SokolowskiLSCG 45 Decree of the orgeones [of Bendis] (ca. 330-324/3 BC)

Decree of the orgeones [of Bendis] (ca. 330-324/3 BC)

Sokolowski, LSCG 45 Date: ca. 330-324/3 BC

[- - -]χεναικε. . . . ⁸ . . . .ιε. . . . ⁸ . . . .ας ὁπόσοι ἐν τῆ[ι στή]λ- η[ι ἐ]γ[γεγρα]μμένοι εἰσὶν ἢ το[ὺς τ]ούτων ἐκγόνους ^v ἐὰν δέ τις θύηι τῆι θεῶι τῶν ὀργεώνων οἷς μέτεστιν τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἀτελεῖς αὐτοὺς θύειν· [ἐ]ὰν δὲ ἰδιώτης τις θύηι τῆι θεῶι διδόναι τῆι ἱερέαι γαλαθηνοῦ μὲν ∶Ι𐅁∶ (5)[κ]αὶ τὸ δέρμα καὶ κωλῆν διανε[κ]ῆ δεξιάν, τοῦ δὲ τελέου ∶ΙΙΙ∶ καὶ δέρμα καὶ [κ]ωλῆν κατὰ ταὐτά, βοὸς δὲ ∶𐅂∶ καὶ τὸ δέρμα· διδόναι δὲ τὰ ἱερεώσυνα τῶ- [ν μὲ]ν θηλ[ε]ιῶν τῆι ἱερέαι, τῶν δὲ ἀρρένων τῶι ἱερεῖ· παραβώμια δὲ μὴ [θύ]ειν [μ]ηδέ[ν]α ἐν τῶι ἱερῶ[ι ἢ] ὀφείλε[ι]ν ∶𐅄∶ δραχμάς ^v ὅπως δ’ ἂν ἡ οἰκία καὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ἐπισκε[υ]άζηται, τὸ ἐν[οίκιον τῆ]ς οἰ[κίας] καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ ὅσου ἂμ πραθῆι ε- (10)[ἰς τὴν ἐ]πισκε̣υὴν τοῦ ἱεροῦ [καὶ τῆς] οἰκίας, εἰς ἄλλο δὲ μηδὲν ἀναλίσκειν, ἕ- [ω]ς ἂν τ[ὸ ἱερὸ]ν ἐπισκευ[ασ]θῆι κ[αὶ ἡ οἰκία], ἐὰν μή τι ἄλλο ψηφίσωνται οἱ ὀργεῶνε[ς] . .ασε. . . .ν εἰς τὸ ἱερόν ^v ὑπολι[μπά]νειν δὲ ὕδωρ τῶι ἐνοικοῦντι ὥστε χρῆσθ[αι]· [ἐὰ]ν δ[έ τι]ς [ε]ἴπ[ηι] ἢ ἐπιψηφίσηι παρὰ τόνδε τὸν νόμον, ὀφειλέτω ∶𐅄∶ δραχμὰς τῆι θεῶι ὅ τ[ε εἰπὼν καὶ] ὁ ἐπιψηφίσας καὶ μὴ μετέστω αὐτῶι τῶν κοινῶν· ἀναγράφειν δὲ (15)[αὐτὸν ὀφείλο]ντα τῆι θεῶι τοῦτο τὸ ἀργύριον εἰς τὴν στήλην τοὺς ἐπιμελητά[ς]· ἀγο[ρὰν δὲ κ]αὶ [ξ]ύ[λλ]ογον ποιεῖν τοὺς ἐπιμελητὰς καὶ τοὺς ἱεροποιοὺς ἐν τῶι ἱερ- [ῶ]ι πε[ρὶ τῶν κοι]νῶν τῆι δευτέραι ἱσταμένου τοῦ μηνὸς ἑκάστου ^v διδόναι δὲ [τοῖς ἱ]εροποιοῖς εἰς τὴν θυσίαν ∶𐅂𐅂∶ δραχμὰς ἕκαστον τῶν ὀργεώνων οἷς μέτεστι [το]ῦ [ἱ]εροῦ τοῦ Θαργηλιῶνος πρὸ τῆς ἕκτης ἐπὶ δέκα, ὃς δ’ ἂν ἐπιδημῶν Ἀθήνη- (20)[σ]ι καὶ ὑγιαίνων μὴ συνβάλληται, ὀφειλέτω ∶𐅂𐅂∶ ἱερὰς τῆι θε[ῶι] ^v ὅπως δ’ ἂν ὡ- [ς πλ]εῖστοι ὦσιν ὀργεῶνες τοῦ ἱεροῦ, ἐξεῖναι τῶι βουλομένωι εἰσενέγκαντι [. . . . δρ]αχμὰς μετεῖναι αὐτῶι τοῦ ἱεροῦ καὶ εἰς τὴν στήλην ἐγγράφεσθαι· τ[οὺς] [δ’ ἐγγραφο]μένους εἰς τὴν στήλην δο[κι]μ[ά]ζειν τοὺς ὀργεῶνας καὶ παρα[διδό]- [ναι τῶν δοκιμασθέντων τὰ ὀνόματα τῶι γραμματεῖ το]ῦ Θαρ[γηλι]- (25)[ῶνος - - -]

Previous - Kloppenborg and Ascough, Greco-Roman Associations, I no. 3 Next - Kloppenborg and Ascough, Greco-Roman Associations, I no. 5
Translated text

References:

Sokolowski, LSCG 45 (Translated text) (AIO)

IG II² 1361 (PHI)

SEG 57.135 (l. 6)

SEG 25.167 (PHI)

Tracy, ALC 131 (date)

Kloppenborg and Ascough, Greco-Roman Associations, I no. 4

Guicharrousse, Athènes en partage no. 2

Translation by: Stephen Lambert, Robert Parker

Images: Krateros - (1)

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Decree (Orgeones of Bendis)

Findspot: Piraeus (EM 7755)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] For the introduction and development the cult of Bendis at Athens in the 5th century, see IG I³ 136 with notes. Thereafter, apart from a reference to extensive sacrifices at a celebration of the festival of Bendis in 334/3 (IG II² 1496, ll. 86-87, cf. 117, fragmentary entry for 333/2), most of our evidence for the public cult comes from 5 or 6 decrees issued by a group or groups of worshippers of the goddess in the Piraeus: this decree, perhaps IG II² 1255 (337/6 BC), 1256 (329/8 BC), 1284 (ca. 251-240 BC), 1283 (240/39 BC), 1324 (ca. 190 BC). This decree, found in the Piraeus, is attributable to these worshippers by analogy with the others and because of the chronological fit noted in note 8 below (for recent discussions see I. N. Arnaoutoglou, Thusias heneka kai sunousias. Private religious associations in Hellenistic Athens, 2003, 59-60; Wijma, Embracing the Immigrant, 149-52). The worshippers were known as orgeōnes, a term that seems originally to have been applied in Attica to hereditary groups of citizen worshippers, perhaps specifically of heroes (cf. Parker, Athenian Religion, 1996, 109-10; N. F. Jones, The Associations of Classical Athens, 1999, 249-63). In the cult of Bendis it is used, partly at least, and possibly for the first time, of non-citizen worshippers: perhaps the special place of Thracians in the public cult of Bendis earned this privilege, or perhaps there was just no copyright in titles. Their responsibilities, as this decree makes clear, related to cult property and finances, regulation of sacrifice and of its own membership, and upkeep of the sanctuary. At least some of the cults served by “orgeones”, as here, were of a public character, incorporated within the city’s system of cults, and to that extent their functions were similar to those of genē (cf. RO 37), though, while membership was usually hereditary (implied by this decree and in general by FGH 328 Philochoros F35, from which it seems that, at least in the 5th century or before, phratries were obliged to accept orgeones as members, and from Isai. 2.14, 15-17, 44-45, in which, in the 4th cent., enrolment in a group of orgeones is claimed as evidence for legitimate adoption, alongside enrolment in a deme and a phratry), they lacked the strong mythology of descent from the cult founder or other Ur-figure that was an aspect of the genē. Like the genē, priesthoods in the cult were also, as here (see also IG II² 1283, ll. 21-22), typically appointed from their number (cf. Lambert, Historia 59, 2010, 161-63). Whether some or all groups of orgeones, as was apparently the norm with genē, were subgroups of phratries in the sense that they were wholly contained within a single phratry, is unclear. For a helpful list of attested groups of Attic orgeones see Wijma, Embracing the Immigrant, 169-71. In older scholarship it was hypothesised on the basis of the distinction between the procession of Thracians and locals at the opening of the Republic, and of features of the decrees, that there were two separate groups of orgeones of Bendis in the Piraeus, one of Thracians, one of citizens (e.g. A. Wilhelm, JÖAI 1902, 132-33 = Abhandlungen und Beiträge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde I, 164-65, argued that the association of our decree, which holds meetings on the second of the month, was distinct from the Thracians of IG II² 1283, who met on the eighth), but none of these features is conclusive (e.g. a change of meeting date is possible in the period of about a century dividing the two texts), and more recently the theory that there was just one group containing Thracians and citizens and perhaps others, has gained support (see Wijma, Embracing the Immigrant; Guicharrousse). It is also possible that there was a single group and that it consisted of Thracians only, who were granted, in the 5th cent., the special dispensation to own the land and the sanctuary which the orgeones appear in IG II² 1283 to say was uniquely theirs. In any case the fact that the group which passed this decree owned the sanctuary would seem to imply that it is identical with the "Thracian" group of 1283. [2] “Who share in the sanctuary”: i.e. fee-paying members of the association. [3] Probably the victim envisaged is a sheep, as usually when not specified. [4] The payment of a fee in money or in kind, or as here in both, to the priest officiating at a sacrifice was standard (cf. SEG 54.214). The decree first speaks of payment to the priestess, but then assigns the fees from male victims to the priest. The explanation may be that the priest served Bendis’ consort Deloptes, for whom see IG II² 1324 (questioned, however, by Lambert, Historia 59, 2010, 162 n. 116). The norm was for goddesses to receive female victims, gods male. Many more female victims will therefore have been offered than male, since Bendis was the main deity, so male victims appear only as an afterthought. (Note: the amount paid to the priestess for sacrifice of a bovine in Sokolowski's text of l. 6 has been changed from 1½ obols to 1 drachma in light of the correction noted by N. Papazarkadas, Horos 17-21, 2004-2009, 103-104 = SEG 57.135). [5] I.e. not actually on the altar. Whether this is a form of ritual action acceptable in other contexts but not here, or just a way of avoiding paying the fee to the priestess, is not clear. [6] For groups of orgeones financing their cult by leasing out property that they control see Parker, Athenian Religion, 109-10; for leasing out of water rights, IG I³ 84, l. 34; Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public Land, 196. [7] These hieropoioi are subject to orders from the orgeones and seem therefore to be members of the association. The status of the hieropoioi of IG II² 1255, however, is uncertain. [8] It looks as if this deadline was set to fall just before the Bendideia, which were celebrated on the 19th or 20th of Thargelion (Parker, Polytheism, 463). [9] This text is a unique instance of a hereditary association (lines 1-2) canvassing for new members. Note that, although a scrutiny is required, the surviving text of the decree does not specify whether or not they are to be Athenian citizens or Thracians, which is consistent with, but does not necessarily imply, a group that already had mixed membership. It is also possible that this new recruitment resulted in the opening up of membership which had previously been restricted to Thracians or Athenians. [10] This decree was cut by a mason whose work dates to ca. 330-324/3 BC (Tracy). The provisions for sanctuary repair and other indications of efforts at revival, the grouping of several other inscriptions of these orgeones around the same period, and the lavish celebration of the Bendideia in 334/3 (see above) suggests that the cult of Bendis benefited from the focus on religious regeneration which was a marked feature at Athens between the battle of Chaironeia (338/7) and the Lamian War (323-322) (cf. IG II³ 1, 447). It may not be coincidental that this included an emphasis, in part economically motivated, on foreign cults (cf. IG II³ 1, 337).

Textual Note AIO's text follows Sokolowski's, subject to the correction of the number in l. 6, noted above n. 4.

Added: 12 Jul 2017
Updated: 21 Jul 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_1254