IEleus 72 Decree of Eleusis honouring the hierophant, Hierokleides

Decree of Eleusis honouring the hierophant, Hierokleides

I Eleusis 72 Date: ca. 340 BC (?)

Crown Gods.^[1] Euthias son of Gnathon (?) of Eleusis proposed: since the hierophant Hierokleides son of Teisamenos of Paiania (5) is a good man to the deme of Eleusis, continuously both saying and doing what good he can, both now and in former times, the Eleusinians shall decide, (10) that the decrees which the deme Eleusis has voted for the hierophant be valid;^[2] so that others may also know that the demesmen of Eleusis know how (15) to give thanks to those who benefit it, to praise the hierophant, Hierokleides son of Teisamenos of Paiania, and crown him with a gold crown of 500 drachmas (20) for his [piety?] concerning the [rites?] and his love of honour towards the deme of Eleusis; and the demarch shall announce at the Dionysia in the tragedies that (25) the deme Eleusis crowns the hierophant for his [piety?] concerning the [rites?] and love of honour towards the deme Eleusis; and he and his descendants shall be free of taxes (30) . . . of the demesmen;^[3] the demarch shall inscribe this decree on a stone stele and stand it [in the theatre?] of Eleusis.

Previous - I Eleusis 71 Next - I Eleusis 74

References:

I Eleusis 72 (Translated text) (PHI)

IG II² 1188 (PHI)

Csapo and Wilson II, 104-105

Russo, Ripartizioni, D26

Translation by: Stephen Lambert

Images: Cornell - (1)
Krateros - (1)

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Decree (Deme Eleusis)

Original location: Eleusis (theatre?)

Findspot: Eleusis (Eleusis Museum E 69)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] For the deme Eleusis and its decrees see I Eleusis 68. In this decree the deme Eleusis honoured the senior male priest of the Eleusinian Mysteries, the hierophant, from the genos Eumolpidai (cf. Parker, Athenian Religion, 294-95). Although the administration of the Mysteries was in the hands of the Eleusinian gene and central organs of the city, the deme Eleusis, as site of hugely popular rites, also had an interest, and this hierophant, though not a member of the deme, had clearly cultivated good relations with it. The decree is not specific, however, about what precisely he had done to earn the honours awarded. [2] This perhaps implies not so much previous decrees awarded to this specific hierophant (Clinton) (note that he is not named in this clause), as the confirmation of the applicability to a perhaps new tenant of the priesthood, of previous decrees awarding honours to the hierophant ex officio, among them perhaps proedria in the deme theatre (for this type of declaration of “validity” of earlier awards cf. e.g. IG II³ 1, 316, ll. 19-20, IG II³ 1, 411, l. 7). The reference to Hierokleides’ positive disposition towards the deme “in former times” (ll. 8-9) might well pre-date his appointment as hierophant. As a Eumolpid he had been well-placed to cultivate good relations with the deme before his allotment to the priesthood. The date of the decree can perhaps be pinned down slightly more precisely than the “ca. mid-iv BC” to which it has been assigned hitherto. We know from Androtion (FGrH 324 F30) and Philochoros (FGrH 328 F155, dated 350/49 BC) that the hierophant who was responsible, with the dadouch, for the determination of the boundaries of the sacred orgas, the "buffer zone" between Eleusis and Megara in the context of the dispute about which we are also informed by IG II³ 1, 292 (352/1 BC), was Lakrateides. We also know that a [Bi?]ottos was hierophant ca. 336/5-333/2 BC (I Eleus. 158 l. 36; for the succession of hierophants cf. J. Blok and S. D. Lambert, ZPE 169, 2009, 114). Most likely, therefore, Hierokleides was hierophant sometime between 349 and 335 BC (cf. Humphreys Kinship, 1119, dating our decree "probably in the 340s or 330s"). I note that this is also consistent with the identification of the proposer of the decree, as suggested by Clinton, with the Euthias of Eleusis mentioned in I Eleus. 177 ll. 56 and 58, of 329/8 BC. [3] Clinton raised the possibility that the beginning of l. 30 contained an award of proedria, but, as Csapo and Wilson point out, it is difficult to devise a plausible restoration in this sense that will suit the space. Moreover, one might expect the hierophant to have enjoyed proedria in the deme already ex officio (cf. n. 2). Clinton’s alternative restoration, καὶ τἄλλα τῶ]ν δημοτῶν (“and the other privileges of demesmen”) seems more likely, or perhaps l. 30 contained an expression spelling out the ateleia awarded the honorand.

Added: 15 Dec 2020
Updated: 24 Jan 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_2041