[86] D’Arbois, ii. 126.  He explains Nantosvelta as meaning “She who is brilliant in war.”  The goddess, however, has none of the attributes of a war-goddess.  M. D’Arbois also saw in a bas-relief of the hammer-god, a female figure, and a child, the Gaulish equivalents of Balor, Ethne, and Lug (RC xv. 236).  M. Reinach regards Sucellos, Nantosvelta, and a bird which is figured with them, as the same trio, because pseudo-Plutarch (de Fluv. vi. 4) says that lougos means “crow” in Celtic.  This is more than doubtful.  In any case Ethne has no warlike traits in Irish story, and as Lug and Balor were deadly enemies, it remains to be explained why they appear tranquilly side by side.  See RC xxvi. 129.  Perhaps Nantosvelta, like other Celtic goddesses, was a river nymph. Nanto Gaulish is “valley,” and nant in old Breton is “gorge” or “brook.”  Her name might mean “shining river.”  See Stokes, US 193, 324.

[87] RC xviii. 254.  Cernunnos may be the Juppiter Cernenos of an inscription from Pesth, Holder, s.v.

[88] Reinach, BF 186, fig. 177.

[89] Rev. Arch. xix. 322, pl. 9.

[90] Bertrand, Rev. Arch. xv. 339, xvi. pl. 12.

[91] Ibid. xv. pl. 9, 10.

[92] Ibid. xvi. 9.

[93] Ibid. pl. 12 bis.

[94] Bertrand, Rev. Arch. xvi. 8.

[95] Ibid. xvi. 10 f.

[96] Ibid. xv., xvi.; Reinach, BF 17, 191.

[97] Bull.  Epig. i. 116; Strabo, iv. 3; Diod.  Sic. v. 28.

[98] Diod.  Sic. v. 30; Reinach, BF 193.

[99] See p. 212, infra.

[100] See p. 166, infra.

[101] See, e.g., Mowat, Bull.  Epig. i. 29; de Witte, Rev. Arch. ii. 387, xvi. 7; Bertrand, ibid. xvi. 3.

[102] See pp. 102, 242, infra; Joyce, SH ii. 554; Curtin, 182; RC xxii. 123, xxiv. 18.

[103] Dom Martin, ii. 185; Reinach, BF 192, 199.

[104] See, however, p. 136, infra; and for another interpretation of this god as equivalent of the Irish Lug slaying Balor, see D’Arbois, ii. 287.

[105] See p. 229, infra.

[106] Reinach, BF 162, 184; Mowat, Bull.  Epig. i. 62, Rev. Epig. 1887, 319, 1891, 84.

[107] Reinach, BF 141, 153, 175, 176, 181; see p. 218, infra.  Flouest, Rev. Arch. 1885, i. 21, thinks that the identification was with an earlier chthonian Silvanus.  Cf.  Jullian, 17, note 3, who observes that the Gallo-Roman assimilations were made “sur le doinaine archaisant des faits populaires et rustiques de l’Italie.”  For the inscriptions, see Holder, s.v.

[108] Stokes, US 302; MacBain, 274; RC xxvi. 282.

[109] Gaidoz, Rev. Arch. ii. 1898; Mowat, Bull.  Epig. i. 119; Courcelle-Seneuil, 80 f.; Pauly-Wissowa, Real.  Lex. i. 667; Daremberg-Saglio, Dict. ii., s.v. “Dispater.”