<?xml version="1.0"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="CGRN_246" xml:lang="en">
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt> <title><idno type="filename">CGRN 246</idno>:
<rs type="textType" key="decree">Decree</rs> concerning perquisities for a priestess of Artemis at Miletos </title>
<author>Manfred Lesgourgues</author>
<author>Saskia Peels-Matthey</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<authority>Collection of Greek Ritual Norms, F.R.S.-FNRS Project no. 2.4561.12, University of Liège.</authority>
<availability>
<p>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike International License <ref target="http://creativecommons.org/" type="external">4.0</ref>.</p><p>All citation, reuse or distribution of this work must contain somewhere a link back to the DOI (<idno type="DOI">https://doi.org/10.54510/CGRN246</idno>), as well as the year of consultation (see “Home” for details on how to cite or click “Export Citation” to create a reference for this specific file).</p></availability>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<msDesc>
<msIdentifier>
<repository>n/a</repository>
</msIdentifier>
<physDesc>
<objectDesc>
<supportDesc>
<support>
<p>Fully preserved <rs type="objectType">stele</rs> made of bluish marble, tapering towards the top. </p>
<p><dimensions>
<height unit="cm">96</height>
<width unit="cm">45.5-78.5</width>
<depth unit="cm">12</depth>
</dimensions></p>
</support>
</supportDesc>
<layoutDesc>
<layout>
<p> The non-stoichedon text covers the top half of the stele.</p>
<p>Letters: <height unit="cm">1.5</height>.</p>
</layout>
</layoutDesc>
</objectDesc>
</physDesc>
<history>
<origin>
<p><origDate notBefore="-0380" notAfter="-0378">380/79 or 379/8 BC</origDate></p>
<p><desc>Justification: the precise date is known thanks to the <foreign>stephanephoros</foreign> Parthenopaios (line 1), who is mentioned in lists of these officials from Miletos (<bibl type="abbr" n="Milet I.3">Milet I.3</bibl> 122, col. II, line 35: Παρθενοπαῖος Πύθιος; cf. also <bibl type="abbr" n="Milet VI.3">Milet VI.3</bibl> 1360, col. II, line 9). The earlier date is the one promoted by the editions of the inscriptions of Miletos; the later adopts the chronology of these lists by E. Cavaignac, which has been followed both by Rhodes and Parker (and in <ref target="CGRN_201">CGRN 201</ref>).</desc></p>
</origin>
<provenance>
<p><placeName type="ancientFindspot" key="Miletos" n="Asia_Minor_and_Anatolia"><ref target="http://pleiades.stoa.org/places/599799" type="external">Miletos</ref></placeName>. Found in 1900, in the so-called <foreign>Gotenmauer</foreign>, a city wall built during the emperor Gallienus' reign as protection from the Goths. Now in the Staatliche Museen in Berlin (Antikensammlung, inv. no. 1608).</p>
</provenance>
</history>
</msDesc>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<encodingDesc>
<p>Encoded for EpiDoc schema 8.17 on 01-01-2021 by E. de Graaf, S. Peels-Matthey and M. Lesgourgues</p>
</encodingDesc>
<profileDesc>
<langUsage>
<language ident="eng">English</language>
<language ident="grc">Ancient Greek</language>
<language ident="lat">Latin</language>
<language ident="fre">French</language>
<language ident="ger">German</language>
<language ident="gre">Modern Greek</language>
<language ident="ita">Italian</language>
</langUsage>
<textClass/>
</profileDesc>
<revisionDesc>
<change>Last revised by XX in 20XX.</change>
</revisionDesc>
</teiHeader>
<facsimile>
<graphic url="x"/>
</facsimile>
<text>
<body>
<div type="bibliography">
<p> Edition here based on <bibl type="author_date" n="Wiegand 1901">Wiegand 1901</bibl>: 911.</p>
<p> Other edition:
Hermann - Günther - Ehrhardt <bibl type="abbr" n="Milet VI.3">Milet VI.3</bibl> 1220.</p>
<p>Cf. also:
<bibl type="abbr" n="SEG">SEG</bibl> 15, 677;
Bechtel <bibl type="abbr" n="SGDI">SGDI</bibl> 5496;
Sokolowski <bibl type="abbr" n="LSAM">LSAM</bibl> 45;
Le Guen-Pollet <bibl type="abbr" n="CDE">CDE</bibl> 48.
</p>
<p>Further bibliography:
<bibl type="author_date" n="Haussoullier 1897">Haussoullier 1897</bibl>;
<bibl type="author_date" n="Miroux 1976">Miroux 1976</bibl>: 236;
<bibl type="author_date" n="Ehrhardt 1983">Ehrhardt 1983</bibl>;
<bibl type="author_date" n="Georgoudi 1992">Georgoudi 1992</bibl>: 229;
<bibl type="author_date" n="Gorman 2001">Gorman 2001</bibl>;
<bibl type="author_date" n="Marcellesi 2005">Marcellesi 2005</bibl>;
<bibl type="author_date" n="Herda 2006">Herda 2006</bibl>: 25-31;
<bibl type="author_date" n="Rhodes 2006">Rhodes 2006</bibl>;
<bibl type="author_date" n="Parker 2008b">Parker 2008b</bibl>;
<bibl type="author_date" n="Trippé 2009">Trippé 2009</bibl>: 39-41;
<bibl type="author_date" n="Rubinstein 2010">Rubinstein 2010</bibl>: 193-215;
<bibl type="author_date" n="Feraru 2015">Feraru 2015</bibl>: 42;
<bibl type="author_date" n="Siron 2019">Siron 2019</bibl>: 127-144;
<bibl type="author_date" n="Bumke 2021">Bumke 2021</bibl>: 336-337.
</p>
</div>
<div type="edition">
<head>Text</head>
<ab>
<lb xml:id="line_1" n="1"/><name type="title"><w lemma="ἐπί">ἐπὶ</w></name> Πα<unclear>ρ</unclear><supplied reason="lost">θ</supplied>ενο<unclear>πα</unclear>ίο, <w lemma="μείς">μηνὸς</w> <name type="month"><w lemma="Ἀρτεμίσιος">Ἀρτε
<lb xml:id="line_2" n="2" break="no"/>μισιῶνος</w></name>, Κεκροπὶς <name type="title"><w lemma="πρυτανεύω">ἐπρυτά
<lb xml:id="line_3" n="3" break="no"/>νευεν</w></name>, Φιλίννης Ἡροδότο
<lb xml:id="line_4" n="4"/><name type="title"><w lemma="ἐπιστατέω">ἐπεστάτει</w></name>, <w lemma="δοκέω">ἔδοξεν</w> τῆι <name type="group"><w lemma="βουλή">βολῆι</w></name>
<lb xml:id="line_5" n="5"/>καὶ τῶι <name type="group"><w lemma="δῆμος">δήμωι</w></name>, Ἡράκλειτος <w lemma="λέγω">εἶπεν</w>·
<lb xml:id="line_6" n="6"/>τὰ μὲν <w lemma="ἄλλος">ἄλλα</w> <w lemma="καθότι">καθότι</w> <w lemma="ἐν">ἐν</w> τῆι
<lb xml:id="line_7" n="7"/><objectType key="stele"><w lemma="στήλη">στήληι</w></objectType> <name type="authority"><w lemma="γράφω">γέγραπται</w></name>·
<lb xml:id="line_8" n="8"/><w lemma="ἐάν">ἐάν</w> δέ <w lemma="τις">τις</w> <w lemma="μή">μὴ</w> <w lemma="ἀποδίδωμι">ἀποδῶι</w> τὰ <name type="portion"><w lemma="γέρας">γέρεα</w></name>
<lb xml:id="line_9" n="9"/>τῆι <name type="personnel"><w lemma="ἱέρεια">ἱερῆι</w></name> τῆς <name type="deity" key="Artemis"><w lemma="Ἄρτεμις">Ἀρτέμιδος</w></name>
<lb xml:id="line_10" n="10"/>τὰ <name type="authority"><w lemma="γράφω">γεγραμμένα</w></name> <w lemma="ἐκγράφω">ἐκγραφέτω</w>
<lb xml:id="line_11" n="11"/><w lemma="αὐτός">αὐτὸν</w> <w lemma="πρὸς">πρὸς</w> τοὺς <name type="title"><w lemma="πράκτωρ">πράκτορας</w></name>
<lb xml:id="line_12" n="12"/>ὁ <name type="person"><w lemma="κύριος">κύριος</w></name> τῆς <name type="personnel"><w lemma="ἱέρεια">ἱερῆς</w></name> <name type="speechAct"><w lemma="ἐπαγγέλλω">ἐπαγγείλας</w></name>
<lb xml:id="line_13" n="13"/><w lemma="ὀφείλω">ὀφείλοντα</w> τὴν <name type="punishment"><w lemma="ζημία">ζημίην</w></name>
<lb xml:id="line_14" n="14"/>τὴν <name type="authority"><w lemma="γράφω">γεγραμμένην</w></name>· <w lemma="ὅς">ὃς</w> δ’ <w lemma="ἄν">ἂν</w>
<lb xml:id="line_15" n="15"/><w lemma="ἐκγράφω">ἐκγραφῆι</w>, <w lemma="εἰ">εἰ</w>ὰμ <w lemma="μή">μὴ</w> <name type="speechAct"><w lemma="ἐξόμνυμι">ἐξομόσει</w></name>
<lb xml:id="line_16" n="16"/><w lemma="ἐν">ἐν</w> τῆι <name type="group"><w lemma="βουλή">βολῆι</w></name> <w lemma="μή">μὴ</w> <name type="sacrifice"><w lemma="θύω">θῦσαι</w></name> ἢ <w lemma="ἀποδίδωμι">ἀποδ
<lb xml:id="line_17" n="17" break="no"/>οῦναι</w> τὰ <name type="portion"><w lemma="γέρας">γέρεα</w></name> τὰ <w lemma="γίγνομαι">γινόμενα</w>,
<lb xml:id="line_18" n="18"/><w lemma="ὀφείλω">ὀφειλέτω</w> τὴν <name type="punishment"><w lemma="ζημία">ζημίην</w></name> καὶ <w lemma="ἐκπράσσω">ἐκ
<lb xml:id="line_19" n="19" break="no"/>πραξάντων</w> <w lemma="αὐτός">αὐτὸν</w> οἱ <name type="title"><w lemma="πράκτωρ">πράκτο
<lb xml:id="line_20" n="20" break="no"/>ρες</w></name> <w lemma="κατά">κατὰ</w> τὸν <name type="authority"><w lemma="νόμος">νόμον</w></name>· τὸ δὲ <name type="authority"><w lemma="ψήφισμα">ψήφι
<lb xml:id="line_21" n="21" break="no"/>σμα</w></name> <w lemma="προσεγκόπτω">προσεγκόψαι</w> <w lemma="εἰς">ἐς</w> τὴν <objectType key="stele"><w lemma="στήλη">στή
<lb xml:id="line_22" n="22" break="no"/>λην</w></objectType>, ὁ δὲ <name type="title"><w lemma="ταμίας">ταμίας</w></name> <w lemma="ὑπηρετέω">ὑπηρετησάτω</w>.
</ab>
</div>
<div type="translation" xml:lang="eng">
<head>Translation</head>
<p>In the year of (the <foreign>stephanephoros</foreign>) Parthenopaios, in the month Artemision, when (the tribe) Kekropis had the prytany, Philinnes son of Herodotos presided. It was decided by the council (5) and the people. Herakleides made the proposal. The other things (are to be done) as it is written on the stele. But if anyone does not give the priestess of Artemis the prescribed perquisites (10), let the legal guardian of the priestess register him with the <foreign>praktores</foreign>, having denounced him as owing the prescribed fine. Let anyone who is registered, (15) unless he swears before the council that he has not sacrificed or that he has given the perquisites that are due, owe the fine and let the <foreign>praktores</foreign> exact it from him (20) according to the law. (It was decided) to carve this decree as an addition on the stele; let the treasurer support it (i.e. provide money for it).</p>
</div>
<div type="translation" xml:lang="fre">
<head>Traduction</head>
<p>Sous (le stéphanéphore) Parthenopaios, au mois d’Artémision, (la tribu) Kekropis assurant la prytanie, Philinnès fils d’Herodotos étant épistate, il a plu au conseil (5) et au peuple. Herakleitos a proposé : pour le reste, (qu’il soit fait) comme il est écrit sur la stèle, mais si quelqu’un ne donne pas à la prêtresse d’Artémis les parts d’honneurs (10) qui sont spécifiées sur la stèle, que le représentant légal de la prêtresse le fasse inscrire devant les <foreign>praktores</foreign>, en déclarant que celui-ci doit l’amende inscrite (sur cette stèle). Que celui qui (15) est inscrit, sauf à jurer devant le conseil qu'il n'a pas sacrifié ou qu'il a donné les parts d’honneurs dues, soit redevable de l’amende et que les <foreign>praktores</foreign> le fassent payer (20) selon la loi. Que ce décret soit ajouté sur la stèle, et que le trésorier fasse son office.</p>
</div>
<div type="commentary">
<head>Commentary</head>
<p>This decree, concerning a cult of Artemis in Miletos in the early 4th century BC, complements an earlier decree (cf. lines 6-7 and 20-22) which is now lost. Despite the inscription explicitly specifying that it must be carved "as an addition on the stele", apparently referring to the support of this earlier decree, the stele currently preserved only includes the present text in the top half of its surface. It is possible that the extant stele was set up side by side with another, containing the earlier decree, but that is not completely satisfactory and the exact solution remains elusive (compare <ref target="CGRN_38">CGRN 38</ref>, Chios, for an additional set of ritual norms inscribed on the same stele as an earlier text). The content of the other, earlier decree is unknown (a sale of the priesthood is one possibility, as frequently attested at Miletos: cf. <ref target="CGRN_39">CGRN 39</ref>, perhaps <ref target="CGRN_100">CGRN 100</ref>, <ref target="CGRN_138">CGRN 138</ref>, <ref target="CGRN_248"> CGRN 248</ref> and <ref target="CGRN_249"> CGRN 249</ref>). It would at least have included a specification of the shares of the sacrifice that went to the priestess (τὰ γέρεα) and the amount of the fine (ἡ ζημία) incurred in case the person sacrificing had not given the priestess her perquisities. As an addition to these regulations, the present decree specifies the judicial means for recovering such a fine in case of a transgression. This procedure necessitates the involvement of a <foreign>kurios</foreign> (the male legal guardian of the priestess) and the <foreign>praktores</foreign> (officials of the <foreign>polis</foreign> responsible for enforcement of penalties and collecting fines). We may infer that this type of transgression on the part of individuals sacrificing had been, or was feared to become, sufficiently frequent or problematic, that such a legal procedure needed to be established and clearly published. In this regard, the timing of the decree may not be coincidental, since the month of Artemision (in ca. March-April, cf. Feraru) was the month of (public and private) celebrations in honour of Artemis. Perhaps this decree was indented to correct a legal vacuum in anticipation of these celebrations, but more likely it was a reaction to religious offences that had occurred in this context (cf. Miroux).</p>
<p>We cannot determine exactly which cult of Artemis may be concerned by these regulations. The cult of the goddess is attested in Miletos and in the sanctuary of Didyma from the Archaic period onwards (on the Archaic evidence: Gorman, p. 171-172 ; see also <bibl type="abbr" n="Milet I.3">Milet I.3</bibl> 276, and <bibl type="abbr" n="I.Didyma">I.Didyma</bibl> 17). No epithet is known from the Archaic or Classical periods. Artemis was later worshipped in various places and with various epithets in Miletos, with or without connections to her brother Apollo (cf. Trippé and our discussion in <ref target="CGRN_214">CGRN 214</ref>, Miletos). It is possible that the text that preceded this decree on the same stone would have specified an epithet for Artemis. If we were to guess which epithet it could have been, the two best candidates would be Pythie—the epithet of Artemis in Didyma and noting the altar found in connection with this text—or Kithone. The first is not attested before the beginning of the 3rd century BC in Miletos itself, but has been found in its colonies in the Archaic period and is afterwards attested in the city from the Hellenistic period onward (cf. Bumke). Artemis Kithone would be another possibility: this goddess is presented as the protectress of Miletos' founder, Neilos, in Callimachus' <title>Hymn to Artemis</title> (Call. <title>H</title>.3.225-227; Plut. <title>Mulier</title>. 253f-254b; cf. <ref target="CGRN_214">CGRN 214</ref>, Miletos, and Herda). But Artemis is also named several times without an epithet in the Milesian evidence (Ehrhardt 1983: 148). Moreover, if Wiegand intuition is correct and all the items accompanying our inscription came from a single sanctuary of Artemis, the goddess would have been referred to there with two different epithets (Pythie and Lochia). Moreover, we cannot exclude the possibility that the priestess of Artemis (without a cult-epithet) mentioned in the present text could have served different cults of the goddess in 4th-century Miletos; cf. e.g. how the priest of Dionysos at Priene serves various cults of the god, with specific cult-titles in <ref target="CGRN_176">CGRN 176</ref>, or how the priestesses of Meter at Iasos also served the cult of Phrygian Meter in <ref target="CGRN_196">CGRN 196</ref>.</p>
<p> Lines 1-5: The heading and the sanctions of this decree have a very Athenian formulation, as Ehrhardt noted (p. 381). The <foreign>epistates</foreign> belonged to the Kekropis tribe, which was then in charge of the prytany. In the course of the 5th century BC, Miletos modified the composition of its tribes, previously six in number, to adopt a group of twelve, on the Athenian model (Haussoullier; Erhardt 1983: 98-107). In the course of this expansion, the city also adopted Athenian tribal names such as Kekropis, and a democratic regime modelled on that of Athens (cf. Gorman, p. 216-219). In this respect, the people and the council are here the bodies producing the religious norm (in contrast to the later <foreign>strategoi</foreign> of <ref target="CGRN_249">CGRN 249</ref>, Miletos). Herakleitos, whose father's name is not indicated here, may be the future <foreign>stephanephoros</foreign> of 365/4 or 364/3 BC (<bibl type="abbr" n="Milet I.3">Milet I.3</bibl> 122, col. II, line 49: Herakleitos son of Leonteus). </p>
<p>Lines 6-7: The wording "all the other things, as it is written on the stele", is formulaic (cf. e.g. <ref target="CGRN_42">CGRN 42</ref>, Iasos, line 5; <ref target="CGRN_92">CGRN 92</ref>, Athens, lines 8-9) and introduces an amendment or an addition to common practice or to previous decisions taken.</p>
<p>Line 8: The prerogatives of the priestess would be parts of the animal and/or money. A perhaps general regulation concerning sales of priesthoods at Miletos (<ref target="CGRN_39">CGRN 39</ref>) from the same period as the current inscription specifies as priestly parts from private sacrifices the viscera, a kidney, the small intestine, the "sacred portion" and the tongue. A century later, the priestess of Dionysus at Miletos obtained similar portions from privately sacrificed animals: the viscera, a kidney, the small intestine, the "sacred portion", the tongue, but also the leg cut at the acetabulum (<ref target="CGRN_138">CGRN 138</ref>, lines 11-14). </p>
<p>Line 10-14: In case of non-payment of the shares due to the priestess, a legal procedure is to be initiated by her κύριος, her legal representative (who could be her father, brother, a more distant relative or—less likely here, see on line 9—her son). The woman's status as a priestess apparently did not modify the general impossibility for women to take legal action (cf. Georgoudi; Siron, p. 138-144; compare the similar situation of the priestess of Dionysos Thyllophoros in Kos, <bibl type="abbr" n="LSCG">LSCG</bibl> 166, lines 27-31). The amount of the fine is unknown. In order to have an idea about the possibilities, we provide a few parallels. In the Milesian sanctuary of Asklepios in the 1st century AD (<ref target="CGRN_249">CGRN 249</ref>), the fine for not sacrificing or not giving the perquisites is 12 drachmae. Other cases may be sought outside of Miletos: on Chios, the one removing any of the perquisites due to the priestess was to owe 10 drachmae payable to her (<ref target="CGRN_37">CGRN 37</ref>, lines 14-15). Cf. also our discussion of <ref target="CGRN_208">CGRN 208</ref> (Kos), lines 19-20, where a fine of 30 drachmae "per portion" is imposed on persons who have failed to sacrifice: the amount of the fine seems to be intended as an equivalent to the value of the perquisites.</p>
<p> Lines 14-20: The indictment seemed to have had two stages, one oral and one written. The priestess’ legal representative was to declare that the individual was a debtor (ὀφείλων), possibly before the council. This was followed by the registration (ἐκγραφέτω) of the individual in the register of defendants. As in other cases of public inscriptions, this registration had to take place before a panel of competent magistrates, in this case that of the πράκτορες, the officials responsible for enforcement of penalties and collecting fines due to the <foreign>polis</foreign>; here, they were owed to the civic priestess (and perhaps the sanctuary). The term <foreign>praktores</foreign> may suggest that the Athenian way of resolving religious conflicts in court influences the way this problem was presently addressed in Miletos. The <foreign>praktores</foreign> appear to be another Athenian institution that Miletos took over (cf. Ehrhardt in <bibl type="abbr" n="Milet VI.3">Milet VI.3</bibl> 1220, p. 134). See Rubinstein for an analysis of the roles of the <foreign>praktores</foreign> in the epigraphical evidence (note, for example, in <ref target="CGRN_43">CGRN 43</ref>, Athens, lines 25-26, a fine for disorderly behaviour of 50 drachmae that was to be registered with a group of officials, restored as the <foreign>praktores</foreign>). The procedure for the collection of debts (ἔκπραξις) by the <foreign>praktores</foreign> was "in accordance with the νόμος". The term <foreign>nomos</foreign> here indicates that this debt-collection was embedded in a broader legal framework than that of this specific decree. As usual, the accused could defend himself in court by means of an oath (uttering an imprecation against himself in case of perjury; cf. Siron, p. 127 and 129-138).</p>
</div>
</body>
</text>
</TEI>