B. Lukács

President of the Matter Evolution Subcommittee

of the Geonomy Scientific Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

CRIP RMKI, H-1525 Bp. 114. Pf. 49., Budapest, Hungary

lukacs@rmki.kfki.hu

Who is the author of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia? I am not a historian; definitely not a historian of ancient Greece, and I am not fanatic to get the answer. But it is strange that the author is rather sought in an otherwise unknown Athenian called Cratippus than in the existing, well-known and diligent Aeolian, Ephorus of Cyme. It seems that posterity rather ignores Aeolians.

Names are generally not translated, although Hungarian & Japanese names turn backward in English context. However Greek names generally transform into their translated Latin in English texts, and I follow this usage, excepting Chap. 2.

So KratippoV =Kratippos® Cratippus. But why?

The K® C substitution is trivial. While the Latin alphabet does contain "K", the only K word in Latin I can remember is "Kalenda", "the first day of the month", and it has nothing to do with Greek, as shown by "never"="ad Graecas Kalendas", because Greeks had no Kalendas.

As for "-os"® "-us", that is indeed translation. In Greek and Latin, being flectating languages, the Nominative is not the Absolute case, not the pure root, but a full member of the flection paradigm. Now in Declension 2 (masculines with –o root) the Greek ending is –os, and the Latin is –us.

Magyar and e.g. Basque are agglutinative. There is an Absolutive case in the paradigm, and other cases are formed practically by simple glueing endings. But ancestors of Magyars & Basques were not in touch since Upper Paleolithic, so now in Magyar the Absolutive is always the Nominative, denoting the Subject, while in Basque the Absolutive is Subject only for passive subjects, so to speak; if there is an active subject then the Subject is in Ergative case and Absolutive is used for the Object, if it were proper to use Latin-based terms for non-Indo-European languages. But this study will not be connected with Magyar or Basque..

Hellenica means cca. "Ancient Greek History", and the best known Hellenica was written by Thucydides, first a politician and naval officer of Athens, then a political exile. Thucydides is regarded as the deepest historian of Ancient Ages; I think, partly because he was in the position to be more or less impartial. Surely, as a substantial Athenian he was for the Noble Athenian Cause; but, being later exiled, he might have understood also some points of the opposite side too.

Namely, the topics of the Hellenica of Thucydides is the Peloponnesian War, the merciless and dirty struggle of the 2 Greek superpowers, Athens & Sparta, for 27 (!) years. During these decades Athens held together by iron hands and drove into battles an "alliance" of hundreds of substantial and negligible coastal cities (the so called Delian League) committing deeds which now would classify as political crimes, including genocide (the case of Melians, at least); and while we know less about the internal affairs of the other side, the mainly land-locked Peloponnesian Alliance, dirty things may have happened there too. While the responsible persons might have told that it would be simple enough to judge them from the far future and that our moral standpoint is the result of our experience including the Peloponnesian War itself too, we know that some events of that War were loathsome even for contemporaries.

If the warring states committed dirty things, then the expectable view was to give nice reasons for those deeds, namely that they were only responses to the even dirtier deeds of the enemy; and no doubt, this kind of apologetic historiography did exist. But an Athenian exiled by his fellow Athenians is in a more or less impartial viewpoint. Spartans are bad guys, because they would inflict harms by ton-loads on his beloved City; but at least some leaders of the City are bad guys too, exiling him from his Beloved City. So Thucydides was in the position to look at both sides with a similar negative prejudication.

I am not interested here about the history of the Peloponnesian War. But let us write down some elementary data. The war took 27 years; and the starting year is believed well datable from 3 eclipses reported in Tucydides' book. So according to consensus the war started in 431 BC and ended in 404. The practical end was the Aigospotamoi naval battle, decisively lost by the Athenians, but after that the Spartans did not give peace to Athens for months because they expected that the famine would soften the Athenians, which it indeed did.

Thucydides' work [1] starts, after a brief Introduction about semi-mythical times, Athenian monarchy & such, with the 460's, and the outbreak of the Great War is at the 10th % of the book. On the other hand, it ends in a rather abrupt and unnatural way, with Book 8 Chapter 109, when the Sardis satrap goes to Ephesus to offer to Artemis. The last important naval act mentioned is the Athenian victory at Cynossema (in the Dardanelles), in Chaps. 105-106. We could believe that the later parts are lost; but not so. Xenophon, in that time a knight in Athens, pupil of Socrates and personal unfriend of Plato, later got the idea to finish Thucydides' book. (The exact date is still unknown: sometimes between 403 & 394.) He could be also impartial. Born in an old honourable Athenian family he had good opinion about Spartans too. Then he was exiled in 399, but after 371 Athens and Sparta became allies, so he did not have to choose between his native city and the object of his high opinion. That book is also extant [2], in 7 "books", starting a few days after Cynossema. (Some historians believe that Xenophon’s work is only the part bw. 394 & 362; see in due course.) The exact dating will come in due course; but this shows that in 365 the work of Thucydides ended exactly as now.

It was an elegant solution to continue Thucydides as if he himself had continued the book. Modern reviewers tell that the quality much differs; but de gustibus non est disputandum, and the present topics will not be artistic, professional or any other quality. Thucydides ceased to continue the writing just after the Cynossema Battle, when satrap Tissaphernes is just going to the Ephesus shrine of Artemis, in the middle of the War; Xenophon took the abandoned pen, from exactly that point finished the book, and we have a complete Hellenica of Thucydides and Xenophon.

However Xenophon's part is not the only continuation of Thucydides' book. Diodorus Siculus (1st c. BC) mentions (at 13,42,5) that Theopompus (*377 BC) also continued The Peloponnesian War, and Dionysius Halicarnasseus mentions a Cratippus as a continuator. Also we know that Ephorus of Cyme (4th c. BC), pupil of Isocrates wrote his version of the War too, in his big compilation Universal History which goes up to 341 BC and which was amply used by Diodorus.

Now, on 3rd January 1906 some papyri were found in the sand of the place of the ancient Hellenistic city Oxyrhynchus in Egypt, and newer fragments in 1934. For that status see [3]; in 1973 some new fragments were again found and the 3 finds together can be read in [4]. It seems that the 3 finds belong to the same original ancient work; and so here I will refer that book, whose fragments are collected in [4] as Hellenica Oxyrhynchia.

The extant fragments start in 409 BC. However the extant text mentions the Chius action of Spartans (they liberated the city from Athenian oppression in the summer of 412), citing Thucydides, but for the 411 events (about Timolaos) it writes: hôsper eiręka pou proteron, that is: as has been reported. So Hellenica Oxyrhynchia seems to start more or less at the same time as the Hellenica of Xenophon. (Attic year started cca. in July.) We know that the text is still going in 395.

Now, scholars discuss the authorship of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia for almost a century, with at least 6 candidates. Most of them are discussed in [3], and [5] gives the status of the argumentation in 1987. I admit that I used heavily [5]. In the next Chapter I list the candidates.

In this Chapter I use Greek name forms and alphabetic order. As for the internal dating of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, the Boeotian Confederation (or Communa) is referred in it as defunct (so it was written after 386 BC), but in the relations between Locris & Phocis the text does not mention anything about the Sacred War, so probably it was finished before 357 BC. Its style is "pure Attic" [5]. The extant parts cover 409-406 and 397-395, and the whole book started at 411. The fragments seem to belong to 3 copies. And now the candidates. You may consult [3] and [5] for more details.

Androtion. An idea of de Sanctis & Momigliano, on the ground of an interpolated dating formula. Androtion is an Atthidographer, a moderately conservative Athenian politician, enemy of Demosthenes and pupil of Isocrates.

Daimachos of Plataia. F. Jacoby's idea, on the grounds that the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia has a Boiotian excursus. There were two historians of this name; but the younger one, ambassador to India c. 293, is out of question. I note that Daimachos is an interesting author totally independently of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia too, see App. 1.

Ephoros of Kyme. Aeolian, but pupil of Isokrates, still working in 341. He used the older Daimachos, while his work is much cited by Diodoros.

Theopompos of Chios. Born in 377. His style is flowery, sometimes agitated. Diodoros, who cites him much, definitely tells (at 13,42,5 & 14,84,7) that Theopompos' Hellenica started in 410 and ended in 394.

Kratippos. A totally unknown person, but Dionysios Halikarnasseus mentions him as a continuator of Thukydides. Plutarch and Marcellinus (see later) also mention him as an expert of the age.

Xenophon. Well known member of Socrates’ circle, later in exile on Peloponneso s. His authorship is the idea of Canfora [6], who believes that Kratippos is the alias of Xenophon. So indeed then "Kratippos" and Theopompos continued the work of Thukydides.

We start to discuss the candidates in the next Section.

I think we can rule out 3 candidates, not as impossible ones, but as candidates without real weight. As for Androtion the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia is not an Atthis, so why to suspect him; and also for Daimachus nothing really supports the candidacy anymore [3]. (The serious interest in things Boeotian may simply come from a book used by the author of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia. E.g. Boeotian books were easy for Aiolic Ephorus because of similarity of dialects.) As for Xenophon, the idea is strange enough. The known parts of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia differ from Xenophon's Hellenica. So Canfora's theory would need Xenophon to write 2 different continuations to Thucydides, one as Xenophon, another under an alias.

For the remaining 3 we know arguments for and against, as follows.

Ephorus did write a historical work covering the range of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, but the problem is that it covers much more: from the return of the Heraclids to 341. He surely could write a Hellenica, and his birthdate (in the range 405-408) is not bad for that. Also we know that Ephorus was popular in Roman Imperial times, which is conform with 3 copies in Oxyrhynchus. Still, there are no identical phrases in Diodorus and the Oxyrhynchia, although Diodorus used Ephorus very much.

Theopompus is reported to have written a continuation to Thucydides and we know from Diodorus that he covered the time range 410-394. The starting year is good for the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia and also for the continuation (see App. 2), and the closing year is not surpassed by the extant fragments. Still, Theopompus' style seems to differ from that of the fragments [5]. And look at the birth date: he should have completed the work definitely before 21 year old, which is highly improbable. (If he really was born in 377; Suda knows otherwise, but Suda is not the apex of reliability.)

This is the reason that finally Németh prefers Cratippus. However he is practically an empty name for us! No fragments at all. True, Dionysius Halicarnasseus does mention him. But Dionysius Halicarnasseus is not a historian but a rhetor, in Rome, four hundred years after his suspected time. Then also Plutarch and Marcellinus mentions him, but, as we shall see, these mentions do not support too much his authorship of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia.

Surely, there is no strong proof against Cratippus; but for Cratippus as the author of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia they are even weaker, as we shall see. The usual arguments for Cratippus are rather negative: namely that there are arguments against the authorship of Theopompus!

But then, since there are serious counterarguments to Theopompus, Ephorus remains the simplest solution, as we shall see in Chap. 7. Of course, I cannot prove Ephorus' authorship, but I emphasize that it was not my goal at all. The person of Ephorus is rather a symbol for me; the symbol of a forgotten nation.

Ephorus of Cyme was an Aeolian. Aeolians were not taken seriously. There were some commonplaces against them; and some more is extant especially since the great geographer Strabo [7] cites Ephorus amply. Let us see some examples, without claiming completeness.

Aeolians were regarded too simple/natural by Athenian intelligentsia because their males more or less preferred the presence of women for sex. While they were not strictly heterosexual (see e.g. Psapfa who is better known on her Atticised name as Sappho), they did not hate the opposite sex. Therefore in Plato's Symposium it is told that they do not prefer homosexuality because of deliberate Barbarian influence: their masters want to prevent strong masculine bounds from which Liberty would grow. After more 2000 years Bachofen writes that the Aeolians surpassed matriarchy but were not able to reach "the higher Heraclean degree of light, which is superior to the Apollonian-Iasonian degree of Eous-Ieus" [8]. (Sorry, I do not exactly know who would be this Eous-Ieus, but I doubt that Bachofen had clear notion about either, and I am translating through Hungarian, actually. However the meaning is clear enough because Bachofen tells that Heracles hated women.)

Aeolians did not have European Motherland. Ionians were represented/defended by Athens, Dorians by Sparta (especially Asian ones), but Aeolians were without European relatives. (OK, a more or less Aeolic idiom was used in Boeoty, but they did not have special connections with Aiolis.) Therefore their liberation from Persia was generally not a goal; and even this was the better alternative for them. Also, consider the Persian terminology of Herodotus: all the Asian Greek territory is Ionia, even Aiolis. In Persian this was correct, being Greek=Yavana (as if every Greek were Ionian); but in Greek it was not. No surprise, then, that the greatest local Aeolian leader, Hermeias of Atarneus, father-in-law of Aristotle, makes an alliance with Philip of Macedon; Macedonians are not quite considered Greek by Athenians (see [9] and references therein).

Strabo tells two stories about Cyme in XIII.3.6. One story is that Cymeans are dumb because in the first 300 years of the existence of the city they did not take port tax, ergo they did not recognise that the city was on the seashore. According to the second, there was a covered walking place in the city. The city borrowed money, did not pay back, and then the money-lenders took the walking-place as security. But then came a heavy rain. The money-lenders told the people that they should go under the cover; later the tradition remembered that Cymeans cannot go under cover in rain if they are not told to.

And also Stabo tells that Ephorus of Cyme, when telling the interesting histories of all Greece, was not able to report anything about Cyme. (Nothing happened there.) So he wrote: "In that time Cymeans lived quietly" (…taV ⁽hsuciaV ⁾hgon).

Modern scholars continue the Attic tradition. Then surely Ephorus of Cyme, author of Universal History in 30 books, is a mere stupid compiler, and anybody can forget him.

Surely, originally Ephorus could not write in pure Attic style. Of course, as a pupil of Isocrates, he must have been able to formulate in Attic, but surely not in pure Attic. But Hellenistic scribes copied and copied the text for 4 centuries and may have removed the Aeolian of the orthography.

Also, obviously Universal History cannot be Hellenica Oxyrhynchia; it starts in the Dark Age between Bronze and Iron, not in 410; it ends in 341 not in 394; and it is Universal History, not just the Peloponnesian War. But, if already Universal History was ready, Ephorus of Cyme might have been ambitious enough to finish (again) the incomplete Thucydides, according to his own viewpoint; and if he decided so (which we of course cannot positively know) he was able to do this by using the appropriate part of Universal History. In such a rewriting of course the text changes, so literally exact correspondences between Diodorus using Universal History and Ephorus' Hellenica are not necessary at all. And this argument holds also, mutatis mutandis, if young Ephorus wrote first the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia and expanded it later into Universal History. (And then you cannot expect indeed word-to-word identities between Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, which Diodorus did not use, and Diodorus. Ephorus did not write in his mother tongue. Compare my present English style with my texts from 1974 and you will see my point.)

To be sure: I do not tell that Ephorus is the author. I simply tell that his Aeolian nationality does not rule this out.

However, amongst continuators of Thucydides who is the example and who is the follower? We should know first the years of publications of the 3 books. Causality is a firm scientific principle (at least outside of General Relativity; there up to now we are not absolutely sure in it).

The task seems relative easy with Xenophon [2]. Although the text might be interpolated, it starts exactly at the end of Thucydides (as mentioned) and the last sentence starts as: "At this point I lay aside my pen...". So the extant text of Xenophon's Hellenica ends at the original endpoint, which is Mantinea, the Spartan defeat, death of Epaminondas &c., 362 BC. That is terminus post quem. As for terminus ante quem, Xenophon died in 354, but in the last one or two years he wrote On Revenues. So let us tell that the terminus ante quem is 356 BC.

We do not know Theopompus' Hellenica. However he was born in 377, so it is unnatural to believe in a Hellenica before, say, 352. When Speusippus writes his shameful Letter to Philip, Theopompus is in Macedon, so surely he does not write Hellenica. (Lot of sources being unavailable.) So he could continue Thucydides either about 350, or after 340.

As for the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, according to [5] it must have been written between the dissolution of the Boeotian Confederation and the Sacred War, so between 386 and 356. So for the first moment it seems that we have gained nothing. But not so.

Let us repeat. Xenophon did write a Hellenica; we have it. Theopompus also did write one; we have some fragments in citations. The author of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia also did write one, the evidence is at hand, and it seems the author of it was not Theopompus. Maybe Cratippus also wrote one, but we do not have even fragments if it was not Hellenica Oxyrhynchia. If it was not, however, then Cratippus' Hellenica is completely lost. So we can continue with the above 3.

Now, the time order can be 2 of the logically possible 6, namely

X < O < T (A)

or

O < X < T (B)

So either Xenophon wrote something, then the author of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia was offended and wrote an alternative Hellenica, but for this he had only cca. 3 years (360 - 357), or the author of HO was the first, it offended Xenophon (politically? historically?), so he wrote an alternative Hellenica; then the author of HO could write in any time between 386 and 362. In both cases Theopompus later also felt necessary to challenge one of them.

But let us wait a moment. Above I told that the original Hellenica ended in 362. But what does it mean: the original Hellenica?

The "original" means only that from 354 upwards Xenophon’s Hellenica ended just at 362 BC. However there is a serious anomaly in Hellenica.

At the end of "Book" 2 Xenophon records the victory above the Eleusians (the oligarchic followers of the Thirty), and the last half sentence is [2]: "...and to this day the two parties live amicably together as good citizens, and the democracy is steadfast to its oaths". This half sentence, then, was possible after but not much after Sep. 403; and surely, Xenophon wrote it before going to Persia, so before March 401. It sounds as the end of a first version of Hellenica. Only later it turned out that the violent political evolution restarted.

But then the first quarter of Hellenica was ready in 401, and some Athenian circles might have known it. But then the idea of continuing Thucydides at the Cynossema battle may go back to that date and only Scheme 1 is viable.

It seems fairly probable that Hellenica Oxyrhynchia is a product of an Athenian group. Observe that until Alexander III Greece was internally divided, political emotions were high, and a Boeotian or Peloponnesian author could easily be detected even from fragments. Also, the available text is good Attic; but this in itself would not be decisive because the copies come from I-II c. AD. Also, non-Athenian authors would not append Thucydides but rather would write a new first half too, weighting the scenes differently. Also note that Cratippus may have not lived, but anyway, he is told to close his continuation also in 394. And 394, the partial revanche for the defeat is natural endpoint only in Athens. A Spartan would close the book either in 404 or in 387. So: Athens, between 386 & 357.

Why indicates here two questions. Why to write an alternative text of Xenophon's, and why to compete with Xenophon personally. For the first two answers are possible. Somebody had some troubles with Xenophon even personally or politically. In the first case somebody from Socrates' late circle would be the natural candidate; but who? Surely not Plato. Plato disliked Xenophon, and vice versa, but I think his style would be recognisable. As for political disagreements, a lot of Athenians may not have agreed with Xenophon. Radical democrats, e.g., would have hated him and would have believed him to prefer land operations, cavalry & such, to naval ones. But also, after 399 Xenophon was a kind of traitor, having fought on the Spartan side. And if somebody wanted to show up an alternative to internecine wars, he had to write an alternative history.

And we do know that Isocrates wanted to rise above polis particularism at least from 380. It is natural enough to write a new history from Isocratean point of view, and a school having Androtion, Ephorus and Theopompus as professional historians can do this. Such a book can also be used in teaching in the school. Half a century later Aristotle will write lots of books for Lyceum teaching.

If somebody did not know, this is a title of a musical. The story happens a century ago. Annie, the heroine, is the star sharpshooter (sharpshootress? markswoman? marksperson? Indo-European grammar is unnatural) in a circus. Then the circus gets a male sharpshooter too, and a complicated relation is developing. Each strophe of one famous duetta starts with the phrase, then:

Anything you can do

I can do better...

Now, the phenomenon is not restricted to circuses, and not even to colleagues of mixed genders. I think, the most important two conditions are i) a quite similar area of interest and activity; and ii) intensive communication. If these conditions are met, then the two sharpshooters, scientists, scholars &c. can imitate the activities of each other and sometimes from professional pride they want to. (An extreme example was when a woman colleague and multiple coauthor of mine made a lecture about a common topics of us, and then after a few weeks she was told that I had made the lecture. From pure physical point of view this was not a compliment for any of us, of course.) Also, I must admit that such a competition has something to do with the present study too.

Now let us go to Thucydides' "Hellenica". I do not know why he stopped with the story in 411/410. I think, nobody knows. Maybe even Xenophon did not know. So he believed to be worthwhile to continue it; and, because [1] "ends" abruptly in the middle of an action, Xenophon tried to continue it smoothly.

How smoothly? Now, Thucydides' work, in the extant form at least, ends with Chapter 109 of Book 8. This "Chapter" tells some countermeasures of Tissaphernes, Satrap of Sardis, to the Athenian, Spartan and Dascylean moves; the last sentence tells that [before acting] "He went first to Ephesus where he made a sacrifice to Artemis." [1]. But the Chapters immediately before narrate naval actions. Ch. 106 is the Cynossema battle, Ch. 107 is "the fourth day" after the battle, some moves of navies, and also it is the beginning of Ch. 108. Then comes some march of Tissaphernes, provoked by the Spartan naval moves, and then some land actions in Aiolis. So Ch. 109 is still indirectly connected to the naval activity in the Hellespont; and here [1] stops.

Xenophon, then, starts with a somewhat cryptic sentence, translated by Dakyns as "To follow the order of events". However the translator himself notes in a footnote that literally it is "after these events". Let us accept this: then "After these events a few days later Thymochares arrived from Athens with a few ships, when another sea fight between the Lacedaemonians and Athenians at once took place,...".

As far as we know, this is direct continuation of the story told until the end of the first paragraph of Ch. 108 of [1]. The first two paragraphs of Xenophon deal with naval actions, but Tissaphernes, from the last Chapter of [1] appears in the third paragraph of [2]. He has already arrived at the Hellespont, so maybe a few sentences are lost at the end of [1] about the outcome of the sacrifice and such, but definitely not more. So, indeed, Xenophon continues smootly Thucydides, even if it would have been smoother to write something: "While Tissaphernes was marching..." or a similar phrase as first sentence.

Then -would tell somebody- Xenophon set an example, and it was followed both by Theopompus and by the author of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia: starting at the endpoint of [1], in 411/410, and citing [1] for previous events, so that [1] and the continuation form an integrated work. Indeed, Hellenica Oxyrhynchia did this; we do not know too much about Theopompus' book.

As for the Annie analogy, you are to wait only two Chapters to make use of it.

Hungarians are quite familiar with a situation that the author of an important history book is unknown. The most detailed chronicle about Magyar Conquest and prehistory of Hungarian State, Gesta Hungarorum, is extant, but tells about the author only that it is Magister P. (which might quite be Peter or Paul, but our best favorite seems to be Posa), "the notary of the late King Bela". The problem is that we had four Béla Kings, and the first died 1061, while the last in 1270. The debate is not closed after centuries, and we call him "Anonymus", i.e. "Nameless" as if it would be a nickname. The present problem is analogous, although Hellenica Oxyrhynchia is not complete.

Let us denote the author of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia with P. This is not the Hungarian analogy but the notation of Bleckmann [10]. Since no candidate's name starts with "P", it is convenient. Bold italics will indicate something: the author of a text involved in the problem. Now, as we have seen, 3 candidates remained: Theopompus, Cratippus and Ephorus. P's excerpts are the extant pages of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, we know some fragments of E & T, (alas, not quite the proper texts) but unfortunately we do not have original sentences from C. But, in addition, we have the complete text of Diodorus, as far as the period 410-394 is regarded. It is relevant, because Diodorus used a lot of sources. Now D explicitly tells that he uses E & T, and he may use Xenophon too, although at several points he seriously differs from X [10], while he definitely does not mention C at all.

Now, Xenophon is very probably older than the other authors, so his text may have been used by the others. Really, Ephorus and Theopompus belonged to Isocrates' circle, and it would be very surprising if they did not use X. However for a reason understood immediately I will call the first part of X, until Cnidus as X₁, and the remaining part X₂.

For the (possible) doubling of the person Xenophon let us see a very respectable opinion just after the discovery of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, so P. The 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica [11] tells, at the headword Cratippus, that the discovery of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia triggered an idea that "a fairly certain inference from a passage in Plutarch" is that Cratippus "was an Athenian writer, intermediate in date between Thucydides and Xenophon, and that his work continued the narrative of Thucydides, from the point at which the latter historian stopped (410 B.C.) down to the battle of Cnidus (394 B.C.)". While we do not have to accept such a hypothesis (and we will return to this point), we must distinguish X₁ from X₂ to be able to discuss it.

First let us discuss D's dependences. [10] mentions examples when D does not agree with X₁. Then in these parts he used E or T, or C≠X₁, or a completely disjoint fourth source; but this last hypothesis would violate Ockham's Razor, so we ignore that last possibility.

Now, [10] detects that D here confuses the Sardis satrap Tissaphernes with the Dascyleum one Pharnabasus, fused into one person. It is also a modern tendency to forget about the separate Dascyleum satrapy, no doubt because of 1) Herodotus, 2) the Ionian viewpoint, 3) the Behistun inscription of Darius I [12]. However the "territories" in the Behistun inscription, as it is clear from Herodotus, are not satrapies but tax districts. The expert of Western Anatolian situation, Hegyi [13], is firm in her opinion that the territory of late Lydia had been divided into two parts as early as 546: a northern part with the capitol of the satrap in Dascyleum, and a southern one with Sardis. In this point she practically agrees with Olmstead [14], who revised the opinions of several earlier historians, e.g. of Krumbholz.

Now, note that the Greeks of the Dascyleum satrapy were dominantly Aeolians, while those of the Sardis one dominantly Ionians. While Herodotus practically forgets about the Aeolians, one definitely would not expect this from Ephorus, the Aeolian. So at the parts where D confuses Tissaphernes with Pharnabasus, he definitely does not use E, and, as we have seen, he probably does not use X₁. He may use T or C.

For stylistic argumentations, one should be aware about ancient plagiarisation. A well-known example of it is between T and X₁, observed of course soon, and recorded by Porphyry. T took a dialogue of Pharnabazus and Agesilaus from Book IV, Chapter 1 of X's Hellenica, and fitted into Book XI of his one. (See footnote [12] of the said part of [2]; the extant remark is at Apollonius ad Euseb. Praep. Evang. 465B-C.) No surprise; he was a younger contemporary, writing about the same topics, and surely, X was already dead. Can we expect extended plagiaries in Hellenica Oxyrhynchia misleading us about authorship? The previous example demonstrates the possibility; but for any case, the said part of X₁ has not been found in P although it belongs to Year 395, from which time we have extant texts.

Now let us see the tentative identifications of P. Ref. [5] does not believe in P=E. However, for my opinion, this conclusion would be premature. [5] uses two arguments. That E's Universal History covers much larger time range than Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, and, that an Ephorus fragment shows lots of agreements with Diodorus, while P does not. Now, I think, this only means that Hellenica Oxyrhynchia is not a part of E's Universal History; it may quite be another work of E, specially a work of young E. I will return to this point later.

Bleckmann [10] thinks that P=T. However note that Shrimpton in his Theopompus book [15], where all the T fragments are present, believes rather P=C. While for first sight this seems to be a scholarly disagreement, one could reformulate it into a strong agreement. Namely, Shrimpton is a Theopompus expert, and he believes that for any case P≠T (as he puts it: "the conclusion that P was not Theopompus seems difficult to avoid"); while Bleckmann believes that P≠C. The common part of two such statements might be even P=E; but such an "inference" might also be premature.

Note that arguments for P≠T are much stronger than for P≠E. Theopompus' style was pompous, sometimes biting (look at the well known fragment about Philip of Macedon’s companions the hetairoi/hetairai), and he liked to use (invented) speeches; P'’s style is just the opposite [5]. Let us believe, then, [5] and [15]: probably P≠T.

Still P=C is possible. So now let us concentrate on Cratippus. While we do not have Cratippus fragments, we do have ancient references to him, and these references are conveniently collected by Tomita [16]. We have already cited the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica Cratippus-text about a "fairly certain inference" "from a passage" of Plutarch. That passage is De Gloria Atheniensium 345E [17]. But this will appear in much more explicit ways immediately, so I continue.

The second reference is Dionysius Halicarnasseus' De Thucydide, column 16, which explicitly mentions Cratippus as continuator. But the remaining two locations are more definite.

The third reference is a single sentence in [18], specially in the "book" about Andocides. Andocides played some important (and obviously dishonest) role in the affair of defaced Herms in 415 BC. (Look, according to Hellanicus the Lesbian, he was the direct descendant of Hermes himself; and Hermes was the god of liars.) Now, the text tells: "For, as Cratippus informs us, when the Corinthians sent the Leontines and Egestians to the Athenians, who hesitated to lend them assistance, they in the night defaced and brake all the statues of Mercury which were erected in the market". (I went to some details here for later use.)

Finally, the last reference to Cratippus is Marcellinus, Vita Thuc. c. 46 (by other counting, 33). There the death of Thucydides is discussed, and Marcellinus tells that a certain Sopirus is foolish when he says what he says, "even though Cratippus may believe that it was true". (Indeed, the Sopirus story is that after the Sicily defeat the exiles were permitted to return to Athens; Thucydides tried to return and was killed midways.)

I think, from the above references we may conclude that there existed indeed a historian called Cratippus, or at least there was a book with an author name Cratippus, and the book dealt with Athenian history during the Peloponnesian War and maybe more, until the Cnidus Battle. So far so good.

However, Hellenica Oxyrhynchia is not the book which Plutarch (Andocides) and Marcellinus (Vita Thuc.) refer! Namely, P continues Thucydides. Now, the story of Herms is 415, while P starts in 411/0! As for the story told by Marcellinus, the "after the Sicily defeat" is obscure enough and for that Thucydides might have been killed in 411/0, in which case the narration of the murder would be an excellent beginning for the continuation. ("When Thucydides came to this sentence, he was killed while returning from exile, so I must continue...") However by any chance Sopirus & Cratippus are in error, see the Introduction of [1] or the Thucydides headword in [11].

But if Cratippus did not continue Thucydides and did not have a correct chronologic information about his death, then he was not the younger Athenian college who joined him and Xenophon in time, inference or not inference from the passage De Gloria Atheniensium 345E of the very same Plutarch who tells in Andocides that Cratippus wrote about events 4 years before the end of Thucydides' book!

But then P≠C. C is another book telling about the Herms event in 415, about return of exiles in 411, an erroneous story about the death of Thucydides in 411, and, almost surely, about later events as well. He did not continue the book as Xenophon did; rather wrote an alternative book to Thucydides & X. And from this moment we do not have any strong reason to distinguish the authors of X₁ and X₂.

There may have been various ways for a C book to be originated. The anonymous author of [19] believes that the great demand for new books driven by the money of the Alexandria Library led to the acceptance of even a Cratippus' book "Everything Thucydides Left Unsaid". It is possible; but observe that all the people citing Cratippus are from Roman Imperial times, and Tomita [16] guesses that time for the author.

So Shrimpton is against P=T, while Plutarch and Marcellinus disprove P=C. If we accept the professional opinions of both experts, then

I am not a Greek scholar, so I cannot give a firm answer. Having said this I continue.

Cratippus, of course, would be the ideal person for author of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, except that we cannot verify his authorship. Not an original sentence of him is extant. Some authors have even doubts about his existence (see e.g. [5]). While I do not doubt the existence of a book whose colophon contained the name "Kratippos", this book cannot have been Hellenica Oxyrhynchia. Still, "Cratippus" did write a book about some history of the time of the Peloponnesian War plus later years, say, until Cnidus. Who might have been this author?

I think the possibilities can be grouped into 3 clusters. Either the author was a Cratippus, historian about whom we know nothing (but almost surely no contemporary of Thucydides), "journalist" &c. Or he was a known historian writing behind an alias. Or "Cratippus" was the pen-name of a whole group of authors.

However, surely the author(s) had to be in close correlation with Theopompus. Namely, Theopompus would be an ideal author of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (see later), except for two very important points: age and style. But remember, Theopompus was Isocrates' pupil. Isocrates was interested from 380 in the common Greek Cause against Persia, and a natural way to work out the ways and tools first a good History is needed.

Canfora's solution [6] is really elegant (except that I think, Xenophon would not write an alternative history to Xenophon's one). Namely, let us accept as much that "Cratippus" = Kratippos is a pseudonym. If so, late Republican and Imperial historians as Dionysius Halicarnasseus or Plutarch, many centuries later, would know that two and only two authors copied Xenophon's way of composition: Theopompus and "Cratippus". But then, a pseudonym is chosen deliberately. It is a kind of programme, or a pun, or something.

It is rather tricky to interpret Greek names, somewhat similar to interpret Japanese book titles written in pure kanjis [20]. In both cases pure roots are heaped together, so the meaning may not be unique. I admit I am not strong in this task. However I continue.

Krat - ippos seems to indicate Strength/Rule + Horse. Strong Horse would be excellent for a Dakota chief, but for an ancient Greek author one would interpret it rather into another direction: Strong with Horse, or Strong on Horse, maybe Ruling from Horseback.

An excellent name indeed for Xenophon, knight, author of books on horsemanship and cavalry warfare. Canfora's idea was well supported; only, I am afraid, not well enough. Still I cannot see the reason for Xenophon to write two alternative Hellenicas.

Also, such a name would be excellent for somebody answering to Hippo - krates. But now medicine is not discussed.

Or: was it written, for any chance, between 359 & 357, when the new King of Macedon was Phil - ippos?

However look at the name Iso - krates. Now, for a writer from the circle of Isocrates, having something to do with horses... Or if two writers from that circle want to invent a common nom de guerre, in a way that nobody be in political danger and still the trademark of the Isocratean workshop be indicated... Most definitely, such a trick was necessary if the author(s) was/were metic(s), which is quite possible for intellectuals.

Take, for example, 380, the year of the publication of Panegyricus. Isocrates did write the Panegyricus, radical democrats might still be angry telling that first Sparta should be crushed forever; but an eupatrid, friend of politicians, might discuss such things. But not one of his metic pupils. Remember, some 80 years ago Anaximander of Clazomenai, old teacher of Pericles, taught something about celestial bodies; then he was accused dually with asebeia and Medism and had to go into exile. (He was originally a political refugee from Persian oppression.)

Now, I cannot select the proper person from amongst Isocrates' coworkers; and the pen-name may even suggest a work of two, maybe one being Isocrates himself. But note that the suspected ones are Isocrates' pupils: Theopompus & Ephorus; and Theopompus can hardly have written Hellenica Oxyrhynchia according to chronological reasons. So again: why not Ephorus of Cyme? Ephorus could write Hellenica Oxyrhynchia; later he wrote a full Universal History starting with the Return of the Heraclids.

And look: if we assume, for argumentation, that the author of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia is Ephorus, everything is smooth. Say, Xenophon publishes a part of Hellenica. The first two books, until cca. 402, were written in 401. Isocrates and his circle know this and may have got information about further parts up to, say, 387.

Isocrates may or may not have had a necessity to have been written his version of Hellenica as a demonstration of his political program. But he was not a historian, so he surely was not able to write it alone. However he had a pupil Ephorus. (In 380 Ephorus was cca. 25.) So Ephorus, or Ephorus & Isocrates surely could write a Hellenica after a manner of Xenophon, so starting with 411/410 too. Maybe he gave the task to Ephorus as a kind of examination. Maybe he wanted an alternative History of My Times from political reasons.

And now let us jump some decades. Theopompus writes another Hellenica. And Diodorus gives the start- and endpoints of Theopompus: it is again 410 and 394! (We do not know directly where ended the complete Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, but 394 is natural enough endpoint from Athenian of Panhellene viewpoints. 362 is natural only for a Spartan, or a Spartophile, as Xenophon. But, as we saw, it is sure that Hellenica Oxyrhynchia started in 411/410, as Xenophon's and Theopompus' Hellenicas.)

Then: why did Theopompus copy the very idea of Xenophon? We cannot know, and it is rather hard to find a direct reason. Theopompus did not know Xenophon; Xenophon died in Corinth when Theopompus was 23, and we do not know about fanatic followers of Xenophon's political or historical teachings in Athens.

But look. Isocrates was born before the Peloponnesian War. Ephorus was born about 405, some 30 years later. And Ephorus was 28 years old when Theopompus was born. So Ephorus might have influenced Theopompus directly. They learned similar things from Isocrates, so that we could misclassify a fragment of Ephorus (Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, for the sake of argumentation) to Theopompus (suggested as author by many, as e.g. Grenfell, Hunt, Cavaignac or Ruschenbusch). And this is the proper place to note that there are interesting correlations between Hellenica Oxyrhynchia and the known Theopompean fragments: e.g. they and (for the known sources) only they call a man of Karpasia as Karpaseus, not Karpaseotes [5], [21].

Strong correlations between Hellenica Oxyrhynchia and Theopompus' Hellenica are automatically explained if Ephorus is author of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (independently of possible coauthorship of Isocrates), while they are rather difficult to be explained between a Cratippus (unknown, but) not from the circle of Isocrates and Theopompus. Also, it is natural if Theopompus tries to imitate/emulate/surpass his well-known predecessor in his own theme. (Anything you can do, I can do better…) Or: Isocrates may have told Theopompus: look, a generation ago I gave this task to good Ephorus. Let us see what you can do. (And then, of course, Theopompus starts with reading Ephorus' book, and it will strongly influence it. But otherwise?)

Shrimpton indeed suggested personal emotions behind the creation of two concurrent Hellenicas: T's and P's ones [15]. His scheme is as follows. Hellenica Oxyrhynchia is already in existence, but Theopompus is hostile towards P. [No problem; Theopompus is frequently hostile towards anybody.] Now, he writes another Hellenica, believing that his one will be better, and then that will be used instead P's Hellenica. [He was not successful in this. This Theopompus work seems not have been overpopular. Pesely counted the extant Theopompus fragments [22], and T's Philippica was an order of magnitude more cited in ancient ages than T's Hellenica. But still Theopompus' intention may have been this.] OK; but then: whom would regard Theopompus more as a concurrent? A stranger, or his elder co-student at Isocrates, Ephorus of Cyme? (Anything you can do, I can do better...)

Suda is a lexicon, compiled sometimes in Xth c. AD in Byzance; all other details are obscure. But the lexicon exists, represents litterary tradition (quite Athenian), and it is even being put on Internet as Suda On Line [23].

Of course Suda does not tell anything direct about Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, but it may still tell something indirect. To be sure, Suda is rather unreliable. Still, in Xth c. Byzance a lot of traditions might have been alive which later have died out. The Imperial Library had manuscripts lost in the Sacco di Constantinople in 1204, or in the Turkish takeover in 1453. So let us see first Suda on the 6 candidates.

Androtion: A single sentence; his literary works are not listed.

Daimachus: A sentence telling that it is a proper name.

Ephorus: Two detailed texts; the first seemingly misplaced. I will return to the question in due course; here I note only that Suda names explicitly his 4 bigger works, "and others".

Cratippus: No entry at all!

Theopompus: An imposing literary activity ("He wrote a very large number of other works as well."), and a Hellenica, which is a sequel "to those of Thucydides and Xenophon" in 11 books. Suda tells that he was contemporary with Ephorus, but in an obscure formulation. ("He lived in the time when the Athenian archonship was suspended, in the 93th Olympiad, at the same time as Ephorus...")

Xenophon: A rather long text but almost exclusively the story of "Anabasis", not even a cross-reference to Theopompus about Hellenica. No hint for writing two sequels.

So Suda's compilers know about two authors having written sequels to Thucydides: Xenophon & Theopompus. Even there it seems they did not read the sequels. They do not even mention any Cratippus (who, of course, may have quite existed; see later). Also, the main biographic data of Ephorus can be found under a headword "Ephippus".

The biographic data of Ephippus, Adler N° epsilon,3930 seem to agree with Ephorus of Cyme, and they are definitely improper for the historian Ephippus of Olynthus, son of Chalcideus. The usual explanation is a miscopy of the headword. Indeed, the previous item, epsilon,3929 is a true Ephippus, an author of comedies. However this would mean that the trivial error was then not observed, although the true and false Ephippuses came jointly. Without any claim, simply note that this is a "hippos" name for Ephorus.

And there is an entry for the comparison between Ephorus & Theopompus, Adler N° epsilon,3953. The text suggests that they were more or less coevals, and opposites. ("Ephoros, you see, was simple in character, and in the interpretation of history laid-back and lazy and devoid of intensity; Theopompos, meanwhile...") So "Isokrates, at any rate, said that Theopompos needed a rein, but Ephoros a spur."

I will not discuss here Theopompus' birthdate. I accept the modern date 377/6, and, indeed, the formulation of the infamous Speusippus Letter is rather conform with a not too old Theopompus. After thirteen hundred years the compiler of Suda did not know the exact data, but he might know about some competitions between Ephorus & Theopompus. So simply remember the duetta in Chap. 6.

However I do want to discuss the comparison. So, according to the compiler, Ephorus of Cyme, the Aeolian, was of course simple, naive and lazy. He needed a spur, otherwise he would have not worked. (Maybe instead, as all Aeolians, he might have pursued wenches.) Now, modern scholars identify dozens of headwords of Suda where the information comes from the lazy Ephorus. Also Strabo cites him 6 dozen times. As far as we know, lazy Ephorus of Cyme, who needed a spur (of an Athenian, of course) wrote the very first Universal History (of Greece), from the Return of the Heraclids to his age. (Suda tells that from the Troyan War. This is so, because Troy is in Aiolis, and of course Ephorus tells stories about places in Aiolis in abundance.) Lazy and simple Ephorus is also one of the main sources of Diodorus Siculus (another one is just Theopompus) and popular throughout Roman ages. Remember: Thucydides mentions Hellanicus of Lesbos once, in Book 1 Chap. 97. Here he tells that other authors generally ignore the events within the Delian League until the Peloponnesian War; Hellanicus does not ignore them "in his Attic History, but he has not given much space to the subject and he is inaccurate in his dates". Since Hellanicus of Lesbos is the first known Atthidographer, I detect here a bias about lazyness/simplicity. Athens is Hellados Hellas, the Hellas of Hellas, the very Hellas. If the first Atthidography is written by a Lesbian, so it is not so easy to call him "lazy Aeolian", then at least his Atthis is bad. Ephorus writes the very first Universal History; but he is simple (-minded). Maybe a very Athenian (Isocrates? Androtion?) applied spurs on him; maybe they also told him in cases to go under cover in the rain. And, when he wrote the Universal History in 30 books, it was very, very simple.

Strabo used it. But Strabo was not an Athenian; indeed Amasia of Cappadoce is even more Eastern than Cyme of Aiolis. The Athenian way for Pan-Hellenic respect was simpler. Homer may have come from Aiolic Cyme (as told, e.g., by Ephorus of Cyme himself), or in the worst case, from Smyrna, originally Aeolic but later gradually Ionised; so one should claim directly Athens instead. Or, that Troy was not founded by Teucer, son of the River Scamander, but by an Athenian Teucer from the deme of the Xypeteons (see [7], XIII. 1. 48).

Then let us summarize the testimony of Suda about the continuators of Thucydides. Suda tells that there were two continuators: Xenophon and Theopompus. However in such a way that Theopompus' Hellenica is a sequel to Xenophon's one. That would mean that it started after 362; rather improbable. So it seems that Suda's compiler did not read Theopompus' Hellenica.

Suda does not mention a Hellenica either at Androtion or at Daimachus, although such a work would deserve mention at persons where it does not mention any definite work at all. It might be hidden amongst "and others" at Ephorus, and a Hellenica of Theopompus is explicitly mentioned. Cratippus is unknown for Suda.

Were Suda reliable and correct, its testimony would give strong support for the authorship of Theopompus (even so because Suda puts his birthyear to the 93rd Olympiad). Being Suda as it is, its silence is only an argument against (the importance of) a Cratippus.

Ephorus of Cyme wrote his Universal History up to 341; and 341 is a focal point in World History. The tyrannos of Assos, Eubulus the banker, fortified the city in 365, at the outbreak of the Satraps' War. In later years Eubulus and his designated heir, Hermeias, took the cities one after another along the Adramytteion Bay [7]. Finally they got Atarneus, which was not too much for a city, but a strong fortress.

And in the 40's, making use of the general disorder both in Westernmost Persia and in the Royal Court of Susa, Hermeias starts to carve out his own province. The first (and last) territorial state led by Aeolians.

The start is good. In 343 Hermeias, Lord of Atarneus, has already a secret agreement even with Philip II, King of Macedonians. His secret proxenos at the Pella court is Aristotle: his son-in-law and Philip's childhood playmate [24]. Next year Philip invades Thrace.

Obviously there was no written agreement, but the plan is clear. Philip would cross to Asia at Byzantion, turns South, and then Hermeias would go over with his fortresses. (Maybe even the Dascyleum satrap as well? No data.) Then Philip would get strong positions at the Asian seacoast of the Aegean, and the war would be almost ready. (Do not forget that Philip II is not Alexander III. His goal is to liberate the Greek cities at the seacoast, then they elect him Commander-in-Chief, and give some money to maintain a bigger Macedonian Army. The Corinth Congress in 338 formally votes for these points.) See the virtual map of 340 in [9]. Aiolis was first exploited by the Athenian Empire called Delian League until the Peloponnesian War, then Athenian and Spartan fleets fought there for decades, and finally Mainland Greeks, both Ionian and Dorian, gave them back to the Great King in Susa. Now the State of Atarneus would be an example for all Aiolis; she would liberate herself. OK, with Macedonian help. But the Macedonians are even less considered Greek by Ionians and Dorians than the Aeolians.

But a Dorian ally of the Great King, Mentor of Rhodes, sets a trap to Hermeias, takes over the fortresses and sends Hermeias to Susa. Demosthenes of Athens makes a happy speech in Athens (the Fourth Philippic). Ionians and Dorians are now on the same side against Macedonians and Aeolians. So much about the unique Greek Cause, the Brotherhood of Olympia and such. Hermeias dies on the cross; his last words can be read in [25], Aristotle declares him demigod in the so called Arete Ode, and for this he will be accused (by Eurymedon, son of Speusippus, priest of Demeter; after 18 years!) with asebeia, some very serious religious crime.

Cca. in this time is Speusippus' letter written to Philip [26]. Speusippus, nephew of Plato and his successor as head of the Academy, proud Athenian eupatrid, writes Philip that Isocrates (remember; Ephorus' teacher) is a bad guy who does not like Philip. Philip's honour is much better served by Speusippus. And, he writes, Theopompus, one of Philip's guests (one of the candidates to the authorship of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia), is not worthy for the hospitality of the Pella court: a rough fellow who told dirty things about Plato!

It is sad to read this letter of the head of the Academy in Athens, and it is clear that Plato made a serious error when nominated his nephew as successor instead of Aristotle. But from the present viewpoint the important thing is that both Dorians (e.g. Mentor of Rhodes) and Ionians (e.g. Demosthenes) "betrayed the common Greek Cause"; they took sides with the Great King at Susa against a Hellene freedom fighter.

I used quotation marks, because I doubt if the above mentioned Common Cause existed at all. Athens was the more or less natural leader of Ionian cities, and Sparta of the Dorians. If we look at a political map of the Peloponnesian War, concordance between ethnic/tribal/linguistic and political status, at least in Mainland Greece, was rather a rule and the opposite an exception; and see also Thucydides [1] (Book 7 Chapter 57). No doubt, Ionians and Dorians were still nearer to one another than to the Persians; still the events between 403 and 387 prove that both Athens and Sparta regarded the other as the Real Enemy, while the Persian Empire would come after the Final Victory.

OK, but now let us try to look at the events from a third Hellene viewpoint, the Aeolian. Mainland Greeks left them alone, and do not like them very much. (An example is given in App. 4.) If one had any doubt previously, the Argos Inscription [27] from 362 is the final blow. It will be briefly discussed in App. 5; but it is even more hypocritical than the Speusippus Letter. And note that that is cca. the time when Hermeias is at the Academy.

Macedon is another matter. When these events happen, it is unclear if by Mainland Greece Macedon is considered Greek at all. (By the majority, not.) The Olympic Games would test it; but Macedonians seldom participated, except for chariot-races. That was for the aristocrats; and even anti-Macedonian Greeks admitted that the Macedonian royal family plus a part of the aristocracy were Argives. In this time in Athens it is politically chic to tell that Macedonians are not Hellenes, so it is a Hellene duty to struggle against them. (To be sure, this opinion is dominant, but not exclusive. As seen from his letter, Speusippos the eupatrid is willing to help the propaganda of Philip; to be sure, obviously for financial support, and on the clear grounds that Macedonia is not Hellas, only the royal family. And there is Isocrates, tutor of Ephorus of Cyme, who regards Persia the enemy, against whom Hellenes should fight, if with Macedonian dominance, then thus. But according to Demosthenes, such opinion is high treason.)

Philip esteems Greek civilization and is on good terms with Greek citizens of Macedon, who are useful for the Crown. He would like to lead Greeks against the Great King of Susa. Of course he will start the war even if no Greek city helps.

A substantial part (I think, majority) of Greeks at the Asian seacoast would like to be liberated from under Persians by some friendly or at least neutral European power. (Isocrates knew this already a generation ago; see App. 6.) For Ionians Athens is the Big Sister (although just now she is not liberating them). For Dorians Sparta was. As for Aeolians it is highly doubtful if any Greek power is such in 343 (maybe Sparta, but is Sparta still a global power?), but Macedon is surely such a power. Never in history sacked a Macedonian an Aeolian city, Macedonians do not despise Aeolians, and they are relatives (after a fashion), see App. 7.

So until the campaign of Alexander III of Macedon, the Aeolians "live quietly". No hope from anywhere. Ephorus of Cyme records the details of the heroical attempt of Hermeias, so in 3 more centuries Diodorus will be able to include them into his work.

But when Diodorus works, there are no more Aeolians. The language is lost in the demographical turmoils of Hellenism. Aeolian emigrants are simply Greeks in the new cities founded by the Macedonian Army; Aeolians were not enemies of Alexander the Great during his campaign. And in the new cities nobody remembers (except historians) that Aeolians went under cover in rain only if he was told to.

Earlier discussions with Dr. K. Martinás are acknowledged about Aiolis.

At or near to Aigospotamoi a substantial meteorite fell in 469 BC. Short mentions can be found in Strabo (Book VII, frg. 56), Aristotle [28] and at the Parian Marble (which gives the year) and a somewhat more detailed report in Plutarch [29]. The stone was big enough but insignificantly small compared to the previous light phenomena.

Now, Plutarch cites a writing of a Daimachus (On Religion; lost) who reported the following. Before the meteorite fall a "fiery body" was seen for 75 days, moving on irregular path, and fiery pieces separated themselves continuously from the main body.

If Daimachus was correct, then the "fiery body" must have been a comet, and the stone meteorite (lost, but was extant in the time of Strabo) was cometary matter. The importance of such an observation would be that, while genetic connection of comets and meteorites seem natural, still there is no proven sample of a comet in our hands (albeit the probe Rosetta is under way). Unfortunately, Daimachus' text is now unavailable.

Thucydides' text ends at Book 8, Chapter 109. The last naval battle is described in Chap. 106, that is the Cynossema victory of Athens. The remaining text narrates events more or less synchronous with the Cynossema battle. According to historians that is 411 BC.

However earlier Chapters up to 98 narrate events in Athens. The governing body of the Four Hundred is formed and exists until Chapter 97. Then the Four Hundred is followed by the Five Thousand. Finally, the last sentence of Chapter 98 reports the end of "the oligarchy and the civil disturbances". Now historians believe that this happened at the summer of 410.

So in the continuation you must tell events from 410 in Athens but from 411 outside. Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, with its self-reference for the Timolaos affair in 411, may be a perfect match.

The relation between Thucydides' Peloponnesian War (henceforth W) and Xenophon's Hellenica (X) is nontrivial and was discussed already in antiquity. Lots of ideas existed, and it is worthwhile to review at least some of them.

According to modern viewpoints the most naive viewpoint is of Sopirus and Cratippus. There W stops at Book 8, Ch. 109, in 411 BC because then there was an amnesty (the Sicilian defeat, internal constitutional changes &c.), exiled Thucydides started home, but became killed midways. It is improbable; W mentions events from the next year and seems to know about the situation in 404.

Plutarch tells us (in Cimon 4) that Thucydides was indeed killed in Thrace, but had been buried in Athens, beside the grave of Elpidice, sister of Cimon, his close relative. Plutarch does not tell the year, but clearly, then we can put his death after 404. According to Pamphila he was born ca. the first year of the 77th Olympiad, so he was about 67 in 404. You may or may not believe Pamphila. Marcellinus explicitly states that he died after the Peloponnesian War, but he wrote only 21 years of the War and the remaining 6 years were written by Xenophon & Theopompus.

Marcellinus preserved a widespread opinion that even Book 8 (the last) is somewhat spurious, written by Xenophon, by Thucydides' sister, or by Theopompus. Now, the story of the sister pertained until the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, where after the author's death the sister carries the ms. to an editor, maybe Xenophon. My guess is that Xenophon as editor would have finished at least Chapter 109.

But in 1907 Cratippus' shade is recalled from oblivion, Plutarch's De Gloria Atheniensium 345 E is reinterpreted, and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that Cratippus worked between Thucydides and Xenophon, until the Cnidus battle. So we should see if the present Hellenica of Xenophon is a unitary work or a patchwork from C and X. Obviously Xenophon is a well-documented author with many extant books, so scholars would have detected if Cratippus' text were a part of X; however rewriting of a block coming originally from somebody else is not out of question. But I am writing an Appendix, not a monograph, so I choose the simplest check. The null hypothesis is of course that X is a unitary work, and the alternative hypothesis is that it contains a work of somebody's else who continued Thucydides down to Cnidus (the idea of the 1911 Encyclopedia, for example) as a block of whole Book(s).

Looking only for whole Books is based on Dakyns' observation. Book 2 ends in 403 (or 402) with a remark that "to this day the two parties [in Athens in 404] live amicably together...". Since this was no more true in 401, or, at last, after Socrates' execution in 399, Dakyns guesses that first Xenophon wanted to finish Thucydides here. Since the style here is indeed is as at an end, we may accept the idea; but the end sequence was not altered afterwards!

So let us see the ends of X's books.

Book 1: The execution of the naval leaders for Arginusae. While Arginusae was a victory of Athens, in the turmoil lots of sailors perished who might (or might not) have been saved. For this Pericles Jr., Diomedon, Lysias, Aristocrates, Thrasylus & Erasinides, plus Protomachus & Aristogenes, absent, were accused. The legal process was constitutionally awkward and ended with executing everybody at hand. Not a nice end of an Athenian historian.

Book 2: The eternal peace in Athens. This was discussed above as the possible end of the first version of X.

Book 3: Lysander is killed at Haliartus, Spartans retreat from Boeoty, King Pausanias is condemned to death. This would be a good ending for a patriotic Athenian; but we are still before Cnidus, and the last sentence promises to continue with naval actions.

Book 4: Iphicrates the Athenian defeats Anaxibius of Sparta; 14 Spartans are killed. While a good point for an Athenian, it would be rather strange for the end of a Hellenica.

Book 5: Corcyra joins Athens; Admiral Timotheus' fleet is unchallenged, but he needs money. Again, an Athenian victory but not the Victory.

Book 6: Athens sends General Iphicrates to help Sparta; he is unable to prevent the Thebans to escape while he loses 20 horsemen. Now whose Hellenica would end here?

Book 7: Mantinea; Epaminondas wins and dies; Xenophon puts down his pen. The end of Xenophon's Hellenica.

Obviously only two Book's End is good for a final point of an earlier composition; 2 and 7. The first would result in Dakyns' hypothesis that Books 1 & 2 constituted the proto-Hellenica, the second would support the unity of X. Since the two statements are conform (Xenophon continued himself), we can remain here. Cnidus is in the middle of Book 4, and it is not too much emphasized: something expected from Spartophile Xenophon, but not from an average Athenian. Of course, it is possible that Xenophon used the work of somebody else, maybe even of a Cratippus. But this Cratippus, a contemporary of Thucydides, could not have been on the opinion of Sopirus about Thucydides' death. Also, as we saw, X and P are opposite in some points so they could not extensively have used each other in any direction.

Psapfa, whom the Athenians pronounciated and wrote as Sappho, was the pride of her city Mytilene and all Lesbos, and an early poetic classic of all Hellas. Still she got dirty comments too from Mainland posterity. I demonstrate this on the Suda (Suida; Suidas) lexicon.

Suda is a big compilation, closed down in Xth century AD in Byzance. But it is a rather undiscriminating collection of antique literary traditions; and obviously such traditions came mainly from old Athens. Suda is going to be on-line, and a lot about Psapfa is available now [23], but you must look at as Sappho.

There are two Sappho headwords, with Adler N°'s sigma,107 & 108. The first item gives a malicious and crypto-obscene text. (The second is about a Sappho of Eressus, who is probably purely invented.) Namely, the text tells a mere 3 sentences about her artistic life, without valuating her at all. However it tells that "she got a bad reputation through her shameful friendship" (with Atthis, Telesippa & Megara). And the text tells about her marriage that her husband was a very wealthy man, "Kerkylas, who operated from Andros".

Now, Holt remarks (for references see [23]) that " Kerkylas from Andros" should be translated as "Dick Allcock from the Isle of Man" in a true English situation. being kerkos=penis. This is clearly a dirty pun about her sexual life in legal marriage; and does clearly reflect the bad disposition of somebody. While Aly believes that it comes originally from comedies, literary experts should have been not so naive at least about a poetic classic. As for her bad reputation, Psapfa's habit was openly practised in Sparta [30] and surely in more discreet ways elsewhere on the mainland, without "bad reputation".

Surely, ways of life were different in Aiolis, Ionia and Doris.

In 362/1 another bloody war ended; now between new coalitions. (Very roughly: Thebes + allies vs. Sparta & Athens + allies). At Mantinea Thebes won; but his best commander, Epameinondas, was killed on the battlefield. So at the moment it was better to sit down. A great peace conference was held in Argos.

During the conference an embassy of the revolting Western Persian satraps arrived asking help against the Great King at Susa.

This is the moment for liberating the Greek cities of Asia Minor, or at least easing their burdens. But no: the satraps get a negative answer and the decision is even carved into stone [27]. The gist of it (at least in the extant part) is as follows.

1) The Greeks want to live in peace.

2) So if the Great King does not interfere, they will be in peace with him too.

3) But if anybody attacks from Persia, all Greeks will act in self-defence together.

4) And they will be worthy of their previous deeds.

Now I can imagine the opinions not only in Assos and Cyme of Aiolis, but in Miletus of Ionia as well.

Only Sparta did not agree; and maybe they preserved their good reputation in Aiolis. But I must note that they left the peace conference simply because they did not want to cede Messene to Argos.

The very long-living Isocrates could be able to suffer severe material loss in the Peloponnesian War (the family being eupatrid) and to greet Philip after Chaironeia. Also he was still in life when his pupil, Ephorus of Cyme, stopped in his Universal History. He was a kind of eupatrid who was Hellene first and supported (with written speeches) everybody offering a solution (real or not) for the Hellene Cause. He believed that such Cause existed. His last champion was able to start such a solution.

His Panegyricus is well known but for completeness I gave a reference as [31]. The Panegyricus was published in 380 BC. Paragraphs #138 - #167 directly treat problems connected with the possibility and desirability of liberating coastal Asia Minor. There surely Greeks (Aeolians, Ionics & Dorics) had come earlier than Persians; the Persian Empire took the coastal region after 547 BC.

In ##138-139 he argues that the Great King never won and could not against united (Mainland) Greece.

In #152 he writes that the satraps of the coastal region are similar to the Persians of the Interior (whom he criticised earlier).

So, he tells in ##160-161, the actual situation is good for an attack.

In #163 he discusses the intents on the Asian seacoast. He predicts that the Greek cities would come over "from Cnidus to Sinope", and the satrap of Caria would do as well.

In ##164-167 he then concludes that the war should be started "soon", anyways in the life of his generation.

His suggestion was finally followed by Philip II & Alexander III of Macedon, with total success. Actually no coastal satrap changed overlord; but this may have been the consequence of the fact that Philip's first action was stopped at Byzantium; not by the Persians, but by the Greek city plus Athenian help, on the exhortations of Demosthenes.

Isocrates, of course, does not propose the occupation of "all Asia" to the Ganges and Egypt, and that was not planned by Philip II either. However Alexander III's "Great Idea" has Isocratian grounds: Isocrates tells that the Greeks can, if they want, loot "all Asia". This, I think, seems an exaggeration even for him, and it is rather a seductive promise.

Such Isocratean policy was desirable for Aeolians, and Isocrates may have seemed a good Athenian guy for, e.g., Ephorus of Cyme. But observe that even Isocrates does not tell here "Aiolis & Ionia" but "Lydia & Ionia". Even he would not demonstrate for mere Aeolians.

We do not yet know the true relation between the two ethnic groups/nations. As for language, Aeolic was a Greek dialect, a moderately close kin to the Mycenian preserved on the Linear B tablets, and also to the descendant of Mycenian, the Arcado-Cyprian. Very probably Aeolian was the direct descendant of the Northern variant of the Bronze Age "Hellene", spoken around Thebes. Even in the Classical Ages Thucydides classifies the Boeotians as Aeolians; and indeed in Boeotia the substrate was Aeolian.

In contrast Macedonian is poorly known. The extant glosses and names are not enough even to unequivocally classify it as kentum or satem. Some authors claim similarity to Phrygian or Thracian (which are satem), but according to some linguists even Greek is not fully kentum. Two facts can be stated: that Macedonian was not "too far" from Old Greek and that if somebody spoke Macedon as first language/idiom it was clearly detectable in Ionian/Aeolic environment.

Now, ancient Greeks formulated their opinion about kinship (be it either genetic or linguistic) in mythologic terms. Obviously there may have been alternative stories about the "first Greeks", but Hellenistic scholars more or less standardised the stories (of which many was first fixed by Hesiod in the Descent of Gods), so we may use [32]. It gives the following scheme at 1.7.2-3.

After the Flood only one pair survived: Deucalion & Pyrrha. They generated men & women from stones. However Pyrrha bore some "real children" too, either to Deucalion, or to gods. Anyways, her firstborn was Hellen, forefather of Hellenes (or only of their aristocracy?). Now Hellen and the Nymph Orseis produced 3 sons: Dorus, Xuthus & Aiolus, and Xuthus & Creusa two sons, Achaeus & Ion. The forefathers named their subjects accordingly. Originally the Aeolians lived in Thessaly, Dorians opposite to the Peloponnesus, Achaeans & Ionians on the Peloponnesus itself and later migrations took place.

Now, this is tradition + propaganda in mythologic terms. But we now are not interested in facts but Classical Greeks' belief about these facts. So the story tells that in cladistic language Greeks originally forked in a trinary way and the absolute most noble branch is Dorian. However the second branch forked again, so Achaeans and Ionians are nearer to each other. Say, to Ionians Achaeans are brothers while Dorians & Aeolians are uncles. I do not know whose propagandistic demands are met here, so we may think about real tradition, if we want; the trouble is that this sequence does not reflect the migrations in Greece, where we know that Achaeans & Aeolians were old, Ionians newer and Dorians the last. The scheme might have true in the Greek Urheimat, but we know almost nothing about that. However, this was more or less accepted by Hellenistic Hellenes.

Nothing about Macedonians in the first turns. True, at 3.8.1 we find a Macednos, son of Lycaon, son of Pelasgos, but Zeus killed with lightnings all of Lycaon's sons except for the smallest, Nyctimus. Obviously the people carrying this tradition were not too interested in the origin of Macedonians.

But we may turn to Hesiod, who was Aeolian both for descent (his father emigrated from Cyme, Aiolis), and for location (the father then settled down in Ascra, Boeotia, tereritory of nearest European kins, near to the Mt. Helicon, where the Muses helped the author), so he surely was authentic in matters Aeolic. Hesiod gave the descents of scions of gods and goddesses, of those of gods and mortal women and those of goddesses and mortal men.

Obviously we are looking for the second class, but unfortunately The Catalog of Women is not completely extant. One fragment, preserved by Plutarch in Moralia however tells about Hellen's sons the same as [32] (and Hesiod is 700 BC, so we may believe at least in the great nobility of Dorus, even if we do not understand it), while another preserved by Constantine VII of Byzance, the Porphyrogenetus himself, in De Themis 2, 48B tells: "And she [i.e. Thyia, daughter of Deucalion, according to the Emperor] conceived and bare to Zeus who delights in the thunderbolt two sons, Magnes and Macedon, rejoicing in horses who dwell round about Pieria and Olympus...".

Now, Hesiod was shamelessly interpolated already in ancient times. For example, in the extant part of Birth of Gods (goddesses and mortal men) [33] you find ll. 1011-13, which tell that the two sons of Odysseus and Circe are Agrius and royal Latinus. Now here Hesiod is not conform with Homer, but the problem is that royal Latinus looks like an interpolation from Roman era; surely not by a Roman but by a hyperloyal Greek. By any probability Hesiod knew practically nothing about Italy in cca. 700 BC, and surely did not know Roman or Alba Longan tradition; true, l. 1017 tells Latinus the king of Tyrrhenians and in principle he might have collected some Etruscan tradition, but we do not know of any old Etruscan tradition about Latinus and tell me a reason for which in 700 BC Etruscans could have preserved a tradition about the divine origin of the forefather of Rome. Rome was then almost newborn. In Veii Latinus' name was surely known and hated, in more Northern cities not even known.

OK, and I can invent explanations for an interpolation in Hellenistic times about the descent of Macedons. But look: Macedon is not too far from Ascra, Boeotia, and Macedons were there in 700 BC around Olympus. It would be strange if Hesiod had not told anything about them, and the other fragments of the Catalog of Women do not contradict to Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenetus' fragment. So let us be constructive and analyze this fragment on equal footing with [32] 1.7.2. The previous one knows about one daughter of Pyrrha, wife of Deucalion: Protogeneia. But this name means simply Female Firstborn or such. Maybe Protogeneia is a nickname and Thyia is the true name, or vice versa, or there were lots of daughters but [32] gives only the name of one, which is quite usual. Here I take the third solution, because [32] explicitly gives one son of Protogeneia by Zeus: Aethlios. His son is Endymion, a chief of Aeolians.

OK, so according to Hesiod Macedon, first chief of Macedonians is the son of Zeus and grandson of Pyrhha, while Aiolus is son of Zeus and son of Pyrrha. Then according to ancient schemes Macedons are almost as good guys than Aeolians or Dorians, only a younger generation; with a kinship M to A between brother and nephew (being the father the same), while Ionians are exactly nephews to Aeolians and the divine part has been diluted by one generation. So kinship is closer for Aeiolians to Macedonians than to Ionians who are also "not so noble"; still they and Ionians are both Hellenes and Macedonians are not. An elegant formulation. I cannot imagine any Aeolian aversion to Brother Hesiod's professional opinion.

I must note that modern genetics would calculate differently. First let us see a very formal calculation. Because of adultery and multiple divine intervention usual genetic tables cannot be used. For any case, between any two of Dorus, Xuthus and Aeolus the gene similarity is 1/2. Between Aeolus and Ion 1/4. Between Aeolus and Thyia only 1/8 however (the fathers of Hellen and Thyia differ). For maternal genes Aeolus and Macedon would be cousins of second level, 1/32 similarity. But they are relatives on paternal side either, son of nephew and uncle, 1/16. That seems to be 3/32 altogether. So the Aeolus-Ion similarity would be much higher than the Aeolus-Macedon one. Only: this would not be true, if the Zeus genes count more than the Pyrrha ones. Counting only the immortal ones both the Aeolus-Ion and the Aeolus-Macedon relation is kinship with the son of a first nephew/niece. (And I should count somewhat the Pyrrha correlation too because Pyrrha was a daughter of a Titan, more than a mortal.)

However ancients did not know the Mendel Rules. So Aeolians concluded that they were more related to Macedonians than to Ionians, so they should be more friendly with Macedonians and also might expect more. Hermeias behaved accordingly; and after his untimely death the Aeolians waited some years. Then the Macedonians came; and we do not know about subsequent struggles, while we do know such between Mainland Greek mercenaries of Darius and Macedons, and also between Mainland Greek troops of Alexander and Macedons after Alexander's death.

Looking at the situation from the Macedonian side if they needed tricky Greeks to integrate, Ionians were more tricky but Aeolians were easier to be integrated.

Of course, they could integrate some Ionians without any problems. E.g. Aristotle of Stageira, son of Nicomachus was a Ionian from Chalcidike, near to Macedon, and Nicomachus was the court physician of the old king, father of Philip. Philip & Aristotle were growing up together in the court. Aristotle did not scorn the Aeolians of Assus; his first Ersatz Academy was established there, he married the daughter of Tyrant Hermeias, and later he remained friendly to the Macedonians. Therefore Eurymedon, son of Speusippus, accused him with serious religious crimes. He would have been executed as Socrates if he had not walked away to Chalcis. But we hear very few words about this shameful mock accusation; maybe because he was no citizen of Athens, only a Ionic metic from World's End.

If one is fanatic to get the whelp of our bitch for the Head of something, he may get Speusippus instead of Aristotle.

[1] Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War. Ed. by M. I. Finley. Penguin, Harmonsworth, 1972

[2] H. G. Dakyns (ed.): The Works of Xenophon. MacMillan & Co., London & New York, 1890-97. While this is an old translation, it is better to use one before the knowledge about Hellenica Oxyrhynchia. For a newer translation you may use Xenophon: A History of My Time. Penguin, Baltimore (transl. R. Warner), 1966

[3] V. Bartoletti: Hellenica Oxyrhynchia. Teubner, Leipzig, 1959

[4] M. Chambers: Hellenica Oxyrhynchia. Teubner, Stuttgart-Leipzig, 1993

[5] Gy. Németh: Kratippos? Antik Tanulmányok 33, 291 (1987-88)

[6] L. Canfora: Eduard Meyer tra Cratipo e Teopompo. Lecture at the Colloq. E. Meyer, Bad Homburg, Nov. 1987

[7] Strabo: Geographika. In 8 Volumes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachsetts

[8] J. J. Bachofen: Das Mutterrecht. Krais & Hoffmann, Stuttgart, 1861

[9] B. Lukács: The Rise and Fall of Atarneus. http://rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/atarn.html

[10] B. Bleckmann: Athens Weg in die Niederlage. Teubner, Stuttgart & Leipzig, 1998

[11] Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. It is now available on Internet at http://86.1911encyclopedia.org/

[12] R. G. Kent: Old Persian Grammar. New Haven, 1953

[13] Dolores Hegyi: Az iónok Kisázsiában. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1981

[14] A. T. Olmstead: History of the Persian Empire. Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1948

[15] G. S. Shrimpton: Theopompus the Historian. McGill-Queens University Press, 1991

[16] A. Tomita: Kurateitsuposu. http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/people/tiakio/historiai/cratippos.html

[17] Plutarch: De Gloria Atheniensium (ed. J. Cl. Thiolier). Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, Paris, 1985

[18] Plutarch: Lives of the Ten Orators. In: A. H. Clough & W. W. Goodwin (eds.): Plutarch's Lives and Writings, Simpkin, Hamilton, Kent & C°, London, 1914

[19] ***: Callimachus (c. 305 - c. 240 BC). http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/callimac.htm

[20] Political slogans are similar. A slogan is nice if you can write it in pure kanjis, not using katakana & hiragana. Now take the slogan: [Hail to] Japanese-X Good Relations!. That is a 4-kanji slogan if X is a kanji nation. But after the Japanese orthographic reform there are only a few kanji nations. In Europe only two remained: the United Kingdom and Hungary.

[21] G. A. Lehmann: Die Hellenica von Oxyrhynchos und Isocrates' Philippos. Historia 21, 385 (1972)

[22] G. E. Pesely: How Many Copies of the Hellenika Oxyrhynchia Have Been Found? AHB 8, 38 (1994)

[23] Suda On Line. http://www.stoa.org

[24] W. Jaeger: Aristoteles. Grundlegung einer Geschichte seiner Entwicklung. Weidmann, Berlin, 1923

[25] F. Copleston: Felsefe tarihi. Yunanistan ve Roma Felsefesi, Part 1, Vol. 2a, Idea Yaynevi, Istanbul, 1997

[26] E. Bickermann & J. Sykutris: Speusipps Brief an König Philipp. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, phil.-hist. Kl. 80, 3 (1928)

[27] M. N. Tod: A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions. London, 1948-51, Vol. 2, #145

[28] Aristotle: Meteorologica. Bekker N°. 344b 32

[29] Plutarch: Vitae parallelae. Teubner, Leipzig, 1892. Lysander 12

[30] Plutarch: Vitae parallelae. Teubner, Leipzig, 1892. Lycurgus 18

[31] E. Buchner: Der Panegyrikos des Isokrates. Wiesbaden, 1958

[32] Apollodoros: Bibliotheke. Ed. by J. G. Frazer, Loeb Classical, London, 1954, 1.7.2. (Really this part comes not from Apollodorus (2nd c. BC), but from an anonymous author, who may or may not have been Castor (1st c. BC)).

[33] A. Rzach (ed.): Hesiodi carmina, Teubner, Leipzig, 1913

My HomePage, with some other studies, if you are curious.