<span class='italic'>Greek</span> thorybos<span class='italic'>, Roman</span> eustatheia

Ilias Arnaoutoglou

doi:10.1017/9781009281317.007

Chapter 6 - Greek thorybos, Roman eustatheia

The Normative Universe of Athenian Cult Associations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 May 2023

Ilias Arnaoutoglou

Edited by

Vincent Gabrielsen and

Mario C. D. Paganini

Show author details

Vincent Gabrielsen: Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Mario C. D. Paganini: Affiliation:
Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien

Book contents

Summary

Obviously, this is not the place to argue about the impact of the description on Demosthenes’ rhetorical strategy.2 The passage is significant in another, rather neglected, respect. It reflects the ambience created by these kaloi thiasoi, ‘brilliant groups’, an atmosphere of hustle and buzzes. It is exactly this sense of thorybos conveyed by the passage that interests me. Similar thorybos may be behind the decision of the deme of Piraeus to ban groups of worshippers convening outside the Thesmophorion in Piraeus, except on certain festival days.3 Thorybos (that is, cheers, shouts, heckling and laughter) was an essential feature of social activity in the ancient Greek world. Quite apart the religious sphere, several scholars emphasised the role of thorybos in the working of Athenian democracy, in the assembly and in the lawcourts.4 Judith Tacon claims that thorybos (that is, cases when speakers interrupt each other, demos interrupts speakers, demos allies with opposing speakers) was an integral feature of assembly debate and by extension of Athenian democracy. Anti-democracy theorists regarded it as negative.

Type: Chapter
Information: Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World
Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity
, pp. 144 - 162

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009281317.007 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2023
Creative Commons: This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/cclicenses/

In 330 BC, Demosthenes in his reply to the graphe paranomon brought by Aeschines six years earlier against the proposal of Ctesiphon to honour Demosthenes, launched a virulent attack on Aeschines, adducing a description of the activities of young Aeschines as follows:

ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις τοὺς καλοὺς θιάσους ἄγων διὰ τῶν ὁδῶν, τοὺς ἐστεφανωμένους τῷ μαράθῳ καὶ τῇ λεύκῃ, τοὺς ὄφεις τοὺς παρείας θλίβων καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς κεφαλῆς αἰωρῶν, καὶ βοῶν ‘εὐοῖ σαβοῖ,’ καὶ ἐπορχούμενος ‘ὑῆς ἄττης ἄττης ὑῆς,’ ἔξαρχος καὶ προηγεμὼν καὶ κιττοφόρος καὶ λικνοφόρος καὶ τοιαῦθ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν γρᾳδίων προσαγορευόμενος, μισθὸν λαμβάνων τούτων ἔνθρυπτα καὶ στρεπτοὺς καὶ νεήλατα, ἐφ᾽ οἷς τίς οὐκ ἂν ὡς ἀληθῶς αὑτὸν εὐδαιμονίσειε καὶ τὴν αὑτοῦ τύχην;

By day you led brilliant bands of reveling worshipers through the streets. They wore crowns of fennel and white poplar as you clutched fat-headed snakes and swung them over your head. You would shout ‘Euoi Saboi’ and dance to the beat of ‘Hyes Attes Attes Hyes’ as the old hags would hail you as leader and guide, bearer-of-the-casket and bearer-of-the-winnow and so on. You were paid with soppy bread, twisted rolls and flat cakes. Enjoying all this, who would not regard himself and his lot in life as truly fortunate?Footnote ¹

Obviously, this is not the place to argue about the impact of the description on Demosthenes’ rhetorical strategy.Footnote ² The passage is significant in another, rather neglected, respect. It reflects the ambience created by these kaloi thiasoi, ‘brilliant groups’, an atmosphere of hustle and buzzes. It is exactly this sense of thorybos conveyed by the passage that interests me. Similar thorybos may be behind the decision of the deme of Piraeus to ban groups of worshippers convening outside the Thesmophorion in Piraeus, except on certain festival days.Footnote ³ Thorybos (that is, cheers, shouts, heckling and laughter) was an essential feature of social activity in the ancient Greek world. Quite apart the religious sphere, several scholars emphasised the role of thorybos in the working of Athenian democracy, in the assembly and in the lawcourts.Footnote ⁴ Judith Tacon claims that thorybos (that is, cases when speakers interrupt each other, demos interrupts speakers, demos allies with opposing speakers) was an integral feature of assembly debate and by extension of Athenian democracy. Anti-democracy theorists regarded it as negative. In the same vein, Robert Wallace notes that the Athenian demos felt no obligation to sit quietly and listen to talk they objected to; such conduct was a befitting feature of a monarchy, oligarchy or tyranny. Thorybos was some sort of a negative vote of the people. Melissa Schwartzberg regards thorybos as an acclamatory mechanism functioning simultaneously as a form of democratic participation in the deliberations and as an accountability mechanism. Similarly, Victor Bers and Adrian Lanni have pointed out the role of thorybos among dikastai in the lawcourts as well as among the audience.Footnote ⁵

Nevertheless, thorybos heightens tension, which may develop either among the members of a group over, say, the ways of exploiting communal property (IG II² 1289) or between two different groups.Footnote ⁶ Furthermore, tensions may result in conflicts, some of them resolved informally with mediation or arbitration, while some others will find their way into the formal ways of dispute resolution, that is to say into lawcourts;Footnote ⁷ the worst-case scenario is the conflict to turn into an open physical confrontation. Hence, the need arises to devise and to provide mechanisms and procedures to establish eustatheia – that is stability, steadiness – which in its turn will lead to eukosmia, the proper conduct in the premises of the association, something that will also reflect on the constantly constructed and projected image of the group.Footnote ⁸ At least in Roman times, it was thought that the best way to achieve this aim was by inscribing the rules of the group.Footnote ⁹ Be that as it may, the association of thorybos with Greece and eustatheia with Rome is certainly hyperbolic and sketchy, since there were definitely less noisy meetings of Greeks and livelier than average Roman gatherings.Footnote ¹⁰ The polarity thorybos-eustatheia, however, provides a hermeneutic scheme, perhaps not wholly satisfactory, to approach the normative universe of Athenian associations in the Hellenistic and Roman era.Footnote ¹¹

In doing that I am going to refrain from any discussion of the rule attributed to Solon and reported in Dig. 47.22.4.Footnote ¹² Current discussions on Athenian associations avoid a thorough examination of the legal aspect of their activities.Footnote ¹³ Following the three approaches to the normative world of ancient associations outlined by the editors in Chapter 1, I shall present, from a socio-legal perspective, the rules governing corporate activities in Athens from the late fourth century BC down to the late second century AD, in two chronologically distinct parts.Footnote ¹⁴ This approach is to a large extent dictated by the date of the available evidence. It will become clear, I hope, that in regulations of the Roman era there was a mutation of the normative world of Athenian associations; its main concern shifted to guaranteeing stability and proper conduct.Footnote ¹⁵ Following that, I shall explore the historical implications of the differentiated focus. Was the influence of the Roman authorities so decisive as to leave a permanent imprint on the modes of collective action? Was willingness to conform to precepts of Romanitas so great that it dictated the harmonisation or, some would say, the transfer of legal rules from the Italian peninsula to the Greek? And in this last respect we can point the finger to at least one major Athenian figure, who could have mediated, Claudius Herodes Atticus.

Rules and Regulations

Nine normative texts issued by Athenian cult associations survive, while several – mainly disciplinary – clauses are scattered among numerous honorary decrees.Footnote ¹⁶ Normative texts, that is to say, corporate decisions introducing binding rules for their members (irrespective of any penal clause), are almost evenly spread in time. Five of them are dated between the late fourth and second century BC, while the remaining four are dated between the late first century BC and second century AD. The oldest, so far, is IG II² 1361, a fragmentary stele whose top and bottom are missing, dated ca. 330–324 BC.Footnote ¹⁷ It contains rules about sacrifices (portion to priests/priestesses, ban on parabomia, ‘beside the altar’ sacrifices, that is to say, outside the customary ritual), financial administration of the group’s assets (land and water), enlisting new members and the necessary entrenchment clause (where the regulation is described as nomos). Agora 16 161 (beginning of the third century BC) records three decisions of an unknown group of orgeones; in the first, they regulate financial affairs (probably debts to the group) according to their older decisions (archaia psephismata), in the second decree sacral affairs are settled (date of sacrifice, kind of victim, portions), while from the third one only a few words survive. Inscription IG II² 1275 (late fourth or early third century BC) preserves the lower part of a stele on which the text of a nomos was inscribed; there survives only an exhortation to the next of kin of a deceased member to announce the death to the community and the fellows to attend the funeral as well as a stricture about solidarity.Footnote ¹⁸ The last six lines record an entrenchment clause, that is, terms of prosecution and sanction against the members who challenge the nomos. Inscription IG II² 1283 dated now to 240/39 BC contains regulations about the relation between the orgeones of the goddess Bendis in Piraeus and those in the city; according to it, the orgeones of the city will enjoy the same treatment during the procession, they will have priority in submitting requests to the orgeones of the Piraeus and they will have the right to join the group.Footnote ¹⁹ Inscription IG II² 1328 records two decisions, of which only the first one (ll. 4–20, passed in 183/2 BC) has a normative character; in particular, the decision clarified what priestesses ought to provide during the ceremonies and the mode of appointing an assistant to the priestesses.

Hellenistic Athenian normative texts, therefore, include principally clauses about cult activities, organisational corporate affairs and the exploitation of common property. Sometimes, but not always, rules are accompanied by sanctions.

Inscription IG II² 1339 dated to 37/6 BC forms in a sense a bridge between the Hellenistic and the Roman periods. It records the decision of a koinon Heroiston to take care of exacting the fees due by members, irrespective of whether they are abroad or in Athens. SEG 31:122, dated to ca. AD 94, appears as the decision of the chief-eranistes.Footnote ²⁰ It begins with a disciplinary provision (penalty meted out on the member who starts a fight), settling financial affairs (use of a donated amount of money – entheke – and the penalties for abusing it, the provision of pork and wine, a clause on the conditions to lend the donated amount of money) and decisions affecting the organisation of the group (exercise of priestly duties, appointment of minor officials, penalty for the individual who does not wish to undertake the post of pannychistes or to serve until the end of the term, contributions for joining the group and accountability process). IG II² 1368 is probably the most cited corporate inscription and in certain respects unique. It is 163 lines long and is dated now to AD 164/5. The rules are the decisions (δόγματα) of the priest, the chief-BakchosFootnote ²¹ and the prostates. They have received a vociferous and unanimous approval by the members of the association.Footnote ²² The rules, most often accompanied by penalties, settle affairs such as admission of new membersFootnote ²³ (scrutiny, fee, token as proof of membership, celebrations), members’ discipline (behaviour during celebrations, fights, abuse and reproach, hubristic behaviour, wounds, fee-payment avoidance), magistrates’ and members’ duties and participation in the funeral of a deceased member.Footnote ²⁴ IG II² 1369 (late second century AD) is the latest testimony of regulations in Athenian cult associations. It is designated as nomos and contains exclusively administrative rules pertaining to admissions, officials and expulsion as a penalty for those members who initiate a fight or disturbances.Footnote ²⁵

OffencesFootnote ²⁶

Offences are outlined in any kind of corporate decision, be it a regulation or an honorary decree. In Athens, particular offences associated with officials are attested in Hellenistic honorary decrees. In the normative clauses scattered in these texts, associations regulate and penalise the non-performance of duties by their magistrates (in particular, crowning and the public proclamation of the crown) and later the non-acceptance of magisterial duties.Footnote ²⁷ In the Hellenistic normative texts, the non-payment of fees and the violation of any corporate decision, especially of the entrenchment clause, are regarded as offences. In Roman times, a distinct category of offences appears, aiming at the deviant behaviour of members against their fellows.Footnote ²⁸

Organs Imposing Sanctions

Usually there are two organs involved in imposing and enforcing penalties: the assembly of the members and the individual magistrates. A distinctive red line between the jurisdiction of the assembly and of magistrates depends on the perceived gravity of the offence for the well-being of the association. In Hellenistic times, the assembled members have the discretionary power to impose any penalty they wish on the member who violates the entrenchment clause (IG II² 1275, ll. 14–17) or on the priestess who does not comply with the rules introduced in IG II² 1328, lines 11–14. In Roman Athens, in the association of Herakliastai en Limnais it is the assembly’s duty to decide how they are going to exact an imposed fine (SEG 31:122, ll. 8–9), while in the Bakcheion of IG II² 1368, the assembly convened by the priest decided cases of injury (ll. 84–94). The assembly usually exercises some, at least, discretionary power, although the extent of this authority may be delineated by an earlier decision of the group.

San Nicolò Reference San Nicolò1927 regards the judicial function of the assembly and of certain magistrates as similar to arbitration and therefore as an adequate basis for a right of appeal against verdicts of arbitrators to a polis court. However, this approach is deeply problematic since it presumes arbitration in cases that are far from what we know about the mechanics of arbitration in the Athenian jurisdiction (statement about the dispute, selection of arbitrators, decision and binding character). One could have argued that by joining an association, member(s) implicitly adhered to the rules of dispute resolution operative in this structure. Nevertheless, by joining an association, members were not stripped of their legal rights; they retained the right to use the polis legal machinery, be it for cases of insult, injury, defamation, property relations and so on. San Nicolò advocated, rather unconvincingly, a division between summary and ordinary procedure without defining their salient features; by implication, he considered as summary any procedure involving the assembly of members.Footnote ²⁹ Rubinstein Reference Rubinstein, Legras and Thür2012 explores the role and the characteristic features of collective liabilities on boards of officials outside Athens in the late classical and Hellenistic periods. However, this concept is rarely employed by cult associations in late classical and Hellenistic Athens; in particular, I could find only one case, IG II² 1292 (215/4 BC), in which the association of Sarapiastai imposes a fine on hieropoioi. Nevertheless, we do not know their number, whether they were acting as a board when failing to proclaim the names of the honoured individuals after the sacrifice (crime of omission). There are, however, two cases (IG II² 1263 and 1297) in which the wording suggests a board but in fact it is a pseudo-collective since it refers to officials of consecutive years.

We usually assume that individual magistrates were responsible for imposing and collecting fines on recalcitrant members, especially those prescribed and fixed in a group’s regulations. However, I found only weak indications in the Athenian ‘corporate’ epigraphy; in IG II² 1368, the priest is to decide whether a member has paid his contributions or not and therefore may participate in the celebrations (ll. 67–72), or in another case the treasurer may prohibit the entry to the association’s premises to a member who has not paid a fine (ll. 99–102). San Nicolò Reference San Nicolò1927: 260 claims that the head of the group (Vereinsvorstand) had disciplinary authority policing the meetings and the festivals. This is not confirmed by Athenian evidence; only the archeranistes of SEG 31:122 seems to yield unfettered authority, but even he has to refer important questions to the assembly.Footnote ³⁰ Equally difficult to answer is the question whether associations’ magistrates had the authority to proceed to exacting the penalties. The parallel provided by other Greek poleis, thoroughly investigated by Lene Rubinstein, cannot shed any light, since only in IG II² 1273 and 1328 is there a hint about a similar grant of authority, with the substantial difference that no officials are authorised but only the association as a whole. The expression in IG II² 1273, lines 24–5 – ἡ δ’εἴσπραξις ἔστω τοῖς θιασώταις καθάπερ καὶ τἄλλα ὀφειλήματα ‘the thiasotai shall exact (sc. the fines) as they do with other debts’ – suggest that the fine imposed on a magistrate would have been dealt with exactly in the same way as debts for other reasons.Footnote ³¹ But this neat, modern picture of associations suing members over non-payment of subscriptions and fines defies realities. Recourse to the official channel of adjudication was only one option, perhaps the costliest; associations could have used other means to enforce their decisions, such as temporary expulsion from communal activities, social pressure (e.g. inscribing the name of debtors on a stele, Agora 16 161), marginalisation of the individual, withdrawal of support by other members and so on. San Nicolò Reference San Nicolò1927: 291–2 and Boak Reference Boak1937b: 214 underline the power of the head of an association in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (attested in Greek and Demotic documents) to compel the payment of arrears or dues by seizing pledges at the expense of a recalcitrant member (in one case even the member himself), an authority not attested in Hellenistic or Roman Athens.Footnote ³²

Penalties

In principle, associations could impose one or a combination of the following three different legal sanctions on the members in enforcing their rules:Footnote ³³

i. a monetary fine, most often, of 50 dr., sometimes consecrated to the worshipped deity and some other time payable to the treasury of the association.Footnote ³⁴ Penalties were fixed either by a statute or, less often, were left at the discretion of the assembly of the members;Footnote ³⁵
ii. expulsion or ejection from the activities of the group or the premises of the association;Footnote ³⁶ and
iii. striking out a member from the ranks of the group.Footnote ³⁷

Two particularities require attention.

a. Striking out is very rarely invoked (and I suppose even more rarely was imposed); in SEG 31:122, lines 42–5 it is provided by the statute,Footnote ³⁸ while in IG II² 1368 there is no provision imposing a similar penalty; in IG II² 1369 it is not clear whether the verb ekballestho (ἐκβαλλέσθω) signifies the removal or the expulsion, as it is accompanied by a fine.Footnote ³⁹ SEG 31:122, lines 5–9, stipulates the following: ἐάν τις ἐν τῇ συνόδῳ | μάχην ποιήσῃ, τῇ ἐχομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀποτινέτω προστείμ|ου ὁ μὲν ἀρξάμενος δραχμὰς δέκα ὁ δὲ ἐξακολουθ|ήσας δραχμὰς πέντε καὶ ἐξάνανκα πραττέσθω τῶν σ̣|[υ]νερανιστῶν ψῆφον λαβόντων ἐκβιβάσαι ‘If someone in the assembly should cause a fight, on the following day let him pay a fine. The one who initiated the fight should pay ten drachmas and whoever joined in should pay five drachmas. After his fellow eranistai have taken a vote to expel him …’ (tr. Ascough, Harland and Kloppenborg Reference Ascough, Harland and Kloppenborg2012: 18). Although this has been rendered by the first editor of the document as imposing the expulsion of the unruly member, the meaning of the term ekbibasai (ἐκβιβάσαι) is not that unambiguous. In particular, the rationale of imposing a monetary fine does not fit well with the compulsory decision to expel a member. Ekbibasai could also mean ‘to satisfy a person’s claim’ (P.Tebt. II 398, l. 18, AD 142). Therefore, the passage could be interpreted as ‘his fellow-members shall compulsorily, after a vote, force him to satisfy (the claim of paying the fine)’. In IG II² 1339, lines 12–15: ἐὰν δὲ μὴ διδ[ῶσι | τὴν φοράν, ἔ]δοξεν μὴ μετέχειν αὐτο[ὺς | τοῦ ἐράν]ου ἐὰν μή τινι συμβῆι διὰ πέ[ν|θος ἢ διὰ ἀ]σθένειαν ἀπολειφθῆναι ‘and if they do not pay the fee, it has been decided that they should not participate in the eranos (?), unless mourning or illness hindered anyone’, the restoration eranos instead of koinon is adventurous. In the former case, it is conceivable that the defaulting member may be exempted from the benefits of an eranos-fund and not excluded from an eranos-association, as it would have been the case when restoring koinon. Foucart Reference Foucart1873: 41–2 has already doubted whether the phrase μὴ μετέστω αὐτῶι τῶν κοινῶν ‘he will not have a share in the common activites’ in IG II² 1361, line 14 could mean a definite exclusion, ‘une exclusion définitive’; however, the expression is preceded by a monetary fine, something that would not make sense if the heavier penalty of exclusion was provided.
b. There is no indication of corporal punishment provided for, with the exception of IG II² 1369.Footnote ⁴⁰

The associations’ judicial competence is delimited, rather exclusively, by the place in which the infringement took place (that is to say, premises of the association) and on the identity of the involved parties; I do not know any case of a non-member prosecuting or being prosecuted in front of ‘corporate’ judicial organs. To illustrate the above point, consider the following case: Two members of a cult association had a commercial dispute, and one punched the other in the agora. Which judicial organ would have been competent to hear the case? Assuming that the ban on approaching public judicial agents provided in IG II² 1368, lines 90–4, was a persistent feature of Athenian associations, then prima facie there was concurring jurisdiction of both association and polis and therefore the victim of the attack could choose the course of action. However, it is more likely that the dispute would have been resolved by the polis’ judiciary and not by the association’s, since the provisions of SEG 31:122, lines 5–6, IG II² 1368, lines 72–4 and 94–5, clearly specify the location of the infringement as ἐν τῇ συνόδῳ ‘on the premises of the association’ or similar expressions.

Ideals Behind the Rules

Corporate rulings aim to ensure first and above all the preservation and the prosperity of the group along with solidarity and concord among its members. Officials are singled out and honoured when they contribute substantial amounts from their own purse to major refurbishment or reconstruction of dilapidating buildings, provide cash in cases of emergency or perform their duties irreproachably.Footnote ⁴¹ Solidarity among fellow-members is promoted and enhanced with prescriptions such as participation in processions (IG II² 1283) or other festivities, in the mourning for a deceased member and in his funeral or mutual help in cases of legal disputes (IG II² 1275 and 1258). This sense of community is elaborated, extended and further strengthened in Roman times when Iobacchoi are threatened with a monetary fine in case they circumvent the association and appeal to the polis’ mechanism or the Roman authorities for justice.Footnote ⁴² The honorary vocabulary of Athenian cult associations includes values and predominantly civic qualities such as ἀρετή ‘virtue’, εὔνοια ‘benevolence’, εὐσέβεια ‘piety towards the gods’, δικαιοσύνη ‘righteousness’ and φιλοτιμία ‘love of honour, zeal’.Footnote ⁴³ These five qualities appear in every possible combination, with only two standard parameters; piety appears in cases the honoured person had a sacral or cultic activity, righteousness in cases of successfully administering the affairs of the group. The remaining three usually designate a substantial financial contribution to the group. Only in the imperial era will eukosmia (clauses barring ill-talk, hubristic behaviour, fights and wounding) penetrate into the normative world of associations.Footnote ⁴⁴ In this respect, associations do not innovate, do not cut through their own path; they follow the lead of the Athenian polis when it granted certain privileges (proxenia, politeia, etc.). What changes is the beneficiary; instead of the Athenian polis, it is the associations themselves who capitalise and channel the outcome of their members’ activities.Footnote ⁴⁵ As a consequence, associations appear to have been very well integrated into the social fabric of the Athenian polis.

Rules Reflecting Realities or Realities Shaping Rules?

It is a commonplace that in Athens, to a large extent, associations’ rules reflect long-established strategies, inspired by what happens at the polis level, especially, and as far as controlling the powers of magistrates and channelling the competitive edge of members to the service of the association were concerned.Footnote ⁴⁶ In organisational affairs, they follow the language of the polis, for example, the designation of the main assembly as agora kyria (in almost all the honorary decrees), ekklesia kai syllogon poiein (in IG II² 1361),Footnote ⁴⁷ accountability procedures followed for magistrates leaving office (SEG 2:9 and I.Rhamnous 167, ll. 25–7) and perhaps in IG II² 1275 initiating what looks like a trial with no fixed penalty (atimetos agon). They use, though rarely, entrenchment clauses similar to that of the polis decrees,Footnote ⁴⁸ but not in the documents of the Roman era, in which the only similar reference (or rather exhortation) occurs in IG II² 1368, lines 30–1: εὐτονήσουσι γὰρ οἱ προεστῶτες τοῦ μηδὲν αὐτῶν λυθῆναι ‘for the presiding officers shall be empowered to prevent any of those decrees from being violated’ (tr. Ascough, Harland and Kloppenborg Reference Ascough, Harland and Kloppenborg2012: 13). In the numerous honorary decrees, associations usually penalise the non-performance of the ritual announcement of honours (anagoreusis), as in IG II² 1263, lines 43–5 (thiasotai, 300/299 BC); 1273, lines 21–6 (thiasotai, 265-263 BC); 1297, lines 17–18 (thiasotai, 236/5 BC); 1292, lines 15–17 (Sarapiastai, 215/4 BC).Footnote ⁴⁹

Cult associations do not seem to have had any impact outside their immediate surroundings; instead, they are influenced, at least in Hellenistic times, by the reigning civic and legal culture, as they adopt and use the mechanisms of dispute resolution, civic values and organisational details provided by the polis.Footnote ⁵⁰ In a sense, associations orbit around the organisational model of planet Polis. The situation does not significantly change once the centre of the ‘political’ universe shifts to Rome. Associations are sticking to the old ways of doing things, therefore their relation to the polis is not altered; however, they still have to respond to the challenges posed by the new administration, they have to acknowledge, even tacitly, the possibility of intervention by the Roman authority. This is the reason they proceed to an unprecedented introduction of rules concerning the punishment of their members for fighting one another. In order to stay clear of the Romans, the group of Iobacchoi went a step further and decided not to allow recourse to dispute resolution mechanisms other than those provided by the group itself.

Hellenistic cult associations in Athens do not seem to be concerned with providing a model of a well-ordered association. Despite the predominance of eukosmia in the world of Hellenistic gymnasia, Hellenistic associations seem very little concerned (if at all!) with the stability and orderly behaviour of their membership. This concern will emerge and predominate in Roman times. IG II² 1368 preserves two key terms, εὐστάθεια and εὐκοσμία, which roughly correspond to the modern notion of a ‘well-ordered society’. My guess is that the drive to pursue similar aims was initiated by the heavy shadow of the Roman administration. Roman magistrates were inculcated with the fear that associations were the hotbed of unrest. There are numerous testimonies to that; in the first-century Ephesus (Paul, Acts, 19.23–41), Philo’s description of the tense atmosphere in Alexandria (Philo, Against Flaccus, 135–8), the decision of a pro-consul (I.Ephesos 215) in second-century Ephesus about the bakers, the correspondence of Pliny with Trajan (Plin. Ep. 10.33–4 and 92–3).Footnote ⁵¹ At the bottom of this phobia lies the perception that deliberation and other forms of public consultation involving a certain amount of noise, murmuring (approving or disapproving), shouting, heckling and reaction to the speaker may quickly develop into challenges to the orderly life of a polis and to the Roman interests.Footnote ⁵² However, people’s participation in deliberation and consultation, even in this form, was probably an everyday practice in the Greek cities; thorybos was present in the council, the assembly, the lawcourts and other venues. Therefore, a certain amount of it was acceptable, even normal. One may observe that thorybos appears also in IG II² 1368, in the acclamation of the members in support of the inscription of the rules. But this acclamation has nothing spontaneous; it sounds like a well-rehearsed performance – at least that is how the text presents it. It is this fundamental perception of people’s participation in the process of deliberation and consultation as inherently destabilising that led to the adoption of disciplinary rules against each association’s members, despite the Athenian long tradition of peaceful co-existence.

Therefore, one can observe a gradual modification in the deployment of legal sanctions and regulations between the Hellenistic era and Roman times in Athenian associations, a qualitative shift to purely disciplinary measures. This shift of focus may be due to the differing qualities of the epigraphic habit; many more associations’ honorary decrees survive from Hellenistic than from Roman Athens. It does not mean, however, that legal sanctions against ‘corporate’ officials disappear.Footnote ⁵³ They are taken as granted, as part of the wider trend towards stability.

Nevertheless, even a well-intentioned reader would not fail to point out that, this being the case, we should have had more evidence from the western part of the empire. And, I am afraid, this evidence is not forthcoming … What to make of the lack of disciplinary measures in Roman collegia, with the sole exception of the Lanuvian cultores Salutaris Dianae et Antinoi (CIL XIV 2112, II ll. 26–8)? Is it due to a tighter administrative control on the municipal life? Or were the disciplinary rules an invention of the associates in the Roman East to shed suspicion and prejudice? Finally, is what attested in the Iobacchoi inscription (IG II² 1368) but an isolated instance in which the figure of Claudius Herodes Atticus, priest of the Sebastoi,Footnote ⁵⁴ played a pivotal role thanks to his social rank and status?

What remains to be answered is how Hellenistic and perhaps classical Athenian associations dealt with questions of animosity, instability, strife and fight in their ranks. To be more precise, how were members of associations restrained and made to abstain from insulting, fighting and injuring? It would have been naïve to assume that there were not any such worries; sporadic references to homonoia allude to such a concern. Since we do not hear anything in their numerous decrees and regulations, this suggests that associations did not aim to provide a sanitised context of common activities. There are several factors that, when combined, provide an explanation; first, associations in Hellenistic Athens were mainly cult groups, so there was little room for disagreements. Second, by tolerating thorybos and integrating it into the assembly business, they had at their disposal a mechanism to let off steam and avoid escalation. Third, there were informal channels of dealing with rowdy and recalcitrant members, such as peer pressure, competition for prestige and honour, withdrawal of support and/or contacts, marginalisation of the offending party and the ‘name and shame’ strategy mentioned in IG II² 1361 and Agora 16 161.

Thus, the toleration of thorybos and the integration of thorybountes into the ‘corporate’ business may have provided an alternative method of dealing with competition, dissension and strife. If, however, things got out of control, associates could always rely on the judicial system of the polis.Footnote ⁵⁵

Footnotes

^* I wish to thank Mario C. D. Paganini and Vincent Gabrielsen for providing the opportunity to present and test my argument at the conference organised by them at Athens, as well as for their excellent editorial care. The anonymous referees helped with their useful remarks to improve parts of the chapter. All translations are mine unless indicated otherwise. Any remaining infelicities are my responsibility. An earlier version in Greek with a different focus was published in Arnaoutoglou Reference Arnaoutoglou2016b.

¹ D. 18 (On the Crown) 260 as translated by Yunis Reference Yunis2005. See also D. 19 (On the false embassy) 199 (343/2 BC).

² See Dyck Reference Dyck1985: 46 on the role of details to lend credibility to the account provided by Demosthenes; Santamaría Álvarez Reference Santamaría Álvarez, Cortés Gabaudan and Méndez Dosuna2010.

³ IG II² 1177, 3–12 (mid fourth century BC). Ziebarth Reference Ziebarth1896: 167 rejects the interpretation of the clause as a ban of forming associations; for earlier bibliography, see Arnaoutoglou Reference Arnaoutoglou2003: 66 n. 110. See most recently a similar clause in SEG 57:1674, ll. 6–8 (= Schuler Reference Schuler2007: 134–5) (Lycia, Patara, second century BC): ἄλλωι δὲ μηθενὶ ἐξέστω συναγωγὴν | ποιεῖσθαι μηδὲ καταλύειν | ἐμ τῶι τεμένει πλὴν τῶν θυόντων ‘it is not allowed to anyone else to congregate or to lodge in the sanctuary except those who sacrifice’. Compare the edict of the first Hungarian king St. Stephen (AD 1001) penalising inappropriate behaviour in Christian churches reported by Nemeth Reference Nemeth and Hagg1994: 59.

⁴ Thorybos in the theatre: Dio Chrys. 32.74; in the stadium: Dio Chrys. 32.74; in the assemblies: Dio Chrys. 32.34; D. 6 (Philippics 2) 26; D. 19 (On the false embassy) 113; 122; Plu. Phoc. 24.5; Aesch. 1 (Against Timarchus) 1; in the lawcourts: Isoc. 15 (Antidosis) 272; X. Apology of Socrates 14–15; [D.] 57 (Against Eubulides) 50; Aesch. 1 (Against Timarchus) 174; Achilleus Tatius, Leucippe et Clitophon 7.9.1; 7.14.1. Ways to address occurrence of thorybos: Anaximenes, Rhetorica ad Alexandrum (M. Fuhrmann) 18.8. Bers Reference Bers, Cartledge and Harvey1985 defines ‘dikastic thorybos’ as ‘any vocal expression that one or more jurymen (dikastai) direct to a litigant or other members of the jury panel’ or in other words ‘to any breach of dikastic silence, to well articulated utterances as well as to the indistinct roar the word normally implies’ with reference to Pl. Laws, 876b, 949b; Aesch. 3 (Against Ctesiphon) 53 and 201. Punishment for thorybos in Syracuse, D.S. 13.91.4

⁵ Tacon Reference Tacon2001: 181–6; Wallace Reference Wallace, Sluiter and Rosen2004: 223–6 with reference to A. Pers. 591–4, Pr. 880, S. Ant. 690-2 and 757, Th. 8.66.1; Schwartzberg Reference Schwartzberg2010: 17; Bers Reference Bers, Cartledge and Harvey1985; Lanni Reference Lanni1997; Villacèque Reference Villacèque and Macé2013; Lanni Reference Lanni2012 underlines the importance of social status of litigants in raising the interest of the Athenian public.

⁶ Appeals to the unity or concord of the group, IG II² 1261 and 4985 with Baslez Reference Baslez and Molin2006: 158. Arbitration: IG II² 1289 with Papazarkadas Reference Papazarkadas2011: 194–203.

⁷ See IG II² 1258 and Is. frg. 35.26–27 (Thalheim). Inscription F.Delphes III.2 70 (Le Guen Reference Le Guen2001: 98 no 12 and Aneziri Reference Aneziri2003: C2) records a dispute between the Athenian and the Peloponnesian branches of the peri ton Dionyson technitai in the late second century BC that was finally resolved by the Romans in 112/1 BC.

⁸ See Baslez Reference Baslez and Molin2006: 157–8. In the recently published ephebarchic law from Amphipolis (Lazaridou Reference Lazaridou2015) inscribed in 24/3 BC, ll. 36–51 concern eukosmia and ll. 127–8 prescribe the appropriate behaviour of ephebes during public performances. However, the concept of akosmia appears already in the fifth century BC; as far as it concerns religious ceremonies, see CID I 7B, ll. 12–13 (Delphi, ca. 425 BC), IG I³ 82, l. 25 (Athens, 421/0 BC), Agora 16 56, l. 32 (Athens, before mid fourth century BC), IG V 1390, l. 39 (Andania, 91 BC?) with Deshours Reference Deshours2006: 100 and Gawlinski Reference Gawlinski2012: 151, I.Ilion 52, l. 29 (Ilion?, second century AD?). For the opposition thorybos-eustatheia, see Philo, Legatio ad Gaium, 90: ὁ τῶν μὲν εἰς εὐστάθειαν καὶ εὐδαιμονίαν ἁπάντων κενώσας τὰς πόλεις, μεστὰς δὲ τῶν εἰς ταραχὰς καὶ θορύβους καὶ τὴν ἀνωτάτω βαρυδαιμονίαν ἀναφήνας … ‘the one who stripped the cities of all that tends to stability and happiness and turned them into hotbeds of what makes for confusion and tumults and the height of misery’ (tr. F. H. Colson). Note also the thorybos-related terminology in almost all the passages mentioning disturbances.

⁹ This is best reflected in the Latin inscription CIL XIV 2112 (ILS 7212; FIRA I 49 and 175; FIRA I² 46; FIRA III² 35) from Lanuvium (AD 133–6) as reedited by Bendlin Reference Bendlin and Öhler2011. See also in IG II² 1368, ll. 15–16 the members of the Bakcheion shouting: εὐστάθειαν τῷ Βακχείῳ καὶ εὐκοσμίαν ‘stability and decency to the Backheion’.

¹⁰ D.H. 9.41.5; 10.41, thorybos and akosmia in a Roman assembly; Plu. Cato Minor, 26.2. The role of thorybos (clamour) in judicial proceedings is explored by Menard Reference Menard, Chauvaud and Prétou2014.

¹¹ An anonymous reviewer pointed out that the term eustatheia is rarely used outside medical texts and the term eukosmia is therefore preferable. However, there is a considerable number of epigraphic texts in which eustatheia features prominently: e.g. IAegThrace E 205, ll. 29–31 (Maroneia, second/first century BC), IScM I 54, ll. 34–8 (Istros, mid first century BC), IOSPE I² 82, ll. 86, 91, 94, 96, 100, 122, 132, 137–8, 141, 184 (Olbia, second-third century AD), I.Olbia 80, l. 86 (Olbia, mid-second century AD), SEG 48:948bis with SEG 57:727 (Olbia, ca. AD 220), SEG 49:1028b (Olbia, late second century AD), I.Milet 1072 (AD 99/100). The term is also used to qualify the performance of the agoranomia in Imperial Ephesus (e.g. I.Ephesos 911–13, 916–17, 921, 926–9, 933, 935, 937; I.Ephesos 3010–13, 3015–16) or of other magistracies (e.g. I.Ephesos 3052; IG XII.2 243). The adjective eustathes qualifies even the demos of Side in I.Side 26 dated to AD 276? and an individual’s life (IG XII.7 401 and 407, TAM V 3 1470, I.Sardis 55).

¹² Now in Leão and Rhodes Reference Leão and Rhodes2015: 133 no 76a. I have expressed my doubts about its Solonian ancestry in its preserved form in Arnaoutoglou Reference Arnaoutoglou2016a. According to Ziebarth Reference Ziebarth1896: 171, the disciplinary power of associations over their members rested upon Dig. 47.22.4.

¹³ Recent studies tend to concentrate predominantly on their social impact and function; see Jones Reference Jones1999, Ismard Reference Ismard2010, Steinhauer Reference Steinhauer2014.

¹⁴ Similar regulations in Egyptian Demotic documents from 380 BC onwards are presented by de Cenival Reference de Cenival1967/8; cf. de Cenival Reference de Cenival1972. See Boak Reference Boak1937b for a concise presentation of the relevant material from both Hellenistic and Roman Egypt’s Demotic and Greek documents.

¹⁵ See now the approach by Eckhardt Reference Eckhardt, in, Dijkstra, Kuin, Inger, Moser and Weidgenannt2017a, who regards associations in Roman Greece as a part of remembering strategies.

¹⁶ Normative texts: IG II² 1361 (ca. 330–24 BC); 1275 (fourth/third century BC); Agora 16 161 (beg. of third century BC); IG II² 1283 (240/39 BC); 1328 (185/4 BC); 1339 (37/6 BC?); SEG 31:122 (ca. AD 94); IG II² 1368 (AD 164/5); 1369 (second half of second century AD). Decrees: IG II² 1263; 1273; 1292; 1297; MDAI(A) 66 (1941): 228 no 4. I have included texts containing both rules of governance as well as rules of conduct as expounded by Gabrielsen and Paganini in Chapter 1.

¹⁷ IG II² 1361, 13–15: [ἐὰ]ν δ[έ τι]ς [ε]ἴπ[ηι] ἢ ἐπιψηφίσηι παρὰ τόνδε τὸν νόμον, ὀφειλέτω (50) δραχμὰς τῆι | [θεῶι] ὅ τ[ε εἰπὼν καὶ] ὁ ἐπιψηφίσας καὶ μὴ μετέστω αὐτῶι τῶν κοινῶν. ἀναγράφειν δ|[ὲ αὐτὸν ὀφείλο]ντα τῆι θεῶι τοῦτο τὸ ἀργύριον εἰς τὴν στήλην τοὺς ἐπιμελητά[ς] ‘and if anyone proposes or puts to vote (a proposal) against this law, he shall pay 50 drachmas to the goddess both the proposer and the one who puts to vote (such a proposal) and he shall not be allowed to take part in the common activities. The epimeletai shall inscribe his name as debtor of the goddess for this amount of money on a stele.’ See the remarks about the use of the entrenchment clause in polis documents in Lewis Reference Lewis, Bradeen and McGregor1974, Rhodes with Lewis Reference Rhodes and Lewis1997: 524 and Schwartzberg Reference Schwartzberg2004. Date: Tracy Reference Tracy1995: 129. See also Giannakopoulos in Chapter 2.

¹⁸ Similar clauses in IG II² 1368 and in Egypt, P.Cair. II 30606 (dem.) (157/6 BC), P. Mich. V 243, ll. 9–12 (Tebtynis, AD 14–37), P. Mich. V 244, ll. 16–18 (Tebtynis, AD 43). On Egyptian associations see also Langellotti in Chapter 8.

¹⁹ The text of the inscription, despite the awkward syntax of ll. 8–9, is quite clear: the duty to perform the procession was dictated by the law of the polis. What is regulated in the decree is not the procession per se, but the participation and the subsequent treatment of the orgeones of the asty.

²⁰ ἔδοξεν τῷ ἀρχερανιστῇ … τάδε δοκματίσαι ‘it was resolved by the chief-eranistes … these are his decisions’. The text does not allow any speculation about its ratification by the assembly of the synodos’ members. Cf. Laubry and Zevi Reference Laubry and Zevi2012: 334 leges collegiorum appear as decisions of the assembly of their members.

²¹ For the office, see Turcan Reference Turcan2003: 56.

²² ἐξ(εβόησαν)· τούτοις | ἀεὶ χρώμεθα … ὅτῳ δοκεῖ | κύρια εἶναι τὰ ἀνεγνωσμένα δόγμα|τα καὶ ἐν στήλῃ ἀναγραφῆναι, ἀράτω | τὴν χεῖρα. πάντες ἐπῆραν ‘they all shouted: “We will use them for ever. … To whomever it seems good that the statutes that have been read out should be ratified and inscribed on a monument (stele) raise your hand”. Everyone raised his hand’ (tr. Ascough, Harland and Kloppenborg Reference Ascough, Harland and Kloppenborg2012: 13); see also in Athens IG II² 1343 (35/4 BC); SEG 43:864 (mid-second century AD) and SEG 30:82 (ca. AD 230). Expressions about voting by showing of hands and counting of votes on inscriptions, see SEG 57:1074 (Iasos, ca. 225 BC); IG XII.4 1 57 and 59 (Cos, second half of second century BC); IG XII.3 249 (Anaphe, first century BC); IG XII.9 906 (Chalkis, after AD 212) and Wilhelm Reference Wilhelm1921: 5–9.

²³ See the use of the same words, eukosmos and iselysion, in IG II² 1368 and I.Pergamon 374 (AD 129–38). The latter term is attested also in I.Smyrna 731 (AD 80–3).

²⁴ References to verbal abuse (λοιδορία) and derivatives: IG IX.1².3 670, ll. 9 and 11 (Physkos-Lokris, mid-second century AD); resort to divine punishment, TAM V.1 251 and 269 (mod. Kula-Lydia, second-third century AD). See Spatharas Reference Spatharas2006: 380 for the use of laughter as an aggressive weapon to hurt the pride of the opponent in many Athenian lawcourt speeches; something similar might have triggered outbursts of abuse and vituperation that could have escalated into physical violence among associates. For Egypt, see Boak Reference Boak1937b: 217–18 with SB III 6319 recto, II ll. 44–7 (Magdola, Arsinoites, second-first century BC): ἄν τις ὑμῶν κακῶς ἐρεῖ, δώσ⟨ε⟩ι Β | ὅταν τις ὑμῶν βινῇ ἀλλοτ⟨ρ⟩ίαν γυνή, δώσ⟨ε⟩ι (δραχμὰς) Α ‘if anyone of you defames, he shall give 2,000 dr.; when one of you violates somebody else’s wife, he shall give 1,000 dr.’; BGU XIV 2371, l. 4 (Heracleopolites, first century BC), P. Lond. VII 2193, ll. 15–19 (69–58 BC), P.Mich. V 243, ll. 3 and 6–8 (Tebtynis, AD 14–37). San Nicolò Reference San Nicolò1927: 276 interprets the punishment for adultery with the wife of a co-member as an expression of ethico-religious norms; however, in an associative context, adultery signifies the breakdown of trust among members and therefore undermines solidarity among them and could lead to insults, blows and injuries. Adultery has thus the potential to unravel the cornerstones of associative life, trust and solidarity: see Monson Reference Monson2006: 229–32 and Reference Chankowski, Andreau and Chankowski2007: 772. It is particularly pertinent the interpretation of Kloppenborg Reference Kloppenborg2013: 204 to the clauses enforcing attendance in associations. He regards, perhaps excessively, deliberate absence from assemblies and meetings as ‘snubs of the honoree and are thus aggressive acts that subvert the fabric of the association’. One may object that not all meetings dealt with award of honours. On the regulation of obligatory participation, see Eckhardt in Chapter 3. For the rhetoric of ideals and their mild transgression during banquets, see Harland Reference Harland, Smith and Taussig2013b.

²⁵ Most recently in Kloppenborg and Ascough Reference Kloppenborg and Ascough2011: no 49 and Ascough, Harland and Kloppenborg Reference Ascough, Harland and Kloppenborg2012: no 8. For the expression πέρα κρίσεως see San Nicolò Reference San Nicolò1927: 295 according to whom the exaction of the fine does not require any further legal proceedings but it is immediately enforceable. A comparison between the laws of Greco-Roman religious associations and the Christian Didache is provided by Öhler Reference Öhler, Pratscher and Öhler2005.

²⁶ From the list of violations mentioned by San Nicolò Reference San Nicolò1927: 262–3 only breach of members’ obligations against the association (i.e. payment of contributions, disobedience, abstention from assemblies and festivities) and against other members of the group (insulting, fighting, injuring, etc.) are attested in Athens. In contrast to Egyptian material (both in Demotic and Greek), there is no reference to a duty to observe specific moral rules, like avoidance of adulterous relations (if indeed one interprets these clauses as imposing morals and not, what I think more likely, as undermining corporate trust and solidarity, see above Footnote n. 24) and rules pertaining to professional activities, San Nicolò Reference San Nicolò1927: 270-3 and 276.

²⁷ Non-performance of duties: IG II² 1328, 11–16: [ἐὰ]ν [δ]ὲ παρὰ ταῦ|τα ποιεῖ, κύριοι ἔ[σ]τωσαν οἱ ὀργεῶνες ζημιοῦντε[ς τὴ]ν [π]α[ρ]αβαίνουσά[ν] | τι τῶν γεγραμμένων μέχρι δραχμῶν π[εν]τήκον[τα κα]ὶ εἰσπραττ[όν]|των τρόπωι ὅτωι ἂν [δύνωνται· μ]ὴ ἐξεῖναι δὲ μηθενὶ μηδ’ ἐπιψηφίσαι | τὸν εἰθισμένον ἔπαινον αὐταῖς ‘and if someone acts against these provisions, the orgeones will have the power to impose a fine on the defaulter of the written provisions up to 50 drachmas and to exact it in whatever way they can; it is not allowed to anyone to put to vote the customary praise for them’; IG II² 1328, ll. 18–20: δ[ὶ]ς δὲ τὴν αὐ̣τ̣ὴ̣ν̣ [μὴ ἐξεῖ]|ναι καταστῆσαι ἕωσς ἂν ἅπασαι διέλθωσιν, εἰ δ[ὲ μή], ἔν[οχ]ος ἔ[στω] | ἡ ἱέρεια τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐπιτιμίοις ‘it is not allowed that she (sc. the priestess) is appointed twice till all of them fill the office, otherwise the priestess will be liable to the same punishment’. In contrast, magistrates are honoured when they comply and perform their duties properly, IG II² 1284, ll. 23–4: διώ[ικηκεν τὰ πρ]οσταττόμεν’ αὐτῶι ὑ[πὸ τ]ῶν νόμων ὁρθ|ῶς καὶ δικαίως ‘he administered what is ordained by the laws correctly and fairly’ and similarly IG II² 1291, ll. 3–6; SEG 2:9, ll. 4–6; SEG 44:60, ll. 3–5. See Kloppenborg Reference Kloppenborg2013: 213 who claims that these prescriptions target cases of withholding the honour due to magistrates and inducing other members to do so. No proclamation: IG II² 1263, ll. 43–5: ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀναγο|ρεύσωσι, ἀποτινέτωσαν τῶι κοινῶι | (50) δραχμάς ‘if they do not proclaim the honours, they shall pay to the associations 50 drachmas’ and similarly IG II² 1273, ll. 21–6; 1292, ll. 15–17; 1297, ll. 17–18. Refusal of appointment: SEG 31:122, ll. 23–7 with San Nicolò Reference San Nicolò1927: 270.

²⁸ Non-payment of fees: IG II² 1339, ll. 12-15: ἐὰν δὲ μὴ διδ[ῶσι | τὴν φοράν, ἔ]δοξεν μὴ μετέχειν αὐτο[ὺς | τοῦ ἐράν]ου ἐὰν μή τινι συμβῆι διὰ πέ[ν|θος ἢ διὰ ἀ]σθένειαν ἀπολειφθῆναι ‘and if they do not pay the fee, it has been decided that they should not participate in the eranos (?), unless mourning or illness hinders anyone’ and IG II² 1361, ll. 19–20. Non-compliance with decisions: IG II² 1275, ll. 12–17: ἐπειδὰν δὲ κυρώσωσι τὸν νόμ|ον οἱ θιασῶται, μηθὲν εἶναι τοῦ νόμου κυριώτερ|ον· εἰὰν δέ τις παρὰ τὸν νόμον ἢ εἴπει ἢ πράξει, κα|τηγορίαν αὐτοῦ εἶναι τῶι βουλομένωι τῶν θιασωτῶ|ν, καὶ ἂν ἕλει αὐτὸν τιμάτωσαν αὐτὸν καθότι ἂν δο|κεῖ τῶι κοινῶι ‘when the thiasotai ratify the statute, nothing shall be more powerful than the statute; and if anyone says or acts contrary to the statute, anyone of the thiasotai who so wishes can prosecute him and if he is convicted, he shall be punished with a penalty, whatever seems proper to the association’. Punishment of deviant behaviour: IG II² 1368, ll. 72–95; 1369, ll. 40–4; SEG 31:122, ll. 5–9; IG IX.1².3 670, ll. 7–13. Kloppenborg Reference Kloppenborg2013: 211 claims that most of the offences concern status challenges and they reflect a structural problem of the associations.

²⁹ San Nicolò Reference San Nicolò1927: 289–90.

³⁰ More fruitful would have been to compare the imposition of fines by polis authorities (proedroi of the assembly, strategoi in AthPol 61.2 with Rhodes Reference Rhodes1981: 684) (ἐπιβολαὶ) see IG I³ 82 (421/0 BC) and Harrison Reference Harrison1971: 4–5. See Ziebarth Reference Ziebarth1896: 174; the term Vereinspolizei, ‘association’s police’, misrepresents the role of the officials. See also P. Lond. VII 2193, l. 17: μηι|δὲ ἐπ[ικα]λήσειν καὶ μὲ κατηιγορή[σ]ειν ⟦α⟧ τοῦ ἑτέρου ‘not to indict or to accuse another …’, with Roberts, Skeat and Nock Reference Roberts, Skeat and Nock1936: 53–4. Refusal or abstention from participating in an assembly to pass a verdict resulted in a fine, IG II² 1368, ll. 96–9 with San Nicolò Reference San Nicolò1927: 260–1 and CID I, 9 C, ll. 6–10 (Delphi, beg. of fourth century BC).

³¹ Foucart Reference Foucart1873: 41 (recourse to polis tribunals), Ziebarth Reference Ziebarth1896: 175.

³² Rubinstein Reference Rubinstein and Thür2010: 199–209 identifies four criteria that point to the conclusion that polis agents are vested with powers to actively proceed to exaction of imposed penalties: (i) combination of a praxis clause with a penalty clause directed against the officials responsible for the exaction; (ii) clause granting immunity to the agent of exaction from prosecution; (iii) cross reference to existing legislation or legal procedures that extend the authority of magistrates and/or define the method to be applied; and (iv) clause granting permission to officials to resort to any available means to exact the penalty.

³³ There is no question of the association imposing sanctions on non-members, despite San Nicolò Reference San Nicolò1927: 265–6. San Nicolò seeks parallels to penalties imposed by sanctuaries on their visitors; this is rather misleading since the sanctuary authorities were considered as sovereign in the enclosure but associations’ authority extended only to their membership. Equally deceptive are the two examples in San Nicolò Reference San Nicolò1927: 266 n. 45 on the power of demos authorities exercising judicial function, since they operate in the context of a contract, in which the demos is one of the contracting parties.

³⁴ Fines consecrated: IG II² 1361, ll. 13–14 and 20 (ca. 330–324/3 BC); 1273, ll. 21–4 (265–3 BC); 1297, ll. 17–18 (236/5 BC); MDAI (A) 66 (1941): 228 no. 4, l. 19 (138/7 BC). For Poland Reference Poland1909: 450 fines originally were designated to be paid to a deity and only later the association is designated as the recipient; but evidence from Athenian associations does not support this conclusion. San Nicolò Reference San Nicolò1927: 282 considers the reference to the exact amount of money to be paid as a protection against arbitrariness. His argument, however, is weakened by, at least, one case in which the penalty is left to the discretion of the assembly, IG II² 1275, ll. 14–17 (see above Footnote n. 26). For Egypt, see Boak Reference Boak1937b: 218–19. San Nicolò Reference San Nicolò1927: 258–60 claims that the term παραχρῆμα, ‘immediately’, signifies the imposition of the penalty on the spot; see IG II² 1273 and 1323. However, in SEG 31:122, 17–18 παραχρῆμα is qualified as a period of a year. Fines payable to the association: IG II² 1263 (300/299 BC) and 1368 (AD 164/5). For the fines provided in Demotic documents in Egypt, see San Nicolò Reference San Nicolò1927: 273–5 and de Cenival Reference de Cenival1972.

³⁵ Fixed by decree: IG II² 1263, ll. 43-6. Discretion of the assembly: IG II² 1275, ll. 14–17. See Ziebarth Reference Ziebarth1896: 173.

³⁶ IG II² 1368, ll. 67–72; 82-3; 99–107 and 136–44. Foucart Reference Foucart1873: 40–2; Ziebarth Reference Ziebarth1896: 170–9; Poland Reference Poland1909: 446–52; San Nicolò Reference San Nicolò1927: 279–81. San Nicolò Reference San Nicolò1927: 281 n. 177 is clearly wrong in criticising Poland Reference Poland1909 who claimed that temporary expulsion could concur with a fine, see IG II² 1368, ll. 88-90: καὶ προστειμάσθω πρὸς χρόνον μὴ εἰσελθεῖν ὅσον ἂν δόξῃ καὶ ἀργυρίου μέχρι (δηναρίων) κε ‘and he shall be barred from attending as long as the association decides and pay a fine up to 25 denarii’. For the term stibas, see now Jaccottet Reference Jaccottet and Schlesier2011 who argues that the term should be understood as the chief celebration/festival of the Iobacchoi. For the officials responsible to remove the recalcitrant member (hippoi), see Turcan Reference Turcan2003: 71.

³⁷ For the attitudes towards striking out a member in associations of the western part of the Roman empire, see Tran Reference Tran and Wolff2007.

³⁸ SEG 31:122, ll. 42–5: τὰς δὲ φορὰς | καταφέριν τῷ ταμίᾳ ἐπάναγκες ἰς τὰς ἐγδόσις· ὁ δὲ μὴ κατενένκας | ἀποτινέτω τὸ διπλοῦν ὁ δὲ μὴ δοὺς τὸ κάθολον ἐξέρανος | ἔστω ‘The dues must be brought to the treasurer so that loans can be made. Whoever does not pay shall be fined a double amount. Whoever does not pay at all shall be expelled from the association’ (tr. Ascough, Harland and Kloppenborg Reference Ascough, Harland and Kloppenborg2012: 19).

³⁹ For a parallel, see IG VII 2725, ll. 12–33 (Akraipheia-Boeotia, second century AD?): εἰ δέ τις | τὴν ἐπιγραφὴν ἐκκόψ|ῃ ἐκ τῆς παραστά[δο]|ς ἢ αὐτὴν ἄρῃ ἢ κακο[ποι]|ήσῃ, δ̣ώσι ὡς ὁμοίως | τῇ συνόδῳ τῶν ἡρω|ιαστῶν τῶν τέκν⟨ων⟩ μου | δηνάρια δισχίλια ὁμοίω|ς καὶ τῇ πόλι Ἀκρηφιῶν δ|ηνάρια δισχίλια πεντα|κόσια. καὶ τοὺς | ὑβρίσαντας τοὺς ἥρω|ας τῶν τέκνων ἡμῶν κα|ὶ ἐμὲ καὶ τὸν ἄνδρα μου Πυ|θίωνα καὶ ἐπιμένοντας | τῇ αὐθαδίᾳ οὐ βούλομαι μ|ετέχιν τῆς συνόδου τῶ|ν ἡρωιαστῶν τῶν τέκν|ων ἡμῶν Ἐπαμινώνδου | καὶ Θεοκρίν⟨η⟩ς μήτε ζώντω|ν ἡμῶν μήτε τελευτησ|άντων ‘and if anyone damages the inscription from the pilaster or removes or damages the pilaster, he shall pay equally to the association of Worshippers of Our Children as Heroes two thousand denarii and equally to the city of Akraipheia two thousand five hundred denarii. And those who have abused the Worshippers of Our Children as Heroes and myself and my husband Pythion and insist on being insolent, I do not wish them to participate in the association of Worshippers of Our Children as Heroes, Epaminondas and Theokrine, neither while we are alive nor when we have passed away’. Τhe crucial question in this case is whether hybris included the mutilation of the inscription alone or together with defaulting on the payment of the fine.

⁴⁰ See the lack of references to officials like rhabdophoroi vel similia from the administrative board of Athenian associations. Compare with IG IX.2 1109, ll. 23–30 (second century BC, oracle of Apollo Koropaios near Demetrias) ῥαβδοῦχος … κωλύειν τὸν ἀκοσμοῦντα ‘club-bearer … stops the person who behaves improperly’, I.Ilion 52 (Ilion?, second century BC?) ἔχειν ἐξουσίαν τοὺς ἀκοσμοῦντας τῆι ῥάβδωι κολάζειν ‘he has the power to punish with a club those behaving improperly’ and IG V.1 1390, ll. 41–5 (Andania, 91 BC?).

⁴¹ IG II² 1263, ll. 9–13: καὶ τοὺς λογισμοὺς ἀπέδωκεν ὀρθ|[ῶ]ς καὶ δικαίως καὶ εὐθύνας ἔδωκεν | ὧν τε αὐτὸς ἐκυρίευσεν καὶ ⟦τ⟧ ἃ πρὸς | τοὺς ἄλλους ἐξελογίσατο ὅσοι τι τ|ῶν κοινῶν διεχείρισαν ‘and he provided their accounts correctly and justly and underwent a scrutiny of whatever he administered and he received accounts of those who administered anything of the common funds’ and similarly IG II² 1271, ll. 6–8. On ἀνέγκλητος, see IG II² 1235 (ca. 274/3 BC), 1292 and 1328; see also the use of such expressions as λόγον καὶ εὐθύνας δεδώκασιν in IG II² 1199 (ca. 325/4 BC) and εὐθύνας διδόναι in IG II² 1174 (368/7 BC).

⁴² IG II² 1368, ll. 90–4: ἔστω δὲ | τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπιτείμια καὶ τῷ δαρέντι καὶ | μὴ ἐπεξελθόντι παρὰ τῷ ἱερεῖ ἢ τῷ | ἀρχιβάκχῳ, ἀλλὰ δημοσίᾳ ἐνκαλέσαν|τι ‘and the same penalties shall be applied to the person beaten and did not complain to the priest or to the archibakchos, but he proceeded to an accusation in the polis’. Compare Philostratus, Vitas Sophistarum (Polemon) 532.

⁴³ See the single instance of andragathia, ‘bravery, manly virtue’, in IG II² 1261 with Arnaoutoglou Reference Arnaoutoglou2003: 117.

⁴⁴ Baslez Reference Baslez and Follet2004: 106–7 associates these occurrences with eukosmia in the world of gymnasia. The concern about eukosmia appears in the context of a gymnasium (IG XII.6 11, Samos, after 243/2 BC, Lazaridou Reference Lazaridou2015: 5 ll. 36–51, 24/23 BC), a sanctuary (Agora 16 123, 302/1 BC), oracle (IG IX.2 1109, Thessaly, second century BC), theatre (Agora 15 34, 343/2 BC), celebration (SEG 12:511, Cilicia, Magarsos-Antiochia, ca. 140 BC), of young women (εὐκοσμία τῶν παρθένων, MDAI (A) 37 (1912): 277 no 1; 35 (1910): 436 no 20, Pergamum; I.Pergamon 463, before AD 37?), a special archon ἐπὶ τῆς εὐκοσμίας (IGR IV 556, l. 69; IGR IV 582; MAMA IX no 38). Liu Reference Liu, Gleba and Pásztókai-Szeőke2013: 136 rather hastily considers these rules as ‘mechanism for exposing and punishing the non-conformist, whose reputation would consequently suffer’.

⁴⁵ See Arnaoutoglou Reference Arnaoutoglou2003: 115–18.

⁴⁶ IG II² 1283, ll. 9–11: ὅπως ἂν οὖν φα|[ίν]ωνται καὶ οἱ ὀργεῶνες τῶι τε τῆς πόλεως νόμωι πειθαρ|χοῦντες ‘so that the orgeones of the polis will appear to comply to the laws of the polis’ and ll. 25–6: κατά τε τὰ πάτρια τῶν Θραικῶν καὶ τοὺς τῆς πόλ[εως νόμου]|ς ‘according to the ancestral customs of the Thracians and to the laws of the polis’.

⁴⁷ Compare the use of the expression ἐπεμελήθησαν δὲ καὶ τῆς συλλογῆς τῆς τε βουλῆς κτλ in Agora 15 (passim).

⁴⁸ Compare the entrenchment clauses in IG II² 1275 and 1361 with the respective clauses in IG I³ 29 (ca. 450 BC); IG I³ 1453C (?ca. 449 BC); IG I³ 52 (434/3 BC); IG II² 43, ll. 51–61 (378/7 BC), Agora 19 L4a, ll. 95–6. See San Nicolò Reference San Nicolò1927: 267.

⁴⁹ Fines on demarchoi, IG II² 1183 and 1194. Proclamation of crown (anagoreusis stephanou) occurs also in IG II² 1235. Proclamation (aneipein) widely practiced at polis level, IG II³ 378; 870; 877; IG II² 1178; 1186–7; 1193; 1202. Penalty (epibole, ἐπιβολή) imposed by a demarchos, IG II² 1177.

⁵⁰ See Koerner Reference Koerner1987 for the sanctions against magistrates in the archaic and classical polis.

⁵¹ For the abuse of beer and wine drinking in Egyptian religious associations, see Clarysse Reference Clarysse, Geus and Zimmermann2001. For instances of breakdown of law and order in Bithynia, see Talbot Reference Talbot2004.

⁵² Thorybos in associations’ gatherings: Philo, In Flaccum, 138, Ael. Arist. 18 (Monodia epi Smyrne) 8. Thorybos in deliberations of political organs outside Athens: OGIS 48 (Ptolemaïs Hermiou, Egypt, 278/7 BC) and in imperial Nicomedia (Bithynia), TAM IV 3, 7.

⁵³ See fine on eukosmos in IG II² 1368, ll. 144–6. For the office, see Turcan Reference Turcan2003: 66.

⁵⁴ Cl. Herodes is attested as priest of the imperial cult (ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν Σεβαστῶν) in AD 126/7 (IG II² 3603; 3607; 3608), as priest (ἱερεύς) in AD 132 (IG II² 3296) and involved in subsidising a new outfit of ephebes during their march to Eleusis in AD 165/6 (IG II² 2090). See Ameling Reference Ameling1983 (for Herodes’ cursus) and Tobin Reference Tobin1997: 35.

⁵⁵ After the completion of this chapter, an article exploring the different treatment of violence in democratic and oligarchic regimes appeared by Simonton Reference Simonton2017. His conclusion that democratic regimes tended not to regulate in extenso citizens’ behaviour and thus defused any threats to their stability. Pending further detailed discussion, this seems to be very similar to my findings about the lack of extensive regulation of everyday activity in Athenian private associations.