## NOT OUR THUCYDIDES? IDENTIFYING THE STRATEGOS AT HISTORY 1.117

By Robert D. Luginbill

Summary: The Thucydides mentioned at History 1.117 as being one of the three strategoi in command of the reinforcement sent to reinforce Pericles' siege of Samos in 439 was most likely the author of the history. No other known likely candidates exist, and the objections to considering the historian are based upon flawed conjectural readings of the internal evidence of the History .

καὶ ἐκ τῶν Ἀθηνῶν ὕστερον προσεβοήθησαν τεσσαράκοντα μὲν αἱ μετὰ Θουκυδίδου καὶ Ἅγνωνος καὶ Φορμίωνος νῆες (1.117.2)

Fresh reinforcements afterwards arrived - forty ships from Athens with Thucydides, Hagnon, and Phormio (trans. Crawley).

ἕτερός τις Θουκυδίδης , οὐχὶ ὁ συγγραφεύς (schol. ad loc .)

It is a different Thucydides, not the historian.

While  the  scholiast's  judgment  about  the  identification  of  the  first named strategos in the group of three above (sent to reinforce Pericles' siege of Samos in 439) has been doubted by some few in the past, 1 it is more than fair to say that most scholars today agree that whoever this Thucydides is, he is not 'our Thucydides.' 2 Hornblower's comments capture the current consensus:

- 1 E.g. Schmidt 1879: 197-98 n. 1. The modern consensus to the effect that the scholiast was correct on this point is represented by Gomme 1945: 354; Phillips 1991: 385-95; Hornblower 1991: 191.
- 2 Alternative identifications include Thucydides the poet ( Acherdousios ): Busolt 1897: 442 n. 1; Thucydides Gargettios : Kirchner 1901: 473; Gomme 1945: 354; see also Fornara

Unlikely to be the historian, because he insists at V. 26. 5 that he was fully mature at the beginning of the war, perhaps with the implication 'only just', i.e., perhaps 30. Had he served as general ten years earlier, this defensive-sounding claim would be less intelligible. 3

Hornblower's analysis is typical of modern scholarship in wisely refusing to rely on ancient speculation that might give some clue as to the historian's age at the time of the Samos strategia , in preference for the internal evidence of the History . For while there are dubious reports about the life of Thucydides to be found outside of the comments he himself makes therein, this external material is without exception of questionable reliability.  Scholars have generally found unanimity on the point that all such later information about the historian's life is likely to have been derived from deductions arising from the material in the History itself rather than stemming from any independent source. 4

Notwithstanding  the  status  quo  of  the  scholarship,  it  seems  a  fair point to observe that many a casual reader of the History has assumed (before  looking  at  notes  or  commentaries)  that  the  Thucydides  here could well be one and the same person as the historian. The main reason for this, of course, is that for those without some depth of exposure to Greek history, 'our Thucydides' is likely to be the only one known; before being introduced to other individuals named Thucydides, the name seems unique enough to western ears to invite the identification of 'our

1971: 50; Piccirilli 1985: xi ff. The identification of the strategos here with Thucydides the son of Melesias is occasionally to be found in earlier scholarship: Thirlwall 1846: v.3, 53 n.1; Croiset 1886: 288; Unger 1886: 158-61; Morris 1891: in loc ., but fell out of favor because of the likelihood of his being in exile at the time of the expedition: Gomme 1945: 354. The effort mounted by Krentz 1984: 499-504 to revive this interpretation was effectively refuted by Phillips 1991: 385-95; see also Meyer 1967: 14154; Carawan 1996: 406 n. 2; thirteen ostraka mentioning Thucydides son of Melesias have been found: Vanderpool 1949: 411.

- 3 Hornblower 1991: 191.
- 4 The classic treatment is that of Wilamowitz 1877: 326-67. See also Jacoby 1902: 283; Steup 1919: i-xxv; Luschnat 1970: 1091-95; Piccirilli 1985: xv-xxxiv; Maitland 1996: 539.

Thucydides' with 'this Thucydides' of 1.117, absent some instruction to the contrary, and the historian provides no such instruction in the text.

In fact, of course, the name was, as Busolt had remarked, 'um diese Zeit in Athen nicht selten.' 5 LGPN lists the name Thucydides as occurring eighteen times in Attica over the course of the fifth and fourth centuries. 6 And while most of these individuals must be excluded on chronological grounds from being considered as the strategos in question, this evidence does show that the name was not particularly unusual in Athens at this time.

But it is an Attic name. The only non-Attic Thucydides occurring in the remainder of the LGPN corpus has an explainable Attic connection: an Athenian proxenos in Thessaly (known also to us from Thuc. 8.92.8). Having composed his history for future generations (1.22.4), Thucydides was  certainly  also  writing  with  a  Panhellenic  audience  in  mind,  not merely an Attic one. 7 For that reason alone, it seems inexplicable that he would not have seen the potential confusing of himself with this strategos in the reception of much of his intended readership, especially given that the name might well seem too unusual to be coincidental for non-Athenians.

This argument is, of course, not decisive proof that the strategos of 440/439 was our Thucydides, but it does furnish a reasonable point of departure for the question of whether the historian should be removed from  consideration  altogether.  Would  that  conclusion  really  have seemed so obviously wrong to contemporaries outside of Attica so as to warrant no further explanation in the text? Or was there such an obvious alternative candidate by the name of Thucydides that the identification could have been considered automatic? We shall take up these questions in reverse order.

In  terms  of  famous  Athenian  statesmen  named  Thucydides,  other than the author of the History , only Pericles' old enemy, Thucydides the son of Melesias, qualifies. Outside of these two, no other contemporary Thucydides whose floruit admits him to consideration of being the strategos of 1.117 is mentioned in any extant historical writing; that fact alone should serve to cast doubt on the assumption of the existence of some other  Thucydides  famous  enough  to  invite  the  automatic  recognition necessary to obviate the need for any further identification of the person in our passage as a means of avoiding confusion with the historian. 8

5 Busolt 1897: 442 n. 1.

6 LGPN vol. 2 (1994): s.v. Θουκυδίδης ; see also Kirchner 1901: vol. 1, 468-73; Fiehn, RE 6.A.1 (1936) s.v. Thukydides no. 2, cols. 625-27; Davies 1971: 230-37. See also now Traill 2000: 311-17.

7 Gomme 1945: 89; Hornblower 1991: 4.

We do, of course, know of other contemporaries named Thucydides from inscriptions, scholia (Ar. Vesp . 947; cf. Ach . 703), and later sources (Marcellinus, Vita 28-30). 9 In addition to the famous opponent of Pericles, the son of Melesias, 10 Phillips' excellent collection of the evidence produces a list of six possible candidates for our strategos , 11 of which one is the  historian  (see  below), 12 leaving  us  with  the  son  of  Melesias,  the Acherdousian, the Gargettian, an otherwise unknown casualty of war (PA 7263), 13 and  a  Pharsalian/Thessalian  (for  whose  potential  citizenship Phillips  argues). 14 Even  if  it  were  possible  for  this  last  individual,  described by Thucydides as a proxenos (8.92.8), to be an Athenian citizen,

- 8 The other possible known Thucydides (mentioned in IG I 2 242.112 [now IG I 3 302.28]; 324.25, 34, 35 [now IG I 3 369] = SEG 10.227) would, in Raubitschek's view (1955: 287 n. 10), have been 'of an advanced age' at the time of his assumption of his treasurership in 424, so as to disqualify him for consideration as our strategos (though that is not dispositive inasmuch as he could well have been young enough to have held that office fifteen years earlier). Ehrenberg 1945: 119 n. 21 similarly insists that this Thucydides of Hist . 1.117 is otherwise unknown.
- 9 Wilamowitz 1877: 330 n. 7, 349ff. posited that, in addition to sources such as Polemon and Androtion, much of Marcellinus' information stemmed from a later work περὶ ὁμωνύμων , and Schöll 1878: 435-36 thought this to be the work of Demetrius of Magnesia. Corradi 2012: 495 follows Raubitschek 1960: 91 in attributing the list to Ammonius.
- 10  See Davies 1971: 53-54, 230-37.
- 11  Phillips 1991: 393f. There is also a Thucydides who proposed an amendment to the decree in honor of Herakleides of Klazomenai ca. 423: IG I 3 227.12 (I am indebted to an anonymous referee for this reference).
- 12  Phillips 1991: 393; compare Krentz 1984: 499.
- 13 IG I 3 1190.4, a grave stele, possibly for those who died in the battle of Cynossema (if so, it would date to ca. 411).
- 14  Phillips 1991: 392; see Hornblower 1991: 277-78 for reasonable doubts about this thesis,  also  advanced  by  Walbank  1978:  385.  Phillips  thus  dubiously  conjectures  two Thucydides  from  Gargettos;  Raubitschek's  conclusion  (1955:  287-88)  that  we  are

both he and the Thucydides who fell at Cynossema are documented as active in war and politics in 411, nearly three decades after the Samos campaign,  and  are  for  that  reason  dubious  candidates  at  best  for  the strategos mentioned at 1.117. 15

However we wish to count these individuals named Thucydides, all of them are problematic as the strategos of 440/39. For the son of Melesias, we would have to posit an otherwise unknown recall from exile 16 (see n. 2 supra );  for  the  Pharsalian,  positing  either  a  second  Thucydides from Gargettos or a proxenos with citizenship are necessary, as well as allowing for an active role nearly thirty years after the Samos campaign, a problem shared with the individual listed as a casualty from the tribe of Erechtheis known to us only from the stele; as for the Acherdousian, while it is not a decisive objection, it is still fair to observe that none of the scanty details  of  his  life  give  us  confidence  of  a  political  career  significant enough to warrant election as a strategos : the tamiai were elected by lot, not on account of perceived ability or influence, 17 and while being a poet (according to Androtion: Marcellinus, Vita 28) is no disqualification for generalship (we think of Sophocles), it is also no particular recommendation;  and  finally  there  is  the  Gargettian  Thucydides  -  of  which  we know  nothing  for  certain  and  certainly  nothing  of  significance. 18 As noted, scholars have picked their favorite candidates for Thucydides the strategos of 440/39 (see n. 2 supra ), but the common thread with all such identifications has been a necessary lack of convincing evidence on the one hand and a conclusion arrived at more by a process of elimination than by convincing argumentation on the other. Modern unanimity has

dealing  with  a  doublet  is  more  convincing;  cf.  Osborne  &  Byrne  1996:  311:  '... whether he was naturalized as an Athenian like his father is unclear.'

- 15  See Clairmont 1983: 51, for examples of strategos and other military titles occurring in Athenian polyandria of this sort.
- 16  Raubitschek 1960: 89 n. 12; and see n. 2 supra ; see also Wade-Gery 1932: 240-43 for his ostracism, and 258-60 for his return from exile. Gomme 1945: 354 also dismisses the son of Melesias on these grounds. Wilamowitz 1877: 349 distinguishes between the son of Melesias and the strategos of 440/39, but see also n. 33. See also Schmidt 1879: 197-98 n. 1.
- 17  Samons 2000: 38-39.
- 18  For a strong critique of the dubious conjectures about him (and other potential Gargettians), see Scheidel 1994: 372-78.

been achieved on only one point: he is not 'our Thucydides.' In the face of  unconvincing  alternative  candidates,  it  seems  not  unreasonable  to ask, why not? Though not absolutely uncommon, if the name Thucydides was uncommon enough to defy solution to this problem among those familiar with Attic names and sources, we might give the historian the benefit of the doubt in anticipating this potential problem for his non-Attic readership if he were not speaking of himself - and consider anew the possibility that he was.

The first objection to identifying our Thucydides with the strategos is, curiously enough, the lack of any patronymic provided for the strategos at 1.117. Despite the fact that the absence of any further identification might easily be taken by a casual reader to mean that this is the historian himself, it is sometimes argued that this is evidence that Thucydides is in fact not referring to himself. 19 One thing is sure, however: if Thucydides had provided a patronymic here we would know for certain to whom he was referring. So why did he not do so?

G.T. Griffith's highly influential and still widely-cited article on Thucydides' habits in introducing characters in the History deals mainly with the historian's use of biographical information, but he does treat the issue of patronymics by way of introduction. 20 The bottom-line of Griffith's analysis of Thucydides' use of patronymics is that while his use or omission of them cannot be predicted with any precision or confidence, 21 his employment of a patronymic seems to signal something of significance. 22

- 19  See Hornblower 1991: 191, expressing doubts about the 'first mention patronymic argument.' None of the other strategoi mentioned, Hagnon, Phormio, Tlepolemos and Anticles, receive a patronymic here (nor any other identifier).
- 20  Griffith 1961: 21-33.
- 21  Griffith  finds  38  Athenian  generals  mentioned  with  patronymics  and  16  without them, 'excluding book VIII' where he assumes that Thucydides' editing process was not completed (1961: 21 n. 4). Griffith excludes the Pentekontaetia from his considerations.
- 22  Griffith 1961: 24. This is the first mention of Hagnon who turns up next during the siege of Potidaea, where he does receive the patronymic 'son of Nicias' (2.58; though not, understandably, in the two following mentions in the same paragraph); it is absent later in the same book (2.95); he is again called 'son of Nicias' at 4.102.3; but never again (i.e., no patronymic given at 5.11, 5.19, or 6.31). This is the third mention of Phormio who does receive a patronymic, 'son of Asopius' on his first appearance

At times, however, that significance is found by Griffith in Thucydides' desire to add some ballast to a description which would otherwise seem bare without the addition. 23 Was the arrival of the Athenian reinforcement something Thucydides would have felt needed to be emphasized? This hardly seems to be the case since Pericles' previous reestablishment of the blockade was merely buttressed by these additional ships. When we add to this the fact that this force is not said to have done anything whatsoever on its own initiative, nor was it the only reinforcement mentioned, it is quite understandable that merely mentioning it and noting its commanders as briefly as possible would have seemed more than sufficient to Thucydides' lights. 24 If that is so, then taking the absence of the patronymic to mean that Thucydides is disqualifying  himself  thereby seems dubious at best.

Finally,  it  is  also  highly  possible  that  Thucydides,  if  he  gave  any thought to the matter at all, could have assumed that his contemporaries would have had no issues in his identifying himself as the strategos mentioned. 25 In that case, gratuitously including his patronymic alone among all the other generals mentioned could well have seemed a self-aggrandizing  gesture,  while  listing  all  the  other strategoi with  patronymics

(1.64.2), but never again. This is the only time Thucydides mentions Tlepolemos and Anticles.

- 23  As in the example of Cleopompus, son of Clinias at 2.26 (Griffith 1961: 22). Griffith 1961: 24 also mentions a category of individuals where the inclusion of the patronymic merely makes it seem that they thus have 'a little more right to be there', i.e., in the History .
- 24  This  spare  method  of  description  is  not  unprecedented:  while  military  titles  are sometimes present in the remains of Athenian polyandria, patronymics never are (even though they do appear in other Attic name lists): Clairmont 1983: 52. As Hammond 1973: 387 n. 1 notes, the large number of strategoi participating in this campaign is also not unparalleled.
- 25  Griffith  1961:  24  theorizes  that  Thucydides  probably  removed  many  patronymics during the process of editing for similar literary reasons. But Thucydides often does provide patronymics for multiple commanders or officials (e.g. 1.29; 1.45; 1.51; 1.91; 2.2; 2.23; 2.33; 2.58; 2.67; 2.70; 2.71, et passim ).

would have been ponderous, given the footnote-only nature of the discussion. 26 To the extent that the lack of patronymic at 1.117 indicates anything at all, therefore, it suggests that Thucydides is more likely than not speaking about himself (rather than the other way around). 27

*****

Θουκυδίδης Ἀθηναῖος ξυνέγραψε τὸν πόλεμον τῶν Πελοποννησίων καὶ Ἀθηναίων , ὡς ἐπολέμησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους , ἀρξάμενος εὐθὺς καθισταμένου καὶ ἐλπίσας μέγαν τε ἔσεσθαι καὶ ἀξιολιγώτατον τῶν προγεγενημένων (1.1.1).

Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the history of the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians, beginning at the moment that it broke out, and believing that it would be a great war and more worthy of relation than any that had preceded it (transl. Crawley).

αἰεὶ γὰρ ἔγωγε μέμνημαι , καὶ ἀρχομένου τοῦ πολέμου καὶ μέχρι οὗ ἐτελεύτησε , προφερόμενον ὑπὸ πολλῶν ὅτι τρὶς ἐννέα ἔτη δέοι γενέσθαι αὐτόν . ἐπεβίων δὲ διὰ παντὸς αὐτοῦ αἰσθανόμενός τε τῇ ἡλικίᾳ καὶ προσέχων τὴν γνώμην , ὅπως ἀκριβές τι εἴσομαι· (5.26.4-5).

I certainly all along remember from the beginning to the end of the war its being commonly declared that it would last thrice nine years. I lived through the whole of it, being of an age to comprehend events, and giving my attention to them in order to know the exact truth about them (transl. Crawley).

More than the former one, the later passage (in conjunction with the comments by and about Alcibiades regarding his age potentially making

- 26  Thucydides does include his own patronymic at 4.104, but of course on the one hand this is the beginning of a lengthy and important account, and on the other it amounts to him taking responsibility for the disaster that ensues (rather than being any sort of self-glorification).
- 27  As Schmidt 1879: 198 n. 1, commented: 'weil andernfalls eine unterscheidende Bezeichnung unerlässlich gewesen wäre.'

him unfit to command: 6.12.2; 6.17.1; 6.18.6) is generally adduced as proof that the historian's youthful age at the time of the siege of Samos excludes him from consideration as 'Thucydides the strategos' mentioned at 117.2. 28 There are really two aspects to this objection: (1) Was our Thucydides too young by any objective measure to have been a strategos in 440/439? (2) Do his statements at 1.1.1. and 5.26.5 prove as much?

The first thing to note is that, apart from the internal evidence of the History , we do not possess any reliable external information about Thucydides' date of birth. What does exist consists of educated guesses of the sort still being engaged in with at least equal validity by scholars today. Suggested dates for Thucydides' birth center mostly around the early to mid-450s, 29 but the basis for the conjectures has to do with fitting together  three  pieces  of  information,  namely,  the  two  passages  quoted above and the fact of his documented strategia which took place in 424/3. As Canfora notes, the unlikelihood of Thucydides having been elected strategos before the age of 30 makes any birth date later than ca. 455 untenable. 30 Davies similarly disputes any possible date after 454. 31

With this consensus Marcellinus may perhaps agree: '[He is said] to have died with his life brought toward its fiftieth year.' 32 What cannot be lost sight of, however, is that all such guesses were based on nothing more than an Apollodorus-like estimation of Thucydides' floruit . 33 Pamphilia's report that Thucydides was 40 at the commencement of the Peloponnesian War seems a direct enough confirmation of this procedure, since in this case his assumed floruit has been deliberately pegged to the beginning of the war rather than to his 424 strategia . If this is accepted it would  make  Thucydides  too  young  for  the  earlier  Samos  campaign (twenty-something); but for those assuming an older Thucydides, would age have disqualified him in 424 as being past his prime? If Thucydides were born in the late 470s, he would have been at least forty-something when Amphipolis was lost, and late forties at that.

28  Compare the quote from Hornblower with which we began, and cf. Gomme 1945: 354.

29  Luschnat 1970: 1093: '. . . he was near thirty when the fighting broke out (431)'; Hanson 1996: x.

30  Canfora 2006: 3.

31  He suggests also receding from this date because 'Thucydides' language at v.43.2 and

vi.12.2 would have been impossible had he himself been elected general at Alkibiades' age (30) or younger' (Davies 1971: 234).

32  Burns 2010: 19. However, if Dodwell's conjecture (1702) in assuming that π was incorrectly read as pentekonta at Vita 34.4 is accepted then Marcellinus may also present an older Thucydides; see Piccirilli 1985: 26. For bibliography and assessment of these biographical materials generally see Maitland 1996: 539 n. 13.

33  Diels 1876: 1-54; Morris 1891: 4; Jacoby 1902: 283; Davies 1971: 234; and see especially Mosshammer 1973: 5-13.

The safest estimate of the likely earliest age to hold the generalship would seem to be late thirties to early forties, but there may have been exceptions. 34 The criticisms of Alcibiades' relative youth (6.12.2; 6.17.1; 6.18.6) were no doubt prompted in no small part by his character and behavior  (whereas  a  less  controversial  individual  might  well  avoided similar scrutiny). 35 The first thing to ask in Thucydides' case then is why he might possibly have been chosen for this position if the 'older Thucydides' hypothesis is correct. A possible answer may perhaps be found in the special competency Thucydides possessed in regard to Thrace and Thracian affairs on account of his family history and connections (4.104; 4.105.1), 36 a  not  unprecedented consideration in elections of Athenian strategoi . 37

I certainly all along remember from the beginning to the end of the war its being commonly declared that it would last thrice nine years. I lived through the whole of it, being of an age ( helikia ) to comprehend

- 34  For evidence for minimum ages for Athenian officials, see Kennel 2013: 14. What the official minimum age was for election to strategos was, is not known (Hornblower 2008: 50); Rhodes 1993: 510 suggests thirty.
- 35  Romilly 1963: 202 quotes a fragment of Eupolis indicating a general disenchantment with the younger leaders who followed Pericles. There is also a difference between appointing a youngish general to top command of a celebrated expedition on which so much depended in the case of Alcibiades and the (no doubt felt to be at the time of appointment) relatively less critical command in Thrace.
- 36  Canfora 2006: 11-12.
- 37  See Fornara 1971: 79-80; Hamel 1998: 15. Hornblower argues that the appointment of Thucydides and Eucles for this command points to the practice already being in place. See also Badian 1992: 242 n. 18.

events, and giving my attention to them in order to know the exact truth about them (5.26.4-5; transl. Crawley). 38

Wilamowitz's assessment of this statement in regard to the claim about his  age  is  doubtless  correct,  namely,  that  by  these  words  Thucydides claims a 'sufficient age to comprehend' from its very beginning, being 'am Anfang nicht zu jung, am Ende nicht zu alt.' 39 So while some have found this remark to be defensive on Thucydides' part for fear that he might have been thought by some too young, 40 the defensiveness could cut both ways:

'I  have not lived so long, Lacedaemonians, without having had the experience of many wars, and I see those among you of the same age ( helikia ) as myself, who will not fall into the common misfortune of longing for war from inexperience or from a belief in its advantage and its safety' (1.80.1; transl. Crawley).

Since  Archidamus had been ruling some four decades by the time he made this statement, we can be sure that in Thucydidean usage helikia can refer to old age as well as youth, and that therefore its appearance at 5.26.5 does not rule out a late forty-something or early fifty-something Thucydides at the time of his 424 strategia . 41 Moreover, in the previous paragraph, 5.26.4, Thucydides stresses that at time of writing (when seventy-something, positing an older Thucydides), he still 'remembered' what had happened. Any defensiveness in these comments should thus be seen as directed towards potential objections about him being too old at the end at least just as much as too young at the beginning. Thucydides' combining of aisthanomai with helikia strengthens that impression:

38  For Canfora's claim that this was written not by Thucydides but by Xenophon in persona Thucydidis , see Bearzot 2017: 147; Lattimore 1984: 267 n.

39  Wilamowitz 1877: 327.

40  Finley 1947: viii; Andrewes 1970: 12-13; in his third volume (Hornblower 2008: 50) he is more circumspect than he had been in the first (Hornblower 1991: 191).

41  Pericles' use of the word at 2.36.3 and 2.44.3-4 likewise refers to maturity rather than youth.

not only did he have sufficient maturity of judgment at the war's commencement; he was also sufficiently in his prime throughout, not having lost his mental abilities because of age. 42 Rather than ruling out the possibility of an earlier strategia because of being too young, therefore, the internal evidence can be read at least equally the other way. 43

*****

Based on the discussion above, it seems reasonable to conclude that the case for the general mentioned at 1.117 being our Thucydides is at least as good as any brief for the other two known possibilities (the Acherdousios and the Gargettios ) or some otherwise unknown Thucydides. In the funeral oration, Pericles famously censures the human tendency to be skeptical about the heroic deeds of others which are felt to be beyond one's  own  abilities  (2.35.2).  Similar  skepticism  about  Thucydides  may perhaps be partially to blame for the reluctance to credit him with the 439 strategia as well (two generalships and the composition of the History seeming a bit too much to accept). What we do not have, however, is sufficient evidence, internal or external, to deny him the earlier strategia in spite of skepticism, however intense. That being the case, it is more likely than not that Thucydides was referring to himself, precisely since he gives no indication that he was not doing so - exactly as first-time readers have been likely to assume, both then and now. 44

- 42  Compare Pericles' use of the word to express his own mental prowess in forecasting the Athenian indignation at 2.60.1; Gylippus's use of the word at 7.66.1 regarding lack of this critical ability; and Pericles' equating of insufficiency of this quality with a 'failure  of gnome '  at  1.33.3.  Huart's  treatment  (1968:  171-73)  demonstrates  sufficiently the word's association with mature intelligence in the History .
- 43  As Morris 1891: 3 rightly concluded, Thucydides was insisting on his maturity in these passages, not his youth.
- 44  If he were indeed Phormio's colleague in 439, it might also help to explain Thucydides being so well informed about Phormio's actions in the war. Also, the unusually detailed description of the Samian Revolt (by the standards of the Pentekontaetia) may perhaps be a trace of Thucydides' personal involvement in that event (I owe this observation to one of the anonymous referees and would like to express my gratitude for the many helpful suggestions and additional references provided).

## BIBLIOGRAPHY

- Badian, E. 1992. From Plataea to Potidaea . Baltimore.
- Bearzot,  C.  2017.  'Mantinea,  Decelea,  and  the  Interwar  Years  (421-413 BCE)' in R.K. Ballot et al. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides . Oxford, 145-60.
- Burns, T. 2010. 'Marcellinus' Life of Thucydides, Translated, with an Introductory Essay' Interpretation 38, 3-26.
- Busolt, G. 1897. Griechische Geschichte. III. Die Pentakontaetia . Gotha.
- Canfora, L. 2006. 'Biographical Obscurities and Problems of Composition' in A. Rengakos & A. Tsakmakis (eds.) Brill's  Companion to Thucydides . Leiden, 3-31.
- Carawan, E. 1996. 'The Trials of Thucydides 'the Demagogue' in the Anonymous Life of Thucydides the Historian' Historia 45, 405-22.
- Clairmont, C.W. 1983. Patrios Nomos: Public Burial in Athens during the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C . Oxford.
- Corradi, M. 2012. 'Thucydides Adoxos and Praxiphanes' in A. Martano et al. (eds.) Praxiphanes of Mytilene and Chamaeleon of Heraclea: Text, Translation, and Discussion . New Brunswick, 495-523.
- Croiset, A. 1886. Thucydide . Paris.
- Davies, J.K. 1971. Athenian Propertied Families: 600-300 B.C . Oxford.
- Diels, H. 1876. 'Chronologische Untersuchungen über Apollodors Chronika' RhM 31, 1-54.
- Dodwell, H. 1702. Annales Thucydidei et Xenophontei . Oxford.
- Ehrenberg, V. 1945. 'Pericles and His Colleagues between 441 and 429 B.C.' AJPh 66, 113-34.
- Finley, J. 1947. Thucydides . Cambridge.
- Fornara, C.W. 1971. The Athenian Board of Generals . Wiesbaden.
- Gomme, A.W. 1945. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides , Vol. I. Oxford.
- Gomme, A.W., A. Andrewes & K.J. Dover 1970. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides , Vol. IV. Oxford.
- Griffith,  G.T.  1961.  'Some  Habits  of  Thucydides when Introducing Persons' PCPhS 7, 21-33.
- Hamel, D. 1998. Athenian Generals . Leiden.
- Hammond, N.G.L. 1973. Studies in Greek History . Oxford.

- Hanson, V.D. 1996. 'Introduction' in R.B. Strassler, The Landmark Thucydides . New York, ix-xxiii.
- Harris, E.M. 1999. ' IG I ³ 227 and the So-Called Peace of Epilykos' ZPE 126, 123-28.
- Herman, G. 1990. 'Patterns of Name Diffusion within the Greek World and Beyond' CQ 40, 349-63.
- Hornblower, S. 1991. A Commentary on Thucydides , Vol. I. Oxford.
- Hornblower, S. 1996. A Commentary on Thucydides , Vol. II. Oxford.
- Hornblower, S. 2000. 'Personal Names and the Study of the Ancient Greek Historians' in S. Hornblower & E. Matthews (eds.) Greek Personal Names: Their Value as Evidence . London, 129-43.
- Hornblower, S. 2008. A Commentary on Thucydides , Vol. III. Oxford.
- Huart, P. 1968 . Le vocabulaire de l'analyse psychologique dans l'oevre de Thucydide . Paris.
- Jacoby, F. 1902. Apollodors Chronik: Eine Sammlung der Fragmente
- Kennel, N. 2013. 'Age-class Societies in Ancient Greece?' AncSoc
- Kirchner, J.E. 1901. Prosopographia Attica
- . Berlin. 43, 1-73. . Berlin.
- Krentz, P.M. 1984. 'The Ostracism of Thoukydides, Son of Melesias' Historia 33, 499-504.
- Lattimore, S. 1998. Thucydides . Indianapolis.
- Luschnat, O. 1970. 'Thucydides' RE Suppl. XII, 1085-1354.
- Maitland, J. 1996. 'Marcellinus' Life of Thucydides : Criticism and Criteria in the Biographical Tradition' CQ 46.2, 538-58.
- Meyer, H.D. 1967. 'Thukydides Melesiou und die oligarchische Opposition gegen Perikles' Historia 16, 141-54.
- Mosshammer, A.A. 1973. 'The Apollodoran Akmai of Hellanicus and Herodotus' GRBS 14, 5-13.
- Morris, C.D. 1891. Commentary on Thucydides Book 1 . Boston.
- Osborne, M.J. & S.G. Byrne 1994. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names , Vol. II: Attica . Oxford.
- Osborne, M.J. 1996. The Foreign Residents of Athens . Leuven.
- Phillips, J.P. 1991. 'Men Named Thoukydides and the General of 440/39 B.C.' Historia 40, 385-95.
- Piccirilli, L. 1985. Storie dello storico Tucidide
- Raubitschek, A.E. 1955. 'Menon, Son of Menekleides' Hesperia
- . Genoa. 24, 286-89.

- Raubitschek, A.E. 1960. 'Theopompos on Thucydides the Son of Melesias' Phoenix 14, 81-95.
- Rhodes, P.J. 1993. A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford.
- Romilly, J. de 1963. Thucydides and Athenian Imperialism , transl. P. Thody. Oxford.
- Samons, L.J. II. 2000. Empire of the Owl: Athenian Imperial Finance . Stuttgart. Scheidel, W. 1994. 'Thukydides Pantainou Gargettios: Gegner des Perikles. Geschichte eines Phantoms' Historia 43, 327-78.
- Schmidt,  W.A.  1879. Das  perikleische  Zeitalter :  II. Darstellungen  und  Forschungen . Jena.
- Schöll, R. 1878. 'Zur Thukydides-Biographie' Hermes 13, 433-51.
- Thirlwall, C. 1846. A History of Greece , Vol. 3. London.
- Traill, J.S. 2000. Persons of Ancient Athens , Vol. 9. Toronto.
- Unger, G.F. 1886. 'Die Nachrichten über Thukydides' Jahrb.f.class.Ph . 133, 97-111, 145-73.
- Vanderpool, E. 1949. 'Some Ostraka from the Athenian Agora' Hesperia Suppl. 8, 394-412, 493-96.
- Wade-Gery, H.T. 1932. 'Thucydides the Son of Melesias' JHS 52, 205-27.
- Walbank, M. 1978. Athenian Proxenies of the Fifth Century B.C . Toronto.
- Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, U. von 1877. 'Der Thukydideslegende' Hermes 12, 326-67.