No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
I. We know fairly well how the City Dionysia at Athens was celebrated in classical times. But although the numerous dramatic festivals of the Hellenistic period were in many respects modelled on the Athenian Dionysia, it is not clear how the performances at these festivals were organized. The difficulty arises from the fact that apart from a few great centres which may have had their own theatre production, playwrights, actors, etc., the majority of cities depended on the travelling 
of Dionysos’.1 It seems that the 
of Dionysiac artists were formed early in the third century. Three major Dionysiac associations—the Athenian, the Isthmian and Nemean, and the Ionian and Hellespontian—operated in Greece, Asia Minor, and the islands in Hellenistic times. The question is how these associations functioned. Were they theatrical companies as well as professional guilds? Did they undertake the organization of musical and dramatic performances at various festivals? Was there a division of territories between the 
and were certain festivals dominated by certain guilds?
1 See Foucart, P., De collegiis scaenicorum artificum apud Gtaecos (1873)Google Scholar; Luders, O., Die dionysischen Kiinstler (1873)Google Scholar; Poland, F., De collegiis artificum Dionysiacorum (1895)Google Scholar, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens (1909), and art. ‘Technitai’ in R.-E 2 v. 2473 ff.Google Scholar; Ziebarth, E., Das griechische Vereinswesen (1896)Google Scholar; Oehler, J., Epigraphische Beiträge zur Geschichte der dionysischen Künstler (1908)Google Scholar; Klaffen-bach, G., Symbolae ad historiam collegiorum arti-ficum bacchiorum (1914)Google Scholar; Daux, G., Delphes au IIe et au Ier siècle (1936)Google Scholar; a useful account of the 
is given by SirArthur, Pickard-Cambridge in The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (1953), pp. 286–319.Google Scholar
2 S.E.G. i. 187B, F.D. iii. 1. 478+S.E.G. xviii. 234; S.E.G. i. 187A, F.D. iii. 1. 477; S.I.G. 3 489, S.E.G. xviii. 230; S.E.G. xviii. 235; S.G.D.I. 2563, S.I.G. 3 424; S.G.D.J. 2564; S.G.D.I. 2565; S.G.D.1. 2566. These in-scriptions are approximately dated between c. 263 and c. 253 B.C., see Flacelière, R., Les Aitoliens à Delphes, p. 173Google Scholar, Dinsmoor, W. B., The Athenian Archon List in the Light of Recent Discoveries, p. 115Google Scholar, Daux, G., Chronologie delphique, G 17, G 21, G 23–25Google Scholar, Manni, E., Fasti ellenistici e rotnani (= Kokalos suppl. 1), 91.Google Scholar
3 Hermes lxviii (1933), 441–3; lxix (1934), 217–22.Google Scholar
4 The festival was reorganized around the middle of the third century by the Aitolians, who had occupied the city since the beginning of the century and now wanted to create a festival of panhellenic importance. Athletic and equestrian contests were added to the musical and dramatic ones, the periodicity of the festival was probably changed from annual to quadrennial (S.I.G. 3 402. 29) and Zeus Soter was introduced as an honoured god besides Apollo. The motive of the reformation was merely political. The Aitolians aimed at evoking a formal recognition of the Delphian status quo by the other Greeks. To achieve this they posed as founders of the Soteria, and sent 
to the Greek cities asking them to recognize the festival which ‘the confederation of the Aitolians manifesting its piety to die gods had decreed to set up … in honour of Zeus Soter and Apollo Pythios’ (S.I.G. 3 408, I.G. ix 2. 194). And acceptance of an Aitolian festival to be held at Delphi would ultimately mean recognition of the Aitolian domination of the Delphian territory by the other Greeks. Six answers by various cities accepting the Soteria as requested by the Aitolians are preserved (I.G. ii2. 680 = S.I.G.3 408, Athens; S.I.G. 3 402, Chios; F.D. iii. 1. 482, Tenos; F.D. iii. 1. 481, another island of the Cyclades, possibly Ios or Andros, Robert, L., B.C.H. liv ‘1930’, 322–6Google Scholar; F.D. iii. 1. 483Google Scholar, Robert, Smyrna, loc. cit. 327 ff.Google Scholar, Segre, M., Historia v [1931], 241 ff.Google Scholar; B.C.H. lxiv-v [1940–1941], 100 ff.Google Scholar, Abdera). These inscrip- tions were at first associated with the ori- ginal foundation of the Soteria. Roussel, P. in his fundamental article ‘La fondation de Sotéria de Delphes’, R.É.A. xxvi (1924), 97–111, was the first to perceive that the assumption of the reorganization was imposed by the evidence after the discovery of an Attic inscription (S.E.G. ii. 9) showing that the Athenian archon Polyeuktos, and consequently the Athenian acceptance of the Soteria, should be dated more than twenty years later than the Gallic invasion. Several scholars (Beloch, De Sanctis, Kirchner, Kolbe) objected to this theory then, but the progress which has been made in the study of Athenian and Delphian chronology in the last twenty-five years or so has corroborated Roussel's thesis.Google Scholar
1 A.J.P. lv (1934), 323–4.Google Scholar
2 The lists of artists in the Soteria records are preceded by two introductory formulae. The first, employed in F.D. iii. 1. 477 and S.E.G. xviii. 230, reads as follows: 
(name) 
(list of names), 
(name), 
(name) 
The second, used in all the others (see p. 206, n. 2) except F.D. iii. 1. 478 the heading of which is missing, reads: 
(name) 
.Google Scholar
3 Cf. Pickard-Cambridge, , Festivals, p. 291.Google Scholar
4 Dinsmoor, , The Athenian Archon List (1939), P. 118Google Scholar, Hesperia xxiii (1954), 315Google Scholar; Pritchett, W. K.. Meritt, B. D., The Chronology of Hellenistic Athens (1940), p. xxiGoogle Scholar; Meritt, , The Athenian Year (1961), p. 234Google Scholar; Chr. Pelekidis, , B.C.H. lxxxv (1961), 53–68.Google Scholar
5 Symbolae ad historiam collegiorum artifwum bacchiorum, p. 21.Google Scholar
6 S.I.G.3 424, n. 1, 489, n. 6, 690, n. 1, 692 comm.
7 R.-E. 2 v. 2473–4, 2486, 2502–3.Google Scholar
1 Les Aitoliens a Delphes, pp. 143 ff.Google Scholar
2 I.G. ii 2. 1132. 20–22Google Scholar, F.D. iii. 2. 68. 78–80Google Scholar; F.D. iii. 1. 351. 34–39Google Scholar; I.G. iv 2. 99, 100Google Scholar; cf. I.G. xii. 9. 207. 61. 65, which perhaps antedates the guilds.Google Scholar
3 
(Le Bas-Waddington 281 =Michel 1014).
1 Brinck, A., Inscr. graecae ad choregiam per-tinentes, Diss. Halle 1899, p. 222.Google Scholar
2 Le Bas-Waddington 252–8, 259–99 = Brinck, op. cit., pp. 107–13, 114–53Google Scholar; Annuario N.s. xxiii-xxiv (1961–1962), 582 ff., nos. 12, 13.Google Scholar
3 The festivals were opportunities for trade, and the cities profited from sales taxes; Strabo 10. 5. 4 (486), S.I.G.3 695. 34–36, Welles, C. B., Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period, pp. 234, 286.Google Scholar
1 e.g. Pergamon, Inschr. Perg. 167 = O.G.I.S. 299Google Scholar; Priene, , Inschr. Pr. 4, 8, 17, 50, 109. 261 etc.Google Scholar; Ephesos, , Ephesos ii, p. 151Google Scholar, no. 30; Ilion, , C.I.G. 3599, 3601Google Scholar; Sardis, , Sardis vii. 4Google Scholar; Nakrasa, , O.G.I.S. 268Google Scholar; Laodikeia, , M.A.M.A. vi. 5.Google Scholar
2 On the Pergamene royalty referred to by this inscription see Daux, , B.C.H. lix (1935), 220 ff.Google Scholar
3 Klaffenbach, , op. cit., p. 20Google Scholar, cf. Daux, , B.C.H. lix. 218.Google Scholar
4 I do not see how this reference to Apollo's oracle can apply to the 
in general and not to the guild of Teos, cf. n. 3.
5 This passage is wrongly taken by Hansen, E. V., The Attalids of Pergamon, Cornell Univ. Press, 1947, p. 417, as evidence for a branch of the Ionian guild in Delos.Google Scholar
1 Pickard-Cambridge, (Festivals, p. 300)Google Scholar, strangely enough, inferred from I.G. xi. 1061 (16–21, quoted on p. 210 from Daux's edition) that Kraton ‘had brought distinction to it’ (the guild of Ionia and Helles-pontos) ‘by his performance at many Greek festivals—at Delphi (at the Soteria and Pythia), at Thespiai (at the 
), at Thebes (at the Herakleia), and others— and had won for it the commendation of the Amphiktyons, described as 
The ‘most pious of Greeks’ are according to Daux's restoration the 
who 
, in the games of Apollo, Dionysos, and the Muses, and the festival of Thebes is the Agriania.Google Scholar
2 Klaffenbach, , op. cit., pp. 47–49Google Scholar, Poland, , R.-E.2 v. 2492.Google Scholar
1 Feyel, M., Contribution à I'épigraphie béotienne, Paris, 1943, pp. 88–132.Google Scholar
1 Lewis, D. M. has argued that Thompson's, M. whole chronology of the New Style coinage is 30–35 years too highGoogle Scholar, C.R. N.S. xii (1962), 292Google Scholar, Num. Chron. 7th series, ii (1962), 275–300Google Scholar; cf. MissThompson's, answer in Num. Chron. 1962, 301–33.Google Scholar
1 Cf. 
etc., Kornemann, , R-E. Suppl. iv. 914–15.Google Scholar