The question where the Lenaean contests took place before the building of the great theatre of Dionysus has been unfortunately complicated with other problems, of which no final solution can be given. For it has been customary to assume that the Lenaeum was identical with the temple of Dionysus ἐν Λίμναις, or at least that the latter was included in the Lenaeum; and thus all the disputes respecting the site of the temple ἐν Λίμναις have been regarded as applying also to the site of the Lenaeum. Hence the discussion of the evidence for the site of the Lenaeum is more difficult than it need be.

I. It is to be noticed in the first place, as Miss Harrison points out (Primitive Athens, pp. 96-7), that, on the one hand, none of those writers who themselves saw the temple ἐν Λίμναις (and indeed hardly any writers, the possible exceptions being considered below) speak of it as the Lenaeum or in connexion with the Lenaeum; while on the other hand, contemporary (and nearly all later) mentions of the dramatic contest at the Lenaea fail to connect it with the Λίμναι. And it is obvious that, as the precinct ἐν Λίμναις was only open once a year, on the 12th of Anthesterion (pseudo-Dem. in Neaer. § 76, see below), the Lenaeum cannot (any more than the temple or precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus) have been absolutely identical with it, though the possibility is not thereby excluded that the Lenaeum may have been a larger precinct in a part of which the temple ἐν Λίμναις stood.

The passages referring to the ἐν Λίμναις, without reference to the Lenaeum, are Thuc. ii. 15; Aristoph. Ran. 211 sqq.; pseudo-Dem. in Neaer. § 76; and Phanodemus ap. Athen. xi. p. 465 a: there can also be little doubt that Paus. i. 20. 3 refers to the temple ἐν Λίμναις, though he does not name it. I make only such comments on these passages as are necessary for showing that they afford no ground for the identification of the Lenaeum and the ἐν Λίμναις.

(A) Thuc. ii. 15: τὸ δὲ πρὸ τούτου ἡ ἀκρόπολις ἡ νῦν οὖσα πόλις ἦν καὶ τὸ ὑπ’ αὐτὴν πρὸς νότον μάλιστα τετραμμένον· τεκμήριον δέ· τὰ γὰρ ἱερὰ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἀκροπόλει καὶ ἄλλων θεῶν ἐστί, καὶ τὰ ἔξω πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος τῆς πόλεως μᾶλλον ἵδρυται, τό τε τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Ὀλυμπίου καὶ τὸ Πύθιον καὶ τὸ τῆς Γῆς καὶ τὸ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου, ᾧ τὰ ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια τῇ δωδεκάτῃ ποιεῖται ἐν μηνὶ Ἀνθεστηριῶνι.

This passage can only be used to prove the ἐν Λίμναις identical with the Lenaeum (or closely connected) if we can identify the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια with the Lenaean festival or part of it. Gilbert, Dörpfeld, and others have attempted to do this. (It should be noted that, in the case of Dörpfeld and his followers, this attempt is secondary to an attempt to fix the temple ἐν Λίμναις at a particular spot, where he has discovered the remains of a precinct of Dionysus, containing a wine-press, ληνός.) They argue that the use of the comparative ἀρχαιότερα by Thucydides implies that he knew only of two Dionysia, one the older, the other the later. The later must obviously be the Great or City Dionysia; and therefore the earlier, it is argued, must be the Anthesteria, Lenaea and Rural Dionysia, all regarded as one and the same festival; the place of the Anthesteria must therefore be the place of the Lenaea; and as a comparison of Thucydides with the pseudo-Dem. in Neaeram (below) proves that the place of at least one part of the Anthesteria—that which was celebrated on the 12th Anthesterion—was the ἐν Λίμναις, it follows that the Lenaea must also have taken place ἐν Λίμναις, not of course in the actual sanctuary of Dionysus, but close to it.

Now it can be shown (1) that the stress laid on the comparative is unwarranted, (2) that there are other grounds for refusing to identify the Anthesteria and the Lenaea.

(1) There are other passages in classical Greek literature in which the comparative of words denoting age, &c., is used of the oldest, not of two, but of several. Nilsson (Studia de Dionysiis Atticis, p. 54) collects the following, in addition to Homeric instances noted by Kühner-Gerth (Griech. Gramm. § 349, p. 3).

Lys. x. 5: ὁ γὰρ πρεσβύτερος ἀδελφὸς Πανταλέων ἅπαντα παρέλαβε καὶ ἐπιτροπεύσας ἡμᾶς τῶν πατρῴων ἀπεστέρησεν.

Lys. xiii. 67: ἦσαν τοίνυν οὗτοι, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, τέτταρες ἀδελφοί. τούτων εἷς μὲν ὁ πρεσβύτερος κτλ.

Xen. Cyr. v. 1. 6: ὡς δ’ ἡμῶν ὁ γεραίτερος εἶπε (where the context shows that a good many people were concerned. The reading γεραίτερος is far better supported than γεραίτατος).

Theocr. xv. 139: οὔθ’ Ἕκτωρ, Ἑκάβας ὁ γεραίτερος εἴκατι παίδων.

Other instances could probably be found, in spite of the tendency of grammarians and editors to force these cases into the supposed orthodox form, by emending the comparative to the superlative (as e.g. they have done in Aelian, Var. H. ii. 41).

All that the comparative really implies is that one individual case is separated off from the rest, and the rest treated as a single combined group. On this view the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια will be the older ceremony, the Anthesteria, as contrasted with the group well known to be recent, viz. the great popular festivals, the City Dionysia and the Lenaea. If πρεσβύτερος and γεραίτερος can be used of one brother as opposed to the rest, why not ἀρχαιότερα of one festival as opposed to the rest, these latter being grouped together in thought as recent in comparison with the one?

There is, further, a note by Prof. Capps in the Trans. Amer. Philol. Assoc. vol. xxxii, summarizing a paper in which he claims to distinguish the meaning of ἀρχαιότερα from that of παλαιότερα, to show that previous critics of Thucydides have confused them, and that on the true view of ἀρχαιότερα the view of Gilbert, Dörpfeld, &c., is impossible. But the paper has not been published as a whole.

(2) The Lenaea was celebrated in the month Gamelion, which in other places was called Lenaeon; the Anthesteria in Anthesterion. Gilbert’s attempt to prove that the names of the months were changed and the festivals transferred from one month to another breaks down entirely (Nilsson, l.c., pp. 1-37, disproves it completely), nor would the attempt have been made but for the necessity of providing some such explanation, if the two festivals were to be identified. The separation in time of the festivals is sufficient to disprove their identity.

Again, in C. I. A. ii. 834 b (pp. 516 ff.) we have the accounts of certain officials called ἐπιστάται Ἐλευσινόθεν καὶ ταμίαι τοῖν θεοῖν in the year B.C. 329-8. Col. II, containing the accounts ἐπὶ τῆς Πανδιονίδος ἕκτης πρυτανείας, includes in l. 46 ἐπιστάταις Ἐπιλήναια εἰς Διονύσια θῦσαι ΔΔ∸, and in l. 68 εἰς Χόας δημοσίοις ἱερεῖον ΔΔ𐅂𐅂𐅂. This proves that the Epilenaea (the same form occurs in Ath. Pol. ch. lvii, though it is altered by editors, and probably also in C. I. A. ii. 741) was a distinct festival from the Anthesteria, of which the Choes formed a part. (This was shown by Körte, Rhein. Mus. lii. pp. 168 ff., and Wachsmuth, Abh. der Sächs. Ges. der Wiss. xviii. pp. 40 ff.) A later inscription, C. I. A. iii. 1160, date c. B.C. 193-2, separates equally clearly the Lenaea from the Χύτροι (vide Nilsson, l.c., pp. 42-4): and Nilsson gives other passages quite as conclusive (l.c., p. 143), of which one is worth quoting, a gloss found in Photius, Suidas, &c., s.v. τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἁμαξῶν σκώμματα· ἐπὶ τῶν ἀπαρακαλύπτως σκωπτόντων. Ἀθήνησι γὰρ ἐν τῇ τῶν Χοῶν ἑορτῇ οἱ κωμάζοντες ἐπὶ τῶν ἁμαξῶν τοὺς ἀπαντῶντας ἔσκωπτόν τε καὶ ἐλοιδόρουν. τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ τοῖς Ληναίοις ὕστερον ἐποίουν.

It follows, therefore, that the Anthesteria, the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια of Thucydides, cannot be identified with the Lenaea, and that whatever may be proved from Thucydides as to the site of the temple ἐν Λίμναις, in which the former were partly celebrated, nothing follows in reference to the Lenaeum.

(B) Aristoph. Ran. 211 sqq.:

The fact that the play was produced at the Lenaea (B.C. 405) cannot possibly be used to prove that the Lenaea and the Chutroi, at which the ‘Frogs’ profess to have raised their hymn to Dionysus (in the past, it is to be noticed), were the same festival.

(C) Pseudo-Dem. in Neaer. §§ 73 sqq.: καὶ αὕτη ἡ γυνὴ ὑμῖν ἔθυε τὰ ἄρρητα ἱερὰ ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως, καὶ εἶδεν ἃ οὐ προσῆκεν αὐτὴν ὁρᾶν ξένην οὖσαν, καὶ τοιαύτη οὖσα εἰσῆλθεν οἷ οὐδεὶς ἄλλος Ἀθηναίων τοσούτων ὄντων εἰσέρχεται ἀλλ’ ἢ ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως γυνή, ἐξώρκωσέ τε τὰς γεραρὰς τὰς ὑπηρετούσας τοῖς ἱεροῖς, ἐξεδόθη δὲ τῷ Διονύσῳ γυνή.... § 76: καὶ τοῦτον τὸν νόμον γράψαντες ἐν στήλῃ λιθίνῃ ἔστησαν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοῦ Διονύσου παρὰ τὸν βωμὸν ἐν Λίμναις (καὶ αὕτη ἡ στήλη ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἕστηκεν, ἀμυδροῖς γράμμασιν Ἀττικοῖς δηλοῦσα τὰ γεγραμμένα).... καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ἐν τῷ ἀρχαιοτάτῳ ἱερῷ τοῦ Διονύσου καὶ ἁγιωτάτῳ ἐν Λίμναις ἔστησαν, ἵνα μὴ πολλοὶ εἰδῶσι τὰ γεγραμμένα· ἅπαξ γὰρ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἑκάστου ἀνοίγεται, τῇ δωδεκάτῃ τοῦ Ἀνθεστηριῶνος μηνός.... § 78: ὅρκος γεραρῶν. ἁγιστεύω καὶ εἰμὶ καθαρὰ καὶ ἁγνὴ ἀπό τε τῶν ἄλλων τῶν οὐ καθαρευόντων καὶ ἀπ’ ἀνδρὸς συνουσίας, καὶ τὰ Θεοίνια καὶ τὰ Ἰοβάκχεια γεραίρω τῷ Διονύσῳ κατὰ τὰ πάτρια καὶ ἐν τοῖς καθήκουσι χρόνοις.

Here there is no hint of the Lenaeum or Lenaea at all.

(D) Paus. i. 20. 3: τοῦ Διονύσου δέ ἐστι πρὸς τῷ θεάτρῳ τὸ ἀρχαιότατον ἱερόν· δύο δέ εἰσιν ἐντὸς τοῦ περιβόλου ναοὶ καὶ Διόνυσοι, ὅ τε Ἐλευθερεὺς καὶ ὃν Ἀλκαμένης ἐποίησεν ἐλέφαντος καὶ χρυσοῦ.

(E) Athen. xi. p. 465 a: Φανόδημος δὲ πρὸς τῷ ἱερῷ φησι τοῦ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου τὸ γλεῦκος φέροντας τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἐκ τῶν πίθων τῷ θεῷ κιρνάναι, εἶτ’ αὐτοὺς (v. ll. αὐτοῖς, αὐτοί) προσφέρεσθαι· ὅθεν καὶ Λίμναιον κληθῆναι τὸν Διόνυσον, ὅτι μιχθὲν τὸ γλεῦκος τῷ ὕδατι τότε πρῶτον ἐπόθη κεκραμένον.

Now it is clear that none of the above passages gives us any assistance towards the localization of the Lenaeum. Nor do the references to the Lenaic performances themselves. The festival is called Λήναια (Aristoph. Ach. 1155; Athen. p. 130 d, &c.): ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ ἀγών (Aristoph. Ach. 504): ἐπιλήναια Διονύσια (Ath. Pol. c. 57; C. I. A. ii. 834 b and probably 731), and we have such phrases as ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ νικᾶν, διδάσκειν, &c.: but in none of these cases is there any hint of the Λίμναι (e.g. Plat. Prot. 327 d; Dem. Meid. § 10).

For what reasons, then, drawn from literary evidence, has it been assumed that the Lenaea and the Anthesteria (partly held ἐν Λίμναις) were identical?

(1) The passage of Athenaeus above quoted has been compared with Anon. de Comoed. αʹ. l. 6 ff. (Kaibel. Fr. Com. p. 7) τὴν αὐτὴν (sc. τὴν κωμῳδίαν) δὲ καὶ τρυγῳδίαν φασὶ διὰ τὸ τοῖς εὐδοκιμοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῷ Ληναίῳ γλεῦκος δίδοσθαι, ὅπερ ἐκάλουν τρύγα, ἢ ὅτι μήπω προσωπείων ηὑρημένων τρυγὶ διαχρίοντες τὰ πρόσωπα ὑπεκρίνοντο. But the two passages refer to entirely different ceremonies. That of which Athenaeus speaks was part of the Choes, the first drinking of the new wine at the Anthesteria. The second refers to the prize of a bottle of new wine given to successful poets at the Lenaea; it is a conjectural explanation of the name τρυγῳδία. There is nothing whatever to show that the passages refer to ceremonies in any way connected, except the use of the word γλεῦκος in both.

(2) Hesychius: λίμναι· ἐν Ἀθήναις [ἇς] τόπος ἀνειμένος Διονύσῳ, ὅπου τὰ λαία ἤγετο. Editors generally, following Musurus, emend to Λήναια, but this is not proof. The true reading may be Λιμναῖα.

(3) The one passage which can be treated seriously is a Schol. on Aristoph. Ach. 961, explaining the origin of the Choes: εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν τῶν Χοῶν· ἐπετελεῖτο δὲ Πυανεψιῶνος ὀγδόῃ· οἱ δὲ Ἀνθεστηριῶνος ⟨δω⟩δεκάτῃ. φησὶ δὲ Ἀπολλόδωρος Ἀνθεστήρια καλεῖσθαι κοινῶς τὴν ὅλην ἑορτὴν Διονύσῳ ἀγομένην, κατὰ μέρος δὲ Πιθοιγίαν Χόας Χύτραν. καὶ αὖθις. ὅτι Ὀρέστης μετὰ τὸν φόνον εἰς Ἀθήνας ἀφικόμενος (ἦν δὲ ἑορτὴ Διονύσου Ληναίου), ὡς μὴ γένοιτο ὁμόσπονδος ἀπεκτονὼς τὴν μητέρα ἐμηχανήσατο τοιόνδε τι Πανδίων ... καὶ ἀπ’ ἐκείνου Ἀθηναίοις ἑορτὴ ἐνομίσθη οἱ Χόες. This passage as it stands undoubtedly represents the Choes as instituted to form part of a festival of Dionysus Lenaeus. But our suspicions are aroused when we find that the other versions of the same story make no allusion to Dionysus Lenaeus. The corresponding expression in Schol. ad Aristoph. Eq. 95 (which Rutherford transfers to Ach. 961) is κατέλαβεν δὲ αὐτὸν (sc. τὸν Πανδίονα) εὐωχίαν τινα δημοτελῆ ποιοῦντα. (Other versions are Athen. x. p. 437 b; Plut. Quaest Symp. p. 613 b and p. 643 a; Schol. Tzetzae ad Lycophr. 1374; Suidas s.v. Χόες.) It is at least probable, therefore, that the parenthesis ἦν δὲ ἑορτὴ Διονύσου Ληναίου is an erroneous gloss by the compiler of the first-quoted scholium, whose state of mind in regard to the facts concerning the festivals mentioned is sufficiently indicated by the early part of the scholium. Rutherford has made plain the unreliability of the scholiasts on Aristophanes, and this single passage is of no value when compared with the weight of evidence against the identification of the two festivals. Nilsson (l.c., p. 57) may be right in his suggestion that Ληναίου is an error for Λιμναίου. ΛΗΝΑΙΟΥ and ΛΙΜΝΑΙΟΥ are very much alike, and the latter, being less familiar, might easily be changed into the former. Athen. xi. 465 a (quoted above), quoting Phanodemus, mentions Λιμναῖος as a name of Dionysus, especially connected with the Anthesteria. But in fact the emendation, though highly probable, is needless so far as the case against identifying the festivals is concerned. I do not notice some other passages cited by Gilbert in support of the identification, because so far as I can discover no one does or would now so use them: in any case Nilsson’s reply is sufficient.

II. With regard to the archaeological evidence adduced by Dörpfeld (Ath. Mitth. 1895, Griech. Theat. p. 7) and Miss Harrison, it seems enough to say that though the precinct discovered by the former, and identified by them with the precinct ἐν Λίμναις, contains the remains of a ληνός, this does not itself prove that it was a precinct of Dionysus Lenaeus, much less that it was the Lenaeum for which we are looking. If it were the precinct of Dionysus Lenaeus it might contain a ληνός (though this is not necessary); but to argue the converse is quite fallacious. Nor does the existence of other ληνοί in the neighbourhood help the argument. There is some plausibility, indeed, in the idea that the Lenaeum may have been a place or district in which there were many ληνοί, but (1) it is certainly not proved that Dörpfeld’s precinct was the temple ἐν Λίμναις, and so, even if it were the Lenaeum, the two temples would not necessarily be identified, and (2) it is very probable that the title Λήναιος is not derived from ληνός at all. We will first deal with these two points before discussing such positive evidence as there is for the site of the Lenaeum.

(1) As to the temple ἐν Λίμναις, the first important piece of evidence as to the site is the passage of Thucydides, and next the passages of pseudo-Dem. in Neaeram and Pausanias, all quoted above. To take Thucydides first. The most natural and obvious interpretation, the one which a reader would assume if not on the look out for difficulties, would take πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος as = πρὸς τὸ ὑπ’ αὐτὴν πρὸς νότον μάλιστα τετραμμένον. It cannot indeed be said that it would be impossible for it to mean ‘near this original city’ (including the acropolis and the land south of it); but, as Prof. E. Gardner points out (Ancient Athens, p. 144), one would expect πρὸς νότῳ (or πρὸς τούτῳ τῷ μέρει) in such a case; and such an interpretation gives us no reason why Thucydides should have mentioned the south at all. On the most natural interpretation then of Thucydides the temple ἐν Λίμναις was to the south of the acropolis (or SW.), not, like Dörpfeld’s precinct, on the WNW. Pausanias, moreover, says that the ἀρχαιότατον ἱερόν of Dionysus was πρὸς τῷ θεάτρῳ. (ἱερόν as Carroll points out (Class. Rev. July, 1905) often means the whole precinct, and not merely the shrine or sanctuary; several shrines may be included in one precinct.) Carroll reminds us (l.c.) that ‘Fischbach (Wiener Stud. xv. pp. 161-91) has shown conclusively that Pausanias was thoroughly acquainted with Thucydides, and made extensive use of the historian in his description of Athens; so much that he appropriates words, phrases, and terms of expression found in Thucydides. These stylistic resemblances exclude the acceptance of an intermediate channel. Pausanias had also the benefit of a tradition handed down by local guides respecting important sites. Hence when he makes a statement manifestly based on Thucydides, the presumption is that he understood his authority and interpreted him correctly.’ Now in the present case it is admitted that Pausanias had Thucydides before him; and when Thucydides speaks of the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια as celebrated at the temple ἐν Λίμναις, and when the pseudo-Demosthenes (l.c.), a connecting link, speaks of the ἐν Λίμναις as the ἀρχαιότατον ἱερόν of Dionysus, it is infinitely more natural to suppose that Pausanias also, speaking of the ἀρχαιότατον ἱερόν, refers to the precinct ἐν Λίμναις, and that therefore the temple ἐν Λίμναις was πρὸς τῷ θεάτρῳ, than with Wilamowitz (Hermes, xxi) to construct a theory of clumsy mistakes on Pausanias’ part. Of course, for the reasons given by Wilamowitz, the ἐν Λίμναις was not the same as the theatre or temple of Dionysus Eleuthereus, but it may well have been within the same ἱερόν, the same sacred precinct, or quite close to it, on the SW. of the acropolis.

Now Miss Harrison (l.c., p. 83) writes that ‘Thucydides himself seems to warn us. He seems to say, “not that precinct which you all know so well and think so much of, not that theatre where year by year you all go, but an earlier and more venerable place, and, that there be no mistake, the place where you go on the 12th day of Anthesterion, &c.”’: and she concludes that Pausanias was wrong in saying that the oldest sanctuary of Dionysus was πρὸς τῷ θεάτρῳ. Thucydides, she seems to argue, would not have been at such pains to distinguish the two ‘hiera’ if they had been close to each other. But (if he is really intending to distinguish them) this may just as well have been because they were close to each other and might be confused. However, so far as this passage goes, the theatre may or may not have been near the oldest sanctuary; Thucydides would not have any reason to think of the theatre in either case, for the simple reason that it was not old enough to add anything to his argument, and any mention of it would have been irrelevant and confusing.

The most natural conclusion then from the words of Thucydides and Pausanias is that the temple ἐν Λίμναις was near the theatre, and not in Dörpfeld’s precinct to the WNW. of the acropolis. (In spite of Miss Harrison it seems that the other temples mentioned by Thucydides can be accommodated with sites at least as well on the view here taken as on that taken by Dörpfeld, and I should say very much better. See Bates (Trans. Amer. Phil. Assoc, vol. 30); E. Gardner (l.c.); Farnell (Class. Rev. 1900, &c.).)

I pass on to the attempt to identify the ἐν Λίμναις with Dörpfeld’s precinct on the evidence of pseudo-Demosthenes. The passage gives the oath taken by the γεραραί or attendants at the ceremony on the 12th of Anthesterion. They swear that they celebrate (or will celebrate, though I cannot find any authority for the reading γεραρῶ) the Theoinia and Iobaccheia in the customary manner and at the customary times. Therefore, Miss Harrison seems to wish us to argue, the Iobaccheia took place like the ceremony on the 12th of Anthesterion in the ἐν Λίμναις, and the Iobacchic inscription discovered in Dörpfeld’s precinct proves this precinct to be the place of the Iobaccheia, and therefore to be the ἐν Λίμναις. This is simply a case of non sequitur. Suppose a ceremony of the English Church which required of its attendants a solemn declaration, ‘I am (or, I will be) a regular communicant,’ it could not be inferred that the Communion Service was part of the ceremony, or took place at the same spot. Even, therefore, if a Baccheion has been found, guaranteed by the inscription (and of this there is no doubt), there is nothing to prove either that it, or any older building beneath it, is the temple ἐν Λίμναις, or that the third-century inscription on the pillar by the altar is the representative of the far older στήλη by the altar ἐν Λίμναις mentioned by the pseudo-Demosthenes. Prof. Ernest Gardner also points out (l.c., p. 113) that the Iobaccheia mentioned in the oath cannot be the same as the rites of the Iobacchi of the inscription, for ‘the one is a state ceremony, the other a private one; and, moreover, the Iobaccheia are not among the festivals which the Iobacchi celebrate, and of which we have a complete list’ (see Roberts and Gardner, Greek Epigraphy, ii. pp. 236 ff.). The fact that the lower building contains a wine-press and places for an altar and stelae does not prove that it was the ἐν Λίμναις: it proves at most that it was an old Βακχεῖον, like the one above it. There is no proof at all of the crucial point—that the Iobaccheia were celebrated only, or celebrated at all, in the temple ἐν Λίμναις: Dörpfeld’s precinct is probably only one of the many Βακχεῖα which (as Prof. E. Gardner, l.c., notes) must have existed in Athens, and the practice of setting up stelae was too general to allow of any argument being drawn from the one found. On the whole, the statement ‘I celebrate (or, will celebrate) the Iobaccheia at the proper times’ suggests that the reference is to some time not the present, and that the Iobaccheia are quite distinct from the ceremony of the 12th of Anthesterion. The nature of the enclosure surrounding Dörpfeld’s precinct also admits of many explanations besides the one Miss Harrison offers. Perhaps if it was the ἐν Λίμναις, only open once a year and kept strictly secret, it would be carefully enclosed, and would have only a small door, and would contain no votive offerings; but to argue the converse is simply bad reasoning. Since then Dörpfeld’s precinct was probably not the temple ἐν Λίμναις, the place of the Anthesteria, it gives us no ground for identifying the sites or the ceremonies of the Anthesteria and the Lenaea; and we have seen that the fact that it contains a ληνός is quite insufficient to prove that the precinct was the Lenaeum. So that the discovery of the precinct, interesting as it is in itself, throws no light whatever on the problem before us—the site of the Lenaeum.

(2) As regards the derivation of the title Λήναιος, the form of the word suggests derivation from a feminine λήνη, not a masculine ληνός, and this view finds support on other grounds from Ribbeck (Anfänge und Entwickelung des Dionysos-Kult in Attika, p. 13); Farnell (Class. Rev. 1900), and Nilsson (l.c., pp. 111 ff.). Shortly, the reasons for the derivation from λήνη are as follows. Hesychius gives us λῆναι· βάκχαι· Ἀρκάδες: and Ribbeck, comparing this with Odyssey xix. 230 ὁ μὲν (sc. κύων) λάε νεβρὸν ἀπάγχων, suggests that the root is λαϝ, ‘tear,’ and that the λῆναι were bacchants of the mountains who rent a fawn in their ecstasy. We find also the verb ληναΐζειν. If this is so, the Lenaea probably at first included orgiastic rites, and it is significant in this connexion that there were mysteries connected with Lenaea at Myconos; and it may be added that in C. I. A. 834 b the fact that expenditure for the Lenaea appears in the accounts of the ἐπιστάται Ἐλευσινόθεν has by some been interpreted as pointing in the same direction, and suggesting in connexion with the Lenaea mystic rites having reference to the fertility of the ground. If so, the derivation from ληνός must give way; it is in any case uncertain, though perhaps it was the popular derivation in ancient times. It does not, however, seem to me to follow necessarily (as Dr. Farnell appears to think) that because both the Anthesteria and the Lenaea involved secret rites, they were even probably the same festival. The arguments given by Nilsson and others, and partly reproduced above, are a sufficient reply.

III. Finally, we have to ask, what positive evidence have we for the site of the Lenaeum?

(1) It was in the ἀγορά. This seems to be a legitimate inference from two passages of Photius, viz. ληναῖον· περίβολος μέγας Ἀθήνησιν ἐν ᾧ τοὺς ἀγῶνας ἦγον πρὸ τοῦ τὸ θέατρον οἰκοδομηθῆναι ὀνομάζοντες ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ. ἔστιν δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἱερὸν Διονύσου Ληναίου (so practically Hesych. s.v. ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ ἀγών), and ἴκρια· τὰ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ ἀφ’ ὧν ἐθεῶντο τοὺς Διονυσιακοὺς ἀγῶνας πρὶν ἢ κατασκευασθῆναι τὸ ἐν Διονύσου θέατρον. Again, Schol. ad Dem. de Cor. § 129 describes τὸ κλίσιον τὸ πρὸς τῷ καλαμίτῃ ἥρωϊ as ἐν ἀγορᾷ, while the ἱερόν of the hero is said to be πρὸς τῷ Ληναίῳ. Whatever is to be said about the hero, he at any rate serves to connect the Ληναῖον and the ἀγορά. That there was anciently an orchestra in the market-place at Athens appears also from Photius, ὀρχήστρα· πρῶτον ἐκλήθη ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ, and Plato, Laws 817 c, speaks of stages erected in the market-place by tragic poets. Socrates speaks of book-shops in the orchestra (Plato, Apol. 26 E). But the site of the ἀγορά itself is still so much disputed that we are left in uncertainty. The statement of Timaeus, Lex. Plat., ὀρχήστρα τόπος ἐπιφάνης εἰς πανήγυριν ἔνθα Ἁρμοδίου καὶ Ἀριστογείτονος εἰκόνες, does not really help, as the position of these statues is itself disputed. It may have been at the NE. or the NW. corner of the acropolis. We have to be content therefore with the information that the old Lenaic performances took place in a temporary wooden theatre in (or by) the market-place—wherever this was, and that the particular spot in (or by) the market-place was the Lenaeum, a περίβολος μέγας.

(2) The Scholia on Aristophanes twice over state that the Lenaea took place ἐν ἀγροῖς. Schol. ad Aristoph. Ach. 504 reads οὑπὶ Ληναίῳ τ’ ἀγών· ὁ τῶν Διονυσίων ἀγὼν ἐτελεῖτο δὶς τοῦ ἔτους, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἔαρος ἐν ἄστει, ὅτε καὶ οἱ φόροι Ἀθήνησιν ἐφέροντο, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον ἐν ἀγροῖς ὁ ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ λεγόμενος, ὅτε ξένοι οὐ παρῆσαν Ἀθήνησι· χειμὼν γὰρ λοιπὸν ἦν: and Schol. id. 202 ἄξω τὰ καὶ ἀγρούς· τὰ Λήναια λεγόμενα. ἔνθεν τὰ Λήναια καὶ ὁ ἐπιλήναιος ἀγὼν τελεῖται τῷ Διονύσῳ· Λήναιον γάρ ἐστιν ἐν ἀγροῖς ἱερὸν τοῦ Διονύσου· διὰ τὸ πλεκτοὺς ἐνταῦθα γεγονέναι, ἢ διὰ τὸ πρῶτον ἐν τούτῳ τῷ τόπῳ ληνὸν τεθῆναι. Μένανδρος· τραγῳδὸς ἦν ἀγών, Διονύσια. So also Steph. Byz. Λήναιος· ἀγὼν Διονύσου ἐν ἀγροῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ληνοῦ· Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τρίτῳ χρονικῶν. But the confusion of these remarks is plain (see Nilsson, l.c. 78), and when the Scholia on Aristophanes which comment on the Dionysiac festivals are taken altogether, it is clear that no consistent view is to be found in them and no confidence is to be placed in them. It is enough to note that Schol. ad Ar. Ach. 378 places the Lenaea in autumn. The Scholiasts’ ἐν ἀγροῖς is no doubt due to the need of distinguishing the Lenaea from the Dionysia ἐν ἄστει, properly so called in opposition, not to the Lenaea, but to the rural Dionysia. Religious nomenclature is not so consistent that we can assume that all the Dionysia except the festival named ἐν ἄστει were once ἐν ἀγροῖς, but it is still possible that the Lenaeum was once outside the walls, and afterwards came to be included in their circuit. Hesychius (s.v. ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ ἀγών) describes it as ἐν τῷ ἄστει.

M. Foucart (Le Culte de Dionysos en Attique, p. 105) thinks that he has found an indication of the site in C. I. A. IV. i. p. 66, in part of an inscription which runs, τὸ δὲ ψήφισμα τόδε ... ἀναγράψας ὁ γραμματεὺς ὁ τῆς βουλῆς ἐν στήλῃ λιθίνῃ καταθέτω ἐν τῷ Νηλείῳ παρὰ τὰ ἴκρια, and he attempts (l.c., p. 109) to fix the site of this Neleion. But his proof that παρὰ τὰ ἴκρια means ‘by the Lenaean theatre’ is very weak.