Sophia Aneziri has produced a new reference work on Greek endowments, the first since B. Laum, Stiftungen in der griechischen und römischen Antike (Berlin 1914). The volume begins with a series of thematic chapters: Chapter 1 tackles the question of what Greek endowments are, and how they are to be defined; Chapter 2 examines their administrative and legal features; Chapter 3 considers their financial dimension; Chapter 4 explores the identity and motivations of endowers; and Chapter 5 turns to the specific case of royal endowments. A brief conclusion is followed by two appendices: Appendix I discusses sources that have been incorrectly interpreted as endowments, while Appendix II reviews cases where the evidence is suggestive but ultimately inconclusive.[1] The second half of the volume consists of the corpus of testimonia, primarily epigraphic, which are organized geographically. Documents are presented with lemma, text, translation, concise commentary, and useful cross-references to discussion in the first half of the book.
For the ancient Greeks, endowments did not constitute a discrete legal entity but rather a “hybrid structure” (p. 154); nor was there any fixed terminology. As a result, we are largely at the mercy of modern definitions, drawing categorical boundaries that the Greeks themselves did not articulate. In Chapter 1, Aneziri pins down clear parameters and includes only evidence that attests to transfers of land or movable property—whether by donation, dedication, or bequest—made by private individuals to poleis, koina, sanctuaries, or associations, with the aim of funding a specific activity on a regular and ongoing basis. The modern terminology that best captures the different features of such a hybrid entity is “perpetual endowment sub modo.”[2]
Aneziri is appropriately cautious about the limitations of the ancient sources (see, e.g., the discussion of SEG XLIII 205 on p. 38) as well as those imposed by modern categorizations—including her own. Less clearly integrated into her terminological discussion, however, is the term Rentenstiftung, which appears multiple times throughout the book but is notably absent from Chapter 1. The term is used to describe cases involving a partial transfer of property, in which only the income (derived from rents or interest) is endowed, while the principal remains under the control of the donor. A discussion of the implications of this practice in the context of Chapter 1 would have been welcome. Moreover, contrary to Aneziri’s claim that such arrangements “mainly” (p. 97) involve family associations as recipients (nos. 8, 31, 74, 77), other cases, ambiguous as they are, seem to suggest a broader application, especially when kings are involved (nos. 83, 86, 90). It also remains to be explored whether this form of endowment became more common during the Imperial period (cf., e.g., Plin., Ep. 7.18; I.Ephesos 27; SEG XXVII 938, XXXVIII 1462; see pp. 98–99). This final question will no doubt be addressed in Aneziri’s forthcoming volume on endowments in the Roman period.
Chapter 2 offers a detailed analysis of endowments’ administrative framework and legal protection. They were adapted to local legal norms, enjoyed protection against mismanagement, and were integrated into local civic and sacred economies through the investment of endowed capital in the form of loans. In instances where there were delays in the repayment of loaned capital, mechanisms could be flexible enough to tolerate shortfall (e.g., I.Délos 314B, ll. 168–169). This flexibility likely contributed to the long-term durability of endowed assets. At Delos, for example, some private endowments appear to have outlived not only their founders but quite possibly the family line as well. Administrative and legal integration, along with the recipient’s occasional ability to intervene and modify the arrangements set by the endower—especially in the case of royal endowments—made these transactions more reciprocal than they otherwise might have been.
In Chapter 3, Aneziri analyzes the financial character of endowments, noting that monetary assets constitute the overwhelming majority of what was endowed. This predominance, Aneziri argues, can be attributed to money’s superior flexibility and investment potential relative to land. It is also likely informed by “the concomitant desire of the upper social strata to keep their land in the family” (p. 150). On this point, Aneziri’s argument can perhaps be pushed further. While susceptible to misuse in contexts with weak enforcement, money also possesses a certain “invisibility,” often eluding official oversight.[3] Endowments provided a legal mechanism for stabilizing a volatile yet profitable asset, bringing monetary capital into the open under conditions that ensured both security for the donor and benefit for the recipient. Concretely, stabilization entailed convertibility. Endowment agreements enabled the transformation of monetary capital into durable forms such as precious objects (e.g., phialai at Delos) or landed property—either from the outset (e.g., nos. 10, 18, 79) or subsequently, to preserve the viability of the endowment. A particularly illustrative example is the case of Kritolaos on Amorgos (no. 27), where the endowed capital (2,000 drachmas) was lent out in tranches of up to 200 drachmas, secured by unencumbered landed property of greater value, in perpetuity. In case of default, the interest payments were to be covered through the lease of the mortgaged property.
Chapter 4 first addresses the identity of the endowers, who typically belonged to the upper strata of society (mostly men) and were members of the recipient community. As for what endowers sought to achieve, Aneziri distinguishes between endowments made in the public interest—supporting communal needs, primarily of a cultic or educational nature—and “self-related ones,” where the endower or their family are the central focus. Both types, however, should be understood as euergetistic transactions that ultimately reinforced collective identity and highlighted “family initiatives in public life” (p. 153).
Particularly stimulating are Aneziri’s insights into the complex question of endowments’ place within the political economy of the polis (pp. 117–121). How did endowments relate to other financial instruments, such as public borrowing, subscriptions, reserve funds, and roll-over accounts? And how can we account for their notable absence in connection with key areas of public expenditure, especially fortifications and grain purchases? Aneziri cautiously concludes that the regulatory framework governing endowments was deemed unsuitable for such critical needs, as it imposed long-term constraints dictated by private individuals. At the same time, the early association of endowments with the cultic sphere may explain their eventual confinement to that domain. The first part of this hypothesis, however, remains not entirely persuasive. Loans extended by private individuals were, in fact, employed for both purposes (grain: e.g., Migeotte, Emprunts no. 40; fortifications: e.g., ibid., no. 8). Such loans typically bound cities through contractual frameworks and agreements that safeguarded, often over extended periods, the interests of private lenders (e.g., ibid., no. 59), frequently with significant repercussions for the economic and financial stability of the political community (e.g., ibid., no. 49).
Royal endowments are the focus of Chapter 5. Aneziri provides a detailed analysis of individual cases, reserving broader reflections on this specific subset of evidence for the conclusion (pp. 153–154). Kings—especially the Antigonids, Ptolemies, and Attalids—established endowments for cities and sanctuaries beyond their immediate territorial control as instruments of political influence in those regions. The Seleucids are notably absent from this picture. The reasons for this omission remain unclear and merit further discussion, particularly given that the only two attested Seleucid endowments (nos. 81 and 98) do not appear to involve monetary gifts.
In conclusion, Aneziri demonstrates complete command of the material, guiding the reader through the subtleties of a complex and challenging body of evidence. We owe her thanks for laying the groundwork with such precision—work that will undoubtedly stimulate further discussion on numerous aspects of endowments. One topic that scholars working on endowments should investigate more closely is their chronological distribution. While the book’s title suggests coverage of both the Classical and Hellenistic periods, Table 5 (pp. 191–193) shows that the vast majority of attestations are concentrated in the Hellenistic era. Aside from Nicias’s endowment at Delos (no. 47)—whose authenticity merits caution[4]—Xenophon’s in Skillous (no. 9), and the problematic case of no. 30 (possibly not an endowment and in any case early Hellenistic; cf. CGRN 60), there is little clear evidence for the practice prior to the third century, which accounts for ca. 46% of attestations. This raises interesting questions about the emergence and spread of endowments. While the trend remains steady into the second century (ca. 35%), attestations drop sharply between 100 and 30 BCE, to just ca. 12%. Unless this decline reflects selective preservation or a shift outside the chronological scope of Aneziri’s study (which stops at 31/0 BCE), it calls for further explanation.
Overall, this is a stimulating book, presented in clear and lucid prose. Scholars with diverse questions, backgrounds, and levels of familiarity with the subject matter will find much to gain from it.
Notes
[1] One the two appendices may have featured a discussion of the recent financial account from Orchomenos published by Y. Kalliontzis, in Contribution à l’épigraphie et à l’histoire de la Béotie hellénistique. De la destruction de Thèbes à la bataille de Pydna (Athènes 2020), 217–225 no. 34 (= SEG LXX 192), which, according to its editor, may be related to an endowment.
[2] Cf. S. Aneziri, “Stiftungen im antiken Griechenland: eine selbständige Rechtsinstitution?,” in Symposion 2022 [2023], 293–305.
[3] On invisible and visible property see S. Ferrucci, “La ricchezza nascosta. Osservazioni su aphanes e phanera ousia,” MedAnt 8.1 (2005) 145–169, with previous bibliography.
[4] V. Chankowski, Parasites du Dieu. Comptables, financiers et commerçants dans la Délos hellénistique (Athènes 2019) 121: “Le réactivation du souvenir de Nicias et de sa célèbre théorie pouvait en tout cas participer de l’œuvre idéologique d’Athènes lors de sa reprise en main de l’île d’Apollon [. . .] les Athéniens ont peut-être [. . .] donné à certains objets un arrière-plan historique en les identifiant dans l’inventaire avec des figures bien connues.” Is it not possible that Nikias’ endowment—known otherwise only through Plutarch (Plut., Nic. 3.6)—was in fact a creation of the late Hellenistic period?