Chapter IV: Front Matter (4)

Pausanias tells us[151] that the xoanon brought from Eleutherae
was in one of the two temples in the theatre-precinct, while
the other contained the chryselephantine statue of Alcamenes.
We know, both from the method of construction and from literary
notices, that these two temples were in existence in the time
of Demosthenes. Pausanias says[152] that on fixed days every
year, the statue of the god was borne to a little temple of
Dionysus near the Academy. Pausanias' use of the plural in
[Greek: tetagmenais emerais] is excellent authority that the
temple of the xoanon was opened at least on more than one day of
every year.

From all these considerations it seems to be impossible that
the precinct of the older temple by the extant theatre and the
sanctuary [Greek: en Limnais] could be the same. The suggestion
that the gold and ivory statue of Alcamenes could have been the
one borne in procession at the time of the Greater Dionysia is,
of course, untenable from the delicate construction of such
figures. The massive base on which it stood shows, too, that
its size was considerable. The image borne in procession was
clearly the xoanon which was brought by Pegasus from
Eleutherae.

Wilamowitz calls attention[153] to another fact. In classic
times the contests of the Lenaea are [Greek: Dionysia ta epi
Lenaiô], and the victories are [Greek: vikai Levaikai]; the
Megala Dionysia are always [Greek: ta te estei], and the
victories here [Greek: nikai astikai]. These words certainly
imply a distinction of place. How early these expressions may
have been used, we learn from the account of Thespis.
Suidas[154] is authority that Thespis first exhibited a play in
536 B.C.; and the Parian Marble records[155] that he was the
first to exhibit a drama and to receive the tragic prize [Greek:
en astei].

[Footnote 151: I. 20. 3.]

[Footnote 152: I. 29. 2.]

[Footnote 153: _Die Bühne des Aeschylos_.]

[Footnote 154: _v. Thespis_.]

[Footnote 155: _C.I.G._, II. 2374.]

Page 67 But it has also been contended that Limnae and Lemaeum do not
refer to the same locality. It is clear from what has been
said, however, that the Lenaea and the Greater Dionysia must
have been held in different localities. So if Limnae and the
Lenaeum do not refer at least to the same region, there must
have been three separate sanctuaries of Dionysus; for no one
will claim that the Greater Dionysia can have been held in the
Limnae if the Lenaea were not celebrated there. But as we have
seen, Hesychius ([Greek: en Limnai]) declares that the Lenaea
were held [Greek: en Limanis]. The scholiast to Aristophanes
says[156] that the Chytri were a festival of Dionysus Lenaeus;
so the Chytri as well as the Lenaea must have been celebrated in
the Lenaeum. Athenæus in the story of Orestes and Pandion
speaks[157] of the temenus [Greek: en Limnais] in connection
with the Choes. In Suidas ([Greek: choes]), however, we learn
that either Limnaeus or Lenaeus could be used in referring to
the same Dionysus. Such positive testimony for the identity of
the Lenaeum and the sanctuary in the Limnae, cannot be rejected.

[Footnote 156: _Acharnians_ 960.]

[Footnote 157: X, 437 d.]

We have still more convincing testimony that in the great
period of the drama the two annual contests at which dramas
were brought out were held in different places, in the record
of the time when the wooden theatre [Greek: en Limnais] was
finally given up, and [Greek: o epi Lemnaiô] became a thing of
the past. The change comes exactly when we should look for it,
when the existing theatre had been splendidly rebuilt by
Lycurgus. The passage is in Plutarch, where he says[158] that
this orator also introduced a law that the contest of the
comedians at the Chytri should take place in the theatre, and
that the victor should be reckoned [Greek: es astin], as had not
been done before. He further implies that the contest at the
Chytri had fallen into disuse, for he adds that Lycurgus thus
restored an agon that had been omitted. This last authority,
however, concerns a contest at the Chytri, the Anthesteria, and
is only one of many passages which tend to show that [Greek: o
epi Lemnaiô] was held at this festival. The most weighty
testimony for making the Lenaea an independent festival, even in
Page 68 historic times, is given by Proclus in a scholium to
Hesiod.[159] He quotes from Plutarch the statement that there
was no month Lenaeo among the Boeotians. He adds that this month
was the Attic Gamelio in which the Lenaea were held. Hesychius
makes the same citation from Plutarch[160] as to a non-existence
of a Boeotian month Lenaeo, and continues: "But some say that
this month is the (Boeotian) Hermaio, and this is true, for the
Athenians [held] in this month ([Greek: en auto]) the festival
of the Lenaea." The great similarity of the two passages renders
it very probable that both were drawn from the same sources. The
omission of Gamelio by Hesychius, by referring the [en autô]
back to Lenaeo, makes him authority that the Lenaea were held
in that month. This, in turn implies that Proclus may have
inserted Gamelio in order to bring the statement into relation
with the Attic months of his own day. In the authorities
referring to this month is a suggestion of several facts and a
curious struggle to account for them. Proclus cites Plutarch to
the effect that there was no month Lenaeo among the Boeotians,
but, being probably misled by the very passage in Hesiod for
which he has quoted Plutarch, he adds[161] that they had such a
month. He goes on to state that the month is so called from the
Lenaea, or from the Ambrosia. Moschopulus,[162] Tzetzes,[163]
and the Etymologicum Magnum[164] repeat this last statement. An
inscription[165] referring to a crowning of Bacchus on the 18th
of Gamelio may refer to the same festival. Tzetzes alone is
responsible for the statement that the _Pithoigia_ came in this
month. Through Proclus and Hesychius we are assured of the
belief that there was once an Attic month Lenaeo. Proclus,
Hesychius and Moschopulus tell us that the Lenaea were at some
period held in this month; while Proclus, Moschopulus, Tzetzes,
and the inscription assure us that there was another festival
of Dionysus in this month; and the first three of these
authorities name this festival Ambrosia. A tradition running
Page 69 with such persistency through so many authors affords a strong
presumption that there once existed an Attic month Lenaeo, and
that the Lenaea were celebrated in that month.

[Footnote 158: [Plut.] _Vit._ 10 _Or._: LYCURG. _Orat._ VII. 1.
10 p. 841. 1549: _Ptoclus_ to Hesiod, Op. 504.]

[Footnote 160: HESYCHIUS, [Greek: Lenaiôn men].]

[Footnote 161: PROCLUS, To Hesiod Op. 504.]

[Footnote 162: MOSCHPUL., [Greek: kata ton mena ton Lenaiôna].]

[Footnote 163: TZETZES, [Greek: mena de Lenaiôn].]

[Footnote 164: Et. Mag., [Greek: Lenaiôna].]

[Footnote 165: _C.I.G._, I. 523. [Greek: I'ameliônos kittôseis
Dionyson thi].]

Thucydides tells us[166] that the Ionian Athenians carried the
festival Anthesteria with them from Athens, and that they
continued until his day to celebrate it. The Anthesteria are
thus older than the Ionic migration, which took place under the
sons of Codrus.[167] The story of Pandion and Orestes from
Apollodorus places the establishment of the Choes in the time
of this mythical Athenian king. The first and third months of
the Ionic year[168] are the same as those of the Attic. There
can hardly be a doubt, then, that their second month, Lenaeo,
was also carried with the emigrants from the parent city, where
at that time it obtained.

[Footnote 166: II. 15.]

[Footnote 167: BOECKII _Vom Unterschied der Lena._, _Anthest.
und Dion._ s. 52.]

[Footnote 168: The entire argument on the question of the month
is open to the objection that too much weight is given to such
men as Tzetzes and all the tribe of minor scholiasts, whose
opportunities for accurate knowledge were, in many respects,
vastly inferior to those of scholars of our own day. It is easy
indeed to say that their testimony is worth nothing. But where
shall we stop? It is urged that the connection of the Lenaea
with an Attic month Lenaeo arose from an attempt on the part of
the commentators to explain names as they found them. It is
said that this conflict of the authorities proves that there
never was an Attic Lenaeo. This may be true; and the man who
will prove it to be so, and furthermore will give us the
accurate history of the Attic and the Ionic calendars, will do
a great service to Greek scholarship. But he must have at hand
better sources than we possess to-day. Though the later Greek
commentators on the classics have made many amusing and stupid
blunders, though we need not hesitate to disregard their
teaching when it comes into conflict with better authority, or
with plain reason, still they have told us that which is true.
They often furnish us with all that we know of older and better
authors, whose works were their authority. Therefore, unless I
have found testimony against them, I have followed their
teaching. Both here and elsewhere I give their words for what
they are worth; not that I rank Proclus with Thucydides, or the
Et. Mag. with Aristophanes,--but from the conviction that so
remarkable a concurrence of testimony in so many different
writers has not yet been successfully explained away, and could
not indeed exist unless their testimony were founded on a basis
of fact.]

This gives a time, however remote it may be, when the Athenians
still had the month Lenaeo, yet we hear of no festival Lenaea
among the Ionian cities. It would thus seem that this had lost
its force as an independent festival before the migration.

Gamelio is said to have received its name from the Gamelia, the
festival of Zeus and Hera. It is hard to believe that while the
Page 70 much more brilliant Lenaea remained in the month, the name
should have passed to the always somewhat unimportant Gamelia.
What reason could be found for this naming, unless that the
Lenaea had first been transferred to the Anthesteria, as all
the testimony tends to prove? This supposition gives an easy
explanation of the repeated reference to Lenaeo as an Attic
month, of the change of the name to Gamelio, and even Tzetzes'
association of the Pithoigia with the Lenaea,--an association
which arises necessarily, if the Lenaea once formed part of the
Anthesteria. The impossibility of transferring in its entirety
a festival which has become rooted in the customs of a people,
is also seen. That remnant of the Lenaea in Lenaeo, the
Ambrosia, survived till quite late in Attic history. It is not
difficult, then, to understand why the other references to the
Lenaea as a separate festival do not agree as to the month.

A triad of contests is given by Demosthenes[169] where he
quotes the law of Evegoras with reference to the Dionysiac
festivals: the one in Piræus with its comedies and tragedies,
[Greek: e epi Lenaiô] with its tragedies and comedies, and the
City Dionysia with the chorus of boys, procession, comedies and
tragedies. Here are three different contests in three different
places; and the Anthesteria and Lenaea are included under
[Greek: e epi Lenaiô pompe]. The purpose of the law was to
preserve absolute security and freedom to both person and
property on the days of the festivals named. Not even an
overdue debt could be collected. In so sweeping a law the
Anthesteria could hardly fail to be included; for at no Attic
festival was there more absolute liberty and equality. In
Suidas[170] we learn that the revellers at the Chytri, going
about on carts, jested and made sport of the passers by, and
that later they did the same at the Lenaea. Thus he gives
another proof of the connection between the two festivals, and
shows that [Greek: o epi Lenaiô agôn] became a part of the
older Anthesteria after the invention of comedy, and that even
then the old custom was kept up. In Athenæus we find[17l] the
Page 71 Samian Lynceus sojourning in Athens and commiserated as passing
his time listening to the lectures of Theophrastus and seeing
the Lenaea and Chytri, in contrast to the lavish Macedonian
feasts of his correspondent. The latter in the same connection
says[172] that certain men, probably players, who had filled a
part in Athens at the Chytri, came in to amuse the guests. The
marriage which he is attending then took place after the
Chytri. It is not likely, therefore, that in "the Lenaea and
Chytri" he is referring to two festivals separated by a month
of time. He speaks, rather, of two acts of the same
celebration.

[Footnote 169: _Mid._ 10.]

[Footnote 170: SUIDAS, [Greek: ek tôn amaxôn sôômmata].]

[Footnote 171: ATHENÆUS, IV. p. 130.]

[Footnote 172: Ibid. III. 129.]

The frogs in Aristophanes claim the temenus [Greek: Limnais] and
speak of their song at the Chytri. The scholiast cites[173]
Philochorus, saying that the contests referred to were the
[Greek: chutrinoi].

A suspected passage in Diogenes Laertius declares (III 56) that
it was the custom to contend with tetralogies at four
festivals, the Dionysia, Lenaea, Panathenaea, and Chytri. If
the passage is worth anything, it adds new testimony that there
were dramatic representations at the Anthesteria. The Menander
of Alciphron, also, would hardly exclaim[174] over [Greek:
poious chutrous], unless the contest were one in which he, as
dramatist, could have a part.

No other of the extant dramas has been so much discussed in
connection with the question as the _Acharnians_. Those who
hold that the Lenaea and Anthesteria were entirely separate,
have affirmed that the play opens on the Pnyx in Athens, that
the scene changes to the country-house of Dicaeopolis in
Cholleidae, at the season of the country Dionysia in the month
Posideo. Later the time of the Lenaea in the month Gamelio is
represented. Finally the locality is again Athens at the
Anthesteria in Anthesterio. In fact, we are told, the poet has,
in the _Acharnians_, shown his true greatness by overleaping
all restraints of time and place and giving his fancy free
rein. But this is making the _Acharnians_ an isolated example
among the Greek plays which have come down to us. Changes of
scene are foreign to the nature of the Greek drama, as is
acknowledged by A. Miller.[175]

[Footnote 173: _Schol._ ARIST. _Frogs._ 218.]

[Footnote 174: _Alciphron Ep._ II. 3. 11.]

[Footnote 175: _Bühnenalt_., 161.]

That the beginning of the play is on the Pnyx, there is no
question. In v. 202, Dicaeopolis declares: "I will go in and
Page 72 celebrate the Country Dionysia." This is held to be a statement
of the actual time of year represented in this portion of the
play, and also to indicate the change of place from Athens to
the country. That the country festivals to the wine-god in the
different demes were held on different dates, we learn from the
fact that companies of actors went out from Athens to make the
tour of these provincial festivals.[176] We know, too, that
these rural celebrations were under charge of the
demarchs.[177] In the passage from the _Acharnians_ just cited,
there is no statement that this is the season when the demes
were accustomed to hold their annual Bacchic celebrations.
Rather, in his joy in his newly concluded peace, the hero
declares that he will _now_ hold this festival in honor of the
god of the vine. No surprise is felt at this exceptional date,
particularly as, by his statement below,[178] he has been
prevented for six years from holding the festival at its proper
season. This last passage, however, is the strongest authority
for a change of place in the action. Certainly, if the reading
is correct, in the light of all the remainder of the comedy we
should naturally translate: "in the sixth year, having come
into my deme, I salute you gladly." But we do no violence to
the construction if we say that [Greek: elthô es ton demon]
means "going
(_forth_) to my deme." Unquestionably up to the end of the
first choral ode at v. 236, the action has gone on in Athens.
But here, we are told, comes the change of place. In v. 202
Dicaeopolis has declared that he is "going in." What does he
enter but his house in the city? At v. 236 the chorus also is
in Athens. In v. 237, the voice of Dicaeopolis is heard from
within--his _country_ house, it is said; and in v. 238 the
chorus is as suddenly before this same house! Such rapid
changes might easily take place on a modern stage, but are of a
character to excite remark in an ancient theatre. If there was
a change here, the second scene must have represented
Cholleidae with the three houses of Dicaeopolis, Lamachus, and
Euripides; and the three must be in the same deme; for the
Bacchic procession of Dicaeopolis appears at v. 241, and is
broken up by the chorus at v. 280. As soon as Dicaeopolis, by
Page 73 his by-play, has obtained permission to plead his cause, he
turns (v. 394) to the house of Euripides to borrow the wardrobe
of one of the tragic heroes. Then, when his defense has divided
the chorus, the first half call upon the gorgon-helmeted
Lamachus (v. 566) to bear them aid, and that warrior appears
from his house.

[Footnote 176: HAIGH, _Attic Theatre_, p. 47.]

[Footnote 177: EHMICHEN, _Bühnenwesen_, s. 195.]

[Footnote 178: _Achar._, 266 f.]

Now the common enemy has prevented the celebration of the
Country Dionysia for six years. How is it possible, under such
circumstances, to conceive of Euripides as composing tragedies
in the country? How could the general Lamachus be living out of
the city in such a time of danger? Certainly the play itself
gives us authority that this scene also is in Athens. At v. 241
Dicaeopolis would go forth with his procession to hold the
rural Dionysia in his deme. Prevented from doing so, he is from
this on busy with the duties and pleasures of the Choes. His
altercation with the chorus and with Lamachus ended, he (v. 623
f.) announces that he will open a market for all Boeotians,
Megarians, and Peloponnesians. He sets up (v. 719) the bounds
of his markets, and appoints three "himantes" as agoranomi.
These officials are suggestive of those busy at the
Anthesteria.[179] The first customer, from Megara comes in
with: "Hail, agora in _Athens_" (v. 729), and brings for sale
pigs suitable for sacrifice at the Mysteries (v. 747 and 764).
The Lesser Mysteries came in Anthesterio first after the
Anthesteria.

[Footnote 179: MOMMSEN, _Heortologie v. Anthesteria._]

There is no change of place in the course of the action. The
scene, the Pnyx with the houses of Dicaeopolis, Lamachus, and
Euripides near by, remains the same. There is no indication of
a jump in time from Posideo to Gamelio, and again from Gamelio
to Anthesterio.

Amid all the preparations for the Anthesteria made in the play,
two statements cannot fail to attract attention. In v. 504 f.
the poet informs us that this is not the Greater Dionysia, when
strangers, tribute-bearers, and allies were present. It is the
contest at the Lenaeum. In v. 1150 f. the chorus frees its mind
concerning the miserly fashion in which Antimachus treated them
at a previous celebration of the Lenaea. Shall we say that the
poet, in order to speak of things present before the eyes of
Page 74 the Athenians, steps, in these two passages, entirely outside
the action of the play? By no means. The poet is dealing with a
vital issue. He is fighting against the ruinous war. The power
of his genius is shown by the masterly manner in which he uses
the moment which was present to his hearers. The victor at the
Choes sat among the spectators; the very walls of the theatre
had hardly ceased to resound with the din of the carousers.
Here, or elsewhere, there is mention of but one [Greek: epi
Lenaiô agôn], that is the Lenaea, or the dramatic contest at the
Anthesteria.

In fixing the date of the "Dionysia at the Lenaeum," we have
the authority of some interesting inscriptions which have been
collected in Dittenberger S.I.G. II. 374. They are the record
of moneys obtained from the sale of the hides of the victims
sacrificed at various festivals of the Attic year. A portion of
each of four separate lists has been preserved. In the first
and fourth of these, as they stand in Dittenberger, three
Dionysiac festivals are mentioned: that at Piraeus, the
Dionysia e? aste?, and the Dionysia [Greek: en astei]. The third
list ends with the Dionysia in Piræus. The remaining incription
mentions two Dionysiac festivals, the one at the Lenaeum, and
that e? aste?. The part of the record which should cover the
Dionysia at Piræus is wanting. The calendar order of all the
festivals mentioned is strictly followed.

Köhler in _C.I.A._, led by the other inscriptions found with
these four, says that the lists do not contain mention of all
the festivals at which public sacrifices of cattle were made in
that portion of the year covered by the inscriptions, but that
these are to be considered only as records of the hide-money
which was to be devoted to particular uses. As a matter of
fact, however, nearly all the public festivals of importance,
as well as some of less note, are included in these lists; and
it would be difficult to demonstrate that they do not contain a
complete record of the public hide-money for the portion of the
year in which these festivals fall.

In these inscriptions the peculiarity with reference to the
Dionysia is the same which we find in all other accounts which
seem to give a complete record of these festivals. Only three
are mentioned as held under public authority. Did the omission
Page 75 of the Lenaea and Anthesteria occur only in this case, we
might, following Köhler, admit that the hide-money from this
particular festival was not devoted to this special purpose,
and that for this reason the name did not appear in these
records. But since in no case are there more than three
mentioned; and since the third name is one which covers all
celebrations in honor of Dionysus at the Lenaeum, this
assumption cannot be granted. The important point, and one that
cannot be too strongly emphasized, is that neither in these nor
in any other inscription or official record is there any
mention of the Lenaea or Anthesteria as such. The official
language appears always to have been, as here: [Greek: Dionysia
epi Lenaiô] or: [Greek: e epi Lenaiô pompe], or, where the
dramatic contest alone was intended: [Greek: o epi Lenaiô agôn].
Once only in the 5th century[180] do we find [Greek: Lenaia]
used; and here it is synonymous with [Greek: o epi Lenaiô agôn].
Wilamowitz has well said that [Greek: lenaia] as a name of a
separate festival is an invention of the grammarians.
Aristophanes, in the passage from the _Acharnians_, shows that
this name may have been used commonly for the dramatic contest
at the Lenaeum, and we know from Thucydides that Anthesteria was
also used of the entire festival. It is impossible that in a
record like the hide-money inscriptions, the official title
[Greek: Dionysia epi Lenaiô] should be employed to cover two
festivals separated by an interval of a month.

[Footnote 180: _Acharnians_, 1155.]

But was the Anthesteria a state festival, at which public
sacrifices of cattle were made? The story of its institution by
Pandion shows that it was public from the beginning.
Aristophanes informs us[181] that it maintained this character;
for the Basileus awarded the prize at the Choes. The question
of sacrifice requires fuller treatment.

Suidas[182] and a scholiast[183] to Aristophanes quote from
Theopompus the story of the establishment of the Chytri. On the
very day on which they were saved, the survivors of the flood
introduced the celebration of this day of the Anthesteria by
cooking a potful of all sorts of vegetables, and sacrificing it
Page 76 to the Chthonian Hermes and those who had perished in the
waters. The scholiast adds that sacrifice was offered to no one
of the Olympian gods on this day.

[Footnote 181: _Acharnians_, 1225.]

[Footnote 182: SUIDAS, [Greek: chutroi].]

[Footnote 183: Schol. ARISTOPH., _Frogs_. 218.]

In Suidas we find a hint of the other ceremonies on the Chytri.
According to him, there were sacrifices to Dionysus as well as
to Hermes. This suggests that the Chytri was but one day of the
Anthesteria, and, though the worship of the departed may have
been the older portion of the celebration, it was later
overshadowed by the festivities in honor of the wine-god. As
the text of his argument in his oration against Midias,
Demosthenes cites four oracular utterances, two from Dodona,
the others probably from Delphi. In the first the god calls
upon the children of Erechtheus, as many as inhabit the city of
Pandion, to be mindful of Bacchus, all together throughout the
wide streets to return fit thanks to the Bromian, and crowned
with wreaths, to cause the odor of sacrifice to rise from the
altars. In this oracle, Athens is the city of Pandion, because
it was reported that under his rule the worship of Dionysus was
introduced into the city. This and the other commands from
Dodona and Delphi concerning Dionysus refer to the introduction
of the worship of the god; for in every one the statement is
absolute; there is no reference to a previous worship and a
backsliding on the part of the people, [Greek: knisan
bômoise] of the first oracle can refer only to a sacrifice of
animals. Stronger still is the statement in the fourth oracle
(from Dodona) where the command is given to fulfil sacred rites
([Greek: iere telein]) to Dionysus, and to sacrifice to Apollo
and to Zeus. ([Greek: Apollôni Apotropaiô Boun thusai ... Du
Ktesiô boun leucon].) The command "to mix bowls of wine and to
establish choral dances," in the second and fourth oracles,
serves as an explanatory comment on "return fit thanks to the
Bromian" in the first. "Let free men and slaves wear wreaths and
enjoy leisure for one day," must refer to the Pithoigia. In this
feast the slaves had a part, and enjoyed a holiday. Hence the
saying[184] "Forth, slaves, it is no longer the Anthesteria." In
obedience to the oracles then, public sacrifices could not have
been lacking at the Anthesteria. Therefore, this festival must
have been officially known as the Dionysia [Greek: epi Lenaiô].

[Footnote 184: [Greek: Thuraxe Kares ouket Anthesteria].]

Page 77 The dramatic contests at the Lenaeum, like those at the Greater
Dionysia, were undoubtedly preceded by sacrifices. The [Greek:
agôn epi Lenaiô] could hardly be separated from the Dionysia
[Greek: epi Lenaiô]. Therefore the hide-money inscriptions are
also authority that Lenaea and Anthesteria are but two
references to the same festival.

Thucydides, as we have seen,[185] knew of but two Dionysia in
Athens itself; those [Greek: en astei] and the Anthesteria. Of
these, using the comparative degree, he states that the latter
were the [Greek: archaiotera]. In his time the dramatic contests
[Greek: en Limnais] were in their glory, yet he mentions but one
celebration in this locality. So here also we must conclude that
Anthesteria was the name of the whole festival which
Harpocration tells us was called [Greek: pithoigia, choes] and
[Greek: chutroi]; that there was, in the flourishing period of
the drama, no separate festival Lenaea, but that the [Greek:
agôn] at the Chytri came to be so called to distinguish it from
that at the City Dionysia.

[Footnote 185: II. 15.]

It is interesting in connection with Thucydides' statement that
the Ionian Athenians in his day still held the Anthesteria, to
examine the record of this festival in the Ionic cities of Asia
Minor. To be sure we have very little information concerning
the details of this celebration among them; but we do find two
statements of importance. _C.I.G._ 3655 mentions certain honors
proclaimed at the Anthesteria in the theatre in Cyzicus.
Comparison with similar observances at Athens indicates that
theatrical representations were to follow. _C.I.G._ 3044,
[Greek: tôgônos Anthesterioisin], refers to Teos. From the
constant use of [Greek: agôn] referring to theatrical
performances in connection with the festivals of Dionysus the
word can hardly mean anything else here. So these two
inscriptions, referring to two colonies, add their testimony
that dramas were presented also at the Anthesteria in Athens.

Finally, Aristotle's _Politeia_ falls into line with the
hide-money records. In § 56, the statement is made that the
Archon Eponymos had the Megala Dionysia in charge. In the
following section, the Archon Basileus is said to have control,
not of the Lemaea or of the Anthesteria--for neither is
mentioned by name,--but of the Dionysia [Greek: epi Lenaiô]. The
Basileus and the Epimeletae together directed the procession;
Page 78 but the basileus alone controlled the [dramatic] contest. Here
again, it is inconceivable that either Anthesteria or Lenaea
should be omitted; so both must be included under Dionysia
[Greek: epi Lenaiô].

We thus find our position supported by inscriptions of
undoubted authority, and by a list of names ranging in time
from before Aristophanes to the 9th century A.D., and in weight
from Thucydides and Aristotle to the Scholiasts.

If the Limnae were not by the existing theatre of Dionysus,
where were they? Not on the south side of the Acropolis, as a
careful examination of the ground proves. In our study of the
theatre-precinct, we found that the earth here in antiquity was
at a much higher level than at present, while immediately
outside the wall of this precinct to the south, the ground was
considerably lower than it is now. The present height of the
theatre-precinct is 91.4 m. above the sea level; of the Odeum,
97.7 metres; of the Olympieum, 80.8 m.; of the ground within
the enclosure of the Military Hospital due south from the
theatre, 75 m.; of Callirrhoe in the Ilissus opposite the
Olympieum, 59 m.; of the Ilissus bed opposite the theatre, 50
m. From the present level of the theatre to the bed of the
stream there is a fall of more than 41 m.; the fall is about
equally rapid along the entire extent of the slope to the south
of the Acropolis, while the soil is full of small stones.
Surely, it would take more than the oft-cited handful of rushes
to establish a swamp on such a hillside. We have, however,
excellent geological authority that from the lay of the land
and the nature of the soil, there never could have been a swamp
there. The Neleum inscription[186] can be held to prove nothing
further than that, as Mr. Wheeler suggests, the drain from the
existing theatre ran through this precinct. We must therefore
seek the Limnae elsewhere.

[Footnote 186: _Am. Journal of Archæology_, III. 38-48.]

We know that from time immemorial the potters plied their trade
in the Ceramicus, because here they found the clay suitable for
their use. The so-called Theseum is 68.6 m. above the
sea-level; the present level at the Piræus railroad station,
54.9 m.; at the Dipylum (and here we are on the ancient level),
only 47.9 m. Out beyond the gate comes a long slope, extending
Page 79 till the Cephissus is reached, at an elevation of 21 m. So the
Dipylum is over 43 m. below the present level of the
theatre-precinct; and it is the lowest portion of the ancient
city. Here, therefore, in the northwest part of the city, is
where we should expect from the lay of the land and the nature
of the soil to find the marshes. Out in the open plain beyond
this quarter of the city to-day, after every heavy rain, the
water collects and renders the ground swampy. With the Dipylum
as a starting-point, there is no difficulty in supposing that,
in very ancient times, the Limnae extended to Colonus Agoraeus,
to the east into the hollow which became a portion of the agora
in the Ceramicus, and to the west into the depression between
Colonus Agoraeus and the Hill of the Nymphs. The exact extent
and character of the low ground in these two directions can
only be determined by excavating the ancient level, which, as
it appears to me, has not been reached by the deep new railroad
cutting running across this section north of the so-called
Theseum.

The excavations of Dr. Dörpfeld between Colonus Agoraeus and
the Areopagus, have shown that the ruins and the ancient street
at this point have been buried to a great depth by the débris
washed down from the Pnyx. Unfortunately, these diggings have
not been extensive enough to restore the topography of the west
and southwest slopes of Colonus Agoraeus.

We have abundant notices, besides those already given, of a
precinct or precincts of Dionysus in this section. Hesychius
speaks[187] of a house in Melite where the tragic actors
rehearsed. Photius repeats[188] the statement almost word for
word. Philostratus mentions[189] a council-house of the artists
near the gate of the Ceramicus. Pausanias (I. 2. 5), just after
entering the city, sees within one of the stoas the house of
Poulytion which was dedicated to Dionysus Melpomenus. He speaks
next of a precinct with various [Greek: agalmata], and among
them the face of the demon of unmixed wine, Cratus. Beyond this
precinct was a building with images of clay, representing, among
Page 80 other scenes, Pegasus, who brought the worship of Dionysus to
Athens. This building also was plainly devoted to the cult of
the wine-god. In fact, the most venerable traditions in Athens,
with reference to Dionysus, centre here. All the various
representations here are connected with the oldest legends.
Pausanias (I. 3. 1.) says that the Ceramicus had its very name
from Ceramus, a son of Dionysus and Ariadne.

[Footnote 187: HESYCH. [Greek: Meliteôn oikos].]

[Footnote 188: PHOTIUS. [Greek: Meliteôn oikos].]

[Footnote 189: PHILOST. _Vit. Soph._ p. 251.]

We have already seen that an orchestra was first established in
the agora. Timæus adds[190] that this was a conspicuous place
where were the statues of Harmodius and Aristogiton, which we
know to have stood in the agora.

The scholiast to the _De Corona_ of Demosthenes[191] says that
the "hieron" of Calamites, an eponymous hero, was close to the
Lenaeum. Hesychius words this statement differently, saying
that [the statue of] the hero himself was near the Lenaeum. We
know that the statues of eponymous heroes were set up in the
agora. Here again the new Aristotle manuscript comes to our
support, telling us (_Pol_. c. 3) that the nine archons did not
occupy the same building, but that the Basileus had the
Bucoleum, near the Prytaneum, and that the meeting and marriage
of the Basileus' wife with Dionysus still took place there in
his time. That the Bucoleum must be on the agora, and that the
marriage took place in Limnaean-Lenaean territory, have long
been accepted. The location of the Limnae to the northwest at
the Acropolis must thus be considered as settled.

Dr. Dörpfeld maintains that the ancient orchestra and the later
Agrippeum theatre near by, mentioned by Philostratus,[192] lay
in the depression between the Pnyx and the Hill of the Nymphs,
but considerably above the foot of the declivity.

[Footnote 190: TIM. _Lex. Plat._]

[Footnote 191: DEMOS, de Corona, 129, scholium.]

[Footnote 192: PHILOSTRATUS, _Vit. Soph._, p. 247.]

From the passage of the _Neaera_ quoted above we know that the
old orchestra could not have been in the sacred precinct of
Dionysus Limnaeus, for this was opened but once in every year,
on the 12th of Anthesterio,[193] while the Chytri and therefore
[Greek: o epi Lenaiô] were held on the following day. This
involves too that the Pithoigia as well as the "contests at the
Page 81 Lenaeum" could not have been celebrated in the sanctuary [Greek:
en Limnais], though portions of each of these divisions of the
Anthesteria were held in the Lenaeum, which contained the
Limnaea _hieron_.

[Footnote 193: See also THUCYDIDES above.]

The Lenaeum must lie [Greek: en Limnais], and therefore on the
low ground. A passage in Isæus (8. 35) is authority that the
sanctuary of Dionysus [Greek: en Limnais] was [Greek: en astei];
_i.e._, within the Themistoclean walls. So we have it located
within narrow limits, somewhere in the space bounded on the east
by the eastern limit of the agora in Ceramicus, south by the
Areopagus, west by the Pnyx and the Hill of the Nymphs, and
north by the Dipylum.

From the neighborhood of the Dionysiac foundations and
allusions mentioned by Pausanias immediately upon entering the
city, we may be justified in locating this ancient cult of
Dionysus [Greek: en Limnais] still more exactly, and placing it
somewhere on or at the foot of the southwestern slope of
Colonus Agoraeus. More precise evidence of its site we may
obtain from future excavation: though as this region lay
outside the Byzantine city-walls, the ruins may have been more
or less completely swept away.

In view of its position outside of the gate of the ancient
Pelasgic city, by the wine-press, we understand why the contest
in the Lenaeum was called a contest [Greek: kat agrous]. Because
enclosed later within the walls of Themistocles, the Limnae
were also referred to as [Greek: en astei]. Situated as they
were in the territory of the agora, we see why, although the
Archon Eponymus directed the City Dionysia, the Archon Basileus
presided[194] over the Anthesteria, and therefore over "the
contest at the Lenaeum"; and the agoranomi, the superintendents
of the market-place, whose duties were confined to the agora,
[Greek: epetelesan tous chutrous].[195]

[Footnote 194: POLLUX VIII. 89, 90. (ARISTOT. [Greek: Athes
Politeia].)]

[Footnote 195: MOMMSEN, _Heortologie_, p. 352 note.]

In closing, it may not be without interest to review the
picture presented of the most ancient Athens. Behind the
nine-gated Pelasgic fortifications lay the city, with its
temples, its palace, "the goodly house of Erechtheus," and its
dwellings for the people, remains of which can even now be seen
within the Pelasgicum. Immediately without the gate stood the
Pythium, the Olympieum, the temple of Ge _Kourotrophos_, and
Page 82 other foundations. Directly before the entrance, some two
hundred paces from the city-walls, was the spring Enneacrounus,
whose water was most esteemed by the citizens. Not far from
this was the wine-press. Here the people built the first altar,
the first temple, the first orchestra, and instituted the first
festival in honor of the wine-god, long before the new
Dionysian cult was brought in from Eleutherae; and here for
centuries were raised every year about the orchestra tiers of
wooden seats in preparation for the annual dramatic contests.

JOHN PICKARD,
American School of Classical Studies,
Athens, 1891.

Page 83

CORRESPONDENCE.

HUNTING DELLA ROBBIA MONUMENTS IN ITALY.

_To the Managing Editor of the American Journal of Archæology:_

_Dear Sir_: Having made a special study of the altarpiece by
Andrea Delia Robbia in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, my
desire was aroused to examine all the glazed terracotta
sculptures of the Delia Robbia school, which form such an
important part of Italian Renaissance sculpture. So I sailed
for Italy on the 6th of last May, taking with me a good camera
and a sufficient number of celluloid films, knowing beforehand
that there were many of these monuments which had never been
photographed and were consequently imperfectly known. An
investigation of this character, which takes one over the
mountains and into the valleys, from one end of Italy to the
other, may well be described as a hunting expedition; and,
though requiring severe labor and constant sacrifices, has in
it a considerable element of sport. Although Dr. Bode, of
Berlin in various writings has shown a more discriminating
knowledge of this subject than other writers, nevertheless the
work of Cavallucci and Molinier, _Les Della Robbia_, was more
useful to me as a guide and starter. They had catalogued as
many as 350 of these monuments in Italy, and briefly described
them. But their attributions were uncertain. Prof. Cavallucci
told me in Florence that unless he had a document in hand
indicating the authorship of a monument he felt great
hesitation in making attributions. And I could see, the more I
studied his work, that he considered it more important to
discover documents than to observe monuments. Here then was a
great opportunity to see a large series of monuments, to
compare them and allow them to tell their own story in regard
to their origin. Having with the aid of geographical
dictionaries and government maps located these 350 monuments, I
made up my mind to see as many of them as possible. This was no
easy task, as they were widely distributed and, as I
progressed, the number of uncatalogued monuments constantly
increased. I can give here but a bare outline of my trip.
Starting at Genoa, I went to Massa and Pisa and Lucca; from
Lucca following the valley of the Serchio as far north as
Page 84 Castelnuovo. Here I found a fine series of unphotographed
monuments, and began to learn that works of the same author and
period are very likely to be found in neighboring towns,
especially when lying along a valley. Similarly, starting from
Pracchia above Pistoia I studied another series of
unphotographed monuments at Gavinana, Lizano and Cutigliano.
These monuments may prove to be of importance in solving the
problem of the authorship of the celebrated Pistoian frieze.

At Prato the monuments of this class have been photographed,
and are well known. Florence and its immediate surroundings
contain the most important works of Luca and of Giovanni Delia
Robbia, but is very poor in examples of Andrea Delia Robbia.
Hence the Florentines have a very inadequate notion of Andrea's
work, which must be studied at Arezzo, La Verna, Prato, Siena
and Viterbo. At Florence I was fortunate enough to find an
unpublished document ascribing one of the medallions at Or San
Michele to Luca Delia Robbia. Two of these medallions by the
elder Luca had never been photographed before, but have now
been taken by Alinari. So far as I know, the monuments at
Impruneta, ten miles from Florence, are unknown to students of
this subject. Three of them have been photographed by Brogi,
who gives no attributions. They are not mentioned by Cavallucci
nor by Dr. Bode; yet they are amongst the very finest works by
Luca Delia Robbia. In the private collection of the Marquis
Frescobaldi I recognized a fine Luca Delia Robbia, and in that
of the Marquis Antinori an excellent example of Giovanni's
work. Less important discoveries made in this region are too
numerous to mention. At Empoli, not many miles from Florence,
are several uncatalogued monuments and a fine example of a tile
pavement, which I identified as Delia Robbia work. I then
visited Poggibonsi and Volterra and Siena, and satisfied myself
that the beautiful coronation of the Virgin at the Osservanza
outside Siena is a chef-d'oeuvre of Andrea Delia Robbia. From
Asciano I visited Monte San Savino, Lucignano and Foiano and
took photographs of some fine, unrecognized works of Andrea
Delia Robbia. Another starting point was Montepulciano for a
long drive to Radicofani, a weird Etruscan site, whose churches
contained half a dozen unphotographed Delia Robbias, then to S.
Fiora, whose monuments have a greater reputation than they
deserve, to S. Antimo, a fine Cistercian ruin, and Montalcino.
At Perugia I photographed the monuments of Benedetto Buglione,
thus laying the basis for a study of his works, a number of
which may now be identified. In the case of his pupil, Santi
Buglione, I was less successful, as the chapel at Croce
dell'Alpe, which contained two authenticated altarpieces of his
Page 85 seems to have disappeared, not only from sight, but from the
memory of the inhabitants of the neighborhood. So the
reconstruction of his style involves a wider stretch of the
scientific imagination. At Acquapendente I found a unique
glazed terracotta altar signed by Jacopo Benevento, at Bolsena
took the first photograph of several monuments, and at Viterbo
had photographs made of the important lunettes by Andrea Delia
Robbia. At Rome I penetrated the mysteries of the Vatican and
discovered there a signed monument by Fra Lucas, son of Andrea
Delia Robbia, and found in the Industrial Museum several
monuments, which I identified as by the same author. Hitherto
Fra Lucas has been known only as the maker of tile pavements.
At Montecassiano there is a large monument concerning which a
document has been published in many Italian journals, ascribing
the authorship to Fra Mattia Delia Robbia. This has been
published from a drawing, and my photograph is the first taken
from the original monument. On the basis of a very imperfect
acquaintance with his style, other monuments are being freely
attributed to Fra Mattia. In the Marche there is a series of
terracotta altarpieces attributed to Pietro Paolo Agabiti, a
local painter of the XVI century. These attributions are purely
hypothetical, and the hypothesis that Fra Mattia might have
been their author is now being tested by local archaeologists.
I travelled over a large portion of this province, seeing some
important monuments, but without making discoveries of
importance. Umbria in general proved even less fruitful, the
terracotta monuments being of poor quality and showing little
or no Delia Robbia influence.

A very interesting region comprises Città di Castello, Borgo
San Sepolcro, Arezzo and the Casentino. Here Andrea Delia
Robbia left his impress strongly marked, especially in the very
beautiful altarpieces at La Verna. As we approach Florence we
find more by Giovanni and his school, especially noteworthy
being the monuments at Galatrona and San Giovanni.

When obliged to return home there remained very few known Delia
Robbia monuments in Italy which I had not visited; almost
everywhere I found more than had been already catalogued, and
my collection of photographs of these monuments is undoubtedly
the most complete in existence. Already considerable knowledge
has been gained of the differences of style, which
characterized the various members of the school, as I hope to
show in a series of articles for the _American Journal of
Archæology_. In order to complete this work I shall still have
to hunt further in the museums and private collections of
Spain, Portugal, France, England, Germany and Austria. There
are a few Delia Robbia monuments in this country, of which one
Page 86 is in Princeton, one in New York, one in Newport, R.I., and
several in Boston.

Beside the direct pleasures of the chase and the bagging of
game, there are many incidental pleasures in such a hunting
expedition.

One learns of the whereabouts of other monuments, acquires a
knowledge of the country, of the language, of the people and of
all the local surroundings that help explain to us the
significance of the past.

Yours sincerely,

ALLAN MARQUAND.
Guernsey Hall, Princeton, N.J., Dec, 27, 1892.

Page 87

REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS.

MAXIME COLLIGNON. _Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque._ Tome I.
Firmin-Didot et Cie. Paris, 1892.

This is the first volume of what is likely to prove for some
time to come the best general history of Greek sculpture. The
personal inspection of monuments made during his connection
with the French school at Athens, and his training as a
lecturer at the Faculté des Lettres at Paris, have given M.
Collignon an admirable training for the production of this
book. We see in it also a hearty appreciation of more
specialized work. This is essentially a history from the
archæaeological standpoint, the monuments of Greek sculpture,
rather than written documents, being assumed as fundamental
material. In this respect he represents a more advanced stage
of archæological science than Overbeck. Again we feel in
reading the volume the constant assumption that the history of
Greek sculpture is a continuous evolution. Even when the
development is checked, as by the Dorian invasion, the element
of continuity is emphasized. The Dorians construct new forms
out of the elements which they find already established in
Greece. Thus the connecting links evincing the continuous flow,
are not lost sight of when he comes to treat of the different
schools. This regard for the general conditions of development
tempers his judgment and prevents him from formulating or
approving of irrelevant and improbable hypotheses. This is an
admirable temper for one who writes a general history. We do
not find here remote analogies and startling theories. There is
an even flow to the narrative which indicates to us that the
knowledge of Greek sculpture is now more connected, and that
many gaps have been filled in the list during a few years. Yet
M. Collignon is not a literary trimmer, steering a middle
course between opposing theories. He merely seeks for near and
probable causes, and is not carried away by resemblances which
have little historical value. His method is fundamentally the
historical method, the four books which compose the first
volume treating of the Primitive Periods, Early Archaic, and
Advanced Archaic Periods, and The Great Masters of the V
century. It is unnecessary to give here the general analysis of
the book, as it does not differ essentially from other similar
Page 88 histories, but we may notice the systematic method with which
he treats his material. At the opening of each new period he
briefly notes the general historical conditions, then having
classed the monuments by schools he considers the
characteristics of a few representative examples, and finally
endeavors to summarize the style of the school or period. In
doing this he is handling considerable new material which has
not yet found its way into general histories. Even to
specialists, this general treatment of a subject with which
they may be familiar in detail, is valuable. The book is a
summary and index to a large number of monographs scattered in
French, German, Greek and English periodicals, and we find it
much more convenient to have these references at the foot of
each page rather than gathered together at the end of the
volume as in Mrs. Mitchell's excellent history. Of course it is
no easy matter to distinguish sharply the characteristics of
different schools in a country as small as Greece, where there
was so much interaction, and the formulas, which are laid down
now, may require correction in a few years. Still the attempt
is well made, and is helpful in consolidating our knowledge.

In a work of whose method we cordially approve, the defects, if
there be any, are likely to be in the way of omission of
material or under-valuation of that which is taken into
consideration. In the direction of omission we find that
practically no use whatever has been made of Cyprus as a school
of archaic Greek art, yet there is considerable material for
this in European museums as well as in the Metropolitan museum
in New York. In unduly estimating the value of the material in
hand, we find here and there more influence attributed to the
Phoenicians, than we should be inclined to allow. For example
(p. 43,) the ceiling at Orchomenos, is explained as Phoenician
because of the rosettes, and the same design upon Egyptian
ceilings at Thebes is explained as Phoenician also. Evidently
M. Collignon has not yet learned the grammar of the Egyptian
lotus. We commend him to Prof. Goodyear. He is also in error in
ascribing the first use of the term "lax-archaic" to Brunn's
article in the _Muth. Ath._ vii. p. 117, for it held an
important place in Semper's classification of Doric monuments
made three years earlier. But these are minor matters. The book
is abundantly illustrated, having twelve excellent plates in
lithograph and photogravure, and two hundred and seventy-eight
in the tone process and photoengraving. We regret that the tone
process had not been more extensively used, as the drawings do
not and cannot give a sufficiently full impression of the
objects. However, is it quite proper that the maker of a tone
process plate should sign it as is done here _Petit sculpsit_?

A.M.
Page 89

HEINRICH-BRUNN. _Griechische Götterideale in ihren Formen
erlüutert._ 8vo. pp. VIII, 110. München, Verlagsanstalt für
Kunst und Wissenschaft. 1892.