¹ G. Grote, History of Greece (1888), VI. pp. 242–4. See n. 2 for recent commentators

² Hatzfeld, J., Alcibiade (Paris, 1940), p. 236;Google ScholarBrunt, P.A., ‘Thucydides and Alkibiades’, REG 65 (1952),59–96, at 77;CrossRefGoogle ScholarWestlake, H.D., ‘Phrynichos and Astyochos (Thucydides VIII. 50–51)’,JHS 76(1956), 99–104, at 100–101, Studies in Thucydides and Greek History (Bristol, 1989), p. 215;CrossRefGoogle ScholarDelebecque, W., Thucydide et Alcibiade (Aix-en-Provence. 1965), pp. 87–8; K. von Fritz, Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung Text I, pp. 765–6, Anmerkungen I, p. 324, A. 218;Google ScholarSchindel, U., ‘Phrynichos und die Riickberufung des Alcibiade’, RhM 113 (1970), 281–97, at 287–93;Google ScholarBloedow, E.F., ‘Phrynichus the “intelligent” Athenian’, The Ancient History Bulletin 54(1991), 89–100, at 96.Google Scholar

³ A Historical Commentary on Thucydides (Oxford, 1981), v. 120.

⁴ MS 16 (1956), 100.

⁵ See my article (‘Participial Motivation in Thucydides’, Mnemosyne 48 (1995), 48–65) for a demonstration of the way in which Thucydides presumes thoughts and feelings to motivate individual actions.

⁶ Op. cit. (n. 2), 285–6.

⁷ Is the an unconscious echo of

⁸ Thuc. 8.27.5: , used elsewhere only to describe the kind of man who was chosen to speak at a public funeral for those who died in the war (2.34). Thucydides uses the positive expression () elsewhere only of Archidamos (1.79), of Themistocles (1.138) and Theseus (2.15).

⁹ See especially Pearson, L., ‘Thucydides as Reporter and Critic’, TAPA 78 (1947), 37–60, at 53–6, andGoogle ScholarMontgomery, H., Gedanke und Tat zur Erzahlungstechnik bei Herodot, Thukydides, Xenophon und Arrian (Lund, 1965), 54–95.Google Scholar

¹⁰ If Astyochus knew nothing of the previous letter invented by Alcibiades, he would still have reported this ‘second’ letter as an important Spartan coup to Tissaphernes, with whom Alcibiades was in constant attendance. Or if Astyochus had known of the invention, he could have reported this letter as evidence of Phrynichus' desperation resulting from the invention. Alcibiades in turn might well think that Astyochus' ‘information’ against Phrynichus was a certain indication that the victim of his invented first letter had no alternative but real treason.

¹¹ It is uncertain whether either the trick itself or Aristophanes' reference to it gave rise to the proverb, if we are to judge from the varying applications and explanations given to it by the paroimiographoi and the Suda: Apostol. XVII.16: Tò Makar. VIII.75: Diogen. HI.80: The Suda apparently takes the reference from Aristophanes: 62 766 (Thucydides' version of the trick is then summarized). With the difference in applications of the proverb ranging from there seems to be some guessing as to the meaning. It may therefore be that the reference to Phrynichus as general causing an Athenian defeat and being opposed by many as a traitor is also a muddled interpretation of the Thucydidean account, just as the reference in Apostolios to betrayal of the Lacedaemonians seems to be.

¹² It is only natural for Thucydides, having accepted the account of the ‘first’ letter as that of Phrynichus from those in authority on Samos, to write about Phrynichus ‘writing again’ to Astyochus.

¹³ As a figure of speech should have reference to a two-man confrontation rather than to any trickery Phrynichus may have been guilty of in connection with the 400.

¹⁴ Op. cit. (n. 3), 65–7.