Lenaia

vol. V p.1935-1939

Lenaia

A festival of Dionysos, which is attested for Ionia and Attica. Its importance is shown by the fact that the Ionian month Lenaion or Lenaios (see there, and vol. X p.1591. 1599) is named after it. We only really know the Attic festival, and we have to be careful of transferring observations we make on the Attic festival onto the Lenaia in general without proper consideration. <10>

The fact that the Attic Lenaia took place in Gamelion (January/February) is attested by Prokl. on Hesiod Erg. 504 τῷ Γαμηλιῶνι, καθ’ ὅν καὶ τὰ Δήναια παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις. Ἴωνες δὲ τοῦτον οὐδ’ ἄλλως ἀλλὰ Ληναιῶνα καλοῦσιν and by lexicographers; cf. Anekd. I 235 Bk. Διονύσια ἑορτὴ Ἀθήνησι Διονύσου. ἤγετο δὲ τὰ μὲν κατ’ ἀγροὺς μηνὸς Ποσειδεῶνος, τὰ δὲ Λήναια Γαμηλιῶνος, τὰ δὲ ἐν ἄστει Ἐλαφηβολιῶνος; there are a few small mistakes in the other sources. <20> This is confirmed by IG II 834 (see below), where the expenses of the ἐπιστάται Ἐλευσινόθεν for the Lenaia appear shortly before those for the Choes (in Anthesterion). This can also be concluded from the fact that the Ionian Lenaion was identical to the Attic Gamelion (vol. VII p.692). In order to determine the day, the fact that the Lenaia was celebrated in Mykonos on 12th Lenaion can probably be used (v. Prott Fasti sacri 4, 24). Nothing can be determined from IG I 4, 17 on the time of the Lenaia (v. Prott Fasti sacri 3). <30>

The fact that the Lenaia was an independent festival has been denied many times in the past, because people wanted to force it into being part of the Anthesteria. This is implausible in and of itself, and it is evidently disproven by the inscriptions (Nilsson 48). Since the epistatai in the year 329/8 first received 20 drachma Ἐπιλήναια εἰς Διονύσια θῦσαι and after a while received 44 drachma εἰς Χόας (IG II 834b II 46. 68), <40> then this means there were separate festivals (Körte Rh. Mus. LII 168. Wachsmuth Abh. Sächs. Ges. 1899, 39).

The ancient name for the festival in Athens isn’t simply Lenaia, but Ἐπιλήναια Διονύσια or Διονύσια ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ; cf. for this one IG II 741 (main financial record[?] in the year 334/3) ἐγ Διονυσίων τῶν Ἐπιληναίων παρὰ μυστηρίων ἐπιμελητῶν. II 834. Aristot. Ἀθ. πολ. 57 (see below), for this, Aristoph. Acharn. 504. Plat. Prot. 327 d. Demosth. XXI 10 (see below). ἐπὶ should be taken as a locative. <50> But colloquially, people probably said the shorter Lenaia, as in Aristoph. Acharn. 1155 ὅς γ’ἐμὲ τὸν τλήμονα Λήναια χορηγῶν ἀπέκλεισ’ ἄδειπνον and often later (Körte 169). Is this the reason for Thuc. II 15, 5 speaking of the Anthesteria as ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια, in contrast to the City and ignoring the Lenaia? Whether we should be able to transfer this - the meaning “festival during Lenaion” - onto the Ionian festival is doubtful; <60> for the Athenians, it was originally the festival in (locatively) the Lenaion. There have been a lot of debates about its location, and Dörpfeld’s identification of the Lenaion with the sanctuary of Dionysos ἐν Λίμναις (see there) and its relocation onto the Areopagus has caused a lot of confusion (Suppl. I p.216). Later, Dörpfeld then looked for the Lenaion, the ‘place of the wine-press’, at the ancient orchestra in the market (Ath. Mitt. XX 368). In contrast to this, <page break 1935/1936> we should bear in mind the fact that in antiquity, ἐν ἄστει was the opposite to ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ, and therefore the Lenaion must have been outside the gates (v. Wilamowitz Herm. XXI 615); the only contradictory source Hesych. ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ ἀγών⋅ ἔστιν ἐν τῷ ἄστει Λήναιον περίβολον ἔχον μέγαν καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ Ληναίου Διονύσου ἱερόν, ἐν ᾧ ἐπετελοῦντο οἱ ἀγῶνες Ἀθηναίων πρὶν τὸ θέατρον οἰκοδομηθῆναι is based on an understandable mistake. Rather, the agon of the Lenaia was held in the Lenaion originally, <10> but after the stone theatre was constructed it was moved into there (cf. also Maass De Lenaeo et Delphinio [Greifswald 1891] IX). Frickenhaus has tried to give the location of the Lenaion more precisely (Arch. Jahrb. XXVII 80); it was supposedly located on the streets of Dipylon after the academy. The answer to this topographical question would then have particular importance for the festival, if it were true that Lenaia = place of the wine-press and the festival = festival of the wine-press; see below about the invention of the wine-press. <20>

The main source about the customs of the festival is Aristot. Ath. pol. 58, 1 ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς πρῶτον μὲν μυστηρίων ἐπιμελεῖται μετὰ τῶν ἐπιμελητῶν … ἔπειτα Διονυσίων τῶν Ἐπιληναίων⋅ ταῦτα δέ ἐστι πομπή τε καὶ ἀγών⋅ τὴν μὲν οὖν πομπὴν κοινῇ πέμπουσιν ὅ τε βασιλεὺς καὶ οἱ ἐπιμεληταί, τὸν δὲ ἀγῶνα διατίθησιν ὁ βασιλεύσ, confirmed by Euegoros’ law in Demosth. XXI 10 ὅταν ἡ πομπὴ ᾖ … καὶ ἡ ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ πομπὴ καὶ οἱ τραγῳδοὶ καὶ οἱ κωμῳδοὶ … <30> The fact that the sacrifices weren’t magnificent is shown by the IG II 384 (see above) and in the totals listed in the main financial record[?] ibid. 741 (Syll.³ 1029). The agon was partially lyrical (IG II 1367) and partially dramatic, and indeed comedy was originally from here, which was later followed by tragedy (vol. XI p.1226). The available documents about these performances were collected in Aristotle’s Didaskaliai and Νῖκαι Διονυσιακαὶ καὶ Ληναϊκαί (vol. V p.396. Körte Class. Philol. I 391), <40> and went over from there into the Alexandrian editions; the evidence from inscriptions which are still extant - there were lots up into the time of the empire (IG III 1160) - are in A. Wilhelm (see above vol. XI p.1226). Teasing remarks coming from wagons are attested by Suid. τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἁμαξῶν σκώμματα, who claims that they were brought over from the Choes to the Lenaia. Schol. Aristoph. Frogs 479 with: ἐν τοῖς Ληναϊκοῖς ἀγῶσι τοῦ Διονύσου ὁ δᾳδοῦχος κατέχων λαμπάδα λέγει⋅ καλεῖτε θεόν⋅ καὶ οἱ ὑπακούοντες βοῶσι⋅ Σεμελήι Ἴακχε πλουτοδότα. <50> If this phrase is exact, then it is only referring to the agon during which the god would be called upon using this formula. In terms of importance, the Lenaia was behind the great Dionysia, as can already be concluded from the fact that foreigners[?] came to Athens for it (Aristoph. Archarn. 504f. αὐτοὶ γάρ ἐσμεν οὑπὶ Ληναίῳ τ’ἀγών⋅ κοὔπω ξένοι πάρεισιν⋅ οὔτε γὰρ φόροι ἥκουσιν οὔτ’ ἐκ τῶν πόλεων οἱ ξύμμαχοι v. Wilamowitz Herm. XXI 616). <60> The comment Anon. de com. 7, 4 K. which says that the name τρυγῳδία comes from the fact that γλεῦκος were given τοῖς εὐδοκιμοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῷ Ληναίῳ is not quite right (vol. XI p.1217). But as long as only the enjoyment of must is being attested at the Lenaia here, there is no reason for doubt (Nilsson 88), <page break 1936/1937> despite the similarity with Phanodem frg. 14 (Athen. XI 465a) πρὸς τῷ ἱερῷ τοῦ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου τὸ γλεῦκος φέροντας τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἐκ τῶν πίθων τῷ θεῷ κιρνάναι, εἰτ’ αὐτοὺς προσφέρεσθαι⋅ ὅθεν καὶ Λιμναῖον κληθῆναι τὸν Διόνυσον ὅτι μιχθὲν τὸ γλεῦκος τῷ ὕδατι τότε πρῶτον ἐπόθη κεκραμέμον.

The Myconic sacrificial calendar makes it especially easy to attribute a Chthonic character to the festival, because in the sacrificial calendar, the sacrifice to Dionysos Leneus on 12th followed sacrifices to Demeter, Kore, and Zeus Buleus on 10th and to Semele on 11th, <10> and in which the sacrifice to Dionysos was followed by one to Zeus Chthonios and Ge Chthonia; according to v. Prott Ath. Mitt. XXIII 222 cf. Nilsson Griech. Feste 278. The basis for this is weak; the matter can only be answered in connection with the question of the god’s “Chthonic” character itself. Frickenhaus Arch. Jahrb. XXVII 80’s hypothesis is connected to this, which seeks to relate a few inscriptions (IG II 469-472 = IG II² 1006. 1008. 1011 from the last quarter of the 2nd century BCE) to the Lenaia. <20> This is based on the idea that the epheboi εἰσήγαγον δὲ καὶ τὸν Διόνυσον ἀπὸ τῆς ἐσχάρας μετὰ φωτός (earlier likely correctly implied the Great Dionysia; cf. Robert 368. Anm. zu IG II² 1008, 15 on p.440. Alkiphr. II 3, 15 speaks of an eschara of Dionysos: vol. VI p.614). The likelihood of this is low. The usefulness of the comment in the (private) Attic sacrificial calendar from the 1st century AD (v. Prott 3, 21) Γαμηλιῶνος κιττῶσεις (Verbum) Διονύσους θί is also very questionable. Many people want to relate this to the Lenaia with Böckh, since people have placed this around the 20th Gamelion; since this doesn’t work, however, and it’s likely that the festival went on from 12th-19th instead (which is also the case when you consider the seven days of the festival in Andros), you have to step back a little bit. cf. v. Prott 11. 45, who first had the Ambrosia in mind (vol. I p.1809); <40> but if this were the name of a festival at all, then its relationship to Attica would be entirely arbitrary (based on Prokl. on Hesiod erg. 504, according to Etym. M. 564, 12 οἱ δὲ Ληναιῶνά φασιν ἐπειδὴ Διονύσου ἐποίουν ἑορτὴν ἐν τῷ μηνὶ τούτῳ, ἣν Ἀμβροσίαν ἐκάλουν. Mommsen 373, 4). Frickenhaus Lenäenvasen 29 connects the garland with the decoration of the idols on the vases (see below). It’s not a good idea to speak of a dogma and a mysterious character for the festival with Mommsen 380; <50> the participation from the daduchos and epimeletes and the epistatai and the fact that they called upon the god as Iakchos proves that there was a later influence from Eleusis at the most. With this in mind, the fact that IG II 741 references a sacrifice at the Daeira (vol. IV p.1980) is useless. <60>

A further hypothesis from Frickenhaus (Lenäenvasen. 72. Berl. Winckelmanns-Progr. 1912) concerns a group of black and red figure vases from 500-420 which have often been discussed (the most beautiful is the Hieron-bowl vol. VIII p.1524 nr.11). I will describe its picture with Robert’s words (Gött. Gel. Anz. 1913, 366): “In front of a cult-image of Dionysos, which consists of a covered column decorated with ivy branches, small round cakes[?], and probably grapes, with masks or double-masks attached, <page break 1937/1938> women put on orgiastic dances; they swing thyrsoi and torches, play the flute, rattles, the tympanum, one of them even plays the Lesbian lyre, and they also probably hold a young deer or a small child in their hands, much like in Euripides’ Bacchae l.739. 754. Primarily, it seems meaningful that many of them are carrying drinking vessels, mostly skyphoi, which they are filling up from a mixing jug, whose usual spot is on a table in front of the cult-image. The κανοῦν also appears two times.” <10> It should also be added that on the vase Louvre G 227 (Taf. II nr. 12 in Frickenhaus) it’s not women, but two satyrs who are acting in front of the cult-image; one of them, crouching on the ground and with a gesture of surprise, looks into a large krater which the other one is approaching with a similar gesture. “Some kind of miracle has happened; the god probably unexpectedly gifted his worshippers with the expensive water which they have just discovered in the krater that was previously empty” (Frickenhaus 7). <20> The foundation for linking these vases to the Lenaia is mainly made up of the fact that women’s participation in a festival of Bakchos is attested in Aristoph. Lys. 1 ἀλλ’ εἴ τις εἰς Βακχεῖον αὐτὰς ἐκάλεσεν. Furthermore, the torches seem to suggest the festival was at night, and at the Lenaia the daduchos held a torch (see above). But, as Robert appropriately concludes, this is not enough evidence; in Lysistrata, it’s not about a state-festival, and the Bakcheion is not the Lenaia; <30> torches were also used in festivals that took place during the day. Therefore, Robert would rather link these images to the Iobakcheia (vol. IX p.1828, 41). Of course, you can’t overlook the fact that these arguments don’t make the hypothesis itself impossible, and in my opinion the hypothesis is entirely possible, and can neither be conclusively proven nor disproven. cf. Deubner Arch. f. Rel. XX 151. Also, Frickenhaus 20 should not be taken as correct when he connects the Dionysos of the Lenaia with Kadmeios and Thebes, <40> since all this speaks for his Ionian origins; the Eleuthereus which came later out of Boeotia was clearly felt to be something different.

The next interpretation of the Lenaia is as a festival of the wine-press. This is how Schol. Aristoph. Acharn. 202 should probably be interpreted (Körte 170): Λήναιον γάρ ἐστιν ἐν ἀγροῖς ἱερὸν τοῦ Διονύσου διὰ τὸ πλείστους ἐνταῦθα γεγονέναι ἤ διὰ τὸ πρῶτον ἐν τούτῳ τῷ τόπῳ ληνὸν τεθῆναι. <50> Now, a festival of the wine-press in the winter would be absurd, and what eg. Mommsen 375 has nevertheless argued in favour of this interpretation is wrong. With this in mind, the wine-press found in the district named Limnai by Dörpefelt tells us nothing, because this district wasn’t Limnai, and didn’t hold the Lenaia. At the very most, it could have been a festival at the place of the wine-press, which nevertheless could not have been a festival of the wine-press. <60> This issue has lead people to look for another interpretation of the word, and found it in the glosses, which explain λῆναι as βάκχαι (Hesych.; Dionysos was called θοᾶν ληναγέτας Βακχᾶν Inschr. aus Halikarnass Gr. Insc. Brit. Mus. 902) and say that ληνεύουσι = βακχεύουσι; λῆναι is listed between βάκχοι and μύσται in Heraclit. B 14; in B 15 he connects Διόνυσος ὅτεῳ μαίνονται καὶ ληναΐζουσιν (Nilsson 111; Griech. Feste 275). <page break 1938/1939> However, you cannot overlook the fact that people do not use this to get rid of the connection between ληνός “wine-press” and the Lenaia, though Ribbeck 13 has tried to. Therefore, it’s very likely that the λῆναι could have originally been those pressing wine, and Lenaion the place for the wine-press, without it keeping its meaning for the later Lenaia. The idea that it had an orgiastic character and was connected to the festivals of the Thyiades, as Nilsson 109, Gr. G. 276 thinks, is not particularly likely; <10> at the very least, it wasn’t any more orgiastic than other festivals of Dionysos. In this respect, a connection with the Eleusinian mysteries, even if it was a tight one, cannot be proven.

What we know about Lenaia outside of Attica is the following. In Rhodes, the Lenaia took place along with a dramatic agon (IG XII 1, 125, discussed by Kaibel Herm. XXIII 268); this was taken on from Attica. <20> The sacrifice to Dionysos Leneus on 12th Lenaion in Mykonos has been mentioned a few times above. Usena (Acta Timothei. Progr. Bonn 1877, 24) has likely correctly linked the comment in Plin. n. h. II 231 with the Lenaia: Andro in insula templo Liberi patri fontem Nonis Ianuariis semper vini sapore fluere Mucianus credit. XXXI 16 Mucianus Andri e fonte Liberi patris statis diebus septenis eius dei vinum fluere, si auferatur e conspectu templi, sapore in aquam transeunte. <30> Paus. VI 26, 2, according to which it happened year after year (Hitzig-Blümner II 673). On this miracle, cf. Eur. Bacch. 707. Steph. Byz. s. Νάξος. This could bring to mind the vase in the Louvre mentioned above. Finally, from Magnesia (Inschr. v. Magn. 117, 2nd century AD), we know that in the Lenaia, the followers of Dionysos who had been inaugurated into the mysteries offered sacrifices to the dead members. Our knowledge is so incredibly sparse that only the Ionian Lenaia is able to be used to make conclusions about the original character of the festival. <40> Older literature in C. Fr. Hermann Gottesdienstl. Altert.² 399. O. Ribbeck Anfänge und Entwicklung des Dionysoskultes in Attika. Kiel 1869. Nilsson Studia de Dionysiis Atticis. Lund 1900 (here p. Iff. For an overview on the ancient literature, p.139ff. A collection of the ancient sources). A. Mommsen Feste der Stadt Athen 372. cf. the articles Lenaios and Limnai.

[Kroll.]

This article is referenced by: Dionysia (1-2), Dionysos (1-2)