- THE PRYTANIC CALENDAR
Peculiar to Athens was the prytanic calendar (also known as the bouleutic
calendar), introduced at the end of the sixth or mid-fifth centuriesBCE.^75 This
calendar followed, and indeed represented, the terms of the prytanies (presid-
ing or working committees) of theboule(city council), which succeeded each
other in turn and among which the year was equally divided. The year, in this
system, was thus not divided into‘months’but into prytanic terms. This
calendar was primarily designed for measuring the terms of the prytanies,
but it was also used as a dating device for other, mainly official and govern-
mental purposes.^76
Until the third centuryBCEthere were ten prytanies (comprising 50 mem-
bers each), and thus the year was divided into ten terms; the term of each
prytany exceeded the lunar month, therefore, by a few days. The number of
prytanies was increased to twelve for most of the third–second centuriesCE;
but since this calendar was reckoned differently from the archontic (festival)
calendar, it cannot be assumed that the terms of the prytanies in this period
were equal or conterminous with the months of the archontic calendar.
How the prytanic calendar was reckoned remains, however, controversial.
According to a late fourth-centuryBCEwork attributed to Aristotle, the year of
the prytanic calendar was lunar (which means, presumably, conterminous
with the archontic year) and divided into ten almost equal terms, of 36 days
(for thefirst four prytanies) and 35 days (for the last six).^77 Pritchett and
Neugebauer (1947) treat this as a historically reliable account of the prytanic
(^75) On the dating, and for a general account of the prytanic calendar, see Samuel (1972) 61–4,
Pritchett (2001) 32–4, and (better perhaps) Rhodes (1972) 224–9.
(^76) The prytanic calendar is commonly found e.g. infinancial records such as the famous
Choiseul marble of the late 5th c.BCE(Meiggs and Lewis 1988: 255–60 no. 84); however, its uses
(as those of the festival calendar) are variable cannot be consistently categorized (Pritchett loc.
cit., arguing that the prytanic calendar was more useful infinancial contexts because of its greater
regularity; see also Bickerman 1968: 34–5, 37, Rhodes loc. cit.). The festival calendar, by contrast,
was the one normally used by Athenians: as Rhodes (1972) 228 puts it, it was the‘natural’
calendar by which ordinary Athenians instinctively dated. Unless otherwise indicated, it is the
festival calendar that was used in inscriptions (Pritchett and Neugebauer 1947: 19, Samuel 1972:
57 – 8,Woodhead 1992: 140 n. 18). Preference for this calendar can be explained on a number of
grounds:first, it was the more ancient, traditional calendar of Athens, whereas the prytanic
calendar was a novel institution (so Pritchett 2001: 146–7); secondly, it served to date all the
festivals, which permeated Athenian religious and social life; thirdly, it resembled the
calendars of other cities and thus was more useful to international relations (Pritchett 2001:
34 – 5, the last two arguments). Hannah’s description of the festival calendar as‘serving to
regulate the celebration of religious festivals’and the prytanic calendar as‘political’(2005: 42,
44) is a simplification.
(^77) Aristotle,Ath. Pol.43. 2. The authorship of this work is disputed (Martha C. Nussbaum in
Hornblower and Spawforth 1996: 166), but for convenience I shall refer to the author as
‘Aristotle’. It is reasonable to assume that according to this text, the prytanic new year would
have coincided with 1 Hekatombaion, the archontic new year.
Calendars of AncientGreece 47