Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros36ÉtudesBetter Late Than Never!

Études

Better Late Than Never!

Asklepios’ Arrival(s) in Athens
Ioannis Mylonopoulos
p. 23-59

Résumés

S’appuyant sur des sources écrites anciennes, le célèbre monument de Télémaque, et des données de fouilles, l’article propose une nouvelle reconstruction de l’arrivée du culte d’Asclépios à Athènes. Deux fondations simultanées de cultes à l’Asclépios épidaurien à Athènes sont reconstituées, qui remontent selon toute vraisemblance à la même initiative dans le dernier quart du ve siècle avant notre ère. Un tout nouveau sanctuaire pour le dieu d’Épidaure est créé sur le versant sud de l’Acropole (Télémachos), tandis qu’un ancien sanctuaire athénien, celui d’Amynos, ouvre ses portes pour accueillir Asclépios (Sophocle). En ce qui concerne les trois fêtes d’Asclépios à Athènes, l’article propose que la plus ancienne, les Épidauria, soit liée au culte d’Asclépios dans le sanctuaire d’Amynos. Les Asklepieia apparaissent dans les sources épigraphiques bien plus tard et faisaient peut-être partie du programme de Lykourgos ; ils doivent être associés à l’Asklepieion en asty. La troisième fête, les Heroa, fut la dernière à être créée dans la seconde moitié du iie siècle avant notre ère. L’article propose deux hypothèses alternatives, la traditionnelle qui voit dans les Héroa une célébration en l’honneur du héros Asclépios et une nouvelle qui traite les Héroa comme une fête en l’honneur de Sophocle héroïsé (probablement avec Asclépios).

Haut de page

Texte intégral

A very early version of the paper was presented as a seminar at a Summer School organized by the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Erfurt in 2007. A more advanced version was presented as a lecture at the Department of Classics of Johns Hopkins University in 2009. The paper in its current form profited enormously from the exchanges I had with the audiences in Erfurt and Baltimore. Special thanks will have to go to Bernhard Blattmann, Angelos Chaniotis, Richard Gordon, Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge, Jörg Rüpke, Alan Shapiro, and Christopher J. Smith who discussed with me various aspects of this paper. I also owe gratitude to the anonymous reviewers whose insightful remarks enriched the final version of this article. Except where otherwise indicated, all translations are mine.

  • 1 Ael. Or. 49.1: Ἔτυχον μὲν διατρίβων ἐν Ἀδριανοῖς, τοῦ θεοῦ πέμψαντος· ἦσαν δὲ αἱ πολλαὶ τότε καὶ (...)

1In Aelius Aristeides’ Sacred Tales, the perhaps most hypochondriac piece in all ancient Greek literature, we read a passage so full of passion for descriptive details that would have made Molière’s Le Malade imaginaire seem even more unconvincing:1

I happened to be staying in Hadrianoi because the god had sent me there. Then I also had many frequent difficulties. I could neither take nourishment nor retain what I had tasted, but it immediately caused a blockage and there was much burning and it tore at my throat and cut off my breathing, and fiery spasms arose to my head. My attempts to vomit had no result, but even a drop caused a tempest, because the stuff was held within and choked me. I would hardly be free of it with much noise and utter desperation, nor bloodlessly, but the whole passage was torn anew and returned to normal only so that another wound might form. My exhaustion and the general weakness of my body and its deterioration were consistent with these circumstances.

  • 2 Besides the monumental study on Asklepios by E.J. Edelstein and L. Edelstein (EdelsteinEdelste (...)
  • 3 Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 334–359.

2At the end of his medical odyssey, Aelius Aristeides was cured in the Asklepieion of Pergamon. His six orations that form the Sacred Tales (ἱεροὶ λόγοι) represent together with the orations 38, 39, 42, and 53 the most important literary sources not only for various aspects of individual religiosity and personal devotion to a specific deity, but moreover for the cult of Asklepios2 and more specifically for his sanctuary in Pergamon, the god’s most significant cult place in Asia Minor.3

  • 4 IG IV2 1, 121–124.
  • 5 See, in general, LiDonnici (1995) and Girone (1998). Most recently and summarily, Prêtre (2019).
  • 6 IG IV2 1, 121, l. 3–9: [Κλ]εὼ πένθἔτη ἐκύησε. v αὕτα πέντἐνιαυτοὺς ἤδη κυοῦσα ποὶ τὸν [θε]ὸν (...)

3Firsthand stories about diseases and extraordinary cures through the power of Asklepios are also known on a different medium from Epidauros, the mother sanctuary of the one in Pergamon. A very long text, which was originally displayed near the incubation hall,4 presents a long list of miraculous cures, the iamata.5 Apparently, the priestly officials of the sanctuary collected healing stories from individual private dedications and created a powerful means of advertisement for the cult place. The very first of these iamata retells the quite unbelievable story of Kleo:6

Kleo was with child for five years. After she had been pregnant for five years, she came as a suppliant to the god and slept in the abaton. As soon as she left it and got outside the sanctuary she bore a son who upon his birth washed himself at the fountain and walked about with his mother. In return for this favor, she inscribed on her offering: ‘Admirable is not the greatness of the tablet, but the divinity, in that Kleo carried the burden in her womb for five years, until she slept in the temple and was made sound.’

  • 7 Ar. Plut. 400–414, 633–747.
  • 8 The Aristophanic text does not clarify which of the Attic Asklepieia is supposed to be the stage (...)

4Such graphic descriptions are completely lacking from the literary and epigraphic evidence associated with the Athenian Asklepieion. No stories were told about imaginary patients looking for healing, and certainly no woman gave birth to her son after a five-year pregnancy just outside the temenos. The only ‘fancy’ visitor seems to have been the Aristophanic Ploutos,7 if we accept the association between the Asklepieion mentioned in this comedy and the sanctuary on the South Slope of the Athenian Acropolis.8 Apparently, the late date of the sanctuary’s foundation, in the 20s of the fifth century BCE and its predominantly local character obstructed the creation of ‘urban legends’ about the omnipotence of the Athenian Asklepios, who actually seems to have been quite close to his Epidaurian roots till the end of antiquity.

  • 9 See, in general, Mitchell-Boyask (2008), esp. p. 105–121, 153–182. Wickkiser (2008), p. 63–66, ac (...)
  • 10 van Wijk (2016). See n. 101.

5There is plenty of bibliography on the reasons—usually, a strong association with the plague of 430 BCE is made9—why the Athenians decided to bring Asklepios to Athens. Most recently, Roy van Wijk suggested that the introduction of Asklepios’ cult should be seen in the context of complex negotiations between Athens and Epidauros in the immediate aftermath of the peace treaty of Nikias in 421 BCE, aiming at the bilateral reinforcement of said treaty.10

  • 11 See, in general, Garland (1991). More specifically on the foundation of new private cults, see Pu (...)
  • 12 Kolb (1977).
  • 13 Borgeaud (1988), p. 133–162; Mastrapas (2013).
  • 14 Pache (2001); Janouchová (2013), p. 95–100.

6The sixth century BCE witnessed the introduction of important cults such as those of Artemis Brauronia, Demeter Eleusinia, and Dionysos Eleuthereus into the Athenian religious life and cultic topography.11 However, none of these cults could be considered truly new to the Athenians, since they were all spatially associated with celebrated sanctuaries in the Attic landscape. Thus, in these cases one is first and foremost dealing with Athens reinventing its own religious topography for the sake of its central importance within the Attic network of settlements and rural cult places. Although the hypothesis that Peisistratos and his sons could have initiated this process of religious transfers appears quite appealing,12 there is no strong evidence to support that, beyond the very general impression that sixth-century-BCE Athens is as ambitious as the democratic city, which paradoxically created an empire a century later. Structurally quite different is the introduction of new cults to the Athenian pantheon during the fifth century BCE, which originated from areas outside Attica like Asklepios from Epidauros, Pan from Arcadia,13 and Bendis from Thrace.14 Superficially, for none of these ‘foreign’ cults is the literary, archaeological, and epigraphic evidence so rich as for the cult of Asklepios and its introduction to Athens in the last quarter of the fifth century BCE. However, despite the surprisingly detailed information our sources seemingly deliver, the evidence for the process of Asklepios’ introduction, his presence in the Athenian pantheon, the form and evolution of his sanctuary, and the character of his cult are anything but clear.

7In the following, the three main categories of evidence—starting with the so-called stele of Telemachos—are going to be presented, before the problematic and intricate issue of persons claiming to be the founder of the new cult and the number of possible foundations of Asklepios’ cult in Athens can be addressed. Previous reconstructions of Asklepios’ introduction to Athens will be briefly discussed and questioned. At the end, I hope to demonstrate that the introduction and integration processes associated with Asklepios entering the Athenian religious system were far more complicated than previously assumed and that the Epidaurian cult of Asklepios was still being transformed into an Athenian one in as late as the Hellenistic period.

The epigraphic evidence

  • 15 The inscription regarding the history of the cult of Sarapis on Delos (IG XI 4, 1299; end of thir (...)
  • 16 Beschi (1967–1968). E. Mitropoulou made well-founded critical remarks on Beschi’s original recons (...)
  • 17 IG II/III3 4, 2, 665a–c were originally part of the one and 666 of the other copy. According to R (...)

8For no other cult foundation15 do we possess such an invaluably detailed document such as the so-called stele of Telemachos (Fig. 1a–b), fragments of which are kept in museums in Athens, London, Padua, and Verona. We are dealing with a relatively long and surprisingly thorough text referring to the procedures of bringing the cult of Asklepios to Athens, the foundation of his new sanctuary at the South Slope of the Acropolis, and its architectural design with exact dates according to the eponymous archons. A small relief frieze and a relief crowned the stele functioning at the same time as a support for a big separately worked relief. The scenes depicted refer to some of the details discussed in the inscription; thus, the whole monument represents a major example for the combination of textual and visual media. Luigi Beschi was the first scholar to meticulously combine the scattered fragments of the stele and the inscription offering an intriguing reconstruction of the entire monument.16 He was also able to demonstrate that there must have been two more or less identical monuments, since small parts of the text and the decoration in relief are preserved in two slightly different copies.17

Fig. 1a. Plaster cast of the so-called Telemachos stele with parts of the original monument incorporated. Side A. Athens, Akropolis Museum, inv. no. EAM 2490.

Photo: Ioannis Mylonopoulos

Fig. 1b. Plaster cast of the so-called Telemachos stele with parts of the original monument incorporated. Side B. Athens, Akropolis Museum, inv. no. EAM 2490.

Photo: Ioannis Mylonopoulos

  • 18 Lines 1–26 after Clinton (1994), p. 21; lines 30–46 after Beschi (1967–1968), p. 413.

9The ancient Greek text has as follows:18

  • 19 Körte (1896), p. 316–317: δρ[κοντα; Dragoumis (1901), p. 104: διά[κονον; Clinton (1994), p. 23 (...)

[Τ]ηλέμαχος ἱδ[ρύσατο τὸ ἱ]-
[ε]ρὸν καὶ τὸν βω[μὸν τῷ Ἀσ]-
[σκλ]ηπιῶι πρῶτ[ος καὶ Ὑγι]-
[είαι], τοῖς Ἀσσ[κληπιάδαι]
5 [ς καὶ τ]αῖς Ἀσσ[κληπιô θυγ]-
[ατράσιν] κα[ὶ - - - - - - - - - -]
[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]
[……..]ΙΙΣ[….]Μ[…]
[……. ἀ]νελθὼν Ζεόθ[ε]-
10 [ν Μυστηρί]οις τοῖς μεγά-
[λοις κατ]ήγετο ἐς τὸ Ἐλ-
[ευσίνιο]ν· καὶ οἴκοθεν
[μεταπεμ]ψάμενος δια[κ]-
[όνος19 ἤγ]αγεν δεῦρε ἐφ᾿ᾅ-
15 [ρματος] Τηλέμαχο[ς] κα[τ]-
[ὰ χρησμ]ός· ἅμα ἦλθεν Ὑγ-
[ίεια· καὶ] οὕτως ἱδρύθη
[τὸ ἱερὸ]ν τόδε ἅπαν ἐπὶ
[Ἀστυφί]λο ἄρχοντος Κυ-
20 [δαντίδ]ο· Ἀρχέας· ἐπὶ το-
[ύτο οἱ Κ]ήρυκες ἠμφεσβ-
[ήτον τô] χωρίο καὶ ἔνια
[ἐπεκώλ]υσαν ποῆσαι· Ἀν-
[τιφῶν… ἐπὶ το]ύτο εὐ-
25 […….· Εὔφημος· ἐπὶ τ-
[ούτο…………..]
lacuna
30 . ε…….………
ν ἔκτ[ισε καὶ…… κα]-
τεσκ[εύασε. Χαρίας· ἐπὶ]
τούτο τὸν [περίβολον ἀ]-
πὸ τô ξυλοπυ[λίο. Τείσα]-
35 νδρος· ἐπὶ το[ύτο ἐπεσκ]-
ευάσθη τὰ ξ[υλοπύλια κ]-
αὶ τὰ λοιπὰ [τῶν ἱερῶν π]-
ροσιδρύσατ[ο. Κλεόκρι]-
τος· ἐπὶ τού[το ἐφυτεύθ]-
40 η καὶ κατέστ[ησε κοσμή]-
σας τὸ τέμεν[ος ἅπαν τέ]-
λει τῶι ἑαυ[τô. Καλλίας]
[Σκαμβωνίδης· ἐπὶ τούτ]-
[ο - - - - - - - - - - ρα - - -]

  • 20 Wickkiser (2009), p. 200, very convincingly suggests that Asklepios, his statue, or his snake was (...)

10According to the concise text of the inscription, Telemachos claims to be not simply the founder, but moreover the first founder of the sanctuary (hieron) and of the altar (bomos) for Asklepios, Hygieia, and for Asklepios’ sons and daughters (lines 1–6). The god arrived in Athens from Zea, so that a reader can easily conclude that Asklepios travelled by sea from Epidauros to Piraeus. The time of his arrival was definitely not coincidental, since the god came during the celebration of the Great Mysteries and stayed at the City Eleusinion (lines 9–12). Following an oracle, Telemachos sent diakonoi to bring Asklepios (his statue?) on a chariot to his new sanctuary (lines 12–16).20 The text remains unclear about, whether the god, a statue, or a holy snake as a symbol of the god’s power was brought to the new sanctuary from the City Eleusinion or from the Zea harbor. If we accept the idea that the inscription is narrating the foundation story in a continuous manner, then the god was at the Eleusinion, before being brought to the new sanctuary at the South Slope of the Acropolis. Shortly after that, Hygieia arrived, too (lines 16–17). After all these pieces of information, the reader is for the first time being confronted with a concrete date only in lines 17–20: “And that’s how this sanctuary was founded when Astyphilos was archon”: everything narrated so far seems to have happened in 420/19 BCE.

11From this point on, however, the structure of the inscription dramatically changes. The text is not any more a continuous story, but moreover an accurately dated list of events and actions always narrated in the same manner: the archon eponymos is named first and then the events under his archonship are listed. In 419/18 BCE, under Archias, problems concerning the land on which the sanctuary was supposed to be founded arose between Telemachos and the Kerykes, the Eleusinian priesthood (lines 20–23). The events between 418/17 and 416/15 BCE, under the archonships of Antiphon, Euphemos and Arimnestos, are not preserved. However, if one accepts the restoration of εὐτύχησαν at the end of line 24 and the beginning of line 25, then the quarrel between Telemachos and the Kerykes was already resolved within a year. The lacuna concerning the activities in the years 417/16 to 416/15 BCE, under the archonships of Euphemos and Arimnestos, is too long. Most probably, these lines included information about the construction of major parts of the sanctuary. Under Charias, in 415/14 BCE, unspecified work concerning the area near the wooden gate to the sanctuary was done, perhaps this part of the peribolos wall was finished in that year (lines 32–34). In the following year, in 414/13 BCE, under Teisandros the wooden gate was restored or perhaps definitively constructed, if we restore kateskeuasthe instead of epeskeuasthe and the rest (of the edifices?) was also installed (lines 34–38). For 413/12 BCE, under Kleokritos, the inscription documents the creation of a sacred grove and refers to further undefined decoration in the temenos, while Telemachos does not fail to stress that he had paid everything out of his own pocket (lines 38–42). It is unclear why exactly at this point of the narrative the scribe decided to insert the information about Telemachos’ financial involvement, since the list of activities seems to continue, even if the preserved text unfortunately ends already in the next line with the reference to the archon of the year 412/11 BCE, Kallias Skambonides.

  • 21 IG II/III3 4, 2, 668: [Τηλέμαχ]ός σε ἱέρωσε Ἀσσκληπιῶι ἠδὲ ὁμοβώμοις | πρῶτος ἱδρυσάμενος θυσίαις(...)
  • 22 Riethmüller 2005, vol. I, p. 265.
  • 23 The inscription does not mention the reason why Telemachos got involved in the introduction of As (...)

12Telemachos’ claim for being the first founder of the sanctuary, its altar, and the sacrifices honoring the god is confirmed in an epigram dating to the first half of the fourth century BCE.21 Jürgen Riethmüler suggested that the inscription was originally part of the altar’s crowning.22 If this holds true, then the Telemachian devotion to Asklepios’ cult place on the South Slope of the Acropolis would be omnipresent: one copy of the so-called stele of Telemachos at the propylon, one near the altar, and an epigram on the altar. All three documents would have glorified Telemachos as the first founder of the cult of Asklepios in Athens.23

  • 24 Melfi (2007), p. 410–433.
  • 25 SEG 47, 71 (410–404 BCE).
  • 26 Clinton (1994), p. 18–19.

13The substantial epigraphic dossier from the Athenian Asklepieion most recently collected and usefully presented in chronological tables by Milena Melfi24 is not quite informative about the Athenian festivals in honor of the new god. The earliest epigraphic reference to an Asklepios festival in Athens dates to the late fifth century BCE, the period, in which the new sanctuary was founded.25 Originally, the fragmentary inscription found in the Athenian Agora was part of a so-called sacred law. The text refers to the festival of the Epidauria, which took place on the 18th or according to Kevin Clinton on the 17th of Boedromion during the festival of the Eleusinia.26 The festival was celebrating and commemorating the arrival of Asklepios from Epidauros to Athens during the Great Mysteries, as revealed in the text on the stele of Telemachos.

  • 27 IG II2 1496: Asklepieia between Lenaia and City Dionysia: l. 74: [ἐγ] Διονυσίων τῶν [ἐπὶ Λ]ηναίω[(...)
  • 28 SEG 18, 26, l. 11–12: καὶ ἐβουθύ[τησεν τοῖς τε Ἀσκληπιείοις] | καὶ Ἐπιδαυρίοις καὶ Ἡρώιοις παρασ[(...)

14The famous long inscription concerning the sales of skins of sacrificial animals from 331/30 BCE refers to two distinct festivals bearing the same name: Asklepieia. The first festival appears between the Lenaia and the City Dionysia, while the second one seems to have been celebrated after the Eleusinia and before the Theseia.27 Furthermore, two inscriptions from the second century BCE add a third festival to the Asklepieia and the Epidauria, the otherwise unknown Heroa. In addition, both inscriptions refer to a priest of Asklepios, perhaps the one of the Asklepieion τοῦ ἐν ἄστει.28

  • 29 Parker (2005), p. 462.
  • 30 Aeschin. In Ctes. 67: ἐκκλησίαν ποιεῖν τοὺς πρυτάνεις τῇ ὀγδόῃ ἱσταμένου τοῦ Ἐλαφηβολιῶνος μηνός, (...)
  • 31 Clinton (1994), p. 18, stresses that although the Athenians could have named the festival known a (...)

15Almost two decades ago, Robert Parker suggested that the Asklepieia between the Eleusinia and the Theseia are most probably identical to the Epidauria in the inscription from the Athenian Agora and the honorary decrees. Consequently, the Asklepieia between the Lenaia and the City Dionysia should be identified with the Asklepieia in the decrees.29 According to Parker, the sacrifice mentioned by Aischines,30 which took place on the same day as the Dionysian proagon must refer to these Asklepieia. The question remains, however, why there was no onomastic differentiation between the two festivals in IG II2 1496 A.31

16At first sight, from an epigraphic point of view, everything appears to be perfectly clear: around 420 BCE a sanctuary for the Epidaurian Asklepios was founded by a person named Telemachos on the South Slope of the Athenian Acropolis. Further inscriptions attest to the existence of various Asklepios festivals under the names Epidauria, Asklepieia, and Heroa.

The visual evidence

  • 32 Beschi (1967–1968), p. 418.
  • 33 Ibid., p. 419.

17The inscription on the so-called stele of Telemachos is ingeniously accompanied by a series of reliefs that seem to partly visualize the text and partly add information, which cannot be really placed in the context of the written evidence provided by the inscription (Fig. 1a–b and Fig. 2). Directly above the beginning of the text a continuous olive-tree branch appears both to crown the inscription and to create a smooth transfer from the textual to the visual part of the monument. The spatial proximity to the temples of Athena on the Acropolis is reflected in the use of the olive-tree branch. The uppermost part of the stele consists of a fragmentary small frieze and a broader double relief. The frieze zone does not seem to have a continuous topic. The front side shows a male figure holding a staff and a female figure approaching him. Beschi identified the male figure with Asklepios and the female with one of his three daughters.32 The now fragmentary scene could have shown originally Iaso, Panakeia, and Akeso paying their respects to Asklepios. The narrative on the back long side is not preserved. The left narrow side is decorated with the figure of a rider. Beschi reconstructed a second rider on the right narrow side and identified the two horsemen as the Dioskouroi.33

Fig. 2. Reconstruction of the so-called Telemachos stele. Drawing.

After: Beschi (2002), p. 23, fig. 7.

  • 34 Ibid., p. 401, fig. 6.
  • 35 Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 242 (horse-leader); Beschi (1967–1968), p. 417–418 (female figures (...)
  • 36 Beschi (1967–1968), p. 416–418.
  • 37 Mitropoulou (1975), p. 53 and fig. C.

18The front side of the small double relief shows a young male figure wearing a chlamys, holding a spear, and standing in front of a shear wall (Fig. 3). Two dogs are sitting at his feet expectantly looking up at him. A smaller fragment in Athens that belonged to the second stele preserves the head of the youthful figure with the chlamys.34 Behind the shear wall the figure of a naked youth is centrally placed. The youth is flanked by horses partly covered by the wall and looking away from him towards two dressed figures that have been identified either as anonymous females or as horse-leaders.35 The male figure before the shear wall has been identified with one of the Asklepiads, either Machaon or Podaleirios.36 Elpis Mitropoulou suggested instead that the fragment of the second copy of the Telemachos stele does not actually preserve parts of the same figure, but of a different second one. She thus reconstructed an overall broader relief depicting both Machaon and Podaleirios.37

Fig. 3. Small relief crowning the inscription of the so-called Telemachos stele. Side A.

After: Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 243, fig. 34 (detail).

  • 38 Beschi (1967–1968), p. 422–428.
  • 39 Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 248, suggested that this is a scene of the theoxenia of Asklepios (...)
  • 40 Beschi (1967–1968), p. 418–422.

19The scene on the back side of the small double relief is badly preserved: one can recognize the upper part of a youth holding some kind of a vase, perhaps an oinochoe and a reclining figure accompanied by a bearded snake (Fig. 4). The scene has been interpreted by Beschi as a so-called funerary banquet for Sophokles-Dexion.38 I would like to suggest that this part of the relief might have depicted Asklepios (the reclining figure) and his holy snake as guests in the City Eleusinion.39 On the small sides, divine pairs are depicted: Zeus and Athena on the left, Artemis and probably Aphrodite on the right (Fig. 2), all four divinities venerated on and/or around the Athenian Acropolis.40

Fig. 4. Small relief crowning the inscription of the so-called Telemachos stele. Side B.

After: Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 243, fig. 34 (detail).

20The front side of the large and separately worked double relief depicts Asklepios and Hygieia inside an edifice, since the existence of a column and a shear wall behind the divine figures point to a closed space (Fig. 5). It is perhaps an imaginary version of the interior of the Athenian temple of Asklepios. Hygieia is shown sitting on a low trapeza decorated with the figure of a dog in relief, while Asklepios is standing. Pincers and bandages hanging in the background between Hygieia and Asklepios most definitely allude to the medical and healing nature of these two deities. Both figures are placed on a podium, whose central part is decorated with the small-scale scene of a sacrificial procession. A much smaller male figure approaches the divinities with the right hand raised in the well-known adoration gesture. Both the gesture and even more importantly the size of the figure indicate its human status. We can certainly identify this figure with Telemachos himself.

Fig. 5. Large separate relief at the top of the so-called Telemachos stele. Side A.

After: Beschi (2002), p. 22, fig. 5.

  • 41 Ibid., p. 388–391.
  • 42 Wickkiser (2009), p. 201, suggests that the horse bust might be a reference to the chariot on whi (...)
  • 43 Beschi (1982), p. 40–43.
  • 44 Paus. 1.21.4: ἰόντων δὲ Ἀθήνῃσιν ἐς τὴν ἀκρόπολιν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεάτρου τέθαπται Κάλως· τοῦτον τὸν Κάλω (...)
  • 45 Beschi (1967–1968), p. 392–396.

21The other side of the relief appears definitely more interesting, though iconographically puzzling (Fig. 6). A somewhat peculiar combination of visual elements, which would have remained mysterious without the accompanying inscription, seems to synoptically narrate the early history of the sanctuary. We are looking at a gate and a low wall, most probably the xylopylion and the peribolos wall of the inscription. Behind the wall is a really odd scene with a prominently depicted stork on a tree. Even if we can associate the tree as a pars pro toto with the sacred grove of the inscription, the stork lacks a direct cult connection to Asklepios. Beschi convincingly suggested that we are dealing with a symbol for the locality of the sanctuary: the new cult place occupied a part of the Pelargikon and the Greek word for a stork is pelargos.41 The rear of a ship is depicted on the fragment to the left side of the gate. A votive stele with the depiction of a healing process, a horse bust, and a dog allude to a sanctuary of a healing hero (votive stele and horse bust42) who can be identified on the basis of the dog with Asklepios. If we follow the convincing interpretation of Beschi, the ship of Asklepios is shown upon its arrival to the harbor of Piraeus. Given the fact that the inscription informs us that the god arrived first at Zea, the sanctuary visually implied on the left part of the relief could be the one at Zea.43 Based on a brief reference of Pausanias to the grave of Kalos, the nephew of Daidalos, somewhere between the theater of Dionysos and the Asklepieion,44 Beschi sought to identify the small figure of a youth on a basis with a statue of this otherwise obscure mythological figure.45 The figure of the youth is so generic and the missing sequence of the relief in this specific part of the visual narrative so big that we cannot possibly identify the figure securely. In a smaller separate frieze underneath the main scene a sacrificial procession is shown.

Fig. 6. Large separate relief at the top of the so-called Telemachos stele. Side B.

After: Beschi (2002), p. 22, fig. 6.

The archaeological evidence

  • 46 See, most recently, Papaeuthymiou (2009); Papaefthymiou (2009); LefantzisJensen (2009); Papaef (...)

22From a strictly archaeological point of view, the sanctuary shares the fate of so many other Athenian monuments: innumerable publications refer to and deal with it, but the visible remains of the sanctuary, which were excavated already in 1876 and 1877, never received the publication they certainly deserve.46 Furthermore, the preconceived opinion that at least at the beginning of the sanctuary’s life, we are dealing with an absolutely private foundation created the idea of an architecturally humble sanctuary. The reference to a wooden gate in the foundation inscription supported the idea of a precinct with temporary wooden architecture, if any, replaced after the middle of the fourth century BCE through stone structures, perhaps in the broader context of the Lycourgan renaissance of Athens.

  • 47 Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 253–259.
  • 48 Melfi (2007), p. 327–329. Papaeuthymiou (2009), p. 79, considers the Ionic stoa part of the Askle (...)
  • 49 Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 273; Melfi (2007), p. 322–331.

23The exact dimensions of the sanctuary are still a much-debated issue (Fig. 7). Most scholars do consider the so-called Ionic stoa, a banquet house to the west of the Asklepieion, an integral part of the sanctuary from its very beginning. In his monograph, Riethmüller elaborating on an earlier hypothesis expressed by Ioannis Travlos suggested that the Athenian Asklepieion was always confined to the east area surrounded by the peribolos wall, while the Ionic stoa could have been used by the visitors of the numerous small sanctuaries on the South Slope of the Acropolis.47 In her archaeological analysis of the Asklepieion, Melfi goes back to including the Ionic stoa in the Asklepios sanctuary.48 Both Riethmüller and Melfi identified an early so-called Telemachian phase of the sanctuary, in which stone edifices were already standing within the temenos.49

Fig. 7. Plan of the City Asklepieion.

After: Travlos (1971), p. 129, fig. 171.

  • 50 PapaefthimiouChristodoulopoulou (2014), p. 45–47.
  • 51 Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 259–265.
  • 52 Papaeuthymiou (2009), p. 83–88.
  • 53 Papaefthimiou – Christodoulopoulou (2014), p. 40–41.
  • 54 Ibid., p. 45.

24During the early days of the sanctuary, poros stone seems to have been used as construction material, as evidenced by the presence of unattributed architectural members belonging to one or more Doric structures made of poros and dating to the late fifth century BCE.50 Based on this, Riethmüller suggested that the cella of the temple, the west part of the altar, part of the peribolos wall, and the lower part of the bothros wall belong to this earliest phase of construction.51 However, the latest archaeological and architectural study of the temple’s remains in the context of a larger restoration project have revealed that, although there are architectural members made of poros that could be possibly associated with a first construction phase of the temple, the temple as it is preserved today represents the result of three phases.52 After a phase in the fourth century BCE, the temple underwent major changes—after Sulla’s destructive presence in Athens?—and was transformed into a small Ionic building, most probably a distylos in antis, with a monumental door that consciously imitated the south door of the Erechtheion.53 Probably after the Herulian sack of Athens in 267 CE, the temple was rebuilt as a tetrastylos prostylos.54

  • 55 Papaeuthymiou (2009), p. 82–83.
  • 56 Ibid., p. 81–82.
  • 57 Ibid., p. 81. Similar pits were found during the excavations of the apsis of the early Christian (...)
  • 58 Ibid., p. 82.

25The altar in its current state of preservation dates to the first century BCE, and was most probably constructed after Sulla’s destruction of this part of Athens. It incorporates older building materials, even a part of the coffered ceiling made of Pentelic marble from the eastern porch of the Erechtheion.55 It remains unclear whether or not the altar of the Classical and Hellenistic periods was situated here as well, but Vanda Papaeuthymiou suggests that it did.56 Inside and around the altar, pits cut into the bedrock were uncovered, which the excavator identified as planting pits and associated with the sacred grove mentioned in the Telemachos inscription (lines 39–40).57 According to Papaeuthymiou, the pits were filled at the end of the fifth century BCE and at least this part of the sacred grove was abandoned.58 One has to emphasize, however, that according to the excavator, less than 20 % of the pottery found in the pits can be dated with some degree of certainty and only some of them point to the last quarter of the fifth century BCE. In my view, it would have been quite problematic to cut down the trees of a sacred grove. Alternatively, I would like to suggest that the altar was originally closer to the temple and perhaps aligned with the central axis of the latter. Probably the sacred grove fell victim to a fire caused by the Sullan destruction of the area allowing for a larger and more impressive altar to be erected in this part of the sanctuary in the first century BCE.

  • 59 Paus. 1.21.4.
  • 60 SEG 39, 175. Coulton (1976), p. 223; Mantis (2009), p. 72–73. For the identification of the stoa (...)
  • 61 Riethmüller (1999).
  • 62 Melfi (2007), p. 368–369.

26It remains uncertain whether the spring in the Acropolis rock, usually identified with the Hallirhotis spring seen by Pausanias,59 predates the foundation of the sanctuary; it seems though probable. According to a fragmentary inscription, the double-storied Doric stoa was built in 300/299 BCE.60 Around the same time, the so-called bothros received a roof supported by four columns, and was architecturally integrated into the Doric stoa.61 The south stoa is a much later structure, which, according to Melfi, should be dated to the Augustan period.62

  • 63 IG II2 1046, l. 14–18: παρα|καλεῖ τὴν βουλὴν ἐπιχωρῆσαι ἑατῶι κατασκευάσαντι ἐκ τῶν | ἰδίων θυρῶσ (...)
  • 64 Travlos (1971), p. 128.

27An inscription dating to 52/51 BCE refers to a petition by Diokles, a priest of Asklepios and Hygieia, to the boule to finance restoration work on the temple and the propylon.63 It seems attractive to connect some of the restoration and remodeling works done in the sanctuary in the first century BCE with Diokles’ petition. Travlos assumes that remodeling work took place in the fourth century CE, perhaps under Julian,64 but recent work at the site has shown that most remodeling was done before the fourth century CE, first after the Sullan and then after the Herulian destruction of the area.

The Aristophanic Ploutos

  • 65 Ar. Plut. 659–662: ἀνὴρ γέρων ψυχρᾷ θαλάττῃ λούμενος | ἔπειτα πρὸς τὸ τέμενος ᾖμεν τοῦ θεοῦ | ἐπε (...)
  • 66 Ar. Plut. 732–734: εἶθ᾿ θεὸς ἐπόπτυσεν | ἐξῃξάτην οὖν δύο δράκοντ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ νεὼ | ὑπερφυεῖς τὸ μέ (...)
  • 67 The possible interconnections between the first and the second Ploutos remain an unsolved problem (...)

28The rich epigraphic material from the Asklepieion published by Sarah Aleshire and reassembled and evaluated anew by Melfi, as well as the archaeological evidence give us at least a rough impression of the sanctuary’s evolution. Compared herewith, the literary sources either remain completely silent or are fiercely discussed in scholarship. The most important, but also the most controversial literary evidence is undeniably Aristophanes’ comedy Ploutos, staged in 388 BCE and containing an important scene of healing in an Attic Asklepieion. Lines 659–662 include important references to the ritual bathing, an essential part of the healing process, the temenos, the altar, and the preliminary bloodless sacrifice.65 Lines 732–734 are more specific and reveal the involvement of snakes both in the cult of Asklepios in general and the healing process more specifically. Even more important is the fact that the same lines explicitly refer to a temple.66 If we accept the hypothesis that the second Ploutos of 388 BCE was much alike the lost play staged in 408 BCE,67 then we would have a literary reference to rituals in an Attic Asklepieion in a period of time, when the recently arrived god was still establishing himself in the Athenian religious system.

  • 68 For a summary of the various scholarly opinions on the matter, see Sineux (2006), p. 196–197 with (...)
  • 69 Schol. Aristoph. Plout. 621: εἰς ᾽Ασκληπιοῦ· τὸν ἐν ἄστει λέγει ᾽Ασκληπιόν. δύο γάρ εἰσιν, μὲν (...)
  • 70 Aleshire (1989), p. 13, even attributes the commentary to a “clumsy scholiast”.
  • 71 Melfi (2007), p. 319: “la questione dell’identificazione è, in questo caso, irrilevante.”
  • 72 On the identification of the Asklepieion in Piraeus with the Aristophanic one, see, most recently (...)
  • 73 Hdt. 8.55: ἔστι ἐν τῇ ἀκροπόλι ταύτῃ Ἐρεχθέος τοῦ γηγενέος λεγομένου εἶναι νηός, ἐν τῷ ἐλαίη τε κ (...)
  • 74 Paus. 8.10.4: θαλάσσης δὲ ἀναφαίνεσθαι κῦμα ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ λόγος ἐστὶν ἀρχαῖος (“There is an old stor (...)
  • 75 On the purifying power of sea water, see Parker (1983), p. 226–227. On the bathing of ‘cult statu (...)

29Despite its importance, the Aristophanic Ploutos remains a problematic source for the understanding of the Athenian Asklepieion. Although we have very specific references to a temenos, a temple, and an altar, Aristophanes never explicitly refers to the exact locality of the Asklepieion, so that a scholarly debate has arisen about whether Aristophanes refers to the Asklepieion in Athens or the one in Piraeus.68 Only an ancient, albeit late, comment connects the unidentified Aristophanic Asklepieion to the one on the South Slope of the Acropolis.69 However, several scholars reject its veracity70 or suggest that the exact identification of the Attic Asklepieion where the action of Ploutos takes place is irrelevant.71 The reference to a bath in seawater (l. 659: θαλάττῃ λούμενος) is considered a strong argument for the identification of the Aristophanic Asklepieion with the sanctuary at the harbor of Zea.72 One could assume, however, that the bath took place in a spring with salty water in the vicinity of the City Asklepieion. Already Herodotos refers to the salty-water well in the Erechtheion using the term θάλασσα,73 and Pausanias mentions a κῦμα θαλάσσης in the sanctuary of Poseidon in Mantineia.74 A less likely alternative would be a ritual bath at the Attic coast, before returning to the City Asklepieion.75 Furthermore, it would have been far more interesting, perhaps even funnier, for the people attending the performance to experience a comedic plot unfolding partly in the sanctuary situated directly adjacent to the theater of Dionysos just behind their seats than in the sanctuary of the god in Piraeus. Thus, I do believe we should trust the lexicographer and consider the Aristophanic Ploutos as an invaluable piece of evidence for the early stages of the Athenian Asklepieion. Herewith, the literary evidence referring to a late-fifth-century-BCE temple would correlate with the archaeological evidence of a small poros temple roughly from the same period of time.

Problems

  • 76 IG II/III3 4, 2, 668: l. 2; 665: l. 3.
  • 77 Haldane (1963), p. 54. According to Jouanna (2012), p. 1–3, Sophokles’ paean might have contribut (...)
  • 78 Etym. Magn. s.v. Δεξίων: οὕτως ὠνόμασται Σοφοκλῆς ὐπὸ Ἀθηναίων μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν. φασὶν ὅτι Ἀθηνα (...)
  • 79 Plut. Mor. 1103b: τὸν Ἀσκληπιὸν Σοφοκλῆς ξενίζειν αὐτός τε πειθόμενος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων οὕτως ἐχόντ (...)

30Although there are indeed some minor uncertainties concerning the evidence presented so far, at least superficially, nothing appears really noteworthy or significant enough to question traditional theories about Asklepios’ arrival in Athens. In my view, there are, however, serious reservations concerning the introduction of the Epidaurian healing god to Athens. In at least three publicly displayed documents, Telemachos feels the need to stress that he is the very first to honor Asklepios and his family in Athens.76 There was, though, already in his own time a quite strong rival to this title: Sophokles, who apparently had composed a paean in order to honor the god’s arrival in Athens.77 According to the Etymologicum Magnum, Sophokles received after his death the name Dexion “because he welcomed Asklepios, for he received the god as a visitor in his own house and founded an altar.”78 Plutarch refers also to the dexiosis in the house of Sophokles and an epiphany of the god.79

  • 80 IG II2 1252, l. 2–4: ἐπειδή εἰσιν ἄνδρες | ἀγαθοὶ περὶ τὰ κοινὰ τῶν ὀργεώνων τοῦ Ἀμύ|νου καὶ τοῦ (...)
  • 81 IG II2 1253, l. 5–7: δίκαιοι γεγόνασι περὶ τὰ κοινὰ | τῶν ὀργειώνων τοῦ Ἀμύνου καὶ τοῦ | Ἀσκληπιο (...)

31We could easily devalue these uncomfortable sources as late and non-reliable, if we did nοt have two inscriptions from the Amyneion dating to the second half of the fourth century BCE, which explicitly refer to cult associations (orgeones) of Amynos, Asklepios, and Dexion, and their respective sanctuaries. IG II2 1252 refers to two copies of an honorary decree for two brothers to be set up in the sanctuary of Dexion and the sanctuary of the obviously joint cult of Amynos and Asklepios,80 while IG II2 1253 mentions just one copy of an honorary decree for two men whose names are only partially preserved to be set up in a single, unfortunately not further specified sanctuary.81 Thus, the inscriptions inform us about a second sanctuary of Asklepios, in which a cult association honoring Dexion is also involved.

  • 82 Travlos (1971), p. 76. On the sanctuary, see most recently Gorrini (2015), p. 19–29.
  • 83 Jouanna (2010), p. 78, suggested already that Sophokles dedicated an altar in this sanctuary and (...)

32The sanctuary of Amynos and Asklepios can be identified with certainty with a precinct excavated at the end of the 19th century between the Areopagus and the Pnyx (Fig. 8).82 Mainly terracotta finds date the beginning of cult activity at this spot back to the sixth century BCE. If the Geometric and early Archaic vase fragments found here belong also to an early phase of the sanctuary, then the cult of Amynos could date back even to the late eighth or early seventh century BCE. Nevertheless, in the late fifth century BCE the humble sanctuary received an architectural update in form of a trapezoid peribolos, a small edifice—possibly a shrine—, and a trapeza; the latter could also be dated to the fourth century BCE, however.83

Fig. 8. Sanctuary of Amynos.

After: Travlos (1971), p. 77, fig. 98.

  • 84 Jouanna (2020), p. 309, explicitly argues that Sophokles was the one who introduced the cult of A (...)
  • 85 Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 275–276.
  • 86 Marinus, Vita Procli 29: γείτονα μὲν οὖσαν τοῦ ἀπὸ Σοφοκλέους ἐπιφανοῦς Ἀσκληπιεῖου, καὶ τοῦ πρὸς (...)
  • 87 Sommerstein (2001), p. 11, assumes that Telemachos was “possibly an Epidaurian or an Athenian wit (...)

33A puzzling situation arises: the available literary, epigraphic, and archaeological evidence reveals two founders and at least two newly founded Asklepieia. The Telemachian sanctuary is definitely the one on the South Slope of the Acropolis. Could it be that the Sophoklean initiative was the one associated with the phase of architectural enhancement of the Amyneion?84 If this holds true, then the Sophoklean initiative is not really a new foundation, but moreover an introduction of the god into an already existing sacred place.85 One should not forget that the Etymologicum Magnum refers to the foundation of an altar and not of a sanctuary. However, a reference to a Sophoklean Asklepieion exists in Marinos’ Vita Procli, a passage that identifies the Asklepios sanctuary on the South Slope of the Acropolis with the one founded by Sophokles.86 It seems that by the early fifth century CE at the latest, the famous tragedian had ‘expelled’ the otherwise unknown Telemachos87 from the Athenian shrine par excellence of Asklepios.

  • 88 Jouanna (2007), p. 76–90, remains the most extensive and up-to-date discussion of this issue.
  • 89 Connoly (1998).
  • 90 Ibid., p. 14: “[…] and there is no independent evidence that Sophocles participated in a cultic r (...)
  • 91 Ibid., p. 20: “it is entirely plausible that he [Sophokles] was never heroized at all and that th (...)
  • 92 Ibid., p. 15–20. Jouanna (2009), p. 74, notes rather pointedly: “Selon Connoly, on aurait rattach (...)
  • 93 Marinus, Vita Procli 29. In whatever way one wishes to evaluate the accuracy of Marinos’ account, (...)
  • 94 On Lykourgan Athens, see, for example, Azoulay (2009).
  • 95 Jones (2010), p. 48–51.
  • 96 I do agree with Connoly (1998), p. 20, about the overall fictitious nature of the Dexion-entry in (...)

34Most scholars accepted the literary evidence and its combination with the inscriptions from the Amyneion supporting the view that there was indeed a rather mysterious Sophoklean initiative in the causa Asklepios.88 However, in 1998, Andrew Connoly expressed serious doubts about Sophokles ever having received heroic honors in Athens and if so, then certainly not before 330 BCE.89 Although his arguments are worth considering, Connoly takes a further step and also doubts the very existence of any connection between Sophokles and the introduction of Asklepios to Athens,90 declaring the literary evidence as Hellenistic fiction produced in order to support the story about the tragedian’s heroization. Even if Connoly were indeed right in claiming that the evidence for a heroization of Sophokles and his transformation to Dexion due to the dexiosis of Asklepios were weak,91 claiming that some authors invented for unknown reasons something (the heroization) and explained it with another invention (the involvement of Sophokles in the introduction of the cult of Asklepios to Athens) is somewhat ‘unfair’ towards our sources,92 especially since there is absolutely no evidence to support such a modern challenge of the existing ancient sources. Besides, Marinos’ biography of Proklos refers to “the Asklepieion of the famous Sophokles”, so that the connection between the tragedian and the healing god was a strong point of reference in the fifth century CE, even if by this time, the Asklepieion of the renowned tragedian, the Amynos-Asklepios sanctuary, and the most important Asklepieion in the city of Athens were—in my view mistakenly—considered to be the same.93 We could reconstruct the following scenario: Sophokles was indeed heroized, not directly after his death, but either under Lykourgos94 or in a period of time, like the Late Hellenistic period, when almost everyone could become a hero.95 The sources knew of his involvement in the cult of Asklepios, and apparently also of the existence of a Dexion cult closely connected with those of Amynos and Asklepios. The next step, to combine all these different pieces of information in a single lexicon entry, is not that far-fetched.96

Attempting a new reconstruction of Aklepios’ arrival in Athens

  • 97 Verbanck-Piérard (2000), p. 312–313; Parker (2005), p. 462, 469, 474; Mantis (2009), p. 71.
  • 98 See, for example, the overview provided by Wickkiser (2008), p. 62–76.
  • 99 For Sommerstein (2001), p. 11, Telemachos was the founder of the Asklepieion in Piraeus as well.
  • 100 Clinton (1994), p. 29.
  • 101 According to van Wijk (2016), p. 131–134, the connection of both the arrival in Athens and the ov (...)
  • 102 Mitchell-Boyask (2008), p. 110–115.
  • 103 Riethmüller (1999), p. 138–140; Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 267–273. Verbanck-Piérard (2000), (...)

35Almost every single reconstruction of the process associated with the introduction of Asklepios to Athens considers the epigraphic, literary, and archaeological evidence as a homogenous dossier without any chronological differentiation. Furthermore, everything seems to circle around the City Asklepieion. The sources referring to Sophokles are combined with those referring to Telemachos, and all three attested festivals are often seen in connection with the City Asklepieion.97 An—admittedly extremely oversimplified—overview of the introduction and cult of Asklepios to Athens as presented in numerous articles and monographic studies would be as follows:98 Asklepios arrives at Zea harbor in Piraeus, where a sanctuary already existed or was founded upon the arrival of the god,99 the statue of the god or his holy snake arrives in Athens where a dexiosis in the house of Sophokles takes place, the statue or the holy snake is then transferred to the City Eleusinion during the Great Eleusinia, where it stays till the new sanctuary of Asklepios is ready. Sophokles claims to have founded an altar for the new god. Telemachos enters the scene with his private foundation. The latter is also the first to found not only an altar, but also a sanctuary for the god. Telemachos sends servants or priestly officers to bring the god or brings himself the holy snake on a chariot to the new sanctuary. Hygieia arrives later. Despite the obvious active involvement of the Eleusinian priesthood in the introduction of the new god, the Kerykes try to stop the works in the City Asklepieion. After a year, the construction work can continue and soon afterwards a humble sanctuary with wooden architecture is finished. At the end of the fifth or beginning of the fourth century BCE a festival named Epidauria commemorating the arrival of the god appears in the epigraphic sources. Eleusinian religious magistrates seem to play an important role. According to Clinton, the procession during the Epidauria on the 17th of Boedromion brings the god (probably in form of a transportable statue) to a reception in the house of Sophokles and then to the City Eleusinion for the initiation.100 About six months later a second festival under the name Asklepieia celebrates the god on the 8th of Elaphebolion, on the same day the proagon of the Great Dionysia takes place.101 For Robin Mitchell-Boyask, various connections in Greek thought between music and healing led to the combination of the new festival with the festivities at the City Dionysia.102 A third festival named Heroa honors the heroic aspects in Asklepios’ divine persona. According to Riethmüller, it takes place in the City Asklepieion and the relevant cult activity concentrates on the bothros.103 Parallel to that, there exist two cult associations honoring jointly Amynos and Asklepios on the one side and Dexion on the other in two different sanctuaries.

  • 104 Wickkiser (2008), p. 89.
  • 105 Parker (1996), p. 180, n. 100.

36According to the traditional view, Asklepios arrives in the last quarter of the fifth century BCE in Athens and his cult is already perfectly organized. A passage from Bronwen L. Wickkiser’s study on Asklepios demonstrates this kind of approach: “The alignment of Asklepios with the Akropolis and Greater Panathenaia, with the sanctuary of Dionysos Eleuthereus and the City Dionysia, and with the Eleusinion and Eleusinian Mysteries suggests an elaborate orchestration capable of evoking particular associations.”104 There are some minor problems in such an “elaborate orchestration”: the heroization of Sophokles; two Athenian citizens—a prominent one, Sophokles, and one we never hear of before or after this religious initiative, Telemachos—claiming to be the first to honor Asklepios; the Kerykes being against the construction of the City Asklepieion. Although, as Parker put it in his book on Athenian religion, in such cases “it is better to admit ignorance”105, without attempting to underemphasize the complexity of the existing evidence or the significant gaps in our knowledge, I do think that there is a way to treat the sources without the preconceptions of a relatively well-organized introduction, a single initiative, and festivals (at least three) founded already in the late fifth century BCE.

  • 106 The Asklepieia, for example, in Naupaktos, Pergamon, and Sikyon are recognized in ancient sources (...)
  • 107 Wickkiser (2008), p. 74–75, suggested that the Telemachos stele is not referring to problems betw (...)
  • 108 Plut. Mor. 1103b.
  • 109 Arist. Ath. Pol. 56.4: πομπῶν δ᾽ ἐπιμελεῖται τῆς τε τῷ Ἀσκληπιῷ γιγνομένης, ὅταν οἰκουρῶσι μύσται(...)
  • 110 Wickkiser (2008), p. 101–105.

37Some of the problematic issues can be addressed, if we accept that there have been indeed two foundations of the cult of the Epidaurian Asklepios in Athens going perhaps back to the same initiative in the last quarter of the fifth century BCE. Such an initiative though cannot but have been an official issue, in which the Eleusinian priesthood was actively involved. Although foundations of Asklepieia often go back to private initiatives, we cannot ignore that in the case of Athens, the primary sanctuary of the new god is established in the religious heart of the city.106 Since the Kerykes opposed the project of Telemachos, then Sophokles was most probably part of the official initiative of bringing Asklepios from Epidauros to Athens.107 Even if we accept, as we should, the traditional views that Asklepios was brought to Athens because of the plague and/or for the sake of safeguarding the peace treaty of Nikias, I think that Plutarch’s text delivers the religious rationale for this decision: an epiphany of the god to Sophokles and perhaps other Athenians as well.108 Aristotle refers to a procession honoring Asklepios led by the archon, while the mystai are staying home,109 a procession that because of its temporal placement in the Athenian religious calendar can only be associated with the Epidauria.110 There is, in my view, a strong possibility that the epiphany of Asklepios occurred during the Eleusinian Mysteries, “ὅταν οἰκουρῶσι μύσται.” This would explain the strong involvement of the Eleusinian priesthood into the introduction of Asklepios to Athens and the conscious choice to celebrate the Epidauria during the Mysteries.

  • 111 SEG 47, 232, l. 15–16: κα[τ| χρησμ]ός.
  • 112 See, in general, Agusta-Boularot – Hubert – van Andringa (2017), but esp. the “Introduction”, p.  (...)
  • 113 See, for example, Purvis (2003), p. 60–61
  • 114 For Jouanna (2010), p. 79, there were from the beginning two distinct initiatives “qu’elles soien (...)

38The god arrived with a ship at Zea and was transferred to the Athenian Eleusinion. It is, I believe, striking that for this part of the introduction of the new god, the Telemachos stele is narrating the facts without any reference to Telemachos himself. Even more puzzlingly, the god appears to do all these things on his own. Until the arrival of the god to the Eleusinion the subject in the text of the stele is Asklepios. From this point on, the subject changes and all of a sudden Asklepios needs the guidance of Telemachos to find his way into his new sanctuary. The narration becomes very detailed and every single construction in the sanctuary is listed chronologically. Telemachos does not even omit the legal problems he had with the Kerykes. An elaborate, semantically multi-layered relief accompanies the foundation inscription, which is placed in at least two copies at strategic places of the new sanctuary. I think that Telemachos’ involvement started after the arrival of the god in Attika, perhaps even after his arrival at the City Eleusinion. It is perhaps of importance that it is at exactly this point in the inscription that Telemachos becomes the initiator of all actions (and the syntactical subject of the following sentences) and mentions a strong argument in favor of his case: the support of oracles.111 Hidryein a sanctuary does not mean to complete architecturally a sanctuary, but to declare a place as the future locality of the cult and perform the necessary rituals to dedicate the place.112 Telemachos cannot possibly have done all these actions by himself, as suggested in previous publications.113 The very place of the sanctuary in the religious epicenter of the city would have required leastways the support, if not the official approval of at least a big part of the citizenship. The Sophoklean initiative, if we can call it this way, must have had also a considerable support, for this project—based on the opposition of the Kerykes to the Telemachian one—seems to have been the starting point for the introduction of Asklepios to Athens. The legal implications (as cited explicitly in the Telemachos stele) ended most probably with the foundation of two different cult places. A completely new sanctuary emerged on the South Slope of the Acropolis, while an old Athenian sanctuary, that of Amynos, opened its doors to receive Asklepios. It cannot be a coincidence that in both sanctuaries considerable architectural work took place in the late fifth century BCE. What might have started as a single, probably state initiative with the famous Sophokles as its front-man and the support of the Kerykes was split into two different projects after Telemachos’—for some parties in Athens rather annoying—involvement.114

  • 115 SEG 47, 71.
  • 116 Arist. Ath. Pol. 56.4.
  • 117 Clinton (1994), p. 27.
  • 118 Ibid., p. 29.
  • 119 Acqua (2011), p. 161–171.

39With respect to the three festivals, the earliest evidence dating to the late fifth century BCE names the Epidauria and implies the involvement of both the Eleusinian (the priestess of Demeter) and the Epidaurian (hieromnemones and phrouroi) priesthood.115 The very involvement of the priestess of Demeter suggests that the festival cannot be connected with the City Asklepieion, since the legal problems might have been solved, but the rivalry between the two foundations was certainly still vivid. As mentioned above, the procession briefly mentioned by Aristotle has to be connected with the Epidauria.116 Clinton’s assumption that in this occasion the statue from the City Asklepieion was used is unnecessary.117 He reconstructs a pompe from Zea to the Eleusinion ending at the house of Sophokles with a dexiosis.118 An alternative could be a so-called circular procession from the Amyneion to the Eleusinion and back, like the much later procession of C. Vibius Salutaris in Ephesos that started in the Artemision, went by the most important religious and political points of the Ephesian urban fabric, and then returned to the Artemision.119 Another alternative could be a procession from Zea, via the Eleusinion, to the Amyneion. Either one of the alternatives suggested here could have included an intermediate stop at Sophokles’ house for a dexiosis.

  • 120 IG II2 1496.
  • 121 Westwood (2020), p. 275–327.
  • 122 Wickkiser (2008), p. 82.
  • 123 Hedrick Jr. (1999).
  • 124 Aleshire (1989), p. 14–15 with n. 6; p. 72 with n. 2. Wickkiser (2011) convincingly demonstrates (...)
  • 125 Parker (2005), p. 54 with n. 13. More generally on orgeones in Athens and Attica, see Ustinova (1 (...)

40The Asklepieia appear in the epigraphic sources only in 331/30 BCE.120 As a matter of fact, Aischines’ In Ctesiphontem, in which we hear for the first time from a literary source something about the temporal interconnection between the Great Dionysia and the Asklepieia dates also to the 330s.121 One could suggest that there is simply a lacuna in our evidence and relevant material has not survived and this has often been the working hypothesis concerning the Asklepieia: for example, Wickkiser assumes based on the already mentioned and rather scant evidence that the festival was “established probably soon after the arrival of Asklepios in 420 BCE.”122 Thus, Wickkiser and so many scholars before her ignore a hiatus of a century and simply presuppose a gap in our evidence. We are dealing though with Athens: compared to other Greeks like the Spartans, the Achaeans, or the Boeotians, the Athenians seem to have loved to write down on stone almost everything. The tedious ‘chattiness’ of the Athenians is a phenomenon scholars have often commented upon.123 A lacuna of almost 100 years is at least remarkable. It seems more plausible that the Asklepieia associated with the City Asklepieion are a creation of the late fourth century BCE, perhaps a part of the Lykourgan program. Was this perhaps the deal that put a definitive end to the dispute upon the introduction of the cult? Was Telemachos allowed to erect “his” Asklepieion at a most prominent place, but the Athenian festival celebrating the arrival of the god was to be under the control of his opponents? In any case, from 331/30 BCE on, the City Asklepieion, the most celebrated sanctuary of the god in Attika, had its own festival closely associated with the Great Dionysia. In addition, as Aleshire has pointed out it is also from the mid-fourth century BCE on that evidence exists for an annually rotating and state-controlled priesthood for the City Asklepieion.124 In the same period of time, a cult association seems to control the Amyneion.125

  • 126 SEG 18, 26 and 18, 27.
  • 127 Riethmüller (1999), esp. p. 135–138, with a summary of previous (religious) interpretations of th (...)
  • 128 Petritaki (2001–2004), p. 446. The bothros in Piraeus is rectangular and the excavator assumes th (...)
  • 129 Aleshire (1989), p. 26 with n. 7.
  • 130 Melfi (2007), p. 34: “una cisterna o, comunque, un dispositivo per la raccolta dell’acqua.”

41The third festival, the Heroa, is really a mystery known only through the two inscriptions cited previously.126 They are associated somehow with the cult of Asklepios and perhaps the City Asklepieion, and as the name suggests they most probably celebrate the heroic aspects of Asklepios’ mythic and cultic persona. The epigraphic evidence suggests that the Heroa were the last festival to be created in the second half of the second century BCE. That the bothros was the sacrificial focus of this festival, as suggested by Riethmüller, remains an attractive hypothesis.127 In my view, it can be no coincidence that a bothros was excavated at the Asklepieion in Piraeus as well.128 Aleshire has suggested instead that the bothros in the Athenian Asklepieion was some short of reservoir.129 Melfi accepts Aleshire’s suggestion and emphasizes the inpracticality of bringing animals to the area of the bothros, if the bothros were to be identified as a sacrificial pit.130 Neither scholar addresses, however, convincingly why a water reservoir would have been necessary, especially if we take into consideration the abundance of wells around the Acropolis and more specifically within the temenos of Asklepios as well as in its immediate vicinity. The fact that the bothros predates the inscriptions mentioning for the first time the Heroa is not a problem, since it would only mean that a long-standing sacrificial ritual became part of a more extensive festival only in the Hellenistic period.

  • 131 Kimmel-Clauzet (2013), p. 201–253 and more summarily p. 273–276, offers a detailed analysis of cu (...)
  • 132 Ibid., p. 244–249, suggests that in the 4th century BCE, Sophokles received cultic honors in the (...)

42An alternative should be at least considered at this point, however: the Heroa could have been established not in honor of Asklepios, but of the heroized Sophokles and were celebrating either Sophokles alone or Sophokles together with Asklepios, the hero.131 This would mean, of course, that the establishment of the Heroa honoring the fifth-century tragedian in the second half of the second century BCE could have been associated with the heroization of Sophokles and with the moment when Telemachos as founder of the City Asklepieion was transformed into a distant memory.132

  • 133 See, in general, Buraselis (2008); Migeotte (2014), p. 337–341.

43The two inscriptions that refer to all three festivals—Asklepieia, Epidauria, and Heroa—mention explicitly that the same Asklepios priest performed the sacrifice of an ox at all three festivals. Chronologically, the epigraphic documents probably reflect the reality of the Athenian cults of Asklepios in the second century BCE and indirectly a more general situation prevalent in this period of time: in the Hellenistic period, several priestly offices are often in the hands of the same person who in many cases—although not attested in Athens—had purchased them.133 At the same time religious offices were connected with numerous financial facilitations for the new priests and priestesses. This seems to have been the case with the Asklepios priesthoods in second-century-BCE Athens, when apparently a single person was responsible for both sanctuaries and all three festivals. Methodologically, it would be problematic to project this situation back to the fifth or fourth century BCE and assume that the same priest was responsible for three festivals—which, in my view, were not founded at the same time or temporally even close to each other—already in that period of time.

  • 134 See, for example, Chaniotis (2011).

44If the hypothesis presented in this paper is valid, then the Athenian cult of Asklepios represents indeed an example of how the cult of a new divinity entered and changed the existing religious system of a city in a long-term process, while at the same time undergoing dynamic changes and adaptations itself.134 New cults were not introduced into a new religious environment as already finished and polished blocks of marble; although they did bring certain very fundamental elements with them, the rest was adjusted to the new social, political, and religious conditions.

Table: Asklepios in Athens, a timeline

Date

Event

Evidence

Between 430 and late 421 BCE

After the plague and/or perhaps in the immediate aftermath of the peace treaty of Nikias, state initiative (?) for the introduction of the Asklepios cult to Athens.

Initiative is headed by Sophokles (?).

assumed

Plut. Mor. 1103b

420 BCE

Arrival of the cult.

IG II/III3 4, 2, 665a–c + 666

420/19 BCE

Involvement of Telemachos.

IG II/III3 4, 2, 665a–c + 666

419/18 BCE

Problems between Telemachos and the Kerykes.

IG II/III3 4, 2, 665a–c + 666

418/17 BCE

Problem solved: a new sanctuary for Asklepios on the South Slope (Telemachos); introduction of Asklepios into the Amyneion (Sophokles).

IG II/III3 4, 2, 665a–c + 666

416/15 BCE

Unknown work done in the City Asklepieion

IG II/III3 4, 2, 665a–c + 666

415/14 BCE

Work near the wooden gate of the City Asklepieion concluded.

IG II/III3 4, 2, 665a–c + 666

414/13 BCE

Wooden gate repaired or finished.

IG II/III3 4, 2, 665a–c + 666

413/12 BCE

Sacred grove and undefined kosmesis of the City Asklepieion completed.

IG II/III3 4, 2, 665a–c + 666

late 5th cent. BCE

Buildings made of poros are erected in the City Asklepieion; building activity in the Amyneion.

archaeological data

410–404 BCE

By this time, establishment of the Epidauria for the cult of Asklepios in the Amyneion.

SEG 47, 71

4th cent. BCE

Poros temple in the City Asklepieion replaced.

archaeological data

second half of 4th cent. BCE

By this time, a cult of Dexion established in Athens.

IG II2 1252; 1253

331/30 BCE

By this time, establishment of the Asklepieia for the cult of Asklepios in the City Asklepieion.

IG II2 1496

300/299 BCE

Erection of the big Doric stoa (abaton).

SEG 39, 175

archaeological data

3rd/2nd cent. BCE

Heroization of Sophokles (?).

Etym. Magn. s.v. Δεξίων

second half of 2nd cent. BCE

By this time, establishment of the Heroa, the third festival honoring Asklepios (and/or Sophokles) in Athens.

SEG 18, 26; 18, 27

second half of 2nd cent. BCE

By this time, the same priest responsible for the bull sacrifices at the Asklepieia, Epidauria, and Heroa.

SEG 18, 26; 18, 27

86 BCE

Destruction of the City Asklepieion by Sulla.

assumed

post 86 BCE

Temple rebuilt; new altar.

archaeological data

52/51 BCE

Diokles, a priest of Asklepios, petitions the Athenian boule for permission to finance restorations at the propylon and the temple in the City Asklepieion.

IG II2 1046

late 1st BCE/early 1st cent. CE

Erection of the south stoa.

archaeological data

267 CE

Herulian destruction of the City Asklepieion.

assumed

post 267 CE

Last temple of Asklepios erected.

archaeological data

485/86 CE

By this time, Sophokles has eclipsed Telemachos as founder of the City Asklepieion completely.

By this time, Dexion and Sophokles are seen as the same (?).

Marinus, Vita Procli, 29

Etym. Magn. s.v. Δεξίων

late 5th cent. BCE

City Asklepieion abandoned as ‘pagan’ cult site.

archaeological data

Haut de page

Bibliographie

C.M. Acqua, “Comunicare il sacro: L’arredo urbano come strumento di trasmissione dell’identità cittadina. Il caso della processione di Artemide ad Efeso”, in C. Antonetti, G. Masaro, A. Pistellato (eds.), Comunicazione e linguaggi. Contributi della Scuola di dottorato in scienze umanistiche indirizzio in storia antica e archeologia, Padua, 2011, p. 159–184.

S. Agusta-Boularot, S. Huber, W. van Andringa (eds.), Quand naissent les dieux. Fondation des sanctuaires antiques: motivations, agents, lieux, Rome, 2017.

S.B. Aleshire, The Athenian Asklepieion: the People, their Dedications, and the Inventories, Amsterdam, 1989.

—, Asklepios at Athens. Epigraphic and Prosopographic Essays on the Athenian Healing Cults, Amsterdam, 1991.

V. Azoulay, “Lycurgue d’Athènes et le passé de la cité. Entre neutralisation et instrumentalisation”, Cahiers des études anciennes 46 (2009), p. 149–180.

F. Barrenechea, Comedy and Religion in Classical Athens. Narratives of Religious Experiences in Aristophanes’ Wealth, Cambridge, 2018.

C.A. Behr, P. Aelius Aristeides. The Complete Works, vol. II, Leiden, 1981.

L. Beschi, “Il monumento di Telemachos, fondatore dell’Asklepieion ateniese”, ASAA 45–46 (1967–1968), p. 381–436.

—, “Il rilievo di Telemachos ricompletato”, AAA 15 (1982), p. 31–43.

—, “Culti stranieri e fondazioni private nell’Attica classica: Alcuni casi”, ASAA 80 (2002), p. 13–42.

S. Bettinetti, La statua di culto nella pratica rituale greca, Bari, 2001.

P. Borgeaud, The Cult of Pan in Ancient Greece, Chicago, 1988.

K. Buraselis, “Priesthoods for sale. Comments on ideological and financial aspects of the sale of priesthoods in the Greek cities of the Hellenistic and Roman periods”, in A.H. Rasmussen, S.W. Rasmussen (eds.), Religion and Society. Rituals, Resources, and Identity in the Ancient Graeco-Roman World, Rome, 2008, p. 125–131.

A. Chaniotis, Historie und Historiker in den griechischen Inschriften. Epigraphische Beiträge zur griechischen Historiographie, Stuttgart, 1988.

— (ed.), Ritual Dynamics in the Ancient Mediterranean. Agency, Emotion, Gender, Representation, Stuttgart, 2011.

K. Clinton, “The Epidauria and the arrival of Asclepius in Athens”, in R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence, Stockholm, 1994, p. 17–34.

A. Connoly, “Was Sophocles heroised as Dexion?”, JHS 118 (1998), p. 1–21.

J.J. Coulton, The Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa, Oxford, 1976.

I. Dragatsis, “ Ἀνασκαφαὶ ἐν Πειραιεῖ (Ἀσκληπιεῖον)”, ADelt (1888), p. 132–136.

S.N. Dragoumis, “  Ἀσκληπιὸς ἐν Ἀθήναις”, AEph (1901), p. 97–112.

E.J. Edelstein, L. Edelstein, Asclepius. A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, vol. I–II, Baltimore, 1945.

H. Engelmann, The Delian Aretalogy of Sarapis, Leiden, 1975.

R. Garland, Introducing New Gods, London, 1991.

M. Girone, Ἰάματα. Guarigioni miracolose di Asclepio in testi epigrafici, Bari, 1998.

M.E. Gorrini, Eroi salutari dell’Attica. Per un’archeologia dei cosiddetti culti eroici salutari della regione, Rome, 2015

J. A. Haldane, “A paean in the Philoctetes”, CQ 13 (1963), p. 53–56.

J. Henderson, Aristophanes. Frogs, Assembly Women, Wealth, Cambridge Mass., 2002.

Ch. W. Hendrick Jr., “Democracy and the Athenian epigraphical habit”, Hesperia 68 (1999), p. 387–439.

I. Israelowich, Society, Medicine and Religion in the Sacred Tales, Leiden, 2012.

P. Janouchová, “The cult of Bendis in Athens and Thrace”, Graeco-Latina Brunensia 18 (2013), p. 95–106.

C. P. Jones, New Heroes in Antiquity. From Achilles to Antinoos, Cambridge Mass., 2010.

J. Jouanna, Sophocle, Paris, 2007.

—, “Les sanctuaires athéniens des divinités guérisseuses dans l’Athènes classique : innovations et continuités”, in J. de la Genière, A. Vauchez, J. Leclant (eds.), Les Sanctuaires et leur rayonnement dans le monde méditerranéen de l’Antiquité à l’époque moderne, Paris, 2010, p. 65–90.

—, “Asclépios à Athènes : de Sophocle à Proclos”, in C. Noirot, N. Ordine (eds.), Omnia in uno. Hommage à Alain-Philippe Segonds, Paris, 2012, p. 1–14.

—, “Le réseau des Asclépiéia dans la Grèce classique : médecine d’Asclépios et médecine des Asclépiades”, REG 133 (2020), p. 283–314.

A. Karivieri, “The ‘house of Proclus’ on the southern slope of the Acropolis: A Contibution”, in P. Castrén (ed.), Post-Herulian Athens. Aspects of Life and Culture in Athens, A.D. 267–529, Helsinki, 1994, p. 115–139.

F. Kimmel-Clauzet, Morts, tombeaux et cultes des poètes grecs. Étude de la survie des grands poètes des époques archaïque et classique en Grèce ancienne, Bordeaux, 2013.

A. Körte, “Die Ausgrabungen am Westabhang der Akropolis. IV. Das Heiligtum des Amynos”, MDAI(A) 21 (1896), p. 287–332.

F. Kolb, “Die Bau-, Religions- und Kulturpolitik der Peisistratiden”, JDAI 92 (1977), p. 99–138.

J. Lamont, “Asklepios in the Piraeus and the mechanisms of cult appropriation”, in M.M. Miles (ed.), Autopsy in Athens. Recent Archaeological Research on Athens and Attica, Oxford, 2015, p. 37–50.

M. Lefantzis, J.T. Jensen, “The Athenian Asklepieion on the South Slope of the Akropolis: Early development, ca. 420–360 B.C.”, in J.T. Jensen, G. Hinge, P. Schultz, B. Wickkiser (eds.), Aspects of Ancient Greek Cult. Context – Ritual – Iconography, Aarhus, 2009, p. 91–124.

L.R. LiDonnici, The Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions: Text, translation, and commentary, Atlanta, 1995.

A. Mantis, “The Asklepieion of Athens”, in E. De Miro, G. Sfameni Gasparro, V. Calì (eds.), Il culto di Asclepio nell’area mediterranea. Atti del convegno internazionale, Agrigento 20–22 novembre 2005, Rome, 2009, p. 67–77.

A. Mastrapas, “The battle of Marathon and the introduction of Pan’s worship to Athens: the political dimension of a legend through written evidence and archaeological finds”, in C. Carey, M. Edwards (eds.), Marathon — 2,500 Years: Proceedings of the Marathon Conference 2010, London, 2013 (BICS, suppl. 124), p. 111–122.

M. Melfi, I santuari di Asclepio in Grecia, vol. I, Rome, 2007.

L. Migeotte, Les Finances des cités grecques, Paris, 2014.

R. Mitchell-Boyask, Plague and the Athenian Imagination. Drama, History, and the Cult of Asclepius, Cambridge, 2008.

E. Mitropoulou, A New Interpretation of the Telemachos Monument, Athens, 1975.

S. Nicosia, “L’ordine (para)logico dei Discorsi Sacri di Elio Aristide (or. 47–52)”, in L. Pernot, G. Abbamonte, M. Lamagna (eds.), Ælius Aristide écrivain, Turnhout, 2016, p. 305–354.

C.O. Pache, “Barbarian bond: Thracian Bendis among the Athenians”, in S.R. Asirvatham, C.O. Pache, J. Watrous (eds.), Between Magic and Religion: Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and Society, Lanham, 2001, p. 3–11.

V. Papaefthymiou, “Der Altar des Asklepieions von Athen”, in J.T. Jensen, G. Hinge, P. Schultz, B. Wickkiser (eds.), Aspects of Ancient Greek Cult. Context – Ritual – Iconography, Aarhus, 2009, p. 67–89.

V. Papaeuthymiou, “Recent excavations at the Asklepieion of Athens”, in E. De Miro, G. Sfameni Gasparro, V. Calì (eds.), Il culto di Asclepio nell’area mediterranea. Atti del convegno internazionale, Agrigento 20–22 novembre 2005, Rome, 2009, p. 79–89.

W. Papaefthimiou, R. Christodoulopoulou, “Der Tempel des Asklepios und der Hygieia im Asklepieion von Athen. Neue Forschungen”, Marburger Winckelmann-Programm (2014), p. 35–48.

R. Parker, Miasma. Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion, Oxford, 1983.

—, Athenian Religion: A History, Oxford, 1996.

—, Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford, 2005.

G. Petridou, Divine Epiphany in Greek Literature and Culture, Oxford, 2015.

M. Petritaki, “Οδός Βασιλέως Παύλου 2–4 (ιδιοκτησία Ευσταθίου)”, ADelt 56–59, B1 (2001–2004), p. 445–446.

A. Petsalis-Diomidis, Truly Beyond Wonders. Aelius Aristides and the Cult of Asklepios, Oxford, 2010.

C. Prêtre, “Diaphonie et symphonie. La propagande polyphonique du sanctuaire d’Asklépios à Épidaure”, in K. Freitag, M. Haake (eds.), Griechische Heiligtümer als Handlungsorte. Zur Multifunktionalität supralokaler Heiligtümer von der frühen Archaik bis in die römische Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart, 2019, p. 175–185.

A. Purvis, Singular Dedications. Founders and Innovators of Private Cults in Classical Athens, London, 2003.

G. Renberg, Where Dreams May Come. Incubation Sanctuaries in the Graeco-Roman World, vol. I–II, Leiden, 2017.

J. Riethmüller, “Bothros and tetrastyle. The heroon of Asclepius in Athens”, in R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek Hero Cult. Proceedings of the Fifth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, Göteborg 21–23 April 1995, Jonsered, 1999, p. 123–143.

—, Asklepios. Heiligtümer und Kulte, vol. I–II, Heidelberg, 2005.

P. Sineux, “Une nuit à l’Asklépieion dans le ‘Ploutos’ d’Aristophane. Une récit dans le théâtre pour l’étude du rite de l’incubation”, Métis 4 (2006), p. 193–210.

A. H. Sommerstein, The Comedies of Aristophanes, vol. 11: Wealth, Warminster, 2001.

F. Steger, Asklepios: Medizin und Kult, Stuttgart, 2016.

J. Travlos, Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Athen, Tübingen, 1971.

Y. Ustinova, “Orgeones in phratries. A mechanism of social integration in Attica”, Kernos 9 (1996), p. 227–242.

R. van Wijk, “Negotiation and reconciliation. A new interpretation of the Athenian introduction of the Asklepios cult”, Klio 98 (2016), p. 118–138.

A. Verbanck-Piérard, “Les héros guérisseurs : des dieux comme les autres ! À propos des cultes médicaux dans l’Attique classique”, in V. Pirenne-Delforge, E. Suárez de la Torre (eds.), Héros et héroïnes dans les mythes et les cultes grecs, Liège, 2000 (Kernos, suppl. 10), p. 281–332.

G. Westwood, The Rhetoric of the Past in Demosthenes and Aeschines: Oratory, History, and Politics in Classical Athens, Oxford, 2020.

B.L. Wickkiser, Asklepios, Medicine, and the Politics of Healing in Fifth-century Greece: Between Craft and Cult, Baltimore, 2008.

—, “A chariot for Asklepios: SEG 25.226”, ZPE 168 (2009), p. 199–201.

—, “IG II2 4963 and the priesthood of Asklepios in Athens”, ZPE 179 (2011), p. 123–125.

S.M. Wijma, “Between private and public. Orgeones in Classical and Hellenistic Athens”, in A. Cazemier, S. Skaltsa (eds.), Associations and Religion in Context. The Hellenistic and Roman Eastern Mediterranean, Liège, 2022 (Kernos, suppl. 39), p. 21–43.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Ael. Or. 49.1: Ἔτυχον μὲν διατρίβων ἐν Ἀδριανοῖς, τοῦ θεοῦ πέμψαντος· ἦσαν δὲ αἱ πολλαὶ τότε καὶ συνεχεῖς ἀπορίαι, οὔτε γὰρ τρέφεσθαι δυνατὸν ἦν μοι οὔθ’ ὅ τι γευσαίμην κατέχειν τοῦτο, ἀλλ’ εὐθὺς συνίστατο σὺν πυρὶ πολλῷ καὶ τὴν φάρυγγα ἔκειρε καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἀπελάμβανε, καὶ σφάκελοι πυρώδεις ἐχώρουν εἰς κεφαλὴν ἄνω. καὶ πειρωμένῳ ἐμεῖν οὐκ ἀπήντα, ἀλλ’ ἦν καὶ ῥανὶς ἀντὶ τρικυμίας, διὰ τὸ ἐνίσχεσθαί τε καὶ πνιγμὸν φέρειν, μόλις δ’ ἂν καὶ μετὰ πολλοῦ θορύβου καὶ πολλῆς ἀπογνώσεως ἀπηλλάγην οὐκ ἀναιμωτὶ, ἀλλ’ ἀνεξαίνετο ἅπας ὁ πόρος καὶ καθίστατο ἀντ’ ἄλλου τραύματος. καὶ ὁ κάματος δὴ καὶ ἡ πᾶσα τοῦ σώματος ἀσθένεια καὶ κάθαρσις κατὰ λόγον τῶν συμβαινόντων ἦν. Transl. (with minor alterations) after Behr (1981), p. 308. On Aelius Aristeides and Asklepios in general, see Petsalis-Diomidis (2010). More specifically on the hieroi logoi, see Israelowich (2012) and Nicosia (2016).

2 Besides the monumental study on Asklepios by E.J. Edelstein and L. Edelstein (EdelsteinEdelstein [1945]) and the more specific studies by S.B. Aleshire on the Athenian Asklepieion (Aleshire [1989]; [1991]), five major publications dealing with Asklepios’ cult and sanctuaries have appeared since 2005: Riethmüller (2005), Melfi (2007), Mitchell-Boyask (2008), Wickkiser (2008), Steger (2016).

3 Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 334–359.

4 IG IV2 1, 121–124.

5 See, in general, LiDonnici (1995) and Girone (1998). Most recently and summarily, Prêtre (2019).

6 IG IV2 1, 121, l. 3–9: [Κλ]εὼ πένθἔτη ἐκύησε. v αὕτα πέντἐνιαυτοὺς ἤδη κυοῦσα ποὶ τὸν [θε]ὸν ἱκέτις ἀφίκετο καὶ ἐνεκάθευδε ἐν τῶι ἀβάτωι· ὡς δὲ τάχισ[τα] ἐξῆλθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἱαροῦ ἐγένετο, κόρον ἔτεκε, ὃς εὐ[θ]ὺς γενόμενος αὐτὸς ἀπὸ τᾶς κράνας ἐλοῦτο καὶ ἅμα τᾶι ματρὶ [π]εριῆρπε. τυχοῦσα δὲ τούτων ἐπὶ τὸ ἄνθεμα ἐπεγράψατο· οὐ μέγε[θο]ς πίνακος θαυμαστέον, ἀλλὰ τὸ θεῖον, πένθἔτη ὡς ἐκύησε ἐγ γαστρὶ Κλεὼ βάρος, ἔστε ἐγκατεκοιμάθη καί μιν ἔθηκε ὑγιῆ (translation with minor alterations after Edelstein – Edelstein [1945], p. 229).

7 Ar. Plut. 400–414, 633–747.

8 The Aristophanic text does not clarify which of the Attic Asklepieia is supposed to be the stage for the comedy, but an ancient commentary makes a clear association with the Athenian sanctuary, Schol. Aristoph. Plout. 621. I follow, here, Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 250–251 (with previous bibliography) who—in my view—argues convincingly that Aristophanes had the Athenian Asklepieion in his mind while writing his Ploutos. Jouanna (2010), p. 66–67 with n. 1 seems to associate Ploutos with the Athenian Asklepieion as well.

9 See, in general, Mitchell-Boyask (2008), esp. p. 105–121, 153–182. Wickkiser (2008), p. 63–66, accepts the general association between the Athenian plague and the introduction of the cult of Asklepios, but offers a more nuanced approach that also accounts for the extreme anxiety following the plague. Following J.D. Mikalson, Petridou (2015), p. 179, sees also a strong connection between the plague and the introduction of Asklepios’ cult to Athens.

10 van Wijk (2016). See n. 101.

11 See, in general, Garland (1991). More specifically on the foundation of new private cults, see Purvis (2003).

12 Kolb (1977).

13 Borgeaud (1988), p. 133–162; Mastrapas (2013).

14 Pache (2001); Janouchová (2013), p. 95–100.

15 The inscription regarding the history of the cult of Sarapis on Delos (IG XI 4, 1299; end of third century BCE) is admittedly very detailed, but has a significantly different character. The Telemachos stele with its annual listing of activities is almost reminiscent of an administrative report. On the contrary, the Delian text is both a praise of the new god, Sarapis, and an honor to the founder of the cult through the eyes of his grandson, Apollonios. On the Delian text, see Engelmann (1975).

16 Beschi (1967–1968). E. Mitropoulou made well-founded critical remarks on Beschi’s original reconstruction (Beschi [1967–1968], p. 411, fig. 22a–d), but ultimately offered an alternative solution that appeared even more problematic, see Mitropoulou (1975), esp. p. 63, that contains the conclusions of Mitropoulou’s study in the form of bullet-points. Taking Mitropoulou’s remarks into account, Beschi later published what is still considered the definitive reconstruction of the Telemachos stele, as far as the relief decoration is concerned, Beschi (1982); see also Beschi (2002), p. 19–29.

17 IG II/III3 4, 2, 665a–c were originally part of the one and 666 of the other copy. According to Riethmüller (2005), vol. Ι, p. 250, one copy stood at the altar, while the other should be reconstructed as standing either near the temple or more probably near the propylon.

18 Lines 1–26 after Clinton (1994), p. 21; lines 30–46 after Beschi (1967–1968), p. 413.

19 Körte (1896), p. 316–317: δρ[κοντα; Dragoumis (1901), p. 104: διά[κονον; Clinton (1994), p. 23–24: δια[κόνος. A number of scholars, most recently Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 245 with n. 27, have accepted the restoration δράκοντα, which contradicts the well-preserved letters ΔΙΑ at the end of line 13. The imaginative explanation of Körte that “der Steinmetz ein P vorgezeichnet hatte, aber den Bogen auszumeisseln vergass” is not convincing, see Körte (1896), p. 317. Wickkiser (2008), p. 67–70, follows Clinton in reading διακόνος, but she sees in them cult attendants of either the newly established Athenian or the Epidaurian Asklepieion.

20 Wickkiser (2009), p. 200, very convincingly suggests that Asklepios, his statue, or his snake was brought to the god’s new sanctuary on a chariot (ἅρμα), not on a wagon (ἅμαξα), a detail that connects the Epidaurian god from the very moment of his arrival with the cult of Athena.

21 IG II/III3 4, 2, 668: [Τηλέμαχ]ός σε ἱέρωσε Ἀσσκληπιῶι ἠδὲ ὁμοβώμοις | πρῶτος ἱδρυσάμενος θυσίαις θείαις ὑποθήκαις.

22 Riethmüller 2005, vol. I, p. 265.

23 The inscription does not mention the reason why Telemachos got involved in the introduction of Asklepios to Athens; perhaps this was part of the missing lines 6–9. Chaniotis (1988), p. 222, assumes that Telemachos experienced himself a wondrous healing in Epidauros.

24 Melfi (2007), p. 410–433.

25 SEG 47, 71 (410–404 BCE).

26 Clinton (1994), p. 18–19.

27 IG II2 1496: Asklepieia between Lenaia and City Dionysia: l. 74: [ἐγ] Διονυσίων τῶν [ἐπὶ Λ]ηναίω[ι]; l. 78: ἐξ Ἀσκληπιείων; l. 80: ἐγ Διονυσίων τῶν ἐν ἄστε[ι]; l. 105: [ἐγ Διονυσί]ων τῶν ἐπὶ Ληναίωι; l. 109: [ἐξ Ἀσκληπι]είων; l. 111: [ἐγ Διονυσί]ων τῶν ἐν [ἄστει]; l. 146: ἐγ Διονυσίω[ν τῶν ἐπὶ Ληναίωι]; l. 150: [ἐξ Ἀσκ]ληπιέω[ν]; l. 151: [ἐγ Διονυ]σίω[ν τῶν ἐν ἄστει]. Asklepieia between Eleusinia and Theseia: l. 130: [ἐξ Ἐλε]υσινίων; l. 133: [ἐξ Ἀσκλ]ηπιείων; l. 134: [ἐχ Θησ]έων; l. 138: [ξ Ἐλευσινίων]; l. 142: ἐξ Ἀσκληπ[ιείων]; l. 143: ἐχ Θησέων.

28 SEG 18, 26, l. 11–12: καὶ ἐβουθύ[τησεν τοῖς τε Ἀσκληπιείοις] | καὶ Ἐπιδαυρίοις καὶ Ἡρώιοις παρασ[τήσας θύματα ὡς κάλλιστα] (137/36 BCE); SEG 18, 27, l. 5–7: ἐβ[ουθύτησεν δὲ καὶ………… τῶι Ἀσ]|κληπιῶι καὶ τῆι Ὑγι[είαι τοῖς Ἀσκληπιείοις καὶ Ἐπιδαυρίοις καὶ] | τοῖς Ἡρώιοις παρασ[τήσας θύματα ὡς κάλλιστα (second century BCE). The specification τοῦ ἐν ἄστει is largely restored in SEG 18, 26, l. 8–9.

29 Parker (2005), p. 462.

30 Aeschin. In Ctes. 67: ἐκκλησίαν ποιεῖν τοὺς πρυτάνεις τῇ ὀγδόῃ ἱσταμένου τοῦ Ἐλαφηβολιῶνος μηνός, ὅτ᾿ ἦν τῷ Ἀσκληπιῷ θυσία καὶ προαγών (“that the prytaneis call an assembly on the eighth day of Elaphebolion, the day when the sacrifice to Asklepios takes place and the pre-contest [of the Dionysia]”).

31 Clinton (1994), p. 18, stresses that although the Athenians could have named the festival known as Epidauria the “Asclepieia at the Mysteries, or something of the sort”, they did opt for a strong onomastic connection to Epidauros. If this connection was supposed to be emphatically expressed through the festival’s name, then why did the scribe of IG II2 1496 choose to use the equivocal name Asklepieia?

32 Beschi (1967–1968), p. 418.

33 Ibid., p. 419.

34 Ibid., p. 401, fig. 6.

35 Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 242 (horse-leader); Beschi (1967–1968), p. 417–418 (female figures).

36 Beschi (1967–1968), p. 416–418.

37 Mitropoulou (1975), p. 53 and fig. C.

38 Beschi (1967–1968), p. 422–428.

39 Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 248, suggested that this is a scene of the theoxenia of Asklepios at the Epidauria. Renberg (2017), vol. I, p. 187, assumed that the artist intended to depict an incubation scene.

40 Beschi (1967–1968), p. 418–422.

41 Ibid., p. 388–391.

42 Wickkiser (2009), p. 201, suggests that the horse bust might be a reference to the chariot on which Asklepios was brought to his new sanctuary, according to the inscription. In my view, the horse bust could be seen as both a general symbolic reference to a hero cult and a very specific allusion to an important detail of the god’s arrival.

43 Beschi (1982), p. 40–43.

44 Paus. 1.21.4: ἰόντων δὲ Ἀθήνῃσιν ἐς τὴν ἀκρόπολιν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεάτρου τέθαπται Κάλως· τοῦτον τὸν Κάλων ἀδελφῆς παῖδα ὄντα καὶ τῆς τέχνης μαθητὴν φονεύσας Δαίδαλος ἐς Κρήτην ἔφυγε (“on the way to the acropolis of Athens from the side of the theater, this is where Kalos lies buried. Daidalos murdered this Kalos, his sister’s son and student of his craft, and then fled to Crete”). According to Ps.-Apollod. 3.214, the name of the youth was Talos.

45 Beschi (1967–1968), p. 392–396.

46 See, most recently, Papaeuthymiou (2009); Papaefthymiou (2009); LefantzisJensen (2009); PapaefthimiouChristodoulopoulou (2014).

47 Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 253–259.

48 Melfi (2007), p. 327–329. Papaeuthymiou (2009), p. 79, considers the Ionic stoa part of the Asklepieion as well.

49 Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 273; Melfi (2007), p. 322–331.

50 PapaefthimiouChristodoulopoulou (2014), p. 45–47.

51 Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 259–265.

52 Papaeuthymiou (2009), p. 83–88.

53 Papaefthimiou – Christodoulopoulou (2014), p. 40–41.

54 Ibid., p. 45.

55 Papaeuthymiou (2009), p. 82–83.

56 Ibid., p. 81–82.

57 Ibid., p. 81. Similar pits were found during the excavations of the apsis of the early Christian basilica next to the altar.

58 Ibid., p. 82.

59 Paus. 1.21.4.

60 SEG 39, 175. Coulton (1976), p. 223; Mantis (2009), p. 72–73. For the identification of the stoa with the incubation hall of the sanctuary, see, most recently, Renberg (2017), vol. I, p. 133 with n. 46 (with previous bibliography).

61 Riethmüller (1999).

62 Melfi (2007), p. 368–369.

63 IG II2 1046, l. 14–18: παρα|καλεῖ τὴν βουλὴν ἐπιχωρῆσαι ἑατῶι κατασκευάσαντι ἐκ τῶν | ἰδίων θυρῶσαι τὸ ἀρχαῖον πρόπυλον, στεγάσαι δὲ καὶ τοῦ | προπύλου τὸ ὀπίσωι μέρος καὶ τὸν ναὸν τὸν ἀπέναντι τῆ[ς] | εἰσόδου χάριν τοῦ τὴν ἀρχαίαν ἀποδοθῆναι τῶι ἱερῷ τάξιν.

64 Travlos (1971), p. 128.

65 Ar. Plut. 659–662: ἀνὴρ γέρων ψυχρᾷ θαλάττῃ λούμενος | ἔπειτα πρὸς τὸ τέμενος ᾖμεν τοῦ θεοῦ | ἐπεὶ δὲ βωμῷ πόπανα καὶ προθύματα | καθωσιώθη, πέλανος Ἡφαίστου προθύματα (“The old guy took a bath in the cold sea then we walked to the sanctuary of the god. There, honey-cakes and food were offered on the altar, nourishment for the flame of Hephaistos”).

66 Ar. Plut. 732–734: εἶθ᾿ θεὸς ἐπόπτυσεν | ἐξῃξάτην οὖν δύο δράκοντ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ νεὼ | ὑπερφυεῖς τὸ μέγεθος (“Then the god whistled, and two serpents came out from the temple, truly big ones”).

67 The possible interconnections between the first and the second Ploutos remain an unsolved problem; Henderson (2002), p. 415 cautiously assumes “that the two plays were similar enough (at least in part) to be confused”. Sommerstein (2001), p. 28–33, deals more extensively with the issue and assumes a new composition for the second Ploutos (p. 33: “composed de novo for production in 388”) without, however, addressing issues of the possible interconnectedness between the plots of the two plays.

68 For a summary of the various scholarly opinions on the matter, see Sineux (2006), p. 196–197 with n. 13 (Piraeus) and 14 (Athens).

69 Schol. Aristoph. Plout. 621: εἰς ᾽Ασκληπιοῦ· τὸν ἐν ἄστει λέγει ᾽Ασκληπιόν. δύο γάρ εἰσιν, μὲν ἐν ἄστει, δὲ ἐν Πειραιεῖ (“Into the temple of Asklepios. He has the Asklepios in the city in his mind, because there are two, the one in the city and the one in Piraeus”).

70 Aleshire (1989), p. 13, even attributes the commentary to a “clumsy scholiast”.

71 Melfi (2007), p. 319: “la questione dell’identificazione è, in questo caso, irrilevante.”

72 On the identification of the Asklepieion in Piraeus with the Aristophanic one, see, most recently, Barrenechea (2018), p. 160–161, with no discussion of the alternative hypothesis. Lamont (2015), p. 40 with n. 28, who wishes to recognize in the Asklepios sanctuary excavated in Piraeus an almost exact reflection of the cult site described in Ploutos. On the contrary, Sineux (2006), p. 197, emphasizes that “aucune autre indication topographique dans la suite du texte” allows a secure identification either with the City Asklepieion or with the god’s sanctuary in Piraeus. Contra Lamont (2015): neither the old excavations from the late 19th century (Dragatsis [1888]) nor the most recent rescue excavations (Petritaki [2001–2004]) at the cult site can be used as an argument to favor the one or the other identification: a peribolos, an open space, an altar, a bothros, and (at least) a stoa can be found in either sanctuary. Renberg (2017), vol. I, p. 135 and 185 with n. 167, assumes as well that the Asklepieion in Ploutos is the one in Athens.

73 Hdt. 8.55: ἔστι ἐν τῇ ἀκροπόλι ταύτῃ Ἐρεχθέος τοῦ γηγενέος λεγομένου εἶναι νηός, ἐν τῷ ἐλαίη τε καὶ θάλασσα ἔνι (“There is on that acropolis a temple of Erechtheus, the one who is said to have been born of the earth, and in the temple, there is an olive tree and a sea-water well”).

74 Paus. 8.10.4: θαλάσσης δὲ ἀναφαίνεσθαι κῦμα ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ λόγος ἐστὶν ἀρχαῖος (“There is an old story that a sea wave rises in the sanctuary”).

75 On the purifying power of sea water, see Parker (1983), p. 226–227. On the bathing of ‘cult statues’ in sea water, see Bettinetti (2001), p. 149–151.

76 IG II/III3 4, 2, 668: l. 2; 665: l. 3.

77 Haldane (1963), p. 54. According to Jouanna (2012), p. 1–3, Sophokles’ paean might have contributed to the popularity of the new cult.

78 Etym. Magn. s.v. Δεξίων: οὕτως ὠνόμασται Σοφοκλῆς ὐπὸ Ἀθηναίων μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν. φασὶν ὅτι Ἀθηναῖοι τελευτήσαντι Σοφοκλεῖ, βουλόμενοι τιμὰς αὐτῷ περιποιῆσαι, ἡρώϊον αὐτῷ κατασκευάσαντες, ὠνόμασαν Δεξίωνα, ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ δεξιώσεως. καὶ γὰρ ὑπεδέξατο τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῇ αὑτοῦ οἰκίᾳ καὶ βωμὸν ἱδρύσατο. ἐκ τῆς αἰτίας οὖν ταύτης Δεξίων ἐκλήθη (“This is how Sophokles was called after his death by the Athenians. They say that the Athenians upon Sophokles’ death they wished to honor him and so they built him a heroon and called him Dexion because of Asklepios’ reception. For he received the god into his own house and founded an altar. It is for this reason then that he was called Dexion”).

79 Plut. Mor. 1103b: τὸν Ἀσκληπιὸν Σοφοκλῆς ξενίζειν αὐτός τε πειθόμενος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων οὕτως ἐχόντων διὰ τὴν γενομένην ἐπιφάνειαν; (“or Sophocles, who received Asklepios in his house as a guest, as he was himself convinced and the others believed like he did because of the epiphany that had taken place?”).

80 IG II2 1252, l. 2–4: ἐπειδή εἰσιν ἄνδρες | ἀγαθοὶ περὶ τὰ κοινὰ τῶν ὀργεώνων τοῦ Ἀμύ|νου καὶ τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ καὶ τοῦ Δεξίονος; l. 14–17: ἀναγράψαι δὲ τόδε τὸ ψήφι|σμα ἐν στήλαις λιθίναις δυοῖν καὶ στῆσαι | τὴν μὲν ἐν τῶι τοῦ Δεξίονος ἱερῶι, τὴν δὲ | []ν τῶι τοῦ Ἀμύνου καὶ Ἀσκληπιοῦ.

81 IG II2 1253, l. 5–7: δίκαιοι γεγόνασι περὶ τὰ κοινὰ | τῶν ὀργειώνων τοῦ Ἀμύνου καὶ τοῦ | Ἀσκληπιοῦ καὶ τοῦ Δεξίονος; l. 10–11: τὸ δὲ ψήφισμα τόδε ἀναγρά|ψαι [ν] τῶ[ι] ἱερῶι ἐν στήλει λιθίνει.

82 Travlos (1971), p. 76. On the sanctuary, see most recently Gorrini (2015), p. 19–29.

83 Jouanna (2010), p. 78, suggested already that Sophokles dedicated an altar in this sanctuary and not in the Athenian Asklepieion.

84 Jouanna (2020), p. 309, explicitly argues that Sophokles was the one who introduced the cult of Asklepios into the already existing sanctuary of Amynos.

85 Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 275–276.

86 Marinus, Vita Procli 29: γείτονα μὲν οὖσαν τοῦ ἀπὸ Σοφοκλέους ἐπιφανοῦς Ἀσκληπιεῖου, καὶ τοῦ πρὸς τῷ θεάτρῳ Διονυσίου (“it neighbored the famous, because of Sophokles, Asklepieion and the Dionysion next to the theater”). A house-complex excavated in the mid-20th century has been identified as the House of Proklos based on the passage in Marinos’ biography of the Neoplatonic philosopher. The identification, although not universally accepted, has been embraced by most scholars, see, for example, Karivieri (1994), esp. p. 130–134 with previous bibliography. According to Melfi (2007), p. 405–407, by the time Marinos wrote his biography of Proklos, the Asklepieion was not anymore in use. However, from an archaeological perspective, both Mantis (2009), p. 68 and Papaeuthymiou (2009), p. 79, suggested most recently that the ‘pagan’ sanctuary was abandoned probably towards the end of the fifth century CE. For Jouanna (2012), p. 7, Marinos’ text is “un document historique de premier ordre sur le fonctionnement de l’Asklépiéion peu de temps avant sa disparition” (emphasis mine).

87 Sommerstein (2001), p. 11, assumes that Telemachos was “possibly an Epidaurian or an Athenian with Epidaurian connections.”

88 Jouanna (2007), p. 76–90, remains the most extensive and up-to-date discussion of this issue.

89 Connoly (1998).

90 Ibid., p. 14: “[…] and there is no independent evidence that Sophocles participated in a cultic reception of Asclepius.”

91 Ibid., p. 20: “it is entirely plausible that he [Sophokles] was never heroized at all and that the report of heroic honours was a Hellenistic biographical invention.”

92 Ibid., p. 15–20. Jouanna (2009), p. 74, notes rather pointedly: “Selon Connoly, on aurait rattaché Sophocle à un héros Dexion et inventé son héroïsation, parce que Sophocle était réputé habile dexios ! Qui est le plus habile ? Le prétendu manipulateur ancien ou l’érudit moderne ?” According to Jouanna (2020), p. 309, “rien n’est inventé, ni dans le rôle joué par Sophocle dans l’introduction du culte d’Asclépios à Athènes, ni dans son héroïsation après sa mort sous le nom de Dexion.

93 Marinus, Vita Procli 29. In whatever way one wishes to evaluate the accuracy of Marinos’ account, in this passage, the late antique author is referring to spatial points in the Athenian topography that must have been well known to his audience, thus the reference to the “Asklepieion” in connection with Sophokles is significant. As Jouanna (2012), p. 5, rightly points out, in a time when the plays of Sophokles were not anymore presented in the adjacent Dionysos theater, the tragedian’s paean for Asklepios was still sung in the god’s honor.

94 On Lykourgan Athens, see, for example, Azoulay (2009).

95 Jones (2010), p. 48–51.

96 I do agree with Connoly (1998), p. 20, about the overall fictitious nature of the Dexion-entry in the Etymologicum Magnum, but I disagree with his assumption that the entry consists of inventions. In my view, three pieces of—most probably—true information about less-known situations (a. Sophokles was involved in the introduction of Asklepios to Athens; b. Sophokles had been heroized; c. There was a cult of a hero named Dexion in Athens) were combined by the lexicographer(s) either consciously or by mistake.

97 Verbanck-Piérard (2000), p. 312–313; Parker (2005), p. 462, 469, 474; Mantis (2009), p. 71.

98 See, for example, the overview provided by Wickkiser (2008), p. 62–76.

99 For Sommerstein (2001), p. 11, Telemachos was the founder of the Asklepieion in Piraeus as well.

100 Clinton (1994), p. 29.

101 According to van Wijk (2016), p. 131–134, the connection of both the arrival in Athens and the overall cult of Asklepios not only with the Eleusinian Mysteries, but also with the City Dionysia had a clear political background: it was supposed to enhance the interactions of the newly arrived god with two of the most important Attic cults at a time when Athens needed the support of Epidauros in order to safeguard the peace treaty of Nikias.

102 Mitchell-Boyask (2008), p. 110–115.

103 Riethmüller (1999), p. 138–140; Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 267–273. Verbanck-Piérard (2000), p. 329–332, argues against this hypothesis.

104 Wickkiser (2008), p. 89.

105 Parker (1996), p. 180, n. 100.

106 The Asklepieia, for example, in Naupaktos, Pergamon, and Sikyon are recognized in ancient sources as private foundations, but the foundation of the sanctuary of Asklepios in Rome is associated with the Sibylline Books and the Roman senate, see Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 230–236.

107 Wickkiser (2008), p. 74–75, suggested that the Telemachos stele is not referring to problems between Telemachos and the Kerykes, but moreover to the Kerykes supporting Telemachos in his legal problems with a third party.

108 Plut. Mor. 1103b.

109 Arist. Ath. Pol. 56.4: πομπῶν δ᾽ ἐπιμελεῖται τῆς τε τῷ Ἀσκληπιῷ γιγνομένης, ὅταν οἰκουρῶσι μύσται (“he [the archon] is responsible for the processions, the one that takes place in honor of Asklepios when the initiates stay home”).

110 Wickkiser (2008), p. 101–105.

111 SEG 47, 232, l. 15–16: κα[τ| χρησμ]ός.

112 See, in general, Agusta-Boularot – Hubert – van Andringa (2017), but esp. the “Introduction”, p. 1–9.

113 See, for example, Purvis (2003), p. 60–61

114 For Jouanna (2010), p. 79, there were from the beginning two distinct initiatives “qu’elles soient ou non concurrentes.”

115 SEG 47, 71.

116 Arist. Ath. Pol. 56.4.

117 Clinton (1994), p. 27.

118 Ibid., p. 29.

119 Acqua (2011), p. 161–171.

120 IG II2 1496.

121 Westwood (2020), p. 275–327.

122 Wickkiser (2008), p. 82.

123 Hedrick Jr. (1999).

124 Aleshire (1989), p. 14–15 with n. 6; p. 72 with n. 2. Wickkiser (2011) convincingly demonstrates that IG II/III3 4, 2, 667, should not be considered anymore part of the evidence that might attest to a state-controlled Asklepios cult in the City Asklepieion from the mid-fourth century BCE on.

125 Parker (2005), p. 54 with n. 13. More generally on orgeones in Athens and Attica, see Ustinova (1996); Wijma (2022).

126 SEG 18, 26 and 18, 27.

127 Riethmüller (1999), esp. p. 135–138, with a summary of previous (religious) interpretations of the bothros. Alexandros Mantis, director of the Asklepieion restoration program, sees the bothros in connection to the sacrifices performed at the Heroa as well: Mantis (2009), p. 71–72.

128 Petritaki (2001–2004), p. 446. The bothros in Piraeus is rectangular and the excavator assumes that it had a cultic function: “προφανώς σχετιζόταν με την άσκηση λατρείας.”

129 Aleshire (1989), p. 26 with n. 7.

130 Melfi (2007), p. 34: “una cisterna o, comunque, un dispositivo per la raccolta dell’acqua.”

131 Kimmel-Clauzet (2013), p. 201–253 and more summarily p. 273–276, offers a detailed analysis of cults of poets—including that of Sophokles—that could serve as comparanda for the hypothesis expressed here.

132 Ibid., p. 244–249, suggests that in the 4th century BCE, Sophokles received cultic honors in the context of a private association and then in the 3rd century BCE, his cult became a public (heroic) one.

133 See, in general, Buraselis (2008); Migeotte (2014), p. 337–341.

134 See, for example, Chaniotis (2011).

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 1a. Plaster cast of the so-called Telemachos stele with parts of the original monument incorporated. Side A. Athens, Akropolis Museum, inv. no. EAM 2490.
Crédits Photo: Ioannis Mylonopoulos
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/4552/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 67k
Légende Fig. 1b. Plaster cast of the so-called Telemachos stele with parts of the original monument incorporated. Side B. Athens, Akropolis Museum, inv. no. EAM 2490.
Crédits Photo: Ioannis Mylonopoulos
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/4552/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 74k
Légende Fig. 2. Reconstruction of the so-called Telemachos stele. Drawing.
Crédits After: Beschi (2002), p. 23, fig. 7.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/4552/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 174k
Légende Fig. 3. Small relief crowning the inscription of the so-called Telemachos stele. Side A.
Crédits After: Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 243, fig. 34 (detail).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/4552/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 29k
Légende Fig. 4. Small relief crowning the inscription of the so-called Telemachos stele. Side B.
Crédits After: Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 243, fig. 34 (detail).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/4552/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 18k
Légende Fig. 5. Large separate relief at the top of the so-called Telemachos stele. Side A.
Crédits After: Beschi (2002), p. 22, fig. 5.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/4552/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 124k
Légende Fig. 6. Large separate relief at the top of the so-called Telemachos stele. Side B.
Crédits After: Beschi (2002), p. 22, fig. 6.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/4552/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 106k
Légende Fig. 7. Plan of the City Asklepieion.
Crédits After: Travlos (1971), p. 129, fig. 171.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/4552/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 141k
Légende Fig. 8. Sanctuary of Amynos.
Crédits After: Travlos (1971), p. 77, fig. 98.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/4552/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 151k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Ioannis Mylonopoulos, « Better Late Than Never! »Kernos, 36 | 2023, 23-59.

Référence électronique

Ioannis Mylonopoulos, « Better Late Than Never! »Kernos [En ligne], 36 | 2023, mis en ligne le 01 février 2024, consulté le 11 juillet 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/4552 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/kernos.4552

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search