It is a pleasure and a duty for the authors to acknowledge their indebtedness to a number of friends. Professor Campbell Bonner, of the University of Michigan, very kindly read a first draft of the whole and a second draft of Nock's part, greatly to the advantage of the paper. Professor Benjamin D. Meritt of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, came to our aid, when consulted, with his usual courtesy; and so did our colleagues at Harvard, Professors Joshua Whatmough, George H. Chase, Werner Jaeger, John Finley, Sterling Dow, and Dr. Herbert Bloch. Ferguson is specifically indebted to Professor Dow for writing Appendix 3, and Nock to Dr. Francis R. Walton for helpful criticism.

¹ Two cases are known of non-Athenian orgeones, one from Megara (IG VII 33, dated by Dittenberger on the basis of spelling “before imperial times”) and the other from Teos (Michel, Recueil, 1307, ca. 150 B.C.). Though in each case the name is due in part to restorations, the restorations are not improbable. In IG VII 33 the name heads a list of four persons, in Michel, 1307, it appears in one of fourteen crowns cut on a grave monument. I am inclined to believe that we have to do with borrowings from Athens (cf. Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens, 15); but the use of the word in a non-specialized sense by the poets (cf. Appendix 1) may explain its appearance outside Attica in these late texts.

² Thiasos occurs in a poem (IG II² 2948), and its use there is determined by poetic diction and the exigencies of meter (cf. Poland, 10). It is, however, found in the unpublished inscription referred to on p. 93.

³ Νόμιμα (νομιζόμενα below) could hardly be used in the narrower sense of “funeral rites” when coupled with ὀργιάζειν (Nock). The word occurs only once in the official records of the orgeones. In the poem inscribed on a stele set up in the shrine of the Dionysiastai (below, 116) we find τὸ σέβειν, Βάκχε, τὰ σοὶ νόμιμα (IG II² 2948). Here the word means anything but funeral rites.

⁴ See Appendix 1.

⁵ The Mss. Readings (ἢ ἱερῶν ὀργίων ἢ ναῦται, F. Μηνυταί appears in BS instead of ἢ ναῦται) have neither sense nor syntax. The restoration ἢ ὀργεῶνες ἢ γεννῆται (Wilamowitz, Ant. v. Karystos, 278; Busolt, Griech. Gesch. II², 117) takes no account of ἱερῶν. Mommsen's text ἱερῶν ὀργίων θύται does justice to the idea that the corruption involved three words; but can γεννῆται have been absent in the law? We may also ask whether ἱερῶν is not redundant with ὀργίων. Ὀργίων is itself objectionable (cf. below, p. 131). Seleukos, as we have seen, brings περὶ ἥρωας into close connection with ὀργεῶνες. I therefore propose the emendation incorporated in my text. It simply regards ἱερῶν as a corruption of ἡρώων and in other respects follows Wilamowitz. In fact the native Attic orgeones were preponderantly, if not exclusively, ἡρώων ὀργεῶνες. Poland's distinction (212) between Heroen im engerem Sinne — vergötterte Sterbliche — and die schlichte Götter of orgeonic cult, though correct in substance, would mislead if it withheld from die schlichte Götter the name heroes. Our oldest orgeonic record concerns a cult of “the hero and the Heroines” (no. (1) below, p. 73). Nock would like to insert ἢ θεῶν after ἡρώων. The emendation of De Sanctis (Atthis², 67, n. 1) transposing ἱερῶν ὀργων ἢ ναῦται from its position in the Mss. to a position after θιασῶται, is rightly rejected by Guarducci (Riv. di Fil. 1935, 333): it makes θιασῶται comprehend θιασῶται, ὀργεῶνες, and γεννῆται, if it does not omit γεννῆται altogether. Her own suggestion is ἱερῶν ὀργίων (συ)ν(θ)ύται, which is a trifle closer to the Mss. than Mommsen's θύται, but is open to the same objections. P. J. T. Endenburg (Koinoonia en Gemeenschap van Zaken bij de Grieken in den klassieken Tijd, Utrecht Diss. 1937, 163 ff.) suggests κοινωνοί in place of Mommsen's θύται, but this does not help; and, in general, his idea that the various κοινωνίαι cited by Aristotle in his Ethics (Nicomachean, 1160a 14 ff., Eudemian, 1241b 24) are simply the Solonian associations differently named, is too far-fetched.

Τινἐς is commonly inserted in the text after διαθῶνται; but a partitive genitive as subject is so common in Greek that I believe, with Adolf Wilhelm, Oester. Jahresh. XIV, 211; cf. Busolt, Griech. Staatskunde, I 192, n. 4, that it may be understood without being present. I take it that the statute envisaged two sets of reciprocal arrangements, one of two or more of the groups, and another of the members of a single group.

⁶ In 363/62 B.C. a provision of the fourth century code is said to be ἐκ κύρβεων (cf. Ferguson, Hesperia, VII, 5, 87; L. Holland, AJA 1941, 346 ff.).

⁷ Excavations conducted on the west slope of the Akropolis in the shrine belonging prior to 420/19 to the orgeones of Amynos (see below, p. 87) have shown that the precinct was in use in Pisistratid and pre-Pisistratid times (A. Koerte, Ath. Mitt. XVIII, 1893, 231 ff., XXI, 1896, 288 f., 308 f.); cf. below, Appendix 1.

⁸ In view of the many incidents of the period 412–403 B.C. which may have prompted Philochoros to cite the law it is perhaps foolish to fix upon one; but the decision made when the Thracians were authorized to become orgeones without becoming phrateres, involving, as it did, a definite alteration or infraction of the Solonian law, created an incident which an Atthidograph might be expected to discuss. In such a discussion he could hardly fail to quote the pertinent section of the code.

⁹ Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und Athen, II 260ff.; Ferguson, Class. Phil. 1910, 257 ff.; Wade-Gery, Class. Quart. 1925, 131 ff.; Guarducci, Riv. di Fil. 1935, 336 ff., and Mem. d. Accad. d. Lincei, Cl. d. Sc. Mor. VI, 6, 1937.

¹⁰ The Speeches of Isaeus, 251.

¹¹ By reading into the text of the second Athenian law quoted above, p. 65, something that it does not contain, namely that orgeones and gennetai were admitted to the phratries en bloc, scholars have reached the erroneous conclusion that there were two kinds of orgeones, one private (as in Isaeus, II 14), and the other public; cf. Wyse, l.c. and Bruck, Totenteil und Seelgerät, 240. It has been assumed by Bruck and Guarducci (Riv. di Fil. l.c.) that the two genê and two thiasoi of IG II² 2723 (ca. 350 B.C.) were units of a single association because they advanced money on the security of the same piece of property. On the same basis, however, we should be forced to subordinate to a larger whole the Kekropidai, Lykomidai, and Phlyeis of IG II² 2670 — which is impossible.

¹² A third passage in Isaeus (IX, 30) calls for a word of explanation. It runs: καὶ εἰς τοὺς θιάσους τοὺς Ἡρακλέους ἐκεῖνον [αὐτὸν] εἰσἡγαγεν ( ὁ πατὴρ ἐμὸς) ἵνα μετέχοι τῆς κοινωνίας. αὐτοὶ δ᾽ ὑμῖν οἱ θιασῶται μαρτυρήσουσιν. The incident of the introduction is reported by the speaker for the purpose of proving the long-standing intimacy of his father with the alleged testator (Astyphilos, his step-son, the speaker's half-brother): in the other two cases the incidents are reported and the testimony of the witnesses presented to the court with a view to establishing the reality of adoptions. In other words the thiasotai of Isaeus, IX 30 were competent witnesses on the matter at issue whether they were staid citizens or roisterers; a “roving soldier” like Astyphilos was more apt to feel at ease with the latter than with the former.

A κοινὸν θιασωτῶν of Herakles (IG II² 2343, early fourth cent. B.C.) is known from an inscription cut on a trapeza. It consisted of 15 members and a priest of Herakles. This may be a group (or one of two or more groups) such as that to which Astyphilos was introduced. In all probability such groups were associated with many of the temples of Herakles in Attica (cf. e.g. Theophr. Char. XXVII 5). The scene of Aristophanes' Daitaleis was set in a temple of Herakles. “On y célébrait un festin, sans doute à la suite du sacrifice, puis des choeurs de danse. Le thiase d'Héraclès, cité par Isée, n'était peut-être pas autre chose” (Foucart, Assoc. relig. 153). Suidas, s.v. Δαιταλεῖς says: δαιτυμὁνες καὶ θιασῶται καὶ συμπόται. Cf. Hesychius, s.v. θιασῶνες· οἶκοι ἐν οἷς συνιόντες δειπνοῦσιν οἱ θίασοι. Cf. also Diod. IV 241, 6, and below, Appendix 2.

Modern editors have taken exception to θιάσους, and Sauppe, followed by Wyse (cf. 643), has replaced it with θιασὡτας, others with θίασον. I think with Forster (Loeb Classics) that no change is required. It seems to me likely that Harpocration had a text which contained τοὺς θιάσους. He cites Isaeus specifically to show that the members of thiasoi (τῶν θιάσων) were called thiasotai. He also cites Demos. XVIII 260 (cf. XIX 199). There θιάσους appears and thence he draws the definition that a thiasos was τὸ ἀθροιζὀμενον πλῆθος ἐπί τελετῇ καὶ τιμῇ θεῶν. “a throng assembled to render worship and honor to gods.” τελετῇ is Demosthenic. If θιάσους in Isaeus is taken to imply, as it does in Demosthenes, an organized throng, Sauppe's objection (Ausgew. Schr. 788) falls to the ground. Θίασος often means an association or club. Its plural in this sense would be a group of clubs, and it may be, as Ziehen (Leges sacrae, II 1 33 n.) maintains, that the plural is so used in IG II² 1177, ὅπως ἀν μηδεὶς —— θιά[σους] συνάγει (συνάγειν means to “found,” cf. IG II² 1297, l. 4; 1322, l. 1); but in this awkwardly constructed sentence θιά[σους] occurs in a sequence of plurals and may mean simply “a thiasos.” In his speech against Phryne Euthias declared (Sauppe, Fr. Or. Gr. II 320): ἐπεδείξα τοίνυν ὑμῖν ἀσεβῆ Φρύνην, κωμἀσασαν ἀναιδῶς, καινοῦ θεοῦ εἰσηγήτριαν, θιάσους ἀνδρῶν ἐκθέσμους καὶ γυναικῶν συναγαγοῦσαν. Athenaeus employs τοὺς θιάσους where we should have expected θιασωτικά: τά τε φυλετικὰ δεῖπνα καὶ τὰ δημοτικὰ προσέταξαν, ἔτι δὲ τοὺς θιάσους καὶ τὰ φρατρικὰ καὶ πάλιν τὰ ὀργεωνικὰ λεγὁμενα. By following his lead we might justify τοὺς θιάσους = “banquets” in Isaeus, but probably it is better, in so doing, to follow the lead of Harpokration and the example of Demosthenes. If θίασον had stood in the text we should expect κοινοῦ instead of κοινωνίας.

The definition of thiasos given by Hesychios (χοροῦ σύστασις; θιασῶται = χορευταί) may reflect uses of the word in the Athenian poets, Euripides (Bacch. 680), and Aristophanes (Frogs 156), quoted by Poland, 16 ff. where θιάσους may be translated “bands.” Thiasoi = “throng of banqueters” are as intelligible in the cult of Herakles as thiasoi = “throng of bacchanals” in the cult of Dionysos. P. Roussel (Isaée, Discours, 171, n. 1) puts the matter tersely when he says: “Ce dieu, grand buveur et grand mangeur, était le patron désigné de sociétés dont l'existence se manifestait sans doute surtout par des banquets.” The text quoted from Isaios shows that the members of these thiasoi were called thiasotai.

¹³ See below, p. 105 f.

¹⁴ The νομοθέται who are said by Athenaeus (V, 185 c, cf. n. 12) to have ordained “the so-called” orgeonic feasts are to be taken as “law givers” in general — the εὑρεταί of legislation. The passage gives no warrant for supposing that the code of Solon (Athens) required the orgeones to give “feasts.”

¹⁵ In the ancient decree he is nameless. In the early third century he is Echelos. The chances are that if he had had a name at the time of the ancient decree he would have got it in a text of this sort. Echelos, paired with Iasile and associated with other heroes, heroines and higher deities (IG II² 4545–4548) had a cult in Echelidai near Phaleron; and the most probable explanation of his appearance in a text cut on a stele found on the Areopagus is that the koinon of orgeones of the Hero consisted of people who lived in Echelidai near the Hippodrome (cf. Milchhöfer, PW V, 1911; Walter, Eph. Arch. 1937, 97 ff.; Ferguson, Hesperia, 1938, 25 f.; Meritt, Hesperia, 1942, 284 ff.), and assembled for joint sacrifices with the orgeones of the Heroines in a hieron which belonged primarily to the latter and was situated in the asty near the locale of Kalliphanes.

¹⁶ Beginning at this point the text translated runs as follows: [ν|έμειν] δὲ τὰ κρέα τοῖς {οις} ὀργεῶσι τοῖς παροῦσι καὶ τοῖ[ς ὑ|οῖς τὴν] εἰς ἡμίσεαν καὶ ταῖς γυναιξὶ ταῖς τῶν ὀργεώ[ν|ων ἃν ἦι β]ọῦς, ταῖς ἐλευθέραις τὴν ἰσαίαν καὶ ταῖς θυγ[α|τράσι τὴν εἰς ἡμί]σεαν καὶ ἀκολοὑθωι μιᾶι τὴν εἰς ἡμ[ί|σεαν· παραδοῦναι δὲ τ]ῶι ἀνδρὶ τῆς γυναικὸς τὴν με|[ρίδα]. The only restoration which calls for comment is the conditional clause [ἂν ἦι β]ọῦς in line 20. Meritt fills this lacuna with [μετ᾽ αὐτ]ọύς, which must mean that, after the orgeones and the sons received their portions, the apportionment to the women began. The position of [μετ᾽ αὐτ]ọύς seems to me difficult: we should expect it before ταῖς γυναιξἰ. A further difficulty is that the stone has not room at the beginning of line 20 for six letters after ὀργεών|ων and before ọ, one of which is mu and none an iota. The excess is at least one letter and probably more (see Dow, Appendix 3, below, p. 135). The restoration suggested by me (4½ spaces) fits nicely. In any case [μετ᾽ αὐτ]ọῦς is otiose since the order of listing the recipients of portions is ordinarily the order of apportioning, cf. F. Puttkammer, Quo modo Graeci victimarum carnes distribuerint, p. 58; and even though the substitution of ὀργέων for ὀργεώνων (below, p. 82), against which the form ὀργεῶσι weighs heavily, would make [μετ᾽ αὐτ] ọυς epigraphically possible, it should, I think, be rejected. Otherwise the “ancient decree” does not contain a single redundant word.

The restoration [ ἂν ἦι β] ọῦς makes the distributions of meat to the womenfolk contingent on the size of “the full-grown animal” sacrificed to the Hero. (For γαλαθηνός = “suckling” contrasted with τελέον = “full-grown” rather than “perfect” — all victims had to be perfect — see IG II² 1361; Ziehen, Leges Sacrae II 1, 41, p. 117 n.; cf. Ditt. Syll. 601², 31 = 1015³ and 615², 35 = 1024³: τέλειον καὶ δέκα [ἄρ]νες]. If a definite animal had been required it would have been named. How wide a latitude in the choice of sacrificial animals was permissible may be seen from Ziehen, no. 119). If a sheep or a goat were the utmost that the funds at the disposal of the Host allowed him to purchase without exceeding the revenue, the yield of flesh would, it is assumed with my restoration, have sufficed to provide portions for the orgeones and their sons alone. There would have been nothing for the women. A contingency of sacrifice of this sort accords with Attic and Greek usage. Thus in IG I² 190 (ca. 420 B.C.), a badly broken table of sacrifices and priestly perquisites, we find hιέρεια λαμβα[νέτο] ---, [ἐὰ]ν δὲ βôς θυέται, σάρ[κας --], while in a lex sacra of Ceos (Ditt. Syll. 522² = 958³) it is ordained θύειν δὲ τὸμ μὲν βοῦν βεβληκότα, τὴν δὲ οἶν βεβληκ[υ]ῖαν. ἂν δέ τι καὶ ὑαμινὸν θύηι, μἠ πρεσβύτερον ἐνιαυσίου καὶ ἑγμ[ή]νου. Similarly in a Milesian inscription of ca. 400 B.C. (Ditt. Syll.³ 1002) we have ἢν δὲ [βôν] ἔρ[δη]ι, δύο κρέα, κτλ. Nor is it contrary to Greek practice to make special provision for the distribution of the flesh of oxen included with other animals in a sacrifice. Thus a Delphian decree (Ditt. Syll. 281² = 604³) reports of two theori that θυσἰαν συνετέλεσαν τῶι θεῶι ἑκατόμβαν βούπρω[ιρον, καὶ] δωδεκαίδα βούπρωιρον τᾶι Ἀθάναι, καἱ τἁ κρέα τᾶμ βοῶν διένειμαν τοῖς πολ[ίταις]. Cf. also Hesperia, VII 3, l. 33.

The space does not permit the restoration [ἂν θυῆται β]ọῦς, even if we should substitute ὀργέων for ὀργεώνων. Parallels for ἂν ἦι βοῦς probably abound. Nock has given me three [Demosth.] XLIII 57: ἐὰν μὲν πατὴρ ᾖ ἢ ἀδελφὸς ἢ υἱεῖς --- ἐὰν δὲ τούτων μηδεὶς ᾖ; P. Oxy. 744 = Hunt-Edgar, Select Papyri, I 294, 105:ἐὰν πολλ πολλῶν τέκῃς, ἐὰν ἦν (sic) ἄρσενον, ἄφες, ἐὰν ἦν θήλεα, ἔκβαλε Exodus I 16: ὅταν μαιοῦσθε τὰς Ἑβραίας καὶ ὦσι πρὸς τῷ τἱκτειν, ἐὰν μὲν ἄρσεν ᾖ, ἀποκτείνατε αὐτό, ἐὰν δὲ θῆλυ, περιποιεῖσθε αὐτό.

¹⁷ The phrase τὴν εἰς ἡμίσεαν is translated by Meritt “a half share.” The Greek for “half share” would, however, be τὴν ἡμίσεαν or τὸ ἥμισυ. Cf. Athen. IV 143 c, e, from which we learn that the juniors, i.e. sons, received half portions at the Cretan public mess. The εἰς carries the notion of “up to and including,” “to the extent of”; cf. Aristoph. Thesmo. 452: ὥστ᾽ οὐκέτ᾽ ἐμπολῶμεν οὐδ᾽ εἰς ἥμισυ. Theoph. Char. XXIII 8: ἱματισμὸν ζητῆσαι εἰς δύο τάλαντα. Polyb. XXX 25 7 = XXXI 3: οὗτοι δὲ ἦσαν εἰς χιλίους. The use of this phrase, τὴν εἰς ἥμἰσεαν, to define the portion to be given ἀκολούθωι μιᾶι shows that μιᾶι must mean one per matron, i.e., one per family. If it meant as Meritt (287) assumes, one maid-servant and only one, her portion would have been defined precisely, since she would have to be a definite person attached to the orgeones as a whole. Τὴν εἰς ἡμίσεαν implies a plurality of receivers. It seems to me doubtful whether ἐλεύθεραι would have been used if there were only one ἀκόλουθος.

¹⁸ Meritt writes (287, n. 28): “The primary meaning of ἐλευθέραις here in line 20 seems to be ‘independent’; the dative form depends on ἰσαίαν. ” He takes ταῖς ἐλευθέραις to be “women who were orgeones of their own right” as distinct from “the wives of the male orgeones.” It seems, however, perfectly clear that only adult males were orgeones. I take γυναιξί to mean, not wives, but the women (of the orgeaones) generally as, for example, in Plato, Phaed., 116B, 117D; Ditt. Syll.² 552, 46 = Syll.³ 695; 589, 45 = Syll.³ 1004 (cf. Aristoph. Peace, 962ff.). They get κρέα only when the animal sacrificed is an ox. The portions are then specified for the several classes of women, αἱ ἐλεύθεραι, αἱ θυγατέρες, and αἱ ἀκόλουθοι. Excluding the second and third classes, at αἱ ἐλεύθεραι comprise the wives, widows, and spinsters (possibly aunts and married daughters) of the orgeonic families. The choice of ἐλεύθεραι as the designation of this class was probably prescribed by the wish to distinguish it from the ἀκόλουθοι, who were commonly, though not always, slaves (Westermann, PWK Suppl. VI 913 f.). It would exclude hetairai, as it does in Athen. XIII, 571 D. But in Theophr. Char. XI 2 γυναιξὶν έλευθέραις means simply “respectable women” as does γυναῖκας ἐλευθέρας in Theopompus (Jacoby, FGH II B 115, 143); and in Menander (Frg. 546, Kock) ἐλευθέρᾳ γυναικί may be translated with propriety “lady”; cf. A. W. Gomme, Essays in Greek History and Literature, 99; in Plato, Laws, 937 A, as often, γυναικὶ ἐλευθέρᾳ is contrasted with δούλῃ καὶ δούλῳ. The name εὐγενεῖς was not available since it was appropriate primarily for the womenfolk of gennetai (cf. Roussel, Mélanges Bidez, 819ff.; Hesperia, 1938, 51 ff.). An instructive parallel to our text is to be found in IG XII 5, 667, a document from Syros, ante 251 A.D.: γυναιξὶ δὲ καὶ παρθένοις ἐλευθέραις πάσαις καὶ ταῖς τῶν στεφανηφόρων θεραπαινίσιν - - - κρέως χοιρείου (λιτρ.) ά (cf. id. 659, 663, 665 and F. Puttkammer, 54 ff.).

¹⁹ Τῇ δὲ ἐνάτῃ· καὶ ἀπὀ τῆς ὀσφύος καὶ τῆς πεμπάδος ἢν ἴσχοσιν στεφανηφόροι, τούτων προλαγχάνει τὰ ἰσα ὁ νέος. As Wilamowitz pointed out (S. B. Preuss. Akad. 1904, 623 f.), ἰσα = Attic ἰσαῖα. He defines it ἐπʼ ἴσῃ καὶ ὁμοίᾳ. Hesychius (s. v.) says: μερίς. οἱ δέ, ἀγαθὴ καὶ ἴση μοῖρα. Of its connotation Wilamowitz remarks: “Darin liegt, dass es nicht dasselbe zu sein braucht, τὰ ἴδα, sondern gleichwertig.”

²⁰ The genitive in the phrase πρὀς τοῖς Καλλιφάνους could also be derived from Καλλιφανώ, an assumed heroine, the chief perhaps of the Heroines; but the closest analogy known to me, Χλόῃ παρὰ τὰ Μειδύλου (IG II² 1358, 49) makes the masculine preferable.

²¹ The probability is that it was consummated at the time the ancient decrees were enacted, i.e. ca. 450 B.C. Otherwise, why did the ancient decrees have such authority?

²² His deme, Plotheia, was one of the inland demes of Aigeis, located by Milchhoefer (P. W. II, 2203) north of Pentelikon near Ikaria. Of course he need not have lived in his deme.

²³ Isocrates (VII 29) affirms by clear implication that a heorte possessed superior attractiveness when it was accompanied by a hestiasis. The reunions of the orgeones of Echelos and the Heroines followed immediately after the national trieteric fête of the Synoikia which was celebrated on Hekatombaion 16th on the Akropolis (Class. Stud. Capps, 155). On the same day, beginning perhaps in 374 B.C., an annual sacrifice of something like 200 animals was made to Eirene (IG II² 1496, lines 94, 127). The orgeones (men only) of Echelos who came to the asty for these fêtes may have stayed over-night, for their own fête, in the temenos, which probably had at least one dwelling house.

²⁴ The orgeones of Egretes numbered from 12 to 30, those of Asklepios from Prospalta 16, and those of Dionysos 15. Cf. below, pp. 80, 91, 117.

²⁵ The orgeones of Egretes (below, p. 80) had “tables.” For the possible meanings of τράπεζα see n. 27. Here it may mean either mensa sacra or serving table.

²⁶ For male attendants (slaves) at the Mysteries see IG I² 6, 52; and others, possibly female, IG II² 4970 = Ziehen, Leges Sacrae, II 1, 20. Cf. id. 70, l. 3, Theophr. Char. IX 3, and above, n. 18. The practices envisaged in Theophr. Char. IX 3 and XXX 16 of getting more than one's share by collusion with one's slaves may explain why the portions of the maidservants were rationed.

²⁷ Τράπεζα means ordinarily in ritualistic records the mensa sacra on which were placed the offerings intended for the gods (cf. Aristoph. Plutus, 676 ff.); but in IG II² 1358 it means the mensa domestica on which, according to Ziehen, the portions assigned to the priests were placed. Here τράπεζαι must also mean mensae domesticae, but the viands placed on them must be those which the orgeones ate cf. Ziehen, 123 f., n. 5). Εἰς δύο τρίκλινα is, I take it, a definition of capacity. If the couches and tables were part of the permanent equipment of the shrine, κλίνας καὶ τραπέζας would have been preceded by the article and their capacity would not have needed to be a matter of contractual arrangement. For the seating capacity a τρίκλινον see PWK VII 1203 and 2^te Reihe, XIII 95; Blümner, The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks, 205. It is commonly stated that the Greeks ordinarily reclined two on a Kline, but Professor G. H. Chase informs me that “a series of vases of the late fifth century style certainly shows anywhere from two to five. There is a fairly good series published in E. M. W. Tillyard, The Hope Vases. For instance, Hope 152 (published on Plate 25) shows two; Hope 303 (= Tischbein, Collection of Engravings from Ancient Vases now in the Possession of Sir William Hamilton, III pl. 10) shows three men on a couch with a woman sitting on the end of it; Hope 165 (= Tischbein, II pl. 55) shows four; and Hope 154 (which is not published) is described as having five men on the couch” (cf. Cic. In Pis. 67). R. Zahn in Buschor, Furtwängler-Reichhold, Griech. Vasenmalerei, Series 3, p. 192, Abb. 96, has three persons on a couch. The number per Kline was probably less the more the occasion was formal or sumptuous (cf. Macrobius, Saturnalia, III 13, 11). The mensae sacrae were “grosse altarförmige massive Basen” (Stengel, Opferbräuche, 208, n. 1). It is to be noted that it was on the side of a τράπεζα of this description that No. (10) (below, p. 93) was cut.

²⁸ Instead of (καθ᾽) ἡμέρα[ν] in line 8 something else should be restored. The Arcadian peasant who, according to Delphi, excelled all others in piety wreathed and polished the images of Hermes and Hekate once a month (Theopompus, ap. Porphyr. De abst. II 16 = Jacoby, FGH II B 115, 344). The stone is lost. Rangabe's transcript shows ἡμέραι. Before ἡμέραι he read only ΛΛΛΙ. Probably we should restore ἄμα ἡμέραι, assuming that Rangabe read the top corners of mu as two letters and gave a space to the right upright of the second alpha.

²⁹ Orgeones were defendants in a suit in which Isaeus wrote the speech (cited several times by Harpokration) for the plaintiff. The action “appears to have been concerned with the possession of a piece of land”; Forster in Loeb Classics, 456; Thalheim, Frg. 112–113. They also figured in some way or other in a process regarding an inheritance so as to be mentioned by Lysias in the speech which he wrote for one of the litigants (Harpokration s. v. ὀργέων). Perhaps they were called on to give evidence as to legitimacy of birth or adoption.

³⁰ The only instance of the singular found in the inscriptions.

³¹ The submission of the case to arbitrators and the measures taken to insure execution of their findings suggest that it was thought possible to dispose of the property of an association of orgeones and thus, perhaps, disband the association itself.

³² Nock noticed that ἐξηγητἠς has the required number of letters. I think, however, that an exegetes had no place in this transaction. The content of the prohibition had just been formulated in an arbitral decision. There was nothing to expound. The Goddess appears in propria persona because she had been declared the owner of the property which the interdict was designed to protect. Once the priest is excluded — the name ἱερεύς is too short for the space — the proper person to be associated with her in a prohibition addressed to the orgeones was the chief executive official of the association which administered her property. That was the hestiator. I do not think that we have to imagine, as in the case, for example, of the prostagmata of non-Greek deities, an epiphany of the Goddess in a dream or vision. She appears in the text simply as a property owner.

³³ Poland (352), following Koerte (l.c., 297), wrongly identifies a public priest of Asklepios (IG II² 4457, second half of second century B.C.) as a priest of the orgeones of Amynos, Asklepios, and Dexion; cf. Dinsmoor, Archons of Athens, 288. IG II² 4385 and 4424 (as well as 4457) record votive offerings to Amynos.

³⁴ Despite the hesitation of v. Blumenthal (PWK 2^te Reihe V 1044 f.) and Wilamowitz (Glaube der Hellenen, II 224 f.) and the refusal of E. Schmidt (Ath. Mitt. 1913 73 ff.) Fr. Pfister (Der Reliquienkult im Altertum, 121 n. 434) and Otto Kern (Rel. d. Hellenen, II 314, n. 1) to accept Koerte's substitution of ΑΜΥΝΟΥ for the Mss. reading ΑΛΝΟΣ, I think that the change is sustained by the weight of the facts and presents no real palaeographical difficulties. Sophocles is certainly connected with Amynos. It is most unlikely that he was simultaneously priest of another, potentially rival, Asklepian hero, of whom, moreover, there is no trace among the many ex-votos found in the Amyneion and the Asklepieion in Athens. In an unfamiliar proper name some copyist misread μυ as λω (an easy enough thing to do, cf. GGA 1903, 843), preserving a six letter word; and no later copyist knew enough to suspect an error. What might happen is shown by what did happen in an analogous case. Θεόδοτος Διοδώρου Σουνιεὐς (IG II² 1011, 106/05 B.C.; cf. Ferguson, Hell. Ath. 426; John Day, An Economic History of Athens under Roman Domination, 86 f.) became, through a scribal error, Θεοδόσιος (var. Διονύσιος) Θεοδώρου Σουνιεύς in the Attic decree of the same year transmitted by Josephus, Antiq. Jud. XIV 8, 5, and the name of the secretary, Εὐκλῆς Ξενάνδρου Αἰθα[λίδη]ς, became Εὐκλῆς Μενάνδρου Ἁλιμούσιος.

³⁵ Cf. also Foucart, Le culte des Héros chez les grecs, 121 ff., 125, and Walton, F. R., Harvard Studies in Class. Phil. XLVI (1935), 170 ff.Google Scholar The hieron of Dexion was, I think, a memorial chapel. It was constructed, according to our best source, the Vita of Sophocles (11) (cf. Jahn-Michaelis, Sophoclis Electra, 1 ff.), by Iophon, his son, with the concurrence necessarily of the orgeones (cf. IG II² 1326). The Etym. Mag. s.v. Δεξίων reports (φασίν) that “the Athenians” constructed a heroon for Sophocles and named him Dexion, and Istros mentions a decree passed by them ordaining the offering of a sacrifice (θεύιν) to him every year (FHG I, p. 425). It is probable in the case of the lexicographer, and intelligible in the case of Istros, a non-Athenian who can hardly be expected to have had personal familiarity with the jurisdiction of the orgeones and is responsible for several erroneous statements in the Vita of Sophocles, that an enactment of the association was conceived to be an act of the Athenian state. Sophocles was buried in the tomb of his ancestors on the road to Deceleia, eleven stades from the wall of the city (Vita, 15). That, if anywhere, was the place for a heroon; but our report is so circumstantial that it seems excluded that he received heroic honors at his tomb; and a public heroizing of the poet at the time of his death is incredible both on general grounds and in view of the negative evidence of Aristophanes' Frogs. Foucart (125) seems to me to have interpreted the transaction correctly: “Il était donc impossible aux Orgéons d'installer dans leur chapelle un Héros apellé Sophocle. Ils eurent l'idée, me semble-t-il, de le dédoubler et de tirer de lui une personnalité fictive qu'ils désignèrent, comme on le fit souvent pour les Héros, non par son nom, mais par un surnom. Et ce surnom, Δεξίων, le montrait accomplissant l'acte de piété le plus glorieux pour lui-même et pour la confrérie, l'accueil fait à une divinité nouvelle venue à Athènes.” In the Greek cult of the Ptolemies the deified rulers were defined by their epithets as Soteres, Euergetai, Philadelphoi, etc., Alexander the Great alone being a god in his own name (Wilcken, GGA 1895 141 n. 1). Fr. Pfister (Reliquienkult, 121 n. 435) rejects the interpretation of Dexion given by Etym. Mag. (ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ δεξιώσεως), and substitutes for it one of his own, “natürlich hat der Heilgott seinen Namen nach der heilenden rechten Hand.” This gesture of the outstretched right hand was, however, too constant a feature of the iconography of Greek deities (cf. e.g. below, 102, 109, n. 52) to be name-giving for any one of them.

³⁶ The Eleusinion was situated on the north-west slope of the Acropolis (Wachsmuth, PW V 2335; Shear, Hesperia, VIII, 207; IX 268). It had been enclosed so completely that in 431 B.C. it could be kept free from refugees (Thucy. II 17, 1). Thus its delimitation (ὁρισμός)was effected much earlier than 420 B.C. The Eleusinion cannot have had frontier troubles in 419 B.C. We have nothing but the counter-claim of the Kerykes to the site ([τô χ]ωρίο, IG II 4960, l. 15) projected for the Asklepieion to lead us to suppose (cf. Hiller, IG I², p. 293; Wilamowitz, Glaube der Hellenen, II 223) that the partisans of Asklepios proposed to encroach on, i.e., take a portion of, the Eleusinion for the new god. That is not enough. The Kerykes may easily have contested his establishment in the area on the south slope of the Acropolis in which the Asklepieion was constructed for good, though unknown, reasons. Since the Asklepieion was initially a private hieron (cf. Robert Schlaifer, Harv. Stud. Class. Phil. 1940, 240; Class. Phil. 1943, 40, n. 13), equipped largely, if not exclusively, by Telemachos at his own expense, the Kerykes may have represented simply the public interest. In Rome Asklepios was brought from Epidaurus in 293 B.C. because of a pestilence (Livy Epit. XI). The background for his importation by Athens was undoubtedly the Great Plague, the occasion the Peace of Nikias, which gave again to the Athenians access to Epidauros between 421 and 419 B.C. It is conceivable that there were Athenians who thought that a shrine in the Piraeus was sufficient; but it is intelligible that others, mindful of the horrors of 430–427 B.C., thought it wise to leave nothing undone to secure the aid of the god of healing. The Kerykes were necessarily participants in the action taken (by the state?) in establishing the Epidauria, a fête intercalated in the middle of the Great Mysteries to celebrate the day (fixed as Boedromion 18) of Asklepios' arrival in the Eleusinion; and, regarding this outstanding public recognition as completely adequate, they may have sought to head off projects for founding private hiera of the god in the asty. From ancient times there were many little shrines and altars of gods and heroes on the slopes of the Acropolis (Broneer, Hesperia, II 346, 415 ff., IV 118 ff., VIII 428). The stretch west of the theatre of Dionysos can hardly have been an exception (cf. Judeich, Top. von Athen,² 320, n. 3). In it were two springs (IG I² 874, 875), and to it may have descended in ancient times a path from the top of the citadel. The Kerykes would doubtless have had specific grounds for intervention if an altar or shrine of Demeter, for example, existed in this area. We do not know at what moment the state took over the Asklepieion and created a public priesthood of Asklepios. It may have been at the time, whatever that is (post 412/11 B.C. in any case), at which the temple-chronicle of Telemachos ended. The earliest known public priest is dated by Pritchett and Meritt (The Chronology of Hellenistic Athens, 75) at about 360 B.C.

³⁷ In size, interlocking of families, and homonymity of names the rural thiasos of a phratry whose members, twenty in number, are catalogued in IG II² 2344 (cf. A. Koerte, Hermes, 37, 1902, 587; Ferguson, Class. Phil. 5, 1910, 257 ff. and Class. Stud. Capps, 157 n. 60; De Sanctis, Atthis², 59 n. 1; Premerstein, Ath. Mitt. 35, 113) is strikingly like this association of orgeones. The essential difference is that the thiasos had Zeus and Athena as its patrons; these orgeones, like all others, did not. Thiasoi of the Demotionidai might contain, on occasion, fewer than three members (IG II² 1237, lines 76 ff.). Gennetai, on the other hand, who lacked any tie of real kinship (cf. Ferguson, Hesperia, VII, 23 f., and, in addition to the records there cited, [Demosth.] LIX 61), disclose no such interlocking of families or homonymity of names.

³⁸ Zeus “on the heights” (Epakrios) is mentioned in a fragment of the Comedian Polyzelos (Kock, CAF I, p. 791; cf. Etym. Mag. 352, 50). He had altars on Hymettos and Parnes, where there were altars of Zeus Ombrios also (Paus. I 32 2); cf. A. B. Cook, Zeus, II 873 2, n. 1, Rodney Young, AJA, 1940 1 ff. Altars of Zeus Ombrios stood in the Athenian agora in Roman times; Raubitschek, Hesperia, XII 72 f. Logically Zeus Ombrios could be worshipped anywhere but Zeus Epakrios only on “the heights.” For the suggested completion of lines 2 f. cf. Paton-Hicks, Inscr. of Cos, no. 382, p. 270: τῷ κοινῷ τῶν συμπορευομένων παρὰ Δ[ιὰ Ὑ]έτιον, and BCH 1935, 478: τοὺς [ἀναβαί]νοντας εἰς Ἑλικώνιον; also Herakleides, Descriptio Graeciae, II 8 = Müller, GGM I 107.

³⁹ The demarch of the Piraeus, unlike the demarchs of the other demes of Attica, was a public official selected by lot from the citizens generally (Arist. Ath. Pol. 54, 8). His authority was correspondingly wide.

⁴⁰ Trans. by Shorey, Loeb Classics.

⁴¹ Scholion on Plato, Republic, 327a.

⁴² Shorey, Loeb Classics, Introduction, viii. Cf., however, P.W. s.v. Bendideia. Deubner, Att. Feste, 220, fixes no date. The Bendideion was certainly there in 404/03 B.C. (Xen. Hell. II, 4, 11).

⁴³ Two records lack these criteria for assignment to one specific association, IG II² 1255 (337/36 B.C.) and 1256 (329/28 B.C.). If 1255 really concerns Bendis, as is probable, I should assign it to the citizens. The space in l. 2 is too long by one letter to permit us to restore Ὀλύμπου from IG II² 1284. On the other hand, there is a possible connection between IG II² 1255 and 1824. Thallos, secretary in 337/36 B.C., may be the father of Stephanos, epimeletes in the later document, if both are descendants of Stephanos son of Thallos of Lys. XIX 46; cf. Kirchner, P. A. 12883. IG II² 1255 honors three Athenian hieropoioi, οἱ ἐπὶ Φρυνίχου ἄρχοντος with a gold crown, because they had “well and loyally cared for the procession, the distribution of flesh, and all other affairs.” If these were the hieropoioi of the association, the association certainly consisted of citizens; if, as is more probable, they were three of the ten public hieropoioi (Arist. Ath. Pol. 54, 6), citizens would be more likely to command their services than Thracians. The receipt of a gold crown rather than the one of olive or oak normally conferred on the orgeonic officials suggests that the hieropoioi were public magistrates. IG II² 1496 does not make clear from which hieropoioi the dermatika (in 334/33 B.C. to the amount of 457 drachmas) came to the state annually after the time of Lycurgus, but it is commonly assumed, correctly, as I believe, that they were the public officials. All the dermatika obviously came from victims sacrificed by the state. The officials who handed over the dermatika were, I think, those who procured the animals: they may or may not have performed the sacrifices (cf., however, U. Kahrstedt, Untersuch. z. Magistratur in Athen, 289 f.).

⁴⁴ Since orgeones regularly kept rolls of their members (Isaeus, II 14; IG II² 2355, 1325), which they on occasion transcribed on stone tablets, the problem raised by line 2 of this text and discussed by Ziehen (II 1, 41, n.) concerns only the occasion which called for the stele in question. The names of the ἔκγονοι were not recorded on the stele, on which, however, new names were to be added as the new recruits contemplated were approved for admission to the association by the orgeones (lines 20 ff.).

⁴⁵ Since the Bendideia was a public fête the civic hieropoioi were concerned generally with its management; hence they had a care for the pompe (IG II² 1255). This, however, does not imply that non-orgeones marched in the procession. Three decrees of thiasotai of Bendis have been found on the island of Salamis at the same spot (IG II² 1317, 1317b, and SEG II 10). The formal meetings of this association were held, like those of the citizen orgeones in the Piraeus, on the second day of the month. This suggests that there was some connection between the islanders and the Athenian (rather than the Thracian) association in the harbor-town; in fact all three decrees from Salamis were passed on the first second day of the month after the Bendideia, i.e., Skirophorion. These decrees are all votes of honor to the officials of the thiasotai. It is conceivable that they had celebrated the Bendideia on the island at the regular time, the 19/20th of the preceding month; but it is also conceivable that they had taken part in the great celebration in the Piraeus. The association on Salamis differs not only in its name from those in the Piraeus but also in its organization, in that it was served by a priest, not by a priestess and priest. Its members were obviously non-citizens, and doubtless non-Thracians.

⁴⁶ Shorey's translation in Loeb Classics.

⁴⁷ Nineteenth of the lunar month.

⁴⁸ In Ath. Pol. all that Aristotle says is that no phrateres were dispossessed of membership in their respective phratries. In his Politics (1319b 20) he clearly implies that Kleisthenes increased the number both of phylae and phratries. The two statements are not contradictory. What seems contradictory is Kleisthenes' policy of manning new phratries with new citizens and his policy of fusing new elements and old in a common brotherhood. This contradiction becomes less flat if we assume, as we may, that many old citizens (thetes?) lacked registration in phratries in 507/06 B.C., so that the new phratries contained them as well as the νεοπολῖται. The division of the phratries, old and new, into thiasoi, themselves kin groups (cf. n. 37), would have brought it about that in many cases thiasoi of the old brotherhoods and the new were hardly distinguishable socially. Without dismembering or adulterating the existent phratries Kleisthenes could go no farther along this line in carrying out his policy of civic fusion. De Sanctis (Atthis², 58 ff.) is right in rejecting the view that the number of the phratries was ever fixed at twelve. His comment on my argument (Class. Phil. 1910, 271) is quite justified. The Aristotelian scheme which includes twelve phratries (Ath. Pol. frg. 3) purports to give the constitution of Ion, not the constitution of contemporary times. The number twelve is probably due to an unwarranted identification of phratries and old Attic trittyes, which were in fact twelve in number (Class. Stud. Capps, 151 ff.). We now know the names of eight phratries, the seven listed in the article just cited (154) and the Medontidai (above, No. (5). For the Etionidai see below, Appendix 2). There were doubtless many others. For the ruins of what was probably a phratrion, with a well-preserved inscribed altar of Zeus Phratrios and Athena Phratria, see Kyparisses and Thompson, Hesperia, VII 615 ff.

⁴⁹ Though the stone was found in the hieron from which the records of the orgeones have come (Foucart, Assoc. relig. 199), IG II² 1273 (284/83? B.C.) does not belong to them. It is a decree (two decrees rather) of thiasotai, not orgeones, and they were served, not by a priestess, but by a priest. The priest, moreover, held office for a half-year only, the calendar year being divided into two halves, one beginning with or in Boedromion, the month of the autumnal equinox, and other with or in Elaphebolion, the month of the vernal equinox. A semestral term of office is not without precedent: it existed for example in Delphi for the bouleutai and in Thessaly for tamiai (IG IX 2, Index, 315) and was apparently quite common throughout Greece (Arist. Pol. 1299a, 1308a). A term of office shorter than a year was doubtless more practical for an association of aliens whose business, when it was foreign trade, did not permit them to be in the Piraeus throughout the year. Even in the case of the orgeones the annual term of their treasurer entailed makeshifts (IG II² 1329, cf. below, p. 114). The plenary assembly of the thiasotai, for passing decrees and choosing officers, was held in Anthesterion, two months earlier than that of the orgeones (cf. Pritchett and Meritt, The Chronology of Hellenistic Athens, 91 ff.). “Les cérémonies de rite phrygien duraient du 15 au 27 mars” (Graillot, Le culte de Cybèle, 116). The vernal equinox (March 21) fell in their midst. The beginning of the semester of the thiasotai thus preceded the time of the chief fête of the Mother of the Gods while the ἀγορὰ κυρία of the orgeones followed it. Its officials were aliens, not citizens. In 284/83 B.C. it was this association which owned the hieron of the Mother of the Gods in Akte (IG II² 1273, ll. 7, 24, 31).

⁵⁰ See Appendix 4.

⁵¹ H. Thompson in Hesperia, VI, 1937, 205 ft., cf. William A. McDonald, The Political Meeting Places of the Greeks, 159 ff. Her cult statue, made apparently by Agorakritos, shows, however, that at a relatively early date she was so represented plastically as to be in fact an Atticized Kybele. Cf. von Salis, A., Jahrbuch, XXVIII, 1913, 1 ff.Google Scholar, 23. This image, which was famous in Roman times (Paus. I 3, 5; Pliny, Nat. Hist. XXXVI, 17; Arrian, Peripl. 9) had much influence on the subsequent iconography of the Mother of the Gods. There is, I believe, no trace of Attis in the civic cult. Could the presence of two images of the Mother in each of a considerable number of Attic naiskoi be a recognition (made at some one time perhaps and expressed in a doubled cult-image in a particular shrine) that the goddess was two in one? Cf. below, p. 138.

⁵² The thiasotai were building their oikos in 284 B.C.; cf. IG II² 1273. The earliest datable dedication in the hieron was made by Manes and Mika, apparently aliens, about the end of the fourth century B.C.: (IG II² 4609; cf. Conze, Arch. Zeitung, 38, 1 Taf. 2). This does not need to date the founding of the hieron earlier than 306 B.C. (cf. above, p. 67). For the transfer of the shrine to the orgeones see Appendix 4. The hieron was excavated in 1855 by le corps d'occupation français du Pirée. Louis Robert (BCH 1936, 206 f.) refers for the history of the dig to Michon, E., Buste de Mélitiné, prêtresse du Metrôon du Pirée (Musée du Louvre), Memoires de la Soc. Nat. des Antiquaires de France, 75 (1918), 5Google Scholar, Série 8, pp. 91–129, and, for a catalogue of the dedications taken from the shrine, to H. Graillot, Le culte de Cybèle, 507, n. (cf. Foucart, Assoc. relig. 199 ff.). Arranged in their chronological order, the inscriptions attached to these dedications are as follows: IG II² 4609, already commented on; 4687a, dated by the name of Glaukon, priestess of the orgeones in 214/13 B.C. (IG II² 1314), taken from a votive offering to Men; 2950/1, inscribed on a lustral basin given by Nikias, tamias (of the orgeones), and dated in the second century B.C.; 4696, from a dedication to Artemis Nana, and 4703, from a round marble altar, dated before the middle of the first century B.C.; 4714, dated in the archonship of Epikrates early in the principate of Augustus, from a dedication to “the Mother of the Gods accessible, healing, Aphrodite”; 4038, dated in the age of Augustus; 4760, dated in the first/second centuries A.D.; 4759, dated in the second century A.D.; 2887, dated by the name of the archon Philistides in 163/64 A.D. (Oliver, Hesperia, XI 86), from a dedication made by Melitine, an ex-priestess (of the orgeones) in the priesthood of Philemon, son of Praxiteles of Phlya, a well-known man; and 4814, dated in the second/third centuries A.D., from a dedication made by a paidagogos to Hermes Hegemon. There is also a lot of uninscribed votive offerings in Graillot's catalogue, notably terra cotta statuettes of the goddess, seated, with a lion on her lap or crouched at her side, and holding a patera in her right hand and a tympanon or a sceptre in her left. From IG II² 2887 we may infer that in 163/64 A.D. a public priest was associated with the priestess of the orgeones in the cult of the Mother of the Gods in the Piraeus. In other words, by that time the state had taken over the Metroon (cf. above, n. 36). There is a good chance that this step is connected with the transformance of the cult of the Mother of the Gods throughout the Roman Empire with which it can have synchronized, cf. Wissowa, Rel. u. Kultus d. Römer², 322 ff.

The bringing of Artemis Nana (cf. Foucart, Assoc. relig. 101) and Aphrodite into association with the Mother of the Gods calls for no comment. For dedications to Men and Hermes it will suffice to quote the following inscription from Rome (CIL VI 499 = Dessau, Inscr. lat. sel. 4147, 374 A.D.; cf. Robert, Mélanges Bidez, 802 f.): “Matri Deum Magnae Idaee summae parenti Hermae et Attidi Menotyranno invicto.”

⁵³ For the selecting of priestesses by lot from the womenfolk of an association see the record of the Salaminioi published in Hesperia, VII 1938, pp. 2ff., ll. 12 ff.; cf. pp. 50 ff. Neither in this instance nor in the one with which we are now concerned is it implied that the womenfolk were members of the association except insofar as they were such through being wives, sisters, daughters, etc. of members; cf. above, p. 75 ff. In IG II² 1328 II we have the phrase ταῖς τε ἱερείαις καὶ τοῖς ὀργεῶσιν. In a Coan document regulating the appointment of a priestess of Demeter (Ziehen, Leges sacrae, II 1, 132) it was provided that women absent at the time of allotment could be represented by their κύριοι. Normally the women themselves would have to draw the lots.

⁵⁴ On the known occasion they intervened to support a policy of the secretary of setting limits to the expenses to which the orgeones in general and they in particular were exposed (IG II² 1328 I and 1329).

⁵⁵ Poland (314) translates δημοτικοί “Demengenossen.” If demesmen had been meant δημόται. would have been used.

⁵⁶ Cf. Foucart, Le culte des Héros, 125 f. The heroizing of the first priest of the association, Agathokles, was the work of Dionysios, his son and successor. Perhaps Dionysios had in mind the action taken two hundred years earlier by the orgeones of Amynos when they heroized as Dexion their lifelong priest Sophocles. Foucart writes: “Pour leurs membres, c'est-à-dire pour une vingtaine de personnes, Sophocles et Dionysios étaient des Héros; pour les autres Athéniens, leur condition, après leur fin, n'était en rien supérieure à celle de tous les mortels.”

⁵⁷ His treasurership extending over several years probably antedated his priesthood. It may be conjectured that Solon of Cholargos, honored in the mutilated decree, IG II² 1325 ll. 34 ff., was his successor, having been appointed when Dionysios became priest, or possibly later. In that case he was succeeded by Agathokles II on the death of Dionysios.

⁵⁸ The only son listed in the roll for 185/84 is Agathocles II. If we had the roll for ten years later Agathocles II and Dionysios II might very well have been the only father-son combination entered in it. The succession inter vivos was in fact limited to the family of the founder of the association.

⁵⁹ The foundations of the house of Dionysios have been unearthed close by the temenos of Dionysos, which, in fact, seems to have been the courtyard of the building. For their identification see Koehler, Ath. Mitt. 1884, 296 ff. They indicate that he had quite a spacious residence. In its vestibule there was a good big altar (Doerpfeld, Ath. Mitt. 1884, 282 and plates XIII and XIV).

⁶⁰ Cf. Laidlaw, A History of Delos, 225 f. If, as Ed. Meyer maintains (Gesch. d. Alt.² I 2, pp. 650 ff.), the Syrian Goddess (Atargatis) is die Göttin die durch den Attisdienst charakterisiert ist, i.e. the Mother of the Gods, who, he argues, was carried from Anatolia to Hierapolis in the days of the Hittite Empire, the thousand years of their separate history since then had sufficed to destroy all consciousness of their original identity. Both submitted to the processes of convergence active in Hellenistic thought but retained their essential peculiarities of personality and cult. Cf. Nock, AJP, 1942, 223 f.

⁶¹ Roussel, Délos, 256 ff.; Athenian Tribal Cycles, 162 ff.

⁶² Sarapis at Delos had much the same career, cf. Roussel, Les cultes égyptiens à Délos, 71ff.; Nock, Conversion, 50ff. Dow (HTR 1937 198ff.) shows that Athens had a public priest of Sarapis before 166 B.C. (IG II² 4692).

⁶³ The orgeonai of Belela, known to us from a record of the early third century A.D. (IG II² 2361), are an altogether different association from any thus far considered. Hesychius equates ὀργεώναι with ἱέρειαι, but our orgeonai are males and the priestesses of their cult are listed separately. It is obviously a neo-Attic creation which has little historical continuity with the ancient institution whose name, slightly modified in form, it adopted. In addition to Belela it served the three associated goddesses, Oraia (Mother of the Gods), Aphrodite, and Dea Syria. Its members numbered 18. Orgeonai seems to be a collective title for a group of sacred officiants like orgeones in the Hymn to Apollo, 389. The name may in fact be a poetic reminiscence. Their full title was orgeonai and ankonophoroi (vase-bearers). Probably IG II² 1351 belongs to this society.

⁶⁴ Hiller von Gärtringen, Inschriften von Priene, 138, No. 195; cf. Nock, Conversion, 55, Graillot, Le culte de Cybèle, 74, Plut. Nicias, 13, 4, Tac. Annals, II 54. We do not know where Philiskos, the father of Nikasis, lived. Just as there were Olynthioi after 348 (AJA 1935, 155) and Delioi after 166 (Roussel et Launey, Inscr. de Délos, 1700 and notes), so there were, it seems, Korinthioi after 146 B.C. It may be that he had his home in Attica itself. IG II² Part III Fasc. 2, when it becomes available, may enable us to say whether Corinthians died there between 146 and 44 B.C. (cf. John Day, Econ. Hist. of Athens under Roman Domination, 79ff., 213). There was no Corinthian among the foreign ephebes known to have been enrolled in the Athenian corps between 119/18 and 39/38 B.C. (O. W. Reinmuth, The Foreigners in the Athenian Ephebia, 21 ff.). During this interval, for all we know, Corinthians may have lived in Korinthia, attached to local cults, of which one of Aphrodite was famous (PWI 2740 f.). Others must have been living in foreign cities (Delos, for example, cf. Roussel, Délos col. Athén. 85) when Corinth was sacked, or survived the catastrophe by escaping abroad (PWK XVI 1197, CAH VIII 304, 644). The probability is that these, whether living in Athens or elsewhere, retained their ethnika even though their polis was nonexistent. Nikasis may have learned the technique of her job at Delos.

⁶⁵ The “ancient decrees” of the new inscription from the Areopagus were apparently left unpublished between ca. 450 and ca. 275 B.C.

⁶⁶ Athenaeus (V, 185e, Gulick, Loeb Classics, II 320; cf. above, p. 71, n. 12), in speaking of the “so-called orgeonic δεῖπνα defines the function of the orgeones no more than he defines that of the phylae in speaking of the φυλετικὰ δεῖπνα. Athenaeus, a native of Naukratis, undoubtedly knew of these feasts, not from personal knowledge, but from the sources which he used. We have, therefore, no reason to conclude from his text that they survived at ca. 200 A.D.