The reception of the work of Thucydides in late antique authors constitutes a huge chapter of allusions and reworkings, on methodological, structural, lexical levels and more. A fortiori, certain particularly famous passages by the historian are well suited for a study of their reception, above all where key terms or rare expressions are concentrated. The case of the adjective ἀλγεινός, a poeticism declined twice in the epitaphios of Pericles (2.39 and 2.43) offers interesting material of this kind in the work of Dexippus, the Athenian historian of the third century A.D., and in the romance author Heliodorus. Alongside a secure reference to 2.39 in Dexippus (F28 Martin = F34 Mecella), already identified by Stein, it is possible to identify a further reuse in another fragment, probably extracted from a demegoria (F26b Martin = F32b Mecella). In the light of these examples, it becomes more likely that we can see a reminiscence of Thucydides also in a passage of Heliodorus of Emesa (5.29), already proposed by van Krevelen but omitted from the repertory of citations present in the Aethiopica prepared by Feuillâtre.

中文翻译：

---

I “mali Futuri” e non solo: possibili riprese tucididee in Dexippo e Eliodoro

晚期古董作家对修昔底德作品的接受构成了在方法论、结构、词汇等层面上的典故和改写的巨大篇章。更重要的是，历史学家的某些特别著名的段落非常适合研究它们的接受度，尤其是集中了关键术语或罕见表达的地方。形容词 ἀλγεινός 的情况，在伯里克利 (2.39 和 2.43) 的墓志铭（2.39 和 2.43）中两次衰落的诗意在公元三世纪的雅典历史学家德西普斯和浪漫主义作家赫利奥多罗斯的作品中提供了此类有趣的材料。除了对 Dexippus 中 2.39 的安全参考（F28 Martin = F34 Mecella），Stein 已经确定，还可以确定另一个片段的进一步重用，可能是从 demegoria 中提取的（F26b Martin = F32b Mecella）。