No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
It might reasonably be argued that this question is one of those historical problems which form excellent subjects for the writing of essays, but which are far too complex to admit of a decisive answer, and consequently are much better left alone. No one man is responsible for a war between great powers, and the motives which influence the vast number of people, whose consent is necessary, can rarely, if ever, be identical. It is therefore comparatively easy to argue against any given motive which is asserted to be the one and only reason. Certainly the writer would make no effort to rake up the ashes of this controversy, were it not that in Dr. Grundy's recent work on Thucydides a new and ingenious theory is put forward concerning the vera causa of the Peloponnesian War.
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