Page:Philological Museum v2.djvu/290

280 On the Attic Dionysia. Still though the Ionian month I.enaeon corresponded to the Attic Gamelion, and derived its name from the Attic festival, the Lensea, it does not necessarily follow that the latter was celebrated in Gamelion. For it is possible to conceive that after the Ionian migration the Attic festival may have been united with either the rural Dionysia or the Anthesteria, or that the lonians may have separated two fes- tivals which were before united, and have transferred the Lenaea to a different month which they may have named after it. An instance of a similar variation actually occurred in the case of the old Ionian festival, the Apaturia, which at Athens was solemnized in Pyanepsion, but at Cyzicus in Apatureon, though there was another month, Pyanepsion or Cyanepsion, in the calendar of Cyzicus. This however is not a case which can be fairly presumed without express evidence : and until it can be proved with regard to the Lenaea, the testimonies hitherto adduced must incline us to consider them as a distinct festival celebrated in Gamelion. Accordingly II. We may now proceed to examine those which assert or deny the coincidence of the Lenaea with either of the two festivals with which it has been supposed to be identical. The only express statement of any ancient author in favour of Ruhnken'^s opinion is that of Tzetzes in the passage already quoted. There is indeed a show of evidence on the same side in the Scholiast on the Acharnians of Aristo- phanes (960), who quotes a legend from Apollodorus to ex- plain the origin of the Choes. His words are : (prjal ^e ATToXXoocvpo^j AvOecFTrjpLa KaXelaOai Koii/m tyjv oXrju eoprrju ALovvcr(p ay o^evrjv Kara juepo^ Se TliOoLyiai/^ Xoa?, Xvrpav. Kai auOc^ on OpecTTr,^ /uerd top (povov eU AQrjva^ a(j)LK6iuie' vo^ (rju ce eopn] Alovucou Afjuaiov) (09 imr] yevoiro cr(ptci'V ofxoo-Trovoo^ d7r€KTO}/co^ Tr]v (jiY]Tepa^ €ixY}yavYj(raTO roiovle tl Uavoioov* Xoa otrov tvov cairvjuovcou eKciaTcp wapaaryjcra^ €^ avrov TTLveiv eKeXeuae ^i^Sei/ vTro/xtyvvvras dXX^XoLS^ ^5? fXf]T€ aiTO Tov avTOv Kparfjpo^ ttlol 'OpeaTrj^^ ixr]Te, €K€lvo^ a')(6oLTo KaO avTov ttivwv /uloi/qs^ Kal dw eKeivov A6f]vaiois eoprrj evoixiGOri o Xoes. We have here evidently the very words of Apollodorus, except that as to those included in the parenthesis there may be a doubt whether they do not rather belong to the scholiast. But admitting that they are