionysius' credit by saying ‘the fact that Thucydides spawned a few slavish imitations need not detain Dionysius and does nothing to undermine his main point: the style quickly died out’. But Shrimpton in his turn overlooks Hieronymus. Dionysius used Hieronymus (FGrH 154 F 13, the Roman archaiologia) but said you could not read him right through (T12).

¹⁹ Tuplin, C.J., The failings of empire: a reading of Xenophon Hellenica 2.3.11–7.5.27, Historia Einzelschrift lxxvi (1993)Google Scholar, for Hellenica ‘Part Two’. Xenophon surely wrote i 1.1–ii 3.10 before the rest; for the opposite idea, that he wrote this section last, having discovered Th. late in life, de Sanctis, G., Studi di storia della storiografia greca (Florence 1951) 127–61Google Scholar; Krentz, P., Anc.W. xix (1989) 15–18.Google Scholar See also Henry, W.P., Greek historical writing (Chicago 1967) esp. 46Google Scholar (sceptical, on whether Xenophon had Th. in mind in his reference to Melos, but not allowing sufficiently for the verbal chime, see my text); also Breitenbach, H., RE ix A (1967) 1669–1680.Google Scholar (Breitenbach incidentally is not much interested in traces of Th. in Hellenica iii–vii, which he treats at 1680–1701, though at 1688 he notes the parallel Xen. Hell. vi.2.9/Th. i.36, see above, p. 50).

Some of the chronological indicators in the early, ‘Thucydidean’, part of Xenophon may be interpolated: Lewis, CAH v ² (1992)Google Scholar 8 and n. 25. See also Riedinger, J.-C., Étude sur les Helléniques (Paris, 1991) 97–121.Google Scholar

²⁰ Luschnat 1276–84, esp. 1277; see my comm. on Th. ii 41.1, also Habicht there cited (see now, for a more accessible reprint, Habicht, C., Athen in hellenistischer Zeit [Munich 1994] 230).Google Scholar Th. anyway has not

²¹ Humphreys, S.C., ‘Lycurgus of Butadae: an Athenian aristocrat’, Eadie, J. and Ober, J. (eds.) The craft of the ancient historian: essays in honor of C.G. Starr (Lanham MD 1985) 199–252 at 219.Google Scholar

²² Strebel 12 cites Schaefer, A., Demosthenes und seine Zeit i 289 (= i²Leipzig 1885, 320 f.).Google Scholar Schaefer is right (cf. my text) to claim an ‘inner relationship’ between Demosthenes and the Periclean period. For details (ancient judgments; particular stylistic comparisons), Blass, F., Die attische Beredsamkeit iii ² I (Leipzig 1893) 19 f.Google Scholar, 87 f., 142 ff., 154. Lucian, Adv. ind. 4 says Demosthenes copied out Th. eight times.

²³ Trevett, J., Apollodoros the son of Pasion (Oxford 1992).Google Scholar

²⁴ Trevett, J., ‘History in [Demosthenes] 59’, CQ xl (1990) 407–20, esp. 416–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar on Daimachus of Plataea (FGrH 65), on whose relation to Th. see my ‘Thucydides and Boiotia’, Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Congress of Boiotian Studies (1992) (forthcoming). Carey, C., Apollodoros against Neaira, [Demosthenes] 59 (Warminster 1992) 132–40Google Scholar is sceptical about Trevett's suggestion. But Th. i 132–3 does not tell the whole story; see HSCP xciv (1992) 176.

²⁵ Whitehead, D., Aineias the Tactician (Oxford 1990) 102.Google Scholar Simplification: Hunter, L.W. and Handford, S.A., Aeneas on siegecraft (Oxford 1927), 107Google Scholar; also lxxxi and n. I (other Thucydidean reminiscences). The phrases there quoted look like echoes of speeches not narrative.

²⁶ Aen. Tact, xxviii 2: (‘An enemy is more fearful of a force which may come to attack them [sic] than of one which is already there’, tr. Whitehead). Cp. Thuc. v 9.8: (‘This is the way to terrify them; for reinforcements are always more formidable to an enemy than the troops with which he is already engaged’, tr. Jowett). Note again the slight simplification.

²⁷ Whitehead (n. 25) 188 f.

²⁸ Tod no. 187 with Spoerri, W., ‘Epigraphie et littérature: à propos de la liste des Pythioniques de Delphes’ in Knoepfler, D., Comptes et inventaires dans la cité grecque (Neuchâtel 1988) 111–40.Google Scholar

²⁹ The fair comparison is, however, with the Hellenica rather than with the ‘Deeds of Alexander’. The former seems to have been less aggressively anti-Theban than Xenophon's Hellenica: CAH vi² (1994) 10 f. Beyond that, characterization is precarious. It gave space to natural portents like earthquakes (FF 19–22), but cf. Th. i 23.2–3; iii 87.4; iii 116, etc. As for the ‘Deeds of Alexander’, (i) it lay behind the other main accounts to be found in the Alexander-historians, including Ptolemy, until it ran out with the disgrace and death of its author; (ii) Polybius' criticisms of Callisthenes as military historian (xii 17–22) recoil on Polybius, see Walbank, , HCP ii 364.Google Scholar These two points overlap: Brunt, P.A. in the Loeb, Arrian i (London 1976) 462Google Scholar notes ‘if we believe that Polybius demonstrates that C[allisthenes] had no understanding of war, we must on the same reasoning convict A[ristobulus] and Pt[olemy]’. On Clitarchus and the vulgate tradition see below p. 64. Generally, assessing the debt of the Alexander-historians to Th. is tricky: what is Arrian himself, what is from Ptolemy/Aristobulus and what from Callisthenes? Th. viii 46.3, is surely echoed at Arr. Anab. vii 11.9, but is the echoer Arrian or a source? (Not Callisthenes, at this late point). Christian Habicht reminds me of the classical Greek history at Anab. i 9; this looks like Arrian's own (ie. not taken from an Alexander-historian), but where did he get his material? Th. and Xenophon, Bosworth concludes (see his comm). The reference to Melos and Scione at ¶ 5 (see p. 50 above) might suggest Isocrates, cp. Ael. Arist, i 302 ff.; but as Bosworth notes, Arrian's odd slip, in making Scione (as well as Melos) an island, recalls Th. iv 120.3.

³⁰ The fragment (FGrHist 124 F44) is from Athenaeus Mechanicus: ‘For the historian Callisthenes says in attempting to write anything, one must not prove false to the character, but make the speeches fit both the speaker and the situation’. (Tr. Pearson, L., Lost histories of Alexander the Great (New York 1960) 31.Google Scholar

³¹ Jacoby comm…; L. Pearson l.c. (n. 30); Strebel 21 f.; Lendle, O., Einführung in die griechische Geschichtsschreibung von Hekataios bis Zosimos (Darmstadt 1992) 159 f.Google Scholar

³² Pearson, ibid. citing Ar. Poet. 1450b 5–12. Note however Sacks, K.S., ‘Rhetoric and speeches in Hellenistic historiography’, Athenaeum lxiv (1986) 383–95 at 384Google Scholar with n. 10: Callisthenes may not have been thinking just of history-writing, but of the criteria for any kind of oratory. On Callisthenes F44 see also Fornara, C.W., The nature of history in ancient Greece and Rome (Berkeley 1983), 145 f.Google Scholar

³³ See Whitlock Blundell, M., Helping friends and harming enemies: a study in Sophocles and Greek ethics (Cambridge 1989) 35CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and other refs. in my comm. (n. 3).

³⁴ Wehrli, F., Die Schule des Aristoteles: Texte und Kommentar ix ²: Phainias von Eresos, Chamaileon, Praxiphanes (Basel 1969) F18Google Scholar; Strebel 20; Momigliano, A., The classical foundations of modern historiography (Berkeley 1990) 45Google Scholar, cp. 64. The Praxiphanes fragment (from Marcellinus) mentioned Th. in connection with King Archelaus of Macedon. The retention of ‘Archelaus’ is defended by Momigliano, , The development of Greek biography (Cambridge 1971) 66 f.Google Scholar Praxiphanes was a pupil of Aristotle's pupil Theophrastus, and the latter was certainly interested in Th. Cicero, Orator 39. Other Peripatetic evidence: Cic. Brutus 46–8, of explicitly Aristotelian origin (not necessarily Aristotle himself, but perhaps a member of the school); this includes at ¶ 47 an inaccurate citation of Th. viii 68 on the oratory of Antiphon. See A.E. Douglas' commentary (Oxford 1966) ad. loc, also intro. xlvi–xlvii on the Aristotelian (Cicero's source in the Brutus); Luschnat 1287.

³⁵ Luschnat 1284–8; Weil, R., Aristote et l'histoire: essai sur la ‘Politique’ (Paris 1960).Google Scholar

³⁶ Rhodes, CAAP 15–30; de Ste Croix, G.E.M., ‘Aristotle on history and poetry (Poetics 9, 1451a36-b11)’, in Levick, B. (ed.), The ancient historian and his materials: essays in honour of C.E. Stevens on his seventieth birthday (Farnborough 1975) 45–58Google Scholar = Rorty, A. (ed.) Essays on Aristotle's Poetics (Princeton 1992) 23–32Google Scholar, at 56 n. 34 of the original publication.

³⁷ Newman, W.L., The Politics of Aristotle iv (Oxford 1902) 183Google Scholar; on see Murray, O., JRS iv (1965) 180.Google Scholar For another possible near-quotation of Th. in the Politics see Kallet-Marx, L., Money, expense and naval power in Thucydides' History 1–5.24 (Berkeley 1993) 81Google Scholar: Pol. 1271 b10 on Spartan finance = Th. i.80.4 (Archidamus), a speech n.b.

³⁸ See my comm. on Th. iii 62.5 and i 13.1 and Thucydides (n. 3) 126 f.

³⁹ Rutherford, R.B., The Art of Plato (London, 1995) 66–8Google Scholar supersedes all previous discussions, e.g. S. Hornblower, Thucydides 121 on Thuc. iii 82–3 and Plato Rep. 560–1. Gomme, ‘Thucydides and fourth-century political thought’, More essays (n. 1) 122–138, minimizes the parallels between Plato and Th. For the Platonic Menexenus, discussed by Gomme, see Coventry, L.J., ‘Philosophy and rhetoric in the Menexenus’ JHS cix (1989) 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 3 n. 8 on the whole tradition of the epitaphios, on which see Loraux, N., The invention of Athens (tr. Sheridan, A., Cambridge MA 1986).Google Scholar Fourth-century examples differ from the Thucydidean Funeral Speech as much as they resemble it.

On the relation between Plato and Th. see Williams, B., Shame and necessity (Berkeley 1993), 162–4Google Scholar: he praises Th. because, unlike Plato, his psychology is ‘not at the service of his ethical beliefs’, and he is ‘less committed to a distinctive ethical outlook than Plato’, but does not consider whether Plato's was aiming specifically at Th.

⁴⁰ Lintott, A., ‘Aristotle on Democracy’, CQ xlii (1992) 114–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 126 compares Th. iii 82 with Ar. Pol. 1296b.

⁴¹ CAH vi² (1994) 10.

⁴² Thucydides 124–6; 162 f. on Plato, crito 42e.

⁴³ Lewis, CAH vi² (1994)123, cf. 144 n. 103 (plague).

⁴⁴ Luschnat 1288–91; Zoepffel, R., Untersuchungen zum Geschichtswerk des Philistos von Syrakus (Diss. Freiburg i.Br., 1965).Google Scholar On the ?Philistan papyrus FGrH 577 no. 2 and Th., Bosworth, A.B., ‘Athens' first intervention in Sicily: Thucydides and the Sicilian tradition’, CQ xlii (1992) 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵ Shrimpton (n.17) 38f.

⁴⁶ FGrH 115 F395 (from Theon), with which cf. Th. ii 45.1. See Jacoby's comm. and Lane Fox, R., ‘Theopompus of Chios and the Greek world 411–322 BC’, in Boardman, J. and Vaphopoulou-Richardson, C.E. (eds.) Chios: a conference at the Homereion in Chios 1984 (Oxford 1986) 105–20 at 107Google Scholar; Shrimpton (n. 17) 114.

Luschnat 1271 suggests Theopompus' description of Lysander (FGrH 115 F 20) as ‘superior to [the temptations of] all pleasures’, may echo Th. ii 60.5 where Pericles says he is ‘superior to [the temptations of] money’, But the phrase was common; see LSJ⁹ s.v. III, and, for in particular, D/K 68 Demokritos B 214.

⁴⁷ Connor, W.R., Theopompus and fifth-century Athens (Washington DC 1968) 29Google Scholar for ‘willingness to disagree with Thucydides’ as one of Theopompus' characteristics, and 106, 119–20 for Theopompus' (surely deliberate) divergencies from Th.

⁴⁸ Christ, M.R., ‘Theopompus and Herodotus: a re-assessment’, CQ xliii (1993) 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁹ Shrimpton (n. 17) 64.

⁵⁰ FGrH 70, introduction at 30 and 32.

⁵¹ Ed. Schwartz, , Griechische Geschichtsschreiber (Leipzig 1959) 21 f.Google Scholar; Jacoby (n.49) 31; Barber, G., The historian Ephorus (Cambridge 1935) 98.Google Scholar

⁵² FGrH 323a, introduction at 20.

⁵³ (Philadelphia 1942). Luschnat 1294 disposes of the ‘un-Thucydidean’ Atthidographers too summarily.

⁵⁴ Pearson, Local historians 37.

⁵⁵ Harding, P., Androtion and the Atthis (Oxford 1993) 161Google Scholar directs the reader to Jacoby's comment that on Hyperbolus, Androtion and Philochorus [FGrH 328 F30] ‘judged like Thucydides’ (FGrH 324 F42 comm.). The relation of F8 (Phormio) to Th. iii 7 remains elusive. F43 (number of in 411) corrects Th. viii 67.1.

⁵⁶ FGrH 328 Introduction 230 f. and (giving the references) n. 80. Jacoby refers to his commentary on FF 8–10, 34, 38, 39, 94, 117, 118, 121, 128 ff.

⁵⁷ Jacoby ibid. 230.

⁵⁸ ibid. 227. See also below p. 61.

⁵⁹ Pearson, Local historians 135.

⁶⁰ For Timaeus as supplying speeches not given by Th. see Jacoby on FGrH 566 FF 99–102. On the width and freedom of the ancient concept of zelosis, imitation, Parsons, P.J. in Bulloch, A.W. et al. (eds.) Images and ideologies: self-definition in the Hellenistic world (Berkeley 1993) 162.Google Scholar

⁶¹ J. Homblower (n. 2), concluding (235) that the dominant influence on Hieronymus ultimately must have been Th.: ‘in his account of aitiai and his analysis of the struggle for total power Hieronymus shows his desire to be a political historian’.

⁶² Fraser, P.M., Ptolemaic Alexandria ii (Oxford 1972) 773 n. 163Google Scholar; 786 n. 217.

⁶³ Slave war reminiscent of Thucydides: Reinhardt, K., ‘Poseidonios von Apameia’, RE xxii I (1953) 528–826 at 633Google Scholar (but note the rather different picture in Verbrugghe, G.P., ‘Narrative pattern in Posidonius' history’, Historia xxiv (1975) 189–204Google Scholar, speaking of ‘episodic adventure stories’). Detailed recording as well as explaining: Kidd, I., ‘Posidonius as Philosopher-historian’ in Griffin, M. and Barnes, J. (eds.), Philosophia togata: essays on philosophy and Roman society (Oxford 1989) 38–50 at 50.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Strebel 24. The Aristarchus scholion is in Dindorf's ed. See West, S., in Heubeck, A., West, S., Hainsworth, J.B., Commentary on Homer's Odyssey i (Oxford 1988) 164 f.Google Scholar Strebel 24 gives other instances, adding that Callimachus in his Pinakes will have known Th. Cf. Pfeiffer, R., History of classical scholarship from the beginnings to the end of the Hellenistic age (Oxford 1968) 225Google Scholar: ‘it could not be very surprising if Aristarchus had also written the first commentary on Thucydides’; cp. Luschnat 1312 f.

⁶⁵ For what past Greek history and earlier Greek historians meant to Polybius, Millar, F.G.B., ‘Polybius between Greece and Rome’, in Koumoulides, J.T.A. (ed.), Greek connections: essays on culture and diplomacy (South Bend 1987) 1–18.Google Scholar

The terminology used, after Th.'s own time, for the phases of the Peloponnesian War, and the war itself, is relevant; on this topic there is still something to be said, for the purposes of the present paper, despite de Ste Croix, OPW 294 f., a useful collection of texts from Th. and later writers. Th. does not seem to have affected nomenclature until after the fourth century, i.e. after the fading of family memories about what, after all, were real and traumatic events as well as a mere subject for a historian. ‘Archidamian War’ is first attested in a lost speech of Lysias, Harpocration s.v. but Thucydides had called it the ‘First’ or ‘Ten Years’ War: v 20.3; 25.1; 26.3. See Busolt, Gr. Gesch. iii 854 n.1. The expedition to Sicily is called just that by Isaeus (vi 14), hardly a technical expression or echo of Thuc. ii 65.11. As for the final phase, for Thucydides (v 26.3, with his mind very much on the whole 27 years) it was just ‘the war that followed [flowed out of [the uneasy peace]’, cp. also (with de Ste Croix 295) iv 81.2; though there is Thucydidean authority of a sort (viii 11.3) for the modern ‘Ionian War’. But in the fourth century it was the ‘Decelean War’, see e.g. Isoc. xiv 31 and viii 37. Schepens (n. 16) 194 and n. 75 argues that Isoc. got the expression from HO/Cratippus, partly on the grounds that (he claims) no fourth-century literary source other than Isocrates uses it. Not true; see Dem. lvii 18. The expression may have been in common circulation in Athens, and reflect the real-life impact of the Decelean occupation (which of course Th. described at e.g. vii 28, note vii 27.2 for ‘the war from Decelea’).

The whole 27-year war was, for Th., ‘the war of the Peloponnesians and Athenians’ (i 1.1), or ‘the war against the Peloponnesians/Athenians’ depending on viewpoint (de Ste Croix 294); he does not refer to the ‘Peloponnesian War’ though at e.g. v 28.2 we have The fourth-century orators naturally had a more fragmented view, cp. e.g. Isaeus v 42 for a reference to somebody who had fought in 429 at Spartolos (for which see Th. ii 79) and de Ste Croix 295 for oratorical refs. in e.g. Andocides to the phases of the war as if they were separate wars. The war had to recede some considerable way into the past, before the long Thucydidean perspective could be recovered. The first demonstrable use of ‘Peloponnesian War'—an expression not in Thucydides, but equally one which I would say betrays his influence—is in Diodorus’ source, see Diod. xii 37.2, 74.6 and 75.1; xiii 107.5. But what is the source? The first and last of the four passages are from the (hellenistic) Chronographie source, on which see n. 73; the second and third (xii 74.5 and 75.1) look at first blush like Ephorus recycling Th., and it would be interesting if Ephorus already thought in terms of the ‘Peloponnesian War’. But note (a) that these two passages actually and sloppily refer to what was really the Ten Years or Archidamian War and (b) Diodorus' language here may be contaminated by the Chronographic material in the vicinity, i.e. we cannot securely push ‘Peloponnesian War’ back to Ephorus and the mid fourth century rather than to the third or whenever the chronographer was working.

By the time of Strabo, Th. does I think lie behind the subdivision of the war, which was now a matter of purely academic study (cp. Thucydides' own use, in the Archaeology, of ‘The Catalogue of Ships’ or ‘The Handing Down of the Sceptre’ for parts of the Iliad). Thus Strabo not only speaks of the ‘Decelean War’, 9.396, but subdivides the Archidamian War, see 13.600 for ‘the Pachetian part of the Peloponnesian war’, i.e. Th. iii 1–50, the Mytilene revolt. This looks like a donnish allusion to Th. (though others than Th. wrote about the Peloponnesian War and about Paches, Plut. Nik. vi and Arist, xxvi 5).

⁶⁶ CAH vi² (1994) 879. For hellenistic Plataea as a place where reminders of the Persian Wars were taken to the point of tedium see Heraclides Creticus (Ps.-Dicaearchus) i.II ed. Pfister, F., Die Reisehilder des Herakleides (Vienna 1951)Google Scholar tr. Austin, M.M., The Hellenistic world from Alexander to the Roman conquest (Cambridge 1981) no. 83Google Scholar; cp. the inscribed decree of the Greeks at Plataea honouring Glaucon son of Eteocles (mid third century BC), BCH xcix (1975) 51–75 = Austin no. 51, mentioning joint cult of Zeus Eleutherios (liberator) and Concord and the ‘contest which the Greeks celebrate on the tomb of the good men who fought against the barbarians for the liberty of the Greeks’. But the Plataean cult of Zeus Eleutherios is already in Th. (ii 71.2). The role of Plataea is not, then, ‘invented’ but ‘exaggerated’ tradition. See also Badian, E., From Platea to Potidaea: studies in the history and historiography of the Pentecontaetia (Baltimore 1993) 109–23.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Habicht, C., ‘Falsche Urkunden zur Geschichte Athens im Zeitalter der Perserkriege’, Hermes ixxxix (1961) 1–35Google Scholar; ML no.23; J. Davies, ‘The tradition about the First Sacred War’, in Greek historiography (n. 10) 193–212.

⁶⁸ N. Loraux (n. 39).

⁶⁹ Sallares, R., The ecology of lhe ancient Greek world (London 1991) 266 and n. 375.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ There are however some non-Thucydidean (Hippocratic?) insertions. Rawson, E., Intellectual life in the late Roman Republic (London 1985) 177Google Scholar suggested Lucretius supplemented Thucydides with a lexicon of Hippocratic terms. Sinclair, B.W., ‘Thucydides, the Prognostika, and Lucretius: a note on De Rerum Natura 6.1195’, in Shrimpton, G.S. and McCargar, D.J. (eds.), Classical contributions: studies in honour of M.E. McGregor (Locust Valley, NY 1981) 110 f.Google Scholar thinks Lucretius could have consulted both Thucydides and the Hippocratic treatises for himself. Smith, M.F., Hermathena xcviii (1964) 45–52Google Scholar, speculates that Luc. v 1440–7 echoes the early chapters of Th.

⁷¹ Jacoby, F., Apollodors Chronik: Eine Sammlung der Fragmente (Berlin 1902) 241 f.Google Scholar

⁷² See Tod's coram. on Marmor Parium (his no.205) 312. It was as a cultural achievement that Th.'s History rated mention by Diodorus' Chronographic source: xii 37.2; xiii 42.5, cp. xiv 84.7. But Ephorus, Theopompus and Diyllus also got in on this ticket. (See however n. 65: the chronographer mentioned the ‘Peloponnesian War’.)

⁷³ Frederiksen, M. (ed. Purcell, N.), Campania (London 1984) 183, 199 n. 28 on Livy's knowledge of Th. But large stretches of Livy are indebted to Polybius; and Thucydidean echoes in such stretches might have a bearing on Polybius' own knowledge ofGoogle Scholar Th. Rawson, E. (CAH viii ²453)Google Scholar notes that Plutarch says (Cato ii) that the elder Cato took a small amount from Th., but doubts whether he ‘was able to come to real grips with either the language or the thought of the great historian’; she contrasts Xenophon with his ‘easy Greek’. Going back further, not much can be got from Plut. Fab. i 8: some compare Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus' oratory to Th.

⁷⁴ Th. driven off the market: the papyri are relevant, though here too hellenistic neglect of Th. should not be exaggerated as sometimes. Useful list dressed by Bouquiaux-Simon, O. and Mertens, P., ‘Les papyrus de Thucydide’, Chronique d' Égypte lxvi (1991) 198–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar In a stimulating article, Malitz claims no Th.- papyrus survives from the last three centuries BC: Malitz, J., ‘Das Interesse an der Geschichte: die griechischen Historiker und ihr Publikum’, in Verdin, H., Schepens, G., de Keyser, E. (eds.) Purposes of history: studies in Greek historiography from the 4th to the 2nd centuries BC (Louvain 1990 = Studia Heilenistica 30) 323–349Google Scholar at 344. This ignores the third-century BC. P. Hamburg 2.163 = Turner, E.G., JHS lxxvi (1956) 96–98Google Scholar, which allows Willis, W.H., ‘A census of the literary papyri from Egypt’, GRBS ix (1968) 205–241 at 217Google Scholar to include Th. (who certainly belonged to the historical ‘canon’, see Radermacher, , RE x 2 (1919) cols. 1873–8Google Scholar) in his short list of eleven authors papyrologically represented at all periods of antiquity, Ptolemaic, Roman and Byzantine. But this statistic should itself be used with caution because P. Hamburg is the only hellenistic papyrus of Th. Malitz (ibid.) suggests Egyptian readers were more interested in the history of their own day (and their own country) than in old Greece; very relevant to the theme of the present paper. Malitz 342 f. says the early books of Th. were more often cited than the later, but see O. Bouquiaux-Simon and P. Mertens 198: recent Oxyrhynchus publications have skewed things (see POxy lvii) and future publications could rectify the imbalance tomorrow, indeed Peter Parsons tells me that another fourteen or fifteen pieces of Th., mainly of books v–iii, will be published in POxy lxi. In general the Oxyrhynchus material is too late for my purposes; it is mostly AD.

Cicero: note Brutus 66 about Philistus and Th.: they lacked admirers (‘amatores desunt’) because their successor Theopompus' lofty and elevated style got in the way of appreciation of their brief and abrupt apoththegms. Strebel: above p. 48.

⁷⁵ Greek historiography (n.10) 44.

⁷⁶ Brunt, P.A., ‘Cicero and historiography’, in Studies in ancient Greek history and thought (Oxford 1993) 181–209.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Greek historiography (n.10) 131–66.

⁷⁸ J. Hornblower (n.2) 236. In his 1952 Princeton dissertation, Towards a Historian's Text of Thucydides, D.M. Lewis showed that Alexandrian scholars went to Ephorus, not Th., for their ancient history—but they did so in order to ‘correct’ the text of Th. himself!

⁷⁹ F. Millar (n.65) 12.

⁸⁰ I owe ‘horizon’ in this intellectual sense to Fraser (n.62) ch. 11, ‘The horizon of Callimachus’. Polybius' horizon here may be fourth-century, but T. Wiedemann observes that his argument from probability about resources is constructed in Thucydidean fashion, and recalls the argumentation of the Archaeology; see ‘Rhetoric in Polybius’, Purposes of history (n.74) 289–300, arguing against the view of Wooten, C., AIP xcv (1974) 235–51Google Scholar that the main influence on Polybian rhetoric was Demosthenes not Th.

⁸¹ Murray (n.2); Sherwin-White, S.M. and Kuhrt, A., From Samarkhand to Sardis (London, 1993).Google Scholar A referee comments that in the expanded world of the ‘Greek’ East Herodotus could have appealed to a non-Greek readership because he was ‘pro-barbarian’ (Plut. Mor. 857a) whereas Th. had nothing to offer here. With this cp. Malitz (n.74).

⁸² Spawforth, A., ‘Symbol of unity? The Persian-Wars tradition in the Roman Empire’, Greek historiography (n.10) 233–47.Google Scholar

⁸³ Mitchell, S., Anatolia i (Oxford 1993) 13–26.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Murray, O., in Boardman, J. et al. (eds) Oxford history of the classical world (Oxford 1986) 199Google Scholar on ‘History for Kings’.

⁸⁵ On the political partialities of Philochorus and other Atthidographers, Rhodes, P.J., ‘The Atthidographers’, in Purposes of history (n.74) 73–81.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ As Fergus Millar put this second point when commenting on a draft, ‘the material covered by Thucydides did not have a very high profile later because, compared to the Persian War, the rise of Macedon or Alexander's conquests, it simply was not very important in the overall development of the Greek world'. See however below for a way of divorcing Th.'s ‘theme’ (or one major theme: liberation) from his ‘material’ in the sense of the particular late fifth-century events described. In any case see n. 92: Cicero thought there were lessons to be drawn from the Thucydidean period, and others before him may have thought similarly. And as a referee remarks, ‘Thucydides’ theme, especially his publicity for Athens (good or bad is all the same) was very important for later Greek history under Rome'. On the other hand I concede that (to stray outside my time-limit) Pausanias in the 2nd cent. AD resembles Polybius in saying more about the fourth century BC than about the Pentekontaetia or the Peloponnesian War: Habicht, C., Pausanias' guide to ancient Greece (Berkeley 1985) 102 f.Google Scholar

Peloponnesian War ‘shameful’: I am here indebted to a comment by Christan Habicht, who continues ‘if one had to read about it, Ephorus may have been selected as reading easier to be digested than Th. Cicero, of course, had no reason to feel that way—and he was certainly more able than many others to appreciate the literary genius of Th.’

⁸⁷ Brown, T.S., Timaeus of Tauromenium (Berkeley 1958) 67Google Scholar: ‘we could do with an account criticizing Thucydides and rooted in Sicilian tradition. But both Philistus and Ephorus chose to follow Thucydides here, and Diodorus seems not to have made any use of Timaeus at this point’.

⁸⁸ Spartan liberation propaganda and its failure: Raaflaub, K., Die Entdeckung der Freiheit (Munich 1985) 248 ff.Google Scholar; later Greek and Macedonian use and abuse of liberation: Heuss, A., ‘Antigonos Monophthalmos und die griechische Städte’, Hermes lxxiii (1938) 133–94Google Scholar; Seager, R. and Tuplin, C., ‘The freedom of the Greeks of Asia…’, JHS c (1980) 141–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Seager, R., ‘The freedom of the Greeks of Asia: from Alexander to Antiochus’, CQ xxxi (1981) 106–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gruen, E. S., The Hellenistic world and the coming of Rome (Berkeley 1984) ch. 4.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ J. Hornblower (n.2) 175 f.

⁹⁰ Ibid. 177 ff.; 172 ff.

⁹¹ For the neglected heroon of Cleandridas (no mention in HCT) see the inscribed Roman tile at Zancani Montuori, P., Atti e Mem. della Soc. Magna Grecia (1961) n.s. iv (1962) 36–40Google Scholar; Zuntz, G., Persephone (Oxford 1971) 287 and n. 2Google Scholar, where for Th. vi 63 read 93. Artas: Th. vii 33.4 with Walbank, M., Athenian proxenies of the fifthcentury BC (Toronto 1978) no. 70.Google Scholar

⁹² Rawson (n.70) 222. More than style is at issue here: note her remarks on the perceived value of Th.'s subject-matter, citing Cicero Orator 120: the orator should know the history of earlier imperial nations, imperiosorum populorum (she takes this to include Athens and Sparta), as well as of famous kings. A referee notes that the revived interest in Th. ‘doesn’t show a change in the perception/reception of the History so much as of Athens and of the classical period (which Hdt., however glorious and perennial his story, missed out on’).

⁹³ Th. exercised Philodemus in his fragmentary rhetorical writings, Rhetoric i p. 151 Sudhaus, col. vii lines 20–2: a clear statement that Th. already had his imitators (whatever that means, see n. 61 above) even in or before Philodemus' time. Cf. Rawson (n. 70) 144. To that extent Philodemus looks forward to Dionysius of Halicarnassus. If we had more rhetorical treatises of this and earlier dates, our ideas about Th.'s influence might have to be revised further still. Philodemus does not feature in Luschnat's' index locorum.

Note also that Marcellinus' biography of Th., which prefaces modern editions, ‘though in its present form not earlier than the fifth century AD, preserves the learned discussion which was going on at the time of Didymus (first century BC) about the mysterious family connections and about the equally mysterious death of the Athenian historian': Momigliano, Development of Greek biography (n. 34) 87.