[251.1] Langdon, op. cit., 300-341; cf. Zimmern, “Sumerisch-Babylonische Tamuzlieder,” in Sitzungsber. König. Sächs. Gesell. Wissen., 1907, pp. 201-252, and his discussion, “Der Babylonische Gott Tamuz,” in Abhandl. König. Sächs. Gesell. Wissen., 1909.

[251.2] Vide supra, [p. 105].

[251.3] Vide Langdon, op. cit., p. 501.

[251.4] Antiqu., 8, 5, 3; cf. Clem. Recogn., 10, 24; Baudissin in his Eschmun-Asklepios (Oriental. Stud. zu Nöldeke gewidmet, p. 752) thinks that the Healer-god, Marduk Asclepios Eschmun, is himself one who died and rose again in Assyrian and Phoenician theology. For Asklepios of Berytos we have the almost useless story of Damascius in Phot. Bibl., 573 H.; the uncritical legend in Ktesias (c. 21) and Ael. Var. Hist., 13, 3, about the grave of Belitana at Babylon (to which Strabo also alludes, p. 740), does not justify the view that the death of Marduk was ever a Babylonian dogma.

[252.1] Perrot-Chipiez, Histoire de l’Art, iv. pl. viii.

[253.1] Rev. de Philol., 1893, p. 195.

[253.2] Vide Frazer, op. cit., pp. 98-99.

[253.3] K. O. Müller, Kleine Schriften, vol. ii. pp. 102-103.

[253.4] Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc., 1909, pp. 966, 971; the information about the true meaning of the ideogram I owe to Dr. Langdon.

[254.1] Vide supra, p. 91; cf. Cults, ii. pp. 644-649; iii. pp. [300]-[305].