|i.||Geographical area||Attica with Salamis|
Stable URL: http://ancientassociations.ku.dk/GR/13Download as:
Last Updated on 26 Jan 2018
CAPInv. GR-13: orgeones
II. GENERAL REFERENCE
|i.a.||Full reference (original language)||ὀργεῶνες (Is. 2.14 = Menecles)|
|i.b.||Full reference (transliterated)||orgeones|
|ii.||Reference context||In a case in which the right to inheritance of an adopted son is contested, the speaker - defendant argues for his right to the property of the deceased Menekles. The right is challenged by the brother of Menekles. In particular, the speaker claims that his adoption was lawful and he cites as proof that he was registered, among other groups, with the orgeones, whose testimony evokes in court.|
|i.||Date(s)||m. iv BC|
|i.||Source(s)||Is. 2.14-17, 45 (Menecles; m. iv BC)|
|Online Resources||Is. 2.14|
|i.a.||Source type(s)||Literary source(s)|
|i.b.||Document(s) typology & language/script||Law court speech, in Greek.|
|i.||Comments||Since the orgeones are not qualified in any particularly meaningful way (only the orgeones-group in which Menekles enrolled the speaker), it should be considered as a general reference to not better defined group of orgeones.|
Arnaoutoglou, I. (2003), Thusias heneka kai sunousias. Private religious associations in Hellenistic Athens. Athens: 35-6.
Cobetto Ghiggia, P. (1999), L'adozione ad Atene in epoca classica. Alessandria: 88.
Ferguson, W. (1944), ‘The Attic orgeones’, HThR 37: 61-140, esp. 70.
Ismard, P. (2010), La cité des réseaux. Athènes et ses associations VIe – Ier siècle av. J.-C.. Paris: 107-8.
Lambert, S. (1993), The phratries of Attica. Ann Arbor, Michigan: 174-6.
Rubinstein, L. (1993), Adoption in fourth century Athens. Copenhagen.
|Note||The testimony of orgeones used in conjunction with that of demotai and phratores led scholars (e.g. Lambert 1993: 75; Cobetto Ghigia 1999) to argue that orgeones were sub-groups of phratries. However, if that was the case the testimony of orgeones was redundant or superfluous. It is presented in court in order to re-enforce the argument of the speaker about the legality and appropriateness of his adoption, stressing the continuity in the preservation of the religious allegiances of the adopter (Arnaoutoglou 2003: 36); cf. Ismard 2010: 108.|
|ii.||Historical authenticity||The speech is considered as genuine.|