¹ For further details see my article Orakel in Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll's RE 830 ff. I take this opportunity to add that the supplement θεῶν [Π]ανομϕαίων I proposed there, 831. 15, in the inscription of Aigai, was given beforehand by Höfer, Fleckeisens Jahrbb. 143, 1891, 367. I am indebted for this information to the kindness of L. Robert.

² Bruno Mueller, ΜΕΓΑΣ ΘΕΟΣ Diss. Halle 1912 has collected the materials.

³ E.g. the krater from Vulci (Roscher Mythol. Lex. V col. 579, fig. 2; Gerhard, Archaeol. Zeitung 1860, pl. 138, repeated in Daremberg-Saglio V 475, fig. 7070: it is an amusing instance for the power exercised by the dominant theory, that the writer of the article, in commenting on this picture, quotes from Bouché-Leclerq: sur le trépied râle (!) la Bacchante). — For the dancing Manads there are plenty of instances in Frickenhaus, Die Lenaeenvasen 72. Berl. Winckelmannsprogr. 1912.

⁴ This theory was first set forth by v. Wilamowitz Herm. 38. 575 ff. cf. id. Glaube d. Hellenen II 30. The opposition of Bethe, Antidoron, Festschrift f. Wackernagel 1923, 14 ff., gives no conclusive arguments. The deductions drawn in this paper are not based upon this theory, but if it is right, it furnishes one more argument for Wilamowitz.

⁵ Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia I, no. 115 and p. 95. Ramsay is responsible for the interpretation challenged in the text; it was accepted without further discussion by all other scholars who dealt with the inscription. For a bibliography see L. Robert, Etudes Anatoliennes 1937, p. 406; add Pappakonstantinos Αἱ Τράλλεις 1895, no. 33, F. Cumont, Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, 4th ed., p. 258, Ruge, RE VI A 2118.

⁶ Robert understands Φιλτάτη as the second name of Paulina, a position of words which usually is found only where the father's name stands between nomen and cognomen after the Roman fashion. Therefore I prefer to take it as appellative for daughter like ϕίλτατοι children P. Oxy. I 135, 17 BCH XV 189. 133. 20. In the papyrus the position οἱ ϕίλτατοι καὶ ἡ γαμετή as compared with the usual τέκνα καὶ γυναῖκες leaves no doubt on the meaning. The use is often misunderstood.

⁷ There can hardly be a better proof than the fact that the learned editors of the new Liddell and Scott gave the inscription a special heading in their article Παλλακή.

⁸ Cf. Dieterich Mithrasliturgie 3d ed. 123 ff. and for sublimated forms E. Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes 92 ff. The materials from Greece and Rome have been collected by E. Fehrle, Die kultische Keuschheit im Altertum, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten vol. VI, Giessen 1910. He is inclined to include in this category all priestesses who were in the service of a god. Therefore he ascribes the Pythia too to this kind of priesthood, but without any attempt of proof and without being aware that his explanation cannot be reconciled with Rohde's thesis.

⁹ May I propose one more simplification in the history of the oracle? It is commonly supposed there was a time when oracles at Delphi were given by drawing lots. This goes back to Lobeck's explanation of the common phrase ἀνεῖλεν ὁ θεός (Aglaophamus 814 not.). No other instance exists. The change in the methods of divination must have occurred when the oracle was still owned by the Earth; afterwards there is no place for it, as is shown above. Now in the first place, the word is used exclusively of Apollo (the only exception I know is Hdt. VI 69. 3), never of the oracles where dice were really used. Furthermore, in Greece there are no oracles where the drawing of a lot was essential, as in the Roman oracle of the Fortuna of Praeneste and perhaps among the Celtic tribes of the Po-valley (see my article Orakel in RE, col. 855). The Greek lots were really thrown, like our dice, and this is a manipulation where the taking up is unimportant; it is very improbable that the whole action got its name from an accessory moment. As the inspiration of the Pythia was supposed to come from the chasm in the adyton, where the holy fountain ran, the fact that the god lifts the oracle up from the depth seems adequately expressed by the word ἀναιρεῖν, and nowadays, I suppose, it is no objection to this explanation that the thing he takes up is not touchable, though this would have been enough for Lobeck to challenge it passionately.