^{page 133 note 3} pp. 306–12.

^{page 134 note 1} p. 345, n. 1.

^{page 134 note 2} xxii, 1. 19 seqq.

^{page 134 note 3} Saturnalia, i, 10.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 4} See Prof. C. F. Lehmann-Haupt's criticism (cited at p. 415, n. 1) of the theory of the change in the date of the Crucifixion.

^{page 134 note 5} See Hillebrandt, , Rom. Forsch, v, 309 seqq.Google Scholar; Keith, , Śāṅkhāyana Araṇyaka, pp. 72 seqq.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 1} Keith, , JRAS. 1907, pp. 929Google Scholar seqq.; Taittirīya Saṁhitā, pp. cxxxviii seqq.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 1} Minucius Felix, Oct. 22, 30; Lactantius, , Div. Inst. i, 21Google Scholar; Tertullian, , Apol. 9Google Scholar; Gnost. 7Google Scholar, cited by Frazer, p. 312, n. 1.

^{page 137 note 1} De Abstinentia, ii, 54Google Scholar. It must be remembered that Porphyry's statements in this chapter cannot be accepted without great caution.

^{page 138 note 1} See Frazer, , p. 359.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 2} Frazer, , pp. 365 seqq., 405–7.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 3} In JRAS, 1914, p. 414Google Scholar, Dr. Thomas gave “the continuance [sthiti] of the tribal constitution [gaṇa] of the Mālavas” as being the “substance” of my original rendering. That does not represent my rendering at all properly: it was to gaṇa-sthiti, not to gaṇa, that I gave the meaning of ‘tribal constitution’; and I did not introduce the idea of ‘continuance’.