^{page 157 note 1} de Petra, Not. d. Scav., 1910, p 139, f, pl. xii-xx; Hartwig, , Neue Freie Presse, Vienna, 27th May, 1910;Google ScholarNicole, Gaz. des Beaux Arts, v, 1911, p. 21,Google Scholar f; Winter, Kunst und Künstler, x, Heft xi (Aug. 1913), p. 548,Google Scholar f; shorter notices and discussions of single scenes will be found in Reinach, Rev. Arch. 1910, ii, p. 430;Google Scholar Rossbach, Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift, 1911, pp. 503, 727; Sieveking, ibid. p. 599; Herrmann, ibid. p. 757, and Die Kunst für Alle, xxviii, Heft 14 (15th April, 1913), p. 320;Google Scholar Baumgarten, Poland, Wagner, Die bellenistisch-römische Kultur, p. 461, Abb. 307.

^{page 157 note 3} Rossbach takes this for a tunny, a mistake sufficiently refuted by Sieveking and by Herrmann, B. Ph. W. 1911, p. 758.

^{page 157 note 4} Hartwig, loc. cit. thinks they are maenads suckling fawns, and compares Eur. Bacch. 699; but the masculine faces and pointed beasts' ears clearly denote satyrs.

^{page 160 note 1} Reinach, Pierres gravées, pl. iii, no. 23; Panofka, Dionysos und die Thyiaden, pl. iii, 7.

^{page 160 note 2} B.M.C. Ionia, Smyrna, no. 138, pl. xxvi, II.

^{page 160 note 3} ibid. no. 395.

^{page 160 note 4} Müller-Wieseler, ii, no. 551; Helbig, no. 404: from Herculaneum.

^{page 161 note 1} Herrmann-Bruckmann, pl. 44: in the house of the Vettii. A single figure closely resembling that of the youth appears in a painting from the Farnesina, Mon. dell' Inst. xii, 31, 1Google Scholar.

^{page 161 note 2} Farnell, , Cults, v, p. 158;Google Scholar Roscher, i, p. 1085.

^{page 161 note 3} Thraemer in Roscher's Lexicon, i, p. 1146Google Scholar.

^{page 161 note 4} de Petra, p. 144; Nicole, p. 28.

^{page 162 note 1} Rossbach and Sieveking deny this on the ground that no whip is shown, a mistake which has been rectified by Herrmann (B. Ph. W. loc. cit). He agrees with Sieveking, however, in regarding as impossible the connexion of the winged figure with the girl kneeling by the seated woman, because the latter are on a separate wall. But this need not have been so in the original which has generally been presupposed, and in any case the angle of the wall is favourable, rather than otherwise, to the theory, since it brings the kneeling girl into a still more correct relation to the winged figure; neither does the transition elsewhere break the composition.

^{page 162 note 2} von Rohden und Winnefeld, Die antiken Terrakotten, iv, p. 52,Google Scholar pl. cxxiii. These have already been cited by Hartwig, and independently by Sieveking.

^{page 163 note 1} Babelon, Cat. des Camées antiques et modernes de la Bibliotbèque Nationale, pl. viii, 63; Arch. Zeit. 1849, p. 58, pl. vi, 7.

^{page 163 note 2} Babelon, loc. cit. pl. viii, 62.

^{page 163 note 3} Jahn, Berichte über die Verhandlungen d. k. sächs. Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1855, i-ii, p. 78. Jahn thinks the subject may refer to the Mutunus Tutunus ceremonies. My attention was called to this relief by Mr. A. B. Cook.

^{page 164 note 1} So also Hartwig.

^{page 164 note 2} B. Ph. W. 1911, p. 727.

^{page 164 note 3} So Winter, loc. cit. p. 554. See above, p. 161. The objections of Sieveking and Herrmann do not appear to be cogent (see above, p. 162, n. I). Reinach denies that the scene is one of flagellation, but does not discuss the question or propose any other theory.

^{page 164 note 4} See especially Frazer, Scapegoat, p. 255, f; Harrison, Prolegomena, p. 100, f; Reinach, Cultes, i, p. 173,Google Scholar f. For modern and savage parallels see Mannhardt, Myth. Forsch. p. 115, and Wald u. Feldkulte, i, p. 251, f; Frazer, loc. cit. and note on Paus. iii, 16, 10.

^{page 164 note 5} Especially in the custom of the scapegoat: Tzetzes, Chil. v, 726,Google Scholar f. etc.

^{page 164 note 6} e.g. Charila at Delphi, Plut. Q.G. 12.

^{page 164 note 7} Paus. iii, 16, 10. Bosanquet, “Artemis Orthia and the scourging festival at Sparta,” Rep. of Brit. Assoc. Sec. H. (Anthropology), 1907.

^{page 165 note 1} Schol. Rec. on Pind. Ol. i, 146Google Scholar. This, however, looks like a clumsy attempt to explain the element -κουρ- in αιμακουρίαις.

^{page 165 note 2} Hesych. s.v. Μόροττον. ἐκ Φλοιοῦ πλέγμα τι, ᾤ ἕτυπτον άλλήλους τοῖς Δημητρίοις.

^{page 165 note 3} Warde Fowler, Roman Festivals, p. 313, f. and references there cited. Deubner, Archiv f. Religionwissenschaft, 1910, p. 481.

^{page 165 note 4} Plut. Rom. 29, 6; Cam. 33, 6.

^{page 165 note 5} See Mannhardt, Myth. Forsch. p. 115.

^{page 165 note 6} viii, 23, 1, quoted by Macchioro, Not. d. Scav. 1910, p. 144.

^{page 165 note 7} Plut. Symp. vii, 10,Google Scholar 3; Diodorus, iv, 149.

^{page 165 note 8} J.H.S. 1906, p. 203.

^{page 165 note 9} Farnell, Cults, v, p. 98Google Scholar.

^{page 165 note 10} Thomsen, Orthia, sees in it a relic of totemism.

^{page 165 note 11} The figure in the reliefs is variously identified as Aidos, Dike. Pomona, Iris, etc, but none of these names seem appropriate here.

^{page 165 note 12} cf. however, the type of Nike sacrificing a bull, C. Smith in J.H.S. vii, p. 285.

^{page 165 note 13} Herrmann-Bruckmann, pl. 47.

^{page 165 note 14} Annali, 1884, p. 75, f.

^{page 165 note 15} Paus. v, 18, 2. On Dike in art see Milchhoeffer, Jabrh. 1892, p. 203, f.

^{page 166 note 1} Ant. Bildwerke, p. 215, n. 28, p. 218, n. 36.

^{page 166 note 2} ix, III; xiii, 140.

^{page 166 note 3} xvi, 399.

^{page 166 note 4} ix, 30, 3.

^{page 166 note 5} Svoronos, Ath. Nationalmuseum, no. 1390, pl. lv.

^{page 166 note 6} Herrmann-Bruckmann, pl. 42.

^{page 166 note 7} cf. Livy, 39, 10, 7 (of the Bacchanalia): “cos deducere in locum qui circumsonet ululatibus cantuque symphoniae et cymbalorum et tympanorum pulsu, ne vox quiritantis… exaudiri possit.” And cf. the purpose attributed to the clashing of arms by the Kouretes: Callimachus, Hymn. i, 52Google Scholar.

^{page 166 note 8} B.M. E, 424.

^{page 166 note 9} K. Mus. zu Berlin, Beschreibung der antiken Skulpturen, no. 924. I have to thank Dr. Rodenwaldt for his kindness in obtaining the photograph and for permission to publish it. The stone has been cut down to suit a relief of Christian date on the other side; the nude figure was formerly restored as upholding a basket of fruit. A similar treatment of drapery occurs on a full-face figure on the sarcophagus B.M. 2298 (Mus. Marbles, x, pl. 39).

^{page 167 note 1} Winter, p. 554; Rossbach, p. 503; Hartwig suggests the attiring of a bride, which would account for the presence of the Erotes, but thinks the woman may be an initiate.

^{page 167 note 2} de Petra, p. 144; Nicole, p. 30.

^{page 167 note 3} Hartwig suggests “ein symbolischer Trank.”

^{page 167 note 4} Eur. Hec. 1267.

^{page 167 note 5} Bacch. 297–300: cf. Rhesus, 970–973.

^{page 167 note 6} X, 33, 10.

^{page 167 note 7} vii, III.

^{page 167 note 8} Paus. ix, 30, 9; Aristotle ap. Macrob. Sat. i, 18,Google Scholar 1; Suet. Div. Aug. 94, 5.

^{page 167 note 9} Dio Cassius, 54, 34, 5; Plut. Crassus, 8 (of the wife of the Thracian Spartacus); cf. Livy, 39, 13, 12 (of the Bacchanalia); “Viros, veluti mente capta, cum jactatione fanatica corporis vaticinari.”

^{page 167 note 10} e.g. Schol. on Pind. Pyth. ὑποθ. (Boeckh p. 297). On Dionysos at Delphi see Harrison, Prolegomena, p. 557.

^{page 167 note 11} See Rohde, Psyche, ii, p. 20,Google Scholar f, 58, f.

^{page 167 note 12} Eur. Fr. 477, Nauck²; ap. Macrob. Sat. i. 18,Google Scholar 3; Aristotle, loc. cit.

^{page 167 note 13} The evidence concerning lekanomancy is best collected by Halliday, Greek Divination, p. 145, f.

^{page 168 note 1} Miss Talbot makes the interesting suggestion that the satyr in the background is holding out the mask so that its reflection may appear in the bowl.

^{page 168 note 2} Aristotle, Mir. Ausc. 58.

^{page 168 note 3} Philostratus, Vit. Ap. i, 6Google Scholar.

^{page 168 note 4} e.g. Fountain of Ino, Paus. iii, 23, 8; lake at Aphaca, Zosimus. i, 58; and many other examples.

^{page 168 note 5} Didius Julius, vii.

^{page 168 note 6} Apuleius, Apol. 13.

^{page 168 note 7} e.g. Griffith-Thompson, Demotic Magical Papyrus, cols. 1–3, 9–10, 14, 18.

^{page 168 note 8} de Myst. iii, 14.

^{page 168 note 9} Wessely, , Denkschriften der kais. Akad. (Wien) 1888, p. 68,Google Scholar f, 1. 3209.

^{page 168 note 10} Perrot in Rev. Arch. 1870–1871, p. 194, pl. xxi.

^{page 168 note 11} ibid.

^{page 169 note 1} Rhein. Mus. xxv; p. 157.

^{page 169 note 2} Commentarius de praecipnis divinationum genenbus.

^{page 169 note 3} de Praestigiis daemonum, i, ch. 12.

^{page 169 note 4} Archaeoloeia Graeca, i, p. 350.

^{page 169 note 5} Plate xii of his forthcoming book Zeus; Overbeck, Kunstmyth. pl. 25, 4.

^{page 169 note 6} loc. cit. supra.

^{page 169 note 7} Furtwaengler-Reichhold, pl. 14.0.

^{page 169 note 8} Paus. vii, 21, 17.

^{page 169 note 9} Rossbach, P. 503; Winter, p. 554

^{page 169 note 10} de Petra loc. cit. p. 144.

^{page 170 note 1} If indeed it is a “maiden.” See Mrs. Strong, Burl. Mag. xviii, pl. 1,Google Scholar ff; Loewy, ibid, xix, p. 13, f. The resemblance has already been pointed out by Hartwig and by Nicole, p. 26.

^{page 170 note 2} Mariani, Bull. Com. 1909, p. 167, f; Loewy, loc. cit.

^{page 170 note 3} Jabreshefte, 1903, p. 194.

^{page 170 note 4} See Birt, Die Buchrolle i. d. Kunst. p. 146.

^{page 170 note 5} Lobeck, Aglaophamus, p. 193.

^{page 170 note 6} e.g. tablet at Lycosura, Paus. viii, 37, 2 (perhaps the same as the inscription found there: ΈΦ. Άρχ. 1898, p. 250), and cf. Apuleius, Met. xi, 209Google Scholar.

^{page 170 note 7} Manetho, ii, 197; de Simpl. med. vii, I, 181. (ap. Lobeck, loc. cit), cf. Dittenb. Syll. ² 653, 12 (Andania): Τà βιβλία … παραδιδόντω οἱ ἱεροὶ τοῖς ἐπικατασταθέντοις; and Paus. iv, 27, 5, referred to in Dittenberger's note.

^{page 170 note 8} e.g. in rites of Demeter at Pheneos, Paus. viii, 15, 2.

^{page 170 note 9} de Corona, 259.

^{page 170 note 10} de Falsa Legatione, 199.

^{page 171 note 1} I.G. xiv, 1449.

^{page 171 note 2} ibid. 1642.

^{page 171 note 3} I find that the sacred character of the scroll has already been suggested by Hartwig, who compares it with the Egyptian Book of the Dead and seems to think it deals with doctrines concerning a future life, etc.

^{page 171 note 4} de Petra, p. 145; Nicole, p. 31.

^{page 171 note 5} cf. the work and teaching of Puvis de Chavannes.

^{page 171 note 6} This principle is well enunciated by W. Shaw-Sparrow, Frank Brangwyn and his Work, p. 105: “If walls are to be decorated in a proper manner, there must be unity between them and the paintings that form a part of their surface, otherwise the walls will lose their look of flat strength and become unlike a support in architecture. Some of the base decorators of the eighteenth century went to great pains to give a pictorial perspective to their mural work, with the result that people seemed to be looking through the walls at some distant landscape. They forgot that when a picture is framed and hung up, it is accepted as a thing detached from the wall behind it, so we are willing to take pleasure in its far-going perspective, its illusion of disappearing distances. True art in any kind of fresco work is within the domain of architecture; and for this reason perspective is suggested in such a way that it does not make holes in the wall. We look into and through an easel picture; we look at and on a mural decoration, and expect it to be apt for its purpose.”

^{page 172 note 1} Rodenwaldt, Die Komposition der pompeiamschen Wandgemälde, ch. i.

^{page 172 note 2} Woermann, Die antiken Odyssee-Lanaschaften vom esquilinischen Hügel. Here the pilasters do not form a background, but a sort of frame.

^{page 172 note 3} Surely de Petra is mistaken in thinking the artist wrong in not using the pilasters to mark off separate scenes.

^{page 172 note 4} Now at New York. Barnabei, La Villa Pompeiana di P. Fannio Sinistore, pls. v–viii; Sambon, Cat. des fresques de Boscoreale, pls. i–iv. Their similarity is pointed out by Hartwig.

^{page 173 note 1} Antike Denkmaeler, i, pls. xi, xxiv, lx.

^{page 173 note 2} de Petra, p. 145; Nicole, p. 31.

^{page 173 note 3} Hartwig, and cf. the story of Pheidias and the shield of Athena (Plut. Per. 31).

^{page 173 note 4} Rossbach, p. 503, thinks that the scene represents a play, the women on the left wall being spectators, and compares the scene in Xen. Conv. 9.

^{page 173 note 5} Hartwig.

^{page 173 note 6} C.I.G. 3190. On this society see Foucart, Des associations religieuses chez les Grecs, p. 114, f; Ziebarth, Das griechische Vereinswesen, pp. 205–6; Farnell, Cults, v. p. 146,Google Scholar f; Poland, Gesch. d. griechischen Vereinswesens, passim.

^{page 174 note 1} On Dionysiac mystery-plays in Asia Minor see Roscher, i, 1086; Foucart, loc. cit. Farnell, loc. cit. cf. Lucian, De Salt. 79; Curtius, , Hermes, vii, p. 39Google Scholar (inscription of βουκόλοι at Pergamonm mentioning. ‘ϒμνοδάσκαλοι, Σειλήνιοι and χορηϒός).

^{page 174 note 2} C.I.G. 3176 n = Dittenb. Syll. i, 406Google Scholar.

^{page 174 note 3} ibid. 3176 A = Dittenb. loc. cit.

^{page 174 note 4} ibid. 3173 A.

^{page 174 note 5} ibid. 3173 B.

^{page 174 note 6} A parallel case has been pointed out to me by Mrs. F. W. Hasluck in the painting from Pompeii, Mon. dell' Inst. x, 35,Google Scholar 2, which seems to be derived from a coin-type of Smyrna, representing an actual statue of Homer in that city. See Mrs. Esdaile, J.H.S. 1912, p. 301, n. 13.

^{page 174 note 7} Gr. Myth. ii, 1415, n, 2.

^{page 174 note 8} cf. Rossbach's theory (see above, p. 173, n. 4).