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, “ Ὁ 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
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).
Besides the monumental study on Asklepios by E.J. Edelstein and L. Edelstein (Edelstein – Edelstein [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).
Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 334–359.
IG IV2 1, 121–124.
See, in general, LiDonnici (1995) and Girone (1998). Most recently and summarily, Prêtre (2019).
IG IV2 1, 121, l. 3–9: [Κλ]εὼ πένθ’ ἔτη ἐκύησε. v αὕτα πέντ’ ἐνιαυτοὺς 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, πένθ’ ἔτη ὡς ἐκύησε ἐγ γαστρὶ Κλεὼ βάρος, ἔστε ἐγκατεκοιμάθη καί μιν ἔθηκε ὑγιῆ (translation with minor alterations after Edelstein – Edelstein [1945], p. 229).
Ar. Plut. 400–414, 633–747.
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.
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.
van Wijk (2016). See n. 101.
See, in general, Garland (1991). More specifically on the foundation of new private cults, see Purvis (2003).
Kolb (1977).
Borgeaud (1988), p. 133–162; Mastrapas (2013).
Pache (2001); Janouchová (2013), p. 95–100.
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).
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.
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.
Lines 1–26 after Clinton (1994), p. 21; lines 30–46 after Beschi (1967–1968), p. 413.
Körte (1896), p. 316–317: δ〈ρ〉ά[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.
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.
IG II/III3 4, 2, 668: [Τηλέμαχ]ός σε ἱέρωσε Ἀσσκληπιῶι ἠδὲ ὁμοβώμοις | πρῶτος ἱδρυσάμενος θυσίαις θείαις ὑποθήκαις.
Riethmüller 2005, vol. I, p. 265.
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.
Melfi (2007), p. 410–433.
SEG 47, 71 (410–404 BCE).
Clinton (1994), p. 18–19.
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: ἐ[ξ Ἐλευσινίων]; l. 142: ἐξ Ἀσκληπ[ιείων]; l. 143: ἐχ Θησέων.
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.
Parker (2005), p. 462.
Aeschin. In Ctes. 67: ἐκκλησίαν ποιεῖν τοὺς πρυτάνεις τῇ ὀγδόῃ ἱσταμένου τοῦ Ἐλαφηβολιῶνος μηνός, ὅτ᾿ ἦν τῷ Ἀσκληπιῷ ἡ θυσία καὶ ὁ 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]”).
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?
Beschi (1967–1968), p. 418.
Ibid., p. 419.
Ibid., p. 401, fig. 6.
Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 242 (horse-leader); Beschi (1967–1968), p. 417–418 (female figures).
Beschi (1967–1968), p. 416–418.
Mitropoulou (1975), p. 53 and fig. C.
Beschi (1967–1968), p. 422–428.
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.
Beschi (1967–1968), p. 418–422.
Ibid., p. 388–391.
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.
Beschi (1982), p. 40–43.
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.
Beschi (1967–1968), p. 392–396.
See, most recently, Papaeuthymiou (2009); Papaefthymiou (2009); Lefantzis – Jensen (2009); Papaefthimiou – Christodoulopoulou (2014).
Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 253–259.
Melfi (2007), p. 327–329. Papaeuthymiou (2009), p. 79, considers the Ionic stoa part of the Asklepieion as well.
Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 273; Melfi (2007), p. 322–331.
Papaefthimiou – Christodoulopoulou (2014), p. 45–47.
Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 259–265.
Papaeuthymiou (2009), p. 83–88.
Papaefthimiou – Christodoulopoulou (2014), p. 40–41.
Ibid., p. 45.
Papaeuthymiou (2009), p. 82–83.
Ibid., p. 81–82.
Ibid., p. 81. Similar pits were found during the excavations of the apsis of the early Christian basilica next to the altar.
Ibid., p. 82.
Paus. 1.21.4.
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).
Riethmüller (1999).
Melfi (2007), p. 368–369.
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.
Travlos (1971), p. 128.
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”).
Ar. Plut. 732–734: εἶθ᾿ ὁ 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”).
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.
For a summary of the various scholarly opinions on the matter, see Sineux (2006), p. 196–197 with n. 13 (Piraeus) and 14 (Athens).
Schol. Aristoph. Plout. 621: εἰς ᾽Ασκληπιοῦ· τὸν ἐν ἄστει λέγει ᾽Ασκληπιόν. δύο γάρ εἰσιν, ὁ μὲν ἐν ἄστει, ὁ 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”).
Aleshire (1989), p. 13, even attributes the commentary to a “clumsy scholiast”.
Melfi (2007), p. 319: “la questione dell’identificazione è, in questo caso, irrilevante.”
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.
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”).
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”).
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.
IG II/III3 4, 2, 668: l. 2; 665: l. 3.
Haldane (1963), p. 54. According to Jouanna (2012), p. 1–3, Sophokles’ paean might have contributed to the popularity of the new cult.
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”).
Plut. Mor. 1103b: ἢ 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?”).
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 | [ἐ]ν τῶι τοῦ Ἀμύνου καὶ Ἀσκληπιοῦ.
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 ἐ[ν] τῶ[ι] ἱερῶι ἐν στήλει λιθίνει.
Travlos (1971), p. 76. On the sanctuary, see most recently Gorrini (2015), p. 19–29.
Jouanna (2010), p. 78, suggested already that Sophokles dedicated an altar in this sanctuary and not in the Athenian Asklepieion.
Jouanna (2020), p. 309, explicitly argues that Sophokles was the one who introduced the cult of Asklepios into the already existing sanctuary of Amynos.
Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 275–276.
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).
Sommerstein (2001), p. 11, assumes that Telemachos was “possibly an Epidaurian or an Athenian with Epidaurian connections.”
Jouanna (2007), p. 76–90, remains the most extensive and up-to-date discussion of this issue.
Connoly (1998).
Ibid., p. 14: “[…] and there is no independent evidence that Sophocles participated in a cultic reception of Asclepius.”
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.”
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.”
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.
On Lykourgan Athens, see, for example, Azoulay (2009).
Jones (2010), p. 48–51.
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.
Verbanck-Piérard (2000), p. 312–313; Parker (2005), p. 462, 469, 474; Mantis (2009), p. 71.
See, for example, the overview provided by Wickkiser (2008), p. 62–76.
For Sommerstein (2001), p. 11, Telemachos was the founder of the Asklepieion in Piraeus as well.
Clinton (1994), p. 29.
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.
Mitchell-Boyask (2008), p. 110–115.
Riethmüller (1999), p. 138–140; Riethmüller (2005), vol. I, p. 267–273. Verbanck-Piérard (2000), p. 329–332, argues against this hypothesis.
Wickkiser (2008), p. 89.
Parker (1996), p. 180, n. 100.
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.
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.
Plut. Mor. 1103b.
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”).
Wickkiser (2008), p. 101–105.
SEG 47, 232, l. 15–16: κα[τ|ὰ χρησμ]ός.
See, in general, Agusta-Boularot – Hubert – van Andringa (2017), but esp. the “Introduction”, p. 1–9.
See, for example, Purvis (2003), p. 60–61
For Jouanna (2010), p. 79, there were from the beginning two distinct initiatives “qu’elles soient ou non concurrentes.”
SEG 47, 71.
Arist. Ath. Pol. 56.4.
Clinton (1994), p. 27.
Ibid., p. 29.
Acqua (2011), p. 161–171.
IG II2 1496.
Westwood (2020), p. 275–327.
Wickkiser (2008), p. 82.
Hedrick Jr. (1999).
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.
Parker (2005), p. 54 with n. 13. More generally on orgeones in Athens and Attica, see Ustinova (1996); Wijma (2022).
SEG 18, 26 and 18, 27.
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.
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.”
Aleshire (1989), p. 26 with n. 7.
Melfi (2007), p. 34: “una cisterna o, comunque, un dispositivo per la raccolta dell’acqua.”
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.
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.
See, in general, Buraselis (2008); Migeotte (2014), p. 337–341.
See, for example, Chaniotis (2011).
Haut de page