¹ On which, recently, Due, B., The Cyropaedia. Xenophon's Aims and Methods (Aarhus 1989)Google Scholar; Tatum, J., Xenophon's Imperial Fiction. On the Education of Cyrus (Princeton 1989)Google Scholar; Gera, D.L., Xenophon's Cyropaedia. Style, Genre, and Literary Technique (Oxford 1993)Google Scholar; Mueller-Goldingen, C., Untersuchungen zu Xenophons Kyrupädie (Stuttgart 1995)Google Scholar; Nadon, C., Xenophon's Prince. Republic and Empire in the Cyropaedia (Berkeley and Los Angeles 2001).Google Scholar

² Xen. Cyr. (hereafter ‘Cyr.’) 3.1.14–31. Bizos, M., Xénophon Cyropédie Tome II, Livres III-IV (Paris 1973) 5–10Google Scholar, and Nadon (n. 1) 79–83 read the arguments of Tigranes as feeble and absurd; Tatum (n. 1) 134–45 and Gera (n. 1) 78–98 read the dialogue as a sophistic diversion for Xenophon's reader. I argue against such dismissive readings below. Due (n. 1) 223–5 takes it seriously, relating it loosely to the Athenian Empire; Mueller-Goldingen (n. 1) 150–9 regards it as a serious Socratic discussion of ethics.

³ For the relationship of Xenophon's didactic programme to the form of the work, Stadter, P., ‘Fictional narrative in the Cyropaedeia’, AJP 112 (1991) 461–91Google Scholar, esp. 464–7. For the military lessons in the Cyropaedia, Breitenbach, H.R., ‘Xenophon’, RE IXA.2 (1967) 1567–2051Google Scholar at 1721–37 and Anderson, J.K., Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1970) 165–91.Google Scholar

⁴ For Tigranes as a fictional character, Breitenbach (n.3) 1712–13.

⁵ For similarity to the Melian dialogue, Gera (n. 1) 94.

⁶ The degree to which the Cyropaedia conveys authentic information about the Persians is controversial: Tuplin, C.J., ‘Persian décor in Cyropaedia [sic]: some observations’, in Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. and Drijvers, J.W. (eds), Achaemenid History 5: The Roots of the European Tradition (Leiden 1990) 17–29Google Scholar, takes a minimalist view; Hirsch, S.W., The Friendship of the Barbarians (Hanover, NH 1985) 61–134Google Scholar, argues that it contains more than classicists usually believe. But no one thinks that the motivations of the characters are anything but Greek.

⁷ For up-to-date overviews of Greek foreign relations, see J.M. Hall, ‘International relations in Archaic and Classical Greece’, in P. Sabin, H. van Wees and M. Whitby (eds), Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare (forthcoming) and van Wees, H., Greek Warfare. Myths and Realities (London 2004) 3–42.Google Scholar

⁸ For a review of the scholarship, Lendon, J.E., ‘Primitivism and ancient foreign relations’, CJ 97 (2002) 375–84.Google Scholar

⁹ On Xenophon's horror of domestic or international ‘disorder’, Dillery, J., Xenophon and the History of his Times (London 1995) 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Xenophon's pessimism about the new federal states arising in Greece, notionally made up of equal partners, Bearzot, C., Federalismo e autonomia nelle Elleniche di Senofonte (Milan 2004).Google Scholar

¹¹ Cry. 3.1.10. Two of these terms will certainly have reminded Xenophon's readers of the terms that victorious Sparta imposed upon Athens in the wake of the Peloponnesian War, Xen. Hell. 2.2.20. The king of Armenia is never named; nor are the two successive kings of Assyria, Cyrus'; enemies.

¹² Cyr. 3.1.11–13; cf. 3.1.21. Gera (n. 1) 81–91 argues for the similarity of this exchange to Athenian legal procedure, and that this procedure also exerted influence on Socratic questioning, which this passage so closely resembles.

¹³ On longing for freedom as a motivation in foreign affairs, cf. Thuc. 3.46.5, 5.100; van Wees (n.7) 22.

¹⁴ Cf. Gera (n. 1) 98, ‘The Armenian and the Persian are … evenly matched — there is no lone leading figure in the conversation, no “Socrates”.’

¹⁵ Άφρоσύνη = hybris in this passage, Cyr. 3.1.21. The use of the rather odd word άφρоσύνη is related to the passage's sophistic tone. Gera (n. 1) 95–6 and Tuplin, C.J., ‘Xenophon's Cyropaedia: education and fiction’, in Sommerstein, A.H. and Atherton, C. (eds), Education in Greek Fiction (Bari 1997) 65–162Google Scholar at 83–4, explicate this segment well. My understanding of hybris is that of Fisher, N.R.E., Hybris (Warminster 1992)Google Scholar, as modified by Cairns, D.L., ‘Hybris, dishonour, and thinking big’, JHS 106 (1996) 1–32.Google Scholar

¹⁶ On sôphrosynê as a moral quality, see North, H., Sophrosyne (Ithaca 1966)Google Scholar with a brief discussion (131–2) of Cyr. 3.1.14–31, and Rademaker, A., Sophrosyne and the Rhetoric of Self-Restraint (Leiden 2005)Google Scholar with a brief discussion of σωφρоνίζειν (290–1). For sôphrosynê in Xenophon, Schiffmann, B., Untersuchungen zu Xenophon — Tugend, Eigenschaft, Verhalten, Folgen — (Göttingen 1991) 49–60.Google Scholar Dillery (n.9) identifies sôphrosynê as a major theme in the Hellenica, where cities and régimes thrive or collapse depending on the presence or absence of sôphrosynê in the state. For σωφρονίζειν in foreign relations, Thuc. 6.78.2; Xen. Hell. 3.2.23; Cyr. 3.1.27; ‘stopping’, ‘quenching’ hybris vel sim. Dem. 9.1, 19.325; Aeschin. 2.104; Isoc. 12.47, 61, 83, 196; with Lendon, J.E., ‘Homeric vengeance and the outbreak of Greek wars’, in van Wees, H. (ed.), War and Violence in Ancient Greece (London 2000) 1–30 at 14.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Cyr. 3.1.24–5. Fear also suppresses the consequences of ‘hatred’ (Xen. Hell. 5.2.15), which is another stage of the revenge cycle, Lendon (n.16) 15.

¹⁸ For this conception in Homer, see van Wees, H., Status Warriors (Amsterdam 1992) 69–77Google Scholar, and Wilson, D.F., Ransom, Revenge, and Heroic Identity in the Iliad (Cambridge 2002) 55–64.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The Iliad passages are trans. Lattimore, sometimes adapted.

²⁰ On Agamemnon's lack of acknowledged authority, see Taplin, O., ‘Agamemnon's role in the Iliad’, in Pelling, C. (ed.), Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature (Oxford 1990) 60–82 at 62–5.Google Scholar

²¹ Cf. Hom. Il. 1.175 for Agamemnon receiving timê from Zeus. Hom. Il. 12.310–21 (the speech of Sarpedon to Glaucus) is the classic Iliadic expression of the need to justify privileges by martial excellence, and Xenophon echoes it at An. 3.1.37; cf. Dillery (n.9) 74; but see Oec. 21.5–7 for a different view.

²² Xen. Eq. Mag 6.4–6; cf. Mem. 3.3.9–10, 3.5.21–3.

²³ Reward and punishment, Cyr. 1.6.20; cf. Oec. 5.15, but superiority better, Cyr. 1.6.21–5; empire, quoted Cyr. 7.5.78, cf. 7.5.83, 8.1.37. For this theme, Scharr, E., Xenophons Staats- und Gesellschaftsideal und seine Zeit (Halle 1919) 190–206Google Scholar; Luccioni, J., Les Idées politiques et sociales de Xénophon (Paris 1947) 54Google Scholar; Breitenbach (n.3) 1728–9; Hunt, P., Slaves, Warfare, and Ideology in the Greek Historians (Cambridge 1998) 147–53.Google Scholar

²⁴ Hdt. 7.159–61 with Wickersham, J., Hegemony and Greek Historians (Lanham, MD 1994) 4–14Google Scholar; cf. Hdt. 7.5; Thuc. 2.41.3 and 6.83.1 with Lendon (n.16) 17. But Thucydides can also have speakers sneer at this logic: 5.89.

²⁵ Delphic oracle, Parke, H.W. and Wormell, D.E.W., The Delphic Oracle 2: The Oracular Responses (Oxford 1956)Google Scholar no. 1 = Fontenrose, J., The Delphic Oracle (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1978)Google Scholar no. Q26. On this habit of ranking states, see Lendon (n.16) 13–14; van Wees (n. 7) 22–3; adding Dem. 8.72; 10.46–7, 52, 71, 74; 18.63, 200; Isoc. 12.70, 14.5.

²⁶ On Athens collectively as an aristocrat, Loraux, N., L'Invention d'Athènes (Paris 1981)Google Scholar; Lendon, J.E., Soldiers and Ghosts. A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity (New Haven 2005) 62–3Google Scholar with n.10; 406–7.

²⁷ An especially prominent theme in Isocrates (Or. 4, 8 passim, with de Romilly, J., The Rise and Fall of States According to Greek Authors (Ann Arbor 1977) 67).Google Scholar

²⁸ Hdt. 7.9; and cf. later statements of the formality of Greek warfare, Dem. Or. 9.48; Polyb. 13.3.2–6. For the Greek dichotomy between fighting ‘Openly’ and trickery, Heza, E., ‘Ruse de guerre — trait caractéristique d'une tactique nouvelle dans l'oeuvre de Thucydide’, Eos 62 (1974) 227–44Google Scholar at n. 10. The existence of this sense of fair play in Greek warfare is controversial: for the literature, Lendon (n.26) 401–2, 410–11.

²⁹ ‘Fair and open’, Xen. Hell. 6.5.16; cf. Andoc. 3.18; Isoc. 15.118. Defeat by strategy, etc., not regarded as real defeat: Hdt. 1.212; Dem. 60.21; Plut. Pel. 15.4–5; Polyb. 13.3.3; Arr. Anab. 3.10.3.

³⁰ On Xenophon's understanding of morale, and his didactic programme about it, Lendon, J.E., ‘The rhetoric of combat: Greek theory and Roman culture in Julius Caesar's battle descriptions’, Classical Antiquity 18 (1999) 273–329 at 290–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³¹ On states regarded anthropomorphically by Greeks, for literature, see van Wees, Greek Warfare (n.7) 6–18 and Lendon (n.16) 13–22.

³² On the vocabulary of morale in Xenophon, see also Schiffmann (n. 16) 85–96.

³³ Cyr. 1.6.13. For this binary conception of military morale in Xenophon, cf. 5.2.33, 5.3.47; Hell. 3.5.21–2.

³⁴ Cyr. 3.3.19. For the importance of high spirits in war, cf. 1.6.19; An. 3.1.42.

³⁵ Value of contempt in war, Cyr. 3.3.9, 3.3.31; cf. Hell. 3.4.19, 4.4.17; Hdt. 4.134; Thuc. 5.8.3; but contempt dangerous, Xen. Hell. 2.1.27, 4.1.17, 4.4.10, 4.5.12, 4.8.18, 4.8.36, 5.3.1, 7.1.18; Thuc. 5.9.3; contempt associated with hybris in war, Xen. Hell. 3.5.22–4.

³⁶ Binary conception of spirits in a state: Thuc. 5.32.4, 6.63.2; Dem. 18.175; Isoc. 15.121–2. High spirits in a state, Xen. Hell. 3.2.24, 5.2.37, 6.2.24; Thuc. 6.16.6. Low spirits in states: Xen. Hell. 4.4.15; Dem. 18.185; Aeschin. 2.141. See nn. 40 and 45 for alternative ways of expressing these concepts. High spirits in a state = contempt, Thuc. 6.63.2; Dem. Prooem. 39.3 (and creates blunders).

³⁷ Fear creates sôphrosynê, Xen. An. 7.7.30. Fear cures contempt, Thuc. 6.34.7–8. Opposition of fear and contempt, Thuc. 6.49.2, 6.63.2.

³⁸ Aggression, Xen. Mem. 3.5.4; cf. Cyr. 3.3.9–10; absence of contempt inclines a state to peace, Aeschin. 3.148.

³⁹ Dem. 13.25; cf. Plut. Per. 17; Thuc. 2.62.4–5, where Thucydides has Pericles urge contempt for their enemies on the Athenians. On μέγα φρονεῖν, see n.45.

⁴⁰ For ἔλαττον φρονεῖν, another near-synonym for low spirits and an antonym for hybris, cf. Isoc. 12.47, 167. Note also ταπεινότης (and related forms) ‘abasement’, ‘humbleness’, for the low state: Xen. Hell. 5.3.27; Mem. 3.5.4; Dem. 19.325 (= περιαιρεθῆναι τἡν ὕβρινκαὶ τὸ φρόνημα); Aeschin. 2.136; Isoc. 14.37.

⁴¹ Thuc. 3.11.1–2, 12.1; cf. 5.97.

⁴² Thuc. 3.39.5; cf. 5.95, 6.18.3.

⁴³ This association of hybris with Θάρσος and εύθυμία is another way of understanding the unity between Fisher's (n.15) understanding of hybris, an insulting act or the disposition thereto, and MacDowell's, D.M. (‘Hybris in Athens’, G&R 23 (1976) 14–31)Google Scholar, ‘having energy and power and misusing it self-indulgently’ (30), to which drunk young men are especially prone. Bridging this gap is the purpose of Cairns (n.15).

⁴⁴ As a rule, Thuc. 3.39.4, 3.45.4, 4.18.2; de Romilly (n.27) 46–7. Cf. Hdt. 1.89, 5.91; Dem. 1.23.

⁴⁵ For μέγα φρονεῖν = hybris, Cairns (n.15) 11–17, although of course the term hybris is always pejorative, while μέγα φρονεῖν need not be. For άναφυσῖν cf. Xen. Hell. 7.1.23 (synonymous with ἐνέπλησεφρονήματος 7.1.23 and ἐμεγαλύνοντο , 7.1.24). The Greeks had other ways of expressing this concept too: φρόνημα, Xen. Hell. 5.2.18 (= hybris 5.2.38) and Dem. 19.325; ἐπαίρεσθαι, Hdt. 5.81 and Thuc. 5.14.2, 6.11.6; ἐπῆρται φρόνημα (contrasted with τεταπείνωται δόξα), Xen. Mem. 3.5.4.

⁴⁶ Xen. Hell. 7.1.26, 44; Thuc. 6.18.4: Πελοποννησίων τε στορέσωμεν τὸ φρόνημα.

⁴⁷ Contempt from growing strength, cf. Hdt. 1.66; from another's declining strength, Thuc. 5.28.2 (= φρόνημα, 5.40.3). Θάρσος from appearance of weakness in an opponent, Xen. Hell. 3.2.24.

⁴⁸ Irrational contempt in foreign relations: Xen. Hell. 3.5.1; Thuc. 5.28.2, 6.11.5, 6.35.1 with 37.2, 6.49.2, 6.63.2. Irrational high spirits in foreign relations: Xen. Hell. 3.2.24, 5.4.46; Thuc. 6.11.6, 6.63.2; cf. Xen. Mem. 4.2.29.

⁴⁹ Soldiers, Lendon (n.30) 290–5; irrational terror in states, Xen. Hell. 4.4.15, 5.1.34, 7.4.14; cf. Hdt. 3.13; Thuc. 6.34.7–8, 6.49.2, 7.42.3. Contrive to terrify, Xen. Hell. 7.5.6; An. 7.4.1; Hdt. 7.235; Thuc. 6.49.2; encourage high spirits in allies, Xen. Hell. 4.3.2, 7.5.6.

⁵⁰ Dem. 23.103–6; Aeschin. 3.65; cf. Dem. 14.28.

⁵¹ Cyr. 3.1.27. For fear producing hate, cf. Isoc. 15.121–2.

⁵² Cyr. 3.1.28–9. As odd as gratitude for not being destroyed may seem, it appears elsewhere: at Xen. Hell. 6.3.13 an orator suggests that Athens acts in part out of gratitude to Sparta for not destroying her at the end of the Peloponnesian War; also 6.5.35.

⁵³ Cf. Thuc. 4.19.2. For calculating good and bad actions against each other in foreign affairs, cf. Dem. 16.13; Isoc. 5.37.

⁵⁴ On the Greek understanding of friendship in terms of reciprocity, Mitchell, L.G., Greeks Bearing Gifts (Cambridge 1997) 3–21.Google Scholar On the rôle of reciprocity between states in Greek foreign relations, Mitchell, L.G., ‘Фιλία, εὕνοια, and Greek interstate relations’, Antichthon 31 (1997) 28–44Google Scholar; Missiou, A., ‘Reciprocal generosity in the foreign affairs of fifth-century Athens and Sparta’, in Gill, C., Postlethwaite, N. and Seaford, R. (eds), Reciprocity in Ancient Greece (Oxford 1998) 181–97.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Cyr. 3.1.28; nor upon scholars: Bizos (n.2) 9. But D.A. Cohen points out to me that placing great confidence in the loyalty of forgiven rebels was also commonplace in the Middle Ages.

⁵⁶ Cyr. 3.1.38. Nadon (n.1) 79 n.34 gathers the modern references for the identification of the ‘sophist’ as Socrates.

⁵⁷ Tuplin (n.15) 84 grasps the seriousness of this argument from reciprocity. In general on reciprocity in Xenophon, see Azoulay, V., Xénophon et les grâces du pouvoir (Paris 2004).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Shame, Cyr. 1.2.7; cf. Thuc. 4.19.3; Xen. Hell. 4.1.33–4, 6.5.42, 44; Xen. Mem. 2.10.3. Chaldeans, Cyr. 3.2.16. For the power of reciprocal bonds, the relationship between Cyrus the Younger and the mercenary captain Clearchus is exemplary: Xen. An. 1.1.9, 1.3.4, 1.3.10, 2.3.22–4 (shame).

⁵⁹ Cf. Hdt. 7.158; Xen. Hell. 6.5.42; Mem. 2.2.14; Aeschin. 2.117. ‘Unjust’, Xen. Mem. 2.2.1–2.

⁶⁰ Hdt. 5.90–1; cf. 7.156; Dem. 5.5; Xen. Hell. 3.5.12.

⁶¹ Cf. Dem. 16.13, 17, and for the great power of such obligations in foreign affairs in Herodotus, Gould, J., ‘Give and take in Herodotus’, in id., Myth, Ritual, Memory and Exchange. Essays in Greek Literature and Culture (Oxford 2001) 283–303.Google Scholar

⁶² On the alarming quality of receiving favours, cf. Azoulay (n.57) 60–8; Crane, G., Thucydides and the Ancient Simplicity (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1998) 108–9.Google Scholar Euripides’ Alcestis deals in part with this problem: Padilla, M., ‘Gifts of humiliation: charts and tragic experience in Alcestis’, AJP 121 (2000) 179–211.Google Scholar

⁶³ On the episode, Breitenbach (n.3) 1731–2. On the passage quoted, Tatum (n.1) 131–3; Gera (n.1) 106–9; Azoulay (n.57) 66–7.

⁶⁴ Cyr. 5.4.11. In a long relationship between states, who owes what to whom can be represented as is most convenient: Isoc. 5.36.

⁶⁵ Here, as Azoulay (n.57) notes (52–60, 282–318), arise the mis-steps of Mitchell, Gifts (n.54) 6–21 and Konstan, D., Friendship in the Classical World (Cambridge 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who take equality as a necessary aspect of Classical Greek reciprocity and philia (friendship, in accord with Aristotle's definition of philia, Eth. Nic. 1157b, 1158b) and, in Mitchell's case, inequality as characteristic of Persians (pp. 111–33). Xenophon amply proves (as Azoulay illustrates) that reciprocity and philia could be understood to exist between unequals in Classical Greece. The agony that Aristotle undergoes to squeeze friendship between superiors and inferiors (whose inequality will extend to their giving) into this definition of friendship (Eth. Nic. 1158b–59a, 63a–b) shows that his position, upon which Mitchell and Konstan rely, must have been idiosyncratic.

⁶⁶ See Lendon, J.E., Empire of Honour (Oxford 1997) 63–9Google Scholar for a discussion of Roman patronage in this sense.

⁶⁷ The same sense of great debt can apply to revenge as well: Hdt. 5.82 with Lendon (n.16) 15.

⁶⁸ Cyr. 8.2.7; cf. Hdt. 7.39, and for the realities of Persian gift-giving, Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H., ‘Gifts in the Persian Empire’, in Briant, P. and Herrenschmidt, C. (eds), Le Tribut dans l'Empire Perse (Paris 1989) 129–46.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See Mitchell, Gifts (n.54), and the essays in Gill, C., Postlethwaite, N. and Seaford, R. (eds), Reciprocity in Ancient Greece (Oxford 1998).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Xen. Ages. 1.18–19, 22; 5.1, 6.4, 11.13; cf. Plut. Ages. 4.3–4, 17.3, 20.4. Ephors, quoted, Plut. Ages. 5.2. On Agesilaus' patronage, Cartledge, P., Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta (London 1987) 139–59Google Scholar; Azoulay (n.57) 305–10.

⁷¹ Cimon, Plut. Cim. 10; Theopompus, FGrHist 115 F 89; Nicias, Plut. Nic. 3. Litigants: Ober, J., Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens (Princeton 1989) 226–33Google Scholar, and Azoulay (n.57) 82–4 gather the references. Other instances of ‘patronage’ at Athens: Xen. Mem. 2.9.1–10.6; Oec. 2.5, 2.8, on which Zelnick-Abramovitz, R., ‘Did patronage exist in Classical Athens?’, L'Antiquité classique 69 (2000) 65–80Google Scholar; cf. Azoulay (n.57) 291–9.

⁷² Thuc. 2.40.4–5, reading this difficult passage with Hooker, J.T., ‘Χάρις and ἀρετή in Thucydides’, Hermes 102 (1974) 164–9 at 167Google Scholar; cf. 6.18.2; Isoc. 14. On unequal reciprocity between Athens and her allies (discussing this passage), Azoulay (n.57) 76–8.

⁷³ Quoted, Dem. 18.92. Mitchell, ‘Φιλία’ (n.54) 38 collects epigraphic statements of indebtedness.

⁷⁴ Xen. Hell. 6.5.40; cf. 3.5.16, 5.2.3, 5.2.20, 7.4.10; Hdt. 1.61; and for an individual, Xen. Mem. 2.2.12.

⁷⁵ On the speeches of Procles and Callistratus, Dillery (n.9) 244–9 with literature. On the Poroi, Dillery, J., ‘Xenophon's Poroi and Athenian imperialism’, Historia 42 (1993) 1–11.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Lay under obligation, Dem. 6.9, 15.11. Accepting favours dangerous, Dem. 6.8–12.

⁷⁷ Eunoia defined in reciprocal terms: Mitchell ‘Φιλία’ (n.54) 33–5; in Xenophon, Azoulay (n.57) 311 n.169. Eunoia called upon, Dem. 2.9, 8.66, 11.7, 15.4. Generally on eunoia, de Romilly, J., ‘Eunoia in Isocrates or the political importance of creating good will’, JHS 78 (1958) 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁸ For discussion of these themes, and collections of references, Low, P.A., Normative Politics in Greek Interstate Relations, 411–322 BC (unpublished PhD diss. Cambridge 2001)Google Scholar, her forthcoming book, and P. Hunt, War, Peace, and Alliance in Demosthenes' Athens (Cambridge forthcoming). The strongest theoretical statement of realism in Attic oratory is Dem. 15.28; cf. Arist. Rhet. 1358b.

⁷⁹ For the range of causes Herodotus sees in foreign affairs, Immerwahr, H., ‘Aspects of historical causation in Herodotus’, TAPA 87 (1956) 241–80Google Scholar at 251–64. For revenge, Pagel, K.-A., Die Bedeutung des aitiologischen Momentes für Herodots Geschichtsschreibung (Leipzig 1927)Google Scholar, modified by de Romilly, J., ‘La Vengeance comme explication historique dans l'oeuvre d'Hérodote’, REG 84 (1971) 314–37Google Scholar; cf. Sealey, R., ‘Thucydides, Herodotos, and the causes of war’, CQ 51 (1957) 1–12.Google Scholar For positive reciprocity, esp. Gould, J., Herodotus (London 1989) 82–5Google Scholar; Gould (n. 61).

⁸⁰ On the tradition of interpretation of this passage, Meyer, E.A., ‘The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War after twenty-five years’, in Hamilton, C.D. and Krentz, P. (eds), Polis and Polemos (Claremont, CA 1997) 23–54.Google Scholar

⁸¹ On Thucydides' realism, Crane (n.62); for the distinction between Thucydides' two levels of realism, esp. 36–71, 237–93. For Thucydidean realism, see also Constantineau, P., La Doctrine classique de la politique étrangère (Paris 1997) 21–112Google Scholar, and esp. for the realism of Thucydides' speakers 57–83. I leave aside the question of whether Thucydides' later books unknowingly subvert the realism of Books 1 and 2, although I am sympathetic to the idea that they do: Ober, J., ‘Thucydides Theoretikos/Thucydides Histor: realist theory and the challenge of history’, in McCann, D. and Strauss, B.S. (eds), War and Democracy (Armonk, NY 2001) 273–305.Google Scholar

⁸² Cf. Due (n. 1) 225, and the speeches of Procles and Callistratus in the Hellenica and Xenophon in the Poroi (above, n.75).

⁸³ Fear of power: Xen. Hell. 5.2.15–17, 6.1.7; cf. 6.2.1, 6.2.9; Hdt. 1.46 with 71, 5.91; cf. 1.159, 3.1.

⁸⁴ Low (n.78) 143–9 gathers and discusses the references; see esp. Dem. 9.24–5; cf. Xen. Hell. 3.5.10.