^{page 238 note 1} I. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 1} Grundy, Thucydides, pp. 412, 413.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 2} I. 23, 33, 44, 86, 88, 118.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 3} I. I.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 4} Cornford,Thuc.Mythistoricus, p. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 1} Grundy, pp.323,408,409.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 2} Cornford, chs. 3 and4;Encycl.Brit., vol. xxi., p. 72.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 3} Cornford, p. 10; Grundy, pp. 323 sqq.;Encycl. Brit., vol. xxi., p. 72.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 4} Cornford, pp. 7 and 8; Grundy, pp. 326 sqq.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 5} Grundy, pp. 334 sqq.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 6} Encycl. Brit., vol. xxi., p. 72; Grundy, p. 410Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 1} Herod, i. 59; Diog. Laert. i. 68:Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 2} Cheilon, as we can tell from the data given by Herodotus, was a contemporary of Epimenreides the Cretan, who, according to the′AΘ. IIoλ, purified Athens about 594. Now Epimenides did something also in Sparta, for we find in the Spartan agora a building attributed to him (Paus. iii. 12. 11). As a professional authority on doctrinal matters his action is bound to have been of a religious nature, and it may well be that he was concerned in originating the cult of the Cretan Pasiphae at Thalamae, which has such an unexplained importance in Spartan ceremonial (Paus. iv. 26. 1; Cic. de Div. i. 43, 96). This cult is closely connected with the ephors, who made use of a dream-oracle in the temple, and is definitely anti-royal, since the goddess of Thalamae was to be consulted on the deposition of the kings. It seems highly probable that Cheilon and Epimenides effected this reform in common, knowing that it would be an impressive counterblast to the prevailing royal influence at Delphi.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 3} Herodotus does not mention the part played by the ephors either at Eleusis or Aegina, but it is usually concluded from the well-known hatred of the ephors both for Cleomenes and Leotychidas, that they acted in concert with Demara tus, also the bitter foe of the other kings. It has been held that the held by Demaratus after his deposition (Herod, vi. 67) was the ephorate.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 1} XI. 50.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 2} Thuc. I. 101.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 3} The expedition to Tanagra was led by Nicomedes in place of Pleistoanax; the expedition to Eleusis by Pleistoanax himself. The absence of Archidamus in both cases can only have been due to his own refusal, especially in 457, when it was clearly his duty during the minority of his colleague (Thuc. I. 107).Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 1} Not only was the Lesbian proposal of revolt rejected, but Sparta intervened or tried to intervene with Sicyon between Corinth and Corcyra.This must have been due to fear of war and desire to prevent it.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 2} Grundy, p. 372.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 1} Herod v. 92 (about 506 B.C.); vi. 89 (shortly before Marathon). The Corinthian speech in the first book of Thucydides shows (chs. 40 and 41) that hitherto Corinth and Athens had been on good terms. The enmity referred to is still in the future.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 1} VII. 147.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 1} Thuc. vi. 90.Google Scholar