^{page 65 note 2} Bekkeri, Anecdola Graeca, i (1814), pp. 75Google Scholar See the excellent article by Latte, K., ‘Zur Zeit-bestimmung des Antiattikista’, Herm. l (1915), pp. 373 ff.Google Scholar, who dates the publication of the anonymous treatise between the first and the second book of Phrynichos' ’Ανтιαттικκσтής ἢΠερί ’Αттικѿν όνоμáтων. This date may not be quite certain, but it is rather attractive (cf. n. 5).

^{page 65 note 3} тῆς del. G. H. Schaefer 〈έν〉 ’Αθήναις (vel ’Αθήνηоι) Jac. ’Αθηναί〈 оι 〉ς Schaefer ΠέμΠтηι Schaefer ΠέμΠтης C.

^{page 65 note 4} I deal with these questions in the notes so far as modern misinterpretations of the heorto-logic facts render it necessary.

^{page 65 note 5} Nor indeed does he intend to justify the abuse of colloquial language which called the birthday Уενέσια (Appendix). His opposition a recommendation of the everyday language of Hellenistic times and even less of that of his own time. Latte's definition (p. 383) is correct: ‘der verfasser ist keineswegs antiattizist in dem 4599.II sinne, dasserden klassizismus Liberhaupt negierte; vielmehr lässter lediglicheinen grösserendreis von autoren als muster zu.’ To express it more succinctly: he is Classicist, not Atticist.

^{page 65 note 6} P. 86. 18: уενέθλιον (V уενεσθαῖον C) ήμέραν ἀξιοῦσιν ἀεὶ (Bekker δεῖ C) λέуειν, οὐ уενέθλια οὐδὲ уενέσια֗ Εὐριπίδης &ldquoΙωνι, &lsquoΗρόςοτος τετάρτωι. The extreme abbreviation makes the point of these citations uncertain. But it is apparently an answer to , Phrynich.Ekl. 83, p.184Google Scholar Rutherford (Appendix) and may be added to the two cases quoted by Latte, P. 381. It is of no great importance for our purpose whether the Antonymus polemizes also against the facts stated by Phrynichos. A warning appears appropriate: the soundness of his material does not prove that the Antiatticist used it correctly. even apart from the intense abbreviation and the corruption of our excerpt. As to the gloss Γενέθλλιоν ήμέραν ch. II, section I.

^{page 65 note 7} That he was not the first we learn from Hesych. S.V. Γενέσια and , Phrynich.Ekl. 83Google Scholar (see the Appendix). But he alone has preserved the evidence which he ultimately owes to his main source, the Λέξεις of Aristophanes of Byzantium (see Cohn, , RE ii, col. 1000ff.Google Scholar; Christ-Schmidt, , Gr. Lit.⁶ ii, p. 874, n. 8)Google Scholar.

^{page 66 note 1} I cannot of course deal here with the cults of the dead and everything connected with them, still less with the cònceptions held at different times and in different regions of the nature of the dead, their life beyond the grave, and of the intercourse the living had with them. But in my opinion the general term ‘Festival of the Dead’ is not very helpful, and I believe that it is more misleading than otherwise for our question to see with Deubner, AF 1932, p. 229 ‘in der herbstfeier der Genesia ein seitenstϋck zu dem im vorfrϋhling stattfindenden seelenfest der Anthesteria’. Perhaps one had better distinguish in a purely schematic manner ‘Days’ of the Dead and ‘Festivals’ of the Dead. The former are—and it certainly is a very old conception—the days belonging to the dead, when they are active, return to the earth, and try to invade the domain of the living. On these days the ceremonies begin with entertaining and thus appeasing them, and end with driving them out and thus protecting the living from them. At the ‘festivals’ of the dead it is the living who are active: they remember them, visit them at their tombs, and offer sacrifices and libations in order to secure their continuance and to preserve their benevolence. It is open to doubt how far this distinction is strictly practicable, and how old the ‘festivals’ of the dead are; but it is evident that the ‘days’ of the dead are essentially of a general character, and that they are attached to certain days of the year or originally to certain seasons, which means their being acknowledged by the State; whereas the festivals of the dead essentially belong to the family or originally to the clan, and form part of the ancestors’ cult. A calendar date is not likely to have been fixed originally (cf. ch. II, section 1), but it becomes necessary when they are taken over by the State. But this taking over by the State is not attested nor indeed very probable except for Athens and except for the Genesia. It is characteristic, and it also justifies our sub-title, that Wilaihmowitz, Glaube der Hellenen, i, p. 302, forgets precisely this, the only festival of the dead which was certainly an affair of the State, enumerating instead the Nεκúσια, Άуριώνια, χύτροι, which are partly dubious and certainly heterogeneous: ‘in der historischen zeit hat ein allgemeines totenfest schwerlich irgendwo gefehlt, wenn es auch kein gemeinsames fest der gemeinde war, sondern in der häusern und an den gräbern von den angehörigen begangen ward.’

^{page 66 note 2} The evidence is fully given in the Appendix.

^{page 66 note 3} It is one of the things which have confused the question of the Genesia almost beyond hope that in the Herodotos passage Athens has been considered first, if not solely, and that some have tried to use it for the Attic cult of the dead (cf. ch. II section 1). But Herodotos visited the north and wrote the Scythian λόγоς before he came to Greece proper and gave lectures about his journeys (see RE, Suppl. ii, col. 255 ff.), and if the words καтáΠερ ’Ελληνες тá γενέσια were an addition made for Athens he would have written ’Αθηναȋоι, not ’Ελληνες As things are, he may be presumed to have known the annual family memorial celebration from his home in Asia Minor where it seems to have left traces in poetry too (Mimnermos F 13 Diehl? See Herm. liii, 1918, pp. 293 ff.)Google Scholar. The important fact he yields is that this celebration was called Genesia like the State festival in Athens. From this fact we draw the inference (which is confirmed by historical considerations about the reforms of Solon, or which confirms those considerations) that in Athens too the Genesia originally was what its name says: a festival of the clans. Of course, we cannot make out from Herodotos whether in the Athens of the fifth century the private Genesia continued to exist alongside the State festival. It is usually assumed (see e.g. Stengel, , Opferbrduche, 1910, pp. 163 ff.Google Scholar; Gr. Kutiusalt.³, 1920, p. 227; Deubner, , AF p. 229)Google Scholar; but there are reasons which make me doubt the assumption.

^{page 67 note 1} Full quotations in the Appendix.

^{page 67 note 2} It is only the father who comes into the question. See ch. II, section I.

^{page 67 note 3} Thus most of the modern Lexica from the Thes. L.Gr. ii, p. 564, down to the new Liddell-Scott s.v. and most of the editors of Herodotos (not, however, Stein). Besides them, e.g. Mommsen, A., Feste der Stadt Athen, 1898, p. 173Google Scholar (‘später ist man vom tage der geburt abgegangen’; my italics);Rohde, , Psyche ², i, 1898, p. 234 f.Google Scholar; Petersen, , Geburtstagsfeier, p. 302Google Scholar; Stengel, , Herm. xliii (1908), p. 646Google Scholar; Opferbräuche der Griechen (1910), p. 164, n. IGoogle ScholarRE vii (1912), col.1131Google Scholar; and others.

^{page 67 note 4} The misuse of γενέσια for γενέθλιоς ήμέρα in the late Hellenistic and in Roman times (see end of Appendix) is presumably the same mis-conception.

^{page 67 note 5} Schmidt, W., ‘Geburtstag im Altertum’ RVV vii. 1, 1908, p. 37 f.Google Scholar; RE vii(1912), col. 1137Google Scholar; Deubner, , AF (1932), p. 229Google Scholar. It is true that even Schmidt has been unable to disentangle himself from the vagaries of popular opinion and did not draw the full consequences of his own correct linguistic explanation, when he distin-guishes from the ‘original’ meaning ‘festival of the ancestors’ the ‘later idiom, viz. celebration of the birthday after the death of a person’. The idiom did not exist, but is a modern invention Deubner does not correct him because, being unwilling to believe Ammonios that the anniversary is that of the death, he loses himself in vague speculations about the question on what day the private Genesia was celebrated (see ch. II, sections 1–2).

^{page 67 note 6} The Parentalia have already been compared by Rohde, , Psyche ², i, p. 235, n. 2Google Scholar. They are meant for the di(manes) parentum who are also called once di genitores (CIL vi.371746). The State festival which lasts nine days, from 13 to 21 February, is followed by the feriae privatae of the Caristia on 22 February. Cf. Wissowa, , RK ², P. 232 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 67 note 7} Harpokr. s.v. ’Αλѿια and Xύтρоι (FHG i. 4II, 161–3).

^{page 67 note 8} There is no doubt about the meaning of Ҵημотελής. But still it remains regrettable that Harpokration s.v. δημотελῆ καί δημотικà ίερά has not copied out the particulars: διέøερоν áλλήλων καί тѿν όργεωνικѿν καί тѿν γενικѿν,ώς Δείναρχоς δηλоȋ έν тѿι Καтá Σтεøáνоυ. Probably more was known than has been preserved by Lex. Rhet., p. 240. 28 Bkr.: δημотελῆ καί δημотικà ίερεȋα ίερεῖα (!) διαøέρι тá μέν Ҵημотελῆ θύμαтα ή Πόλις δίδωσιν, είς δέ тá δημотικá оί δημόтαι, είς δέ тá όργεωνικá оί όργεѿνες, оί äν ѿσιν έκáσтоυ (BKr.ὢκασтоι C) тоũ ίερоũ, είς δέ тá тѿν γоνέων тà γένη. The Γενέσια originally was what its name indicates, γενικà ίεαá; Whether it continued to exist after the introduction of the έоρтή δημотελής is uncertain, but not very probable.

^{page 68 note 1} See p. 65, n. 7.

^{page 68 note 2} Thus in the Antiatticista himself s.v.áνυΠоδήμαтоς and s.v. βόθυνоν (p. 82, 17; 85, I Bkr.).

^{page 68 note 3} Oellacher, , WSt xxxviii (1916), pp. 137 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 68 note 4} It may suffice to refer to the law about the phratries mentioned on p. 69.

^{page 68 note 5} Quoted from the Atthis: the Panathenaia with details about the κανηøόρоι (Harpokr. s.v.) and θαλλоøоρεî (, Schol. Aristoph.Vesp. 544)Google Scholar, the Boedromia (Harpokrat. s.v.), Skirophoria (Har-pokr. s.v. Σºίρν; Athen. II, 92), the Oscho-phoria (HarpokI. s.v. ’Ωσχоøόρоι). The sixth book, which probably dealt very fully with the reforms of cults by Lykurgos, mentioned the adding of dramatic performances to the old Chytroi (Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 218). Calendar dates cannot have been lacking either: both for Boedromia and the sacrifice to Demeter Chloe on the Akropolis (Schol. Aristoph.Lysistr. 835) the context requires the statement not only of the month but also of the day. On the other hand, we cannot say for certain whether Περίέоρтѿν went beyond the religious sphere or added to its descriptions any narrative of the historical facts. As far as we can see the voluminious Atthis, written at a late period of Philochoros’ authorship, has made abundant use of the results of his special books. I confine myself to these indications, whose only purpose is to justify the above treatment of the entry about the Genesia and the various possibilities advanced. These matters will be treated in greater detail in the edition of the Ancient Historians of Athens which I am preparing.

^{page 68 note 6} From this book we have quotations referring to the jurisdiction of the Areopagitai (FHG i. 387, 17; 394, 58–9) and to the oath on the constitution taken by the archons (Harpokr. s.v. λίθоς).It is almost certain that the seisachtheia (Phot., Sud. s.v.), the correctura morum (Athen. 4. 65, p. 168 A), and the issuing of a new type of Athenian coins (Aristoph., Schol.Aves 1106)Google Scholar derive from the same book.

^{page 68 note 7} Oliver, , Hesperia, iv, 1935, pp. 5 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dow, ibid, x, 1941, p. 31; Ferguson, in Classical Studies Capps, 1936, pp. 144 ffGoogle Scholar. The Calendar would give the festival's name, its date, and the deity to whom sacrifices were offered. For a festival of the dead, the most appropriate deity would be Ge, and we may infer from Hesych. s.v. Γενέσɩα (quoted in the Appendix) that it was in fact her festival. Cf. also Cic. De legibus 2. 63 in his discussion of the Athenian laws about funerals, tombs, and so on, which he took more probably from a peripatetic source than from Poseidonios.

^{page 69 note 1} Phot., Sud. s.v. ὀρϒεῶνς; cf. Harpokr. s.v ϒεννῆταɩ.

^{page 69 note 2} ‘Ein würdiges totenfest im öffentlichen kult war geeignet die privatgebräuche zu beeinflussen’, Feste der Stadt Athen, p. 174. I feel bound to state that this is not the only case where the treatment by Mommsen—although he deals wrongly with the tradition and explains the name wrongly—represents, as far as I know, the only serious attempt at understanding the festival in itself. Not only Stengel, , RE vii, 1912, col. 1131Google Scholar, but Deubner as well (AF, 1932, p. 229 f.) are a long way behind the earlier treatment—to say nothing of the complete misunderstanding of Solon's burial laws by Weber, L., Solon und die Schöpfung der aitischen Grabrede, 1935, pp. 62Google Scholar ff. On the whole, scholars have not paid this festival the attention which its peculiarity deserves: Wilamowitz has forgotten it where he really ought to have remembered it (see p. 66, n. 1). Farnell, The Cults of the Greek States; Nilsson, Griech. Feste von religiöser Bedeutung; Kern, Die Religion der Griechen, do not mention it at all.

^{page 69 note 3} I think that one may visualize to a certain degree an ancient Athenian burial from the description of the Roman funeral by Polybios 6. 53–5 ὃταν μεταλλάξηɩ τɩς παῥ αὐτοίςἐπɩϕανῶν ἀνδρῶν…The vases do not contradict this assumption.

^{page 69 note 4} See ch. II, section 4.

^{page 69 note 5} Aristot. ’Αθπ. 5. 2. I do not think that anybody will find the above valuation of Solon exaggerated. The poems prove him to have been a political thinker; and his being received among the Seven Wise Men, who originally were not σοϕɩσταί (Herodt. 1. 29) but political reformers, proves that his century regarded him as such, If it would not lead us too far I would treat here the Inheritance Law and the regulation about the prices of sacrificial animals (Plutarch, , Solon, 23. 3–4)Google Scholar which as far as I know has never been properly understood. The regulation is proof enough that he did not only restrict the influence of the clans, but that he was out for changing everyday life in a direction opposite to the customs dictated by what he calls δήμου ἡϒεμόνες.

^{page 70 note 1} See ch. II, section 5.

^{page 70 note 2} Participation in the Assembly and the Jurisdiction would be actually the same thing, if ‘Heliaia’ (as is probable) was Solon's name for the Assembly, and its judicial function was no more than to act as a Court of Appeal against the judgements of the magistrates, as the ‘direct descendant of the Homeric Zyopd’ (cf. Bonner-Smith, , The Administration of Justice, i, 1930, p. vii)Google Scholar. The parallel of what was called later on ἓϕεσɩς είς τὸ δɩκασϒήρɩον to the provocatio ad populum is obvious (cf. Wade-Gery, , ABSA xxxvii, 1940, pp. 265ff.)Google Scholar. But the legal maxim ἐξεῖναɩ τῶɩ βουλλομένωɩ τɩμωρεῖν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδɩκουμένων (Aristot. ’Αθπ 9.1) seems to be peculiar to Athens. All these facts are well-known, they are adduced here only in order to justify the conception of the Genesia as a measure for the levelling of social contrasts.

^{page 70 note 3} See ch. II, section 3.

^{page 70 note 4} See p. 67, n. 8.

^{page 70 note 5} See ch. II, section 3.

^{page 70 note 6} See ch. II, section 2.