AIUK42 no. 15 Honours for the prytany of Ptolemais, 192/1 BC

Honours for the prytany of Ptolemais, 192/1 BC

AIUK 4.2 (BM, Decrees of Council and Assembly) no. 15 Date: 192/1 BC

Decree 1 (Council) θ ε [ο ί]· ἐπὶ Διοδότου ἄρχον[τος τοῦ μετὰ Φαναρχίδην], ἐπὶ τῆς Πτολεμαιΐδ[ος^V δωδεκάτης πρυτανείας], ἧι Προκλῆς Περικλέ[ους Ἁλαιεὺς^II ἐγραμμάτευεν]· (5)Σκιροφοριῶνος τετ[ράδι μετ᾽ εἰκάδας· ἑβδόμει] καὶ εἰκοστεῖ τῆς πρ̣[υτανείας· βουλὴ ἐν τῶι Πανα]- θηναιϊκῶι σταδί[ωι· τῶν προέδρων ἐπεψήφιζεν] Λυσικλῆς Ἀπολλω[. . . . . ⁹ . . . . καὶ συμπρόεδροι]· ἔδοξεν τεῖ βουλ[εῖ· ^vvv Ξενοφῶν Εὐφάντου Βερε]- (10)νικίδης^V εἶπεν· ἐ[πει]δ̣ὴ̣ [οἱ πρυτάνεις τῆς Πτολεμαι]- ΐδος καὶ οἱ ἀίσιτ[ο]ι ἐπα̣[ινέσαντες καὶ στεφανώσαν]- τες ἀποφαίνουσιν τεῖ βο[υλεῖ τὸν ταμίαν, ὃν εἵλον]- το ἐξ ἑαυτῶν Ἡγήτορα Οἰ̣[ναῖον^V τάς τε θυσίας τε]- θυκέναι πάσας τὰς καθηκ[ούσας ἐν τεῖ πρυτανεί]- (15)αι, ἐπιμεμελῆσθαι δὲ καὶ τῶν̣ [ἄλλων ἁπάντων κα]- λῶς καὶ φιλοτίμως, ἀγαθεῖ τ[ύχει, δεδόχθαι τεῖ] βουλεῖ· ἐπαινέσαι τὸν ταμί[αν Ἡγήτορα Ἀριστο]- [βού]λου [^v]^vv Οἰναῖον εὐσεβεί[ας ἕνεκα τῆς πρὸς] [τοὺς θεοὺ]ς̣ καὶ φιλοτιμίας τ̣[ῆς εἰς τὸν δῆμον], (20)[ἐπαινέσαι δ]ὲ καὶ τὸν γραμμ[ατέα Διόδωρον Ἀνδρο]- [κλέους Ἀφιδνα]ῖον^V καὶ τὸν γ[ραμματέα τῆς βουλῆς] [καὶ τοῦ δήμου Ἀν]τ̣ίμαχον Αρ. . . . . . . . . ¹⁷ . . . . . . . . [. . καὶ τὸν ὑπογραμμ]ατέα Αρ. . . . . . . . . ¹⁷ . . . . . . . . [. . . . ⁸ . . . . καὶ τὸν κήρυ]κ̣α τῆς̣ [βουλῆς καὶ τοῦ δήμου] (25)[Εὐκλῆν Βερενικίδην καὶ τὸν αὐλητὴ]ν Ν̣ε̣οκλῆ[ν Βε]- [ρενικίδην καὶ στεφανῶσαι ἕκασ]τον θαλλοῦ στεφ[ά]- [νωι· ἀναγράψαι δὲ τόδε τὸ ψήφι]σμα τὸν γραμματέα [τὸν κατὰ πρυτανείαν ἐν στήλ]ει λιθίνει καὶ στῆσαι [ἐν τῶι πρυτανικῶι· εἰς δὲ τὴν] ἀναγραφὴν καὶ τὴν ποίη- (30)[σιν τῆς στήλης μερίσαι τοὺς ἐ]πὶ τεῖ διοικήσει τὸ γε- [νόμενον ἀνάλωμα]. vacat

Decree 2 (Assembly) [ἐπὶ Διοδότου ἄρχοντος τοῦ μετ]ὰ Φαναρχίδην, ἐπὶ τῆς ^v [Πτολεμαιΐδος^V δωδεκάτης πρυτ]ανείας, ἧι Προκλῆς Περι^v- [κλέους Ἁλαιεὺς^II ἐγραμμάτευεν]· Σκιροφοριῶνος ἕνει καὶ νέ- (35)[αι, τριακοστεῖ τῆς πρυτανείας· ἐκ]κλησία ἐν τῶι θεάτρωι· ^vv [τῶν προέδρων ἐπεψήφιζεν . . . ⁵ . .]τος Κράτητος Ἐλευσίνιος^IX [καὶ συμπρόεδροι· ἔδοξεν τῶι δήμωι]· ^vvvvvv^v Ξενοφῶν Εὐφάντ[ου] [Βερενικίδης^V εἶπεν· ὑπὲρ ὧν ἀπαγγέλλ]ουσιν οἱ πρυτάνεις τῆς Π[το]- [λεμαιΐδος ὑπὲρ τῶν θυσιῶν, ὧν ἔθ]υον τὰ πρὸ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶ[ν] (40)[τῶι τε Ἀπόλλωνι τῶι Προστατηρίωι καὶ τ]εῖ Ἀρτέμιδι τεῖ Βουλαίαι̣ [καὶ] [τοῖς ἄλλοις θεοῖς, οἷς πάτριον ἦν, ^vvv] ἀγαθεῖ τύχει, δεδόχθαι̣ τῶ[ι δή]- [μωι· τὰ μὲν ἀγαθὰ δέχεσθαι τὰ γεγονό]τα ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς, οἷς ἔθυον [ἐφ᾽] [ὑγιείαι καὶ σωτηρίαι τῆς βουλῆς καὶ τ]οῦ δήμ[ου κ]αὶ παί[δων] καὶ γ[υναι]- [κῶν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ οἱ πρυτάνεις τάς τε θυσί]ας ἔθ[υσαν ἁπάσας ὅ]σ̣αι κα[θῆ]- (45)[κον ἐν τεῖ πρυτανείαι καλῶς καὶ φιλοτίμως, ἐπιμεμέληντα]ι δὲ κα[ὶ] [τῆς συλλογῆς τῆς τε βουλῆς καὶ τοῦ δήμου κ]α[ὶ] τ̣[ῶν ἄλλων ἁπ]άντων [ὧν αὐτοῖς προσέταττον οἵ τε νόμοι κα]ὶ̣ τὰ [ψ]ηφίσ[ματα· ἐπα]ινέσαι [τοὺς πρυτάνεις τῆς Πτολεμαιΐ]δ̣ος καὶ στεφαν[ῶσαι χρυσῶι στε]- [φάνωι κατὰ τὸν νόμον εὐσεβεί]α̣ς ἕνεκα τῆς εἰ[ς τοὺς θεοὺς καὶ φιλο]- (50)[τιμίας τῆς εἰς τὴν βουλὴν καὶ τ]ὸν δῆμον τὸν Ἀθ̣[η]ναίω̣ν· ἀν̣[αγράψαι] [δὲ τόδε τὸ ψήφισμα τὸν γραμμα]τέα τὸν κατὰ π[ρ]υτανείαν ἐ[ν στή]- [λει λιθίνει καὶ στῆσαι ἐν τῶι] πρυταν̣ικῶι· εἰ̣ς δὲ τὴν ἀναγ̣[ραφὴν] [καὶ τὴν ποίησιν τῆς στήλης μερί]σαι τοὺς ἐπὶ τεῖ διοικήσε[ι] τὸ [γενόμενον ἀνάλωμα]. vacat

(55)[ἡ βουλὴ] [Ἡγήτορα] [Ἀριστοβού]- [λου Οἰναῖ]- [ον]

(60)[ὁ δῆμος] [τοὺς πρυ]- [τάνεις]

ἡ βουλὴ Διόδωρον (65)Ἀνδροκλέ- ους Ἀφιδναῖ- ον

vacat

cols. I-IV

not preserved

col. V

- - -κος - - -ο̣ς - - - - - - - - -

col. VI

(70)Καλλικράτης Προσπάλτιοι [Σω]σ̣ίστρατος - - ^{2 - 3} -κ̣λείδη[ς] - - - - - - - - - - - -

Previous - GIBM I 17 Next - GIBM I 19
Translated text

References:

AIUK 4.2 (BM, Decrees of Council and Assembly) no. 15 (Translated text) (AIUK) (AIO)

IG II² 916 (PHI)

IG II³ 1 1263 (PHI) (IG Online)

SEG 24.173

SEG 19.74

GIBM I 18

Agora XV 187

Translation by: Stephen Lambert, Feyo Schuddeboom, Jane Ashwell

AIO Images: 1

Images: Agora Excavations - (1, 2, 3, 4)
Krateros - (1)
Ohio - (1)

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Decree 1 (Council), Decree 2 (People)

Original location: Agora (Prytanikon)

fr. a - Findspot: Agora (Ag. I 973b)
fr. b - Findspot: Agora (Ag. I 5457)
fr. c - Findspot: [Agora] (BM 1816,0610.386)
fr. d - Findspot: Agora (Ag. I 5395)
fr. e - Findspot: Agora (Ag. I 3676)
fr. f - Findspot: Agora (Ag. I 973a)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] Fragment c of this inscription (containing lines 25-39 and the left side of ll. 40-44) was acquired in Athens by Lord Elgin and was among the objects purchased by the UK Parliament and transferred to the BM in 1816 (cf. AIUK 4.1, no. 2). [SDL] [2] According to Otanes, the supporter of “democracy” in the debate on the constitutions staged by Herodotos 3.80 in Persia in 522 BC, alongside appointment by lot and accountability of officials, the relationship between Council and Assembly was one of the three cornerstones of “rule of the mass”, a constitution in which “all proposals are referred to the collective”; and this relationship is an aspect of the Athenian democracy on which contemporaries placed considerable emphasis and to which the epigraphical record is eloquent witness. It had been a focus of attention in the constitutional upheavals of 411 BC, in which an attempt had been made to shift the balance of power from the Assembly to a smaller, more “oligarchic” Council of 400, a regime which was overthrown by Aristokrates and Theramenes precisely because, contrary to the principle formulated by Otanes, the Four Hundred decided everything themselves and referred nothing to the wider body of the Five Thousand (Ath. Pol. 33.2). It is probably not coincidental that it is shortly after this that we have our earliest evidence for a system designed to manipulate for the public good the value placed on honour in Athenian public life, and to optimise the operation of one of the key components in the relationship between Council and Assembly, the prytanies.

The prytanies were the tribal contingents of 50 men that functioned as the Council’s executive committee for a tenth of the year (in the period of 10 tribes). Their functions were set out in the third quarter of the fourth century by Ath. Pol. 43-44: the prytany members eat together at public expense in the rotunda in the Agora known as the tholos (cf. IG II³ 1, 1300); they convene meetings, and prescribe the business of the Council and Assembly; they receive, on the city’s behalf, heralds and envoys and official letters; and their chairman, in office for just a night and a day, keeps the keys of the sanctuaries in which are stored the city’s treasury and archives, and the public seal; and he and a third (trittys) of the prytany are obliged to remain on duty in the tholos. Shortly after the restoration of the democracy following the oligarchic coup of 411 BC we have our earliest evidence for an official competition between the prytanies. The date that it was instituted is uncertain, but IG I³ 515, of 408/7 BC, is the earliest of a long series of dedications set up in tribal sanctuaries and commemorating “victories” in this annual competition. The competition continued through the fourth-century democracy and was unaffected, it seems, by the institution in ca. 378/7 BC of the “presiding committee” (proedroi), comprising nine members of the Council, one from each tribe except that in prytany, which, in a development characteristic of the Athenian democracy’s reluctance to endow any board of officials with significant powers, took over from the prytany responsibility for chairing the Council and the Assembly. In the years following the dissolution of the Classical democracy by the Macedonians in 322/1 BC two developments took place which impacted on this system and its commemoration in the inscribed record. First, while prytanies continued to be honoured by the Assembly for the performance of their duties, the element of competition seems to have been removed (see in more detail AIO Papers 9). At least, inscriptions commemorating honours awarded to the prytanies cease to mention any competition; and there seem to be years in which more than one prytany was honoured. Second, dedications by the prytanies in tribal sanctuaries were in due course superseded by stelai carrying the texts of relevant decrees of the Council and People, together with lists of the prytany honoured, initially in front of or near the Council chamber, later in the prytanikon, identifiable as the vicinity of the building in the Agora otherwise known as the tholos. Division between Classical and Hellenistic practice is not clear-cut. However, it does not become normal practice to inscribe decrees of the Council and Assembly until the years following the liberation of the city from Demetrios Poliorketes, in the late 280s BC.

By the 190s BC, therefore, the pattern of these decrees had been established for nearly a century, and although there was some evolution in detail, the scheme throughout this period remained broadly the same. Two decrees were conventionally inscribed, a decree of the Council, based on a report from the prytany, honouring the prytany treasurer and other officials; and a decree of the People, based on a report from the prytany, honouring the prytany itself. The format continues until the Sullan Sack in 86 BC, when the Assembly decree is dropped and changes in tone occur (cf. Agora XV 264, 266; E. Muñiz Grijalvo in E. Muñiz Grijalvo, J. M. Cortés Copete, and F. Lozano, Empire and Religion, 2017, 21-44); they are in turn replaced with monuments erected by the prytaneis in their own name in the late first century AD (Agora XV 313, the last decrees are Agora XV 322 and 324)

It will be helpful to locate these decrees in the context of other inscribed decrees honouring Athenians at this period. In the generation between the liberation of Athens in 229 and the 190s BC, the prytany decree was one of three formulaic types that account for nearly all decrees honouring Athenians, the other two being decrees honouring ephebes and decrees honouring the managers of the Eleusinian Mysteries (cf. AIO Papers 4, 20-25: a trio “highly significant for the idea of itself ... that the city wished to convey, to itself and to outsiders: a political show-case, a paideutic beacon, and a festival centre sans pareil.”) Of these three types, the prytany decree was the most common, accounting for about a third of all inscribed decrees of the Council and Assembly in this generation (ca. 40 of 120). Indeed they are sufficiently numerous to document the collapse of the restriction of service on the Council to twice in a lifetime which had acted as a key guarantee of the Council’s democratic constitution in the Classical period (cf. IALD II, 261). At one level these decrees enact a carefully staged choreography between prytany, Council and Assembly, projecting an impression of the democratic propriety of the Council’s relations with the Assembly, a propriety emphasised by the convention that the Assembly’s decree was non-probouleumatic in formulation (i.e. not a mere approval of the Council’s own proposal). This was, however, to an extent a facade behind which the realities of power since the late Classical period had shifted from Assembly to Council, for this emphasising of the independence of the Assembly took place against the background of a shift in the character of the large majority of inscribed decrees from non-probouleumatic in the late Classical democracy (i.e. formulated on the basis of a proposal in the Assembly) to probouleumatic in the period after 229 BC (i.e. based on approval by the Assembly of the Council’s proposal).

A number of specific points about these particular decrees are notable. First, of the two decrees, the Assembly’s decree usually enjoyed pride of place on the stone. In this inscription, like a few others, the Council’s decree comes first. This has its own logic in chronological order, since the Council decree was passed on day 27 of prytany 12, three days before the Assembly decree, on day 30 of prytany 12. As we learn from l. 2 the tribe Ptolemais held the twelfth prytany of the relevant year. In other words the decrees honouring the performance of the duties of the prytany of Ptolemais were passed at the end of the prytany in which it held office. This is natural enough, though there is no uniformity in timing of prytany decrees across the genre. There is even one case, IG II³ 1, 983, of 259/8 BC, in which the Assembly’s decree honouring the prytany of Aigeis was passed as early the eleventh of the prytany, which was the first of the year. Interestingly this is recognised in the text of the decree, which refers to a single sacrifice before a single meeting of the Assembly instead of the usual plural sacrifices before plural Assemblies. After the surrender of the Athenians to Antigonos after their defeat in the Chremonidean War in 262 BC, the Macedonian royal family was included among the beneficiaries of sacrifices by the prytany, and they were duly named in ll. 11-12 of the decree of 259/8 BC (though the names were later erased in the damnatio memoriae of the Antigonids in 200 BC). As Meritt and Traill commented: “it is apparent that the Demos was impatient to register its loyalty and to pay homage to Antigonos and his family. The performance of Aigeis for the rest of their term was taken for granted, and we are left with the conviction that these praises not only here but in general must have been rather perfunctory and very much of a mere formality” (Agora XV, pp. 6-7). A formality it may have been, but the ritual repetition of formalities of this kind nonetheless had significance in engraining and reinforcing important political values.

Two aspects of the duties of the prytany are singled out in the text of our Assembly decree: performance of sacrifices “before the Assemblies” to Apollo Prostaterios and Artemis Boulaia (39-41), and the convening of the Council and Assembly (45-46). As we have seen, the second of these duties was also mentioned in the Ath. Pol.’s account of the prytany’s duties. At that time the Council met every day, except for holidays; we do not know how frequently it met by the 190s BC. The Assembly normally met four times in a prytany at the time of Ath. Pol. Again we do not know how often it met by the 190s, but there are some indications that meetings may have been less frequent (cf. IALD II, 259-60). At least, there are only two prytanies across the entire third century in which two meetings are explicitly attested; and the meetings of the Council and Assembly recorded in our inscription are the only meetings of those bodies attested in the year of Diodotos after Phanarchides. These phenomena, however, are at least partly a product of the thinner evidence base for this later period; and, as we have seen, the language of the prytany decrees themselves implies that there was usually more than one Assembly in a prytany.

Apart from the convening of meetings, the other duty of the prytany explicitly mentioned in decree 2 is the due performance of sacrifices to Apollo Prostaterios and Artemis Boulaia “and the other gods to whom it is customary”. We hear nothing about these sacrifices in the Ath. Pol. or any other Classical source, but they appear (initially less explicitly worded) in the earliest third-century prytany decrees. The historical record does not enable us to pin down any other specific duties that this prytany may have performed, and we know nothing about the other prytanies of this year. The features of the so-called “second” decree, i.e. that of the Council, placed first on the stone in this case, were well discussed by Meritt and Traill in 1974 (Agora XV, pp. 5-6), and their analysis remains broadly valid as applicable to our inscription, subject to adjustments for improvements in dating and new epigraphical finds. The earliest inscription preserving the separate decree of the Council, for example, IG II³ 1, 888, is now dated to 279/8 BC, not 257/6 BC, as in 1974. As we have noted with some of the detailed arrangements to which the Assembly’s decree bears witness, the arrangements implicit in the Council decree are largely unattested in the literary record. The Council decree was made on the initiative of the prytany itself and the panel of Council officials known as the aeisitoi, who seem, so their name suggests, to have enjoyed continuous public dining rights by virtue of their offices. The main focus of the decree in our case is the prytany treasurer, “whom they chose from among themselves”, Hegetor of Oinoe, who is praised explicitly not, as one might have expected, for careful financial management, but for making all the appropriate sacrifices, the implication being that these were a key object of expenditure from the treasury which he controlled. There follows a long list of other officials who have served the prytany well: the secretary of the prytany, Diodoros son of Androkles of Aphidna, not otherwise attested in person, but from a family traceable as wealthy back in the fourth century. Somewhat confusingly, he is a distinct official from the secretary of the whole Council, who, as the prescript of the decree informs us, was Prokles of Halai, and who is not praised by the prytany. That secretary is distinct again from the secretary of the Council and People, Antimachos son of Ar-, who is praised, together with his undersecretary, whose name in Ar- suggests that he was perhaps related. The secretary of the Council and People, unusually among the officials on this list, is mentioned by Ath. Pol. (54.5), which informs us that his function was to read out documents at meetings of the Council and People. Since Meritt and Traill wrote, this has been identified as the office held by the honorand of IG II³ 1, 327, Phyleus of Oinoe in 336/5 BC, praised in that decree alongside associates from the same deme. Finally two “career officials”, as Meritt and Traill describe them, are praised, the herald (keryx) of the Council and People, Eukles of Berenikidai, and the pipe-player (auletes), Neokles of Berenikidai. The public heralds at Athens belonged to a long line of the same family, with names Eukles or Philokles, a tradition which began, it seems, as early as the restoration of the democracy in 403/2 BC, and extended until 140/39 BC (Agora XVI 52, XV pp. 14-15). The pipe-player was also a professional. He first appears in prytany inscriptions in the 220s BC, when he is Dexilaos of Halai (IG II³ 1, 1144 l. 32), succeeded by Neokles of Berenikidai between 210 and 200 BC (IG II³ 1, 1231 l. 52).

Beneath the decrees are citations of the major honorands of the Council decree, the treasurer and secretary of the prytany, and between them, restored on the basis of parallels, a citation commemorating the Assembly’s award of a crown to the prytany as a whole. From the following roster of the prytany members only one deme heading, Prospalta, and a few names or part-names are preserved.

For more detailed discussion of this inscription see AIUK 4.2 (BM, Decrees of the Council and Assembly), no. 15. [SDL]

Added: 9 Mar 2017
Updated: 20 May 2023
Feedback

ID: AIO_852