¹ ProfessorCurtius, , Peloponnesos i. 86Google Scholar, derives the name from a settlement of Avars in this region at the beginning of the seventh century after Christ.

² Thuc. iv. 8, 6.

³ Both Loake and Curtius (probably following Loake) speak of it as 800 feet high, a notable example of the dangers of topography at sight.

⁴ Leake, , Travels in the Morea, vol. i. p. 413Google Scholar.

⁵ Pausan. Messen, ch. 36.

⁶ Paus. iv. 36, 5

⁷ Leake, , Morea, p. 401Google Scholar.

⁸ Curt., Pelop. ii. p. 173Google Scholar.

⁹ Curt., Pelop. ii. p. 180Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Tozer, Lectures on the Geography of Greece.

¹¹ Leake, , Morea, vol. i. p. 412Google Scholar.

¹² There are, it must bo mentioned, squared stones to be found in the water of the lagoon. I examined them. Local tradition represented them as remnants of the house of Nestor! They are seemingly remains of some work, whether causeway, aqueduct or landing place, connected with the great mediaeval fortress on Palaeo-Kastro.

¹³ Paus., Messen. 36Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Paus., Mess. 36Google Scholar, 5.

¹⁵ Thuc. iv. 2.

¹⁶ Ib. iv. 3.

¹⁷ Ib.

¹⁸ For further details v. p. 24.

¹⁹ Thuc. iv. 4.

²⁰ Thuc. iv. 5, 2.

²¹ If the sandy plain of Leake, Curtius, and Tozer existed at this time on the land side of Palaeo-Kastro, where did this πηλόε come from that the Athenians found so handy?

It can have come from nowhere else than the muddy shores of the lagoon harbour.

²² Thuc. iv. 9, 1.

²³ In the terms of the armistice concluded between Athens and Sparta in 423 B.C. is a passage deserving at any rate of attention with reference to this estimate of the topography of the lagoon:—

etc.—Thuc. iv. 118, 3.

The natural bounds set to a garrison on Koryphasion would be the sand-bar of the Voithio-Kilia on the north, and the channel from the lagoon harbour through the sand-bar separating it from Navarino Bay. Voithio-Kilia =‘the ox's belly.’ It is curious that we have the same root in Is the modern name a partial survival of the ancient one? Is it possible that refers to the narrow cutting or channel into the bay? Curtius dismisses the idea as improbable, but puts forward in its place a theory still more improbable. His reasons for dismissing it are: (1) that the Athenians would not have assented to confinement within Koryphasion, with its deficiency in water supply. (2) That there is mention of a mountain Tomaion near Pylos. The answer to this (1) is that the Athenians were in possession of Sphakteria, upon which we know there was a water supply: to (2) that the authority for the existence of a mountain so named is Stephanos of Byzantium, who, as far as can be ascertained, flourished about 500 years after Christ. Curtius identifies it with the conical hill over two miles south of Navarino, i.e. about seven miles from Koryphasion, and certainly that is the only hill in the neighbourhood to which the name could be conceived as in any way applicable. Surely, considering the serious view which the Spartans took of the at Pylos, it is hardly likely that they would have assented to an extension of the range of the garrison beyond the natural borders of the place; it is still more improbable that they would have assented to an arrangement such as the fixing of the boundary at this mountain would imply, giving the garrison the run of a large portion of the Messenian mainland. It seems far more likely that refers to the channel mentioned, or possibly to the knife-like shape of the sand-bar separating the lagoon harbour from the bay. We never hear of the garrison having established themselves in occupation of the country round Pylos. We are only told of plundering raids, and the words can only refer to Koryphasion within something like the limits of the original occupation.

²⁴ Ib. iv. 6.

²⁵ —Ib. iv. 8, 1, 2.

²⁶ Thuc. iv. 8, 4.

²⁷ Ib. iv. 8, 5.

²⁸ Ib. iv. 8, 6 seqq.

²⁹ Thuc. iv. 8, 6.

³⁰ Thuc. vi, 1, 1.

³¹ Paus, , iv, Messen. 36, 6Google Scholar.

³² Strabo, viii, 4.

³³ Pliny, Histor. Natur. iv, 12Google Scholar.

³⁴ Thuc. iv. 8, 7.

³⁵ Thuc. iv. 8, 8.

³⁶ The estimated positions of the Peloponnesian land and sea forces when the blockade of Koryphasion was complete have been for clearness' sake marked on a special map.

³⁷ Thuc. iv. 9.

³⁸ Ib. iv. 9, 2.

This last sentence is taken from Jowett's translation of Thucydides. He adopts the reading in Arnold's text.

The passage is of well known difficulty. A satisfactory translation of the words as they stand in Arnold's text seems to be impossible. Dr. Rutherford in his edition of the fourth book of Thucydides boldly leaves out and substitutes for the aorist infinitive and then translates ‘believed they would be allured’ etc. Though Dr. Rutherford is somewhat too bold a guide for those unacquainted with the crevasses and pitfalls of textual criticism to follow, yet his (apparently unsupported) emendation of the text has in this case the merit of plausibility.

³⁹ Thuc. iv. 11, 3.

⁴⁰ Thuc. iv. 11, 3, 4, and 12.

⁴¹ Ib. iv. 13.

⁴² Thuc. iv. 13, 2.

⁴³ It will be well, perhaps, to leave the detailed discussion of this point until the story is finished.

⁴⁴ Ib. iv. 13, 3.

⁴⁵ Thuc. iv. 13, 3 sqq., 14, 1.

⁴⁶ Ib. iv. 14, 5.

⁴⁷ It is worth while noticing that Thucydidos mentions expressly the fact that on the second day the Athenian fleet poured into the bay by both channels. This supports the view that on the first day the Sikia was blocked.

⁴⁸ Thuc. iv. 15.

⁴⁹ Ib. iv. 16.

⁵⁰ This number mentioned (sixty) increases the doubt which may be felt with regard to the details of the naval fight. The number of the Peloponnesian fleet was originally sixty (Ib. iv. 8, 2). From the account of the battle in the bay we gather that only five (Ib. iv. 14, especially 4) were taken by the Athenians. There remained, if this be true, fifty-five vessels. The terms of the surrender at the time of the armistice are uncertain. (Ib. iv. 16, 1). Does this mean that only the Lacedaemonian vessels of the Peloponnesian fleet were to be surrendered, or the whole fleet that had taken part in the fight? The evident object of the Athenians in securing the fleet renders the latter alternative by far the more probable of the two. If, then, the whole number of ships surrendered was ‘about sixty’ (Ib. iv. 16, 3), we have to suppose that only about five war ships of the Lacedaemonian fleet were absent from this engagement. This may be true, but it seems improbable that with so insignificant a reserve the Lacedaemonians should have ventured upon a naval battle in the harbour.

⁵¹ Ib. iv. chh. 17–22.

⁵² Ib. iv. 23.

⁵³ Ib. iv. 26, 1.

⁵⁴ Thuc. iv. 26, 2.

⁵⁵ Ib. iv. 26, 3.

⁵⁶ Ib. iv. 26, 5 seqq.

⁵⁷ Ib. iv. 26, 7.

⁵⁸ Thuc. iv. 26, 8.

⁵⁹ Ib. iv. 27 and 28.

⁶⁰ Ib. iv. 29.

⁶¹ Ib. iv. 30, 2 seqq.

⁶² Thuc. iv. 30, 4.

⁶³ Ib. iv. 31, 1.

⁶⁴ —Thuc. iv. 31, 1.

⁶⁵ Ib. iv. 31, 2.

⁶⁶ Ib.

⁶⁷ Thuc. iv. 32, 2.

⁶⁸ v. Arnold, note to ch. 32.

⁶⁹ Thuc. iv. 8, 9.

⁷⁰ The only semblance of fear which is apparent in the whole of Thucydides' description is the consternation which the Spartans felt when they found themselves exposed to a method of attack which was new to them, and to which they could not adequately reply. Then they are compelled to retreat, but the retreat is evidently conducted without confusion ( etc.), in close order, and this under circumstances of enormous difficulty and disadvantage.

⁷¹ Thuc. iv. 32, 3.

⁷² v. Ib. iv. 33, 2.

⁷³ Ib. iv. 33.

⁷⁴ Ib. iv. 34.

⁷⁵ Ib. iv. 35.

⁷⁶ Thuc. iv. 35, 4.

⁷⁷ etc.—Ib. iv. 36.

⁷⁸ Written Oct. 1895.

⁷⁹ Hom. Od. ii. 214.

⁸⁰ Ib. iii. 4.

⁸¹ Ib. iii. 29.

⁸² Hom., Od. iii. 421Google Scholar.

⁸³ Ib. iii. 484.

⁸⁴ Ib. iii. 495.