^{page 74 note 1} Mimesis (Berne, 1946)Google Scholar, Epilogue. The substantial point is made in C.2, but every one of the twenty chapters corroborates and documents it.

^{page 74 note 2} Wilder, Amos N. makes a passing reference to it in his Early Christian Rhetoric (S.C.M., 1964), p. 56Google Scholar, but the point is never really developed in the rest of the book.

^{page 75 note 3} In Joannem (Tr. 15).

^{page 75 note 4} Gesammelte Aufsatze, II, 235f. Quoted by Barrett, C. K., The Gospel according to St John (2nded., S.P.C.K, 1978).Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 5} St John (Penguin, 1968) in loc.

^{page 76 note 6} C. K. Barrett, op. cit., in loc.

^{page 76 note 7} cf. Macdonald, John, The Theology of the Samaritans (S.C.M., 1964), pp. 31–37.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 8} C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 197.

^{page 79 note 9} Samaritan law on monogamy was even stricter than Jewish. Divorce was virtually unknown (cf. Encyclopaedia Judaica, ‘Samaritanism’).

^{page 79 note 10} Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1963), p. 313.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 11} This is sufficient reason, even if there were no other, for the implausibility of John Bligh's suggestion that the woman's words in v. 17 could be read in a seductive sense (cf. Heythrop Journal 3.335–6).

^{page 81 note 12} Kirk, G. S., Heracleitus, the Cosmic Fragments (Cambridge, 1954), Fr. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 13} Commentary on St John's Gospel in loc. (Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis ix, Turnhout, 1969).

^{page 84 note 14} De Cwitale Dei 19.13.