importance, and R. Osborne (1993) is surely right to stress that their competitive
aspect is valued by the polis for the impetus it gives to ambition.
Contests are always at least mentioned in studies of the festivals, but other activities
and entertainments often go unnoticed altogether, understandably only in the sense
that they are rarely noted by the ancient sources. ‘‘One might judge a market or a
festival as poorly or well organized,’’ says Demosthenes, on the basis of ‘‘the abun-
dance and cheapness of the things for sale’’ (10.50), which must mean that people
regularly sold things from booths or barrows at festivals; no doubt it was from one of
these that Strepsiades bought Pheidippides’ toy at Diasia. There is also a good deal of
scattered evidence for performances and shows of one kind and another that were not
organized as competitions, such as Plutarch’s mimes at Diasia. Most of the bustling
activity at festivals has however left almost no trace, though comedy is a good guide
to imaginative reconstruction – Menandrean comedy, with its maidens impregnated
and abandoned at festivals, as well as Aristophanic. It will have mattered to almost
everyone that the traditional rites were properly performed, but how they were to be
interpreted must have mattered much less than the range of stimulating activities they
gave occasion to. Athenaeus’ Boeotian ‘‘asserted that the ancestral customs must be
observed and that there is no need to account for them to others’’ – and nor, it is
surely implied, to ourselves.
Guide to Further Reading
The older standard account of Greek calendars and months, Samuel 1972, is still useful, but
Tru ̈mpy 1997 is more up to date. Mikalson 1975 is good on the dates of Athenian festivals,
though now dated. For Athenian festivals, the older standard works in German, Mommsen 1898
and Deubner 1932, contain comprehensive (but epigraphically outdated) collections of the
evidence in Greek, but are antique in approach; so also Pfuhl 1900, on Athenian processions.
In English, Parke 1977 is largely derivative, Simon 1983 useful on archaeological evidence but
thin. Parker 2005, a superb study, is now the standard work on Athenian festivals. For particular
Athenian festivals see the excellent Pickard-Cambridge 1968, which only deals with festivals of
Dionysus; Brumfield 1981 on festivals of Demeter; and R. Hamilton 1992 on Anthesteria (more
detailed than the treatment in Parker 2005, but less convincing). For non-Athenian festivals
Nilsson 1906 is still the standard comprehensive treatment, but badly needs replacement. Those
who do not read German can consult Farnell 1896–1909, which is not much older than Nilsson
but rather less incisive. The discussions of various festivals in Harrison 1922 and 1927 are dated
in approach and sometimes unreliable on detail, but much more stimulating than Farnell. There
are useful summary accounts of various non-Athenian festivals (as well as of some Athenian) in
Dillon 1997 and 2002. The studies of festivals in Burkert 1979, 1983, and 1985 (and in various
articles) are learned, brilliant, and exciting, which is all the more reason to exercise the caution
which my criticism in this chapter of some of his views is meant to recommend. N. Robertson’s
many studies of festivals (e.g. 1983, 1984, 1985, 1992, 1993, 1996) rarely command assent but
are learned and often supply important correctives. Regional studies of Greek cult are now often
the best starting-point for study of non-Athenian festivals: Willetts 1962 for Crete, Schachter
1981–94 for Boeotia, Graf 1985 for northern Ionia, Jost 1985 for Arcadia. Pettersson 1992 is
less dated on the Spartan festivals of Apollo than Wide 1893, and useful for archaeological
evidence. Schachter 2000 on the Theban Daphnephoria and Humphreys 2004:223–75 on
Anthesteria are good studies of the development of festivals over time, a tricky subject because
of the scantiness of our evidence from any one period.
Festivals 203