Note (return) — THE TEMPLE ON THE ACROPOLIS BURNT BY THE PERSIANS.

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