Having explored the daily life of a (healing) sanctuary in its physical context, from the perspective of the worshiper and the perspective of those employed in its service, it remains to ask about the role of the polis in all this. Civic institutions were largely responsible in creating the framework for everything discussed so far. In many cases cities appointed boards of officials who were in charge of the religious affairs of the city and not spatially and institutionally attached to one particular sanctuary. Often these were financial functionaries ( tamiai, hierotamiai, prostatai), which reflects the special civic interest in control over the financial affairs of sanctuaries. On Euboea, the Eretrians appointed hieropoioi, who oversaw the processions of boys and girls in honor of Asclepius and were also responsible for inscribing their names in the god’s sanctuary (LSCG 93 lines 10-15; fourth or third century BC). However, a polis was also a ‘‘consumer’’ of religious life. Worshipers at Erythrae (LErythrai 205, 380-360 BC) were reminded that, when the polis offered preliminary sacrifices to Asclepius, these were offered on behalf of all and that no private person was to offer preliminary sacrifices during a festival but otherwise to act according to the parameters stated in the cult regulation. Although we see the distinction between special days and the rest of the year (en tei heortei - ana de ton allon chronon), between the ritual experience of a group as a whole and of individual worshipers, private and public aspects of the cult were smoothly integrated. In 138/7 BC the Athenians honored a priest of Asclepius and Hygieia for his admirable performance during his term of office (LG ii2 974).The list of tasks starts from the initial sacrifices of the year and then continues with the priest’s role at the festivals of Asclepius, sacrifices on behalf of the community and his reporting on the positive outcome of these. Although what follows is fragmentary, there is no doubt that the text increasingly moves on to ‘‘daily matters.’’ We learn that the priest appointed his son as key bearer ( kleidouchos), that he provided a chorus for the god, and there is reference to ‘‘services held every day.’’ The order in which praises are given may be less ‘‘meaningful’’ than one might think. As festivals provided an exceptional opportunity for priests to illustrate their efforts on behalf of the community as a whole, these received special attention.
The activities and worship of individuals were therefore an important aspect of public religion and did not stand in any opposition to it. With regard to a different ‘‘dichotomy,’’ it is remarkable that many sanctuaries of Asclepius originated as private foundations and were transformed into important public cults. It is not easy to account for this transformation from ‘‘private’’ to ‘‘public’’ and it is just as difficult to distinguish clearly between ‘‘private individual worship,’’ ‘‘publicly regulated individual worship,’’ and entirely ‘‘public worship’’ once this had happened. While many parameters of the individual’s participation in cult would now be spelled out by civic institutions, private interest in the life of the sanctuary would not be diminished and could even be enhanced. Vice versa, when one of the most famous sanctuaries of Asclepius, that in Pergamum, was again ‘‘privatized’’ (see above, IvPergamon 251) during the second century BC, the interest and participation of the polis in the wellbeing and opportunities of the sanctuary did not cease but, on the contrary, were the main reason for the move. Inevitably, the categories of ‘‘life in the sanctuary’’ and ‘‘life outside’’ merge.
Finally, one may reflect again on how useful the initial ‘‘sacred journal’’ from Epidaurus is. Was the balance between a public and a private sphere untypical when it came to healing sanctuaries? Individuals approached Asclepius for a cure, individuals continued to express their gratitude to the god by offering more sacrifices and thank-offerings, individuals may also have had special ties with the god independent of any current or past ailment. Theocritus (Epigrams 8) gives us an example in which the dedicant of a statue proclaims that he sacrifices to the god every day forever ( hos min ep’ emar aei thueessin hikneitai). However, while there was an exceptionally close personal relationship between Asclepius and his worshiper, the activities accounted for in the worship of this and other healing gods were not alien to the atmosphere and daily life of other sanctuaries. The specific rites and proceedings in healing sanctuaries have yielded testimonies that give us valuable insight into perspectives of Greek religion that are under-represented in the evidence derived from other sanctuaries. These insights allow us to understand and ‘‘animate’’ the organizational framework attested for many other sanctuaries beyond festival days and special sacrifices held on sparse occasions during the year.
GUIDE TO FURTHER READING
Among the extensive scholarly literature on Greek sanctuaries, it is difficult to choose an ‘‘ideal’’ introduction to the topic. If one looks for a focus on the everyday activities in sanctuaries, one is harder pressed to find works at all. Tomlinson 1976 is, however, excellent on both counts. Pedley 2005 is informative about a number of central topics and examples, which can be further explored through a concise thematic bibliography. Dillon 1997, examining many practical aspects of Greek pilgrimage, has much to say on the required infrastructure of well-frequented sanctuaries. Unfortunately, articles such as Corbett 1970, which concentrates on and stresses the active use of temples by the Greek worshiper, are rare. Marinatos and Hagg 1993 includes a wide range of contributions, of which Sinn’s chapter (also in Buxton 2000) is the most relevant, reconstructing the lively atmosphere of ‘‘Greek sanctuaries as places of refuge.’’ C3stby’s bibliography in the same volume is arranged geographically. Dignas 2002 explores the economic dimension of sanctuaries and focuses on their interaction with the poleis that hosted them as well as external rulers.
Schachter 1992 is relevant throughout. Here, the chapters by Graf and Van Straten set the scene for the worship of Asclepius. Because of the immense breadth both of its collection of testimonies and of its interpretation, Edelstein and Edelstein 1945 (reprinted 1998 with a new introduction) is and will remain the standard work and ‘‘gold mine’’ on Asclepius. For visual representations of the process of incubation see Van Straten 1976. Individual healing sanctuaries have received varying degrees of attention but publications can be found easily. For Epidaurus, Burford 1969 studies the organization and administration of the construction work on the sanctuary in the fourth and third centuries BC. Tomlinson 1983 presents a concise discussion of the site and its monuments. Aleshire 1989 and 1991 are superb on the Athenian Asclepieum, which is explored through the lens of its inventories. The main treatment of the Amphiareum at Oropus is Petrakos 1968. Pleket 1991 is important with regard to questions of religious mentality and the representative character of the worship of healing deities.
World History
