^{page 145 note 1} VIII. 35.

^{page 145 note 2} Frazer (Pausanias, note to X. 7. 1) maintained that the expedition was a bona-fide attack on the sanctuary. He explains Herodotus IX. 42, as a mere piece of casuistry on the part of Mardonius. ‘The supposed contradiction,’ he says, ‘does not exist.’ The Persians did not dread the penalty because they had not actually succeeded in sacking Delphi. But this view cannot be maintained in the face of other evidence.

^{page 145 note 3} VII. 132.

^{page 145 note 4} VII. 143.

^{page 145 note 5} IX. 42.

^{page 145 note 6} VII. 132.

^{page 145 note 7} This oath is repeated in Diodorus (XI. 3); but, as Macan remarks, the substitution of is significant. The same change appears in Polybius 9. 39. 5.

^{page 146 note 1} VIII. 38.

^{page 146 note 2} VIII. 54.

^{page 146 note 3} VIII. 39.

^{page 146 note 4} Macan adduces still further evidence for such an insertion; see his note to VIII. 36. 2. on Amphissa.

^{page 146 note 5} Note to VIII. 35. 8. Valckenaer reads ΛIΛAIEΩN for AIOΛIΔEΩN in Herodotus VIII. 35, and perhaps gives the clue for this route.

^{page 147 note 1} Epit. Trog. Pomp. II. 12. 8. Busolt (2. 2., p. 689) remarks: ‘Die Zahl 4000 beruht nur auf Justin-Ephorus und ist selbstverständlich ohne Wert.’

^{page 147 note 2} Περσικν, II. 5.

^{page 147 note 3} See Macan, Appendix, III. 7., p. 235.

^{page 147 note 4} XI. 14.

^{page 147 note 5} Numa, 9.

^{page 147 note 6} X. 8. 7, and cf. Herodotus VIII. 39.

^{page 147 note 7} The ubiquitous Phylacus turns up again at a later date to deter Brennus.

^{page 147 note 8} X. 14. 5.

^{page 148 note 1} Pausanias, X. 19. 1, and see Herodotus VIII. 8.

^{page 148 note 2} II. 12. 8.

^{page 148 note 3} V. 45., .

^{page 148 note 4} II. 101., .

^{page 148 note 5} I. 184. Here πεδξατο is practically untranslatable except by periphrasis.

^{page 148 note 6} I. 136. .

^{page 149 note 1} I. 26.

^{page 149 note 2} II. 72. .

^{page 149 note 3} ἔξομεν παρακαταθκην.

^{page 149 note 4} Cf. C.I.G. 1543——in a trial for a death penalty. Cf. also B.C.H., xx., p. 623, No. 2, line 19 (an inscription from Delphi), and B.C.H. v., p. 372, No. 3, line 4, and elsewhere.

^{page 149 note 5} C.I.A., ii. 467.

^{page 149 note 6} Dittenberger, Syll., 523. 32.

^{page 149 note 7} C.I.A., iv. 2, p. 169, n. 623e.

^{page 149 note 8} Dittenberger, Syll., 929. 133.

^{page 149 note 9} B.C.H., v., p. 306, line 29.

^{page 149 note 10} B.C.H., xix., p. 6, line 5, et seq.

^{page 149 note 11} προΪσχμενοι in Thuc. I. 26 can have no other meaning but this.

^{page 150 note 1} Cf. Luc. Demosth. 33, and C.I.G. 3598, line where πολογισμς means ‘the rendering of a statement of account.’

^{page 151 note 1} Perhaps Xerxes went himself with the expedition to Delphi; Macan suggests this in his note to VIII. 35. 8.