[279]. B.S.A. xii. 352, xiii. 182.
[280]. The whole mosaic is published by Secchi in his Musaico Antoniniano, and a large portion of it in Baumeister’s Denkmäler, Fig. 174.
[281]. Dr. Jüthner, in the introduction to his Philostratus, shows that there was a long-standing quarrel between doctors and trainers. The doctors resented the encroachments of the trainers on their domain, and regarded them as ignorant and unscientific quacks.
[282]. Vide Jüthner, op. cit. pp. 285 ff.
[283]. I am glad to find my estimate of Philostratus in substantial agreement with that of Dr. Jüthner. Philostratus had, as he shows, no technical knowledge of gymnastic. He was a rhetorician, writing an essay on what was evidently a burning question, and, like a modern journalist, he naturally derived his knowledge from one of the many technical treatises on gymnastic which existed, and as naturally made mistakes (op. cit. pp. 97-107).
[284]. L. Weniger, Clio, 1905, pp. 1-38.
[285]. L. Weniger, Clio, 1904, pp. 126 ff.
[286]. Ib. p. 127, n. 1.
[287]. Quoted in Schol. Pindar, Ol. v. 6.
[288]. Pindar, Ol. v. 6 ὑπὸ βουθυσίαις ἀέθλων τε πεμπταμέροις ἁμίλλαις. The reading and interpretation are much disputed. The scholiasts certainly interpreted πεμπταμέροις “as lasting five days,” and even if the reading πεμπταμέροις is correct, the occurrence of the form πεμπτάς for πεμπάσ, and the analogy of forms like ὀγδώκοντα, ἑβδομήκοντα make this meaning at least possible, while there is considerable evidence against the rendering “fifth-day contests.” Mie, Quaestiones Agonisticae, p. 29.