SEG 2.7 Decree of Halimous honouring Charisandros

Decree of Halimous honouring Charisandros

SEG 2.7 Date: ca. 330 BC

Gods.^[1] Theophilos^[4] proposed: since Charisandros^[2] managed the sacrifices well (5)and with love of honour (philotimōs) on behalf of the demarch Ischyrias,^[4] the demesmen having chosen him to manage whatever religious rites (hieropoiias) the demesmen (10)prescribed, the Halimousians shall resolve to praise Charisandros son of Charisiades^[4] and crown him with a gold crown (15)of five hundred drachmas for his excellence and his justice towards the demesmen; and the demarch Kybernis^[4] shall inscribe (20)the decree in the common records (koina grammateia) and on a stone stele and stand it in the Dionysion.^[3]

Previous - SEG 1.54 Next - SEG 3.105 (l. 3)

References:

SEG 2.7 (Translated text) (PHI)

Russo, Ripartizioni, D54

Translation by: Stephen Lambert

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Decree (Deme Halimous)

Original location: Dionysion at Halimous

Findspot: Hagios Kosmas (Cape Kolias) (EM 12560)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] Textual Note. AIO translates the text of SEG 2.7, which is based largely on the editio princeps of J. J. E. Hondius, ABSA 24, 1919-1921, 151-60, with additional contributions from Hiller, Haussoullier and Wilhelm.

This inscription from the deme's Dionysion is the only extant decree of Halimous, a small deme (bouleutic quota 3 and population in 346/5 BC of ca. 80-85 adult males, see further below) of the city trittys of Leontis, "thirty-five stades [i.e. ca. 4 miles, 6-7 km.] from the city" (Dem. 57.10), on the west coast of Attica south of Phaleron, north of Aixone and west of Euonymon. It was found at Cape Kolias, which used accordingly to be favoured as likely site of the deme's principal civic centre, though more recent scholarship supports the view that that was a little further inland, around the hill known as Hagia Anna, where remains of domestic houses, public structures (including no longer extant remains perhaps identifiable as a Thesmophorion) and a cemetery, as well, crucially, of a theatre, have been discovered; in that case the inscription had wandered from there to its findspot on the coast prior to discovery. Cf. Csapo and Wilson II, 133-5; C. Kaza-Papageorgiou, Alimos. Α Greek-English Edition of the City's History (2006), 76-78; D. Marchiandi, I periboli funerari nell' Attica classica (2011), 624; on the deme see also Humphreys, Kinship, 924-28; on demes in general, RO 46, with notes. The best-known Halimousian was Thucydides the historian, whose family did not leave much trace in the epigraphical record of the deme or more generally (Humphreys, 927; this is consistent with the general pattern that members of the Athenian elite were not very active in their demes). We are, however, richly informed about Halimous by Demosthenes 57 Against Euboulides, in which Euxitheos defended his deme membership in an Athenian court on appeal from a decision of his fellow demesmen to eject him in the general scrutiny of Athenian citizens (diapsephisis) in 346/5 BC. (Given its importance to understanding the background to this decree and to deme inscriptions in general I append below a note on this speech). [2] The honorand, Charisandros son of Charisiades, had supported the demarch Ischyrias in the performance of his religious functions, serving in effect as hieropoios, a well-attested role in the Attic demes, albeit usually undertaken by a board rather than an individual (cf. Whitehead, Demes of Attica, 1986, 142, IG II² 1199, n. 2; on the nature of Charisandros' role, Whitehead, 146; it is unclear whether in this case his duties were purely executive, or if he also carried some of the financial burden of the sacrifices - praise for philotimia (5) might, but does not necessarily, imply this; cf. IG II² 1197, n. 2). In recognition of his services, Charisandros is awarded a 500 dr. gold crown and an inscription, to be erected in the Dionysion. Demes commonly awarded 500 dr. crowns (cf. Whitehead, 163), but it is nonetheless notable, in what was apparently not a very affluent deme, that it chose to award a gold crown rather than a foliage one, which would have cost nothing. One wonders if there was an expectation that the honorand would dedicate the crown, i.e. in effect return it to the deme. [3] One would expect this Dionysion to be close to the deme's theatre (cf. the arrangements e.g. in the city theatre and at Ikarion and most likely Halai Araphenides, SEG 46.153, with notes), which has been identified from physical remains on the southern foothills of Hagia Anna, and was excavated in the 1980s. In addition to stone seats (proedria), a likely choregic base was found and a base inscribed with crowns on three sides (i.e. most likely commemorating the award of honours), carrying an inscription which includes the demotic Halimousios, SEG 46.318 (Kaza-Papageorgiou, Arch. Delt. 48, 1993, B, 67-70, pl. 27; and in Alimos, 83-5; Csapo and Wilson, 134-5). These remains, together with our decree, imply that the deme celebrated the quintessential deme festival, the Rural Dionysia (on which cf. IG II³ 4, 498, with notes) and erected at least some of its decrees in its Dionysion, as e.g. IG II² 1186, l. 33 (Eleusis), SEG 22.117, l. 8 (Ikarion), SEG 46.153, ll. 17-18 (Halai Araphenides). We may probably infer that the Halimousian Rural Dionysia were included among the rites in which Charisandros had supported the demarch.

Cult of Dionysos was commonly found in close association with that of Demeter and Kore, not least at Eleusis, and a remark of the iii-iv AD author Arnobius (5.28) suggests that that was the case also at Halimous (Csapo and Wilson, 134). Pausanias 1.31.1 reports that the Halimousians had a sanctuary of Demeter Thesmophoros and Kore, and schol. Ar. Thesm. 80 that the Thesmophoria was celebrated at Halimous on 10 Pyanopsion (cf. IG II² 1184, with notes). Here too Charisandros was presumably active.

At Dem. 57.64, Euxitheos claims that his enemies had stolen the arms he had dedicated to Athena. Humphreys, 925, infers that there was a sanctuary of Athena in the deme, though it is possible that a dedication on the Athenian acropolis is meant.

More explicitly Euxitheos attests to cult of Herakles in Halimous, providing rare evidence for the appointment of priests in Attic demes. At Dem. 57.46 (cf. 62), he claims that he was "registered among the demesmen, that I was pre-selected by these same men (hōs hyp' autōn toutōn proukrithēn) to draw lots among the best-born for the priesthood of Herakles (en tois eugenestatois klērousthai tēs hierōsynēs tōi Hēraklei), that, after passing the scrutiny (dokimasia), I held offices (ērchon archas, apparently a reference to Euxitheos' term of office as demarch, 63)." (It is apparent from what follows that he was not appointed to the priesthood). This is the procedure, klērōsis ek prokritōn (allotment from a pre-selected pool), attested also in other contexts at Athens. This is the only attestation of this procedure, however, for appointment to an Athenian priesthood, and we can not infer that it was general practice. The emphasis on "good birth" (which of course suits Euxitheos' case), reflects the traditional connection at Athens between priesthood and pure (including in the female line) and ancient lineage, implicit in the appointment of older priesthoods from the genē (on these institutions see RO 37, with notes). Elsewhere in the speech, Euxitheos claims to have been a genos member himself, but it is clear from his language at 57.46 that it was in his capacity as a demesman that he was a candidate for this priesthood of Herakles. (His enemy, Euboulides, was pre-selected on the same occasion). On these topics see further Blok and Lambert, ZPE 169, 2009, 95-121; Lambert, Historia 59, 2010, 143-75 (on this priesthood, 151). The term of office of this priesthood, as with others in the demes, is obscure (cf. RO 46, with notes).

Evidence for cult of Hestia, SEG 21.813 = IG II³ 4, 1788, ascribed to Halimous by earlier scholars, e.g. Whitehead, 204 n. 172, perhaps belongs rather to Euonymon, given its findspot at Trachones (cf. AIO 2551).

There is no evidence for an institutional connection between the deme Halimous and the cult of Aphrodite on Cape Kolias, apparently administered by the genos Kolieis, see IG II³ 4, 1987 (seat in city theatre of Dionysos); Rationes F9B, 23-25, with Lambert, Rationes Centesimarum, 192-3 no. 25 (genos or naukrary Kolieis sold property in Lykourgan public land sales, where implicitly linked to Hippothontis/Piraeus? rather than Leontis/Halimous); SEG 47.195, cf. 48.152 (marker of an estate of Kolieis); cf. Humphreys, Kinship, 924. (It is possible that Kolieis was the genos to which Euxitheos claimed, in Dem. 57, to belong, but equally possible that another local genos was intended). [4] Charisandros son of Charisiades was a member of a well-attested, though not particularly prominent, family. A relation, Charisandros son of Exekestos, was councillor for Halimous in 371/0 BC, IG II³ 4, 53, l. 45. More significantly, our honorand was related to (son of?) the Charisiades son of Charisios, relative of and witness for the Euxitheos who, in 346/5 BC, defended his right to deme membership (Dem. 57.20, see further below); and was grandfather of Charisandros son of Charisiades of Halimous, ephebic weapons-trainer (hoplomachos) in 246/5 BC, IG II³ 1, 1016, l. 21 and ca. 235 BC, IG II³ 1, 1062, ll. 9-12. The name of the proposer, Theophilos, is common, but in this small deme there is a good chance that he was the Theophilos of Halimous who served on the Council as chairman of the presiding committee in 347/6 BC for the passage of two major Assembly decrees, IG II³ 1, 298, ll. 6-7, IG II³ 1, 299, l. 4 (on the relatively low status of the attested members of the presiding committee at this period, cf. IALD II, 190-191 with 222-3, Appendix 4). The demarch in whose term of office the service rendered by the honorand fell, Ischyrias (6), is the only known man of that name in Halimous, but the name occurs in several other demes and there is insufficient basis for identifying him, as suggested by Hondius, as the Ischyrias who was the target of Lykourgos F8 Against Ischyrias. His successor, Kybernis, charged with inscribing the decree (19), is also not attested in person, though his descendants (discussed more fully by Humphreys, Kinship, 927) included a son, Kydias, who died fighting the Gauls in 279 BC (Paus. 10.21.5) and grandson, Kybernis, who proposed IG II³ 1, 1005 in 250/49 BC. Between them these prosopographical data tend to confirm a date for this decree of ca. 330 BC (330-325 BC, Hondius).

Note on Demosthenes 57

Demosthenes 57 Against Euboulides supplies our most detailed picture in the literary evidence of the life of an Attic deme (for a recent analysis of the rhetorical strategy of the speech and references to earlier bibliography on it see E. Poddighe and L. Loddo, Dike 25, 2022, 95-150). In contrast to the predominantly positive impression created by the epigraphical record – well-regulated religious observance, efficient financial management by and accountability of deme officials, and a strong community spirit recognised and fostered, from the 350s BC onwards, by honorific decrees – this speech delivers a strikingly negative impression of a dysfunctional institution riven by deep-seated personal rivalries and corrupt practices. Euxitheos' central argument is his defence of his citizen descent on both his father's and his mother's side (for discussion see Lambert, Phratries, 28-29, 71-73 with further references in the index, p. 409); but in making this argument he incidentally supplies an abundance of valuable information about his deme. Some key points of wider significance, and of relevance to understanding the background to our decree, are noted below.

(a) Development of Enmity between Euxitheos and Euboulides. At an earlier diapsephisis, occasioned by the (manipulated, 62) loss of the deme registers (in the Peloponnesian War?), Euboulides' father, Antiphilos, as demarch, corruptly secured the expulsion of ten demesmen. All but one were reinstated by the court (26, 60). The personal enmity between Euxitheos and Euboulides, however, seems to have originated later, when Euboulides was on the losing side in a prosecution of a woman for impiety (a priestess? a participant in the Halimousian Thesmophoria?) in which Euxitheos had been a witness for the defence (8). Relations between Euxitheos and his fellow demesmen deteriorated during Euxitheos' term as demarch, when he sought to exact payments from them for sacred estates (i.e. rentals) and other common property (for a similar issue in the neighbouring deme Aixone see IG II² 1196). They reacted by stealing the arms Euxitheos had dedicated to Athena, erasing the inscribed decree honouring Euxitheos (apparently for his service as demarch, though it is unclear whether the decree was formally rescinded by the deme), and, when the deme vote went against him in 346/5 BC, raiding his small house (oikidion) in the country (63-65; it is a possible, but uncertain, implication that he normally resided in the city). Meanwhile, Euboulides and his allies had conspired corruptly to admit two foreigners to deme membership (59; most likely foreigners made Athenians by decree of the Assembly; for the allocation of such men to demes cf. e.g. IG II³ 1, 333, l. 19). The context here may well have been a genuine attempt to boost the membership (and doubtless the resources) of the deme by attracting to it citizens newly created by decree. Such awards were rare and the honorands were generally wealthy and/or prominent individuals. The rivalry came to a head in 346/5 BC when Euboulides was in charge of the diapsephisis in Halimous (as demarch?), which he manipulated to secure the expulsion of Euxitheos (8-16).

(b) Number and Socio-Economic Status of Demesmen. From the figures supplied in Euxitheos' account at Dem. 57.8-16 of the voting on deme members at the diapsephisis of 346/5 BC (spread over two days), it can be inferred that the adult male population of Halimous was 80-85 (Lambert, Phratries, 389-91). This compares unfavourably with the ca. 150-180 that would, on average, be predicted by the deme's bouleutic quota of 3. The socio-economic status of the demesmen was also more than averagely low: R. Osborne's wealth index for the deme is 0.67, compared with an average of 1.39 (Demos, p. 198). These figures illuminate the background to (the otherwise unknown) Ischyrias' need of support in the performance of his religious duties as demarch by an ad hoc hieropoios such as Charisandros, though, as we have seen, there are no indications the latter was himself from a wealthy family.

(c) Deme Assembly: Location and Attendance. It emerges from Euxitheos' account of the voting at the deme Assembly in 346/5 BC that the meeting took place in the city (he alleges that Euboulides rigged the voting on him so that it took place late in the day, when most demesmen had left for their homes in the country, 10). Remarkably this is the only firm evidence for the location of an Attic deme Assembly (see however I Eleusis 85, l. 28; IG II² 1180, ll. 13-14). We do not know, therefore, how common it was for demes to meet in the city. Despite this inconvenience, for some members, in the Assembly's location, the level of attendance at the Assembly was quite high (73 of the 80-85 deme members were sworn in on the first day of proceedings, and the remaining 10 or so appeared on the second day). This is not perhaps surprising given the importance of the business to all members, but is an index of the genuinely "democratic" character of deme meetings nonetheless. For indications that attendance at deme Assemblies might sometimes be rather lower, see IG I³ 250, ll. 11-14 with n. 3.

(d) Inscription of the Decree in the Deme's Registers/Archive (Koina Grammateia). Uniquely among extant deme decrees, the decree of Halimous honouring Charisandros provides for it to be inscribed not only on a stone stele, but also in the deme's register or archive (koina grammateia) (ll. 20-21). The same term is used for the register of this deme at Dem. 57.60, cf. 26, where loss of the register was the occasion for an earlier diapsephisis of deme members. A papyrus archive, as it were "minutes" of the deme, seems intended, mirroring the archive in the Metroon in which copies of the city's decrees were entered (J. Sickinger, Public Records and Archives, 1999, 114-22; Aischin. 2.89, Dem. 19.129; 25.90; Lyk. 1.66; Dein. 1.86, cf. IALD II, 43, 48-9, 53, 57-60). We hear about deme registers more frequently as registers of deme members, in which context they are usually referred to as the lexiarchikon grammateion (on this see Whitehead, Demes, 97-104); and the references to the koina grammateia in Dem. 57 are also in this context. The earlier loss of this deme's register goes some way to explaining the decision to make an entry in it for the decree for Charisandros; one imagines that such entries in the "minutes" were a consequence of a tidying up of record-keeping procedures following the earlier incident. It would also seem relevant that this was a deme in which inscribed versions of decrees might be maliciously erased (the fate allegedly suffered by the decree honouring Euxitheos himself, Dem. 57.64); in such a deme it was clearly prudent to ensure there was a backup copy of the deme's decrees in the archive.

Tensions over membership of this deme resurfaced in the Lykourgan period, when Agasikles was prosecuted for being admitted as a demesman while being the son of a public slave and a public slave himself, Deinarchos F16 Conomis, cf. Hypereides 4 Eux. 3, Humphreys, Kinship, 927 with n. 23.

The dysfunctional impression of this deme created by the literary evidence is in part doubtless a consequence of the antagonism that was a concomitant of the forensic genre, but there is one feature of the deme that would seem to help explain it, i.e. an apparent mismatch between the small number and limited resources of deme members, individually and collectively, and the extent of the duties that they were obliged to undertake in support the deme's wide range of common activities. It is illuminating to compare this deme with the city deme of Kollytos, which had the same bouleutic quota of 3, but was much more affluent, SEG 58.108, with notes.

Added: 12 Dec 2022
Updated: 24 Feb 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_2589