^{page 25 note 1} The chronology is obscure and confused (Grundy, , Thucydides, 439Google Scholar; Gomme, , C.R. lv (1941), 59–67Google Scholar, and Historical Commentary on Thucydides, i. 222–4). Among faults of detail(discussed by Steup, , Thukyd. Studien, ii. 31–5Google Scholar and in the notes of his edition, cf. the notes of Gomme's Commentary) the following are perhaps the most important: though Perdiccas is mentioned in 56. 2, he is not fully defined until 57. 2; other Macedonians are named without any explanation of their relationship to Perdiccas or to one another (Derdas, 57. 3; Pausanias, 61. 4; Iolaus, 62. 2); and there is no record of the Potidaean reaction to the first Athenian demands (56. 2). Grundy, op. cit. 372, is also dissatisfied with the narrative on more general grounds.

^{page 25 note 2} Grundy, , op. cit. 439–40Google Scholar, believes that these chapters were composed early, but he is sceptical about the conclusions drawn by Steup from the use of the present tense οἰκο⋯σιν in 56.2 (Thukyd. Studien, ii. 35 and n. ad loc., cf. Gomme, n. ad loc., who promises further discussion in a later volume). This isolated use of the present in a geographical parenthesis does not prove that the whole narrative was completed before the fall of Potidaea, but it does indicate that these chapters were not revised years later when its inaccuracy would have struck the eye.

^{page 25 note 3} It is tempting to conjecture that he had served as Corinthian ⋯πιδημιουργóς at Potidaea (1. 56. 2).

^{page 26 note 1} Aritsteus may have been at fault in allowing his ment to carry the pursuit too far instead of turning to support the other wing, but no such criticism is implied by Thucydides, who does not appear to have studied the technique of hoplite battles thoroughly until he wrote his account of Mantinea.

^{page 26 note 2} There seems no cogent reason why Thucydides should have mentioned this rejected scheme at all, and its inclusion appears to be entirely due to his interest in its author. In stating that Aristeus was prepared to remain with the reduced garrison Thucydides is evidently making a point in his favour, and the general tone of this chapter gives the impression that the Potidaeans acted short-sightedly in refusing to accept his recommendation.

^{page 26 note 3} A similar plan was adopted at Plataea (2.6.4 and 78.3), but the Plataeans were hardly in a position to reject any decision reached by the Athenians and may not even have been consulted.

^{page 27 note 1} In discussing how Aristeus and his army reached Potidaea editors seem to have exaggerated the difficulties involved. That they marched overland throughout is almost certain (Gomme on 1. 60. 3 and 61. 3). No obstacles were likely to be encountered in time of peace by a body of volunteers—even in Thessaly, where, though the κοινóν was in alliance with Athens, the influence of Perdiccas with the aristocracy was strong (4. 78. 2 and 132. 2). Parts of Macedonia bordering on Thessaly may have been controlled by rebel princes supported by the Athenians, but Perdiccas could doubtless secure the safe passage of the Corinthian force by one of the several alternative passes and thereafter by routes unlikely to be cut by the enemy. The Athenian operations at Therma and Pydna (1. 61. 2–3) were part of the campaign against Perdiccas (I. 59. 2), and it is a mere guess to assume that they constituted an attempt to intercept Aristeus. The silence of Thucydides on the route followed by the Corinthian force may be attributable to carelessness or ignorance, since Athenian movements are also inadequately recorded, but in view of his general attitude towards Aristeus a more probable explanation is that the march was unopposed.

^{page 27 note 2} I. 65. 2. The revolt of this town is inferred from its failure to pay tribute in the following years (Gomme, n. ad loc.). That Aristeus effected so littlel after leaving Potidaea was doubtless due to the efforts of Phormio and his force of hoplites.

^{page 27 note 3} The choice of the word κακουργεῖν in 2. 67. 4(quoted above) is noteworthy. While it is used of legitimate plundering in war (cf. 3.1. 2,6. 7.3, 7. 19. 2), it was a technical term of criminal law and is applied by Thucydides in one of his most outspoken passages to the malefactions of Cleon (5.16.1, cf. 1. 37. 2 and 134. 4, 6. 38. 2). Aristeus had fought against the Athenians before they were formally at war with Corinth and was evidently classed as a criminal by those who secured his execution, perhaps the extreme democrats (cf. the treatment of the Thebans captured in the attack on Plataea before the declaration of war). Thucydides may have had in mind some decree or speech defending this flagrant breach of international law, especially as he goes on to explain that the Athenians claimed to be within their rights in taking reprisals for the treatment of merchants whom the Spartans had executed as criminals. As Aristeus and his colleagues were travelling to a non-belligerent country and would not be accompanied by a herald, they could not claim sacrosanctity, but they could claim the rights accorded to ordinary prisoners of war.

^{page 27 note 4} 2. 67. 4. There is no evidence that Aristeus became, like Brasidas, a sort of bogy in Attic comedy. It is true that no comedy survives from the first years of the war, but Athenian jokes were remarkably durable. Potidaea was still topical in 424 (Aristoph, . Knights, 438)Google Scholar.

^{page 28 note 1} For example, the motives of Perdiccas in urging his Greek neighbours to revolt from on Athens (1. 57. 5) are so obvious that they might well have been left to the intelligence of the reader.

^{page 28 note 2} The discreditable motives ascribed to Cleon (4. 27. 3–4 and 28. 2; 5. 16. 1), which cannot be based on wholly reliable evidence, are exceptional.

^{page 28 note 3} In some cases, where the evidence was deficient or untrustworthy, he states frankly that he is expressing his own opinion or quoting hearsay (cf. 1. 93. 7 on Themistocles and 5. 65. 3 on Agis).

^{page 28 note 4} 7. 48. 3 (on Nicias) has some affinity with this passage but is much less striking.

^{page 28 note 5} Only I. 63. I could well be a later insertion. It may also be noted that the account of the Potidaea αἰτία, if shorn of the material on Aristeus, would be reduced to a bare summary and could hardly have been used by Thucydides to balance the Corcyra αἰτία even in an unrevised draft.

^{page 29 note 1} The neighbourhood of Potidaea was well known to him (I. 63. 2). Gomme, n. ad loc, observes that ‘a not unimportant detail in the topography is missing’, but this omission seems to be due rather to compression than to ignoranee of the terrain.

^{page 29 note 2} Unfortunately neither Learchus nor Ameiniades is mentioned elsewhere.

^{page 29 note 3} 2. 67.4. The number of merchants for whose execution by the Spartans the Athenians were taking reprisals must have far exceeded that of the envoys and their following. The modest expenditure incurred by even the most important embassies (Dem. 19. 158) shows that they were not elaborate. The comic ambassador in the Artharnians (65–7 and the following scene) succeeded in making his leisurely mission to Persia both remunerative and comfortable, but there is no suggestion that he and his colleagues took a train of Athenians with them.

^{page 29 note 4} In 2. 70.3 τοὺς ⋯πικο⋯ρους seems at first sight to refer only to the Peloponnesian mercenaries mentioned in I. 60. I and to exclude the Corinthian volunteers, but the word is evidently used in its wider sense of ‘allies’ (cf. 1.40.3,3.18.1–2).

^{page 29 note 5} Desertion to the Athenian side by an officer who had been sufficiently closely associated with Aristeus to be aware of his motives is a possibility so remote that it may safely be discounted.

^{page 29 note 6} They maintained a garrison at Potidaea (Dittenberger, S.I.G. ³ 75. 27–9, and 77. 44), but they failed to implement their promise to support Sitalces with a fleet and army when he invaded Chalcidice at the end of 429 (2.95. 3 and 101.I).

^{page 30 note 1} The generally accepted view that Thucydides met and questioned Brasidas rests upon impression alone.

^{page 30 note 2} Inter alios, How and Wells, Commentary on Herodotus, Introduction 39 and note on 8. 94. Plutarch, , De Mai. Herod. 39Google Scholar, produces a thoroughly convincing defence of Adeimantus.

^{page 30 note 3} Macan, Herodotus Books vii–viii–ix n. ad loc. In J.H.S. lvi (1936), 23–4Google Scholar, I attempted to disprove a parallel view that Herodotus condones the medism of the Thessalians because they were later allied with the Athenians.

^{page 30 note 4} I am much indebted to Professor F. E. Adcock, whose criticisms and suggestions have been of the greatest value to me.