If it were less fragmentary, an inscription from Epidaurus could have offered the perfect evidence for a description of ‘‘a day in the life of a Greek sanctuary.’’ The heading ‘‘Sacred Journal’’ {he:mereisia [hiera]), followed by an announcement of daily sacrifices, is most promising, and it looks as if the ancient reader was taken through the hours of the day and provided with a meticulous account of all ceremonies, thereby being informed about cult equipment and layout of temple and sanctuary. During ‘‘the first hour’’ we hear about the priest filling the incense burner and going around all the altars, making libations in the presence of a ‘‘fire bearer.’’ In the evening, libations take place again and snippets of text talk about ladles being held up and about warm water, possibly for cleansing the altars {LSS 25; second or third century AD).
Unfortunately, it is generally believed that both the institution of an official ‘‘journal’’ and regulations such as the ones above were exceptional, a late custom that characterized healing sanctuaries or those of the so-called oriental deities. In contrast, our documentary record shows that with regard to most cults, emphasis and attention were given to festival days and special rituals as opposed to daily procedures. Apparently, many sanctuaries were not officially open on the majority of days of the year and religious officials were often not required to reside or perform duties on ordinary days, or rather those days not marked by the cult calendar. These parameters can be seen in an inscription from Oropus, where the sanctuary of Amphiaraus was administered in the following way:
(1) Gods. The priest of Amphiaraus shall frequent the sanctuary from the end of winter to the plowing season, with no more than three days in between, and each month he shall spend no less than ten days in the sanctuary. He shall instruct the temple warden [neOokoros] to look after the sanctuary and its visitors according to the law...
(20) Whoever wants to be cured by the god shall pay a fee of no less than nine obols of accepted silver and deposit it in the treasury in the presence of the temple warden...
(25) The priest shall say prayers for the offerings and shall place them on the altar, if he is present; when he is not present, the person offering the sacrifice does it, and at the sacrifice everyone shall say prayers for himself, but the priest shall do it at the public sacrifices. ... (LSCG 69 = Rhodes and Osborne 2003: no. 27 (between 386 and 374 BC))
It is remarkable that the appointed priest serves only during the summer, which we may interpret as ‘‘high season.’’ A temple warden, like a custodian, looks after visitors during other times. Worshipers were entitled to offer sacrifice and say prayers without the assistance of the priest. Just like the sanctuary of Asclepius at Epidaurus, the Amphiareum was a healing sanctuary where incubation took place: the ‘‘patients’’ spent the night within the sacred enclosure and hoped for dreams or a visitation by the god - they would leave the shrine with instructions for a cure or find themselves already healed the next morning. Unfortunately, we can only guess at the volume of visitors during a typical day in high or low season, but scholars are inclined to surmise a low level of involvement on the part of religious personnel and hence imagine that the sanctuary was typically quiet. With regard to sanctuaries where ritual healing did not take place, the inclination to imagine a quiet sanctuary is even stronger. When, for example, a cult regulation from Teos asks the ephebes, the priest, and the sacred slaves ‘‘to sing hymns on every day of the patron god Dionysus upon the opening of the temple’’ and the imperial priest to ‘‘pour a libation upon the opening and closure of the god’s temple,’’ these regulations are generally interpreted as special ceremonies performed on the birthday of the god, not as everyday activities (LSAM 27 lines 7-13, reign of Tiberius, AD 14-37; contrast Lupu 2004:74).
The impact of these considerations on our image of the daily life of Greek sanctuaries, and also on our assessment of a ‘‘religious sphere’’ in ancient Greece, is not negligible. This chapter focuses on healing sanctuaries, which were indeed exceptional with regard to specific daily (or rather ‘‘nightly’’) activities, but which nevertheless allow us to question the accepted view that Greek sanctuaries in general showed a lack of emphasis on daily procedures. A publicly recorded opening ceremony is not a prerequisite for a vibrant ‘‘daily life’’ of a sanctuary. The activities that evolved around festival days and the considerable number of days dedicated to their preparation and celebration were not only special features but also part of‘‘ordinary’’ life - not least because the sanctuary had to provide an all-year-round infrastructure to sustain and host the festivities. The subsequent chapters in this volume, which analyze the rites performed during festivals - the sequence of procession, hymns, prayers, sacrifice, competitions, and communal banquet - show how this ‘‘infrastructure’’ worked when called upon.
Even more important than this structural backdrop to special days is the fact that the worship of the gods went beyond the festival calendar, and that sanctuaries could be frequented by a number of individuals or groups at all times, above all for the purpose of dedicating votives and offering sacrifice, of sharing in the beauty and ‘‘awe’’ of the sacred place, but also in order to record public and private documents, to engage in self-representation, individual and communal, and to celebrate occasions of historical significance. Throughout the year, religious personnel within and others as mediators between sanctuary and community oversaw the flow of these groups and catered to their needs. Ultimately, their efforts were directed towards enhancing the prosperity and popularity of the sanctuary and the community as a whole. It is not surprising that publicly recorded cult regulations and other types of documents relating to the administration of sanctuaries are particularly concerned with times when orderly behavior and regulations for the handling of a multitude of people were needed most, namely during festivals, and that they focus on ‘‘highlights’’ (good or bad) in the past or present. As expressions of civic institutions, they represent what we may call the ‘‘outside bureaucratic view.’’ Many other aspects of cult had to be dealt with but were not part of this particular focus, and they may have been taken for granted by the more frequent visitors as well as those engaged in the service of the gods. As a consequence, they were not recorded or, if recorded, were committed to perishable materials.
Admittedly, a mere indication of the functional structures that existed in many sanctuaries is insufficient to enable us to envisage thousands of visitors and a multitude of busy religious attendants taking part in the everyday life of any given Greek sanctuary. Indeed, the scale and character of Greek sanctuaries varied enormously, and so did the activities that took place in each. The quiet setting of a rural shrine is utterly different from the buzzing noises of a religious ‘‘hub,’’ frequented by civic officials, pilgrims, tourists, and merchants alike. A sacred area surrounding a small altar and marked off by a low fence is as much part of the picture as the complex infrastructure of an institution that included one or more monumental temples, treasury buildings, and multiple structures to house guests, suppliants, shopkeepers, and religious personnel. There is, therefore, no ‘‘typical’’ daily life of Greek sanctuaries. The following dilemma emerges. Details known about one sanctuary may help our imagination when filling in the gaps regarding others, but such generalizations may also be wrong. Even if we acknowledge that we have to tell multiple stories, we may not be able to tell a story about any single sanctuary, let alone a complete one. Where we are able to tell a fairly elaborated story, the case may be exceptional. Regardless of this dilemma, the soundest approach to the topic has to be the study of exceptionally well documented sanctuaries, enhanced by parallel evidence that in all likelihood applies to the chosen examples. According to the credo expressed above, ‘‘exceptionally documented’’ does not necessarily mean ‘‘exceptional.’’
Whether there were official ‘‘journals’’ or not, the worship of Asclepius is better documented than that of any other deity in the Greek world with regard to everyday activities. Whereas it is generally true that ‘‘the mortal individual is a habitual absentee from the study of Greek religion’’ (Parker 1996:185), the world of Asclepius yields tremendous insight in this respect. The reasons for this may lie in the close affective relationship between Asclepius and his worshipers and certainly have to do with the formal procedures of the act of ‘‘divine healing.’’ However, neither this relationship nor the framework within which it manifested itself are untypical for Greek religious practice and ‘‘religiosity’’ (Pleket 1991:154). From the late sixth century onwards, the cult of Asclepius spread rapidly in the Greek world. Often, sanctuaries were established within a precinct previously dedicated to Apollo, and often it quickly transformed from a small private foundation into a prominent public cult. At Epidaurus, which successfully claimed to be the birthplace of the god and from where many cults of Asclepius originated (Pausanias 2.26.8-9; for Athens see also IG ii2 4960a), as well as elsewhere, the celebrations of public festivals in honor of the god were smoothly integrated into the religious calendar and in no way differed from those of other cults. Visitors to Epidaurus gathered in the civic center and made their way in a formal procession to the sanctuary, chanting hymns in praise ofthe god; upon entering the precinct they purified themselves and offered sacrifices that concluded in a formal banquet. Athletic and musical contests took place. During the fourth century, extensive building took place in a number of Asclepiea, which reflects the popularity of the cult. Detailed building accounts from Epidaurus illustrate the workmanship and expenses involved as well as the public organization and administration of the cult (Burford 1969; Tomlinson 1983; for Corinth see Lang 1977; for Athens see Aleshire 1989, 1991; for Kos see Sherwin-White 1978). Sanctuaries of Asclepius are therefore the ideal focus of this chapter and allow us to be a fly on the wall.
World History
