Page 106. On the possible migration of the DodonÆan oracle, see below, p. 238.

P. 126. On the theory of Curtius respecting the Ionians, see p. 480.

P. 153. The wealth of Egyptian Thebes was known to Achilles; see Il. ix. 381.

P. 167. The Birth of Minos will be more fully discussed in connection with the Outer Geography of the Odyssey. On the ancient and extensive influence of Phoenicia upon Crete, see HÖck’s Creta, vol. i. pp. 68 and seqq.

P. 186. On the word lupus, see MÜller’s Dorians, II. vi. 8, 9, for its relation to ?e????, ????, ?????e???, or light-born, and lux.

P. 306. In general confirmation of what has been said above on the subject of language, I may refer to the RÖmische Geschichte[968] of Mommsen, which had not come under my eye when the Seventh Section went to press.

His conclusions are;

1. That the Greek and mid-Italian languages correspond, in what touches the rudiments of the material life of man.

2. That in the higher region of the mind, of religion, and of advanced polity, this correspondence wholly fails.

3. That the GrÆco-Italic agrees with the Sanscrit down to the pastoral stage of society only, and ceases with the commencement of the agricultural and settled stage.

4. That the abstract genius of the Roman religion bears a relation to the Greek anthropophuism, like that of the full-formed Indian mythology to the metaphysical scheme of the Zendavesta.

He appears to me to cast the balance overmuch on the Roman side: but his statement will well repay an attentive consideration.

He supplies the following words, which I would add to the lists I have given above. They generally corroborate the conclusions at which I have arrived.

And, belonging to the higher domain—

Among these, the relationship of t?e??? and templum seems to require further proof.

I have to add the word ?????, which seems to be in nearer correspondence than ???? is with telum. On the other side, I may note ???, for a sword, and ????, ???a, for a chariot, as among the words not in correspondence.

P. 311. Add Fe?d?pp??. Il. ii. 768.

P. 313. The statement as to the persons slain by Hector and Mars is inaccurate. The seven first names are, so far as the text informs us, undistinguished, except Teuthras, who is called ??t??e??; and among these seven we have no name, which is clearly of Hellic etymology. But the nine others belong to a different part of the action (Il. xi. 301-4), and are expressly called ??e??e? (or officers, Il. ii. 365): and among these, while we have four names of Hellic complexion, Dolops and Opheltius are the only two which can be positively assigned to the Pelasgian class.

P. 380. While I have stated the second sense of the word ????? according to what appears to me to be the balance of the evidence, I admit it to be a doubtful point whether we ought rather, with Strabo (p. 365), to understand it preferably as capable of meaning the entire Peloponnesus.