IEleus 489 The Eleusinian Endowment

The Eleusinian Endowment

I Eleusis 489 Date: 168/9-169/70 AD?

Fragment a

. . . Priests of the two goddesses (?)^[1] uninscribed space . . . by the most awesome board (semnotatōi sunedriōi)^[2] . . . . . . of Xenion son of (5) . . . and Asiarch (?) and having been archon (i.e. of the Panhellenes) . . . of the Greeks who come in^[3] . . . honour . . . unworn the - . . . self . . . (10) . . . and these at a rate of one-and-a-half^[4] . . . to be loaned and these . . . through the - of the most awesome board . . . was reserved for the sacrifices . . . interest (tokon) collected each (15)[year . . . ] twelve unworn [drachmai]^[5] . . . to Councillors for these things . . . to interpreting (exēgoumenois) priests . . . but is listed below . . . . . .

Fragment b

(20) . . . . . . . . . priests . . . and the . . . . . . to those doing . . . for the sacred . . . (25) . . . privileges (geras), after which, if there should be any surplus, just as when there were a surplus up till now, [it shall be allowed] to set this aside for preparation of incense-burners (thumiatēriōn) under the management (epimelias) of the hierophant and the dadouch, to whom also all preservation (sōtēria) and [safekeeping] of this money was entrusted for the purpose that no one ever be allowed to transfer any of the money which (30)was set apart once and for all and consecrated to the gods, just as [Severus confirmed, when his] declaration (apophasis) was published for everyone’s knowledge . . . Declaration of the prefect (apophasis eparchou):^[6] Severus (said): The love of honour (philoteimian) I also [approve of] which [he displayed] towards the gods, [and if anyone] (35)were to dare to disturb any of the consecrated money, restitution will be made to the Fiscus (tamieiō), double [whatever the value was] by the one who dared to do this, being [guilty] of sacrilege (hierosulia), and both the hierophant and the dadouch in particular will monitor this for the purpose that this principal (kephalaion) never be despoiled (saleuthēnai) (40)nor the quantity of the consecrated money reduced by 1 denarius, it being clear that they have no immunity (akindunon), if they should overlook any [misuse] of this (money). Those who receive this distribution [although not] of Councillor rank (axias) are: Xenion himself: double; [priest] of Daphneph(oros): single (share)^[7]

col. 1

(45)Hierophant: double Dadouch: double High priest: double Interpreter (exēgētēs): double Three interpreters: double (50)Sacred herald (hierokērux): double Altar-priest (epi bōmō): double Priestess of Athena: double (Priestess) of Demeter and the Girl: double Two hierophantides: double uninscribed space

col. 2

(55)Priestess of Kal- : [single] Priestess of Moir- : single and whichever [children have been initiated] from the hearth (aph’ hestias) Brightener (phaidyntes): [single] Priest of Zeus: [single] (60)Bearer of the image of Iakchos (Iachchagōgos): [single] Bouzyges: [single] Fire-carrier (purphoros): [single] All-holy (panagēs): [single] Priest of the God [and Goddess: single] (65)Priest of Triptolemos: [single] uninscribed space

col. 3

Archon of the Eumolpidai: single

Fragment c

. . . . . . . . . . . . of the . . . . . . shall know . . . (5) . . . of the . . . . . . from the surplus (?) . . . . . . less the . . . . . . was confirmed . . . . . . (10) . . . in no way less . . . . . . . . . on behalf of which . . . . . .

Fragment d

. . . . . . . . . . . .

Previous - SEG 11.1198 Next - SEG 13.2

References:

I Eleusis 489 (Translated text) (PHI)

IG II² 1092 (PHI)

SEG 12.95 (PHI)

Translation by: Chris de Lisle

Images: Cornell - (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Decree (Panhellenion, or Areopagos?), Record of endowment, Letter, List

a - Findspot: Eleusis (Eleusis Museum 643 b)
b - Findspot: Eleusis (Eleusis Museum 643 c)
c - Findspot: Eleusis (Eleusis Museum 643 d)
d - Findspot: Eleusis (Eleusis Museum 873)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] This fragmentary and worn inscription deals with an endowment for the sanctuary at Eleusis for cash distributions to Athenian Councillors at the Mysteries and alters it (nb. “up to now” in l. 26) to add new distributions for various priests (J. H. Oliver, Hesp. 21, 1952, 381-99 = SEG 12.95). It consists of the basic terms of the endowment, in the form of a decree or perhaps a judicial ruling issued by a board (synedrion), which might be the Panhellenion or the Areopagos (ll. 1-31, see n. 2); a declaration by a Roman prefect on the terms of the endowment (ll. 32-44, see n. 5), which seems to have preceded the decree (ll. 30-31); and a list of the priests who are to receive shares of the distribution, in three columns (ll. 44-67, see n. 6). Fragments c and d probably belong to the decree, but cannot be placed precisely. The endower, Xenion, has gifted a principal (or augmented an existing principal), which is to be loaned out by the board annually. The interest from these loans is to be used for an annual distribution to Councillors (ll. 16, 43-44), Xenion himself (l. 44), and the listed priests. The standard share seems to be twelve unworn drachmai (l. 15, i.e. drachmai in "mint condition") and some priests are entitled to a double share. The annual payout would thus be 6,000 drachmai for the five hundred Councillors and a bit over 444 for the priests, which implies a principal of at least 72,000 drachmai (cf. n. 4). Distributions of this kind were common throughout the Greco-Roman world in the Hellenistic and Imperial periods and were often used to mark status hierarchies within the community (see A. Zuiderhoek, The Politics of Munificence, 2009, 94-108). Any surplus income is to be used to dedicate new incense burners (thymateria, ll. 25-26). The role played by the chief Eleusinian priests in monitoring the fund and exacting punishments (ll. 26-30, 38-39) continues Classical patterns, but the involvement of Roman authorities and apparent absence of civic administration are stark differences (compare I Eleusis 28a, esp. ll. 21-36 and notes). The inscription post-dates the end of Xenion’s term as archon of the Panhellenion in 168/9 AD. It certainly pre-dates his death ca. 177-182 AD (see n. 3) and perhaps pre-dates the sack of Eleusis by the Costoboci in AD 170 (I Eleusis 494, 516), since one might expect an endowment after that date to provide for repairs to the sanctuary (Clinton in I Eleusis). On inscribed endowments, see Puech, Orateurs, no. 1 and, on the Eleusinian Mysteries, see AIUK 4.2 (BM, Decrees), no. 1, with notes. A tendril pattern is carved in relief at the base of the inscription. [2] The "most awesome board" (semnotaton synedrion), which appears to have passed this document as a decree (l. 2), has been identified as the Areopagos (Oliver 1952, 384; D. Geagan, Athenian Constitution, 1967, 36-37) or the Panhellenion (A. J. Spawforth and S. Walker, JRS 75, 1985, 101; Clinton in I Eleusis). The term synedrion is used from the mid-second century AD for both councils and several other bodies. The exact phrase is used for the Areopagos in IG II² 2773 and 3667, both of the mid-third century AD, but it usually calls itself a Council (Boule). The Panhellenion may be referred to with the phrase in SEG 48.120, l. 9 and is called "most awesome" in IG II² 3626 and SEG 47.163, l. 16. Beyond this, the main arguments for seeing it as a Panhellenic decree are the fact that the donor had been archon of the Panhellenion (see n. 3) and the role of the Panhellenion in the Eleusinian cult (see IG II³ 4, 215 with notes). The emphasis on Athenian Councillors (ll. 16, 43-44) and priests and absence of any provision for Panhellenes or foreign visitors might favour the Areopagos. [3] Titus Flavius Xenion of Gortyn was archon of Panhellenion for the AD 165/6-168/9 session (see I Eleusis 491). He receives a double portion of the distribution at l. 44, so this decree was passed when he was still alive. A Flavius Xenion is honoured as a hearth initiate in I Eleusis 481; this may be Xenion himself, in which case his ties with Eleusis were long-standing, or a homonymous grandson, whose initiation was perhaps the quid pro quo for this endowment. The Asiarch was an annual priest of the Imperial cult of the province of Asia in western Asia Minor. It is possible that Xenion had held this role, but he is not otherwise known to have spent time there and the reading is not secure. Clinton in I Eleusis suggests that it is a mistake for "gymnasiarch". The Greeks "came in" to Eleusis as pilgrims during the Eleusinian Mysteries. [4] One and a half (l. 10) is too high to be the interest rate (= 150%); the normal interest rate in Imperial times was 9% (G. M. Rogers, Sacred Identity of Ephesos, 1991, 41). It is perhaps the penalty for borrowers who default on their loans (as opposed to the penalty for maladministration of the fund, dealt with at ll. 34-37). [5] The declaration by Severus confirms the terms of the endowment, allows for expenditure of annual surpluses on incense burners, and provides for mismanagement from the fund to be treated as sacrilege and punished with a fine to the Fisc (i.e. the Imperial Estate, cf. AIO 2662, with notes). As a free city, Athens should not have required permission from a Roman official to do any of this; it might have been necessary if the original endowment had been made under Roman law (e.g. if the original endower was a Roman citizen) or simply desired in order to give the new terms extra legal authority.

The declaration is called an apophasis, the standard Greek translation of Latin sententia (H. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions, 1974, 25, 130), an official ruling delivered by a Roman emperor or magistrate. The text is suffused with Latin legal language: the phrase “for everyone’s knowledge” (l. 31) is a calque of the Latin ad omnium notitiam, “said” is written with a delta-chi symbol (l. 33), an abbreviation of the Latin dixit (“said"), commonly used by scribes in Latin courts, “Restitution will be made” (ekdikesthetai, l. 36) is a Greek translation of the Latin legal term vindicabitur, and the Roman numeral I is used for 1 in l. 40 (Oliver 1952, 388-91). Such Latinisms are common in the Imperial period in Greek texts connected with Roman authority and law (cf. E. Dickey, Latin Loanwords in Ancient Greek, 2023, 639-42). The nature of Severus’ position is uncertain, since many Imperial officials bore the title “prefect” (eparchos). He is not the provincial governor, whose title was “proconsul and corrector of the free cities” (cf. Puech, Orateurs 1, with note), but he might be an official of the Imperial treasury (praefectus aerarii). For other Athenian descriptions recording decisions of Roman officials, see Puech, Orateurs 1, IG II² 1113, and Agora XV 460, ll. 32-34. Consultation with Roman magistrates was probably common in practice, but the Athenians usually inscribed only communications with the emperor (see I Eleusis 513). [6] The catalogue of beneficiaries of the distribution is mainly laid out in two columns, but the Daphnephoros was added in small lettering in the blank space at the end of l. 44 and the archon of the Eumolpidai was crammed into “column iii”, a small space by the right margin (ll. 66-67). The priests listed in the catalogue are mostly connected with the Eleusinian cult and perhaps all played some role in the celebration of the Mysteries, but some non-Eleusinian priests are included, and some Eleusinian priests are not (e.g., the archon of the Kerykes and the lithophoros). The priests are listed roughly in order of prestige: the most prestigious priests (ll. 45-50), the most prestigious priestesses (ll. 51-54), less prestigious priestesses (ll. 55-56), children (ll. 57), and less prestigious priests (ll. 58-65). Prestige is also indicated by whether they receive a double (ll. 45-54) or single portion (ll. 55-65). On the social prestige of priests in Roman Athens, especially in connection with the Eleusinian cult, see IG II² 1046 and I Eleusis 300 with notes.

The priest of Daphnephoros (l. 44), a form of Apollo, might have been associated with the genos of the Gephyraioi (cf. IG II² 3630+3997; IG II³ 4, 1887).
The hierophant (“displayer of sacred things,” l. 45) and the dadouch (“torchbearer,” l. 46) were the two leading male priests of the Eleusinian cult, drawn respectively from the genos of the Eumolpidai and that of the Kerykes (AIUK 4.2 (BM, Decrees), no. 1, note 8; Search s.v. dadouch and s.v. hierophant, cf. K. Clinton, Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries, 1974, 10-68). They also administered this endowment (ll. 26-30 and 38).
The high priest (l. 47) was the head of Athens’ Imperial cult (see F. Camia in E. Mackil and N. Papazarkadas, Greek Epigraphy and Religion, 2021, 150-159) and has no known connection with the Eleusinian Mysteries.
The interpreters (exegetai, ll. 48-49) were religious professionals who served on a long-term basis and advised on the details of sacrifices and other rituals (see AIO 2439, with notes; Search s.v. interpreter and s.v. interpreters). They are mainly attested in the Roman period, but existed much earlier (e.g. AIO 1137, ll. 8-11, n. 6). One of them was appointed by the Pythian oracle (exegetes pythochrestes), another was appointed by the People from the Eupatridai, and more from the genos of the Eumolpidai. The Pythian oracle's interpreter is presumably the one named separately in l. 48, but it is unclear how the three interpreters in l. 49 correspond to the remaining roles.
The sacred herald (hierokeryx, l. 50) or herald of the two goddesses made announcements and was the namesake of the genos of the Kerykes (IG II² 1072, l. 6; I Eleusis 300, ll. 11-12; Clinton, Sacred Officials, 76-82; AIUK 4.2 (BM, Decrees), no. 1, at note 4).
The altar-priest (epi bomo, l. 51) was elected from the Kerykes and probably performed sacrifices at the altars of Demeter and the Girl before the initiation (Clinton, Sacred Officials, 82-86, cf. I Eleusis 300, l. 8).
The priestess of Athena (l. 52) was Athens’ leading priestess, see IG II² 3453 and IG II³ 1, 1026 generally and Agora XVI 340-341 for the Imperial period. She was not connected with the Eleusinian cult directly, but played a supporting role in the celebration of the Mysteries (cf. AIUK 4.2 (BM, Decrees), no. 17 ll. 16-18).
On the priestess of Demeter and the Girl (l. 53, often just “of Demeter”), see IG I³ 953 and AIUK 4.2 (BM, Decrees), no. 1, with note 6.
The hierophantides (l. 54) were priestesses who aided the hierophant in the display of the sacred things at the climax of the Mysteries (I Eleusis 502, IG II² 3764, Clinton, Sacred Officials, 88-89, cf. AIUK 4.2 (BM, Decrees<), pp. 24-5, C6).
The title of the priestess of Kal- (l. 55) is incompletely preserved. She perhaps served Kalligeneia, wet-nurse of Demeter and Kore, who was worshipped with them at the Thesmophoria (Aristoph. Thesmo. 296; Nonnus, Dionys. 6.138-140)
The title of the priestess of Moir- (l. 56) is also incompletely preserved. She perhaps served the Fates (Moirai) or Zeus Leader of the Fates (Moiragetes), cf. OR 108, ll. 11-12.
On the children initiated from the hearth (aph’ hestias, l. 57) see I Eleusis 621 with note. There was only one child initiated from the hearth at each celebration of the Mysteries, so the distribution perhaps includes children from previous years.
A Brightener (phaidyntes, l. 58) maintained a temple’s cult statues. For the Eleusinian one, see I Eleusis 7 and AIUK 4.2 (BM, Decrees), no. 17, l. 16.
The priest of Zeus (l. 59) is perhaps the priest of Zeus Olympios (cf. IG II³ 4, 1914), but there are other possibilities. None of them is known to be linked to the Eleusinian cult.
The bearer of the image of Iakchos (Iakchagogos, l. 60) led the procession to Eleusis (Clinton, Sacred Officials, 96-97, cf. Search s.v. Iakchos and s.v. Iakchagogos).
A fire-carrier (pyrphoros, l. 61) was responsible for providing fire for use in a cult’s sacrifices (cf. AIUK 4.5 (BM, Dedications), no. 24 with notes). The Eleusinian pyrphoros came from the Kerykes and may have concurrently held the priesthood of the Graces and Artemis Epipyrgidia, which was based at the entrance to the Acropolis (I Eleusis 300 , ll. 9-10; IG II³ 4, 1910; Clinton, Sacred Officials, 94-95).
The Bouzyges (literally "Ox-yoker," l. 62) is a priest attested from the mid-first century BC onwards who carried out an annual sacred ploughing ritual (see IG II³ 4, 1397, with notes; Parker, Ath. Religion, 286-7).
The all-holy (panages, l. 63), elsewhere called a herald and a priest (IG II³ 4, 1944), came from the Kerykes. His specific role in the Mysteries is unknown (Clinton, Sacred Officials, 95-97; I Eleusis 300, l. 13).
The priest of the God and Goddess (l. 64), probably served Plouton and Kore (cf. I Eleusis 239 and K. Clinton, Sacred Officials, 97).
The priest of Triptolemos (l. 65) otherwise appears only in SEG 33.188 and appears to have been added to the list later (Clinton, Sacred Officials, 97). Triptolemos was a central hero of the Eleusinian myth and had a temple in the City Eleusinion (cf. Agora XXXI, p. 48-51).
The archon of the Eumolpidai (ll. 66-67) was administrative head of that genos. It is unclear why his counterpart in the Kerykes is not mentioned (on these genē, see AIUK 4.2 (BM, Decrees), no. 1, with note 8; I Eleusis 87 with notes).

Added: 21 Jan 2024
Updated: 1 Aug 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_2866