Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Individus, groupes et politique à Athènes de Solon à Mithridate

 | 
Jean-Christophe Couvenhes
, 
Silvia Milanezi

Group and individuals in IRhamnous 59 (SEG 49.161)*

Ilias Arnaoutoglou

Texte intégral

  • * A shortened version of the paper was presented at the conference. I would like to thank P.M. Frase (...)
  • 1 Tran (N.), “Le collège, la communauté et le politique sous le Haut-Empire Romain Historiographie d (...)
  • 2 See Gruen (E.S.), “The polis in the Hellenistic world”, in Rosen (R.M.) et Farell (J.), éd., Nomod (...)

1The triangular relation between individuals, groups and politics has been always an attractive subject for scholars and not only classical scholars. This interaction is one of the main themes in the history of ideas and political history at all periods.1 For classical Athens scholarship has reached, in the last decades, a sort of a consensus; individuals usually of a reputed ancestry, prestige or wealth were competing for political power and influence using very often groups of supporters of varied membership, organisation and permanence. Things are less clear for Hellenistic Athens. Individuals were still competing for posts of authority, but the changing diplomatic and political context shifted the centre of power from the poleis to the royal courts. Inside the poleis, the proliferation of different associations generated a new context in which one could display his generosity; one such episode is illustrated in this paper.2

  • 3 Petrakos (B.Ch.), Ο demos tou Rhamnountos. Sunopsi ton anaskaphon kai ton ereunon (1813-199S), 2 v (...)
  • 4 Dow (St.), “The Egyptian cults in Athens”, HThR. 30 (1937), p. 183-232 (thereafter Dow, “Egyptian (...)

2In the corpus of inscriptions from Rhamnous. B. Petrakos published three joining pieces of a broken stele on which the honorary decree for Apollodoros is inscribed.3 Apollodoros was honoured for his piety and philotimia towards a group of Sarapiastai. The importance of IRhamnous 59 lies in the fact that this is the second (and possibly the earliest) testimony of the cult of Sarapis and of a group of Sarapiastai in Attica. So far, we knew of Sarapiastai in Athens only from IG II2 1292 (215/4 B.C.). with the commentary, after examination of photographs and squeezes, of Dow (St.) in HThR 30 (1937) 188-197.4 In what follows, I am going to provide a commentary of the Rhamnousian inscription, discuss the historical setting (date and prosopography), the group of Sarapiastai in Rhamnous and its relation to the Athenian group, and last, but not least, the legal information supplied by this inscription.

3The decree was discovered in a rectangular building, to the north of the eastern gate of the wall, leading to the harbour (fig. 1). The building identified later as an hestiatorion, since it contained 5 built couches (klinai) (fig. 2-3). The main part of the stele was found incorporated on such a couch. The building (hestiatorion) was built in the Hellenistic period and was in use till the 5th century A.D. However, according to the excavator, the building was used intensively during the 2nd and 3rd century A.D. The two remaining pieces were found inside the eastern gate.

I. THE INSCRIPTION

4Ed. IRhamnous 59 (= SEG 49.161, Bricault (L.), RICIS 100/0502)

5Litt: PAE 1990, 31-32 no. 15 (= SEG 41.74), PAE 1999 [2002] 6; BE 2001, no. 197.

Text:

6Non-stoichedon 27-37 letters

Translation

7Aphthonetos, son of Aphthonetos of Rhamnous .../ Since Apollodoros .../ He has been .../ To the demos .../ Him the demos .../ Elected .../ for which services him the council .../ Crowned him with golden crowns .../ And privately whatever he is asked by .../ Any one of the citizens, he is proving himself useful .../ And now, while the citizens stationing in Rhamnous had written to him about a plot of land, which was his own, and they wanted to buy it so that they will build a sanctuary devoted to Sarapis and Isis, he was not willing to sell it but he donated it free of charge, displaying his piety to the gods and his benevolence and philotimia towards his fellow citizens. In order that Sarapiastai too, appear to return the favours to those who display philotimia towards them; Good luck / It seemed appropriate to the koinon of Sarapiastai to praise and crown with a golden crown Apollodoros, son of Sogenes of Otryne, because of his piety to the gods and his philotimia towards the Sarapiastai; and the hieropoioi who are on duty, are to invite him to attend the sacrifices; and this decree shall be inscribed on a stone slab and be erected at the entrance of the sanctuary; six men shall be chosen from among the Sarapiastai, who are going to take care of the inscription of the decree and the placement of the slab; and the expenses occurred shall be paid by the common treasury; the following have been chosen. / Demokles of Eupyridai, Antiphanes of Oion / Kleodorides of Rhamnous, Bion of Phrearrioi / Aphthonetos of Rhamnous. Philokles of Erkhia.

8(in corona)

9the koinon of Sarapiastai (honoured) Apollodoros, son of Sogenes of Otryne.

Commentary

10Line 1-4. [Ἀφθ]όνητο[ς Ἀφθονήτου Ραμνούσιος εἶπεν] | [ἐπει]δὴ Ἀπολ[λόδωρος χειροτονηθεὶς στρατηγòς | δια]τετέλεκ[εν εὔνους ὢν καὶ ἰδίαι καὶ κοι|νε]ῖ τῶι δήμωι ἐ[ν παντὶ καιρῶι, ἐστεφάνωσ|εν] – IRhamnous; [ἐπει]δή Ἀπολ[λόδωρος ἔν τε τοῖς ἐπάνω χρόνοις | δια]τετέλεκ[εν εὔνουν ἑαυτòν παρασκευάζων | ἀε]ὶ τῶι δήμωι. - BE. No dating formula survives, similarly in IRhamnous 167 (= IG II2 1322), a copy for the use of the group did not need to have a date. Also in Athens, IG IT 1252-1256, 1258-1259, and 1324 do not include an archon formula.

  • 5 Also now in Bielman (A.), Retour à la liberté. Libération et sauvetage des prisonniers en Grèce an (...)

11Line 5-10. [εν] τε αὐτòν ὁ δῆμος τὰς ἀξίας χάριτας το|ῖ]ς κεχειροτονημ[ένοις στρατηγοῖς ἀποδι|δούς, ἀνθ ὦν αὐτòν ἥ [τ]ε βο[υλὴ πολλάκις ἐσ]|[τ]εφάνωσεν χρυσοῖς στεφάν[οις, διατελεῖ]| καὶ ἰδία[ι] εἰς ὄ ἄν τις αὐτòν [παρ]ακ[αλεῖ] | [τ]ῶν πολιτῶν εὔχρηστον ἑαυτòν παρ[ασκευ] – IRhamnous. The participe kecheirotonemenos is used most often for generals in Rhamnousian decrees (IRhamnous 3, 8, 10, 11. 14, 16, 18, 20, 26, 32, [34], [38], 43. [46], 47, 48, 49, [50], [51]) although it might have been used for other officials too (hipparchos, IRhamnous 3). However, in three cases in IRhamnous 8 (probably 258/7, Rhamnous). IRhamnous 17 (ante 235/4 BC. Rhamnous) and IG II2 1225 (249-244/3 BC. Salamis and later Peiraieus)5 the generals were appointed by Antigonos (κατασταθεὶς ύπό τε τοῦ βασιλέως’ Αντιγόνου) and then elected by the demos (καὶ ύπό τοῦ δήμου χειροτονηθεὶς ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν); see also in IRhamnous 32. 19-20: τοῖς καθισταμένοις ἀεὶ στρατηγοῖς and Habicht (Chr.), “Athens after the Chremonidian War: some second thoughts”, in Palagia (O.) & Tracy (S.v.), eds, The Macedonians in Athens 322-229 B.C., Oxford. 2004. p. 52-55. On the basis of the above Petrakos in IRhamnous, I, 434 assumes, with a certain degree of plausibility, that Apollodoros has served some time in the late 3rd century B.C. as general. However, the decree reveals only that: I) Apollodoros has been favourable, at least towards the citizens stationed in Rhamnous. II) he was elected for some public duty or office and subsequently, he was crowned for the successful performance of it and III) he promised, true to the spirit of euergetism, to continue to benefit the koinon. His uncle had been a strategos three decades earlier. From the above indications, one can argue that Apollodoros may have been elected as a strategos, but it is difficult to substantiate it; cf. BE 2001, no. 197 p. 518. The term εὔχρηστος usually denotes the availability of the person to assist, his usefulness to the members of a group. It does not appear in Rhamnous. but it is attested in many honorary Athenian decrees granting enktesis or politeia, such as IG II2 850. 909, 945, or decrees of other groups, IG II2 1281, 1308, 1327, 1345. Its place in the decree follows the reference to the services of the honoured person and denotes the availability of the honorand to contribute to the well-being of the polis or the group.

  • 6 Commentary in Engelmann (H.), The Delian aretalogy of Sarapis (EPRO, 44), Leiden, 1975. See also 1 (...)

12Line 11-15. καὶ νῦν γραψάντῶν τῶν ἐν ‘Ραμν[οῦν]|τι ταττομένων πολιτῶν ὑπὲρ τόπου ὃς [ἧν] | ἴδιος αὐτοῦ καὶ βουλομένων πρίασθαι ὥστ[ε] | ἱερòν κατ[α]σκευᾶσαι τῶι τε Σαράπιδι καὶ τε[ῖ] | [Ἴ]σιδι - IRhamnous. Apollodoros did not reside or, at least, he was not in Rhamnous when the citizens stationing in Rhamnous asked to buy the land: therefore, they had to write to him (Gauthier, BE). Two more petitions for building a sanctuary by a cult group are known, (a) the petition of the Citians, IG II2 337 (333/2 B.C.): περὶ ὦν oἱ ἔνποροι oἱ Κιτιεῖς ἔδοξαν ἔννομα ἱκετεύειν αἰτοῦντες τòν δῆμον χωρίου ἔνκτησιν ἐν ὦι ἱδρύσονται ἱερòν Ἀφροδίτης...and (b) on Delos in 153/2 B.C. the Herakleiastai sent an embassy with Patron, son of Dorotheos. to Athens to ask for a grant of land on which to build a sanctuary of Herakles [IDelos 1519 (Michel 998; Durrbach, Choix 85; Poland B166a) II, 10-15: νῦν δ’ ἐτι μᾶλλον ἐπηυξημένης αὐτῆς μετὰ τῆς τῶν θεῶν εὐνοίας παρεκάλεσεν τò κοινòν ἐξαποστεῖλαι πρεσβείαν πρòς τòν δῆμον τῶν Ἀθηναίων ὁπως δοθῇ αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν ὦι κατασκευάσουσιν τέμενος Ἡρακλέους... The decision of the koinon of Sarapiastai to honour Apollodoros was taken after the donation of a plot of land, possibly big enough to erect, at least, an altar. The inscription confirms that a piece of land was thought necessary for the establishment of a cult; IG XI (4) 1299.12-23 [Delos, 3rd century B.C.] provides a very interesting parallel, illuminating some aspects of the Rhamnousian inscription: ὁ θεός μοι ἐχρη|μάτισεν κατὰ τòν ὕπνον ὅτι Σαραπιεῖον δεῖ αὐτῶι ἀναδειχθῆναι ἴδιον καὶ μὴ εἶναι ἐν μισθωτοῖς καθώς πρότερον, εὑρήσειν τε τόπον αὐτòς οὖ δεῖ ἑδρασθῆναι σημάνεῖν τε τòν τόπον, ὅ καὶ ἐγένετο. ό γὰρ τόπος οὖτος ἧν κόπρου μεστòς ὃς προεγέγραπτο πωλούμενος ἐν βιβλιδίωι ἐν τεῖ διόδωι τῆς ἀγορᾶς’ τοῦ δὲ θεοῦ βουλομένου συνετελέσθη ἡ ὠνή, κατεσσκευάσθη τε τò ἱερòν συντόμως ἐν μησὶν ἕξ6. It is clear from the Delian and Rhamnousian inscriptions that religious associations could rent a place for cultic purposes as well as buy one. The expression ἰδιος αὐτοῦ underlines the fact that this plot of land was private; it aims to underline the qualities of Apollodoros as φιλότιμος. Πρίασθαι denotes unambiguously the purchase of land by the Sarapiastai in order to build a sanctuary for Sarapis and Isis. For a similar conjunction of πρίασθαι and ἀποδόσθαι see Lyc. 1 (Against Leokrates) 22: καὶ δεηθεὶς τοῦ κηδεστοῦ πρίασθαι παρ’ αύτοῦ τἀνδράποδα καὶ τὴν οἰκίαν, ἀποδόσθαι ταλάντου, PI. Rep. 33b 12 and Dem. 21 (Against Meidias) 150. Inevitably the question arises, where the Sarapiastai were gathering before the donation of land; did they use the premises of another cult association or, like the Delian worshippers of Sarapis, were renting a place?

  • 7 The proposed restoration appears in the recent collection of Samama (E.), Les médecins dans le mon (...)
  • 8 It appears also in Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Ant. Rom. 12.1.2.4-9, App., BC 1.1.11.18-29, Liban. (...)
  • 9 Land for burial belonging to a cult association of Aphrodisiastai in Rhodes, SEG 3.674 (2nd centur (...)

13Line 15-16. ἀποδόσσθαι μὲν οὐκ ἠβουλήθη, ἔδωκε δὲ (ἄ)νευ τιμῆς: The unusual expression ἄνευ τιμῆς appears in the translation of the Septuegint. Ps. 43.13.1-2, Job 31.39.1-2, restored in IKos ED 132a (= Maiuri, NS 438), a late 3rd century B.C. honorary decree for a doctor who offered his services gratis,7 in OGIS 168.22 (116/5 B.C.), and in a document of A.D. 302 (SB 12.10881, 12 = HSCP 74 (1970) 329ff and another copy of the same cession of land in P. New York 20).8 Note also the use of the standard verb ἀποδόσθαι, used to denote that something was handed over, either in a sale or a lease context. Donations of land inter vivos are very rare. For a similar donation we have only one parallel in Attica, in IG II2 1325.24-26 (185/4 B.C.): παρεσκεύασεν δὲ τοῖς Διονυσιασταῖς ἵν’ ἔχωσιν χρᾶ[σθαι] αὐτοῖς καὶ χρυσώ]ματα καὶ ἀργυρώματα καὶ τὴν λοιπὴν χορηγίαν πᾶσαν τὴν δέο[υσαν εἰς τὰ ἱερὰ καὶ τόπον εἰ]ς ὂν συνιόντες καθ’ ἕκαστον μῆνα μεθέξουσιν τῶν ἱερῶν, and almost ten years later in IG II2 1326.10-15 (176/5 B.C.): καὶ κατασταθεὶς ταμίας τάς τε κοινὰς προσόδους ἐπηύξησεν ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἐπιδοὺς αὐτοῖς ἀργυρίου χιλίας δραχμὰς καὶ τόπον μετὰ τῆς ἄλλης χορηγίας πάσης εἰς ὃν συνιόντες θύσο[υ]σιν κατὰ μῆνα ἕκαστον τῶι θεῶι κατὰ τὰ πάτρια. Outside Athens there is a testimony from 3rd century B.C. Kameiros in Rhodes, IG XII (1) 736 [Syll3 1118; SGDI 4139; DGE 283; Poland B283] in which an unknown person has donated land to the group to be used as a burial ground.9 Of course, there were donations to cult associations, but these comprised either a sum of money, as in IG II2 1263.16-19 (300/299 B.C.): καὶ ψηφισαμένων τῶν θιασωτῶν μισθòν αὐτῶι δίδοσθαι ἐκ τοῦ κοινοῦ καὶ τοῦτον ἐπέδωκε τοῖς θιασώταις, and in IG II2 1316.12-13 (272/1 B.C.): ἀπέδωκαν δὲ καὶ τὴν πρόσοδον τὴν γενομένην έφ’ αύτῶν δικαίως, or paying the cost of building a temple, as in IG II2 1325: τόν τε νεὼ τοῦ θεοῦ κατεσκεύασεν καὶ ἐκόσμησεν; similarly, in IRhamnous 3 (268/7 B.C.) the general Epichares of Ikarion donated money to build the headquarters.

14Line 22. δεδόχθαι τῶι κοινῶι τῶν Σαραπιαστῶν: similar formulas describing the issuing body: IG II2 1298 (248/7 B.C.) δεδόχθαι τῶι κοι νῶι τῶν θιασωτῶν; 1317b (249/8 B.C.) ἔδοξεν τῶι κοινῶι; 1334 (c. 71/70 B.C.) [δεδόχθαι τῶι κοινῶι τῶν ὀρ]γεώνων; 1339 (57/56 B.C.) ἔδοξεν τῶι κοινῶι τῶν Ἡρ]οïστῶν; 1343 (37/36 B.C.) δεδόχθαι τῶι κοινῶι τῶν Σωτηριαστῶν; SEG 2.9 (245/44 B.C.), 21.532 (227/6 B.C.), IG II2 1345 (A.D. 53/54) [δεδόχθαι τῶι κοι]νῶ. Usually cult groups describe themselves simply as orgeones, thiasotai, eranistai and Sarapiastai (IG II2 1292).

15Line 23-24. ἐπαινέσαι καὶ στεφανῶσαι χρυσῶι στε|φάνωι: χρυσòς στέφανος is a rare occurrence in 3rd century documents of associations, it appears only in IG II2 1316 (orgeones, 272/1 B.C.); other 4th century instances in IG II2 1252, 1253, 1255 & 1256. However, in Hellenistic Rhamnous strategoi are, in most cases, awarded a golden crown, see IRhamnous 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 20, 23, 26, [27], 32, 35, 39, 43. [47], [49], [51].

16Line 24-26. εὐ|σεβείας ἕνεκα τῆς πρòς τοὺς θεοὺς καὶ φι|λοτιμίας τῆς εἰς ἑαυτούς: εὐσέβεια as a quality worthy of honour appears in IG II2 1277 (278/77 B.C.) an honour bestowed for replacing the sacred objects, in 1297 (236/5 B.C.) for taking the initiative to convene the thiasos, in 1324 (c. 190 B.C.) taking care of the procession, in 1329 (175/4 B.C.) taking care of the sanctuary, in MDAI (A), 66 (1941) 228 no. 4 (138/7 B.C.) rebuilding the temple. It is usually associated with sacral, religious or ritual duties. The phrase ευσέβειας καί φιλοτιμίας in honorary decrees appears in IG IT 1314 (hiereia. 213/2 B.C.). 1315 (hiereia, 211/10 B.C.), 1324 (c. 190 B.C.), SEG 18.33 (212/11-174/3 B.C.). For philotimia see Whitehead (D.), “Cardinal virtues. The language of public approbation in democratic Athens”, ClassMed, 44 (1993), p. 37-77 and veligianni-terzi (Chr.), Wertbegriffe in den attischen Ehrendekreten der klassischen Zeit (Heidelberger althistorische Beiträge und epigraphische Studien, 25), Stuttgart, 1997.

  • 10 Festival liturgies in classical Athens, Ath.Pol. 56.3 with the comments by Rhodes (P.J.), A commen (...)

17Line 26-28. καλεῖν δὲ αὐτòν | καὶ εἰς τὰς θυσίας τοὐς ἱεροποιοὐς οἶς ἂν ή | λειτουργία καθήκει: Hieropoioi are also attested in IG II2 1255 (orgeones), 1261 (thiasotai), 1263 (thiasotai), 1265 (eranistai), 291 (eranistai). 1292 (Sarapiastai) 1. 13-15 καὶ ἀναγορεύειν [αὐ]τῶν τὰ ὀν[όματα τ]οὺς ἱεροποιοὺς ἀεί κἄ[θ’ έ]κάστην θ[υσίαν μετ]ὰ τὰ ἱερά. accompanied by a fine in case of non-observance. 1297 (thiasotai), 1361 (orgeones), SEG 21.531 (orgeones), themos (A.A.). “Katalogos eraniston” in MatthaioU (A.P.), (ed), Attikai epigraphai. Praktika Symposiou eis mnemen Adolf Wilhelm (1864-1950), Athena, 2004. p. 253-269 (eranistai). Their duties were mainly sacral. For hieropoioi appointed by the polis, see Garland (R.). “Religious authority in archaic and classical Athens”, ABSA, 79 (1984), p. 75-123. The adoption and use of the term leitourgia is an indication of institutional borrowings by cult associations. In decrees from Rhamnous the term has lost its classical meaning of a public function performed at the expense of the property of rich citizens10; it signifies the office to which a person was appointed, e.g. IRhamnous 44.4-6. The same is true in Athenian inscriptions (e.g. IG II2 1304; SEG 25.112; 34.103; 45.101); in decrees of religious associations the term denotes the office, as in Ag. 16, 223. 8 (227/6 B.C.): καὶ γραμματε[ὺς αὐτòς κατασταθεὶς δικαί]|[ω]ς ἐξήγαγεν τὴ[ν λειτουργίαν, SEG 25.112, 11 (196/5 B.C.): καὶ τάς τε ἄλλας λειτουργίας ὑπομεμενηκὼς πάσας ἐφ’ ἃς αὐτòν κατέστησεν ὀ δῆμος. IG II2 1323.7-12 (178/7 B.C.): ἐπειδὴ Θέων κατασταθεὶς ταμίας εἰς τòν ένιαυτòν τòν ἐπὶ Νικοφώντος ἄρχοντος λελειτούργηκεν ἔτη πλείω..., 1328.40 (175/4 B.C.): καὶ λειτουργεῖν αὐτήν ὰεὶ ταῖς γινομέναις ἱερείαις, and 1329.14-16 (175/4 B.C.): διατετέλεκεν δὲ καὶ συνλειτουργῶν ἐν τοῖς ἀγερμοῖς καὶ ταῖς στρώσεσιν ταῖς ἱερήαις...

18Line 30-33. έλέσθαι δὲ ἐξ ἑαυτῶν ἓξ ἄν|δρας οἵτινες ἐπιμελήσονται τῆς τε ἀναγρα|φῆς τοῦ ψηφίσματος καὶ τῆς ἀνα[θ]έσεως τῆς | στήλης: One would expect a secretary to be charged with similar duties, such as in IG II2 1255 (restored), 1284, 1324 and 1328. Epimeletai are responsible in IG II2 1277, 1301, 1319, 1327. Archontes are mentioned in IG II2 1258 and a tamias in IG II2 1263, while in IG II2 1316 the inscription and the setting up is a joint responsibility of tamias and epimeletai. Their absence does not mean necessarily that there were no other officials in the association: it is more likely to be connected with the contribution of Apollodoros and the subsequent honours to be paid, that called for the election of a committee (of prominent members?) to oversee the task of inscribing and erecting the stele. However, it is to be noted that in Rhamnous committees of three are, consistently, appointed to supervise the attribution of honours in this era, see IRhamnous 6, 8, 10, 11, 19, 20, 22-24, 27, 30-32, 38-39, 43, 51, (committee of 3), and 26, 35 (committee of 5). Nevertheless, in the decrees issued by the deme of Rhamnous different members of the organizational apparatus are assigned the task of having the decree inscribed and set up [IRhamnous 13 (treasurer), 15 (hieropoioi), 17 (epimeletai and the demarch)]. I think that these differences are significant, because they indicate the fragility and the provisional character of the corporate organization of the soldiers appointed at Rhamnous.

II. PROSOPOGRAPHICAL EVIDENCE

19The prosopographical evidence for the persons mentioned in the inscription can shed some light in dating the inscription. In particular,

20a) Antiphanes of Oion [LGPN II (64)] appears in three honorary decrees IRhamnous 22 (229 B.C.), 24 (post 216/5 B.C.), 44 (post 216/5 B.C.), always as a member of the committee entrusted to erect a stele.

21b) Demokles of Eupyridai [LGPN II (31)] is attested in IRhamnous 24 (member of the committee, post 216/5 B.C.), 26 (member of the committee, post 229 B.C.), 33 (secretary,?c. 220 B.C.), 44 (mover of the decree, post 216/5 B.C.). He was probably active till the beginning of the 2nd centtiry B.C. according to Petrakos, who in the commentary of IRhamnous 24, reports that Demokles is attested in an unpublished decree of the year of archon Symmachos (188/87 B.C.).

  • 11 Also in Aleshire (S.B.), Asklepios at Athens. Epigraphic and prosopographical essays on the Atheni (...)
  • 12 See IRhamnous 17 (ante 235/4 B.C.) in which Dikaiarchos, son of Apollonios was appointed as genera (...)
  • 13 According to Tracy (St.), Athenian letter-cutters of 229 to 86 B.C., Oxford, 1990, p. 149 (thereaf (...)

22c) Apollodoros, son of Sogenes, of Otryne [LGPN II (155)] participated in the epidosis of the year of archon Diomedon (248/7 B.C.) [IG II2 791 (SEG 32.118 I, 68; Migeotte (L.), Souscriptions, no. 17); date: ZPE 143 (2003) 97] contributing the maximum sum of 200 drachmas. His father Sogenes [LGPN II (15)] is mentioned in IG II2 1534 Β = Aleshire (S.B.), The Athenian Asklepieion. The people, their dedications and the inventories, Amsterdam. 1989, p. 324, Inv. V, 100 (c. 254-243 B.C.), as having made a dedication to Asklepios.11 Sogenes is probably related to Apollodoros, son of Apollodoros of Otryne [LGPN II (153)], strateges epi ten paralian, appointed by Antigonos Gonatas12 honoured by the isoteleis in Rhamnous (SEG 3.2 = Pouilloux, Rhamnonte 7 = IRhamnous 8) in c. 258/7 B.C. Therefore. Apollodoros was the nephew of the strateges of the early 250s. Probably Sogenes [LGPN II (16)] and the members of his family (Gorgo, Sogenes II, Gorgo II and Apollodoros) who contributed 100 dr. in mid 2nd century B.C. in an epidosis for the rebuilding of the theatre [IG II2 2334, 19-22 (dated in 169/8-135/4)13; Migeotte (L.), Souscriptions, no. 20] are descendants of our Apollodoros; (see stemma A).

  • 14 I think that Kleodorides of LGPN (II) 1 is more likely to be identical with Kleodorides of LGPN (I (...)
  • 15 Traill (J.), “The bouleutic list of 281/0 B.C.”, Hesperia, 38 (1969), p. 491 identifies Kleodoride (...)
  • 16 Strombichos may be identified with the one Strombichos mentioned in IRhamnous 394 and with the nam (...)
  • 17 If IRhamnous 28 (= SEG 38.126) is connected with IRhamnous 27 (= SEG 43.32), then it should have b (...)
  • 18 Petrakos in IRhamnous, I, p. 19 reads Κλε[οδωρ]ίδης instead of Κλε[ϊππ]ίδης of IG.
  • 19 Note that in IRhamnous [repeating PAE 1991 [1994] p. 37-39 no 13] the date is given, next to an ex (...)

23d) Kleodorides of Rhamnous cannot be identified with the Kleodorides [LGPN II (l)].14 son of Strombichides [LGPN (II) 5] of Ag. 15.72, 199, who was prytanis in 281/0 B.C., (i.e. at least 30 at that time). In the family of Kleodorides, son of Strombichides15 belong both Strombichos [LGPN II (10) & Add.] member of a committee to honour the general Dikaiarchos of IRhamnous 17 (= SEG 25.155 (c. 235/4 B.C.))16, and Kleochares [LGPN II (9)] honoured for his services as demarchos in IRhamnous 6 (262/1 B.C.) and both members of the committee to attribute honours to the general Archandros of Eleusis [IRhamnous 28 (post 248/7 B.C.)].17 Kleodorides of IRhamnous 59 can hardly be identified with Kleodorides [LGPN II (2)], son of Kleochares, an ephebe (i.e. 18 at that time) in 250/49 [IG II2 681 frg. F, 2218 and his funerary stele in IRhamnous 291 (= SEG 21.918 (mid 3rd century BC))19]. It is more likely that Kleodorides, the worshipper of Sarapis, is the son of Strombichos, son of Kleodorides and nephew of Kleochares (see stemma B).

  • 20 Accordingly, IG II2 7338 should be dated to post 224 B.C.

24e) Aphthonetos, son of Aphthonetos, of Rhamnous should be identified with Aphthonetos. son of Aphthonetos [LGPN II (13)] of IG II2 7338. a 3rd century funerary stele.20 There is one more Aphthonetos [LGPN II (16)] from Rhamnous attested as a prytanis in Ag. 15.170, 71 dated in the first two decades of the 2nd century B.C.; alternatively, he may be identified with Aphthonetos of IRhamnous 59, if we take into account that Demokles was still active down to 180’s.

  • 21 An Athenian Bion [LGPN II (1)] is attested buying land in Krokodilopolis, Egypt (P. Tebt. III 979. (...)

25f) Bion of Phrearrioi21 [LGPN II Add. (1a)] and Philokles of Erkhia [LGPN II Add. (4a)] appear for the first time in Athenian epigraphic documents.

26The prosopographical investigation has helped us, so far. to discern: (I) that the honorand belonged to the upper stratum of society in Hellenistic Athens, with possible pro-Macedonian leanings and (II) that several individuals of the committee were not ordinary Athenians but had a substantial involvement in the social life of the fortress of Rhamnous.

III. THE ASSOCIATION OF SARAPIASTAI

27The decree is the second testimony for a group of Sarapiastai in Attica; so far we knew for a group of Sarapiastai in Athens. What is the relation between the two? Were they independent of each other or were they associated in any way?

28The Athenian Sarapiastai honoured the officials of the year of the archon Hagnias (216/5 BC) and the members mentioned in the decree IG II2 1292 do not bear any external mark of citizenship; so Dow, “Egyptian cults”, p. 197 is probably right in considering them as non-Athenians. In contrast, the individuals petitioning and honoring Apollodoros for his vital contribution are all Athenian citizens. So, we have to conclude that the two groups are totally different from each other. There are two more arguments to support this conclusion; a) the group of Sarapiastai in IRhamnous 59 awards a golden crown, while the group of Sarapiastai of IG II2 1292 a crown of olive-leaves and a short fillet tied with strings at the ends (Dow, “Egyptian cults”, p. 190) around the head of the honorand. One can, of course, object that in the latter the honours are awarded for regular services to the group, while Apollodoros’ contribution was extraordinary. However, this differentiation is indicative of the financial potential of the two groups of Sarapiastai; b) the group of Rhamnousian Sarapiastai does not seem to be fully-fledged (as is natural for a recently founded group with no cult-centre); in their award there are only hieropoioi to perform sacrifices. The Athenian counterpart includes the standard organizational apparatus (treasurer, secretary, superintedents). The place where the Sarapiastai were gathered to worship Sarapis before the donation of land remains unknown, although it is possible that they were using the cult place of a different deity.

  • 22 The use of καὶ implies that there were also other groups. However, in the emulation-clause of the (...)

29It was suggested to me by Julie Velissaropoulou that in 11. 11-12 it is the soldiers stationed in Rhamnous who asked to buy the land, while in 1.19 it is the Sarapiastai, among others who honour Apollodoros.22 Are these two different groups? If so, there is a question of identity and who is receiving the donation, the citizens stationed in Rhamnous or the Sarapiastai? In my view, the two differently named groups are, essentially, one and the same group, the soldiers stationed in Rhamnous and worshipping Sarapis and Isis. My argument rests on the double, civic and religious, identity of the group. To acquire land they must have been citizens or possessed the right to own land; that is the reason for using the term πολῖται in 11. 11/12 and 18. At the same time, the same people call themselves Sarapiastai and the donation aimed at assisting the cult of Sarapis. In a way the situation reminds one of the decree IG II2 337, in which the Citians merchants ask for a grant of land to build a temple. They ask for the grant as Citians merchants, not as worshippers of whatever denomination. Similarly, the grants of enktesis for Bendis and Isis were given to the Thracians (IG II2 1283.4-5 and 26) and the Egyptians (IG II2 337.43-45), respectively and not to the worshippers of each deity. From the above examples and the parallel case of the Delian association of the Tyrian emporoi and naukleroi, worshippers of Herakles (Baal) (ID 1519.7-10, 35), it seems that groups could have had multiple identities, ethnic, religious, professional. In some circumstances, religious identities were probably unhelpful to worshippers in getting what they wanted.

30We can only speculate about the motives of Apollodoros. It seems unlikely, though not impossible, that he was a member of the Athenian Sarapiastai. However, his decision to donate a piece of land clearly points to an attachment to the cult, possibly he was a sympathiser. One would be surprised to find the nephew of a general appointed by the Macedonian king to sympathise with a cult from Ptolemaic Egypt, the main contender to the Macedonian domination of mainland Greece. If the identification of Apollodoros with a man of a certain status in late third-century Athens is correct, then he may have been influenced by the introduction of the public cult of Ptolemy, which was associated with Sarapis.

IV. HISTORICAL CONTEXT23

  • 23 The historical account relies on Habicht (Chr.), Athens from Alexander to Antony, Princeton, 1997. (...)
  • 24 See Paus. II 8.6, Plut. Aratos 34 and the honorary decree IG II2 834 (= Syll3 497).

31The Rhamnousian Sarapiastai-imcripuon pertains to the post-229 B.C. era. This period was a time of revival of Athens as an autonomous polis. Following the death of the Macedonian king Demetrios II in 229 B.C., the Athenians regained their independence. The royal governor, Diogenes, disbanded his Macedonian troops, paying them off the sum of 150 talents and handed over the control of Peiraieus, Salamis, Sunium and the fortresses of Mounychia to Athenians.24 Politics in post-229 B.C. Athens were dominated by two Kephisian brothers, Eurykleides [LGPN II (7)] and Mikion [LGPN II (19)], sons of Mikion [LGPN II (18)]. Athenian foreign policy was summed up in the principle of strict neutrality, combined with efforts to avoid involvement in actions that might provoke Macedonia. Athens did not join in the Achaian League (criticised for that by Plb. 5.106.6-8) but they were alarmed when Antigonos Doson, king of Macedon, founded a new Hellenic League in 224 B.C. and neighbouring Boiotians had already struck an alliance with the Achaean League. In an effort to protect their own position, the Athenians turned to Egypt and sided with Ptolemy III (246-221 B.C.). The Ptolemies were regarded, once more, as guarantors of Athenian independence.

  • 25 Habicht (Chr.), Studien zur Geschichte Athens in hellenistischer Zeit, Göttingen. (Hypomnemata 73) (...)
  • 26 Also BE 1936, p. 346.
  • 27 For the inscription see BE 1938, 89; SEG 21.397; 28.365; 32.121; 39.134 and Habicht (Chr.), “Athen (...)
  • 28 SEG 25.157, 6-12: [καὶ] μὲν Χειροτονηθεὶς [γ]υμνασίαρχος εἰς τòν ἐν[ιαυτòν τ]òν ἐπ’ Ἀντιφίλου ἀ[ρχ (...)
  • 29 « Il semble donc bien que les motifs différents aient présidé à l’installation en Attique de ces d (...)
  • 30 Mikalson (J.D.), Religion in Hellenistic Athens, Berkeley, (Hellenistic Culture and Society 29), 1 (...)

32In this historical setting, what is important for the Sarapiastai-inscription is the relation between Athens and Ptolemy III. The Athenians introduced, probably in 224/3 B.C., the official cult of Ptolemy III Euergetes and his wife Berenike [Plb. 5.106.6; IG II2 4676 (= Kotsidu (2000: no. 18 [E3]) post mid of the 3rd century BC)]; a new tribe, Ptolemais, was created and a new deme, Berenikidai, was inaugurated.25 Accordingly, the number of the councillors rose to 650. The good relations with Ptolemaic Egypt are underlined by the grant of politeia (IG II2 838, September 226 B.C.)26 to Kastor of Alexandria (PP 14608) and to Thraseas of Aspendos (PP 16181 and FRA 1273; IG II2 836 with Wilhelm, dated in the period c. 229-203 by Tracy, ALC, 46; however, it cannot be earlier than 224 B.C.).27 One more indication is provided by IG II2 1303 [a new text in Hesperia, 2 (1933) 447-49 (= SEG 25.157; Moretti, ISE 31) with Wilhelm (Α.), Anz. Wiener Akademie 1946, 115-127 dated in 217/6 B.C.]. It is an honorary decree for Theophrastos, who when elected gymnasiarchos, in the year of the archon Antiphilos (224/3 BC) introduced a prize in athletic contests in the name of king Ptolemy, stressing the disposition of the Athenian people to honour the Ptolemaic king.28 In this pro-Lagid atmosphere, it is possible that some Athenians may have introduced privately the cult of Sarapis in Athens. The association of Sarapis with the Ptolemies is well known. As Dunand (Fr.), Le culte d’Isis dans le bassin oriental de la Méditerranée (EPRO 26), Leiden, 1973, II, p. 8 has pointed out for the Athenian Sarapiastai, the introduction of the cult may be connected with the inclination of the Athenians and not with any kind of pressure from Egypt.29 The introduction of the public cult of Sarapis, a few years later, may be closely associated with non-religious considerations and possibly political reasons. Such an approach was not a novelty in Athens.30 The example of Bendis, to mention only one, in the last decades of the 5th century and its revival in the Lykourgan era, points to the fact that Athenians were using questions of worship instrumentally.

  • 31 Fraser, Alexandria, I, 251: «We shall shortly see that Sarapis in fact rapidly became associated i (...)
  • 32 Mikalson (J.D.), Ancient Greek religion, Oxford, 2005, p. 201 dates the appearance of the Sarapis (...)
  • 33 Habicht “Athens and the Ptolemies”, p. 76: “Another indication of continued friendship can be seen (...)
  • 34 For theophoric names derived from Sarapis, see Parker (R.), “Theophoric names and the history of G (...)

33It is fair, then, to associate the introduction of the cult of Ptolemies with the appearance of the private cult of Sarapis.31 especially as the cult of Sarapis, of which the Athenians could have heard already in the beginning of the 3rd century, was associated with the Ptolemaic dynasty. Dow, “Egyptian cults”, p. 195 implicitly admitted a link with the introduction of Ptolemy’s cult when he argued that the group of Sarapiastai of IG II2 1292 (215/4 B.c.) was already a decade old, because of the apparent regularity of sacrifices and honours; this implies a date of instituting the private cult at about (or a bit later than) the time of the adoption of the public cult of Ptolemy III.32 A piece of evidence for such a link is the status of those asking for the grant of land; the introduction of the cult in Rhamnous was made by Athenian soldiers - in contrast to IG II2 1292 in which Sarapiastai are mentioned by their names with no patronymic or demotikon - and not by mercenaries or isoteleis, although they may have joined later. Therefore, the introduction of the private cult of Sarapis in Rhamnous may be connected with that of Ptolemy III and Berenike, whose cult by the demos was recent and was already associated with Sarapis and Isis.33 Last, I should refer to an intriguing coincidence, the xenagos, that is the leader of mercenary soldiers, honoured in IRhamnous 56, at the end of the 3rd century B.C. is called Sarapion.34

34Private cults of Sarapis are attested in neighbouring Eretria [Bruneau (Ph.), Le sanctuaire et le culte des divinités égyptiennes à Erétrie (EPRO 45), Leiden, 1975] and in the Greek islands [Methymna, Lesbos: Labarre (G.), Les cités de Lesbos aux époques hellénistique et impériale, Lyon, 1996, p. 59-60 with IG XII (2)511 & IG ΧΠ Suppl. p. 32 (= SIRIS 262, late Hellenistic), Keos, IG XII (5) 606 (= SIRIS 158, 2nd century BC) and Delos, Rhodes, Thasos], most of them in the 2nd century BC or later.

35Finally one more piece of evidence has to be presented. It is the dedication by Delphis to the Mother of the Gods, Sarapis and Isis, when Hegesios of Rhamnous was priest [IRhamnous 155 (PAE 1986, 37 & 48; SEG 40.199): Μητρὶ θεῶν, Σαράπιδι, Ἴσιδι Δελφὶς ἀνέθηκε ἐπὶ ἱερέως Ἡγησίου ‘Ραμνουσίου. The inscription was dated in the post-220 era (SEG) or in the period following the decree IRhamnous 59 (Petrakos); more prudently LGPN II (Addenda) provides a date 3rd-2nd century B.C. It is not clear from that dedication, which is now lost, whether there is a public or private cult of Sarapis at Rhamnous. The introduction of the public cult of Sarapis in Athens is dated in the last years of the third century. The mention of an hiereus in the lost dedication, strongly points to a public cult, since both groups of Sarapiastai had only hieropoioi. Furthermore, in IG II2 4692 (SIRIS 3) a dedication dated little later than 200 B.C., an hiereus Stesikrates is mentioned.

V. DATE

  • 35 Note that in BE 2001, no. 197 the inscription is dated in the period between 224 and 215 BC.

36IRhamnous based on prosopographical evidence and in particular, the common occurrence of Demokles of Eupyridai and Antiphanes of Oion in IRhamnous 44 (dated post 216/5 BC) strongly implies a date after 216/5 B.C. The historical considerations discussed above favour a date around 224 B.C., while the prosopographical evidence does not contradict this possibility.35

VI. DONATION OF LAND AND ITS LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR ASSOCIATIONS

  • 36 Beauchet (L.), Histoire du droit privé de la république athénienne, Paris, 1897, vol. 3. p. 123: “ (...)
  • 37 Dem. 36 (For Phormion) 15: ἐπιτρέψας δὲ τῷ τε τῆς ἐαυτοῦ γυναικòς πατρὶ καὶ τῷ συγκηδεστῇ τῷ αὐτοῦ (...)
  • 38 Dem. 52 (Against Kallippos) 20: οἶμαι γὰρ τί μοι καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι πρòς τὴν ἀλαζονείαν τὴν τουτουὶ τ (...)
  • 39 Dem. 53 (Against Nikostratos) 9: καὶ τοῦτο οὐ λόγῳ μὲν ύπεσχόμην, ἔργῳ δὲ ούκ ἐποίησα, ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὴ (...)
  • 40 Is. 2 (On the estate of Menekles) 31: Καὶ ἐκεῖνοι ὀμόσαντες ήμῖν πρòς τῷ βωμῷ τῷ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης Κεφ (...)

37The reported donation in our inscription may shed some light to the intricate question of land ownership by koina in Athens, the modes of acquisition and the associated question of legal personality. Donations inter vivos were exceptional in Athens, while donation between spouses were limited in Gortyn (IC iv 72 col. Χ, 14-20).36 Mostly donations of cash or movables are attested, such as in Plut. Nikias 3, Dem. 36 (For Phormion) 15,37 Dem. 52 (Against Kallippos) 20,38 Dem. 53 (To Nikostratos) 9,39 Is. 2 (On the estate of Menekles) 31.40 Donation of land is a completely different subject, since it touches upon concepts such as patrimony, oikos and the integrity of inheritance. There is only one case, in the literary record, of a donation of land inter vivos, Plut. Dion 17: ᾤκει μὲν οὖν ἐν ἄστει παρὰ Καλλίππῳ τινὶ τῶν γνωρίμων, ἀγρòν δὲ διαγωγῆς χάριν ἐκτήσατο, καὶ τοῦτον ὕστερον εἰς Σικελίαν πλέων Σπευσίππω δωρεὰν ἔδωκεν ᾦ μάλιστα τῶν Ἀθήνησι φίλων ἐχρῆτο καὶ συνδιῃτᾶτο (Dion dwelt in the upper city of Athens with Callippus, one of his acquaintances, but for diversion he bought a country-place, and afterwards, when he sailed to Sicily, he gave this to Speusippus, who was his most intimate friend at Athens).

  • 41 Ἧv μὲν γὰρ τοῦτο Πεισάνδρου τò χωρίον, δημευθέντων δ’ ἐκείνου τῶν ὄντων Ἀπολλόδωρος ὁ Μεγαρεὐς δωρ (...)
  • 42 Another donation of land in Macedonia is mentioned in a letter of Antigonos Gonatas to Agasikles f (...)

38Donation of land is usually a manifestation of the sovereign power of the polis, as in Lysias 7 (Areopagitikos) 441 in which is the Athenian demos donated a plot of land from the confiscated property of one of the 30 tyrants. In the Hellenistic period it is the monarch who donates land to his officials. Two examples from the early Hellenistic period will illustrate this point. Sometime between 305 and 297 B.C. king Cassander confirmed the ownership of Perdikkas, son of Koinos over a few pieces of land as follows:...βασιλεὺς Μακεδόνων Κάσσανδρος δίδωσι Περδίκκαι Κοίνου τòν ἀγρòν... οὓς ἐκληρούχησεν Πολεμοκράτης ὁ πάππος αὐτοὺς καὶ ὃν ὁ πατὴρ ἐπὶ Φιλίππου, καθάπερ καὶ Φίλιππος ἔδωκεν ἐμ πατρικοίς καὶ αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐκγόνοις κυρίοις οὖσι κεκτῆσθαι καὶ ἀλλάσσεσθαι καὶ ἀποδόσθαι (Syll.3 332; Hatzopoulos, Macedonian institutions, II, no. 20) while in 285/4 king Lysimachos donated three different pieces of land in the area of Chalkidike to Limnaios, son of Harpalos. The act is described as follows: βασιλεὺς Λυσίμαχος... δέδωκεν Λιμναίωι ᾿Aρπάλου ἐμ πατρικοῖς τοὺς ἀγροὺς... καὶ αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐκγόνοις κεκτῆσθαι κυρίοις οὖσι καὶ πωλεῖν καὶ ἀλλάσσεσθαι καὶ διδόναι οἶς ἂν βούλωνται (SEG 38.619; Hatzopoulos, Macedonian institutions, II, no. 22). The passage of Lysias and the two grants from Macedonia make abundantly clear that the donated property passes fully to the receiver, but not as an absolute right, comparable to modern concept of ownership; the grantee is allowed to alienate it, that is, to sell, to exchange or to donate the land. It is noteworthy that the grant of Lysimachos mentions explicitly καὶ πωλεῖν καὶ... διδόναι while the grant of Cassander includes these two ways in the infinitive ἀποδόσθαι42. The inscription of Sarapiastai from Rhamnous 11. 13-16: καὶ βουλομένων πρίασθαι ὥστε ἱερòν κατασκευάσαι τῶι τε Σαράπιδι καὶ τεῖ ῎[Ι]σιδι, ἀποδόσθαι μὲν οὐκ ἠβουλήθη, ἔδωκε δὲ (ἄ)νευ τιμῆς presents another sort of variation: it is a donation inter vivos addressed to a religious group. The verb ἔδωκε has its parallel in other donations mentioned above, where it is used to describe the transfer of property. The gratuitous element of the transaction is described with the rare collocation ἄνευ τιμῆς. In order to underline the free-of-charge element, the Athenian Sarapiastai have inserted in the inscribed version of their decree, the contrasting structure μὲν-δὲ. in which scheme the former describes the proposed purchase and the latter the donation. However, what is missing in our inscription is a clause whereby the recipient of the donation will be allowed to dispose of the donated property. While it is true, that the inscription does not preserve the act of donation itself, the omission may be explained by the fact that the property has been donated to a religious group, and land given to such a group was considered sacral and therefore inalienable. Similarly in IG II2 1289.3-7: τὰ μὲν κτήματα εἶναι τῆς θεοῦ καὶ μηθενὶ ἐξεἶναι μὴτ’ ἀποδόσθαι μήτε ύποθεῖναι, ἀλλὰ ἐκ τῶν προσόδων θύειν τὰς θυσίας, a roughly contemporary document (c. 255-235 B.C.) from Athens, selling of land is prohibited. The following passage from the testament of Theophrastos as recorded by Diogenes Laertios 5. 52-53: τòν δὲ κήπον καὶ τòν περίπατον καὶ τὰς οἰκίας τὰς πρòς τῴ κήπῳ πάσας δίδωμι τῶν γεγραμμένων φίλων ἀεὶ τοῖς βουλομένοις συσχολάζειν καὶ συμφιλοσοφεῖν ἐν αὐταῖς, ἐπειδήπερ οὐ δυνατòν πάσιν ἀνθρώποις ἀεὶ ἐπιδημεῖν, μῆτ’ ἐξαλλοτριοῦσι μῆτ’ ἐξιδιαζομένου μηδενός, ἀλλ’ ώς ἂν ἱερòν κοινᾑ κεκτημένοις, καὶ τὰ πρòς ἀλλήλους οἰκείως καὶ φιλικώςχρωμένοις, ὥσπερ προσήκον καὶ δίκαιον, provides another parallel case for the clause of no-further alienation of the donated property.

  • 43 SEG 2.580 [= Le Guen, Techniles, no. 39; Aneziri, Techniten, no. D2] (c. 229-223 or 218-206 B.C.) (...)

39The examination so far provides one more piece of evidence to support the argument I have presented already that cult associations in Hellenistic Athens acquired property following largely extra-market procedures. However, one cannot exclude a priori the potential of certain groups to buy land, as the Rhamnousian Sarapiastai were contemplating it and the Delian Sarapiastai completed the purchase of land for cult purposes. Depending on the status of their members, cult associations, such as our Sarapiastai, could either be granted a plot of land, if they were foreigners (IG II2 337), or accept a donation (IG II2 1326, IRhamnous 59). One more option remained open, the consecration of land and the ensuing use by a religious group; the people of Teos in SEG 2.580 (c. 229-223 or 218-206 B.C.)43 have bought and consecrated, free of any charge, a plot of land to Dionysiakoi technitai.

40IRhamnous 59 provides one more piece of evidence to the meagre dossier of the de facto involvement of religious groups in legal transactions. The Rhamnousian Sarapiastai, all of them citizens, appear to have been able to conclude legal transactions; in particular, they had intended to buy land but in view of Apollodoros’ benevolence, they accepted the donated topos.

41The honorary decree of Sarapiastai for Apollodoros provides another, banal for some, testimony of the relation between individuals and groups in Hellenistic Athens. Founded probably in the pro-Lagid atmosphere of 220s, the Sarapiastai benefited from the generosity of Apollodoros, himself nephew of a general appointed by the Macedonian king in the middle of the century.

A. Stemma of Apollodoros of Otryne

A. Stemma of Apollodoros of Otryne

B. Stemma of Kleodorides of Rhamnous (cf. Petrakos, Rhamnous II, 235)

B. Stemma of Kleodorides of Rhamnous (cf. Petrakos, Rhamnous II, 235)

Fig. 1 — Plan of the Rhamnous fortress (Petrakos (B.Ch.), Ο demos tou Rhamnountos I, p. 50)

Fig. 2 — Drawing of the hestiatorion (PAE 1999. p. 3)

Fig. 3 — The hestiatorion (PAE 1999. p. 3)

Notes

1 Tran (N.), “Le collège, la communauté et le politique sous le Haut-Empire Romain Historiographie du droit à la fin du xixe siècle, « tradition sociologique » et quelques recherches contemporaines”. Cahiers G. Glotz, 12 (2001 ), p. 181-198 in which the author examines the rise of the interest on late Roman collegia, in relation to 1884 French law on trade unions. Latent in the whole discussion is the tension between individuals and groups.

2 See Gruen (E.S.), “The polis in the Hellenistic world”, in Rosen (R.M.) et Farell (J.), éd., Nomodeiktes. Greek studies in honor of Martin Ostwald, Ann Arbor 1993, p. 339-354 for a reappraisal of the place and importance of the polis in Hellenistic times.

3 Petrakos (B.Ch.), Ο demos tou Rhamnountos. Sunopsi ton anaskaphon kai ton ereunon (1813-199S), 2 vol., (Bibliotheke tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Hetaireias 181), Amenai 1999 (thereafter IRhamnous), with TOPOI 11 (2001), p. 782.

4 Dow (St.), “The Egyptian cults in Athens”, HThR. 30 (1937), p. 183-232 (thereafter Dow, “Egyptian cults”).

5 Also now in Bielman (A.), Retour à la liberté. Libération et sauvetage des prisonniers en Grèce ancienne. Recueil d’inscriptions honorant des sauveteurs et analyse critique (Études épigraphiques 1), Paris, 1994, n° 25.

6 Commentary in Engelmann (H.), The Delian aretalogy of Sarapis (EPRO, 44), Leiden, 1975. See also 16 x(2)( 1 )255 from first-century A.D. Thessaloniki, but going back to the third or second century B.C. in wich the cult of Sarapis took place in a house.

7 The proposed restoration appears in the recent collection of Samama (E.), Les médecins dans le monde grec. Sources épigraphiques sur la naissance d’un corps médical (Hautes études du monde gréco-romaine 31), Genève, 2003, no. 128 (Halikamassos, end of the 3rd century B.C.); however, in other honorary decrees the expression ἄνευ μισθοῦ is used, see Samama no. 69, 9 (Aktion, 2nd century B.C.), no. 119, 28-29 (Lesbos-Mytilene, A.D. 125-175), no. 367, 4 (Cyprus-Idalion, 478-470 B.C.).

8 It appears also in Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Ant. Rom. 12.1.2.4-9, App., BC 1.1.11.18-29, Liban., Ep. 988.2, Eusebius,. Eccl Hist. 10.5.11.1, and Nikephoros Gregoras, Historia Romana 1.417.5-9.

9 Land for burial belonging to a cult association of Aphrodisiastai in Rhodes, SEG 3.674 (2nd century) and Fraser (P.M.), Rhodian funerary monuments, Oxford, 1977, p. 58.

10 Festival liturgies in classical Athens, Ath.Pol. 56.3 with the comments by Rhodes (P.J.), A commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, Oxford, 1981, p. 622ff. The system of liturgies was abolished by Demetrios of Phaleron sometime between 317-307 B.C. In its place agonothetai were appointed to administer the funds allocated for the celebration of festivals.

11 Also in Aleshire (S.B.), Asklepios at Athens. Epigraphic and prosopographical essays on the Athenian healing cults, Leiden, 1991, p. 186.

12 See IRhamnous 17 (ante 235/4 B.C.) in which Dikaiarchos, son of Apollonios was appointed as general by Antigonos.

13 According to Tracy (St.), Athenian letter-cutters of 229 to 86 B.C., Oxford, 1990, p. 149 (thereafter Tracy, ALC)

14 I think that Kleodorides of LGPN (II) 1 is more likely to be identical with Kleodorides of LGPN (II) 3 & 4 and LGPN (II) Add. (1).

15 Traill (J.), “The bouleutic list of 281/0 B.C.”, Hesperia, 38 (1969), p. 491 identifies Kleodorides, son of Strombichides with the father of both Kleochares and Strombichos (for which see also Roussel (P.), “Un nouveau document relatif à la guerre démétriaque”, BCH, 54 (1930), p. 278 n. 1 and Pouilloux (J.), La forteresse de Rhamnonte, p. 131).

16 Strombichos may be identified with the one Strombichos mentioned in IRhamnous 394 and with the name on a brick [PAE 1999 [2002] 26-27, no. 41]. Petrakos in PAE 1999 [2002] p. 27 mentions that a certain Strombichos (possibly the same as Strombichos Kleodoridou) appears in two unpublished horoi, of the years of the archon Athenodoros (240/39 B.C.) (= SEG 48.174) and Leochares (228/7 B.C.) respectively.

17 If IRhamnous 28 (= SEG 38.126) is connected with IRhamnous 27 (= SEG 43.32), then it should have been issued after Diomedon’s archonship, i.e. post 248/7 B.C. Petrakos claims that Kleochares Kleodoridou was pro-Macedonian (IRhamnous 6 (263/2 BC)). The participation of a member of an apparently pro-Macedonian family (or simply with Macedonian leanings) in a cult originating in Egypt may surprise some; but cult participation was not dictated exclusively by political affiliations or considerations. Moreover, the cult of Sarapis in Thessalonike during Philip’s V reign is well known.

18 Petrakos in IRhamnous, I, p. 19 reads Κλε[οδωρ]ίδης instead of Κλε[ϊππ]ίδης of IG.

19 Note that in IRhamnous [repeating PAE 1991 [1994] p. 37-39 no 13] the date is given, next to an excellent photo, as second half of the 4th century B.C., while the first editor dated it in mid 3rd century BC [PAE 1958 [1965] 28]. The remark in PAE 1984 [1988] 204 and SEG 43.28 (= IRhamnous 6) that Kleochares Kleodoridou is the son of Kleodorides Kleocharou of SEG 21 918 (= IRhamnous 291 ) seems unlikely.

20 Accordingly, IG II2 7338 should be dated to post 224 B.C.

21 An Athenian Bion [LGPN II (1)] is attested buying land in Krokodilopolis, Egypt (P. Tebt. III 979. 8, 174 BC).

22 The use of καὶ implies that there were also other groups. However, in the emulation-clause of the decrees of associations the collocation όπως ἀν εἰδῶσιν (vel sim.) ὀτι καὶ οἱ ὀργεῶνες (vel sim) occurs regularly; see IG II2 1314, 9; 1315, 16-17; 1324, 10-11; 1327, 20-21; IRhamnous 8, 14; 22, 6-8; 23, 3-4; 26, 15-16; 44, 12 and 49.

23 The historical account relies on Habicht (Chr.), Athens from Alexander to Antony, Princeton, 1997. p. 173-193; see also Hub (W.), Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit, München, 2001, p. 357-58.

24 See Paus. II 8.6, Plut. Aratos 34 and the honorary decree IG II2 834 (= Syll3 497).

25 Habicht (Chr.), Studien zur Geschichte Athens in hellenistischer Zeit, Göttingen. (Hypomnemata 73), 1982, p. 112: “Der Kult des Ptolemaios ist zweifellos ein Ausdruek der Dankbarkeit Athens für die Bereitschaft des Königs, für Athen in einer Krisis einzutreten, die an die Existenz des Freistaates rühte”.

26 Also BE 1936, p. 346.

27 For the inscription see BE 1938, 89; SEG 21.397; 28.365; 32.121; 39.134 and Habicht (Chr.), “Athens and the Ptolemies”, ClAnt, 11 (1992), p. 76 n. 47 (thereafter Habicht, “Athens and the Ptolemies”).

28 SEG 25.157, 6-12: [καὶ] μὲν Χειροτονηθεὶς [γ]υμνασίαρχος εἰς τòν ἐν[ιαυτòν τ]òν ἐπ’ Ἀντιφίλου ἀ[ρχ]οντο[ς τ]ά τε κατὰ τ[ὰ] γυμνά[σια] [διεξ]ήγα[γ]ε[ν] ε[ὐ]τάκτως καὶ ἀκολούθως τοῖς νόμοις. κ[αὶ τοὺς] ἀγῶας ἐθηκε τούς τε κ[αθή]κοντας καὶ [ί]δίαι [τῶι] βασιλεῖ Πτολ[ε]μαίωι προθεὶς [ᾶ]θλα τοῖς ἀγ[ω]νίζεσ[θαι] [βο]υλομένοις τῶν νεανίσκων, φ[ι]λοτιμούμ[εν]ος ἀκ[ολ]ού[θ]ως [τεῖ] τοῦ δήμου προαιρέ[σε]ι τιμᾶν τò[ν β]ασ[ι]λ[έα]...

29 « Il semble donc bien que les motifs différents aient présidé à l’installation en Attique de ces deux divinités: alors qu’Isis a dû être amenée en Grèce par des Égyptiens pour des raisons personnelles et religieuses, l’introduction de Sarapis, en revanche, peut répondre en partie à des mobiles d’ordre politique, et il est vraisemblable que l’influence exercée par Philadelphe dans le monde grec y a fortement contribué. Pourtant, la présence d’un collège de Sarapiastes à Athènes, à une époque contemporaine de celle de Philadelphe ou immédiatement postérieure, ne paraît impliquer qu’un culte privé; sans doute n’est-il pas impossible qu’un culte public ait déjà existé à cette époque; mais il semble plutôt qu’il faille reporter à la deuxième moitié du iiie siècle l’adoption officielle, par Athènes, du culte des dieux égyptiennes », and in vol. 2 p. 9: « En effet, même si Γ on s’ accorde à considerer l’introduction des cultes égyptiens en Grèce comme le résultat d’un appel des Grecs plutôt que comme un effet de la propagande des Lagides, il paraît probable que le prestige de souverains comme Philadelphe ou même Évergète et le désir d’entretenir de bonnes relations avec eux ont favorisé, dans les cités du monde grec, l’installation de la religion étrangère et bien souvent, de ses ministres ». Evidence for the cult of Sarapis in late Hellenistic and Roman Athensμ SIRIS nos 3-33b and Vidman (L.), Isis und Sarapis bei den Griechen und Römern. Epigraphische Studien zur Verbreilung und zu den Trägern des ägyptischen Kultes (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 29). Berlin, 1970. Dissemination of Sarapis cult, Fraser (P.M.), “Two studies on the cult of Sarapis in the Hellenistic world”, OpAth, 3 (1960), p. 49 (thereafter. Fraser “Two studies”); Fraser (P.M.), Ptolemaic Alexandria, Oxford, 1972. I, p. 275 (thereafter Fraser, Alexandria) and Will (E.), Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (323-30 av. J.-C), Nancy, 1979, I, p. 203-4, 363ff.

30 Mikalson (J.D.), Religion in Hellenistic Athens, Berkeley, (Hellenistic Culture and Society 29), 1998, p. 180: “In the religious realm the first unmistakable sign of this is the importation from Egypt, of a cult of Sarapis, a deity transformed and Hellenized by the early Ptolemies to serve their national cult... As early as Menander (frg. 151 A Edmunds) the Athenians had known of Sarapis, but the first evidence for cultic activity is a decree from 215/4 of the Sarapiastai, a non-Athenian koinon devoted to this deity”; p. 181: “The willingness of the Athenian state to permit the establishment of a sanctuary and cult of this deity for foreigners surely represents pro-Ptolemaic sentiments of the period. Here, with the Ptolemaia and Sarapis, the influence of international politics and the Hellenistic world at large on Athenian state religion is clear.”

31 Fraser, Alexandria, I, 251: «We shall shortly see that Sarapis in fact rapidly became associated in the mind of this public with the royal family itself, and that the cult probably owed its appeal in part to this factor.» and on p. 263: “This [co-worship of the ruler with Sarapis and Isis] suggests that a special relationship was recognized to exist between the royal house and the Egyptian Gods, and, more precisely, that the King and his consort shared with Sarapis and Isis the temples where the dedications were made”. Note that the link of the royal family with Sarapis and Isis is a 3rd century phenomenon; Stambaugh (J.E.), Sarapis under the early Ptolemies (EPRO 25), Leiden, 1972, p. 94: “Not only was Sarapis the patron of Alexandria, but he was also patron of the Ptolemaic dynasty It is clear that the Ptolemies thought of Sarapis as a kind of divine counterpart of their own benevolent rule, and that this was a feature of Ptolemaic policy as early as the reign of Ptolemy I. The evidence includes the location of his most important temple in the capital, the regal appearance of his statue there, the collocation of Sarapis and Isis with the ruling king and queen in the royal oath formula, the frequent double dedications, and the pose of god and goddess on the coin issue of Ptolemy IV”.

32 Mikalson (J.D.), Ancient Greek religion, Oxford, 2005, p. 201 dates the appearance of the Sarapis cult in 215/4 B.C.

33 Habicht “Athens and the Ptolemies”, p. 76: “Another indication of continued friendship can be seen in the fact that the cult of Sarapis, which originated at the Alexandrian court in the early third century B.C., was introduced in Athens around 200 B.C. as official cult of the state. The testimony of Pausanias [1.18.4] that the Athenians introduced Sarapis as their god from king Ptolemy may reflect this fact, even if he neglected to indicate (or perhaps did not himself know) which of the kings of that name was involved” Cf. the scepticism of Fraser, “Two studies” p. 23: “The first sign of the public cult [of Sarapis] is sufficiently late for Ptolemaic political influence to be a priori unlikely, and though of course it might have been influenced considerably earlier, also in the last quarter of the third century, there is no evidence that this is so”.

34 For theophoric names derived from Sarapis, see Parker (R.), “Theophoric names and the history of Greek religion” in Hornblower (S.) and Matthews (E.), (eds), Greek personal names. Their value as evidence (Proceedings of the British Academy 104), London, 2000, p. 53-80.

35 Note that in BE 2001, no. 197 the inscription is dated in the period between 224 and 215 BC.

36 Beauchet (L.), Histoire du droit privé de la république athénienne, Paris, 1897, vol. 3. p. 123: “Mais, entre particuliers, les donations entre vifs, surtout les donations immobilières étaient assez rares, et les Grecs, qui ont fait un usage si fréquent du testament, paraissent avoir éprouvé une grande répugnance à se dépouiller entre-vifs d’une partie de leur patrimoine”. See also RIJG II, 132-145, Caillemer (E.), “Donatio”, in Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines, Paris, 1892 [1969], II. 1, p. 382, and Kränzlein (A.), Eigentum und Besitz im griechischen Recht des fünften und vierten Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Berliner Juristische Abhandlungen 8), Berlin, 1963, p. 91-93

37 Dem. 36 (For Phormion) 15: ἐπιτρέψας δὲ τῷ τε τῆς ἐαυτοῦ γυναικòς πατρὶ καὶ τῷ συγκηδεστῇ τῷ αὐτοῦ καὶ Λυσίνῳ καὶ Ἀνδρομένει. πεισάντων τούτων Φορμίωνα τουτονί δοῦναι δωρεάν τὰς τρισχιλίας καὶ τò προσόν, καὶ φίλον μᾶλλον ἔχειν τοῦτον ἢ διὰ ταῦτ ἐχθρòν αὐτòν εἶναι (He referred the matter for arbitration to the father of his own wife and the husband of his wife’s sister, and to Lysinus and Andromenes, and they induced Phonnio to make him a present of three thousand drachmae and the additional items and thus to have him as a friend rather than as an enemy because of this).

38 Dem. 52 (Against Kallippos) 20: οἶμαι γὰρ τί μοι καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι πρòς τὴν ἀλαζονείαν τὴν τουτουὶ τοῦ φάσκοντος αύτῷ δωρεὰν δοθῆναι τò ἀργύριον τοῦτο παρὰ τοῦ Λύκωνος (Since I think this has some bearing on Callipus’ bragging when he claims that he was given this money as a gift. Translation by Bers (V.), Demosthenes. Speeches 50-59 (The oratory of classical Greece 6), Austin, Texas 2003).

39 Dem. 53 (Against Nikostratos) 9: καὶ τοῦτο οὐ λόγῳ μὲν ύπεσχόμην, ἔργῳ δὲ ούκ ἐποίησα, ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ηὐπόρουν ἀργυρίου διὰ τò διαφόρως ἔχειν τῷ Φορμίωνι καὶ ἀποστερεῖσθαι ὐπ’ αὐτοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν ἤν μοι ὁ πατὴρ κατέλιπεν. κομίσας ώς θεοκλέα τόν τότε τραπεζιτεύοντα ἐκπώματα καὶ στέφανον χρυσοῦν. ἃ παρ’ ἐμοί έκ τῷν πατρῴων ὄντα ἐτύγχανεν. ἐκέλευσα δοῦναι τούτῳ χιλίας δραχμάς. καὶ τοῦτο ἔδωκα δωρεὰν αὐτῷ τò ἀργύριον, καὶ ὀμολογῶ δεδωκέναι (I certainly did not make a verbal promise, without carrying it through; but since I was rather short of money because of my dispute with Phormio and because I was deprived by him of the inheritance my father left me, I brought some cups and a gold crown that 1 happened to have from among my father’s property to Theokles, who was then operating a bank and I ordered him to give Nicostratus one thousand drachmas. I gave the money as a gift and 1 acknowledge that I gave it. Translation by Bers (V.), Demosthenes. Speeches 50-59, Austin, Texas (The oratory of classical Greece 6), 2003).

40 Is. 2 (On the estate of Menekles) 31: Καὶ ἐκεῖνοι ὀμόσαντες ήμῖν πρòς τῷ βωμῷ τῷ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης Κεφαλῆσιν τὰ συμφέροντα γνώσεσθαι, διῄτησαν ήμᾶς ἀποστῆναι ὧν οὗτος ἠμφεσβήτησε καὶ δοῦναι δωρεάν οὐ γὰρ ἔφασαν εῖναι ἄλλην ἀπαλλαγὴν οὐδεμίαν. εἰ μὴ μεταλήψονται οὗτοι τῶν ἐκείνου (They, after having sworn an oath to us at the altar of Aphrodite at Cephale that they would decide what was to our common interest, gave as their verdict that we should give up what my opponent claimed and hand it over to him as a free gift; for they declared that the only way of settling the matter was that my opponent should receive a share of Menekles’ property).

41 Ἧv μὲν γὰρ τοῦτο Πεισάνδρου τò χωρίον, δημευθέντων δ’ ἐκείνου τῶν ὄντων Ἀπολλόδωρος ὁ Μεγαρεὐς δωρειὰν παρὰ τοῦ δήμου λαβὼν τòν μὲν ἄλλον χρόνον ἐγεώργει (The estate in question used to belong to Peisander; but when his property was confiscated, Apollodorus of Megara received it as a gift from the people. He farmed it for a while… Translation by Todd (S.), Lysias, Austin, Texas (The oratory of classical Greece 2), 2000).

42 Another donation of land in Macedonia is mentioned in a letter of Antigonos Gonatas to Agasikles found at Dion, Hatzopoulos (M.B.), “Le lac Pyrrolia en Macédoine”, Tekmeria, 5 (2000), p. 63-70 and Zannis (A.G.), “Une deuxième copie de la lettre d’Antigone Gonatas concernant la terre octroyée à Noumenios”, Horos, 14-16 (2000-2003 ), p. 213-225.

43 SEG 2.580 [= Le Guen, Techniles, no. 39; Aneziri, Techniten, no. D2] (c. 229-223 or 218-206 B.C.) 5-9: ἀγοράσαι δὲ αύτοῖς καὶ κτῆμα ἔγγεον ἐν τῆι πόλει ἢ τῆι χώραι ἀπò δραχμῶν (6.000) καὶ προσαγορεύεσθαι τò ἀγορασθὲν κτήμα “ἱερòν ὃ ἀνατίθησι ὁ δῆμος τῶι κοινῶι τῶν περὶ τòν Λιόνυσον τεχνιτῶν”, ὂν ἀτελές ὧν ή πόλις ἐπιβάλλει τελῶν (to buy for them a parcel of land in the city or territory to the value of six thousand drachmas, and to proclaim as sacred the land bought, which the people has dedicated to the Commonwealth of the Artists of Dionysus, as being free of the taxes that the city imposes. As translated in Csupo (E.) and Slater (W.J.), The Context of Ancient Drama, Ann Arbor, 1995, p. 246-7).

Notes de fin

* A shortened version of the paper was presented at the conference. I would like to thank P.M. Fraser for his astute criticism on a number of points.

Table des illustrations

URL http://books.openedition.org/pufr/docannexe/image/2902/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 861k
Titre A. Stemma of Apollodoros of Otryne
URL http://books.openedition.org/pufr/docannexe/image/2902/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 180k
Titre B. Stemma of Kleodorides of Rhamnous (cf. Petrakos, Rhamnous II, 235)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pufr/docannexe/image/2902/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 166k
Légende Fig. 1 — Plan of the Rhamnous fortress (Petrakos (B.Ch.), Ο demos tou Rhamnountos I, p. 50)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pufr/docannexe/image/2902/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 241k
Légende Fig. 2 — Drawing of the hestiatorion (PAE 1999. p. 3)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pufr/docannexe/image/2902/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 93k
Légende Fig. 3 — The hestiatorion (PAE 1999. p. 3)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pufr/docannexe/image/2902/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 120k

Auteur

Academy of Athens
Research Centre for the Histoty of Greek Law

© Presses universitaires François-Rabelais, 2007

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Lire

Accès ouvert
Liseuse ePub PDF du livre
Chargement PDF du chapitre

Freemium

Offert par