II. With regard to the archaeological evidence adduced by Dörpfeld (Ath. Mitth. 1895, Griech. Theat. p. 7) and Miss Harrison, it seems enough to say that though the precinct discovered by the former, and identified by them with the precinct ἐν Λίμναις, contains the remains of a ληνός, this does not itself prove that it was a precinct of Dionysus Lenaeus, much less that it was the Lenaeum for which we are looking. If it were the precinct of Dionysus Lenaeus it might contain a ληνός (though this is not necessary); but to argue the converse is quite fallacious. Nor does the existence of other ληνοί in the neighbourhood help the argument. There is some plausibility, indeed, in the idea that the Lenaeum may have been a place or district in which there were many ληνοί, but (1) it is certainly not proved that Dörpfeld’s precinct was the temple ἐν Λίμναις, and so, even if it were the Lenaeum, the two temples would not necessarily be identified, and (2) it is very probable that the title Λήναιος is not derived from ληνός at all. We will first deal with these two points before discussing such positive evidence as there is for the site of the Lenaeum. (1) As to the temple ἐν Λίμναις, the first important piece of evidence as to the site is the passage of Thucydides, and next the passages of pseudo-Dem. in Neaeram and Pausanias, all quoted above. To take Thucydides first. The most natural and obvious interpretation, the one which a reader would assume if not on the look out for difficulties, would take πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος as = πρὸς τὸ ὑπ’ αὐτὴν πρὸς νότον μάλιστα τετραμμένον. It cannot indeed be said that it would be _impossible_ for it to mean ‘near this original city’ (including the acropolis and the land south of it); but, as Prof. E. Gardner points out (Ancient Athens, p. 144), one would expect πρὸς νότῳ (or πρὸς τούτῳ τῷ μέρει) in such a case; and such an interpretation gives us no reason why Thucydides should have mentioned the south at all. On the most natural interpretation then of Thucydides the temple ἐν Λίμναις was to the south of the acropolis (or SW.), not, like Dörpfeld’s precinct, on the WNW. Pausanias, moreover, says that the ἀρχαιότατον ἱερόν of Dionysus was πρὸς τῷ θεάτρῳ. (ἱερόν as Carroll points out (Class. Rev. July, 1905) often means the whole precinct, and not merely the shrine or sanctuary; several shrines may be included in one precinct.) Carroll reminds us (l.c.) that ‘Fischbach (Wiener Stud. xv. pp. 161-91) has shown conclusively that Pausanias was thoroughly acquainted with Thucydides, and made extensive use of the historian in his description of Athens; so much that he appropriates words, phrases, and terms of expression found in Thucydides. These stylistic resemblances exclude the acceptance of an intermediate channel. Pausanias had also the benefit of a tradition handed down by local guides respecting important sites. Hence when he makes a statement manifestly