^{page 11 note 1} Most of the trifling divergences may be attributed to compression or inaccuracy on the part of Nepos, but the details in 5. 5 have no exact parallel in Plutarch.

^{page 11 note 2} Leo, , Die gr.-röm. Biographie pp. 205–6Google Scholar.

^{page 11 note 3} This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the passage immediately follows the Epaminondas, whose source is certainly biographical (see below).

^{page 11 note 4} Demosth. 2.

^{page 11 note 5} An obscure Xenophon of Athens, who is distinguished from the historian, wrote what was apparently a combined Life of Epaminondas and Pelopidas. He is mentioned only by Diogenes Laertius (II. 59), who clearly had no personal knowledge of the work. It is a suspicious coincidence that two Xenophons of Athens should have written on the same period, and there is probably some mistake.

^{page 12 note 1} It is significant that Plutarch was able to able to collect twenty-four apophthegms of Epaminondas and only six of Pelopidas (Mor. 192C–194E). There seems to be no reason to question the authenticity of the Apophthegmata.

^{page 12 note 2} C.Q. XXXII (1938) p. 70Google Scholar.

^{page 12 note 3} Since Epaminondas was a far better known character than Timoleon, Plutarch would be able to draw additional anecdotes from miscellaneous sources, chiefly philosophical.

^{page 12 note 4} Hermes VIII (1874) P. 439 n. 2Google Scholar.

^{page 13 note 1} There are parallels here with Pausanias' account of Epaminondas and with Nepos' Epaminondas.

^{page 13 note 2} Cp. the digression on the local legends of Haliartus, in the Lysander (28. 7–9)Google Scholar.

^{page 13 note 3} Throughout this paper fragments are cited from Jacoby, , F.G.H. IIGoogle Scholar.

^{page 13 note 4} Mor. 773^B–774^D. This work may well be spurious. A fragment of Aelian (fr. 77) suggests the existence of an even more detailed and perhaps independent version.

^{page 13 note 5} Cp. Paus. IX. 13. 5–6. The portents observed before Leuctra were recorded in the Epaminondas (Plut. Ages. 28. 6), and oracles, including that of the Scedasus story, were doubtless mentioned in the same passage.

^{page 14 note 1} Westlake, , Thessaly in the Fourth Century B.C., p. 138 n. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 14 note 2} Ch. 24 derives, I believe, from the main authority; but the part which deals with the decision of the generals to exceed their term office (2–3) reads as though it were derived from a different source and inserted here by Plutarch into a record of military operations in order to foreshadow the events of the following chapter.

^{page 14 note 3} II. 48D-E and VI. 251A-B. The former is told by Athenaeus of Entimus, a Cretan, but since Timagoras is mentioned in the same passage, there is probably some mistake. The text also is corrupt. That the story about Antalcidas (Plut. 30. 6) appears in the same chapter of Athenaeus can scarcely be a coincidence.

^{page 14 note 4} Westlake, , op. cit. p. 159Google Scholar.

^{page 14 note 5} Leo, , op. cit. p. 183Google Scholar.

^{page 14 note 6} Xenophon, who ignores the Thessalian campaigns of Pelopidas, describes the murder of Alexander, (Hell. VI. 4)Google Scholar because he is interested in the history of the Pheraean tyranny for its own sake.

^{page 14 note 7} Diod. XVI. 14. 1, a section which, according to Hammond, , C.Q. XXXI (1937) PP. 81 and 85–9Google Scholar. is derived from Ephorus.

^{page 15 note 1} Cp. 28. 2–4. This hypothesis would be strengthened if the authenticity of F 409 could be established. The two apophthegms of Pelopidas in ch. 28 reappear in the Apophthegmata (Mor. 194D), but here too they may be drawn, directly or indirectly, from Theopompus.

^{page 15 note 2} He shows some uneasiness on the part played by Pelopidas at Leuctra in σγκρ. 2. 2.

^{page 16 note 1} Köhler, , Ath. Mitt. II (1877) p. 198 n. IGoogle Scholar.

^{page 16 note 2} Motivation: Plut. 26. 1 with Diod. 71. 2. Closest parallels: Plut. 29. 7 with Diod. 75. 1 (Paus. VI. 5. 2–3 is somewhat different); Plut. 31. 2–4 with Diod. 80. 1–3; Plut. 35. 2–3 with Diod. 80. 6.

^{page 16 note 3} Diod. 26; cp. Isocr. XIV 29. It is natural that Ephorus, who is certainly the authority of Diodorus, should prefer a version which was both Isocratean and creditable to Athens. Cloché, , La politique étrangère d' Athènes, pp. 55–7Google Scholar, with good reason accepts the alternative account of Xenophon.

^{page 17 note 1} 37. 1–2, where the site of the battle is not named. In 81. 2, however, the name of Tegyra does occur, and the victory is accredited to Pelopidas.

^{page 17 note 2} Wolter, in Kromayer, , Ant. Schlachtfelder IV pp. 290–316Google Scholar, deals somewhat inadequately with the problem of the sources and is criticized on this account by Judeich, , Rh. Mus. LXXVI (1927) pp. 191–7Google Scholar. The latter is more inclined to credit the movements described by Plutarch and Diodorus.

^{page 17 note 3} Plutarch supplies an incidental confirmation of this; for in his note on the Spartan, mora (see above p. 15)Google Scholar he cites Ephorus for the view that it consisted of 500 men, and this is the figure given by Diodorus (32. 1—cp. 37. 1, where the Spartan force is 1,000, i.e. two morae).

^{page 17 note 4} Beloch, , Gr. Gesch. III. 2 p. 11Google Scholar. Hammond, , C.Q. XXXII (1938) P. 149Google Scholar, is surely right in believing that it was the practice of Diodorus not to conflate two sources systematically but “to rely entirely upon his best standard author’.

^{page 17 note 5} Atene e Roma XXXVII (1935) PP. 114–17Google Scholar, and Riv. Fil. XIII (1935) PP. 192–9Google Scholar; cp. Accame, , Riv. Fil. XIV (1936) PP. 343–4Google Scholar. Ephorus' view is reflected also in Justin (VI. 8).

^{page 17 note 6} Barber, , The Historian Ephorus pp. 88–101Google Scholar.

^{page 17 note 7} Some passages are favourable to Athens (cp. 6. 3–5), but others are the reverse (cp. 14. 1 and 31. 6).

^{page 18 note 1} Barber, , op. cit. pp. 131–2Google Scholar. There are, however, other works of Callisthenes which Ephorus might have used in composing his universal history, and the fragments of these are so meagre that correspondences are not to be expected.

^{page 18 note 2} Cp. Beloch, , op. cit. p. 12Google Scholar.

^{page 18 note 3} Xenophons Hellenika und dit böotische Geschichtsüberlieferung (1887) pp. 58–61. Writing before the composite character of Plutarch's Lives was fully recognized, he assumed that almost the whole of the Pelopidas, including the excursuses, is drawn from a single authority. He relied largely on Queck, , De fontibus Plutarchi in vita Pelopidae (1876)Google Scholar.

^{page 19 note 1} Ephorus devoted only six books to the same period (Barber, , op. cit. p. 34)Google Scholar.

^{page 19 note 2} 14. 3—also to those of Diodorus (see above pp. 16–17) and Plut, . Ages. 24. 4Google Scholar.

^{page 19 note 3} This is the composite citation in 17.4, which is not, in my opinion, derived from the historical authority (see above p. 15).

^{page 19 note 4} IIc p. 20 and R.E. X 1697Google Scholar.

^{page 19 note 5} Or works, for it is doubtful whether Anaxis was the continuator of Dionysodorus or whether each wrote an independent history.

^{page 19 note 6} Filippo il Macedone p. 196; cp. Treves, , Annali della R. Scuola Normale Superiore di pisa VI (1937) PP. 260–1Google Scholar.

^{page 20 note 1} It must be remembered that Ephorus, though hostile to Sparta, had only a qualified admiration of the Thebans.

^{page 20 note 2} 124 F 2; cp. Wormell, , Yale Class. Stud. V (1935) PP. 75–8Google Scholar.

^{page 20 note 3} Jacoby, R.E. loc. cit., who also makes the tentative suggestion that Callisthenes may have favoured Thebes as the former ally of his native Olynthus.

^{page 20 note 4} Schwartz, , Hermes XXXV (1900) p. 107 n. 3Google Scholar. In the Lysander (25. 5) Plutarch characteristically chooses to follow the version νδρς στορικο κα φιλοσφου.

^{page 20 note 5} This material in ch. 22 might well derive from the introduction to a work beginning from this year.

^{page 20 note 6} The account of Sphodrias' raid further points to the use of composite sources. In Plut, . Pel. 14Google Scholar. 6 it fails owing to panic among his soldiers near Eleusis, whereas in Xen, . Hell. V. 4. 21Google Scholar its failure is attributed to tardiness. In Plut, . Ages. 24. 7Google Scholar both reasons are given (the former with λγουσι), and this suggests the combination of two traditions.

^{page 21 note 1} The condemnation of Philip in Plut. 26. 8 certainly cannot be derived from Callisthenes. This has been classed among the shorter ‘enlargements’ (see above p. 15), but admittedly there is no cogent reason for regarding it as a note added by Plutarch.

^{page 21 note 2} See above p. 16.

^{page 21 note 3} Op. cit. pp. 337–35.

^{page 21 note 4} see above p. 11.

^{page 21 note 5} There is at least one historical inaccuracu: Jason, of Pherae, who is described as ‘tagus of the Thessalians’ (583F)Google Scholar, had not attained that position in 379, which is the dramatic date of Caphisias' narrative.

^{page 22 note 1} 8. 7–9. The story of the wolf and the wallet in the Dion (26. 5–10) points a similar moral.

^{page 22 note 2} The Hillenica of Callisthenes, if this be Plutarch's source, contained a larger number of books and covered a far shorter period than the Hellenica of Xenophon.

^{page 22 note 3} The variant in Xen, . Hell. V 4. 7Google Scholar illustrates this tendency.