Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:05:11.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Phratry from Paiania

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Charles W. Hedrick Jr
Charles W. Hedrick Jr
Affiliation:
The State University of New York at Buffalo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is little evidence to support any estimate of the sizes and number of the phratries in Classical Attica. According to the author of the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, there were four tribes, 12 phratries and 360 gene, corresponding respectively to the seasons, months and days of the year. Most older discussions of the tribal organization of Attica were based on this passage. More recently, however, scholars have come to agree that this information is too schematic to be historical, and in any event was not intended to describe the constitution of Attica in the Classical period. Currently, in spite of this passage, many contend that there were probably numerous phratries in Classical Attica (perhaps as many as there were demes or gene), which varied greatly in size.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , May 1989 , pp. 126 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 [Aristotle], Ath. Pol. F. 3. See e.g. Ferguson, W. S., ‘The Athenian Phratries’, CP 5 (1910), 257–84, at 259–60, 264, 268Google Scholar. Cf., however, the attempt of Sauppe, H. to discredit [Aristotle]: ‘Commentatio de phratriis atticis’, pp. 4–6Google Scholar, in Index scholarum publice et privatim in Academia Georgia Augusta (Gottingen, 1887)Google Scholar. This fragment also evidently equates phratries with trittyes: see Rhodes, P. J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford, 1981), pp. 68–71Google Scholar.

2 See e.g. Rhodes, loc. cit.

3 Andrewes, Notably A., ‘Philochoros on Phratries’, JHS 81 (1961), 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Roussel, D., Tribu et cite (Paris, 1976), pp. 142–3Google Scholar. There is in fact no substantiating evidence for this notion, neither from the evidence for specific phratries, nor in the general statements of the ancient authors. On demes, see generally Traill, J., The Political Organization of Attica (Hesperia suppl.14) (Princeton, 1975)Google Scholar; for gene, see Bourriot, F., Récherches sur la nature du genos. Etude d'histoire sociale athenienne périodes archaique et classique (Lille, 1976)Google Scholar.

4 Flower, M. A., ‘IG ii2. 2344 and the Size of Phratries in Classical Athens’, CQ 35 (1985), 232–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 As von Premerstein, A. had concluded: ‘Phratern-verbaende auf einem attischen Hypothekenstein’, MDAI(A) 35 (1910), 103–17, at 113–15Google Scholar. W. S. Ferguson came independently to the same conclusion: art. cit. (above, n. 1), 266–7 and 284. Before these two articles, it had been held that the inscription was the list of an entire phratry's membership: Koerte, A., ‘Mitgliederverzeichnis einer attischen Phratrie’, Hermes 37 (1902), 582–9Google Scholar; Dareste, R. et al. , eds., Réceuildes inscriptions juridiques grecques (Paris, 1891–1904), ii. 228–31Google Scholar.

6 For ‘deme and phratry overlap’ see e.g. T. Cadoux, OCD 2 s.v. phratriai; Whitehead, D., The Denies of Attica (Princeton, 1986), p. 31 and n. 117Google Scholar. Cf. however the widely diverging opinions of Ferguson, , art. cit. (above, n. I), 271–15, 282–4Google Scholar; Jacoby, F., commentary to FGrH 328 (Philochoros)Google Scholar, F. 94; Andrewes, art. cit. (above, n. 3).

7 The locus classicus for this local, geographic character of the phratry is the inscription of the Demotionidai, , IG ii2. 1237Google Scholar, with its insistence that all phratry sacrifices be conducted at the phratry's altar at Dekeleia.

8 As were the benefactors in the honorific phratry decree from Paiania, discussed below. Cf. e.g. the phratriarchs of the Dyaleis, , IG ii2. 1241, 5–7Google Scholar, and the priest of the Demotionidai, , IG ii2. 1237, 2Google Scholar.

9 If one excludes the tantalizing and much debated relationship between the Demotionidai and the Dekeleieis, , IG ii2. 1237Google Scholar. See e.g. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Aristoteles und Athen (Berlin, 1893), ii. 259–79Google Scholar; Lipsius, J. H., ‘Die Phratrie der Demotionidai’, Leipziger Studien 16 (1894), 161–71Google Scholar; Wade-Gery, H. T., ‘Studies in the Structure of Attic Society: I. Demotionidai’, CQ 25 (1931), 129–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar(= Essays in Greek History [Oxford, 1958], pp. 89–115)Google Scholar.

10 See below, nn. 19–21.

11 The description here provided of the stone is meant to supersede that of Koerte, art. cit. (above, n. 5). A serviceable photograph is provided by von Premerstein, art. cit. (above, n. 5), plate 15.

12 For the ‘false diphthong’ see Threatte, L., The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, I: Morphology (New York, 1980), pp. 238–60Google Scholar.

13 For the find spot of the inscription see Kastriotis, P., ϕρατρικ$$n$$ 'Eπιγραϕ⋯’ Arch. Eph. (1901), 158–62Google Scholar, with diplomatic text. For the site of Paiania, see Traill, J., op. cit. (above, n. 3), p. 43Google Scholar.

14 Only one other inscription provides a list which may reasonably be argued to be a phratry register: IG ii2. 2345. Cf. Poland, M., Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens (Gekroente Preisschrift 38) (Leipzig, 1909), pp. 18–19Google Scholar; Ferguson, , art. cit. (above, n. 1), 270–2Google Scholar; Premerstein, , art cit. (above, n. 5), 110 n. 2 and 112–13Google Scholar; Andrewes, A., art. cit. (above, n. 3), 9–10Google Scholar. More recently Golden, M., ‘Demosthenes and the Age of Majority in Athens’, Phoenix 33 (1979), 25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 37–8 and n. 41 has suggested (without sufficient grounds, in my opinion) that IG ii2. 2343 and 2346–8 are also to be identified as phratry lists.

15 Flower, , art. cit. (above, n. 4), 232 and 233 n. 9Google Scholar, is mistaken to understand the inscription to be ‘in the form of a dedication’. He takes the second line, οἴδε ϕρ⋯τερες, as part of the votive heading, that is, as the names of those who have made the dedication and the first as the names of the gods to whom the dedication is made. So he reconstructs the sense of the first two lines: ‘the following phraters (contributed to the dedication of the stele to) Zeus Phratrios and Athena Phratria’.

16 As Flower points out, art. cit. (above, n. 4), 232 n. 2.

17 So, precisely, F. Hiller von Gaertringen understands headings of this sort. In addition to his commentary and references at SIG 3 921, line 1, see Curtius, E. and Adler, F. to Olympia v. 5Google Scholar. Die Inschriften, 2, 9, and above all, Wilhelm, A., ‘Zu griechischen Inschriften’, AEMOe 20 (1897), 50–97, at 91–2Google Scholar.

18 See the recent study of Pounder, R. L., ‘The Origin of theoi as an Inscription Heading’. GRBS Monographs 10 (1984), 243–50Google Scholar. Cf. further Henry, A., The Prescripts of Athenian Decrees (Mnemosyne suppl. 49) (Leiden, 1977)Google Scholar, passim and Traywick, P., Theoi and Agathei Tychei in the Headings of Attic Inscriptions (Dissertation Harvard, 1968Google Scholar; non vidi. Cf. HSCP 73 (1969), 325–8)Google Scholar.

19 See Plato, , Euthydemos 302cGoogle Scholar; Thompson, H. A., ‘Buildings on the West Side of the Agora’;, Hesperia 6 (1937), 104–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Hedrick, C. W. Jr, ‘The Temple and Cult of Apollo Patroos in Athens’, AJA 92 (1988), 185–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 192–3; Thompson, H. A. and Kyparissis, N., ‘A Sanctuary of Zeus and Athena Phratrios Newly Found in Athens’, Hesperia 7 (1938), 612–25, at 615–19Google Scholar.

20 See especially IG ii2.1237 and [Demosthenes] 43 (Against Makartatos), 11–15.

21 See e.g. Hedrick, C. W. Jr, ‘Old and New on the Attic Phratry of the Therrikleidai’, Hesperia 52 (1983), 299–302Google Scholar; idem, ‘The Thymaitian Phratry’, Hesperia 57 (1988), 81–5.

22 See e.g. Smythe, H. W., Greek Grammar, revised by Messing, G. (Harvard, 1956), 1171. 1176Google Scholar.

23 Smythe, , op. cit. (n. 22, above), 1178Google Scholar.

24 Flower, art. cit. (above, n. 4), 233 n. 9.

25 Flower, , art. cit. (above, n. 4), 233Google Scholar.

26 Flower, art. cit. (above, n. 4), 233 note 7, citing Andrewes, art. cit. (above, n. 3), 11.

27 The unqualified demonstrative ⋯δε is so used, for example, in some of the tribute lists, to distinguish among various categories of subject states: see IG i3.281–3, 285.

28 I believe this idea dates to Andrewes, art. cit. (above, n. 3).

29 IG ii2.1237. Cf., however, IG ii2. 2345 an d the bibliography cited above, n. 14. I shall have more to say about the internal organization of phratries elsewhere.

30 See Demosthenes 57 (Appeal against Euboulides), 43, 67–9.

31 See IG ii2.2723.

32 IG ii2.1237, lines 68–113.

33 See e.g. Fraenkel, E., RE 16, 2 (1935)Google Scholar, Namenwesen, cols. 1624–6.

34 There is no reason to accept Flower's suggestion, art. cit. (above, n. 4), 233 n. 9, that Sosippos was the priest of the phratry. Certainly Sosippos has arranged to have the stele inscribed and erected, or paid for it, and he properly takes his due credit by announcing his accomplishment in the standard formulaic language of official Athenian documents. He does not however describe himself as priest or phratriarch (either of whom might be charged to erect an official phratry inscription), as he surely would have if he had held either office.

35 See e.g. Lacey, W. K., The Family in Classical Greece (Ithaca, 1968), pp. 21–2Google Scholar.

36 See e.g. Labarbe, J., ‘L'age corréspondent au sacrifice du koureion et les données historiques du sixiéme discours d'Isée‘, BAB 39 (1953), 358–94Google Scholar.

37 I have searched for evidence in the standard prosopographies of Attica, as well as in the indices of the SEG and Bulletin épigraphique.

38 See Ferguson, , art. cit. (above, n. 5), 271–3Google Scholar, who cites some parallels for this practice. For example, this principle of omission also seems to be operating in the list of thiasotai, IG ii2.2345.

39 For phratry registers, see IG ii2.1237, 21 and 98. For Greek record keeping in general see Klaffenbach, G., Bemerkungen zum griechischen Urkundenwesen (SDAW no. 6) (Berlin, 1960)Google Scholar.

40 Art. cit. (above, n. 5).

41 For a survey of the vicissitudes of Perikles' citizenship law, see e.g. Patterson, C., Perikles Citizenship Law of 451/50 B.C. (New York, 1981)Google Scholar. More recently cf. Walters, K. R., ‘Perikles' Citizenship Law’, Classical Antiquity 2 (1983), 314–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 FGrH 11 (Eumelos) F. 2 (= Schol. to Aeschines, , Timarchus, 39)Google Scholar.

43 For some discussion of the historical circumstances of these decrees, see Thompson, W., ‘An Interpretation of the “Demotionid” Decrees’, SO 62 (1968), 51–68Google Scholar.

44 This inscription was first published in SEG 3, 121 by Ziebarth, with assistance from Wilhelm and Klaffenbach. It was later re-published (evidently without knowledge of the editio princeps) by Kyparissis, N. and Peek, W., ‘Attische Urkunden’, MDAI(A) 66 (1941), 218–39, at 219–21Google Scholar, number 2, with a photograph of a squeeze, plate 77, 1. The following text is, with some modifications, that of Kyparissis and Peek. For Davies', restoration, see his Athenian Propertied Families (Oxford, 1971), no. 2254, p. 68Google Scholar.

45 If we exclude from consideration the speculative attribution of a temple in the Agora to the pair: Thompson, H., ‘Buildings on the West Side of the Agora’, Hesperia 6 (1937), 1–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 77–111. Cf. Hedrick, C. W. Jr, ‘The Temple and Cult of Apollo Patroos in Athens’, AJA 92 (1988), 185–210, at 192–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 As Wilhelm saw, it is likely that the first contributor is the son of Arrheneides. The relationship may be inferred from the fact that they make a joint contribution and receive joint honours, and because the last four letters of the patronymic of the first man agree with the last four letters of Arrheneides. Wilhelm's restoration, Charikles, must now be discarded, since Peek has deciphered letters of the man's name in line 12. Davies' restoration fits neither the available space on the stone nor the traces which Peek deciphered.

47 For Arrheneides and his family, see Davies, loc. cit. (above, n. 44). To Davies' references add now Walbank, M. B., ‘Leases of Sacred Property in Attica, part II’, Hesperia 52 (1983), 177–99, at 191–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 See ML 77, lines 26–7. The family may perhaps be traced even further, to Arrheneides' great grandfather, Charikles, : Hesperia 12 (1943), 37Google Scholar no. 8. Fr. K, line 2.

49 Hesperia 15 (1946), 179 no. 27Google Scholar.

50 This suggestion was first made by Peek, art. cit. (above, n. 44).