Footnote 982:[(return)]
Jocelyn, Vita S. Kentig. 27, 32, 34; Ailred, Vita S. Ninian. 6.
Footnote 983:[(return)]
Gildas, § 4.
Footnote 984:[(return)]
For the whole argument see Reinach, RC xiii. 189 f. Bertrand, Rev. Arch. xv. 345, supports a similar theory, and, according to both writers, Gallo-Roman art was the result of the weakening of Druidic power by the Romans.
Footnote 985:[(return)]
L'Abbé Hermet, Assoc. pour l'avancement des Sciences, Compte Rendu, 1900, ii. 747; L'Anthropologie, v. 147.
Footnote 986:[(return)]
Corp. Scrip. Eccl. Lat. i. 122.
Footnote 987:[(return)]
Monnier, 362. The image bears part of an inscription ... LIT... and it has been thought that this read ILITHYIA originally. The name is in keeping with the rites still in use before the image. This would make it date from Roman times. If so, it is a poor specimen of the art of the period. But it may be an old native image to which later the name of the Roman goddess was given.
Footnote 988:[(return)]
Roden, Progress of the Reformation in Ireland, 51. The image was still existing in 1851.
Footnote 989:[(return)]
For figures of most of these, see Rev. Arch. vols. xvi., xviii., xix., xxxvi.; RC xvii. 45, xviii. 254, xx. 309, xxii. 159, xxiv. 221; Bertrand, passim; Courcelle-Seneuil, Les Dieux Gaulois d'apres les Monuments Figures, Paris, 1910.
Footnote 990:[(return)]
See Courcelle-Seneuil, op. cit.; Reinach, BF passim, Catalogue Sommaire du Musée des Ant. nat.4 115-116.
Footnote 991:[(return)]
Reinach, Catal. 29, 87; Rev. Arch. xvi. 17; Blanchet, i. 169, 316; Huchet, L'art gaulois, ii. 8.