AIO 2599 Decree of deme Myrrhinous relating to <i>euthynai</i> and other matters

Decree of deme Myrrhinous relating to euthynai and other matters

AIO 2599 Date: ca. 340-320 BC (?)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Σ . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ΔΙ . . Ι . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 𐅂 . . . Δ 𐅂 . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ο . Ε Ι . . . . Α̣ (5)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ν . . . ΟΝΟ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ο . . . Ι . . ΚΑ̣Ι . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ρ . Ο . [. . . . . . . . . . . ²¹ . . . . . . . . . . οὔτ’ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ] οὔτ[ε] ἄ[λ]λος ^v ἐμοὶ οὔ- [δὲ ἄ]λλ̣ε̣(ι) εἰδότος ἐ̣μο[ῦ μηχανῆι ἢ τ]έ[χνη]ι οὐδεμιᾶι· κ̣α̣ὶ ἐάν μ- (10)[ο]ι [δ]οκεῖ ἀδικεῖν κα[τευθ]υν[ῶ] α[ὐτ]οῦ [καὶ τιμήσ]ω οὗ [ἄ]ν μ[ο]ι [δ]ο- κεῖ ἄξιον εἶναι τὸ ἀδί[κ]ημα· [νὴ τ]ὸ[ν] Δ[ία ν]ὴ τὸ[ν] Ἀπόλλω νὴ τὴ[ν] [Δ]ήμ⟨η⟩τρα, εὐορ⟨κ⟩οῦντι μ[έν] ⟨μ⟩οι πολ[λ]ὰ κα[ὶ ἀγα]θά, εἰ δ’ ἐπιορκο- [ί]ην τἀναντία· ὁμνύναι [δ]ὲ τὸν ὅρκον καὶ τὸν λογιστὴν λογι- εῖσθαι ἃ ἄν μοι δοκεῖ ἀν[ηλ]ωκέναι, [καὶ] το[ὺ]ς σ[υν]ηγό[ρ]ους συ- (15)ν⟨η⟩γορήσειν τῶι δήμωι τ[ὰ δ]ίκαια καὶ ψ[ηφ]ιεῖσθαι ἃ ἄν μοι δ- οκεῖ δικαιότατα εἶναι· τ[ῶ]ι δὲ εὐθύ[ν]ωι μὴ ἐξεῖναι ἐξελεῖ- ν τὴν εὔθυναν ἐὰν μὴ τοῖς [π]λέοσιν δ[ό]ξει τῶν δέκα τῶ⟨ν⟩ αἱρ[ε]- θέ⟨ν⟩των διαψηφιζομένοις [κ]ρύβδην· τὴν δὲ ψῆφον διδότω [ὁ ν]- [έ]ος δήμαρχος καὶ ἐξορκού[τ]ω αὐτοὺς ἐναντίον τῶν δημο[τῶ]- (20)[ν]· εἶ⟨ν⟩αι δὲ καὶ ἔφεσιν αὐτῶι [ε]ἰς ἅπα⟨ν⟩τας τοὺς δημότας· ἐ[ὰν] [δ]έ τις ἐφῆι, ἐξορκούτω ὁ δήμα[ρ]χος τοὺ(ς) δημότας καὶ διδό[τω] [τ]ὴν ψῆφον ἐὰν παρῶσιν μ⟨ὴ⟩ ἐλάττους ἢ ∶ ΔΔΔ ∶ ἐὰν δὲ καταψ⟨η⟩[φίζ]- ωνται αὐτ⟨ο⟩ῦ οἱ δημόται, ὀφειλέτω τὸ ἡμιόλιον ὅσου ἂν [τιμ]- ηθεῖ αὐτῶι ὑπὸ τῶν δέκα τῶν αἱρ[ε]θέντων· μὴ ἐξεῖναι δ[ὲ πρό]- (25)τερο(ν) ἀφεῖναι τοὺς δημότας τῶι δ[η]μάρχωι πρὶν ἂν δῶ[ι τὰς ε]- ὐ(θύν)ας ὁ περυσιν⟨ὸς⟩ δήμαρχος καὶ τὰ [ἄ]λλα χρημα⟨τ⟩ίσ⟨η⟩ι τ[ὰ ἐν τῶ]- ι ψηφίσματι, ἐάν δὲ ἀφῆι, ὀφειλέτω [.] δραχμάς. ἐὰν ⟨δ⟩έ τ[ινι δέ]- ει ἀργύριον, δανείζειν τοὺ(ς) ἱερέα[ς] ἀξιοχρείωι ἐπ[ὶ χωρίω]- ι ἢ οἰκίαι ἢ συνοικίαι καὶ ὅρον ἐ⟨φ⟩[ισ]τάναι, οὗ ἂν εἶ [θεοῦ πα]- (30)ραγράφοντα ὅ⟦υ⟧του ἂν εἶ τὸ ἀργύριο[ν· ἐ]ὰν δὲ μὴ ὁρί[σηι αὐτά?], ὀφείλειν τὸν ἱερέα οὗ ἂν εἶ θεοῦ ἱερεὺς καὶ τὰ χρ[ήματα αὐ]- τοῦ ὑποκείσθω τῶι θεῶι οὗ ἂν εἶ ἱερε[ι]ωμένος. τῆι [δὲ πέμπτ?]- ει θυέτω τὴν Πληροσίαν ὁ δήμαρχος τῶ[ι] Διὶ ἀπὸ ∶ 𐅅̣ [: δραχμῶν κ]- αὶ νεμέτω τὰ κρέα τι ἑβδόμει ἱσταμένου τοῖς π[αροῦσιν κ]- (35)αὶ συναγοράζουσιν καὶ συνενεχυρά⟨ζ⟩ουσιν α[. . . . . ¹⁰ . . . . .] μι· τῆι δὲ ἐνάτει ἐπὶ δέκα τοῦ Ποσιδεῶνο[ς] μ⟨η⟩ν[ὸς χρηματίζ]- [ε]ιν περ̣[ὶ Διο]νυσίων, τὰ δὲ ἄλλα πάντα τ[. . . . . . . . ¹⁶ . . . . . . . .] [. . . . . ¹⁰ . . . . . χρ]η̣ματίζειν πλὴν τοῦ δ[. . . . . . . . . ¹⁷ . . . . . . . .] [. . . . ⁸ . . . . τῆι αὐ]τῆι ἡμέραι τὸν δήμα[ρχον . . . . . . . ¹³ . . . . . .] (40)[. . . . . . . . ¹⁵ . . . . . . .] ¯ ὀ[φειλέτ]ω Η ∶ δρα[χμάς . . . . . . . ¹⁴ . . . . . . .]

Previous - AIO 2588 Next - AIO 2618
Translated text

References:

AIO 2599 (Translated text) (AIO)

IG II² 1183 (PHI)

RO 63

Bultrighini, Demi della Paralia, 235-6

Humphreys, Kinship, 908-9

Csapo and Wilson II, 196-201

Translation by: Stephen Lambert

Images: Krateros - (1)

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Decree (Deme Myrrhinous)

Findspot: Near Markopoulo (= ancient Myrrhinous), in the area of Dardiste (EM 7744, 7745)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] Textual Note. AIO's text follows IG II², with the (minor) improvements to ll. 36-40 communicated to Csapo and Wilson by K. Takeuchi. At l. 32 the conventional restoration, [δὲ πέμπτ]|ει, yielding a date of "the fifth" of an unspecified month for the Plerosia offering is uncertain, as it apparently implies an (implausible?) gap of two days between the sacrifice and the distribution of the meat from it on the seventh (34, cf. RO). A different kind of temporal specification, or a non-temporal one is possible (e.g. description of a place). There has been uncertainty as to the price of the Plerosia offering in 33 (cf. Humphreys). Kazuhiro Takeuchi kindly reports from autopsy that the correct reading is a pi, probably with pendent H, preceded by a colon (cf. Koehler), i.e. 500 dr. (?). The text contains a number of inscribing errors.

This is one of two extant decrees of the deme Myrrhinous; for the other, and on the other key inscriptions of this deme, see IG II² 1182, with notes. The inscription was found near (a little south-west of) Markopoulo (ancient Myrrhinous), at or in the direction of Dardiste. Conventionally ascribed to Myrrhinous, Traill, Demos and Trittys (1986), 132, followed by RO and Bultrighini, suggested that it belonged rather to Hagnous, which he located in the area of Dardiste. However, the recent publication of SEG 63.156, with wording identifying it as one of the horoi marking loans under the provisions of our ll. 27-32, has confirmed the attribution of this inscription to Myrrhinous (see Csapo and Wilson, 196; Humphreys).

The inscription is broken at the top and bottom, but as preserved the decree relates to four topics (for more detail see below): accounting procedures (euthynai, 8-27), arrangements for making loans from deme funds (27-32), and stipulations relating to the Plerosia (32-36) and to the Rural Dionysia (36-37, and perhaps 38-40). The connecting logic (if any) is unclear. The demarch features in several parts of the decree, but not in the section on loans, which concerns the deme priests. Humphreys, Strangeness, 162, has attractively suggested that the decree made provisions for successive deme meetings, beginning with the euthynai of the previous year's demarch in a meeting early in the year, proceeding through meetings connected with the Plerosia and the Rural Dionysia, the latter in Posideon (6th month of the year), and speculating that there may have been provision for a further meeting towards the end of the year (Skirophorion?) in text not now preserved at the bottom of the inscription. It is notable, however, that there is no text linking the provisions relating to loans to a specific meeting.

The inscription was dated after ca. 340 BC by Koehler (IG II 578), ca. 350-325 BC by Rhodes and Osborne, ca. 325-300 BC by Csapo and Wilson (who point to the preponderance of -ΕΙ for -ΗΙ, cf. Threatte, Grammar I, 378). The concern with detailed financial management is comparable with that evinced by IG II² 1182, and the two decrees are probably not very distant in date. A date before the regime of Demetrios of Phaleron is probably implicit in the stipulated arrangements for euthynai (see below). [2] Its bouleutic quota of 6 implies a population for Myrrhinous of ca. 350 adult males at the time of this decree, and 30 therefore probably represents a quorum of ca. 10% or less. This is comparable in percentage terms with the quorum of 100 provided for the much larger deme, Paiania, in the 5th century BC, IG I³ 250, with n. 3 for further comparanda. [3] A concern with the accountability of deme officials pervades the epigraphic record of the demes, especially before the inscribing of honorific decrees became common practice in the 350s BC (cf. RO 46, with notes - honorific decrees themselves arguably represent in part a development of this culture); but this, as well as being one of the latest decrees to manifest this preoccupation, also specifies more fully than any other the procedure to be applied at the formal accounting (euthynai). The text appears to relate wholly or mainly to the euthynai of the demarch, the chief official of the deme and the only one, it seems, that every deme was required to have; he was in office for a year, and underwent his euthynai at the beginning of the following year, in Hekatambaion or Metageitnion (cf. SEG 22.117, l. 6; IG II² 1174, l. 11). The procedure for the euthynai stipulated here follows broadly that attested for city officials (cf. Whitehead, Demes, 1986, 119; Ath. Pol. 48.4-5, 54.2). It is not clear what procedures, if any, applied in Myrrhinous to other deme officials (e.g. the deme priests, who are also mentioned in the decree, and the officials connected with the euthynai itself). The text begins in the middle of an oath, perhaps to be sworn by the euthynos, the official with overall responsibility for administering the euthynai, mentioned in l. 16, and goes on to specify the oaths to be sworn by the "reckoner" (logistes, responsible for the financial aspects of the euthynai), and the "advocates" (synegoroi, responsible for representing the deme, perhaps before the committee of ten (17), but more likely at the meeting of the whole deme to which, as l. 20 makes clear, a case might be referred). It seems the euthynos is to present the results of the scrutiny to the committee of ten (16-17), who are to vote secretly and on oath administered in the presence of the demesmen by the new year's demarch. "He" (i.e. the official undergoing the euthynai?) is to have right of appeal against the decision of the ten to the whole deme, but (as often in such cases) any fine imposed on him by the ten is to be increased if the appeal fails. The fact that this decree goes into such detail implies that there was no standardisation of procedures for euthynai across the demes. Of the officials and boards connected with the euthynai in this decree, only the euthynos is attested in other demes (e.g. IG I³ 244, B ll. 9-10, 20-21 (Skambonidai); AIO 847, ll. 57-62 (Thorikos); SEG 28.103, decree 2, ll. 41-43 (Eleusis, also attests an, albeit singular, synegoros); IG II² 1174, ll. 15-18 (Halai Aixonides). The other deme decree which contains detailed specifications on euthynai is IG II² 1174 (Halai Aixonides), which, however, has a different emphasis, focussing on in-year submission of financial accounts rather than procedures following the end of a term of office. For further discussion and other key references to euthynai in deme decrees see the notes to IG II² 1174 (Halai Aixonides); SEG 22.117 (Ikarion); IG II² 1199 (Aixone). There is no evidence in this decree of the requirement on deme officials to submit accounts to the city implicit in SEG 43.26 of 315/4 BC (Acharnai) and apparently introduced by Demetrios of Phaleron. On the euthynai and city decrees honouring officials see IG II³ 1, 306, with notes. [4] Loans were one of the two main ways demes made their capital productive, the other being land rentals, and the money or property in question was commonly conceived of as belonging to a specific god, cf. e.g. IG I³ 248 (Nemesis at Rhamnous), IG I³ 253 (Dionysos and Ikarios at Ikarion). The borrowers of deme funds/lessees of deme property were usually required to offer security, and this provision stipulates the detailed arrangements for marking property used as security for loans from the deme Myrrhinous. A horos of property used as security for a loan from the fund of Artemis Kolainis in Myrrhinous, inscribed with precisely the wording stipulated in this decree, has recently been published, SEG 63.156; and another horos relating to a loan from Dionysos in this deme, IG II² 2767, was most likely also erected under these provisions. The prominent role in these financial arrangements ascribed to the deme priests, though well within the normal range of priestly duties, is notable in a decree that is largely concerned with the duties of the demarch. In other demes (as e.g. in the inscriptions of Rhamnous and Ikarion mentioned above) the demarch himself seems commonly to have been responsible for such matters. It may be that the involvement of the priests in Myrrhinous was an innovation aimed at ensuring that financial responsibility was not overly concentrated in the hands of the demarch. Such checks and balances were characteristic of the democratic ethos of Athenian public administration. In some other demes the demarch shared financial responsibilities with "treasurers" (tamiai), e.g. IG II² 1206 (Acharnai), cf. Whitehead, Demes (1986), 124-27, 143-44. [5] The Plerosia or Proerosia was a pre-ploughing festival, also attested in Eleusis, I Eleusis 175, ll. 3-7 (announcement of the festival on 5 Pyanopsion, fourth month of the year, the festival itself probably taking place later in the month) and Thorikos, AIO 847, ll. 5, 13 (Boedromion, third month of the year). At Myrrhinous the festival was the occasion of a deme Assembly on the seventh of an unspecified month at which portions of meat from the sacrifice were distributed both to demesmen present and apparently to those (non-demesmen?) who offered security for deme loans. [6] From this provision it is apparent that the quintessential deme festival, the Rural Dionysia, was celebrated at Myrrhinous (on this festival cf. IG II³ 4, 498, with notes; for Dionysos in this deme see also IG II² 1182, ll. 2-4; IG II² 2767; note also the cult of Dionysos Anthios in Myrrhinous attested by Paus. 1.31.4). This festival was scheduled on different dates in the winter month, Posideon, in different demes. In Myrrhinous the festival was clearly staged before 19 Posideon, on which day a "post-festival" deme meeting took place. A special meeting of the Assembly dedicated to business arising from the City Dionysia took place in the theatre of Dionysos following the festival (see e.g. IG II³ 1, 344, l. 4 with note). SEG 43.26, decree 2, implies that there was also a deme meeting following the Rural Dionysia in Acharnai and there was probably also such a meeting in Ikarion, IG I³ 254, l. 39 (Csapo and Wilson, 199, note that this was probably the meeting at which deme decrees honouring choregoi were also passed).

Added: 27 Apr 2023
Updated: 28 Feb 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_2599