7/28/2019 MIKALSON

1/10

HMERA APOFRASAuthor(s): Jon D. MikalsonSource: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 96, No. 1 (Spring, 1975), pp. 19-27Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/293586 .

Accessed: 14/04/2011 09:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

American Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/293586?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/293586?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

7/28/2019 MIKALSON

2/10

'HMEPA 'AInOcPAMLucian, irascible and always quick to challenge an opponent,was in the midst of a holiday walk with friends when he chanced

upon Timarchos, a rival sophist.' He greeted the unexpectedappearance of Timarchos with these words to one of his friends:"It is time for us to avoid this ill-met sight, (a man) who, havingappeared, may well make this most pleasant day aznoepQad." othis the hapless Timarchos retorted rhetorically, "'Anrocfpda,Tt6ETOVTOEaTor;xaQJr6o TI; io pOTaovri TtI i axEvio;'" Timarchos'reply, and his further admission that he had never heard theword, laid him open to one of the most bitter and abusiveinvectives in the history of scholarly disputation. Lucian feltthat his knowledge of Attic Greek had been challenged, andconsequently devoted the entire treatise entitledPseudologistes to a systematic and mock-tragic debasement ofthe learning and of the morals of his rival.2The central issue which precipitated this fierce attack was thequestion of the meaning and proper usage of the adjective&docpodg. The discussion of this question reappears in a some-what sporadic manner throughout the Pseudologistes. It is dis-turbing to find in this treatise that the Atticist Lucian has in factfailed to understand the proper Attic meaning of the adjectiveda:ocpfd. Lucian (Pseud. 12) defines I7ueQaadrocpQdas fol-lows: orav UlrTEat aQxal X1 OaTlCwaot l T Eltaycwytiuo at5[;xat (ot UrTe rTateQda eQovQy7Tlrat ,rtij' O,oXCTl TWoVtaliwvTerTrat. At least two elements of this definition are faulty, forwe know from other sources (to be discussed infra) that inAthens legal cases dealing with homicide were judged on ?lueatl&dnopQdecg, and that at least one day of religious rites in

' Whether either Lucian or Timarchos deserves the title "sophist" is ques-tionable. See G. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford1969) 114-16. Lucian's occasional references toTimarchos as a 'sophist" are allsarcastic. The only possible exception is Pseud. 8.2 This treatise is a vivid demonstration of the extremes to which professionalquarrels between sophists could reach. For a general discussion of such quar-rels, see Bowersock, 89-100.

19

7/28/2019 MIKALSON

3/10

JON D. MIKALSON

Athens, the Plynteria, was apparently an 1ut?Ea arocpQg ;.These errors must not be viewed as minor oversights by Lucian,because these two elements form the very essence of the /x,gQatdropQd6ec; in Athens of the classical period.Lucian has defined not an uIega ad:ropQa;, but a dies ater.The characteristic features of Roman dies atri were (1) that legisactiones were forbidden, (2) that they were unlucky and thattherefore no project should be initiated on them, and (3) that norites of either public or private cult were to be practiced onthem.3 Lucian's definition of ruaeQa &aroqQeuits perfectly theRoman dies ater, but contradicts the nature of the Athenianijtega adrocp; c;. There are two other indications in thePseutdologistes that Lucian is confusing Athenian and Romanreligious practices: he once terms the Roman Kalends theNoumenia (Pseuld. 8), and secondly, and more importantly, hestates that one reason for making a day &nopQac;was that amajor military defeat had once occurred on this day (Pseud.12-13). There is no evidence that the Athenians made a dayCnocpQc; for such a reason, but it is a well-attested practice ofthe Romans.4Lucian has clearly used Ou/eQazrocQC)gs a translation of theRoman dies ater. Modern scholars, unfortunately, have failedto realize that when writers such as Lucian use the termacrocpQc; hey may be referringto Roman practices. As a resultscholars have attributed to the Attic ,ueCti dainopQdeca all thefeatures of the dies neflasti and dies atri as described by latesources. This is clearly reflected in the most commonly pro-posed definition of a:troqQd':"'nefastus, a day on which neitherlegal nor legislative assemblies could be held.''5 Such a defini-

3 For an excellent discussion of the dies atri. the dies religiosi, and the dieslneftsti see A. K. Michels. The Calendar of the RomnanRepublic (Princeton1967)61-68. The proper relationship between these days is somewhat complex,and in the empire even the Romans themselves often failed to distinguishproperly between them (Michels, 62).

4 Michels, 63.P. Stengel, RE Vol. II (1895), cols. 174-75; H. Frisk, Griechischesetymololgisches Worterbhuct(Heidelberg 1960) Vol. 1. p. 125; P. Chantraine,Dictionnaire etvmologique de lia anlgle Grecque (Paris 1968)Vol. I, p. 99; andby implication. W. S. Ferguson. Hesperia (1948) p. 134.This confusion can betraced back as far as F. Passow. Handi,r(irterbuch der griec(hischen Sprache(Leipzig 1841), s.v. .(;roqri(.

20

7/28/2019 MIKALSON

4/10

'HMEPA 'AIO'PAZ

tion is based solely upon Roman conceptions of the calendar,and, in reference to classical Athens, is wrong. P. Stengel (REVol. II [1895], cols. 174-75) in his full discussion of &aropgdifailed to distinguish between the later meaning of adroCpQd asnefastus or ater, and the earlier, specifically Athenian, meaningof the word. As a result he has included in his description of the7f/uQatdatorpQdbe the fact that the Athenian Boule did notmeet on the day of the Kronia, that the Ekklesia did not meet onthe day of the Thesmophoria, and that the Athenians smearedtheir houses with pitch on the day of the Choes. These features,like several others detailed by Stengel, have no place in adiscussion of the Attic 1ueQat adrocpQd6e;. Stengel has includedthem because he mistakenly identified arzocqQ6awith nefastusand ater, and then erroneously applied the concept of diesnefastus and dies ater to the evidence concerning Athenianreligious practices.It is the purpose of this study to determine the character of theAthenian u7E'Qat&droqQdecS,and to strip from them all thespurious features which have been given to them by those whohave confused them with the dies atri and the dies nefasti. To dothis, we must begin with a survey of the uses of adroqpQa in theclassical period.Lucian's bold challenge to his rival to name just one ancientauthor who did not use the adjective daoqpgaC Pseud. 15)has afine rhetorical effect, especially following his haughty refusal toname all those who had used the word. But this challenge isquickly deflated when we find that only three uses of the wordare attested from the classical period. The adjective is found inthe Laws of Plato, in a fragment of Lysias, and in a fragment ofEupolis. By no account is the word as ubiquitous as Lucianwould have us believe.The Athenian in Laws 800C-E deplores the choruses whichdefile the days of sacrifice by presenting gloomy and sad pro-ductions intended to move audiences to tears. He proposesthat, if such presentations are necessary at all, they should begiven oi'oTav qu eQat yj xaOaQai TtVEgaCiA da7ropQ6Ceg otv.From this it is clear that an essential feature of the i/u-eatadropQd6e; is that they were [U xaOaQai. They are contrastedto the sacrificial days which were xaaQa[i. This alone is suffi-cient to distinguish them from the dies nefasti, which included

21

7/28/2019 MIKALSON

5/10

JON D. MIKALSON

festival days of all types and which were characterized only bythe fact that the praetor was "not to speak" law on them.6Lysias (fragment 53, from Athenaios 12.551F) describes agroup of young men who established for themselves the nameKakodaimonistai, because they banqueted on one of the juE'Qai:nropQdab6(/uiav re/Qav radatEvot r)v d:rocpQa&ov).ThetUEQat datocpQdae; to which he is referring must be monthly,because the Noumeniastai, to whom he contrasts the youngmen, banqueted on the first day of each month, and suchmonthly banqueting fraternities were common.7 And thus fromthis fragment we may conclude that at least two and perhapsmore /jueQatl roqQdbecSoccurred regularly each month.Eupolis' use of anroqpQdshows an extended and metaphori-cal usage analogous to the later extension of the use ofnefastus ;8

CUVRlSTl1IXV1'lOVTl UlOlvOQWT7o, da70ropoa, xai p/3ATCwv aTlor(iav.

Edmond's translation (Fragments of Attic Comedy, Vol. I, p.419), "a man accurst," has nicely captured the adjective's basicantithesis to xaOagog.9We may summarize the findings from these three passages asfollows: ijieCOatl i:oodQaeg were distinct from the "pure" festi-val days, and at least two occurred each month. The adjectivealso could be given the metaphorical meaning "impure" inreference to a person. We must now examine the later evidenceconcerning the word, always taking care to avoid confusionwith dies nefasti and dies atri.Plutarch used daropad; more frequently than any other au-thor, and, considering the time and place of his writing, onemust be particularly wary of Roman contamination. Plutarch

6 Michels, 66.7 G. M. Calhoun, Athenian Clubs in Politics and Litigation (Austin, Texas1913) 32-33.8 E.g. Plautus, Poen. 584. ntamistorum nll/us nefastiust. See also Michels,62.

9 Lucian, if he had known this fragment of Eupolis, could have used it asconclusive proof that he had correctly used arocpQvcd in reference to an indi-vidual. As it was, he was forced to use three general examples, two of whichmiss the mark entirely (Pseud. 16).

22

7/28/2019 MIKALSON

6/10

'HMEPA 'A O'IPAZ

twice used the word to describe days on which cult activitieswere forbidden:Alexander 14

(Alexander) pfovO6y,evo &6iTr Oee xQaaaOatrEQi tr;orQaretia, ,O0ev eic AzeEApo5g,ai xara rZrjlxv y!eQthvdropQdbwvfoQiv,vaV ov, vlv6itratl OEclrTEv1tv

De E apud Delphos 20Polpov 6e b6jrov TOxaOaeQv xai dyv6v otl TaaitolTdv Wvo6HaLov, (bg;Er OerTraAoi TOVg tQEa; Ev Talt

aroCpQadlv ,iEQaL;atrovT; Ep' cEavrTv eoa)6aTQipovTa;,otlat, "fpotpovoelo?toat" Alyovatv.

The characteristic feature of the OlEdQat dcoqpQdiben these twopassages is that they were days of cult inactivity. Such cultinactivity is characteristic of the dies atri, not of the AtticryEQat adroqpdeSg. In addition, Plutarch's use of this word inreference to the Delphians and Thessalians is suspect, becauseLucian (Pseud. 12), if he can be trusted here, claims that theword is uniquely Attic. The same criticism might be leveledagainst Plutarch's use of daropQda;n Cam. 19, where he intro-duces several examples of lucky and unlucky days and monthsamong the Greeks, Romans, and barbarians. His discussionthere betrays throughout a conception of eQgaidarocpQadbeswhich is sometimes very general and sometimes specificallyRoman. Plutarch's description of gates as da:ropQ6E; xalaxvOeQw:ra (de Curiositate 6) shows a transferred use ofdnocpQgcsimilar to Lucian's use of the adjective in reference toTimarchos. His discussion of these gates in Quaest. Rom. 27indicates that he has in mind Roman, and not Greek, concepts.One occurrence of the adjective in Plutarch is particularlyimportant, because it labels Thargelion 25, the day of the Plyn-teria, as an 1ijea dnrocpQa,a view which has been echoed byall modern scholars:0l

Plutarch Alc. 341 yaQg/eQ,a xaTr2TEAevoEcv,6QcrTOTa vvTrrQLa 1Te1 . 6Qabt T6 l

oQyta noQa~teQyi6at OaQyq)tttbvoS EXtr aO6ivovro5adiQQ)rTa, TOV rexo6oHov adpe.6vreT xal TO e6o05 aTaxaiVjpavrTe,. 60ev eV Tatl; aiOGlTaTWVadio(pQ6awv TYV HEoav TavTriv aaToaxTov 'AOrIvatot voHitovotv.

10 E.g. A. Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen (Leipzig 1898) 491, and L.Deubner, Attische Feste (Berlin 1932) 21.

23

7/28/2019 MIKALSON

7/10

JON D. MIKALSONIt is important to note that the passage which formed the sourcefor Plutarch's account here, Xenophon Hell. 1.4.12, also stress-es the fact that no one undertakes any serious business on theday of the Plynteria ('AOr]vawitv a&ovtei; Ev TravrTrr,T Eaov6Bev6, oovbatov o v'E V To/UoJ1at av aipaaOat). ButXenophon, an Athenian, nowhere terms the day d&opadcg.Onemay suspect that Plutarch, noting that the day was charac-terized by inactivity, added the label anocpfQaas it was familiarto him, viz. it was for him a dies ater.

One piece of evidence does, however, give some credence toPlutarch's claim that the day of the Plynteria was &aroqQd;.Pollux's statement (8.141), though based on a false etymology,may be correct: :neQlatxovtvoa rTd eQa& i^yov EVTral danrogdotrTOdJropQgdaat, olov nIAvvTr]Qotg xa Tat; Trotavtrat; lUEQat;.There are no signs here of contamination with Roman practices,and the weight of this evidence would lead us to conclude thatThargelion 25, the day of the Plynteria, was in fact an AthenianuxeIQanocpQa;g.Plutarch's designation of it as such may havebeen, more than anything else, a lucky coincidence.11The citation for ,dueQaldatrocpQeaeSn the EtymologicumMagnum (131.13) refers to specifically Athenian practices, andshows no contamination with Roman conceptions:

&arofQd6e; andofQcabacta; yov ol 'Arrxol ra; acLTr'YyoQEv'Yva; /uEQa;,a; v7re,IdA6/3avovX?ieoQ5eILvat rcv aiac wv ag 6i] xai ireltx66a,b xalovoicp8ivovrog TOiruqv6, TETcrdaa, TQiTrlV,i EVrTQav.i) rag; iEeQaSEvaiSgr&(ovitx&; [ixa;S E6xaaov.

According to this definition the /uyiQaidaro(pQad6 have thefollowing three characteristics: (1) they were assumed to beworse than the other days, (2) they included the twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth, and twenty-ninth days of each month,and (3) they were the days on which the Athenians judgedhomicide cases. The first point is essentially correct, for it hasbeen established that IueOa' a oqQod6ae; ere "impure." Thesecond point, that the twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth, and'' It should be noted here that the day of the Choes in the Anthesteria shouldnot be termed dToqfcd6. Besides the general considerations raised by F. Jacoby(FGrHist Illb Suppl., Vol. I, p. 365). there is no ancient source which terms it

specifically daroTpfda.

24

7/28/2019 MIKALSON

8/10

'HMEPA 'AnI70PA2

twenty-ninth days of each month were ?^eEQatdrnoqp6eoeraises problems,however. M. P. Nilsson'2 assumes from thisthatthe twenty-seventh,twenty-eighth,andtwenty-ninthdaysof each andevery month weredarocQa6es.But it is inconceiva-ble that the majorday of the Panathenaia Hekatombaion28)and the day of the Theogamia(Gamelion 27) were "impure."This can be explained, I believe, by reference to the thirdcharacteristic, i.e. that )u/Qpat adrocepQa6es ere the days onwhich the Athenians judged homicide cases. The two state-ments (as 6?)xai . .6 evreav, and?... I. exaov), I propose,stemfrom two sources which discussed the same subject, viz.the days on which the Areopagos council judged homicidecases.'3 One source stated that the days on which theAreopagoscounciljudgedhomicide cases wereadroeQadec..second source enumerated the specific days on which theAreopagos council could judge such cases, i.e. the twenty-seventh,twenty-eighth,andtwenty-ninthdaysof a month.Thatthese were the meetingdays of the Areopagoscouncilfor thispurposeis establishedby Pollux8.117, 'AQEto;5ryo ... xa6'Exaorov6o6 jrva rTttCv jFueQdv Ebtxa ov ecperS, TerdTr7qOtvovTro,rTQit, 6EVTEa. 14The compiler of the Etym. Magn.,however, reversed the proper sequence of these two state-ments, and thereby gave the impression that the twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth,and twenty-ninth days of the monthwere always da:ropQdeaE.If the above interpretationof the Etym. Magn. citation iscorrect, the followingtwo conclusions should be drawn:a dayon which the Areopagos counciljudged a homicide case wasadropdag, a belief that is consistent with Greek religiouspractices;5S nd, secondly, the Areopagoscouncil couldjudgesuch cases only on the twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth, andtwenty-ninthdays of a month.

12 M. P. Nilsson, Die Entstehung und religiose Bedeutung des griechischenKalenders2 (Lund 1962) 42.13For the specific jurisdiction of the Areopagos council in homicide cases,see G. Busolt, Griechische Staatskunde3 (Munich 1926) 1020, note 4.14 Compare the scholion to Aeschines 1.188.15 See E. Rohde, Psyche8 (translated by W. B. Hillis [New York 1966])174-82 and notes.

25

7/28/2019 MIKALSON

9/10

JON D. MIKALSON

The Areopagos council would meet, of course, only whencases arose. A day would be anropQa; only if the court were insession. If the court met only on one or two days, only these oneor two days would be ajrodpg.16 The court obviously wouldnot be held on days of major festivals such as the Panathenaia.The conclusion then is that these days were not arnocpQd6; perse. If, however, the Areopagos court were trying a case on oneof these days, then that day became adnoQd;.We have thus established two types of Attic i/uieQatcaroqcQdbe;,the annual one of the Plynteria, and the monthlyones on which the Areopagos council judged homicide cases. Inboth cases the days were clearly oi xaOaQa[, for the one en-tailed the purification of Athena's garments, the other thepurification of the state from the pollution of murder.The question of whether or not the monthly juyEQata:ro(QdecES were days of inactivity for the Athenian legislativeassemblies is difficult to decide. The numerous meetings of theEkklesia attested for the twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth, andtwenty-ninth days17of the month would suggest that legislativeassemblies did meet. But the strong possibility remains that onthe specific days of these meetings the Areopagos council wasnot judging homicide cases, and thus the days were not(d:oqQecbS;.In general Greek religious scruples concerning thepollution of murder would lead one to expect them not to holdassemblies when this pollution was about, especially when suchassemblies were held almost within earshot of the Areopagos.Such inactivity of the Athenian Ekklesia and Boule may bereflected in the phrase ar adzrryoQev,e vag; jeQa; in Etym.

16 Apparently the Areopagos council met frequently enough to provide aregular monthly banqueting day for the Kakodaimonistai. See discussion ofLysias, fragment 53 suprta.17Meetings of the Ekklesia are attested on these days as follows: for thetwenty-seventh day, Hesperia (1946) pp. 201-13, no. 41, lines 76-78; IG 1I2849,lines 1-4;Demosthenes 19.60. For the twenty-eighth day, Hesperia (1957) pp.63-66, no. 17, lines 1-4. For the twenty-ninth day, Hesperia (1932) pp. 45-56,lines 1-5; Hesperia (1935) pp. 562-65, no. 40, lines 1-5; Hesperia (1935) pp.525-30, no. 39, lines 2-7;IG 112674, lines 1-2;Hesperia (1936) pp. 414-16, no. 12,lines 2-7; IG 112953, lines 1-4;IG I12483, lines 1-8;Hesperia (1940) pp. 126-33,no. 26, lines 1-4; IG 112850, lines 1-3; IG 112 892, lines 1-5; Aeschines 3.27;Hesperia (1963) p. 4, lines 1-7.

26

7/28/2019 MIKALSON

10/10

'HMEPA 'AnIOPPAZ 27

Magn. 131.13 and in the general inactivity attested for thePlynteria.There is an outward similarity between the dies atri and the,juQat adnocpQed;. Both had an "impure" quality, and bothmay have been characterized by inactivity of legislative bodies.It was this outward similarity which led Lucian and Plutarch, aswell as modern scholars, simply to identify the j7ueQat&dzopQedEs with the dies atri, and thus to burden them withmany features not their own.

JON D. MIKALSONUNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA