^{page 319 note 1} Wilamowitz, Curae Thucydideae, p. 17, n. 2, believes the chapter to be an amplification of what originally stood in Thucydides’ narrative which, in his view, was καὶ κατὰ τὸν χρόνον…κάλλει (“κάλλει quid sibi velit nescio”) ἐγένοντο, καὶ τὰ χρήματα τουτο μάλιστα ὐπανήλωσεν “Caput famosum iii. 17, utrum e codicillis Thucydidis male intellects an e suis rationibus item pravis editor amplificaverit, nondum definio.”

^{page 320 note 1} “Interpolari potuisse ea quae de mercede militum dicuntur ne Steupius quidem demonstravit,” Wilamowitz, loc. cit.

^{page 321 note 1} I here follow E. Schwartz, Das Geschichtswerk des Thukydides, pp. 282 ff., though I find it hard to attribute to the “editor” the all-pervading activity which Schwartz discovers.

^{page 322 note 1} Ćwikliński's explanation (Hermes xii (1876), 54 f.) that vi. 54–9 belongs to the History of the Sicilian War (Books vi–vii) as a separate work is really destroyed by Schwartz, op. cit. 181 ff., who points out how ill the digression proves the point which Thucydides has been making in c. 53.

^{page 322 note 2} See Busolt, op. cit. iii. 2. 1016 n. 1. The estimates of Cavaignac (Le Trésor d'Athènes, pp. 120 f.), which he gives as minima, represent far less than the total costs of the war during this period.