AYP Vol. II: Attic Festivals, Pt. 3 (The Most Likely)

ACADEMIA TITLE PAGES IV ATTIC FESTIVALS, PT III TIME-RECKONING DEVICES (?) THOSE CELEBRATIONS MOST LIKELY DATED Chapter from the forthcoming Athenian Year Primer Vol. II. The excerpt presupposes familiarity with the methodologies and arguments presented in AYP. Following the proposition made and effort began during the two previous two Chapters (also posted to academia.edu), I continue analyses for dates of ancient Athenian festivals and large public sacrifices. I tackle here those celebrations whose dates have become established with a strong but not fool proof certainty. I do not engage in yet another examination of individual festivals (far too many brilliant studies beyond my capabilities already exist) but rather remain interested solely in the dates ancient Athenians celebrated them. Any such discussions that emerge focus on the festival’s logistics. My proposal: the legions of public, private, monthly, annual, large, and small festivals, sacrifices, and rituals also served as time-reckoning devices. Festivals, in short, established “order.” 1) Show that ancient Greeks across the ancient Aegean proved far more astronomically savvy than currently appreciated. 2) The days ancient Athenians celebrated their festivals needed fixed by the Moon, Sun, and Stars, so society could function. 3) Continue to populate the Civil Calendar with more festivals also noting their Moon Phases and Seasons. Goal: try and uncover if patterns existed to their distribution 4) In this Chapter, furthermore, I also add to my argument that ancient Attic Solar Days simply could not have reckoned sunset to sunset (as widely believed) but rather ancient Athenians counted days sunrise to sunrise using the Asklepieia, Epidauria, and Eleusinian Mysteries as important examples. Note: this excerpt makes repeated references to other Chapters. Drafts for many of these also exist here on academia.edu. THE ATHENIAN YEAR PRIMER ATTIC TIME-RECKONING AND THE JULIAN CALENDAR VOLUME II CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX WESTPHALIA PRESS WASHINGTON D.C Copyright © 2024 by Christopher Planeaux. Published in the United States of America by Westphalia Press. Washington D.C.. Manufactured in the United States of America. First Edition, 2024. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing from the author. Within the United States of America and the United Kingdom, exceptions are allowed in respect of any fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under United States Copyright Law. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired-out, or otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser without the author’s prior consent Text typeset in Bookman Old-style. Footnotes typeset in Palatino. Endnotes typeset in Palatino Linotype Ancient Greek text typeset LS Odyssea. Ancient Greek notes typeset LS Payne Condensed. Ancient Greek typesets available from Linguist’s Software, Inc. Cover Illustrations: Background: The Celestial Sphere National Aeronautics and Space Administraion Insert: IG I3 369 frag. k (=IG I2 324 frag. k) Superimposed with Plate I restoration from B. Meritt’s The Athenian Calendar ISBN: [Pending] CHAPTER XX ATTIC FESTIVALS, PT. III Most Likely Dated City Dionysia, Rural Dionysiai, Epidauria (Asklepeia II), Niketeria, Olympieia, Pandia, and Greater & Lesser Panathenaiai. The month of the year and a relatively solid foundation for the day(s) of the month ancient Athenians celebrated these festivals has survived. A communis opinio exists to some degree(s) but not without detractors. With this section, direct and exact evidence regarding individual festivals begins to thin. City Dionysia = th/̀ ojgdovh/ iJstamevnou tou` jElafhboliw`no~ mhnov~ = 8 Elaph (Aesch. 3.66-67); Dionusivwn hJmevrai~ ojlivgai~ (schol. Aesch. 3.67); au|tai aiJ spondaiv ejgevnonto teleutw`nto~ tou` ceimw`no~ a[ma h\ri, ejk Dionusivwn eujqu;~ tw`n ajstikw`n (Thuc. 5.20.3) Rural Dionysiai = Posidew`no~ de; ta; kat´ ajgrouv~ Dionuvsia (Theophr. Char. 3.5); eJorth; … mhno;~ Poseidew`no~ (schol. Pl. Resp. 475d; schol. Aesch. 1.43) = Pos multimodus Epidauria (Asklepieia II) = jEpidaurivoi~ (IG II2 3457); toi`~ te jAsklhpieivoi~] kai; jEpidaurivoi~ (IG II2 974; SEG 18.26); th`~ tw/̀ jAsklhpiw/̀ gignomevnh~, o{tan oijkourw`si muvstai (Ath. Pol. 56.4) = 17 Boid Niketeria = ta; nikhthvria eJorth;n tauvthn wJ~ tou` Poseidw`no~ uJpo; th`~ jAqhna`~ (Procl. In Ti. 53d); deutevran tou` Bohdromiw`no~ hJmevran ejxairou`men (Plut. Mor. 489b, 741b) = 2 Boid CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III Olympieia = hJmevra mhno;~ Mounuciw`no~ ejnavth ejpi; devka (Plut. Vit. Phoc. 37.1) = 19 Moun Pandia = eJorthv ti~ jAqhvnsi meta; ta; Dionuvsia ajgomevnh (Phot. s.v. Pavndia); ejkklhsivan ejn Dionuvsou th/̀ uJsteraiva tw`n Pandivwn (Dem. 21.8) = 17 or 18 Elaph Greater & Lesser Panathenaiai = JE⟨ka⟩tombaiw`no~ mhno;~ trivth/ ajpiovnto~ (schol. Pl. Resp. 327a) = Hek 27 (H) / 28 (F) Notes: placing some of these festivals here obviously represent judgment calls based on pressure applied to the surviving evidence. Two of the festivals, City Dionysia and the Panathenaia, for instance, lack solid testimony on numbers of days involved. This limitation on the former festival affects placement of the Pandia. The Niketeria, moreover, possesses a serious oddity with regard to its description, and Rural Dionysiai represent not a single gathering but rather a series of local festivities held in numerous Attic dh`moi throughout a single Civil Month. The City Dionysia (Dionuvsia tw`n megavlwn or Dionuvsia ta; ajstikav or Dionuvsia ejn a[stei) emerges as the largest or at least the longest running festival considered, i.e., possessing a continuous string of consecutive days. Studies on this festival prove legion, and, once again, I do not wish to reinvent the wheel. 34 The issue at hand sits solely with dates celebrated. Thoukydides refers to the City Dionysia when his narrative approaches the “Peace of Nikias:” a{ma h\ri tou` ejpigignomevnou qevrou~ eujqu;~ ejkeceirivan ejpoihssanto ejniauvsion (4.117.1: “in the spring of the coming summer [the Lakedaimonians and Athenians] made an armistice lasting one year”). It took effect “that very day” (a[rcein de; thvnde th;n hJmevran) by “show of hands” (ejkeceirivan) on tetravda ejpi; devka tou` jElafhboliw`no~ mhnov~ = 14 Elaph (4.118.10). The armistice then extended into the following summer through the Pythian Games (tou` d j ejpigignomevnou qevrou~ aiJ me;n ejniauvsioi spondai; dielevlunto mevcri Puqivwn: 5.1.1). The “final peace” came into existence jElafhboliw`no~ mhno;~ e{kth/ fqivnonto~ … teleutw`nto~ tou` ceimw`no~ a{ma h\ri, ejk Dionusivwn eujqu;~ tw`n ajstikw`n = 24 Elaph (H) (“month Elaphebolion 6th Day Waning … come the end of winter now spring by Dionysia of the City directly;” 5.19.2, 5.20.1). a For purposes of this exercise, assuming the “final treaty” took effect at dawn the day after the vote in the ejkklhsiva (i.e., eJbdovmh fqivnonto~ or 23 Elaph [H] ), and, further, that the ejkklhsiva convened the fifth day after summoned by the boulhv (= ejnavth ejpi; a) For a more thorough anlaysis of these passages, see Chap. XX, pp. xxx-xxx. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III devka or 19 Elaph [H] ), then the terminus ante quem for the City Dionysia becomes 18 Elaph (i.e., on the assumption the boulhv did not convene during the festival). One can simply strike the 18th as a public festival day, since Aiskhines reveals the ejkklhsiva at one point met ojgdovh/ ejpi; devka in the Theatre of Dionysos (ejn Dionuvsou). He notes further that it convened eujqu;~ meta; ta; Dionuvsia ta; ejn a[stei (2.61, 3.68). b The clarification introduces the Pandia. Demosthenes quotes the law that tou;~ prutavnei~ [must] poiei`n ejkklhsivan ejn Dionuvsou th/̀ uJsterpaiva/ tw`n Pandivwn (21.8). The timeline seems quite clear (pace SCCAY 137 & DFA2 65, 68): City Dionysia → Pandia → ejkklhsiva Theatre of Dionysos. Consequently, working back from the ejkklhsiva, it (by law) convened 18 Elaph in the Theatre of Dionysos the day following the Pandia (17 Elaph), which, in turn, “immediately” or “directly” followed (the final day of) the City Dionysia = 16 Elaph. The obvious question now becomes when this chain started. The previous Chapter already covered that Asklepieia, which fell the same day as oJ proagwvn of the City Dionysia = th/̀ ojgdovh/ iJstamevnou tou` jElafhboliw`no~ mhnov~ (Aesch. 3.67). The scholiast adds that ejgivgnonto pro; tw`n megavlwn Dionusivwn hJmevrai~ ojlivgai~ e[mprosqen … o} eJtoivmw~ proagw;n kalei`tai. How to interpret ojlivgai~ hJmevrai~ requires reasoning from indirect evidence, since the phrase can apply to a highly malleable range, which repeatedly proves irritatingly vague and broad. Rather detailed arguments, which need not repeat here, have, for the most part, settled on 10 Elaph being City Dionysia Day 1. 35 To support the date further, I would draw attention to IG I3 6B lines 36-47 (= IG I2 6, 9 = SEG 61.44 [C33] = LSS 3 = GIBM I.2 = I.Eleusis 19 = GHI 109 = Fornara 75): ... toi`si de; ojl eivzosi muste rivoisin ta;~ [s] ponda;~ ei\na[i] to` Gamelio`no ~ meno;~ ajpo; di] [c]omeniva~ ka[i;] b) Aiskhenes stresses Demosthenes called back-to-back ejkklhsivai (18 & 19 Elaph) but that the (and I read him to mean “latter”) assembly kai; to; me;n tw`n summavcwn dovgma keleuvei … uJpe;r eijrhvnh~ movnon uJma`~ bouleuvsasqai (2.61, also 3.68). The singular agenda item implies the ejkklhsiva held a short meeting. For IG II3 1, 1279 (= Agora 16.265) see Chap. XX, p. xxx. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III to;n jAnqeste[r] [i]o`na kai; to` jEl afebolio`no~ mevcri dekavte ~ histamevno: --k.t.l. The truce (armistice, “peace”) <<for the Mysteries at Agrai>> began Full Moon Gamelion and ended Day 10 Elaphebolion. As with the Eleusinian Mysteries, this effectively meant the armistice lasted 54± solar days. c For purposes here, moreover, the truce ends when the City Dionysia begins and in all likelihood began when the Lenaia had ended (see Probably Dated s.vv. “Mysteries of Agrai” and “Lenaia”). Returning to Asklepieia (I) for a moment, Ancient Athenians established festivities to unfold on the same day as the City Dionysia’s proagwvn. The latter had seemingly represented nothing more than a series of preliminary obligations before the festival «proper» could begin (e.g., DFA2 67). Consequently, when ancient Athenians elected to overlap the already existing activities with the procession and sacrifice to Asklepios, the dual but separate rituals did not conflict thus do not appear unusual. d In any case, ancient Athenians rapidly established two sanctuaries to Asklepios, one in Peiraieus (on the southwest slope of Mounykhia Hill) and, inside the following year, another in Athens (on the south side of the Akropolis). 36 Each shrine held annual sacrifices, and both appear to have grown quite popular quite quickly. Each nonetheless remained under private management until some point early-4th Century BCE. e In short, both annual offerings to Asklepios had (almost certainly) morphed into full-blown ancient Attic festivals inside fifty years. Additionally, sometime post 328/7 BCE (e.g., IG II3 1, 359 = IG II2 354) and ante 137/6 BCE (e.g., IG II2 974-976) both Asklepieiai added pannucivda~ to their respective repertoires. The immediate concern is not when (exactly) these additions took c) See previous Chapter, p. xxx n ee.. d) Within three centuries, the introduction of more sacrifices to Asklepios followed a similar pattern. By 163/2 BCE, a third set coincided with the annual Sacrifice to Zeus Soter (IG II2 783.6-8). Previous Chap. pp. xxx-xxx. e) IG II2 4355: [Thlevmac]o~ se iJevrwse jAssklhpiw`i hjde; oJmobwvmoi~|prw`to~ iJdrusavmeno~ qusivai~ qeivai~ uJpoqhvkai~ vs IG II2 47 (= LSS 11): e[doxen tw`i dhvmwi: jAqhnovdw[po~] ei\pen: peri; w|n oj iJe|reu;~ levgei oJ tou` jAsklhpio` Eujquvdhmo~, ejyhfivsq|ai tw`i dhvmwi: Originally, the cult shared its altar (in Athens) with other deities, and Telemakhos (the priest in charge) could (apparently) draw-up rules without consulting oJ dh`mo~. The arrangement, however, had changed by the time Euthydemos held the priesthood, since the dh`mo~ now established the rules for the qusiva, eJorth`~, and the pomphv. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III place, but rather that both festivals (Asklepieia & Epidauria) possessed enough “breathing room” on the Archontic Calendar to incorporate all-night celebrations. In other words, neither festival should conflict with or, at the very least, “bleed into” either the City Dionysia or the Eleusinian Mysteries. Specifically, in the case of Asklepieia (I), its pannuciv~ did not end the same dawn the opening ceremonies of the City Dionysia began. IG II3 1, 908 (= Agora 16.188 = I.6096 = Hesperia 23.4 [1954] no. 183), a well-known inscription regarding ancient Athenian calendars, also supports 10 Elaph. The proposed reasoning remains solid for [ej]navth~ prutaneiva~ … jElafhboliw`no[~]|[ej]navtei iJstamevnou tetavrtei ejmbolimwi, eJbd[ov]|[m]ei kai; ejk[os]tei` th`~ prut[a]neiva~ = (9 + 94) or 9e´ Elaph (= [actual] 13 Elaph) = Pryt. IX.27, i.e., inserting four extra solar days 8 ↔ 10 Elaph. f Put another way, ancient Athenians probably did not perform the opening ceremonies of the City Dionysia five times or hold them 9 Elaph, pause four days, only then to continue with the festival. Moreover, I have not uncovered an instance where an annual public festival in fact opened on an embolismic day. I would not, on the other hand, reject that three or four days of (exceptionally) bad weather forced a serious delay before the festival «proper» could start, e.g., Plut. Vit. Demetr. 12.5: th` de; hJmevra h| ta; tw`n Dionusivwn ejgivneto, th;n pomphvn katevlusan ijscurw`n pavgwn genomevnwn par j w{ran: kai; pavcnh~ baqeiva~. A severe cold snap with thick frost stopped the procession one year. In sum, the City Dionysia ran 10 →16 Elaph. 37 The Pandia directly followed 17 Elaph. Further analyses risk entering a rather large forest with too many individual trees. The effort promptly takes the reader far outside the scope of this exercise. Still, a couple of observations warrant mention. Thoukydides alone (4.118.10), for example, reveals meetings of the ejkklhsiva could indeed take place inside the City Dionysia. The One Year Armistice (ending the Ten Years War), however, apparently required a “snap assembly” on 14 Elaph to consider this single matter. Notably, the vote on the final “Peace of Nikias” (Thuc. 5.19.2, 5.20.1) did not take place during the festival, though the proposed treaty had indeed arrived in ancient Athens for consideration while the celebration stood in full swing. f) DFA2 65; AY 151-152; ACE 27. Archonship Pytharatos (271/0 BCE): 1 Hek = 8 Jul thus embolismic. Note the intercalated month must precede Elaph, which, seasonally, proves too early, and the Calendar Equation still sits -3 days, i.e., [13] Elaph (ought) = Pryt. IX.24; For this and IG II3 1, 1017 & 1018 (= Agora 16.216 & 217), see Chap. XX, pp. xxx-xxx. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III Similar reasoning applies to Hesperia 7.3 (1938) no. 31 (= Hesperia 6.3 [1937] no. 1 = Agora I.3878; see also SCCAY 127128): Archonship Apollodoros (319/8 BCE) the ejkklhsiva convened jElaf[hbo]liw`no~ dwdek[av]|tei, tetavrtei [kai; t]riakestei` t[h`]|~ «ejbdovmh~» prutaneiva~ to award honors upon a certain Apol[…]. This assembly convened kata; y[hvf]|isma boulh~, which (presumably) means by Boulitic decree for the specific awards. Note: assuming the typical four days notice applies (i.e., provpempta), then the boulhv posted the progravfein in the ajgorav on 8 Elaph. It would have, in other words, convened during the Asklepieia. Lastly, what events transpired during the City Dionysia offers a variety of explanations for the number of days involved as well as the number of sporadic attested meetings of hJ ejkklhsiva during its run. g The festival did not, in short, offer merely a presentation of various dramatic and musical contests. Ancient Athenians proclaimed the City Dionysia’s “Pan Hellenism.” They encouraged attendees to gather from all over ancient Greece. By the Delian League’s apex (ca. 440 BCE), moreover, member povlei~ presented their annual tributes (ejk tw`n fovrwn ajrguvrion, dielovnte~ kata; tavlanton), which ancient Athenians auspiciously displayed in the Theatre of Dionysos for everyone to behold (eij~ th;n ojrchvstran toi`~ Dionusivoi~ eijsfevrein ejpeida;n plh`re~ h|/ to; qevatron; Isoc. 8.82; see also IG I3 68). They also held a ceremony on the theatre’s stage tou;~ pai`da~ (tou;~ ojrfanou;~) tw`n ejn tw/̀ polevmw/ teteleuthkovtwn, i.e., neaninivskou~ panopliva/ kekosmevnou~ (Isoc. 8.82; Aeschin. 3.154). h Thoukydides (5.23.4) along with IG I3 46 at least imply (i.e., this meager evidence suggests) representatives from the various povlei~ attending the City Dionysia could also conduct (certain) public business with ancient Athenians. In any case, scholars far more adept than me can dissect the evidence to give a much more detailed account of everything that transpired. Broadly speaking, however, the festival’s program included the eijsagwgh; ajpo; th`~ ejscavra~, proagwvn, kw`mo~, and the (grand) pomphv. To this, one adds the “purification of the theatre,” the ceremony of oJ strathgoiv, “proclamation of crowns” (i.e., awards for public service), presentation of allied tribute, and parade of orphans. g) I suspect once again but cannot (yet) demonstrate that the vast majority of ejkklhsivai convened during City Dionysiai indeed represent “quick decisions” on singular agenda items and not full-blown assemblies. For (the thus now apparent exception) IG II3 1, 1292 (= Agora 16.261) see Endnote xx. h) This “parade of orphans” clad in hoplite gear ended by 330 BCE (DFA2 59 n. 2) CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III Peppered throughout the celebration, moreover, came various proclamations of other honors numerous fuvletai and dhmovtai bestowed upon their own as well as the occasional public freeing of oijkevtai & dou`loi. Many of these rituals preceded or occurred during the festival. From the 5th Century into 4th Century BCE, the programme for the City Dionysia included staging nine tragedies, three satyr plays, twenty dithyrambic choruses (ten of men, ten of boys), and five comedies (three during the Peloponnesian War). Numerous variations to the numbers and content of course exist dependent upon the precise time period examined. For example, the restaging of old tragedies began to take place post 387 BCE and those of old comedy post 312 BCE (Endnote XX, p. xxx). As usual, however, I remain interested in the math. The communis opinio for each day’s typical programme of competitions proposes three tragedies followed by one satyr play and then one comedy. Consequently, presupposing the kw`mo~ represented a separate festivity, twenty dithyrambic choruses and two comedies remain unaccounted. The critical inference becomes that only one comedy appeared on stage each day. i Five comedies would obviously require five days, i.e., two beyond the three days slotted for the tragedies (pace DFA2 66). Both counts, of course, prove divisible into twenty. Hypothetically, then, if a current City Dionysia possessed a full schedule of events, then the festival might run something like: Day 1 (10 Elaph) = Day Day Day Day Day 2 3 4 5 6 (11 (12 (13 (14 (15 Elaph) Elaph) Elaph) Elaph) Elaph) = = = = = pomphv, purification of the theatre, ceremony of the strathgoiv, parade of orphans, grand sacrifice and feast, then the kw`mo~ three tragedies, one satyr play, one comedy ten dithyrambic choruses, one comedy; three tragedies, one satyr play, one comedy ten dithyrambic choruses, one comedy; three tragedies, one satyr play, one comedy; The proposed timeline accomodates the available evidence. Specifically, it permits the boulhv to summon “single issue” or “snap” ejkklhsivai Days 3 & 5, which aligns with the two examples examined. 38 By implication, Day 7 (16 Elaph) becomes the festival’s e[pibda. Presumably, various victory celebrations within the fulhaiv, for the corhvgoi, as well as for the poets took place. At the same time, foreigners probably began departing the povli~. i) A. Pickard-Cambridge, Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy2, revised by T. Webster (Oxford 1962) 218-220. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III One can manipulate the available data for alternate scenarios (or as changing circumstances might require). The procession, for instance, may have occurred Day 7. The dithyramb schedule might instead have run something like four, four, four, four, four on Days 2 → 6. j The number of tribal dithyrambic choruses, moreover, should parallel the number of ancient Attic fulaiv: ten from inception down to 308/7 BCE; twelve 307/6 → 224/3 BCE then again 200/199 BCE → 126/7 CE; and, lastly, thirteen 223/2 → 201/0 BCE and then again 127/8 CE on. k Additionally, when ancient Athenians dropped the number of comedies from five to three during the Peloponnesian War, the most obvious candidates to go (mevn) become Days 3 & 5. If (dev) the goal remained “to shorten” the celebration from, say, six to four days, i.e., holding but only three days of tragedy & comedy competitions, then the obvious question becomes what ancient Athenians did with the twenty dithyrambic choruses. Could, for instance, two of the three days have presented three tragedies, one satyr play, ten dithyrambs, followed by one comedy without utterly exhausting the audiences and (more importantly) the judges? Or, did ancient Athenians instead “cram” all twenty dithyrambic choruses into the first (opening) day? A similar (though inverse) quandary arises when ancient Athenians added a sixth comedy to the programme late-3rd Century BCE (IG II2 2323 col. i & iii). They could have simply tacked it onto Day 7 (16 Elaph) or instead abandoned the “One Day-One Comedy ‘Rule’” and held three each on Days 3 & 5. In either case, twenty-four or twenty-six dithyrambs need incorporated as well. Under any possible scenario, moreover, the hours of operable daylight becomes a critical consideration. From dawn till dusk, ancient Attike enjoyed anywhere from ~10½ ↔ ~12 hrs of daylight this time of year. l j) The underlying justification for proposing even numbers of dithyrambic performances per day presupposes a 1:1 ratio men to boys from the same fulhv. Drop the assumption, and the program could have run something like Days 2, 4 & 6 = two each then Days 3 & 5 = seven each. I nonetheless find odd numbers of contests and such a “spread-out” schedule quite unlikely, since fulaiv competed against each other. k) POA 57. I am, of course, collapsing several areas of scholarship into a single issue for the purposes of illustration. Regardless, I found discussions concerning the number of ancient attic fulaiv conspiculously absent from several brilliant analyses of the City Dionysos. The math, for instace, becomes slightly more involved accommodating twentysix tribal dithyrambic performances. (see Endnote XX, p. xxx). l) Under a well-regulated lunisolar calendar, the City Dionysia would open between ~5 Mar (Sunrise = 06:46±; Sunset = 17:29±) and ~3 Apr (Sunrise = 06:09±, Sunset = 18:04±). Contiuing into Nautical Twilight adds about thirty to thirty-five minutes. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III Before addressing Rural Dionysiai, arguments to establish the Asklepieia prove applicable to the Epidauria. It too began as an annual procession and sacrifice in private hands. In its case, the terminus ante quem for first displays becomes 418/7 BCE. The annual procession and sacrifice too morphed into a full blown festival by early-4th Century BCE, and, by no later than the first half of the 2nd Century BCE, the Epidauria’s festivities had added a pannuciv~ (see above as well as the previous Chapter). Crucial information, moreover, rests with AthPol.: pompw`n d j ejpimelei`tai th`~ tw/̀ jAsklhpiw/̀ gignomevnh~, o{tan oijkourw`si muvstai (56.4). The Epidauria’s procession occurred when the mustagwgoiv “sequestered” their muvstai during the Mysteries of Eleusis. Unfortunately, this straightforward observation introduces a new crop of complications. Assigning a day to the Epidauria’s procession requires knowing the when o{tan oijkourw`si muvstai. The problematic dates remain eJbdovmh kai; ojgdovh ejpi; devka Bohdromiw`no~ = 17 & 18 Boid. The muvstai withdrew into isolation on either the latter date or both days (previous Chapter). Other than the name iJerei`a deu`ro, no consensus has emerged regarding 17 Boid (Endnote xx, p. xxx). It also remains a topic far too involved and speculative even to address let alone attempt to settle here. The Epidauria thus requires the same tactical approach used against the Asklepieia. Once the former grew into a full-blown public festival (before and after the pannuciv~), decreeing it take place 18 Boid would have spawned another iJera; hJmevra. As oft repeated, annual festivals (typically) blocked or at least discouraged both the ejkklhsiva and boulhv from convening. IG II3 1, 877 (= IG II2 657) therefore challenges the date not with just an attested assembly but rather a “chief assembly” of oJ dh`mo~ plhquvwn: Boihdromiw`no~ ojgdovei ejpi; devk[a, ej]|[n]avtei kai; dekavtei th`~ «tr[ivth~]» prutaneiva~: ejkklhsiva kur[iv]|a: m Another ejkklhsiva kuriva took place 18 Boid Archonship Polyeuktos (243/2 BCE) = Hesperia 7.1 (1938) No. 24 as did ejkklhsivai in 269/8 BCE (IG II3 1, 913 = Agora 16.190) and 235/4 BCE (IG II3 I, 1027 = IG II2 787). Unfortunately, all date to the 3rd Century BCE. m) Dismissed a bit too casually SCCAY 57-58. Inscription dates Archonship Euthios (283/2 BCE): 1 Hek = 19 Jul* thus ordinary. Depending on the rotation of prutanhivh, the Calendar Equation 18 Boid(F) = Pryt III.19 sits -1 or -2 Solar Days. The first three Archontic Months, however, ought have run FHF, but 1stVisCres on 16 Sep 283 BCE (= 1 Boid Euthios) would have proven extremely difficult to spot. The previous twelve synodic cycle rotations, moreover, permit FFH without introducing an anomaly (AYP 140-149 viz.146-147). Under this scenario, the equation sits either aligned or at -1. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III The argument now turns to logistics. At the risk of merely repeating the same line-of-argument, if the ejkklhsiva could not convene 18 Boid, then ten days must pass between the latest and earliest possibilities to conduct public business. The Epidauria, moreover, should not conflict with or, at the very least, “bleed into” the Eleusinian Mysteries. Specifically, the Epidauria’s pannuciv~ did not end the same dawn the opening ceremonies of the Eleusinian Mysteries «proper» began = 19 Boid. The “pattern” appears consistent. The original Askleipieia procession and sacrifice overlapped the proagwvn to the City Dionysia (est. 420/19 BCE) two days before the City Dionysia «proper». Additional sacrifices to Asklepios would later overlap those presented to Zeus Soter in Peiraieus (terminus ante quem 163/2 BCE). n In the case of the Epidauria, its procession and sacrifice overlapped iJerei`a deu`ro two days before the Eleusinian Mysteries «proper» began. The Epidauria’s pannuciv~, when established, thus concluded by dawn 18 Boid. This hypothesis permits meetings of the ejkklhsiva (particularly kurivai) on Boihdromiw`no~ ojgdovei ejpi; devka without forcing exceptions and suggests that o{tan oijkourw`si muvstai meant they withdrew from public view at some point during 17 Boid and remained sequestered until dawn 19 Boid. Note: I would propose after the sacrifices to Asklepios had completed but before the pannuciv~ and possibly even before the Epidauria’s feast. Rural Dionysiai (ta; kat j ajgrou~ Dionuvsia) refers to a series of smaller festivals held in various dh`moi throughout ancient Attike. 39 The vast majority though perhaps not quite every single one took place during the Archontic month Poseidion (e.g., schol. Pl. Resp. 5.475d: eJorth; jAqhnh/si Dionuvsw/ h[geto, ta; mevn kat j ajgrou;~ mhno;~ Poseidew`no~). Platon indicates or at least suggests that ancient Athenians could in fact attend all of them during the second half of the 5th Century BCE (eJoakou`sai pavntwn corw`n periqevousi toi`~ Dionusivoi~ ou[te tw`n kata; povlei~ ou[te tw`n kata; kwvma~ ajpoleipovmenoi; Resp. 5.475d7-9; see also Dem. 18.180). Known dh`moi include Aigileia, Akharnai,* Aixone,* Eleusis,† Euonymon,* Halai Araphenides,† Ikarion,* Kollytos, Myrrhinous,† Paiania, Peiraieus,* Phlyai, Rhamnous,* Salamis, and Thorikos* (possibly also Anagyrous†). Those marked “*” had qevatroi and those marked “†” mention a proedriva, i.e., ten (possibly eleven) out of fifteen (possibly sixteen) dh`moi. n) See above Footnote d. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III Fig. xx: Known Rural Dionysiai Locations Each invariably differed in size, scope, spectacle, programme, and award(s) given. The majority of these celebrations most likely resembled Ploutarkhos’ poetic description of (relatively) modest affairs: hJ pavtrio~ tw`n Dionusivwn eJorth; to; palaio;n ejpevmpeto dhmotikw`~ kai; iJlarw`~, ajmforea;~ oi]nou kai; klhmativ~, ei|ta travgon ti~ ei|lken, a[llo~ ijscavdwn a[rricon hJkolouvqei komivzwn, ejpi; pa`su d j oJ fallov~ (Mor. 527d). Eleusis (at least by 2nd Century BCE) had come to offer a larger and more elaborate celebration than most (IG II2 949 = I.Eleusis 229). 40 The Dionysia held in Peiraieus, however, represented the grandest of the lot and would (eventually) grow to last four days: kai; toi`~|[Pei]raivoi~ tw`i Dionuvswi [kai;] eijshvga[gon t]o;n qeo;n parak[aqiv]sante~ ejn tw`i Peiraei` hJmevra[~]|[tevttar]a~ eujtavktw~ k.t.l. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III (Hesp 15.3 [1946] No. 41.24-26). This lifts the festival up to a level almost on par with the City Dionysia, i.e., at least regarding the time involved to hold the celebration. Moreover, since oJ dh`mo~ and not just the dhmovtai elected (by lottery draw) oJ dhvmarco~ of Peiraieus, who then oversaw the celebration held in the port, the atypical arrangement (alongside the festival’s size and pomphv) suggests ta; ejn Peiraiei; Dionusiva became an annual public festival at some point no later than mid-4th Century BCE. o At this point, everything becomes reasoned inferences. The spread of (known) Rural Dionysiai ran from Thorikos to Rhamnous (quite considerable distances from both the a[stu and each other), from Rhamnous to Eleusis, and from Eleusis to Aigileia. Three Dionysiai took place along the eastern shore of Attike, four the farside of Hymettos from the a[stu, two more toward the western shoreline south of the a[stu (just west of Hymettos), two more to the northeast of the a[stu, and one on Pentelikon Brilessos. Finally, one Dionysia took place in the a[stu, one in Peiraieus, and one on Salamis (see Fig. xx, previous page). Transit times between all these celebrations alone would have (mevn) occupied a considerable amount of time. Geographically (dev), most locations make perfect sense. Thorikos, for example, would almost certainly have drawn crowds from the southern dh`moi (e.g., Sounion, Besa, Poros, Potamos, Atene, et al.); Halai Araphenides from the central east coast (Erkhia, Philaidai, Teithras, et al.), while Rhamnous pulled crowds from most of the northeast (e.g., Eitea, Kolonai, Marathon, et al.), and Eleusis from the northwest (e.g., Oinoe, Phyle, Thria, et al.). A more difficult assessment surfaces between those dh`moi in (relatively) close proximity to each other: e.g., Kollytos and Peiraieus; Euonymon & Aixone (possibly Anagyrous); Aigilia and Myrrhinous; and Akharnai & Phlya as well as Eleusis, Salamis & Peiraieus. A couple Rural Dionysiai, moreover, became celebrated at similar distances from clusters of other dh`moi: e.g., Rhamnous & Ikarion. These two would have (presumably) drawn crowds from both Aphidna and the Marathonian Tetrapolis. Testimony remains utterly silent about whether or not any coordination(s) existed between dh`moi. Nevertheless, these Rural o) Ath. Pol. 54.8; Dem 21.10 (= 347/6 BCE); IG II2 380.20-21 (h|i hJ pomph; poreuvetai|tw`i Dii; tw`i Swth`[ri ka]iv tw`i Dionuvswi k.t.l.) = 320/19 BCE; IG II2 456.32-33 (katanei`mai d j auj[t]o[i`]~ kai; q[evan to;n ajrcitevkto]|na eij~ ta; Dionuvs[i]a ta; Peirai`ka) = 307/6 BCE;. See also DFA2 46-48; FA 100-103; Pireaus 124-126; PSA 468. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III Dionysiai emerged and developed over many decades if not a couple of centuries. Without serious reservations, one can infer that dhmovtai from different communities in close proximity to each other did not wish to compete for crowds. Once again, the issue becomes the math and a simple thought experiment permits us to play-out the consequences. Looking at the Archontic Month Poseidion (as it stands now within the present analysis), only one annual festival takes place: Holoa = pevmpth fqivnonto~ = 26 [F] /25 [H] . The Haloa, however, remained for and by women as well as, in all likelihood, local to Eleusis (see previous Chapter, p. xxx). Though the celebration grew into something quite elaborate (perhaps even possessing a pannuciv~), at best one can conclude only that the Eleusinian Rural Dionysia did not take place on this day. Parameters, however artificial, must now exist to create an initial baseline. Presupposing that Rural Dionysiai did not take place during Monthly Festival Days, Annual Festival Days, or during ouj kaqaravi hJmevrai, then each Pos originally offered, if we include e{na kai; neva, twenty days (plhvrh~) or nineteen days (koi`lo~) for these local festivities. The numbers sit ±1 depending on placement of the Posideia (see Unknown s.v. “Posideia”). Additionally, for an entire Archontic Month, local Dionysiai almost certainly did not block (or discourage) meetings of the ejkklhsiva except (eventually) one: ta; ejn Peiraiei; Dionusiva. This particular celebration, for purposes of this exercise, represented an annual (public) festival and lasted four days. Consequently, the number of remaining available days for other Rural Dionysiai drops to a Full sixteen and Hollow fifteen (±1). If we posit no overlaps, then, within three steps of this logic experiment, we have already reached one Dionysia per diem permitting no time for transist between locales. Obviously, some of the self-imposed restrictions must go. Dropping the exclusion of Monthly Festival Days adds a net seven Solar Days to insert if a Rural Dionysia took place Pos noumhniva. This step alone permits limited transit times between dh`moi. The six remaining (free) days, however, can separate at most only five celebrations. Supposing further that a minimum of one transit day existed between all (known) celebrations, Pos runs out of free days at twelve Rural Dionysiai.. Dropping the ouj kaqarav hJmevra restriction, moreover, results in a net +1. Note: the numbers used here incorporate only those celebrations of which evidence survives. It would prove quite reckless to assert these represented the only Rural Dionysiai. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III The entire chain of reasoning just presented, furthermore, has presupposed the other Rural Dionysiai lasted only a single solar day. While certainly possible, the odds probably stand against the supposition with regard to the larger dh`moi. Consequently, overlaps between individual Dionysiai almost certainly occurred. Glaukon’s (Platon’s) statement in the Republic thus proves more of an exagerrated comment than a statement of fact. p The next obvious question to emerge concerns the Rural Dionysia held in Peiraieus, since it (most likely) morphed into a annual public festival by the early-4th Century BCE. Though not inconsiderable evidence survives regarding ejkklhsivai during Pos, the testimony currently spans centuries thus perhaps still remains a bit too inconclusive to draw definitive conclusions. 41 I nonetheless draw the reader’s attention to four inscriptions: Agora 16.78 (= IG II3 1, 150); IG II3 1, 918; and then IG II3 1, 378 (= IG II2 448) with IG II3 1, 343 (= IG II2 368). These date to 332/1 BCE and 266/5 BCE with the final two landing in 323/2 BCE. Collectively, these four inscriptions may suggest the dates for ta; ejn Peiraiei; Dionusiva. The first inscription records an ejkklhsiva called by the boulhv on 11 Pos (by restoration) Archonship Niketes (332/1 BCE), while the second one records an ejkklhsiva kuriva on 11 Pos Archonship Nikias (266/5 BCE). The third inscription then shows an ejkklhsiva kuriva (by restoration) on 16 Pos (F) Archonship Kephisodoros (323/2 BCE). q More intriguingly, IG II3 1, 378 lists honors and rewards (including politeiva) given to a certain Euphron of Sikyon as well as the Sikyon people kai; ajneipei`n a[ujt]o;n [Dionusivwn megav]| lwn tw`i ajgw`ni: In the Archontic Month Poseidion, where kurivai took place on the eleventh and sixteenth, and the one suspected annual (public) festival of that month (by this time) lasted four days, coupled with a specific reference on the 16th to the upcoming City Dionysia at the very least suggests the award granted to Euphron and the people of Sikyon came within the context of a local Dionysia. Peiraieus emerges as the most obvious candidate. p) Clarification: the statement may have proven sound the second half of the 5th Century BCE and perhaps even through Platon’s time (d. Ol. 108.1 [D.L. 3.2] = either 349/8 or 348/7 BCE) but almost certainly not much beyond mid-4th Cemtury BCE. q) Calendar Equations: 11 Pos Niketes = Pryt V.15; 11 Pos Nikias = Pryt VI.12; 16 Pos Kephisodoros = Pryt V.22 (and 2b Pos = Pryt V.8 [or 9]). Each (esp. the restorations), however, still require vetting. See Chap. XX, pp. xxx-xxx for more thorough analyses of these inscriptions. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III I therefore propose ta; ejn Peiraiei; Dionusiva in its most evolved or rather “final” form ran 12 → 15 Pos. This timing reflects that of the City Dionysia and possibly the Lenaia (see Probably Dated s.v. “Lenaia”) not to mention the “older Dionysia” or Anthesteria as well (Chap. XX, pp. xxx-xxx). The evidence, granted, ultimately proves indirect thus rightly subject to scutiny. The unearthing of a single inscription could challenge the hypothesis, yet, until such a find, the proposed dates prove at least probable. r Unlike Rural Dionysiai, the Niketeria, which celebrated Athene’s victory over Poseidon (Procl. in Ti. 53d), does not present a complex problem but rather an unusual puzzle. Ploutarkhos twice states ancient Athenians “omitted” (ejxairou`sin, ejxairou`men [or ejxhrhmevnou]) th;n deutevran tou` Bohdromiw`no~ hJmevran (= 2 Boid), ouJ pro;~ th;n selhnhn [but] because (apparently) they considered the day of the quarrel “ill-omened” (duswvnumo~). s The date nonetheless certainly existed and counted during the latter half of the 5th Century BCE: tet[av]rtei kai; eijkoste`i te`~ prutaneiva~ deutevrai Boedromio`no~: 2 Boid = Pryt II.24 (IG I3 377 = IG I2 304b = Tod 92 = Fornara 158). t Ancient Athenians also commemorated the ancient Hellenic victory over the Mede at Plataia on 3 Boid and at Marathon on 6 Boid (Plut. Mor. 349d-f). The ancient Plataian quadrennial Eleutheria took place 4 Boid, u while the ancient Athenians celebrated the Genesia on 5 Boid (previous Chapter). Dropping 2 Boid affects these reckonings. The crucial (and, frankly, most obvious) question promptly becomes what Ploutarkhos actually means by “ejxairevw:” did ancient Athenians literally or figuratively delete deutevra iJstamevnou from the Archontic Month Boedromion? Most have simply punted or ignored this problem. The logical consequences to follow from a literal interpretation, however, create serious problems. Boid 2 becomes Boid 3, the monthly festival to ajgaqo;~ daivmwn is simply tossed, and the month always runs 1, 3 → ultimo. Consequently, either every Archontic Day post noumhniva advances and sits net -1 thus ending on a (forward) count of thirty or thirty-one, or every Boid must contain an embolismic day, which ought then insert ante the opening ceremonies for the Eleusinian Mysteries. r) Similar line-of-reasoning would propose the Dionysia held in Eleusis took place just before the Haloa, perhaps something like 23/24 → 24/25 Pos. s) Plut. De frat. Amor. 18.489b; Quaest conv. 9.6.741b t) See AYP 207-214 for a full bibliography and analyses of those Calendar Equations. u) Plut. Vit. Arist. 19-21; FSA 170-172; AF 135; GSW 3.178-183; PSA 469. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III The figurative interpretation survives as the more viable option. 2 Boid still existed but nothing public took place that day. How hard to press “nothing public” now becomes the question. Almost certainly, it would have meant no ejkklhsiva, no dikasthvria, no boulhv but perhaps also no duties by other magistrates or committees, no business conducted in dh`moi or by fratrivai et al., thus no local disputes, no dedications, and no interest calculated on loans. In essence, ancient Athenians attempted to avoid referencing tou` deutevra iJstamevnou hJmevra Bohdromiw`no~ mhvno~. Therefore, ta; nikhthvria para; jAqhnaivoi~ ajnuvmnhtai, kai; eJorthn poiou`ntai tauvthn wJ~ tou` Poseidw`no~ uJpo; th`~ jAqhna`~ nenikhmevnou (Procl. In Ti. 53d) needs interpreted. Ancient Athenians certainly did not avoid offering any recognition, so, presumably, the Niketeria unfolded as a relatively modest affair avoiding flair. Against the apparent communis opinio, moreover, I see no reason why the “tradition” that ancient Athenians (figuratively) ejxairou`men th;n deutevran tou` Bohdromiw`no~ hJmevran did not exist well before Ploutarkhos (pace GSW 3.168n50). v Dating the Olympieia emerges from a straightforward logic chain: hJmevra mhno;~ Mounuciw`no~ ejnavth ejpi; devka kaiv tw/̀ Dii; th;n pomph;n pevmponte~ oiJ ijppei`~ parexh/vesan (Plut. Vit. Phoc. 37.1) = […tw`i Dii;]|tw`i jOlunpivwi (IG II2 1257 coll. ii.5-6) = ajn[qi]ppasivai| jOl[u]mpive[ia] (IG II3 4, 528 = IG II2 3079 = Schwenk, Athens 77). The festival took place 19 Moun and contained athletic games, tribal competitions as well as competitions on horse back (including an ajnqippasiva). w If an ancient Attic festival could challenge the Eleusinian Mysteries and City Dionysia for total time occupied as well as the greatest number of consecutive days celebrated, then the Great Panathenaia (ta; megavla Panaqhvnaia) tops the list. Unfortunately, evidence for the exact number of days the festival consumed has dropped from recorded history. 42 Fortunately, the minute details do not so much concern the present analysis as does the minimum numbers of days required to celebrate the Lesser (or «nominal») Panathenaia and its quadrennial partner. Both, for instance, conducted processions and sacrifices on JEkatombaiw`no~ mhno;~ trivth/ ajpiovnto~ (fqivnonto~) = Hek 27 (H) / 28 (F) . Those two events “closed” the festival each year. v) Though not always with complete success, e.g., IG I3 377. The Logistai Inscription Yr 1 Loan 2 may also have originated (or disbursed) 2 Boid(H) Euthynos = Pryt. II.31 = 2 Sep 426 BCE (see Chap. XX, pp. xxx-xxx). w) FSA 466; AF 177; FA 144; SCCAY 145-146; FoA 15, PSA 477 CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III Both the Lesser & Greater Panathenaia also possessed a pannuciv~, but, whether it opened each of the celebrations or led into their final days, remains debated. Regardless, if these pannucivda~ ended at dawn the mornings of the processions (followed, in turn, by the culminating sacrifices), then the three rituals consumed a full day and (at least) half of the previous one. Surprisingly little evidence survives on the Lesser Panathenaia though references to contests of purrivcai and diquvramboi remain. Presumably, ancient Athenians competed by fulaiv thus having ten, twelve, or thirteen “teams” depending on the time period considered. Given the other festivities presented at the Greater Panathenaia, one would expect the Lesser to have held a modest number of smaller athletic and equestrian events. 43 Much more solid ground exists under the Greater Panathenaia. Contests of rJayw/doiv, kiqarw/diva, and aujlhth`ro~ were held in the Odeion with the participants from various povlei~ divided into the age groups men and boys. The purrivch returned but this time accompanied by the (uniquely ancient Athenian) eujandriva. Ancient Athenians also sponsored an array of crhmatistivkon to;n ajgw`na (prized games): stavdion, pevntaqlon (i.e., a{lma, divsko~, drovmo~, pavlh, and pugmhv [or ajkwvn]) along with the pagkravtion. These, however, possessed three age classes: men, beardless youths, and then boys. Originally held in the ajgorav, they moved south of the Acropolis to a new drovmo~ constructed toward the end of the 4th Century BCE. Difreivai (iJpposuvnai) also took place: a[rma, zeu`goi, tetraoriva and e[fippoi as well as ajnqippasiva and ajpobavtai. Some equestrian events appeared in the ajgorav as well but at some point all of these relocated south of the a[stu to Halipeidon (north of Phaleron). Finally, a “contest of ships,” a regatta (race or skilled handling), organized by fulhv, began (almost certainly) in Peiraieus though Phaleron remains at least a possility. 44 The ten ajqloqevtai~ in charge (briefly ajgwnoqevtai), moreover, served four year terms: Great Panathenaia to Great Panathenaia. They would d j ejn prutaneivw/ deipnou`sai to;n JEkatombaiw`na mh`na, o{tan h|/ ta; Panaqhvnaia, ajrxavmenoi ajpo; th`~ tetravdo~ iJstamevnou (Ath. Pol. 62.2). Symbolically, this makes sense as they would start dining in the Prytaneion the day after Hek’s monthly sacrifices to Athene. As worded, AthPol indicates this dining at public expense for the ajqloqevtai~ occurred every Hekatombaion. Some proposed numbers of days, which ancient Athenians would have required for a successful Greater Panathenaia, appear CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III first to underestimate (not insignificantly) the limited space available and then, second, the compounding logistics needed to coordinate an increasing number of contests before and after they moved to different locations. x Representatives from a growing number of other povlei~ came to participate and attend, while representatives from the ten, twelve, or thirteen ancient Attic fulaiv participated. Contestents, moreover, stood divided into age classifications, which effectively doubled, and in several cases tripled, the number of events. The ajqloqevtai~ originally organized the three main categories within but one location: the ajgorav of ancient Athens. Equestrian events took place on the Agorian drovmo~ (i.e., Panathenaic Way: between the Altar of the Twelve Gods and Eleusinion); musical contests were performed in the Agorian ojrchvstra (basically the center of the market-place), while the athletic events (presumably) took place where remaining spaces allowed (e.g., PDA 2-3). This limited space undoubtedly curtailed concomitant contests. When activities split between two then three and finally four separate locations, the ajgorav location effectively dissolved and dispersed between the Odeion, Stadium, and Halipeidon with additional events taking place in Peiraieus (or Phaleron). The exact number of povlei~ represented and the throngs of ancient Greeks gathered to spectate undoubtedly varied quadrennium to quadrennium as did the number of competing ancient Athenian athletes, rhaspodes, harp & flute singers, etc. Nevertheless, generally speaking, the numbers flocking to ancient Attike and the a[stu increased over time. Even in separate locales, only so many stavdion, pevntaqlon, nautical, equestrian, and musical events, could overlap a given solar day. The primary difficulty when assigning minimum numbers of days for the Lesser and Greater Panathenaiai rests with the time period. Indeed, all major multi-day annual festivals possess this difficulty, but it stands particularly acute with the Greater Panathenaia. The primary inference, however, remains: the later the time period, the more days required. Additionally, every contest offered prizes for 1st Place (obviously); some for 1st & 2nd Places; and some for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, & x) FSA 153 excepted. All analyses begin with Aelius Aristides, Panathenaikos 140-141 (see J. Oliver, “The Civilizing Power: a Study of the Panathenaic Discourse of Aelius Aristides Against the Backgound of Literature and Cultural Conflict, with Text, Translation, and Commentary,” TAPhS 58.1 (1968) 127); schol. Eur. Hec. 469; SCCAY 34 (Note: read 140 for 147 here). In short, “four days” became the default baseline. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III 4th Places. At this point, introducing a critical assumption becomes unavoidable: in all probability, more contestants, and, in at least some cases, not insignificantly more contestants, competed than actually won. The regatta, pyrrhic dance, and eujandriva, for instance, though a) restricted to ancient Athenians and b) with only one prize each (basically, “best in class”), ten, twelve, or thirteen tribal teams actually competed. The pyrrhic dance, moreover, had three age classifications, which meant thirty, thirty-six, or thirty-nine contestants needed judged. The equestrian events also divided horses into age classifications, i.e., (effectively) stallions & colts vs ponies & foals. The fundamental (or perhaps most naïve[?]) result from the above considerations: ancient Athenians did not organize and develop such a massive and elaborate Panhellenic Festival, comprised not only of crhmatistivkon to;n ajgw`na (similar to those [though unprized] held at Olympia, Pythia, Isthmia, and Nemeia), but also adding numerous musical, equestrian, martial, and nautical events, while expecting throngs of foreign participants (and spectators) to journey from all over the ancient Hellenic world only to depart inside something like five solar days, especially when one of these days featured only the grand procession and sacrifice. Excluding the procession (with its torch race and immediately following sacrifice), events held during the Lesser Panathenaia must have required no fewer than two solar days by the mid-5th Century. This proposal, moreover, presupposes that the final sets of contests (whatever they might have been) fell during tetrav~ fqivnonto~, i.e., during the day when the pannuciv~ would begin that evening iff it indeed ended at dawn the morning the grand procession began. y Extrapolating, the Greater Panathenaia must have then demanded no fewer than at least six solar days, similar to the City Dionysia, but I would in fact budget seven. z The proposed numbers obviously represent judgement calls and apply (or, rather, I would apply them) from roughly the mid5th Century down through at least 4th Century BCE. By the time Roman Emperor Caesar Traianus Hadrianus had “elevated” the Greater Panathenaia to eiselastic status, moreover, I concur with y) I must ask, however, when would anyone have slept following dawn tetrav~ fqivnonto~ until dusk trivth fqivnonto~ (i.e., the next thirty-six hrs)? The question applies to both the Lesser and Greater Panathenaiai but perhaps a bit more germane for the latter. z) The summations and examples given for the Lesser & Greater Panathenaiai, beginning previous page, derive from FSA, AF, FA, FoA, PSA, but especially Shear, Polis & Panathenaia Chpts. 3 & 4. Footnoting each point would have proven ridiculous. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III Mommsen (Footnote xx) that the the grand festival to Athene (Minerva) had probably grown and consumed somewhere around nine solar days (Appx. XX, pp. xxx-xxx). Phases: no festivals in this group fell under a Full Moon but one, possibly two, ended after the Full Moon had started waxing: a) City Dionysia and, if my proposal proves sound, then b) the Dionysia in Peiraieus as well. The former festival should have begun under a waxing ¾ Moon, and the latter may have begun under a waxing 4⁄ 5 or 7⁄ 8 Moon. aa The Epidauria and Pandia come with caveats. While both fell on eJbdovmh ejpi; devka thus post Full Moon ante ¾ waxing (~4⁄ 5 ), each occurred under the “shadow” of another major annual public festival. The Epidauria remained contingent on when preliminary rituals for the Eleusinian Mysteries had begun and the Pandia on when the City Dionysia had ended. The Niketeria, on the other hand, simply took place the day after the 1stVisCres appeared, while the Olympieia fell under a waxing ¾ Moon. If the Lesser Panathenaia lasted three days (i.e., two days competitions + 1 day procession), then it opened just after a waxing ¼ Moon. The Greater Panathenaia, however, presents a slightly trickier problem. The beginning phase (obviously) requires knowing just how many days the festival consumed, which, at best, remains an educated guess and also changed over time. In any case, if (as proposed) it reached seven days by the mid-5th Century BCE, then the Greater Panathenaia began the day after the Moon reached ½ waxing or 3rdQ. Both the Lesser and Greater Panathenaiai, moreover, ended the day before Conj. Seasons: under a well-regulated lunisolar calendar, the Lesser and Greater Panathenaiai always culminated during late-Summer (procession = ~26 Jul ↔ ~24 Aug). The Niketeria also took place primarily in late-Summer but occasionally early-Fall (~28 Aug ↔ ~27 Sep), while the Epidauria mirrored the Eleusinian Mysteries and fell primarily in Autumn though at times during the final days of Summer (~12 Sep ↔ ~ 12 Oct). The Rural Dionysiai effectively became synonymous with the Archontic Month Poseidon. The various celebrations therefore occurred throughout mid-Winter (Pos primo = ~28 Nov ↔ ~26 Dec & Pos ultimo = ~27 Dec ↔ ~24 Jan). The City Dionysia and the immediately following Pandia came three Archontic Months later, thus mid-Spring (Day 1 [10 Elaph] = ~5 Mar ↔ ~3 Apr). Finally, aa) Once again, the fraction depends upon how ancient Greeks would have (instinctually) divided the orb: fourths, fifths, eighths, or perhaps even sixths. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III ancient Athenians always celebrated the Olympieia in late-Spring (~14 Apr ↔ ~14 May). Sacrificial Calendars: the Greater Demarkhia (SEG 21.541 = LSCG 18 = CGRN 15) records a sacrifice to Zeus on 16 Pos, which, again, if my proposed hypothesis proves sound, then followed the Dionysia in Peiraieus. Additionally, the inscription records two sacrifices on 16 Elaph, i.e., the final day of the City Dionysia, i.e., its e[pibda: one to Dionysos and one to Semele, which, if nothing else, then at least appear apropos. The sacrifice to Leukaspis (20 Moun) occurred the day after the Olympieia and the sacrifice to Tritopatreis the day after the sacrifice to Leukaspis (21 Moun). Notably, no sacrifices parallel the Niketeria (2 Boid), but one to Basile does occur on 4 Boid and one to Epops on 5 Boid. No sacrifices take place around the Eleusinian Mysteries or, in this case, the Epidauria but quite few do fall on the first Impure Day of Boid: Akheloos, Alokhos, Gaia, Hermes, Nymphs, and Poseidon. The two sacrifices on 21 Hek (dekavtei uJstevrai), one to Artemis and one to Kourotrophos, prove intriguing. Every fifth year (inclusive count), both rituals would have fallen on either the first day of the Greater Panathenaia or on the day before the festival would begin or, perhaps more narrowly, before most of the competitions would begin. I subscribe to the former timing, because the opening of the Greater Panathenaia became (repeatedly) impacted by the omitting of ejnavth fqivnonto~ when the basileuv~ declared a Civil Month plhvrh~ or koi`lo~. The datable festivals (and large public sacrifies) recorded on the sale of sacrificial hides (IG II2 1496) has increased by five: the Lesser Panathenaia in late-Summer (ll.98, 100, and 129); the Dionysia in Peiraieus in mid-Winter (ll.70 & 144); the City Dionysia (ll.80, 111, and 151) and Epidauria (ll.78 & 109) in midSpring; and the Olympieia in late-Spring (ll.82 & 113). The order given on the inscription continues to reflect accurately the order in which the festivals took place relative to each other. Zodiac: assuming the most common opinions for the identities of the figures on the Little Metropolis frieze prevail, definitely one more though possibly three more festivals surveyed have taken their positions: [Greater] Panathenaia (figs. 31 & 32); [Rural Dionysiai] (fig. 12); and [City Dionysia] (fig. 19). Three figures then follow the [Greater] Panathenaia: Leo (fig. 33), Seirious [a CMa] (fig. 34), and then either [Opora] or [Virgo] (fig. 35). The Panathenaiai always fell in late-Summer during the Archontic Month that began under the initial 1stVisCres after CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III SumSol = 1 Hek (Fig. 30). Post Meton’s adjustments to SumSol, AutEqu, WinSol, and VerEqu (terminus ante quem 430/29 BCE), moreover, HR a CMa (Seirious), i.e., as viewed from ancient Attike, first appeared above the visible horizon right at dawn on either 2 or 3 Leo. This star’s rising also marked the beginning of Opora, which continued up to the HR a Boö (Arktouros). bb Consequently, the celebrations of both the Lesser & Greater Panathenaiai landed in Opora far more times than not. The festival typically fell post 1 Leo, but, occassionally, Cancer would pass into Leo during the celebration and at times, though rarely, come after it. In the seventy years surveyed by the Primer, for instance, Leo began during the Panathenaia nine times: 458/7*, 450/49*, 447/6, 442/1*, 439/8, 431/0, 420/19, 409/8, 401/0 BCE; and began after the festival definitely five but perhaps up to nine times: 455/4, 436/5, 428/7, [possibly] 425/4, [419/8], 417/6, [possibly] 406/5*, 398/7*, and [possibly] 395/4 BCE. cc Given the above considerations, I am inclined to identify Figure #35 as Virgo. Final determinations, however, rest with the identities of Figs. 36, 37 & 38 not addressed yet (see Possibly Dated, s.vv. “Eleusinia” and “Herakleia”). Fig. 12, usually identified simply as (all) the Rural Dionysiai, follows Sagittarius (fig. 10) and Poseidion (fig. 11). It then precedes the unidentified Fig. 13 and Capricorn (fig. 14). If my hypothesis for dates proves sound, I might suggest Fig. 12 instead represents the Dionysia in Peiraieus specifically instead of the Rural Dionysiai collectively. Under a well-regulated lunisolar calendar, 1 Sag always fell (with very rare exceptions) in Maim (~2 ↔ ~28), and 1 Cap always fell (again, with very rare exceptions) in Pos (~1 ↔ ~28). dd bb) Since ancient Athenians used SumSol to regulate the start of their Archontic Years, 1 Leo (Great Panathenaia → Great Panathenaia) ran 29, 28, 28, 28 Jul; HR a CMa ran 30, 29, 30, 30 Jul; Chap. XX, pp. xxx-xxx. For Meton, Euktemon et al., see AYP 51-55, 81-87, 198 and here Chpts. XX, pp. xxx-xxx & XX, pp. xxx-xxx. Opora plays a rather important role in unlocking the dates of the Olympian (and Pythian) Games. Chpts. XX-XX, pp. xxx-xxx. cc) “*” = Greater Panathenaia. The initial 1stVisCres indeed appeared after SumSol in 425/4, 406/5, and 395/4 BCE but (literally) the very day after reckoned. The possibly therefore exists that the basileuv~ or ejkklhsiva intercalated 426/5, 407/6, and 396/5 BCE in one, two, or all three cases. The year 419/8 BCE, on the other hand, represents an artificial reckoning since ancient Athenians may have advanced the calendar in 420/19 BCE out of seasonal alignment (AYP 185-186 and here Chap. XX, pp. xxx-xxx). dd) Post Meton, Euktemon et al., 1 Sagittarius in ancient Attike ran (Great Panathenaia → Great Panathenaia) 26, 25, 25, 25 Nov and 1 Cap 26, 25, 25, 25 Dec . Chap. XX, pp. xxx-xxx. In the seventy years surveyed by the Primer 1 Sag fell on Pyan ultimo in 455/4, 436/5 417/6 BCE and 1 Cap on Maim ultimo in 417/6 BCE. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III Since, taken together, the various celebrations of the Rural Dionysiai held throughout ancient Attike effectively prove synonymous with the entire Archontic Month Poseidion, numerous individual festivities almost always continued passed Sagittarius into Capricorn. In some cases, they ran a significant number of days into Capricorn. To illustrate, if the Dionysia in Peiraieus indeed ran 11 → 15 Pos, then this particular Rural Dionysia took place before 1 Cap approx. ½ of the time (i.e., about thirty-four out of every seventy years), while Sagittarius rotated into Capricorn during the festival approx. 1⁄ 7 of the time (i.e., about nine out of every seventy-years). Further analysis, however, depends on the identity of Fig. 13, which follows the Rural Dionysiai [in Peiraieus?] but precedes the ancient Attic Month of Gamelion (fig. 15). Fig. 19, usually identified as the City Dionysia, sits just before Aries (fig. 20) & Moun (fig. 21). Accepting that the City Dionysia, by the latter half 5th-Century BCE, ran seven days inclusive (10 → 16 Elaph), the festival, under a well-regulated seasonal lunisolar calendar, indeed always fell around 1 Aries. ee Interestingly, the City Dionysia split its alignment against 1 Aries almost but not quite evenly between “before” versus both “during & after” (thirtyeight vs thirty-two times). ff Continued Findings Of the eight annual festivals-sacrifices surveyed here, where reasonably solid evidence survives, separating Lesser and Greater Panathenaiai into separate celebrations, yet treating all other Rural Dionysiai as one celebration, at least four festivals (Lesser Panathenaia, Greater Panathenaia, Dionysia in Peiraieus, and the City Dionysia), but probably a couple more, e.g., Rural Dionysia in Eleusis, lasted more than one solar day. Only one annual festival clearly overlapped monthy sacrifices: Niketeria (= 2 Boid = ajgaqo;~ daivmwn). One and possibly two ended under a waxing Full Moon: City Dionysia and (maybe) Rural Dionysia in Peiraieus. Two festivals, Epidauria and Pandia, fell on ee) Post Meton, Euktemon et al., 1 Ares in ancient Attike ran (Great Panathenaia → Great Panathenaia) 28, 28, 28, 28 Mar. Chap. XX, pp. xxx-xxx ff) After: 462/1 & 461/0, 459/8 & 458/7, 456/5, 453/2, 451/0 & 450/49, 448/7 & 447/6, 445/4, 442/1, 440/39 & 439/8, 437/6, 434/3, 432/1 & 431/0, 429/8 & 428/7, 426/5, 423/2, 421/0 & 420/19, 418/17, 415/4, 413/2 & 412/11, 410/09 & 409/8, 405/4 & 404/3, 402/1 & 401/0, 399/8, 396/5, 394/3 & 393/2 BCE; During: 457/6, 454/3, 449/8, 446/5, 443/2, 441/0, 438/7, 435/4, 430/29, 427/6, 422/1, 419/8, 416/5, 411/0, 408/7, 403/2, 400/399, and 397/6 BCE; Before: 460/59, 455/4, 452/1, 444/3, 436/5, 433/2, 425/4, 417/6, 414/3, 406/5, 398/7, and 395/4 BCE CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III the seventeenth day of the synodic cycle thus under a waxing ~4⁄ 5 Moon. The exact reckonings here, however, would have stood contingent upon the larger festivals that encompassed them: the Eleusinian Mysteries and the City Dionysia. The remaining festival surveyed, Olympieia, then fell under a waxing ¾ Moon. Once again, under a well-regulated seasonally aligned lunisolar calendar, every finding in this set of festivals tracks with the identified (and identifiable) figures on Little Metropolis frieze: the Panathenaiai fell in Hek toward the end of Cancer and around the start of Leo, which also marked the first visible morning rise of Seirios (HR a CMa) thus the start of Opora; the Dionysia in Peiraieus[?] fell in the middle of Pos toward the end of Sagittarius thus around the start of Capricorn; and the City Dionysia always fell in Elaph toward the end of Pisces thus the start of Aries. Ancient Athenians established the first of two annual sacrifices turned public festivals to Asklepios in Peiraieus. The Asklepieia coincided with the Proagon to the City Dionysia on 8 Elaph. The second of these two annual sacrifices turned public festivals to Asklepios took place in the a[stu. The Epidauria then coincided with iJerei`a deu`ro of the Eleusinian Mysteries on 17 Boid. The ancient Attic Civil Calendar, however, inverted the order in which ancient Athenians celebrated the two annual sacrifices every subsequent year: Epidauria → Asklepieia. Under juxtaposed Ordinary Civil Years, the Epidauria preceded the Asklepieia by 186±1 solar days, while the Asklepieia then preceded the following Archontic Year’s Epidauria by 169±1 solar days. The two celebrations thus effectively stood six Civil Months apart at (+)6±1 then (-)11±1 solar days. Ancient Athenians, in other words, successfully created the most equidistant biannual schedule possible under a lunisolar calendar already packed with numerous other public annual festivals. The math for both Asklepieiai under an Ordinary Civil Year juxtaposed against an Embolismic Civil Year proves not inconsiderably more complex. The two key variables include the embolismic year, whether it followed or preceded the ordinary year in question, and then the specific Civil Month intercalated. Classicists, however, should view this simply as an unavoidable consequence from lunisolar reckoning, since embolismic years by definition adjusted the timing of numerous annual festivals. As my obsession with the Calendars of Ancient Athens grew, the (inherent) importance ancient Attic Festivals possessed became (I must confess) an unexpected discovery. I simply could not, however, work an acceptable analysis into the Primer. As CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III mentioned previous chapter, the Eleusinian Mysteries soon sat at the forefront. This festival to Demeter & Kore, aside from its existential importance (autumn harvest), obviously grew into an elaborate multi-day celebration. In fact, all (known) Panhellenic celebrations represented multi-day affairs. The observation proves particularly germane for two festivals here: City Dionysia and the Greater Panathenaia. Bluntly, every analysis of multi-day ancient Greek festivals has invoked an unarticulated assumption. Organizers (host povlei~) scheduled all events and contests as well as all accompanying rituals with one goal: “stack’em, pack’em, and rack’em.” gg Ancient Greeks, in other words, sought to cram as much activity as possible into every single day from sunrise to sunset. Indeed, my analyses here for the City Dionysia and Greater Panathenaia also focused on the minimum number of days required. Remove this self-imposed restriction, however, and the number of days that all multi-day festivals may have actually consumed year after year promptly proves not insignificantly more amorphous. For instance, when ancient Athenians apparently dropped the number of comedies presented on stage from five to three during the Peloponnesian War, the communis opinio concludes they did so “to shorten” the City Dionysia (Endnote xx, p. xxx). I disagree. Placing the twenty dithyrambic choruses (ten of men, ten of boys) still remains. I opine instead they sought to cut overall expenses without angering the crowds. The festival still lasted seven days (inclusive) but presented fewer competitions. This change in perception affects the Greater Panathenaia in particular. Any celebration that might end 1 ↔ 2 days before Conj as well as last more than five solar days would place opening ceremonies around days kaž, kbž, kgž (21, 22, 23) of the synodic cycle. This means around the waxing ½ (3rdQ) Moon. In ancient Attike, theses days ran either [dekavth fqivnonto~ (uJstevra), ejnavth fqivnonto~, ojgdovh fqivnonto~] for a plhvrh~ Archontic Month or [dekavth fqivnonto~ (uJstevra), ojgdovh fqivnonto~, eJbdovmh fqivnonto~] for a koi`lo~ Archontic Month. The omission of “9th Day Waning” during Hollow Civil Months, however, affected little of substance. The Greater Panathenaia simply began with Day aæ then continued through the schedule of gg) The origin as well as the actual order of this idiom remains unclear; e.g., E. Grant, “’Pack’em, Rack’em and Stack’em’: The Appropriateness of the Use and Reuse of Shipping Constainers for Prison Accommodation,” The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building 13.2 (2013) 35-44. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III events under Day bæ, Day gæ, Day dæ, and so forth. The logistical question obviously becomes the Greater Panathenaiai’s Day ultimo = trivth fqivnonto~. Omitting ejnavth fqivnonto~, (obviously) subtracts a day midstride when following a backward count: dekavth uJstevra → trivth fqivnonto~ runs seven solar days during a plhvrh~ month but only six solar days during a koi`lo~ month. Several solutions to this logistical hurdle (mevn) prove possible if not in fact simply probable. For example, the Lesser Panathenaia, presupposing it lasted three solar days (i.e., two days of competitions + one day for the procession and sacrifice), did not face this problem. It would have (dev) always begun on pevmpth fqivnonto~ (Day aæ) and then run through tetra;~ (Day bæ), and finally trivth fqivnonto~ (Day gæ). Preparations, i.e., participants and spectators gathering, clearing the ajgorav, corraling the sacrificial victims, resolving the final details for the pomphv etc., most likely (or at least presumably) completed by e{kth fqivnonto~. This means everyone attending ought have gathered in the a[stu just after the waxing ¼ Moon (kata; qevon). Since the Lesser Panathenaia remained a local annual festival, and, further, e{kth fqivnonto~ always came at least three solar days after dekavth uJstevra, trekking to the a[stu when the Moon reached a waxing 2⁄ 3 provides a comfortable window. The festival would have then begun (mevn) one or two days later depending on whether the month was koi`lo~ or plhvrh~. Equally possible (dev), the Lesser Panathenaia simply began once everyone had gathered and, if early, then adjusted the number events for each day. The same logistical planning, though a bit more involved, would have applied to the Greater Panathenaia as well. In essence, ancient Athenians pulled the tentative schedule forward. For example, foreigners should have begun trekking and sailing (or preparing to trek and sail) toward ancient Attike around Full Moon Hek. Exact times of departure of course stood contingent upon actual distances needed covered. Participants and spectators thus arrived in ancient Athens (no later than) ~16 ↔ ~20 Hek. I suspect, however, that foreigners began arriving not inconsiderably sooner, akin but not quite as involved as the jOlumpiko;~ meuv~ (Chap. XX, pp. xxx-xxx). The most prudent course of action for the ten ajqloqevtai~ (or ajgwnoqevtai) to have followed (mevn): always craft a koi`lo~ Archontic Month schedule and plan accordingly. If Hek (dev) instead reckoned plhvrh~, then an additional day became available to use. It, for instance, could have offered a respite or even allowed for CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III additional activities. Equally possible, once again, fewer events took place each day. I suspect various combinations of the latter two options most often prevailed. Additionally, experience should have also taught the ajqloqevtai~ to plan for possible inclement weather. The same reasoning therefore applies to the City Dionysia. The “full” program as proposed required but six solar days (opening ceremonies + competitions). One day of bad weather would simply force a quick reorganization of the schedule and perhaps push any remaining contests into 16 Elaph. More bad weather and an embolismic day becomes required. Aristophanes’ joke in the Clouds surfaces yet again. Additionally, if the proposed schedule of the City Dionysia and the proposed interpretation of Hesperia 7.3 (1938) no. 31 both prove sound, then the inscription could reveal an exception to provpempta. Since large throngs of ancient Athenians undoubtedly gathered in the a[stu each year, and the festival set aside two specific days for any required (or desired) “snap” ejkklhsivai, then the assembly summoned jElaf[hbo]liw`no~ dwdek[av]|tei, tetavrtei [kai; t]riakestei` t[h`]|~ «ejbdovmh~» prutaneiva~ should not have required the typical four days notice. I would propose even further that such summons appeared in the ajgorav 9 Elaph. In sum, if we drop the “stack’em, pack’em, and rack’em” presupposition, then both Panathenaiai as well as the City Dionysia, indeed all multiday ancient Greek festivals, possessed an inherent flexibility and could easily adjust the number of events held each day as circumstances required (and allowed). If forced, then the opening ceremonies and rituals for the Greater Panathenaia, by second half 5th Century BCE, took place dekavth uJstevra (Day 21) of Hek. The grand quadrennial festival to Athene then unfolded over the next six or seven days as dictated by the Civil Calendar’s reckoning. Without a shred of tangible evidence, I nonetheless strongly suspect plhvrh~ months became preferred if not relished for its prized “bonus day,” though, strictly speaking, it remained unnecessary. If, moreover, the Lesser and Greater Panathenaic pannucivda~ indeed occurred the evening before each festival’s culminating pomphv and iJerov~, and if lampadhdromivai indeed always took place “at night,” then I propose further that the Panathenaiai torchraces (run from the Altar of Eros in the Akademeia to the great altar on the Akropolis) occurred just before the dawn of trivth fqivnonto~ thus, technically, toward end of night just before the CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III pomphv commenced. More precisely, it took place during the final hour(s) of tetra;~ fqivnonto~. Night Celebrations & Ancient Attic Days Pannucivda~ during one day celebrations as well as all nuktoiv festivals in general, represent interesting quandaries if ancient Athenians reckoned Archontic Days sunset to sunset. Not to belabor this point ad nauseam, but, regarding pannucivda~, as illustrated previous Chapter (pp. xxx-xxx), Platon’s description of the Bendideia prov~ ge pannucivda poihvsousin, h}n a[xion qeavsasqai (Resp. 1.328a6-7) reveals Bendis’ pannuciv~ followed the pomphv and (horseback) lampadhdromiva. If this description indeed represents the “typical” arrangement of pannucivda~, then each pannuciv~ for the Asklepieia and Epidauria create reckoning problems, which stand akin to the problems explored reckoning the nuktov~ festival Stenia (previous Chap., p. xxx). In this case, however, both the Asklepieia and Epidauria sat sandwiched inside considerably larger, annual multi-day public festivals. If, for example, Attic days indeed reckoned sunset to sunset, then Panathenaiai pannucivda~ avoid the complications. The allnight celebration simply took place during the ongoing festival post sunset, when trivth fqivnonto~ began, and continued into the following dawn followed promptly by the pompaiv and iJeroiv. The culminating processions and sacrifices would have then closed both the festival as well as trivth fqivnonto~ at the next sunset. The reckoning thus appears straightforward, neat, perhaps even common sensical. Before ancient Athenians added pannucivda~ to the Asklepieia and Epidauria, moreover, their reckonings also stood neat and straightforward, i.e., ojgdovh iJstamevnou jElafhboliw`no~ and eJbdovmh ejpi; devka Bohdromiw`no~. The processions and sacrifices for both [festivals] began at some point(s) after sunrise their respective days and ended before sunset when the next day began. In the case of the Asklepieia, however, once ancient Athenians attached a pannuciv~, the festival continued into ejnavth ijstamevnou, ended the following dawn, and dekavth iJstamevnou jElafhboliw`no~ then began with the immediately following sunset. Even though ojlivgai~ hJmevrai~ stands irritatingly vague, the phrase cannot denote separating the Asklepieia thus, by association, the proagwvn to the City Dionysia from the festival’s opening day by a mere eleven(±) to twenty-four hours (Footnote l, p. xxx). hh hh) Unless, of course, one equivocates two definitions for hJmevra. AYP 47¶2. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III Difficulties regarding the Epidauria’s placement within the Mysteries of Eleusis prove not inconsiderably more nuanced yet exist, but they do not first surface until the Eleusinian Mysteries’ grand pomphv. Initially, however, when the Epidauria represented a private procession and sacrifice, weighing the impact of iJerai; hJmevrai upon convening the boulhv, ejkklhsiva, and dikasthvria has no place in the argument. Conceivably, of course, this form of the Epidauria could have occurred 18 Boid but affects nothing. Once morphed into a full-blown public festival (but before ancient Athenians added a pannuciv~), it elevated the procession and sacrifice to a iJera; hJmevra and, for reasons already presented, overlapped the Mysteries of Eleusis’s iJerei`a deu`ro. ii This reckoning also proves straightforward: the procession and sacrifices took place at some point after dawn 17 Boid, and, when the Epidauria came to possess a pannuciv~, those festivities began the evening of 18 Boid and continued into the following dawn. The grand pomphv of the Eleusian Mysteries then steps-off some twenty-four+ hours later on 19 Boid. The procession then ended with its own pannuciv~ upon arrival in Eleusis on 20 Boid. Here, however, seriously underappreciated practical logistics have already intruded. To illustrate, a baseline needs established. The Telesterion at Eleusis, for instance, could, by the later half of the 5th Century BCE, easily accommodate (seat) roughly 6,000 ancient Greeks. jj Assuming all 6,000 participated in the grand pomphv, gathered around the Dipylon Gate of the a[stu, formed two columns in a “loose” formation (i.e., allow 3 ft2 per person), then each column contained approx. 3,000 ancient Greeks. The pomphv would have spanned over 9,000 ft. or approx. 1.7 miles; three abreast at 2,000 ea., and the procession stretches for just over a mile. With a moderate pace of 2 mph, the rear of the procession steps-off anywhere from just over thirty minutes to just under an hour after the front of it. Note: these calculations do not include any pack or sacrificial animals or carriages, which would (of course) not insignificantly lengthen the columns. In ancient Attike, sunrise around VerEqu = ~06:10; Sunset = ~18:10, though the pomphv could fall as late as 14 Oct with sunrise = ~06:40; sunset = ~17:35. Undoubtedly, the procession ii) The overlap also neatly explains why the a[rcwn ejpwvnumou~ oversaw the procession and sacrifice to Asklepios. The a[rcwn basileuv~ remained engaged overseeing the iJerei`a deu`ro rituals of the Mysteries (Endnote xx, p. xxx). jj) J. Travlos, “The Topography of Eleusis ,” Hesperia 18.1 (1949) 138-147; J. Camp, The Archaeology of Athens (New Haven 2001) 107; Mylolas, Eleusis 78-96, 113-125; FA 70.. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III did not step-off just as Helios broke over the visible horizon on 19 Boid. The transfer of the Hiera from the Eleusinion to outside the Dipylon Gate, the adornment of wooden statue in the Iakkheion and its transfer to the cart, the crowning of the escourting ejfhvboi, not to mention the overall effort needed to organize over 6,000 ancient Greeks amassing between Dipylon and Eridanos all took time (Eleusis 252-258). The critical variable now becomes whether or not the pomphv stopped at the Shrine to Aphrodite by the sea after crossing the 5 ft wide bridge over the Rheitoi. If so, then the front of the pomphv had transversed approx. 12 miles (~19 km), i.e., the shoreline rests approx. 2 km SW from the Sacred Way. Here, I side with Mylonas against Deubner in that participants of the Eleusinian Mysteries indeed gathered on the beach to experience the krovkosi~ as well as to witness Phryne’s “exhibition,” though I do not particularly insist upon the latter and would toss it if pressed (Eleusis 255-256 vs AF 77 with Ath. 13.590). IG II2 1078 ll.27-29 indirectly supports a pause: ejp[ei;] d[e; prostavttomen toi`~ ej]|fhvboi~ th;n tosauvthn oJdoiporh`sai [oJdovn, divkaion aujtou;~]|kai; qusiw`n kai; spondw`n kai; paiavnwn tw`[n kata; th;n] oJdo;n meqexein k.t.l. Marchers in the pomphv engaged in paians, libations, as well as sacrifices along the way. Conducting sacrifices requires the entire procession to halt (if at the front) or creates gaps in the columns (if conducted anywhere else). Regardless, the inscription reveals participants consumed food and drink in route. Additionally, if the procession took thirty minutes to an hour to set fully into motion from a single location (let us split the difference at 45 min), then it would have taken the same amount of time to come fully to a halt at a single location. Approx. an hour and a half of the day promptly becomes occupied simply starting at the a[stu and stopping the march at the shoreline. Additionally, the bridge represents a bottleneck of sorts. At five feet across only two ancient Greeks and certainly only one beast at a time (donkey or ox) could have crossed safely. Assume an 0830± departure from the a[stu for the front of the procession at 2 mph with no pauses: it arrives at the shore approx. 14:30±. kk The rear of the procession arrives (allowing for the bottleneck at the bridge) just over an hour later. Helios drops below the horizon anywhere from two to two and a half hours after arrival. The Telesterion, moreover, still sits approx. 7 miles kk) In other words, I suspect the beginning of the pomphv stepped-off once Helios hit a certain elevation over the horizon, e.g., +30°. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III (~11.5 km) away (on the assumption the pomphv returned to the Sacred Way upon departure). Once again, the “stack’em, pack’em, and rack’em” presupposition has quietly come to the forefront. If we assume muvstai comprised at least 1⁄ 3 of the pomphv, then distributing and tying 4,000 saffron ribbons (2,000 to each right hand and 2,000 to each left leg) also undoubtedly took time on top of (possibly) witnessing the Priestess of Aphrodite descend into the sea. Regardless, even if one budgets but only an hour for these two rituals (or discounts and tosses the latter), when the pomphv “mounts-up” to resume the march, then it steps-off at approx. 16:30 and would arrive at Eleusis in just over three hours. The rear of the procession then arrives approx. an hour later. It would now be approx. 20:30 on “20 Elaph.” I propose, however, if the pomphv descended upon the Shrine of Aphodite on the shoreline, then this becomes the place where the attested sacrifices during the march took place. Consequently, the pomphv did not begin departing until sunset (i.e., around 1800). The front of the “torchlight” procession thus arrives at Eleusis approx. 2100 and the rear by approx. 2200. If one simply rejects the entire sojourn, then the unavoidable “pause(s)” to conduct the (other) sacrifices attested in IG II2 1078 would result in times roughly akin to the former calculations. Once again, if ancient Athenians reckoned days sunset to sunset, then these schedules at first appear quite solid. The scholiast to Aristophanes’ Frogs 324, for example, gives 20 Boid as the date of the procession (miva tw`n musthrivwn ejsti;n hJ eijkav~, ejn h/| to;n [Iakcon ejxavgousi). Ploutarkhos twice gives the same date, when recounting that ancient Athenians had received a Makedonian garrison during the Mysteries: Vit. Phoc. 28.1 (eijkavdi ga;r hJ froura; Bohdromiw`no~ eijshvcqh musthrivwn o[ntwn, h/| to;n [Iarkcon ejx a[steo~ jEleusi`navde pevmpousin) and Vit. Cam. 19.6 (th;n eijkavda tou` Bohdromiw`no~ h/| to;n mustiko;n [Iakcon ejxavgousin). ll The consistent date given, however, represents but one part of a larger problem. The 20th was not the prw`to~ [day] of the Mysteries regardless whether ancient Athenian solar days ran sunrise to sunrise or sunset to sunset. Depending how one slices the evidence, the first day = th`i trivthi ejpi; dev|[ka] or tetravdi ejpi; devka or ejnavthi ejpi; devka tou` Bohdromiw`no~ (IG II2 1078 ll.11-13, 19). Consequently eijkavdi represented the e{bdomo~, e{kto~, or deuvtero~ day of the festival. The ll) Also Eur. Ion 1074: eij para; kallicovroisi pagai`~|lampavda qewro;n eijkavdwn|o[yetai ejnnuvcio~ a[upno~ w[n. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ATTIC FESTIVALS III scholiast on Aristophanes, in short, provides either an incorrect count or the incorrect date. For purposes of this exercise, replace miva with deuvtero~, i.e., the day the pomphv arrived = 20 Boid. Ploutarkhos’ Vit. Phoc. 28.1 now proves the most problematic, because he expressly states ancient Athenians h/| to;n [Iarkcon ejx a[steo~ jEleusi`navde pevmpousin on eijkavdi Bohdromiw`no~. The qualifier ejx a[steo~, however, drops from Vit. Cam. 19.6. The objects in question conducted by the pomphv, moreover, were not to;n [Iakcon but rather ta; iJera; (IG II2 1078 l.7). While this might appear to split hairs, when the procession (fully) arrived in Eleusis, the celebrants promptly held a pannuciv~, perhaps including the kernofovria (Eur. Ion 1074: o[yetai ejnnuvcio~ with Eleusis 257 and n. 152), and all mentions of to;n [Iarkcon simply drop. What actually happened to the statue when the pomphv first arrived in Eleusis, in other words, simply remains unknown. Regardless, the festivities ended at dawn of Day 2 (still) = 20 Boid. All subsequent ceremonies and rituals now occurred at night, so the Eleusinian Mysteries (effectively) represents an elaborate mult-day nuktov~ festival. From sunset to sunset, Day triva (gæ) = 21 Boid; Day tevttara (dæ) = 22 Boid; and Day pevnth (eæ) = 23 Boid. At this point, the math catches-up with the proposed reckonings. Day e{x (õæ) = Plhmocovai also = 23 Boid. Consequently, either all days for the Eleusinian Mysteries prove incorrect +1 and a separate Day 6 never actually existed, or our understanding of what transpired from Day miva (aæ) = 19 Boid to Day deuvtero~ (bæ) = 20 Boid stands incorrect. I opine the latter prevails. Invoking novacula Occami (lex parsimoniae) in an attempt to rescue Ploutarkhos, I propose the pomphv indeed arrived evening of Day 1 (but) = 19 Boid. The pannuciv~ continued into dawn Day 2 = 20 Boid, but to;n [Iakcon did not complete its journey until evening Day 2 (telethv) = 20 Boid, i.e., after the sacrifice, when initiates first entered the Telestrion (presumably in procession). This small adjustment realigns the Mysteries’ count-of-days to the ancient Attic Calendar, restores a separate Day 6 = 23 Boid, while also explaining how the pomphv began on 19 Boid but ended on 20 Boid without collapsing events creating math problems. mm mm) I encourage readers to contrast and assess my adjusted reckonings for the Eleusinian Mysteries given here with the more detailed accounts of events that transpired offered by others. Mylolas, for example, glosses the reckoning problem (Eleusis 279), and Mikalson simply ignores it (SCCAY 65), even though both stress sunset to sunset reckonings for the pomphv. For the Mysteries in general, see Endnote xx, pp. xxx-xxx. CHRISTOPHER PLANEAUX ENDNOTES 31 J. Svornos, Der athenische Volkskalendar, International d’Archaeologie Numismatique 2.1 (1899) 21-78; RE s.v. Zodiakos; AF 248-254; B. Kiilerich, “Making Sense of the Spolia in the Little Metropolis in Athens,” ArtMediev n.s. 4 (2005) 95-114; O. Palagia, The Date and Iconography of the Calendar Frize on the Little Metropolis, Athens (Berlin 2009). 32 Hartwig, Bendis; Wilhelm, JÖAI; Foucart, Mélanges Perrot; Pappadakis, AE; Peek, Ath. Mitt.; Nilsson, Carsberg (= Opuscula); Roussel, REA (= SEG 10.64a); Ferguson, HThR and Hesperia (= SEG 10.64b); Nilsson, Cults, Myth, Oracles, 45 ff.; Bingen, RBPh (= SEG 17.5); Sokolowski, LSCG (= SEG 21.52); Peçírka, Enktesis, 122ff.; Nilsson, Geschichte, 833-4; Goceva, Thracia, 81-6; Schauenburg, JDAI, 137-87; Popov, DHA, 289-303; LIMC s.vv. “Bendis” and “Deloptes;” R. Garland, The Piraeus: From 5th Century to the First Century B.C. (Ithaca 1987), 118-122 and 231-233, nos. 37-46 (= Piraeus); Introducing New Gods: The Politics of Athenian Religion (Ithaca 1992) 111ff. (= ING); Simms, AncW; Masson, MH; Versnel, Ter Unus, 111-113; Parker, ARH, 170-5; Jones, Associations, 256-262; P. Janouchova, “The Cult of Bendis in Athens and Thrace,” GLB 18.1 (2013) 95-106; C. Grinzel, “Bendis, Deloptes and Asklepios: Reconsidering Reciprocal Formations of Iconography and Placement of Newcomer Cults in the Piraeus,” Acta Archeologica 93.2 (2024) 471-479 IG II2 1283.6-12 ( = LSCG 46). I shall sidestep the date of Bendis’ entry into Attike, which I have addressed ad nauseam elsewhere: C. Planeaux, “The Date of Bendis’ Entry into Attica,” CJ 96.2 (2001) 165-192; “Socrates, Bendis, and Cephalus: Does Plato’s Republic Have an Historical Setting?” A New Politics for Philosophy: Perspectives on Plato, Nietzsche, and Strauss (Lexington 2022). Two dates prevail. 429 BCE: Pappadakis, Nilsson, Peek, Ferguson, Roussel, Robert, and Planeaux. 413 BCE: Bingen, Pritchett, Woodhead, Raubitschek, and Peçírka. The latter is generally assumed today. E.g. CAH2 5.313; OCD4 s.v. “Bendis;” Develin, AO, 156; Parker, ARH, 172; IG I3 136. Studies on the Eleusinian Mysteries have of course grown far beyond legion: e.g., P. Foucart, Recherches sur l’origine et la nature des Mysteries d’Eleusis (Paris 1895); Mysteries d’ Éleusis (Paris 1914); S. Angus, The Mystery-Religions2 (London 1928); G. Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries (New Jersey 1961) = Eleusis; W. Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (London 1987); M. Meyer, ed. The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook – Sacred Texts of the Mystery Religions of the Acient Mediterranean World (San Fransisco 1987); FSA xxx-xxx; AF 69-90; FA 55-72; FoA 24-34; PSA 327-368; 34 FSA 428-448; AF 134-142; DFA2 57-101; FA 125-136; ING 41-42; Parker, ARH 92-95; PSA 317-318. 35 W. Ferguson, “Demetrius Poliorcetes and the Hellenic League,” Hesperia 17.2 (1948) 112136 viz. 134-135 (n. 46) & DFA2 65 vs. AF 142 & DFA 64. See also SCCAY 125-130, 137. Ferguson packs quite a bit in his footnote, which makes it somewhat hard to follow. The background information given n. 43 (pp. 131-132) helps, since the reader fathoms quickly that Demetrios changed the names of pretty much everything. Ferguson’s key point with regard to setting the date for the first day of the City Dionysia = 10 Elaph, becomes a) the brief establishment of the Swthvria kai; to;n ajgw`na (307/6 BCE → 288/7 BCE); b) the “expansion” or “morphing” of Dionuvsia tw`n megavlwn into [Dionusivwn tw`n ejn a[st]ei kai; Dhmhtrie[iv]wn tr[agwidw`n tw`i ajgw`ni or, perhaps more accurately, Dionysiva kai; jAntigovneia kai; Dhmhtriveia (post 294/3 BCE); and (specifically) c) the number of ejkklhsivai held 9 Elaph (p. 134n46¶2). Unfortuately, he cites only three inscriptions for (c): IG II2 646 & 33 Christopher Planeaux ENDNOTES 647 from the early 3rd Century BCE & IG II2 1008 from late-2nd Century BCE. The third inscription, however, does not require any restoration to the Calendar Equation. Dinsmoor (Hesperia [1954] 308) added SEG 3.86 , Agora I.166b, 5191, & 6064 to Ferguson’s list. IG II2 460-462 need removed from consideration, because the Calendar Equation 9 Elaph = Pryt X.9 simply cannot align under either an Ordinary Civil Year or anomalous Embolismic Civil Year without egregious manipulation of the data (see Chap. XX, pp. xxx-xxx). Note: Ploutarkhos proves a bit more direct regarding (b): kai; tw`n eJortw`n ta; Dionuvsia metwnovmasan Dhmhvtria (Vit. Dem. 12.2). 36 P. Wolters, “Darstellungen des Asklepios,” MDAI(A) 17 (1892) 1-15; W. Judeich, Topographie von Athen2 (Munich 1931) 441; Piraeus, 117, 160; ING 116-135; PDA 127-142; J. Lamont, “Asklepios in the Piraeus and the Mechanisms of Cult Appropriation,” Autopsy in Athens: Recent Archaeological Research on Athens and Attica, ed. M. Miles (Oxbow 2015) 37-50. 37 Also IG II2 1368.118-121: de; ajrci|bakco~ quevtw thvn qusivan tw/̀|qew/̀ kai; th;n spondh;n tiqevtw| kata; dekavthn tou` jElafhboli|w`no~ mhnov~ k.t.l. with DFA2 65. While supportive of the date, the evidence dates quite late. For IG II3 1, 344 (= Agora 16.79 = Hesperia 8 (1939) No. 26) & IG II3 1, 384 (= IG II2 372 = Agora 16.95), see Chap. XX, pp. xxx-xxx. 38 IG II3 1, 1292 (= Agora 16.261 = Hesperia 5.3 [1936] No. 15) demands consideration even though the inscription rests outside the scope of both the Primer and present volume. Prof. Meritt’s original analysis presumed Archonship Kharikles = 196/5 BCE, see also Mikalson (SCCAY 128), based on Ferguson’s analysis of Eujainevton JRamnouvsio~ ejgammavteueun (line 2): ATC 28. Epigraphists have since shifted Kharikles to either 200/199 or 184/3 BCE. The shift, unfortunately, opens a rabbit-hole, e.g., IG II3 1, 1246 (= Agora 15.165); IG II3 4, 104 (= SEG 23.98), 38.162, and 65.93. Instead of retracing the ground, the accounting begins with the three years proposed: 200/199 BCE, where 1 Hek = 2 Jul (Embolismic: II Elaph); 196/5 BCE, where 1 Hek = 17 Jul (Ordinary); and 184/3 BCE, where 1 Hek* = 6 Jul (Embolismic: II Moun or II Thar). The inscription in question reads: jEpi; Cariklevou~ a[rconto~ ejpi; th`~ Aijgei`do~ ejnavth~ prutaneivo~ h|ivv Aijscrivwn Eujainevtou JRamnouvsio~ ejgrammavteuen: dhvmou yhfivsmata: jElafhboliw`no~ trivtei ejpi; devka kata; qeo;n de; ojgdovei kai; eijkostei` th`~ prutaneiva~: ejkklhsiva kuriva ejm Peiraiei`: k.t.l. The calendar equation given (13 Elaph = Pryt IX.28) immediately appears problematic. The syntax is wrong. It records a kata; qeo;n de; date without a corresponding kat’ a[rconta date. When aligned, kat’ a[rconta or kata; qeo;n drop and dev does not appear (AYP 223-237). Merrit emended the text jElafhboliw`no~ trivtei ejpi; devka ⟨kat’ a[rconta⟩ kata; qeo;n de; ojgdovei ⟨ejpi; devka, ojgdovei⟩ kai; eijkostei` th`~ prutaneiva~. 18 Elaph of course falls the day after the Pandia. Nevertheless, trivtei ejpi; devka ⟨kat’ a[rconta⟩ should still equate to the fourth day (inclusive) of the City Dionysia. Are we, however, asking the right questions? 200/199 BCE: Embolismic Civil Year ran FFHHFHFHFHFHF; Conciliar Year Pryt. I-XII ran 32 days ea. = 384 Days, thus 18 Elaph = Day 254 = Pryt. VIII.30 = 12 Mar 199 BCE. WinSol, if still reckoned 25 Dec = Pos ultimo; VerEqu, if still reckoned 25 Mar = 1 Moun. Consequently, the basileuv~ or ejkklhsiva could have inserted an embolismic Pos or Anth (I prefer the latter) without violating seasonal alignment and, more importantly, Elaph 18 = Day 284 = Pryt IX.28 = 11 Apr 199 BCE = aligned. 196/5 BCE: Ordinary Civil Year ran FHFFFHFFHHFH = 355 days and 18 Elaph = Day 256 = 29 Mar 195 BCE. Conciliar Year Pryt. I-XII (scenarios 1-5) ran 30 29 30 … 31 or 29 30 Christopher Planeaux ENDNOTES 29 … 31 or 30 30 29 29 … 31 or 29 29 30 30 … 31, or 30 30 30 30 29 29 29 29 … 31 = 18 Elaph = Pryt. IX.20; (scenario 6) Pryt I-XII ran 30 30 30 29 29 29 … 31, and 18 Elaph = Pryt IX.19; (scenario 7) Pryt I-XII ran 29 29 29 30 30 30 … 31 = 18 Elaph = Pryt XI.21; (scenario 8) Pryt I-XII ran 30 30 30 30 30 30 29 29 29 29 29 … 31 = 18 Elaph = Pryt IX.18; (scenario 9) Pryt I-XII ran 29 29 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 31 = 18 Elaph = Pryt. IX.22. Math eliminates 196/5 BCE from consideration. Note: the math for IG II3 1, 1255 (= IG XI 4, 1056), if Archonship Tykhandros (instead) = 196/5 will not work. The Calendar Equation ejnavth~ {p}|[prutaneiva~ … jElafhboliw`no]~ tetravdi iJstamevnou, ejnavtei kai;|[dekavtei th`~ prutaneiv]a~ (4 [Elaph] = Pryt IX.[1]9) also requires an embolismic year with either Pos or Anth intercalated. Moreover, the original Julian Year assigned (160/59 BCE) does not work either: 1 Hek = 9 Jul thus ordinary (I.Delos 1497bis) BCE, 184/3 BCE: Embolismic Civil Year ran HHFHFHFHFFHFF; Conciliar Year Pryt. I-XII ran 32 days ea. = 384 Days, thus 18 Elaph = Day 253 = Pryt. VIII.29 = 15 Mar 183 BCE. WinSol, if still reckoned 25 Dec = 26 Pos; VerEqu, if still reckoned 25 Mar = 28 Elaph. This indiciates the intercalated month ought come AutEqu ↔ SumSol thus postdate Elaph. Additionally, if ancient Greek astronomers had “corrected” Meton’s, Euktemon’s et al. measurements at some point, then dates would have advanced instead of retarded: WinSol 184 BCE = 24 Dec [08:58±] = 25 Pos; VerEqu 183 BCE = 24 Mar [15:37±] = 27 Elaph. Unless one jettisons seasonally aligned Archontic Calendars, math again eliminates 184/3 BCE. Moreover, contrasting 200/199 against 184/3 BCE illustrates quite effectively how but one solar day’s difference reckoning 1 Hek coupled with irregular synodic cycles significantly affects Archontic Month intercalations. Chap. XX, pp. xxx-xxx. Of the three Julian years considered, 200/199 BCE remains the most viable option, thus Prof. Meritt’s emendations become the most economical. Note: E j lafhboliw`no~ ⟨ejmbolivmou⟩ trivtei ejpi; devka ⟨kat’ a[rconta⟩ kata; qeo;n de; ojgdovei ⟨ejpi; devka, ojgdovei⟩ kai; eijkostei` th`~ prutaneiva~ would also preserve seasonal alignment and avoid the City Dionysia. I nonetheless resist the change, because the astronomically aligned date given, Elaph 18 = Day 284 = Pryt IX.28 = 11 Apr 199 BCE, indeed refers to the day after the Pandia. In addition, the boulhv summoned not just an ejkklhsiva in Peiraieus but rather an ejkklhsiva kuriva. Let us accept Merrit’s emendation. The most important question to ask: which date holds precedence in this inscription. The Calendar Equation jElafhboliw`no~ trivtei ejpi; devka ⟨kat’ a[rconta⟩ kata; qeo;n de; ojgdovei ⟨ejpi; devka, ojgdovei⟩ kai; eijkostei` th`~ prutaneiva~ means that at some point (or points) prior to 13 Elaph (ka = kq) the basileuv~ introduced five embolismic days (for whatever reason[s]). Repeated analyses on 5th ↔ 3rd Centuries BCE have shown that kat’ a[rconta dates always hold precedence as the only dates given. Put another way, when ancient Athenians needed to move events or activities, the basileuv~ did so either by retarding the counts of days (ejmbovlimo~) or advancing them (ejxairevsimo~). Major multiday annual (public) festivals, however, and especially Panhellenic festivals, inherently possessed quite formidable inherent institutional “momentums.” The logistics required, physical preparations undertaken beforehand, expenses outlaid, as well as the throngs of participants and spectators gathering, especially when coming from across ancient Greece, means (mevn) that delaying such festivals should have proven less difficult than advancing them. Conceivably, for example, ancient Greeks might have successfully advanced a major multiday festival, perhaps even a Panhellenic celebration, one, maybe two, days, but five days shifts the festival’s alignment under the Moon almost by an entire (major) phase. In sum, these quite serious existential limitations always existed. Christopher Planeaux ENDNOTES Also conceivably (dev), as, for instance, entertained p. xxx, inclement weather earlyApril 199 BCE or some socio-political intrusion(s) or both could have delayed the City Dionysia five days. At some point, however, the festival’s “momentum” must have grown overwhelmingly difficult to extend delays. Assuming the basileuv~ inserted the five embolismic days post Elaph noumhniva, then the repeating day cuts through the City Dionysia’s (final) preparations and, more importantly, the crowds of ancient Athenians and foreigners gathering to watch the staged productions and musical contests. While I hold (and have argued incessently) that ancient Athenians had always maintained a kata; qeovn “calendar,” notations of kat’ a[rconta deviations do not start appearing on inscriptions regularly until 2nd Century BCE though possibly (at least sporadically) toward the end of the 3rd Century BCE. So, the next question to emerge: why the practice of recording two lunisolar reckonings began? IG II3 1, 1292 reveals two things: not only had the Civil Calendar retarded five solar days but also that an ejkklhsiva kuriva still took place on the kata; qeovn date, which falls the day after the Pandia as required by law (Dem. 21.8). The alignment might ultimately prove mere coincidence, or perhaps the appearance of kata; qeovn dates could indicate that kat’ a[rconta dates no longer held absolute primacy when deviations occurred. Further analysis, unfortunately, requires knowing both what embolismic days the basileuv~ inserted and when: all at once, e.g. 2 + 2d´ Elaph, or perhaps two or three days at different times, e.g. 2 + 2b´ & 5 + 5g´ Elaph. Knowing the kata; qeovn date the City Dionysia actually began or when the Pandia actually occurred also proves necessary. I stress that I do not propose nor imply confronting different kat’ a[rconta vs kata; qeovn reckonings on an inscription and choosing “date of precedence” entails the creation of a necessarily consistent either-or scenario (or rule). Circumstances always change and identical conditions seldom if ever repeat. I do suspect, however, in cases of not insignificant deviations around major multiday and esp. Panhellenic festivals, that kata; qeovn dates will prevail far more times than not. See Endnote xx below. Note: as it stands, Archonship Kharikles (200/199 BCE) = Metonic Cycle 13 Year 5 = Kallippic Cycle 2 Year 55; Archonship [Tychandros?] (196/5 BCE) = Metonic Cycle 13 Year 9 = Kallippic Cycle 2 Year 59; and Archonship [. . . .]kles (184/3 BCE) = Metonic Cycle 14 Year 2 = Kallippic Cycle 2 Year 71. 39 AF 134-137; DFA2 42-56; FA 100-103; FoA 101-104; DA 212-222 40 Editors date IG II2 949 to 165/4 BCE (see also Syll.3 661; CA 84-86; AY 183-184). A full analysis would require a jump down another rabbit-hole. Regardless, accepting the year, 1 Hek Pelops (ought) = 5 Jul 165 BCE thus embolismic. The inscription reads: ejpi; Pevlopo~ a[rconto~ ejpi; th`~ Ptolemaivdo~ dwdekavth~ prutaneiva~ … Skiroforiw`no~ e{|ktei ejpi; devka, e{ktei kai; dekavtei th`~ prutaneiva~: 16 Skir = Pryt XII.16. Civil Year ran FHFHFHHFHFFHF; Conciliar Year Pryt. I-XII ran 32 days ea. = 384 Days. 16 Skir = Day 370 = Pryt XII.18. WinSol, if still reckoned 25 Dec = 26 Pos; VerEqu, if still reckoned 25 Mar = 28 Elaph. This indicates the intercalated month ought come VerEqu ↔ SumSol thus postdate Elaph. 16 Skir (ought) = Pryt XII.18 = 9 Jul 164 BCE. The Calendar Equation (mevn) sits -2 Solar Days. During a typical Ordinary Civil Year (dev), 16 Skir could but not necessarily would (depending on the synodic rotations) align to Pryt XII.16. In both 307/6 (FHFHFHFHFHFF) & 304/3 (FFFHFFHHFHHF), for instance, depending on a) whether ancient Athenians calculated Thar plhvrh~ or koi`lo~ correctly, and b) Christopher Planeaux ENDNOTES whether prutanhivh ran (30x6) + (29x6) or (29x6) + (30x6) or alternated 30 29 or 29 30, Skir 16 sits anywhere from aligned to -2 Solar Days against Pryt XII.16. Unfortunately, IG II2 950 (= SEG 18.22) cannot assist with 165/4 BCE, since it dates to the same day (and, regardless, lacks a Conciliar Date). Without a second Calendar Equation to confirm (esp. post Anth ante Skir), the temptation exists to toss the traditional Julian Year and move Archonship Pelops to some other «unassigned» year that runs Ordinary. I am inclined to support such a dislocation based on Agora 15.219 (= SEG 16.95 = Hesperia 26 [1957] No. 22). It dates to the following year (164/3 BCE): ejpi; Euejrgevtou a[rconto~ ejpi; th`~ JIppoqwntivdo~ ejnavth~ prut[a]|neiva~ … E j lafhboliw`no~ ejnavtei ejpi; devka ⟨kat’ a[rconta⟩, kata; qeo;n de; dekavtei uJstev[rai,]|deutevrai kai; eijkostei` th`~ prutaneiva~ k.t.l. 19 Elaph Euergetos = 21 Elaph Moon = Pryt IX.22. This certainly suggests, perhaps strongly, but does not quite prove that the previous Calendar Equation 16 Skir Pelops = Pryt X.16, indeed aligned. 164/3 BCE: 1 Hek Euergetos = 24 Jul 164 BCE; Skir ultimo = 12 Jul 163 BCE. Civil Year ran FHFHFHFHHHFF = 354 days. 19 Elaph(H) Euergetos = 21 Elaph(H) Moon = Day 257 = 2 Apr 163 BCE. If prutanhivh ran 30 29 or 29 30 or 30 30 30 29 29 29 then Day 257 = Pryt IX.21. At some point, presumably post 1 ante 19 Elaph(H), ancient Athenians inserted two Solar Days to retard the Archontic Year and had not yet corrected the count-of-days. One obvious reason becomes the City Dionysia whether the embolismic days reflect sociopolitical circumstances or bad weather. Of course, the retardation could also postdate 17 Elaph thus prove entirely unrelated. Regardless, the new question Classicists should ask is whether or not the festival’s “momentum” crushes the probability of a two day delay (Endnote xx above). I opine not given IG II3 1, 908 (= Agora 16.188) dated 271/0 BCE, though I also opine the retardation of the four solar days there would come awfully close to reaching that threshold. In any case, regarding 164/3 BCE (Agora 15.219), since the declaration of a plhvrh~ or koi`lo~ Synodic Cycle took place the day following 19 Elaph(H) Euergetos = 21 Elaph(H) Moon, I suspect the basileuv~ here simply omitted ejnavth kai; ojgdovh met j eijkavda~ to realign kata; a[rconto~ with kata; qevon in a single move instead of declaring the month koi`lo~ and then later omitting some other day. Note: as it stands, Archonship Pelops (unless moved) = Metonic Cycle 15 Year 2 = Kallippic Cycle 3 Year 14 & Archonship Euergetos = Metonic Cycle 15 Year 3 = Kallippic Cycle 3 Year 15. 41 e.g., Agora 15.215; Agora 16.124[1] (= Hesperia 5 [1936] no. 13 = I.219), 16.154[2] (= SEG 35.82 = I.200); IG II2 378 (= SEG 21.253 = SEG 32.95); IG II2 482; IG II2 989 (= Agora 15.254); IG II2 1009; IG II3 1, 330 (= Agora 16.76[1] = SEG 35.67 = I.3960); IG II3 1, 343 (= IG II2 368 = SEG 21.296); IG II3 1, 350 (= Agora 16.78 = SEG 32.84 = Hesperia 5 [1936] no. 11 = I.830); IG II3 1, 374 (= Agora 16.91 = SEG 21.290 = Hesperia 10 [1941] no. 12 = I.471); IG II3 1, 873 (= Agora 16.180 = Hesperia 15 [1946] no. 14 = I.1524); IG II3 1, 918 (= IG II2 666); IG II3 1, 982 (= IG II2 477 = SEG 3.89); IG II3 1, 1153 (= IG II2 917 = Agora 15.128 = Heperia 27 [1969] 439-440 = [I.3425 + EM 7482]); IG II3 1, 1246 (= Agora 15.165 = SEG 21.404); IG II3 1, 1275 (= IG II2 890 = Agora 15.174); and IG II3 1, 1299 (= Agora 15.167 = SEG 21.440). 42 S. Piblis, Panathenaea, the Greatest Festival of Ancient Athens (Athens 1970); J. Neils, Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens (Princeton 1993); J. Shear, Serving Athena: The Festival of the Panathenaia and the Construction of Athenian Identities (New York 2021) = Serving Athena. Shear’s indepth study provides all the necessary bibliography, Christopher Planeaux ENDNOTES which would only prove superfluous and tedious to repeat here. For good introductions, Piblis; FA 33-50; PSA 253-269. 43 Events also changed depending on the time period surveyed. Serving Athena, for example, is a bit unclear when repeatedly referencing “competitions” but also “games” when discussing the Lesser Panathenaia (pp. 103-108 vs. 174-211). 44 The “contest of ships” (new`n ajmivllh~) perhaps represents the most expensive, elaborate, and involved yet least discussed competition held during the Greater Panathenaia. Undoubtedly, the dirth of scholarship exists because so little information survives. When ancient Athenians first included the regatta and when it dropped, for instance, remains unknown. The only salient detail to survive: the nautical vessels and crews competed by fulaiv (SEG 52.192 ll.139-143). Inferring these tribal crews manned trihvrei~ seems apropos. If sound, then outfitting & maintenance alone became quite expensive, especially if one assumes competitors repeatedly trained and practiced before the festival’s actual competitions. Still, fulaiv may have used other vessels like the triakonthvrh~, penthkovntero~, or biremis. I prefer the smaller vessels but also disagree with Shear’s conclusion that “some [team competitions] … required significant advance preparation, while others, particularly the contest of ships, did not” (Serving Athena 249). The fundamental logistics required to deploy a competitive naval vessel with a crew limited to one’s fulhv, especially if, in fact, a trihvrei~, would far outweigh any other competition at the festival. 45 The arguments and debates span several decades, and the bibliography now proves legion: e.g., FSA 179-190; H. von Prott, “Ein IEROS NOMOS der Eleusinien,” AttMit (1899) 241-266; AF 91-92; R. Healey, “A Sacrifice Without a Diety in the Athenian State Calendar,” HThR 57.3 (1964) 153-159; SCCAY 46; R. Simms, “The Eleusinia in the Sixth to Fourth Centuries B.C.,” GRBS 16 (1975) 269-275; K. Clinton, “IG I2 5, The Eleusinia, and the Eleusinians,” AJPh 100.1 (1979) 1-12; R. Healey, Eleusinian Sacrifices in the Athenian Law Code (New York 1990); Parker, Polytheism 468-469; K. Rigsby, “The Schedule of the Eleusinia,” Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 289-297 46 FA 171-174; Parker, ARH 154, 192. For my proposal of the Anakeia’s possible dates, 15 ↔ 19 Pyan or ±11 Maim, see AYP 219-221. 47 Theophr. Char. 3; schol. Aeschin. In Tim. 43; schol. Pl. Resp. 5.475d; IG II2 1183, 1469. 48 A. Böckh, ZurGeschichte der Mondcyclen der Hellenen, Besonderer Abdruck aus den Jahrbüchen für classische Philologie Supplementband 1.1 (Leipzig 1855) 65ff. 49 FA 172-173; ING 48-54; Parker, ARH 163-168; 50 i.e., Hdt. 6.106.3 = 7.206.1; e.g., Nilsson, Feste 118-129; Burkert, GR 234-236. 51 F. Dunn, “Tampering With the Calendar,” ZPE 123 (1998) 219 (citing correspondence with J. Morgan [Footnote 23]) postulates the basileuv~ retarded the Athenian Civil Calendar some three days or more – possibly up to ten – “to prevent the interruption of the Eleusinian Mysteries.” The hypothesis proves logistically untenable. It assumes instant communication somehow existed in antiquity, which did not. Consequently, Panhellenic Festivals possessed almost insurmountable momentums as ancient Greeks from all over Greece would gather to celebrate them. They must have therefore possessed formulas or methodologies, which different povlei~ with disparate calendars understood, so they could determine when tsubsequent celebrations would occur year to year, biennium to biennium, quadrennium to quadrennium etc. Christopher Planeaux