^{page 365 note 1} Dio Chrys. or. 36 p. 453, cp. Ar. av. 1741 f. See Lobeck Aglaophamus p. 610, Abel Orphica p. 243.

^{page 365 note 2} Callim. frag. 20 Schneider, Nonn. Dion. 41. 322 ff.

^{page 365 note 3} Cp. the pretty picture drawn by Stat. Theb. 10. 61 ff., and perhaps the bronzes figured by Reinach, Rép. Stat. ii. 17, 6 f.Google Scholar The Selinus metope in Farnell, Cults of the Gk. States i. pi. ixaGoogle Scholar, the fresco from Pompeii in Class. Rev. xvii. 414 fig. 9, the Etruscan mirror in Gerhard Etruskische Spiegel iv. 10 f., pi. 282, and a remarkable coin of Bruzus, in Brit. Mus. Cat. Gk. Coins Phrygia p. 113Google Scholar, pl. 14, 4, refer rather to the actual wedlock Overbeck Kunstmyth. Hera p. 174).

^{page 365 note 4} Il. 14. 296. For their secrecy see Euseb. prep. ev. 3. 1. 3, schol. vet. Theocr. 15. 64, schol. Il. 14. 296, Eustath. 987, 9, schol. Il. 1. 609, cp. Ptolem. nov. hist. 6 p. 196, 11 ff. Westermann.

^{page 365 note 5} In Samos schol. Il. 14. 296, Eustath. 987, 9 ff.: at Sparta Plut. v. Lyc. 15, Xen. de rep. Lac. 1. 5, Hermippus ap. Athen. 555 c.

^{page 365 note 6} Serv. in Verg. Aen. 1. 505, Myth. Vat. 1. 101, 2. 67, pp. 37 f., 109 Mai.

^{page 365 note 7} Eratosth. cat. 3, Hyg. poet. astr. 2. 3, Serv. in Verg. Aen. 4. 484, Apollod. 2. 5. 11.

^{page 365 note 8} Il. 14. 153 ff.

^{page 366 note 1} Ib. 158.

^{page 366 note 2} Il. 15. 16 f.

^{page 366 note 3} Welcker, Gr. Götterl. ii. 328 ff.Google Scholar, Preller-Robert, Gr. Myth. pp. 166 ff.Google Scholar The nearest approach to lover-like behaviour was their quarrel about love (Hesiod ap. Apollod. 3. 6. 7, Fulgent, myth. 2. 8, Hyg. fab. 75, Myth. Vat. 3. 4. 8 p. 180 Mai); cp. also Eustath. 345, 35 .

^{page 366 note 4} Ant. Lib. 11.

^{page 366 note 5} Lact. div. inst. 1. 17, cp. Myth. Vat. 3. 4. 2 p. 177 Mai.

^{page 366 note 6} Hes. theog. 922 f.

^{page 366 note 7} Id. ib. 952.

^{page 366 note 8} Od. 11. 604, cp. Eustath. 1702, 47, 58, 1703, 19.

^{page 366 note 9} Schol. Od. 11. 604 = Onomacr. frag. 8 Kinkel.

^{page 366 note 10} Apollod. 1. 3. 1.

^{page 366 note 11} Myth. Vat. 1. 204 p. 72 Mai.

^{page 366 note 12} Hesych. s.v. ἥβη.

^{page 366 note 13} It must, however, be added that Eur. Heraclid. 917 f. speaks of Herakles and Hebe as , that Serv. in Verg. Aen. 3. 466 makes Hebe the daughter of Jupiter, and that Myth. Vat. 1. 184 p. 63 Mai has ‘Hebe filia Minois, filii Iovis.’

^{page 366 note 14} Paus 2. 13. 3.

^{page 366 note 15} Pind. Nem. 7. 1–5 (Eileithyia and Hebe as daughters of Hera), 10. 30 f. (Hebe in Olympus τελεᾳ παρ ματρι).

^{page 366 note 16} Apollod. 2. 7. 7, Ael. hist. an. 17. 46, Tzetz. in Lyc. 1349 f., schol. Il. 4. 2, cp. schol. Il. 1. 609.

^{page 366 note 17} Ov. met. 9. 400 and Val. Flacc. 8. 231 have the matronymic ‘Iunonia … Hebe.’ Other authors say ‘Hebe Iunonis filia’ or the like: see Myth. Vat. 2. 198 p. 153 Mai, 3. 15. 11 p. 378 Mai, Serv. in Verg. Aen. 1. 28, 5. 134, Lact. Plac. in Stat. Theb. 1. 548, id. fab. Ov. 9. 4.

^{page 366 note 18} Paus. 2. 17. 5 (Argos), 8. 9. 3 (Mantinea), cp. Kekulé, Hebe pp. 43 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 366 note 19} Compte rendu Atlas 1861 pl. 3 = Reinach Rép. Vases i. 7 b, Roscher Lex. i. 2130, cp. Kekulé, Hebe pp. 18 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 366 note 20} Myth. Vat. 1. 204 p. 72 Mai Heben genuit Iuno de love; secundum quosdam, de lactuca. Will any reader of the Classical Review kindly refer me to the fuller source of the myth utilised by Montfaucon Antiq. Expl. i. 184, De-Vit Onomasticon s.v. ‘Hebe’ § 2, Myth. Vat. ed. Bode ii. 65, Jacobi, E.Handwörterb. d. gr. u. röm. Mythol. p. 389 n. 1?Google Scholar

^{page 366 note 21} Paus. 2. 13. 3.

^{page 367 note 1} See Encycl. Brit. ed. 9 xi. 593 s.v. ‘Hebe.’ This is the more likely since a genuine feminine of Γανυμδης would presumably have been Γανυμδει;α: yet cp. Μδη for Μδεια (Roseher Lex. ii. 2482, 47 ff.).

^{page 367 note 2} Strab. 382.

^{page 367 note 3} Usener, Götternamen pp. 35 f.Google Scholar, 62, 70 f., also in Rhein. Mus. N.F. liii. 346 and in Strena Helbigiana p. 322. See Escher in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl. v. 299 f.Google Scholar

^{page 367 note 4} Serv. in Verg. Aen. 3. 466.

^{page 367 note 5} Class. Rev. xvii. 177 f. See also Welcker, Gr. Götterl. i. 352 f.Google Scholar

^{page 367 note 6} Class. Rev. xvii. 177 f., 183, 186, Carapanos i. 23, 156, Serv. in Verg. Aen. 3. 466 Iovi et Veneri templum.

^{page 367 note 7} Hes. theog. 16 f. Plut. mor. 747 F cites the passage with Ἥρην for Ἥβνη; but Flach and Rzach retain Ἥβην with all the MSS. Paley accepted Schömann's cj. Φοβην.

In Ael. hist. an. 17. 46 Müller, C.F.H.G. iii. 151Google Scholar brackets Δις and Hercher omits it from the text. But, if anything is to be bracketed, of which I am not convinced (see infra), it should perhaps be Ἡρακλους. We should then have Zeus paired with Hebe, and with the sacred cocks of the god mentioned in the sequel might cp. the youthful Zeus Ϝελχανς and his cock on coins of Phaestus (Class. Rev. xvii. 413 fig. 8). But?

^{page 367 note 8} Class. Rev. xvii. 179 f.

^{page 367 note 9} Rufin. Aquileiens. Clem. Rom. recognit. 10. 17 ed. Gersdorf pp. 229 f.

^{page 367 note 10} Il. 5. 888 ff.

^{page 367 note 11} Amp. 9. 2.

^{page 367 note 12} Hyg. fab. praef. p. 12, 2 Schmidt.

^{page 367 note 13} Ov. fast. 5. 229 ff. Paul. exc. Fest. s.v. ‘Gradivus’ p. 72 Lindemann ‘vel, ut alii dicunt, quia gramine sit ortus.’ Plut. ap. Euseb. prep. ev. 3. 1. 5 names Hera, not Zeus, as the parent of Ares.

^{page 367 note 14} Hdt. 2. 53.

^{page 367 note 15} Apollod. 1. 3. 1.

^{page 367 note 16} Diod. 5. 72. But ib. 4. 9 Eileithyia appears to be the daughter of Hera only.

^{page 367 note 17} Pind. Nem. 7. 2, with schoL vet. p. 203, 3 f. Abel.

^{page 367 note 18} Plut. ap. Euseb. prep. ev. 3. 1. 5.

^{page 367 note 19} Paus. 1. 18. 5.

^{page 367 note 20} Il. 11. 270 f. Schol. A ad loc. says , cp. etym. mag. 298, 38 f.; but Homer knew better, and schol. B on Il. 20. 70 has .

^{page 367 note 21} Anth. Pal. 6. 244. 1 f.

^{page 367 note 22} Ael. de nat. an. 7. 15.

^{page 367 note 23} Farnell, Cults of the Gk. States ii. 608.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 1} Vischer, W.Epigr. und archäol. Beitr. aus Griechenland 1855 p. 58Google Scholar no. 69 pi. vii. 2, id. Erinnerungen und Eindrücke aus Griechenland 1857 p. 68, Keil, K. in Philologus xxiii. 619 f.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 2} See further Boscher, Lex. i. 2076, 7 ff., 2091, 31 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 3} Jessen in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl. v. 2105, 46 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 4} Porphyrius ap. Euseb. prep. ev. 4. 23. 7.

^{page 368 note 5} Nonn. Dion. 38. 150.

^{page 368 note 6} Id. ib. 41. 162.

^{page 368 note 7} Orph. hymn, praef. 13.

^{page 368 note 8} Cornut. theol. 15.

^{page 368 note 9} Schol. Od. 8. 364, cp. Myth. Vat. 1. 132 p. 48 Mai, Nonn. Dion. 31. 186.

^{page 368 note 10} Paus. 5. 11. 7.

^{page 368 note 11} Id. 2. 17. 4.

^{page 368 note 12} Escher in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl. iii. 2150, 45 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 13} Jupiter Libertas, who is commonly supposed to represent a Zeus Ἐλευθριος(De-Vit Onomasticon s.v. ‘Iuppiter’ §§ 181 ff., but see Aust in Roscher, Lex. ii. 663, 7 ff.Google Scholar, Wissowa, Rel. u. Kult. d. Römer p. 106)Google Scholar, probably hangs together with this Juventus Libertas. Is it mere accident that the only parallel to the abstract form of his appellation is Jupiter Juventus (Roscher, Lex. ii. 667, 17 ff.Google Scholar)?

^{page 368 note 14} Ptol. nov. hist. 3 p. 186, 28 ff. Westermann.

^{page 368 note 15} Phot. bibl. cod. 190 p. 146b 8 f. Bekker.

^{page 368 note 16} Id. ib. p. 146b 5 f. Bekker. See, however, the Etruscan inscription infra p. 28.

^{page 368 note 17} Schol. Il. 1. 609, 14. 296=Eustath. 987, 9 f.

^{page 368 note 18} Cic. de nat. deor. 22. 55.

^{page 368 note 19} Cornut. theol. 19. In Od. 8. 312 Hephaistos speaks of his τοκε δω: but these need not be Zeus and Hera (as schol. Hes. theog. 927 Flach supposed, cp. Rapp in Roscher Lex. i. 2048, 22), for Lyd. de mens. 86 p. 135, 10 f. Wünsch makes the third Hephaistos the son of Kronos and Hera; nor are we bound to infer from Il. 14. 338 f. that the Homeric Hephaistos was the son of Zeus.

^{page 368 note 20} That the ἱερς γμος resulted in no offspring, was pointed out by Schwenck, K.Die Mythol. der Griechen 1843 p. 46Google Scholar, who inferred that we must regard the unpersonified Spring as the child born of this union. Schwenck was followed by Gerhard, E.Gr. Myth. 1854 p. 204.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 21} See e.g. Preller-Robert, Griech. Mythol. p. 147Google Scholar, Gruppe, Griech. Mythol. u. Religionsgesch. pp. 1110Google Scholar n. 1, 1134 n. 5, Farnell Cults of the Gk. States i. 53, 195.

^{page 369 note 1} Aesch. Eum. 663 f., cp. 736 ff.

^{page 369 note 2} Hes. theog. 924, Hom. hymn. Ap. 309, hymn. Min. 28. 5, Musaeus ap. schol. Pind. Ol. 7. 66 and ap. Philodem. περ εὐσεβ. 59 (= frag. 8 Kinkel), Stesich. ap. schol. Ap. Rhod. 4. 1310, Pind. Ol. 7. 67, Eur. Ion 455 f., alib.

^{page 369 note 3} Luc. dial. deor. 8, de sacrif. 5, Westermann mythogr. append. p. 359, 24 f.

^{page 369 note 4} Myth. Vat. 1. 176 p. 61 Mai Iuppiter de sua barba Minervam.

^{page 369 note 5} Hom. hymn. Bacch. 1. 6 f.

^{page 369 note 6} (Kretschmer, , Einleit. in d. Gesch. d. gr. Spr. p. 241).Google Scholar

^{page 369 note 7} Pind. frag. 85 Christ, Eur. Bacch. 94ff., 286f., 523 ff., Nonn. Dion. 9. 1 ff., Apollod. 3. 4. 3, Myth. Vat. 1. 120 p. 44 Mai, 2. 79 p. 114 Mai, Luc. dial. deor. 9, de sacrif. 5, cp. Strab. 687, Orph. hymn. 48. 3, 52. 3, Eustath. in Il. 310, 6 f., eund. in Dion. per. 1153, alib. See further Voigt in Roscher Lex. i. 1044 ff., Kern in Pauly-Wissowa Realencycl. v. 1015 f., 1034 f.

^{page 369 note 8} Luc. dial. deor. 9. 1.

^{page 369 note 9} See the passages referred to in nn. 2, 3, 5, 7; and cp. Aesch. Eum. 660 .

^{page 369 note 10} Monumenti inediti doll' Inst. i. pi. 45 a=Daremberg-Saglio Dict. Ant. i. 602 fig. 679.

^{page 369 note 11} Plin. nat. hist. 35. 140. On the significance of this ‘Männerkindbett’ see Voigt in Roscher Lex. i. 1046.

^{page 369 note 12} Philosteph. ap. Prob. in Verg. ecl. 10. 18 Lion = F.H.G. iii. 31 no. 14.

^{page 369 note 13} Nonn. Dion. 5. 609 ff., 14. 193 ff., 32. 71 f. Cp. the birth of Erichthonios as described by Callim. Ἑκλη ap. schol. Il. 2. 547 (=frag. 61 Schneider), Apollod. 3. 14. 6, Eratosth. cat. 13 ( = Eur. frag. 925 Nauck²), Westermann mythogr. append. p. 360, 1 ff., alib.

^{page 369 note 14} Supra p. 366.

^{page 369 note 15} Supra p. 367.

^{page 369 note 16} Supra p. 367.

^{page 369 note 17} Supra p. 368.

^{page 369 note 18} Hes. theog. 927 f.

^{page 369 note 19} Hom. hymn. Ap. 317, hymn. ap. Galen de Hipp. et Plat. dogm. 3. 8 (v. 351 Kühn), Apollod. 1. 3. 5, Cornut. theol. 19 p. 33, 16 Lang, Luc. de sacrif. 6, Iambl. vit. Pyth. 39, Nonn. Dion. 9. 228 f., cp. Pind. ap. Plut. amat. 5, Ap. Rhod. 1. 859.

^{page 369 note 20} Hyg. fab. praef. p. 12, 3 Schmidt, Myth. Vat. 1. 176 p. 61 Mai Iuno de suo femore Vulcanum progenuit, 1. 204 p. 72 Mai Vulcanus de semine seu femore Iunonis, 2. 40 p. 99 Mai Vulcanus de femore Iunonis fingitur natus.

^{page 369 note 21} Hom. hymn. Ap. 331 ff.

^{page 369 note 22} Stesich. frag. 60 Bergk ap. et. mag. 772, 49 ff. = Eudoc. viol. 932.

^{page 369 note 23} Lact. Plac. narr. fab. 3. 5=Myth. Vat. 1. 185 p. 63 f. Mai, 2. 180 p. 148 Mai.

^{page 369 note 24} This is a view, which has slowly developed and forced its way towards recognition during the last eighty years. Buttmann, P.Mythologus 1828 i. 22 ff.Google Scholar first showed that Dione was the wife of the Dodonaean Zeus, citing schol. Od. 3. 91 . Then in 1846 Georgii, L. in Pauly's Real-Encycl. iv. 540 ff.Google Scholar maintained that Dione, not Hera, was the original wife of Zeus; Hera was but a later form of Dione, though all three deities were of Pelasgian extraction. In 1854 Gerhard, E.Gr. Myth. pp. 152 ff.Google Scholar, 186 ff., contended that Zeus and Hera were originally independent deities of the Pelasgian stock, and that Hera was only gradually united with and subordinated to Zeus, In 1857 Welcker, F. G.Gr. Götterl. i. 382 f.Google Scholar proposed a racial cleavage: Hera, though called Pelasgian, was really Achaean, the genuine Pelasgian goddesses being Gaia and Dione. In 1857 also Müller, H. D.Mythol. d. gr. Stämme pp. 247 ff.Google Scholar argued that Zeus and Dione the deities of the Northern or Hellenic Achaeans were combined in Thessaly with Hera the deity of the Aeolians, the result being the marriage of Zeus and Hera. In 1893 MissHarrison, J.Class. Rev. vii. 74 ff.Google Scholar, accepting H. D. Müller's contention, and combining it with K. Tümpel's suggestion (Philologus 1891 1. 617) that Hera was the gynaecocratic partner of Herakles, urged that Zeus and Dione were Achaean divinities, Hera and her ‘prince-consort’ Herakles the moon-goddess and sun-god of a pre-Achaean gynaecocratic race, i.e. of the Aeolian Pelasgians. In 1903 MissHarrison, Proleg. to the Study of Gk. Rel. pp. 316 f.Google Scholar still believed that Zeus and Dione were Achaean, and that Hera was a matriarchal Pelasgian goddess, but no longer insisted on Tümpel's idea that Herakles was the husband of Hera. Latterly (Preller-Robert 1894, Farnell 1896, Gruppe 1897–1906) there has been a return to the view that we cannot get behind the union of Zeus and Hera to any more primitive arrangement.

^{page 370 note 1} It is very possible that the earth-mother was worshipped at Dodona before the sky-father. Indeed, she may have given her name to the place (Class. Rev. xvii. 179). Such a cult must have been originally matriarchal, not patriarchal; and there are not wanting indications that this was so (Ephorus ap. Strab. 402). My point, however, is that Zeus, so soon as he appears on the scene, takes precedence of his female πρεδρος.

^{page 370 note 2} Paus. 10. 12. 10.

^{page 370 note 3} Strab. 329: see Class. Rev. xvii. 179 f.

^{page 370 note 4} Michel, Recueil d'inscrr. grecques 843–851Google Scholar. See, however, infra p. 371 n. 4.

^{page 370 note 5} A. Lolling in the δελτον ρχαιολογικν 1890 p. 145 no. 2, S. N. Dragoumes in the Mitteil. d. deutsch. arch. Inst. zu Athen 1897, xxii. 381. Dragoumes makes, sc. Διώνῃ.

^{page 370 note 6} C. I. A. i. 174 no. 324, cp. ib. iv. 2, 261 no. 1550 c. See Judeich, W.Topographie von Athen 1905 p. 253.Google Scholar

^{page 370 note 7} C. I. A. iii. 1. 87 no. 333.

^{page 370 note 8} A. Lolling in the Δελτ. ρχ 1890 p. 145 no. 3.

^{page 370 note 9} Philochorus ap. Dionys. de Dinarch. 3=F.H.G. i. 408 f. no. 146.

^{page 370 note 10} Paus. 1. 26. 5, 8. 2. 3, ep. Euseb. prep. ev. 10. 9. 22.

^{page 370 note 11} C. I. A. iii. 1. 65 no. 166.

^{page 370 note 12} Paus. 1. 24. 3. See H. Heydemann in Hermes 1870 iv. 381 ff.

^{page 370 note 13} Paus. 1. 5. 3, Hyg. fab. 48, alib.

^{page 370 note 14} Usener Götternamen pp. 61 ff. Strena Helbig. p. 322. It seems probable that Pandion, like Periphas (Ant. Lib. 6: Folk-Lore xv. 385 f.), was a human Zeus. This would accord well with the evidence collected in Class. Rev. xviii. 84ff., where a parallel might have been drawn between Dion king of Laconia with his daughter Carya (Serv. in Verg. ecl. 8. 30) and Pandion king of Athens with the Caryatids of his palace, not to mention Prognaus (Serv. ib.) and Progne, Lyco daughter of Dion (Serv. ib.), and Lykos son of Pandion II.

^{page 370 note 15} Gardner, E. A.Ancient Athens pp. 360 f.Google Scholar, Judeich, W.Topographie von Athen pp. 252 f.Google Scholar

^{page 370 note 16} Euseb. prep. ev. 10. 9. 22.

^{page 370 note 17} Paus. 8. 2. 3.

^{page 370 note 18} Hyg. fab. 48, cp. his epithet γηγενς (Roscher, Lex. ii. 1018, 50 ff.)Google Scholar.

^{page 371 note 1} Philochorus ap. Macrob. Sat. 1. 10. 22=F. H. G. i. 386 no. 13.

^{page 371 note 2} Tzetz. chil. 5.19. 650 ff.

^{page 371 note 3} Varro ap. Aug. de. civ. Dei 18. 9.

^{page 371 note 4} Apollod. 1. 3. 1, Ael. de nat. an. 10. 1, Cic. de nat. deor. 3. 59. Hyg. fab. praef. p. 12, 2 Schmidt by an inversion of the usual order says ex Dione et love Venus. Note too that Dione is mother of Aphrodite without a mention of Zeus in Il. 5. 370 f., 381, Cornut. theol. 24 p. 45, 2 Lang; cp. διωναα of Aphrodite, and her Hellenistic identification with Dione (Escher in Pauly-Wissowa Realencycl. v. 879, 61 ff.). Arn. adv. nat. 2. 70 makes Venus daughter of Dione and Diespiter.

^{page 371 note 5} Supra p. 367. n. 6.

^{page 371 note 6} Plat. symp. 180 D.

^{page 371 note 7} Eur. Antigone frag. 177 Dindorf ap. schol. Pind. Pyth. 3. 177.

^{page 371 note 8} Carm. Lot. epigr. ii. 733 Bücheler no. 1535. 6.

^{page 371 note 9} Philologus 1891 1. 617, coupled with the erroneous suggestion that Hera-Herakles are etymologically connected with Helios.

^{page 371 note 10} Class. Rev. vii. 74. The same suggestion had occurred to me—indeed I had worked out the idea in some detail (including most of the points made in this paper)—before I came across Miss Harrison's article. I was glad to find myself in substantial agreement with her on a matter that must be regarded as cardinal by all students of Greek mythology.

^{page 371 note 11} Il. 19. 95 ff.

^{page 371 note 12} Eur. H. F. 1266 ff., Diod. 4. 10.

^{page 371 note 13} Il. 14. 250 ff., 15. 18 ff., schol. Il. 1. 590, 14. 255.

^{page 371 note 14} Eudoc. viol. 435, alib.

^{page 371 note 15} Hes. theog. 327 f., 313 ff.

^{page 371 note 16} Apollod. 2. 5. 10.

^{page 371 note 17} Tzetz. in Lyc. Al. 1327.

^{page 371 note 18} Eratosth. cat. 1. 3, 1. 4, schol. Germ. Hyg. poet. astr. 2. 3 p. 424 van Staveren, cp. Sen. Herc. Oet. 74 ff.

^{page 371 note 19} Eur. H. F. 1263 f., cp. ib. 20 f., 829, 831 f., 840, 855, 1191, 1392 f., Lyc. Al. 1350 with Tzetz. ad loc.

^{page 371 note 20} Diod. 4. 11.

^{page 371 note 21} Il. 18. 119.

^{page 371 note 22} Il. 19. 95 ff.

^{page 371 note 23} Eur. H. F. 1253.

^{page 371 note 24} Prob. in Verg. ecl. 7. 61 p. 355 Lion Pindarus (=frag. 291 Christ) initio Alcidem nominatum, postea Herculem dicit, ab Hera, quam Iunonem dicimus; quod eius imperils opinionem famamque virtutis sit consecutus, cp. Diod. 1. 24, 4. 10.

^{page 371 note 25} Il. 4. 51 f.

^{page 372 note 1} Pind. Nem. 10. 2.

^{page 372 note 2} C. I. A. iii. 1.68 no. 172. 7 = Kaibel ep. 822. 7, 9 f. See further Gruppe Gr. Myth. p. 1082 n.

^{page 372 note 3} Phoronis frag. 4 Kinkel, cp. Hyg. fab. 145 Callirhoe (Knaack cj. Callithoe). She was also known as Kallithyia (Plut. ap. Euseb. prep. ev. 3. 8, Syncell. p. 149 D, Hieronym. chron. ann. Abr. 376), or Kallaithyia (Aristid. ii. 3, 8 with schol. ad loc.) or Kallithea (schol. Arat. 161) and appears to have been originally an epithet of Io (Hesych. s. v. Ἰώ Ωαλλιθεσσα): cp. Aesch. suppl. 291 f., Apollod. 2. 1. 3, anon, de incred. p. 324, 22 f. Westermann.

^{page 372 note 4} Busolt Gr. Gesch. i². 152. Possibly another indication of the gynaecocracy may be found in the warlike action of the Argive women under Telesilla (Plut. de mul. virt. 4, Paus. 2. 20. 8 ff., Polyaen. strat. 8. 33, alib., cp. Hdt. 6. 77). This must be set beside the action of the Tegeate women under Choira (Paus. 8. 48. 4 f.).

^{page 372 note 5} Gruppe, Gr. Myth. p. 460 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 6} Id. ib. p. 461 f.

^{page 372 note 7} Id. ib. p. 480.

^{page 372 note 8} Tert. de cor. mil. 7.

^{page 372 note 9} Athen. 515 F f.: see Töpffer in Pauly-Wissowa Realencycl. i. 1769, 21 ff.

^{page 372 note 10} Bachofen, Das Mutterrecht p. 45 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 11} Aesch. Ag. 10 f.

^{page 372 note 12} Id. cho. 600.

^{page 372 note 13} Id. Ag. 918 f.

^{page 372 note 14} Id. ib. 943.

^{page 372 note 15} Id. cho. 304

^{page 372 note 16} Id. ib. 663 f.

^{page 372 note 17} Eur. El. 930 ff.

^{page 372 note 18} Cp. Soph. El. 365 ff.

^{page 372 note 19} Plut. v. Lyc. 14.

^{page 372 note 20} Id. Lacaen. apophth. 240 F, 241 A.

^{page 372 note 21} Aristot. pol 2. 9. 1269 b 19 ff., 1270 a 4 ff.

^{page 372 note 22} Cp. Bachofen, Das Mutterrecht p. 382.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 23} Aristot. pol. 2. 9. 1269 b 31 f. Aristotle ap. Plut. v. Lyc. 14 states that Lycurgus failed to master the luxury and γυναικοκρατα of the Spartan women, who were left in charge by the men owing to their frequent campaigns and were consequently treated with undue respect and called δσποιναι.

^{page 372 note 24} Polyb. 12. 6 b. 8.

^{page 372 note 25} Ephorus ap. Strab. 279 f.

^{page 373 note 1} Plut. v. Agis 11.

^{page 373 note 2} Paus. 3. 15. 9, Hesych. s.v. Αἰγοφγος.

^{page 373 note 3} Il. 5. 392 ff., Lyc. Al. 39 f. with Tzetz. ad loc.

^{page 373 note 4} Panyassis (=frag. 20 Kinkel) ap. Clem. Alex. protr. 36. 2 p. 31 Potter, Arn. adv. nat. 4. 25.

^{page 373 note 5} Apollod. 1. 6. 2, Eust. 989, 46 f.

^{page 373 note 6} Et. mag. p. 435, 10 ff., cp. Phot. bibl. p. 147 b, 16 ff.

^{page 373 note 7} Cp. Cic. de nat. deor. 3. 42.

^{page 373 note 8} Sotas (? Sotades) ap. Tzetz. in Lyc. Al. 1350.

^{page 373 note 9} Furtwängler-Reichhold, Gr. Vasenmalerei i. 238 ff.Google Scholar, pl. 47, Reinach, Rép. Vases i. 193.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 10} Furtwängler ib. i. 240.

^{page 373 note 11} Furtwängler Beschreib. d. Vasensamml. zu Berlin no. 2293, id. in Roscher, Lex. i. 1659, 13 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 12} Brit. Mus. Cat. Vases iv. 71 no. F 148.

^{page 373 note 13} Heydemann Die Vasensamml. des Mus. Nazion. zu Neapel Berlin 1872 no. 2873=Millin Peintures de vases antiques ed. S. Reinach Paris 1891 i. 3. Cp. Overbeck Kunstmyth. Hera p. 141 no. BB=Millingen Ancient Uned. Monuments i. pl. 3.

^{page 373 note 14} Annali dell Inst. 1859 p. 297, pl. G = Reinaeh Rép. Vases i. 301.

^{page 373 note 15} Schol. vet. Theocr. 4. 33, Tzetz. in Lyc. Al. 856, 1006, Steph. Byz. s.v. Λακνιον, Serv. in Verg. Aen. 3. 552, et. mag. p. 555, 17 ff.

^{page 373 note 16} Iambl, v. Pyth. 50, Serv. in Verg. Aen. 3. 552, Diod. 4. 24.

^{page 374 note 1} P. Gardner Types of Gk. Coins pl. 5. 43 + 29, pl. 6. 39 + 36, Head Hist. num. p. 82, Brit. Mus. Cat. Gk. Coins Italy pp. 353 f.

^{page 374 note 2} Serv. in Verg. ecl. 4. 62.

^{page 374 note 3} Philarg. in Verg. ecl. 4. 63, p. 326 Lion.

^{page 374 note 4} Myth. Vat. 1. 177 p. 61 Mai.

^{page 374 note 5} On Juno Lucina=Diana see Cic. de nat. deor. 2. 68. Both Juno and Diana bore the name Lucina (J.B. Carter epith. deor. pp. 30, 49).

^{page 375 note 1} Liv. 5. 13. 6, cp. Fowler, WardeRoman Festivals pp. 180 f.Google Scholar: Dionys. ant. Rom. 12. 9 (=Piso frag. 25 Peter) says . In the lectisternium of 217 B.C. Juno was paired with Jupiter, Diana with Apollo (Liv. 22. 10. 9).

^{page 375 note 2} C.I.L. v. 1. 507 no. 4854.

^{page 375 note 3} Gell. 11. 6. 1 ff.

^{page 375 note 4} Tib. 3. 6. 48, cp. 3. 19. 15, Juv. 2. 98 with schol. ad loc., Petr. 25. For the relations of Juno, Genius, and Jupiter see Folklore xvi. pp. 296. ff.

^{page 375 note 5} Paul. exc. Fest. p. 48 Lindemann, Mart. Cap. 2. 149, Myth. Vat. 3. 4. 3 p. 177 Mai.

^{page 375 note 6} Paul. exc. Fest. p. 48 Lindemann.

^{page 375 note 7} See Wissowa, Rel. und Kult. der Römer pp. 219 f.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 8} Annali dell' Inst. 1867 xxxix. 352 ff.

^{page 375 note 9} Roscher, Lex. i. 2259 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 10} The figure in the text is reduced from Gerhard Etruskische Spiegel pl. 147.

^{page 376 note 1} Daremberg-Saglio Dict. Ant. iv. 165 s.v. ‘olea,’ ep. Pauly-Wissowa Realencycl. i. 62, 59 ff., Gruppe, Griech. Mythol. u. Religionsgesch. p. 880.Google Scholar

^{page 376 note 2} Verg. Aen. 6. 229 ff.

^{page 376 note 3} Paus. 5. 16. 2 f.

^{page 376 note 4} Aristot. mir. ausc. 51, Paus. 2. 31. 10.

^{page 376 note 5} Monumenti inediti dall' Inst. 1861 vi. pl. 54.

^{page 376 note 6} Micali Antichi Monumenti ed. 2 pl. 29, nos. 7, 8, 9. The figure in the text is rearranged and reduced from Micali, ib. ed. 1 pl. 16, nos. 7, 8.

^{page 376 note 7} The illustration is from Annali dell' Inst. 1867 xxxix. pl. H no. 1.

^{page 376 note 8} Micali Monumenti inediti pl. 21 no. 5.

^{page 376 note 9} Monumenti inediti dall' Inst. v. pl. 52.

^{page 376 note 10} Ib.

^{page 376 note 11} Mus. Gregor. i. pl. 61, no. 8.

^{page 376 note 12} Brit. Mus. Cat. Gk. Vases no. B 57.

^{page 376 note 13} The best collection of evidence bearing on the point occurs in a valuable paper by Dr. L. R. Farnell (‘Sociological hypotheses concerning the position of women in ancient religion’) in the Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 1904 vii. 70 ff. See also Lobeok, Aglaophamus pp. 173 ff.Google Scholar, Creuzer, Symbolik ³ ii. 361 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 376 note 14} The only exception appears to be that of the Athenian σχοφροι or ὠσχοφροι, whose ritual stood in some relation to the worship of Dionysus and Ariadne (Plut. v. Thes. 23, Bekker anecd. Gr. p. 318, 22 ff.). The cult of the bearded Cypriote Άφροδτη or rather Άφρδιτος (Macrob. Sat. 3. 8. 2 f., Serv. in Verg. Aen. 2. 632, cp. Firm. Mat. de error. prof. rel. 4. 1 ff.) is more Oriental than Greek. The same may be said of the costume of the galli (Daremberg-Saglio Dict. Ant. ii. 1456).

^{page 376 note 15} Plut. de mul. virt. 4, Polyaen. strat. 8. 33, cp. Plut. de mus. 9 .

^{page 376 note 16} The story of Telesilla (supra p. 372 n. 4), which reminds us that Hera at Argos was decidedly warlike, a bronze shield being the prize at her festival τ Ἥραια (Pind. Nem. 10. 22 f., schol. vet. Pind. Ol. 7. 152, Aeneas tact. 1. 17, Zenob. 2. 3, 6. 52, C.I.G. 234, 1068, alib.).

^{page 376 note 17} Plut. de mul. virt. 4.

^{page 376 note 18} Id. v. Lyc. 15.

^{page 376 note 19} Asius (=frag. 13 Kinkel) ap. Athen. 525Ef.

^{page 376 note 20} Paus. 7. 4. 4.

^{page 377 note 1} Dittenberger² ii. 407 no. 617, 6.

^{page 377 note 2} Id. ² ii. 577 ff. no. 734.

^{page 377 note 3} Id. ² ii. 397 no. 614, 29 ff.

^{page 377 note 4} Paton and Hicks Inscrr. of Cos p. 236, no. 368.

^{page 377 note 5} Imperial coins of Cos show a veiled female figure resting on a sceptre and holding a patera over a lighted altar (Brit. Mus. Cat. Gk. Coins Caria, etc. p. 219 pl. 33, 11): this was interpreted by Eckhel as the priest of Herakles (Head hist. num. p. 537).

^{page 377 note 6} The temple of Herakles at Erythrae possessed an ancient image of Herakles, which had floated from Tyre on a raft and had been towed ashore by a rope made of the hair of the Thracian women at Erythrae: hence they were the only women allowed to enter the temple (Paus. 7. 5. 5 ff.).

^{page 377 note 7} Plut. quaestt. Gr. 58.

^{page 377 note 8} Paus. 2. 22. 1, et. mag. p. 108, 47, Suid. s.v. Άνθεια, et. Gud. p. 57, 47, Schöll-Studemund anecd. varia i. 269, cp. 278, 283.

^{page 377 note 9} Hesych. s.v., cp. Phot. s.v., ἨρονθιαPoll. 4. 78 , et. mag. 409, 32 f. where the Argive king calls the crops ταῖς Άνθεσφροις ν Ἥρας.

^{page 377 note 10} Geopon. 11. 19.

^{page 377 note 11} Nicander ap. Athen. 684E, cp. Farnell Cults of Gk. States i. 128 n. b.

^{page 377 note 12} Cp. Frazer on Paus. 2. 22. 1.

^{page 377 note 13} Supra p. 372 n. 9 ^a.

^{page 377 note 14} Apollod. 2. 6. 3.

^{page 377 note 15} Lucian dial. deor. 13, Ov. fast. 2. 319, her. 9. 101, Lact. Plae. in Stat. Theb. 10. 648, Prop. 4. 9. 47, cp. Anth. Pal. 6. 358 Diotimos .

^{page 377 note 16} Ov. her. 9. 63.

^{page 377 note 17} ib. 57.

^{page 377 note 18} ib. 59.

^{page 377 note 19} ib. 65 f., Prop. 4. 9. 49.

^{page 377 note 20} Sen. Herc. Oet. 375 f., Prop. 4. 9. 48, Lact. Plac. in Stat. Theb. 10. 648, Myth. Vat. 2. 155 p. 141 Mai, cp. 3. 13. 1 p. 269 Mai.

^{page 377 note 21} Prop. 4. 9. 50.

^{page 377 note 22} Ov. fast. 2. 325, her. 9. 103 ff.

^{page 377 note 23} Ov. her. 9. 106. For the evidence of painting, sculpture, pottery, gems, and coins, see Sieveking in Roscher Lex. iii. 888 ff.

^{page 377 note 24} Philologus 1891 1. 616.

^{page 377 note 25} ib. 619, also in Roscher, Lex. iii. 885 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 26} Lyd. de mens. 4. 67 p. 120, 10 ff. Wünsch.

^{page 378 note 1} Eur. H. F. 1127.

^{page 378 note 2} Overbeck Kunstmythol. Zeus pp. 20. 251, Hera p. 24 f. fig. 4a, Farnell Cults of the Gk. States i. 115 pl. V b.

^{page 378 note 3} Förster, Die Hochzeit des Zeus urid der Hera Breslau 1867 pp. 24 f.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 4} See e.g. J. A. Hild in Daremberg-Saglio Dict. Ant. iii. 674 fig. 4167.

^{page 378 note 5} Baumeister Denkmäler iii. 2133 fig. 2390=Class. Rev. xvii. 414 fig. 9, Förster op. cit. pp. 35 ff.

^{page 378 note 6} Overbeck, Kunstmythol. Zeus pp. 239 f. 251 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 7} Mart. Cap. 1. 66. In the Pompeian fresco Hera's veil is white, that of Zeus violet (Baumeister Denkmäler iii. 2132 f.).

^{page 378 note 8} Thulin, C.Die Götter des Martianus Capella Gieszen 1906 pp. 5 f.Google Scholar, cp. pp. 24, 31 ff., 66.

^{page 378 note 9} Müller-Deecke Etrusker i. 276, 508, J. Martha in Daremberg-Saglio Dict. Ant. ii. 822, Bachofen, Das Mutterrecht pp. 12, 92, 274, 293.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 10} Supra p. 367.

^{page 378 note 11} Il. 14. 317.

^{page 378 note 12} See Class. Rev. xvii. 420.

^{page 379 note 1} In the latter the plan of the base is shown reversed. Labacco, in his Libro appartenente a l'Architettura (1552) PI. 12, gives a reduced copy of it, reversed again, so that the position is correct.

^{page 381 note 1} Arch. Anz. 1906, part 1.

^{page 381 note 2} Acad. des Inscr., March–April, 1906.

^{page 381 note 3} Athen. Mitt. 1906, parts 1 and 2.

^{page 381 note 4} Arch. Anz. 1906, part 2.