^{page 70 note 1} Cf. Cauer, L. E. F., Defabulis Graecis ad Romam conditam pertinentibus, pass.Google Scholar, and id.Jahrbuch für classische Philologie, Supplementband, xv (1887), 95–182.Google Scholar

The question how the legends, in their recorded forms, arose can be kept partly distinct from the question of their truth. Opinions were last collected and discussed by Laing, Gordon J., The Classical Journal, vi. 51–64.Google Scholar Laing's conclusion (64) is that the story of Aeneas' wanderings was invented by poets and annalists, that it was adopted by ambitious settlements in various places, and that it became current independently of the diffusion of the cult of Aphrodite, which only served to localize it in certain districts—not, however, in Latium, where the legend existed in the fourth century, but where no cult of Aphrodite is known till 217 b.c. (61). He thus controverts the opinions of Niebuhr (57) that the stories represent an affinity between ‘Pelasgic’ populations in Italy and near Troy; of K. O. Mūller (57–8), who attributes the origin of the story of Aeneas to the introduction of Sibylline oracles into Rome; of Bamberger, Hilde, and Schwegler (58–9), that Lavinium was the starting-point of the story; of Roscher (59–60), that the legend of Aeneas was a result of the diffusion of a cult of Aphrodite; and of Dümmler, Farnell, and Rossbach (60–1), who maintained modifications of this theory. I suggest that scarcely any of these opinions can now safely be contradicted and that they are on the whole surprisingly well conceived, if restatements, some suggested by Laing's criticism, are admitted. Malten has already partly modernized the older theories; and, if the evidence and probabilities concerning Italy are added, the adjustment can be carried farther still (cf. p. 90 note 1, infr.).

^{page 70 note 2} Cf. Mommsen, Th., History of Rome, Everyman edition, i. 459–63.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 3} Cf. Verrall, A. W. in J.H.S. xiv. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 4} Cf. especially Mclver, D. Randall, Greek Cities in Italy and Sicily.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 1} Cf. Sayce, A. H., Antiquity, i. 204.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 2} Cf. Myres, J. L., Who were the Greeks? 218.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 3} Cf. Blakeway, A. A., J.R.S. xxv. 129–49.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 4} Frankfort, H., Studies in the Early Pottery of the Near East, ii. 126–35.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 5} Myres, ibid. 216–19.

^{page 72 note 1} Ibid. 218.

^{page 72 note 2} Åberg, Nils, Bronzezeitliche und Früheisenzeitliche Chronologie, i, Italien, pass.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 3} Cf. Hill, Ida Thallon, Rome of the Kings, 34–51.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 4} Peet, T. E., The Stone and Bronze Ages in Italy, 396, 421, 511.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 5} Hdt, . iv. 191–3.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 6} Casson, S., C.R. xxvi. 153–6.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 1} Malten, L., Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, xxix. 33–59.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 2} Cauer, , De fabulis graecis ad Romam conditam pertinentibus, 17.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 3} Casson, ibid.

^{page 73 note 4} Burn, A. R., Minoans, Philistines, and Greeks, 243–4.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 5} Rose, H. J., Primitive Culture in Italy, 95.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 1} Rose, H. J., J.R.S. xxiii. 46–63.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 2} Wissowa, G., Religion und Cultus der Römer,²30.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 3} Knight, W. F. J., Folk-Lore, xlvi. 98–121Google Scholar; id., Cumaean Gates, 157–8.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 4} Dion, . Hal., Ant. Rom. I. Ixvii. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 5} Evans, A. J., J.H.S. xxi. 126–9.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 6} Schmid, H. and Stählin, O., Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte, i. 193–203Google Scholar; cf. 360–2.

^{page 74 note 7} Nissen, H., Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, N.F., xlii (1887), 29–61Google Scholar, especially 31 and 61, where the religious influence of Samothrace on early Rome is asserted; cf. G. Vaccai, Le Feste di Roma Antica, especially 11, on ‘Pelasgians’, 27, on Aeneas and Dardanus, and 132, on Vesta, as possibly derived from Samothrace. Cf. Knight, W. F. J., Antiquity, vi, 455.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 8} Malten, L., Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, xxix, 37.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 9} Krahe, H., Glotta, xx. 188–96.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 10} Giles, P., The Cambridge Ancient History, ii. 36–7.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 1} Hahn, E. Adelaide, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Assocation, lxiv. 28–40.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 2} Stawell, F. Melian, A Clue to the Cretan Scripts, 12, 24, 25, 46, 91.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 3} Robinson, Gertrude, J.H.S. 1. 186–7.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 4} Güntert, Herman, ‘Labyrinth’, in Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 1932–1933, I, pass.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 5} Mühlestein, Hans, Über die Herkunft der Etrusker, pass.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 1} Cornford, F. M., Thucydides Mythistoricus, pass.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 1} Malten, , 35–42, 56–7.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 2} Malten, , 57–8.Google Scholar