Tilburg University Hygieia. Identity, Cult and Reception Beumer, Mark

Tilburg University

Hygieia. Identity, Cult and Reception Beumer, Mark

Published in: Kleio-Historia

Publication date: 2016

Document Version Early version, also known as pre-print

Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA): Beumer, M. (2016). Hygieia. Identity, Cult and Reception. Kleio-Historia, 3, 5-24.

General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Download date: 28. sep. 2021

Hygieia. Identity, Cult and Reception Mark Beumer [email protected]

Abstract This article examines the Greek goddess Hygieia by looking at her identity, cult status in the ancient world and subsequent scholarly reception. Should she be viewed as a goddess or a personification? By studying Hygieia primarily as a concept of health within ancient medicine, as well as a personification and a goddess, it will be argued that religious and mythological figures should be viewed as deities within ancient Greek culture, rather than personifications. The article will consider Hygieia’s role in the cult of Asklepios and examine whether she is of greater importance because of her function as a goddess of healing, as well as discussing her role within emergent Christianity.

Keywords: Hygieia, personification, ancient medicine, Greek religion, cult, identity, deity, Asklepios, reception, Christianity.

Introduction1

We see that intelligence, faith, hope, virtue, honour, victory, health, concord and other things of this sort have power, but not the power of gods. For they are either properties inherent in ourselves – like intelligence, hope, faith, virtue and concord – or objects of our desire – like honour, health and victory. I see the value of these things, and I see that statues are dedicated to them. But why they should held to possess divine power I cannot understand without further investigation. (Gaius Aurelius Cotta, On the Nature of the Gods 3.61)2

Gaius Aurelius Cotta (ca. 124 BC – 73 BC) ascribed power to ‘objects of our desire’ such as the power to heal. He accepts that statues are devoted to these concepts, but denied them any divine power. These concepts are known as figures in the ancient Greek world. Hygieia is one of these figures with a strange character, whose cult arrived in Athens from Titane in 420 BC together with the Greek god of medicine, Asklepios.3 Hygieia possesses no mythology, only her medical family shows mythological ties. Asklepios and his daughter Hygieia were among the most popular deities in the Greco-Roman world, associated with physicians and worshiped as patrons since the emergence of the cult of Asklepios in the 5th-century BC.4 Ancient and modern scholarship asks whether we should consider such figures as deities or personifications. In this article I will argue that Hygieia must be viewed as a deity and not as a

personification, although personification is one of the most commonly used expressions to describe religious figures in Greco-Roman religion.5

Problem definition and approach My argument is that personification cannot be used by modern scholarship, which therefore eliminates the use of personification for religious figures in future research. Scholars apply terms such as prosōpopoiia, ēthopoiia and personification for all the wrong reasons. The problem consists in determining what personification is, examining how conceptions of health and deity were understood in antiquity, and assessing how this conception of health has evolved into Hygieia, as a religious entity distinct from her father Asklepios. Ancient sources in central Greece such as inscriptions, travel texts, hymns, biographies and medical texts, which date to the period between the 4th-century BC and the 2nd-century AD, thus offer insights into this process from concept to figure. I examine Hygieia from the perspective of Greco-Roman religion more broadly conceived, understood as consisting of a structured set of religious figures who play different roles within a variety of rites and sacrifices, which were performed by civilians with the aim of obtaining favours.6 The first part of this article reviews the identity of Hygiea from three perspectives (ὑγίεια, personification, deity) to clarify her identity.7 Secondly, I will look at her role and development in Asklepian cult and, finally, I will examine the reception of Hygieia and Asklepios in Christianity. This reading of Hygieia is original because such a study has not been previously conducted and therefore offers a new interpretation of Hygieia, which need no longer critical review or doubt about the identity of Hygieia. Hygieia is and will be forever the goddess of health.8 I will conclude that the concept of personification cannot simply be applied to deities in ancient society.

Ancient sources Before we turn our attention to ὑγίεια, some general remarks about the sources I will draw on are required. The first source is a late 5th-century poet and orator Licymnius from Chios who wrote a hymn around 420 BC, which addresses Hygieia as “Bright-eyed mother, highest queen of Apollo’s august throne, desirable, laughing gently Health.”9 The Hymn to Hygieia is erroneously attributed by Sextus Empiricus to Licymnius.10 My second source is the humores, part of the Corpus Hippocratic, which provides insight into our understanding of ὑγίεια.11 Based on style, content and historical detail the corpus must have been composed at the earliest around 350 BC and some texts maybe a century later.12 Thirdly, there is Plutarch (ca.

45-120 AD) describing Athena Hygieia in a dream of Pericles, when one of his workers fell off some scaffolding.13 Plutarch is seen as a reliable source for accounts of everyday life in classical antiquity.14 However, the role of bondage needs to be taken into account in Plutarch when he speaks about Pericles (495-429 BC), but this is not clear everywhere.15 Pausanias (115-180 AD) wrote an itinerary of Greece, which describes the world from the 7th-century BC.16 This is argued on the basis of a statue of Hygieia that stood on the Akropolis.17 Although he mentions various historical events as well as, temples and statues, Pausanias should be considered much more reliable in his role as an archaeologist since his archaeological data have been confirmed by modern excavations.18 His historical stories are less reliable, however, because of his occasionally indiscriminate quotation of work by previous authors like Herodotus.19 Another source in which Hygieia regularly appears is the Orphic Hymns. There has been a long-running scholarly debate concerning the dating of this collection of hymns, but there is now a consensus that this collection was delivered into Greece in the 3rd-century AD from Western Anatolia.20 My final source, the Hymn to Hygieia, is attributed to Ariphron from Sikyon. Although Ariphron is seen as a late classical or early Hellenistic poet, his hymn is confirmed as being written in the 3rd-century AD.21 The source material consists of two inscriptions. One inscription attributed to Attica was found on a stone in Kassel and is dated to the 3rd-century AD.22 The second inscription is from Epidauros and has been situated in the 2nd or 3rd-century AD.23 The figure of Hygieia is therefore known and written about by different authors from the 5th-century BC until the 3rd-century AD in a great variety of texts, which describe her as a very important religious figure responsible for good health, the prevention of illness and cures for various maladies. I will now look at the concept ὑγίεια, which tells us the biological- medical meaning behind Hygieia.

The ancient concept of health The LSJ places ὑγίεια in two categories. The first category contains five statements. Firstly, ὑγίεια is understood as a healthy body. Secondly, it is understood as a healthy mind. Ὑγίεια is then seen as a sort of cake that was sacrificed.24 Fourthly, ὑγίεια is called a medicinal product and, finally, ὑγίεια is a synonym for the number six by Pythagoras. In the second category ὑγίεια is described as personified and, subsequently, as the goddess Hygieia.25 The Iliad mentions ὑγίεια for the first time, where it is used as a figure of speech rather than to describe a bodily condition. Hektor has addressed his Trojan troops after a long day of struggle and ὧδ᾽ ἔστω Τρῶες μεγαλήτορες ἀγορεύω says: ὡς μὲν νῦν ὑγιὴς εἰρημένος ἔστω δ᾽: μῦθος ὃς.26

It is clear that ὑγίεια not only indicates order within the body, but that the term is also being used metaphorically. Within the context of the Iliad ὑγίεια has a kind of political function, since ὑγίεια also refers to a military order. This is an extension of Plato’s idea about a healthy policy, which needs to be protected. The biological-medical meaning of ὑγίεια, however, is the best known definition and is therefore the interpretation that I will use in the article, since this meaning affects our understanding of Hygieia’s ultimate function as a religious figure promoting health and the prevention of illness. Ὑγίεια is explained differently by various ancient authors, making ὑγίεια a very dynamic concept. This is how, for instance, the Pythagorean physician Alcmaeon of Croton (ca. 500 B.C.) views health, describing it as a political metaphor to which he links two concepts: ἰσονομία and μοναρχία. Ἰσονομία stands for the evenness of various forces within the body, particularly μοναρχία, which is one of the most dominant forces in the body. In contrast to Hippocrates’ understanding, gods play no role within intervention according to this reading.27 The Presocrats in the 6th-century BC speak about balance, when discussing the theory of microcosm-macrocosm. This theory implies that man is physically composed of the same ingredients that make up the macrocosm. There is a balance between these components that must be protected from lapsing into an unbalanced condition, which is considered to be the cause of non-traumatic disorders. The Presocrats thus consider humans to be dependent not only on their food, but also on external factors like the weather, which was considered to be capable of causing illness or even death.28 Within Hippocratic medicine ὑγίεια functions dialectically: as an adjustment between the individual and the collective components that make up the composite, and as an adjustment between the individual and the external environment of which she is a part.29 Various beliefs about health and illness are put forward in the Corpus Hippocraticum, but at its core there is a harmonic mixing (κρῆσις) of the humours (black bile, yellow bile, blood and phlegm).30 This harmonious blending of the humours may be understood as homeostasis: the existence of a stable internal environment in order to survive.31 The humours differs from Alcmaeon, because this is a case of mixing and not balance. This mixture is most effective, when the opposing forces are connected to each other as the cold, the moist and the dry, warm in a fixed combination with the mucus and bile. Mixing is governed in the body by a biological process (πέψις) in which the characteristics and position of the humours are changed or improved by internal heat.32 The dominant position of one of the biles was thus considered to determine the temperament of an individual. To stay healthy, Hippocratic medicine purports that it is important to monitor carefully the consumption of food. The

pursuit of health and staying healthy should therefore be understood in classical antiquity as a dynamic activity, rather than a stable set of precepts.33 Health was also understood in a literal sense, since being too healthy was not considered good either.34 Hippocratic medicine asserts that it is important to build resistance to viruses.35 The aforementioned political connotation of ὑγίεια is thus expressed in two associations between medicine and politics in the Greek world. Firstly, health was used as a retrospective paradigm governing a political context which was used, on the one hand, to define order and, on the other hand, to provide new ideas for politics.36 Secondly, the biological-medical meaning of health as a prevention of illness should be understood as important according to Hippocratic medicine. The analysis of the concept ὑγίεια37 will be followed by the application of the concepts προσωποποιΐα, personification and deity to Hygieia, which helps us address the question of whether Hygieia is significant within these concepts. Finally, Hygieia’s role in the cult of Asklepios in the Greco-Roman world, and the broader reception of Asklepios and Hygieia in Christianity, will be examined.

From prosōpopoiia to personification The following is a short historiographical overview of the way in which personification has been seen as central to understanding Hygieia’s religious and cultural function in scholarship to date.38 In ancient texts, Hygieia is described as a goddess in the company of other well- known deities such as Asklepios and Peitho.39 In addition to Hygieia, Athena Hygieia appears to ward off diseases and help vulnerable humans, as in the example of the craftsman that Pericles hired to build the Propylaea of the Parthenon, who fell from his scaffold.40 Προσωποποιΐα is important as predecessor of personification, but has an entirely different meaning. Liddell, Scott and Jones’ reading is in line with antique definitions that describe ὑγίεια as the health of body and mind, and Hygieia as its goddess. Since Hygieia means health (ὑγίεια) and she often is described as personification, the following is an analysis of the concept προσωποποιΐα.41 Although studies examining the various definitions and perspectives of personification and Hygieia are not voluminous, they are extremely diverse. Some studies suggest that Hygieia is mainly described from the iconography.42 Other studies look at Hygieia from multiple perspectives such as religion, semantics, philosophy and ancient medicine.43 Existing work clearly shows that in contrast to προσωποποιΐα, the concept of personification was largely unknown in ancient times and can therefore be considered an anachronism: a modern invention devised to understand ancient Greek thought and culture.44 According to Axtell:

A common abstract noun is often confused with personification, and personification with deification, as the boundaries between these theoretically distinct provinces are slight and vague. It is impossible to give an all-inclusive, all-exclusive definition of personification, because it is impossible to define personality. There is a large number of verbs, adjectives, and other words applicable both to persons and things, and so loosely are some of our most common terms employed that we could scarcely find agreement between any two authorities on a list of words applicable to a quality, but not to a person (Axtell, 1907: 67-68).

Since the 19th Century, the debate about Hygieia’s identity is raging with a multitude of roles.45 This multiplicity of roles makes it difficult to debate the identity of Hygieia from primary sources, especially when discussed whether Hygieia and Athena Hygieia are one and the same figure.46 Now follows a closer look at the concepts προσωποποιΐα and personification. It is important to understand these concepts in order to understand Hygieia, although the lack of knowledge around the concept of personification in the Greek world makes the debate a non-problem.

Prosōpopoiia Different authors like Shapiro, Stafford, Smith and Messerschmidt argue that προσωποποιΐα is the only concept that is known as indication for personification.47 Demetrios of Phaleron defines this concept for the first time as placing the private thoughts and arguments into the mouth of another person, which is actually not a person, because he is either died or cannot be understood literally as a person, such as countries, peoples, cities or abstractions. Προσωποποιΐα refers to πρόσωπον, which means "mask" and appears in a dramatic context.48 Προσωποποιΐα also has a wider meaning in rhetorical treatises in which προσωποποιΐα means speaking with the voice of a character that is not actually present, real or imaginary.49 The most comprehensive definition of προσωποποιΐα is given by the first century AD retor Aelius Theon: Prosōpopoiia is the representation of a character speaking words appropiate both to itself and to the known circumstances, e.g. a man about to leave home would say certain words to his wife, or a general to his soldiers about their dangers. Also in the case of characters already known, e.g. Cyrus would say certain words as he marched

against the Massagetai, or Datis after the battle of Marathon on meeting the King. Into this category of exercise fall also the figures of panegyric, persuasion (protreptic) and commission (epistolic). So, first of all one has to consider carefully what kind of character the speaker has, and the place and circumstances, and the subject matter proposed about which his words will speak; then one could try out the prepared speech, for different words are appropiate for different people, according to their age… This exercise is especially good for displaying character and feeling.50

A character is often wrongly equated to a person.51 A character refers to personal qualities, such as anger or jealousy. In the matter of Hygieia, character refers to health, but character is not a personal property, since a person who is not healthy, is still seen as a person. Stafford calls Quintilian, who describes προσωποποιΐα most detailed as a ‘representation of characters', but contains also all literary and visual personifications.52 Stafford also cites Hermogenes of Tarsus who differentiates ἠθοποιΐα from προσωποποιΐα. According to Hermogenes, ἠθοποιΐα is the representation of the underlying character of a person, for example the words Andromachē speaks against Hektor. One speaks of προσωποποιΐα, when a character is attributed to a thing, as evidence (elenchos) in Menander, or in Aristeides where the sea holds a speech to the Athenians.53 This is really something else: with ἠθοποιΐα words for a real character are created, with προσωποποιΐα a character that doesn't really exist.54 According to Axtell ‘personifications are elevated to the rank of divinity and provided with temples, flamens, priests, altars, and all the wherewithal of a real cult, they are nevertheless practically mere qualities or states restricted to this, that, and the other, a nondescript and shadowy crowd that cannot be classified with the anthropomorphic gods nor the materialistic spirits of the Indigitamenta.’55 Fears states that figures like Hygieia are an object of cult and are recognized as the operation of a characteristic and peculiar divine power.56 I follow Karl Lehmann who argues that that when a personification receives a cult with prayers, sacrifices, hope and fear of suppliants, this a real deity is like other deities.57 Προσωποποιΐα is thus used to identify non existing figures within the context of drama. Hygieia does not fit into this concept. In addition, Hygieia is a real figure for the Athenians who gives them health or heals her people. Numerous inscriptions and votive reliefs are silent witnesses.58 Ἠθοποιΐα is also not applicable, because health (ὑγίεια) is also not a underlying character for the time being, and no real character or personality. With this conclusion the whole basis for the discussion on προσωποποιΐα and Hygieia and the debate on personification is void. Hygieia must therefore be viewed as a real goddess. When figures are

recognizable within a religious context, they may not be called personifications. This means that deities, heroes and saints always have to be defined as such. Personification should therefore from now on be understood as the human version of an inanimate concept that has no religious context, or is not recognizable in a religious context.

Hygieia and the cult of Asklepios According to Pausanias, the cult of Hygieia originated in the 7th-century BC, based on a statue of the goddess in the sanctuary of Asklepios Teitionios at Titane (Sikyon).59 Kranz and Riethmüller question whether this goddess really is Hygieia or another goddess they called Hygieia.60 Riethmüller argues: ‘Wenn sich dahinter nicht Zweifel des Periegeten angesichts des ungewöhnlichen Darstellungstyps der Heilgöttin verbergen, kann dies [nur] als Hinweis verstanden werden, in ihm das Kultbild einer älteren, Asklepios und Hygieia vorausgehenden, weiblichen Gottheit zu erkennen, das erst später als Hygieia uminterpretiert werden wurde’.61 Hygieia’s worship will eventually improve within the cult of Asklepios when they are imported to Athens by the Athenian polis, due to the ‘plague’62 of 429 and 427 BC, although no ancient sources explain why Asklepios and Hygieia came to Athens.63 In 420 BC she takes her place next to Asklepios in the Asklepieion.64 421-420 BC was the year of the Peace of Nikias, which offered the opportunity to implement the Asklepios-cult in Athens and the completion of the Hephaisteion.65 The only secure source for the importation of Asklepios and Hygieia into Athens is the Telemachos Monument. The fragmentary inscription on the Telemachos Monument emphasizes Telemachos’ role in the importation of the healing deities and has led to the questionable assumption that nobody else, especially the state, was involved in Asklepios and Hygieia’s arrival. The role of the state is however much larger than anyone has recognized, because importation would have needed approval of the demos.66 Second, the annual festival of Asklepios called the Epidauria was integrated in the Greater Mysteries of Eleusinian Demeter. Asklepios was even initiated in the Greater Mysteries. The integration of the Epidauria into the Mysteries required the demos’ approval. The ties between Asklepios, Hygieia and the Eleusinian cult articulated by the Telemachos Monument, clearly state exerted great control of the Athenian state.67 Third, Asklepios and Hygieia’s presence on the south slope of the Acropolis and their arrival in 420 BC, when imperialism was so much at issue it had led to civil war, made associations between Asklepios and the Athenian empire. These associations reinforced the integration of his cult into the cult of Dionysos Eleutherios and Eleusinian Demeter.68

Stafford and Jayne say that Hygieia’s cult was pinpointed before 420 BC on two locations, Athens and the Peloponnese, which are brought together in the Telemachos Monument which shows a sitting Hygieia next to Asklepios.69 Hygieia possessed her own sanctuaries, next to those of Asklepios.70 According to Wissowa, Asklepios, Apollo and Hygieia received their own offerings on altars, called βωμός or τρίβωμός.71 Parker suggests a religious renewal of the 5th-century BC, which consist of a threefold structure. First was the elevation of a minor cult to new prominence, like the cult of Asklepios and Hygieia. Second the application to a long established god of a new epithet, like Athena Hygieia and in closing the introduction of ‘foreign gods’(xenikoi theoi) into the polis. Asklepios, Hygieia, Pan and Bendis are example of these new gods.72 Their cult spread throughout the Greco-Roman world, when in 293 BC Rome was also struck by a plague, where the healing goddess Salus already was present.73 Deubner posits that Hygieia Salus strongly affects and declares so that Salus appears nine years later to explain the fusion of Hygieia and Salus.74 Clark also discusses Salus, but then if divine quality that in the last three centuries of the Roman Republic is used as a self-reflection to understand their own society.75 Clark says that the examined ' qualities ' are recognized as real deities and so are also honoured in temples during festivals.76 Hygieia-Salus soon was to be identified with Valetudo.77 Their cult (sanctuary, inscriptions, votive reliefs and statues) was located at Athens (Akropolis), Thessaly (Larisa, Pherai Krannon, Pharsalos, Thebai Phtiotis, Kierion-Arne, Trikka, Olosson, Demetrias), Peloponnese (Sikyon, Korinthia, Argolis, Epidauros, Lakonia, Arcadia, Gortys, Tegea, Messene, Elis, Achaia), Rome, Pergamon, Attica, Boeotia and Phokis.78

‘Worth as much as all the others’ Due to preventive function of Hygieia preserving mental and physical health, I state that she is more important than Asklepios in regard with scholarship concerning the specific functions of Asklepios and his family. She is worth as much as all the others.79 Asklepios and the rest of his family are responsible for healing, curing and soothing after health is compromised. On the one hand Hygieia descends from Asklepios and Epione and on the other hand from Eros and Peitho.80 The daughters (Akeso, Iaso, Panakeia and Aigle) of Asklepios would be a later addition of Asklepios' elevation to deity, in which Hygieia is understood as representation of benefits that Asklepios brings in a context, where he is absent. Compton sees Hygieia as well as deity and extension of characteristics and as representation. Hygieia as allegorical

emanation is paradoxical yet more important than a personification of health, considering her role in the cult.81 Mikalson views the daughters of Asklepios as personifications of Asklepios ' qualities, all integrated into the cult of Asklepios and retrieves sacrifices, hymns, invocations and ceremonies.82 At any rate from the fourth century BC on, they are mentioned in hymns and constituted this divine family, which was recognized everywhere.83 Jayne argues that Hygieia is the personification of physical health, but no healing deity. Her name is used as an epithet for Athena and suggests that she is an emanation of an independent and personified part, which represents rather mental than physical health.84 The view that Athena Hygieia as independent figure has no healing powers, is incorrect because she is already called in the seventh and sixth century BC to donate health.85 In addition, Hygieia is iconographical depicted quite differently than Athena.86 There is reference to Pausanias, who writes about Hygieia and Athena in relation to Asklepios:

Dichtbij Diitrephes – de minder belangrijke beelden wil ik niet beschrijven – staan beelden van Hygieia (Gezondheid), die volgens de legende een dochter van Asklepios was, en van Athena, die ook de bijnaam Hygieia heeft.87

It appears from Pausanias' description that Hygieia is an emanation from Athena by the word ἐπίκλησιν.88 The concept of ἐπίκλησιν involves more than an epithet and implies that Hygieia can be seen as an independent figure apart from Athena Hygieia.89 According to the described meaning of Hygieia within medicine combined with Athena as goddess of wisdom, Hygieia is responsible for the mental and physical health of all Athenians and all those outside Athens who worship her. When Athena was worshipped in Attica as a healing deity, her cult epithets were Hygieia and Paionia. Her healing cults were located on the Athenian Akropolis, in the Keremeikos, at Acharnai and in the sanctuary of Amphiaraos at Oropos.90 The earliest evidence for the cult of Athena Hygieia comes from the Athenian Acropolis and dates from the early 470’s BC. It consists of an inscribed marble pillar base dedicated by the potter Euphronios91 and by two sherds from an inscribed red-figure krater made and dedicated to goddess by the potter Kallis. Strong evidence for the cult of Athena Hygieia on the Acropolis in Athens is furnished by the bronze statue by Pyrrhos that was set before the SE column of the Propylaia of Mnesikles, possibly in the early 420’s. BC.92

Reception With the rise of Christianity in the 1st-century AD, Greek religion was threatened by this new religion, available for everyone, rich or poor, healthy or sick. Jesus Sotêr and medical saints like Cosmas and Damian took over the role of Asklepios Sotêr as medical deity in need.93 Cosmas and Damian were found in ancient cities that had temples to Asklepios and Hygieia.94 In order to enhance the power of Christianity, pagan temples were destroyed and their spolia were used to build churches for the Christians.95 We know from the Lives of saints, that they were marked by an anti-pagan message against the basic elements of antique culture. Hagiographical sources provide some of the most detailed accounts of the destruction of pagan temples, religious thoughts and theological ideas regarding the transformation of temples into churches, contemporary beliefs in the power of the pagan gods, and the struggle to neutralize them.96 The Life and Miracles of St. Thekla offers one of the best accounts of transformation of temples into churches. The account of the Miracles is more specific and offers greater details. It begins with the expulsion of the pagan gods from their sanctuaries. The introduction is a long condemnation of famous oracular sanctuaries: of Zeus at Dodona, of Apollo at Delphi, of Asklepios at Pergamon, of Epidauros and of Aigai.97 The Miracles set Saint Thecla in competition with groups who rival her power for protection, healing, and belief: she vanquishes pagan gods, confounds local physicians, and even vies with other saints for the devotion of pilgrims.98

Conclusion My conclusion is that the debate around the concept of ‘personification’ is a fruitless discussion and a non-problem. The concept of ὑγίεια is the noun of Hygieia and has a biological-medical and political significance, in which the focus is on the humores within the Corpus Hippocraticum despite all the criticism. These multiple meaning of ὑγίεια is important for the function of Hygieia, which in antique texts is described as a goddess or in company of gods. It is clear that Hygieia in this debate is not primarily considered from antique religion, but from iconography. Hygieia differs iconographic from and Athena Hygieia and in addition there are several inscriptions that address Hygieia and Athena Hygieia separately. Personal health and health of the polis are thereby the purpose of the person. The various categories of personification are used to make the unknown susceptible and let many definitions see inanimate. These definitions show that the role of Hygieia as a giver or protector of health is more important than is suggested. The concept of personification in the Greek world is unknown, in contrast to προσωποποιΐα and ἠθοποιΐα. The content of these concepts differ

from personification and must be placed in a different context of drama and rhetoric. Although Hygieia would fit into the aspect of genealogy and the awarding of grades to existing deities, personification is still unusable because of the unfamiliarity and the large difference in meaning. It is important to separate religion and iconography and appoint Hygieia no longer as personification. This applies to all figures in a religious context to the reader. Hygieia also receives sacrifices and becomes thereby a deity like all the others. As a goddess she obtained a major role in the cult of Asklepios in Athens and in her own cult, which already existed before the coming to Athens in 420 BC. Fore mostly as his wife, she accompanied Asklepios on many locations through-out the Greco-Roman world. Due to her preventive function and the need for a divine family, Hygieia is the most important healing deity in Greek religion. As Athena Hygieia she protects mental and physical health with numerous counterparts in the ancient world. In Rome, Salus, Valetudo, Minerva Medica and Bona Dea are identified with her and have assimilated her healing functions. In Christianity Asklepios lives on in figures like Jesus and healing saints, such as Cosmas and Damian and Hygieia in Mary and the word hygiene. Hygieia’s biological function is implemented in the concept of homeostasis. The spolia of their sanctuaries are used to build the first churches, which still exist today.

References Athanassakis, A N 2013 The Orphic Hymns. Text, Translation and Notes. Baltimore. Axtell, H L 1907 The Deification of Abstract Ideas in Roman Literature and Inscriptions (PhD), The University of Chicago. Beumer, M 2015 Hygieia. Godin of Personificatie? Soest: Boekscout. Beumer, M 2008 Hygieia: Godin of personificatie? Geschiedenis der Geneeskunde, jaargang 12, nr. 4: 221-227. Böck, B 2014 The Healing Goddess Gula. Towards an Understanding of Ancient Babylonian Medicine. Leiden Brill. Borg, B E 2002 Der Logos des Mythos: Allegorien und Personifikationen in der frühen griechischen Kunst. Paderborn. Bremmer, J N and Erskine, A 2010 The Gods of Ancient Greece. Identities and Transformations. Edinburgh. Brill, S 2005 Hygieia: Health and Medicine in Plato’s Republic. Ann Arbor. Brouwer, H H J 1989 Bona Dea. The sources and a description of the cult. Leiden.

Burgersdijk, P 2011 Pausanias. Beschrijving van Griekenland. Gids van toen voor de tourist van nu. Amsterdam. Burkert, W 1985 Greek Religion. Oxford. Campbell, A 1993 Greek Lyric V. The new school of poetry and anonymous songs and hymns. The Loeb classical library; 144. Harvard University Press. Clark, A J 2007 Divine Qualities. Cult and Community in Republican Rome. New York Clay, C J 1902 Demetrius on style. The Greek text of Demetrius De Elocutione edited after the Paris manuscript with introduction, translation, fascimiles, etc. Cambridge. Compton, M T 1998 The Union of Religion and Health in Ancient Asklepieia. Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 37, No. 4:301-312. Compton, M T 2002 The Association of Hygieia with Asklepios in Graeco-Roman Asklepieion Medicine. Journal of the history of medicine and allied sciences, Vol. 57: 312-329. Croissant, F 1990 Hygieia. LIMC, vol. 5.1: 554-572. Cruse, A 2004 Roman medicine. Tempus Publishing. Dagron, G 1978 Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle. Texte grec, traduction et commentaire. Brussels. David Litwa, M 2014 Iesus Deus. The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God. Fortress Press. Davis, S J 2001 The cult of Saint Thecla: a tradition of women’s piety in late antiquity. Oxford University Press. Deacy, S and Villing, A (ed.) 2001 Athena in the Classical World. Leiden. Demetrios van Phaleron, περὶ ‘Eρμηνείας‘ 265. In: Clay, C J 1902 Demetrius on style. The Greek text of Demetrius De Elocutione edited after the Paris manuscript with introduction, translation, fascimiles, etc. Cambridge. pp. 188-189. Duffin, J 2013 Medical Saints. Cosmas and Damian in a Postmodern World. Oxford University Press. Edelstein, E J and Edelstein, L 1998 Asclepius. Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies. Baltimore and London. Edmonds III, R G 2011 Who are you? A brief history of the scholarship. In Edmonds III, R G, The Orphic Gold Tablets and Greek Religion. Further along the path. Cambridge. pp. 3-14.

Emmel, S Gotter, U and Hahn, J 2008. From Temple to Church. Analysing a late antique phenomenon of transformation. In: Hahn, J Emmel, S and Gotter, U From Temple to Church. Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography. Brill Leiden pp. 1-22. Fears, J R 1981 The Cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology. In: Temporini, H und Haase, W Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neueren Forschung II. Walter de Gruyter – Berlin – New York, 827-948. Fowler, W W 1899 Roman festivals of the Period of the Republic. London. Godderis, J 1999 Een arts is vele andere mensen waard. Inleiding tot de antieke geneeskunde. Leuven. Garland, R 1992 Introducing New Gods. The Politics of Athenian Religion. London. Godderis, J 2005 De Hippocratische geneeskunde in al haar staten. Reflecties over gezondheid en ziekte onder 't zachte fluisteren van de plataan. Leuven. Grossi, G 1988 Topografia antica del territorio del Parco Nazionale d’Abruzzo (III sec.a.C. - VI sec.d.C.). In Il territorio del Parco nazionale d’Abruzzo nell’antichità. Atti del I Convegno nazionale di archeologia. Barrea, 1-2-3 maggio, 1987. Civitella Alfedena, Habicht, C 1998 Pausanias’ Guide to Ancient Greece. Londen. Hahn, J Emmel, S and Gotter, U 2008 From Temple to Church. Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography. Brill Leiden. Hamdorf, F W 1964 Griechische Kultpersonifikationen der vorhellenistischen Zeit. Mainz. Hastings, J 1917 Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. Volume IX Mundas-Phrygians, Edinburgh/New York. s.v. “Personification.” pp. 781-803. Hooff, A van, Horstmanshoff, M 1997 De eed van Hippocrates. In: Hermeneus, 71: 128- 129. Horstmanshoff, H F J 1999 Vier-humores-schema volgens Hippocrates, De natura hominis.’ In: Hermeneus, 71(2): 65. Immerwahr, H R 1990 Attic script: A survey. Oxford. Israeolowich, I 2015 Patients and Healers in the High Roman Empire. John Hopkins University Press. Jayne, W A 1925 The healing gods of ancient civilizations. London/Oxford. Kennedy, G A 2003 Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric. Volume 10 van Writings from the Greco-Roman World, V. 10. Leiden. King, H 2005 Health in Antiquity. Routledge.

Kranz, P 2010 Hygieia – Die Frau an Asklepios’ Seite. Untersuchungen zu Darstellung und Funktion in klassischer und hellenistischer Zeit unter Einbeziehung der Gestalt des Asklepios. Möhnesee. Krebernik, M 1986 Die Götterlisten aus Fara. In: ZA 76. Lanzilotta, L R and Gallarte, I M 2012 Plutarch in the Religious and Philosophical Discourse of Late Antiquity. Leiden-Boston. Lardinois, A P M H Blok, J H, and van der Poel, M G M 2011 Sacred Words: Orality, Literacy and Religion. Orality and Literacy in the Ancient World, vol. 8, Leiden. Leventi, I 2003 Hygieia in Classical Greek Art. Athens. “Licymnius.” Brill’s New Pauly 2003 Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider. Brill Online. Liddell, H G Scott, R Jones, H S, and McKenzie, R 1996 A Greek-English lexicon. "With a revised supplement. (Rev. and augm. throughout) (Page 638). Oxford: New York: Clarendon Press. Lind, L R 1973-1974 Roman Religion and Ethical Thought: Abstraction and Personification. The Classical Journal, Vol. 69, No. 2: 108-119. Lipka, M 2009 Roman gods: a conceptual approach. Leiden Brill. Littman, R J 2009 The Plague of Athens: Epidemiology and Paleopathology. In: Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, 76, pp. 456–467. Mander, P 1986 Il pantheon di Abu-Salabikh. Contributo alla studio del pantheon sumerico Arcaico. Napoli. Marwood, M A 1988 The Roman cult of Salus. Oxford. Martini, F H, and Bartholomew, E F 2012 Anatomie en Fysiologie: Een Inleiding. Amsterdam. Messerschmidt, W 2003 Prosōpopoiia: Personifikationen politischen Charakters in spätklassischer und hellenistischer Kunst. Köln. Mikalson, J D 2004 Ancient Greek Religion. Malden/ Massachusetts. Mitchell-Boyask, R 2007 Plague and the Athenian Imagination. Drama, History, And The Cult Of Asclepius. Cambridge. Moog, F P 2009 Zum Kampf der frühen Christenheit gegen die Isis Medica -Bruch und Kontinuität von Traditionen im Übergangsfeld von Heil und Heilung. In: Würzburger Medizinhistorische Mitteilungen (2009) 28: 256-75. Nutton, V 2012 Ancient medicine. Second edition, London. Parker, R 1996. Athenian Religion. A History. Oxford.

Parker, R 2011 On Greek Religion. Cornell University Press Perrin, B 1967 Plutarch’s Lives. With an English Translation by Bernadotte Perrin. The Loeb classical library, vol. III. Pretzler, M 2007 Pausanias. Travel Writing in Ancient Greece, Londen. Raubitschek, A E 1949 Dedications from the Athenian Acropolis. A Catalogue of the Inscriptions of the Sixth and Fifth Centuries B.C. Cambridge MA. Roscher, W H 1897-1902 Ausfürliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, deel III Nabaothes – Pasicharea. Leipzig. Rüpke, J 2007 A Companion to Roman Religion. Oxford. Sallaberger, W 1993 Der kultische Kalender der Ur III Zeit. Berlin – New York. Saradi, H 2008 The Christianization of pagan temples in the Greek hagiographical texts. In: Hahn, J Emmel, J and Gotter, U From Temple to Church. Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity. Brill Leiden. pp. 113-134. Schlesier, R 2011 A Different God? Dionysos and Ancient Polytheism. De Gruyter: Berlin/Boston. Schouten, J 1963 De slangestaf van Asklepios. Symbool der geneeskunde. (PhD), Universiteit Utrecht. Shapiro, H A 1993 Personifications in Greek Art. The Representation of Abstract Concepts 600-400 B.C. Kilchberg/Zürich. Shapiro, H A 1947 Review of P.G. Hamberg, “Studies in Roman Imperial Art. In: ArtB 29. Smith, A C 1997 Political Personifications in Classical Athenian Art (Volume I of II). Ann Arbor. Smith, A C 2011 Polis and Personification in Classical Athenian Art. Leiden-Boston. Sobel, H 1990 Hygieia. Die Göttin der Gesundheit. Darmstadt. Stadter, P A 1992 Plutarch and the historical tradition. Londen-New York. Stafford, E 2000 Worshipping Virtues. Personification And The Divine In Ancient Greece. Wales. Stafford, E and Herrin, J 2005 Personification in the Greek World: from antiquity to Byzantium. Wales. Stafford, E 2005 Without you no one is happy. The cult of health in ancient Greece. In King, H Health in Antiquity, Routledge. pp. 120-135. Stek, T D 2009 Cult Places and Cultural Change in Republican Italy: A Contextual Approach to Religious Aspects of Rural Society After the Roman Conquest. Amsterdam University Press.

Straten, F T van 1995 Hiera Kala. Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece. Leiden-New York-Köln. Timmer, M 2001 Van Anima tot Zeus. Encyclopedie van begrippen uit de mythologie, religie, alchemie, cultuurgeschiedenis en analytische psychologie. Rotterdam. Versnel, H S 1981 Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World. Volume 2. Leiden. Versnel, H 2011 Heis Dionysos! – One Dionysos? A Polytheistic Perspective. In Schlesier, R A Different God? Dionysos and Ancient Polytheism. Berlin/Boston, 30-37. Walters, H B 1899 Athena Hygieia. In: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 19: 165-168. Webster, T B L 1954 Personification as a Mode of Greek Thought. In: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 17, No. 1-2: 10-21. Wes, M A Versnel, H S, and van der Vliet, Ch L 1978 De wereld van de oudheid. Groningen. Williams, J 2011 Religion and Roman Coins. In Rüpke, J A Companion to Roman Religion. Oxford, 143-163. Wilkins, J 2005 Hygieia and dinner at the symposium. In King, H Health in Antiquity. London and New York, 136-149. Winkler, L 1995 Salus. Vom Staatskult zur politische Idee: Eine archäologische Untersuchung. Heidelberg. Wickkiser, B L 2008 Asklepios, Medicine, and the Politics of Healing in Fifth-Century Greece. Between Craft and Cult. The John Hopkins University Press. Wickkiser, B L 2003 The Appeal of Asklepios and the Politics of Healing in the Greco- Roman World. (PhD), University of Texas. Wissowa, G 1912 Religion und Kultus der Römer. z. plz. Witt, R E 1971 Isis in the Graeco-Roman world. London. Wroth, W 1884 Hygieia. In: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 5: 82-101.

Notes:

1 For a Dutch article on gods and personifications, see (Beumer, 2008:221-227). 2 Gaius Aurelius Cotta, On the Nature of the Gods 3.61 in (Stafford, 2000:1). This quote is often falsely attributed to Cicero. See the translation of (Hunink, 1993). 3 (Beumer, 2015:13; Wickkiser, 2008:36; Wickkiser, 2003:189). 4 (Israeolowich, 2015:46). 5 (Fears, 1981:832). 6 (Parker, 2011:84-97; Wes, 1978:117-129), there 117-120. 7 (Bremmer en Erskine, 2010:248).

8 (Kranz, 2010:43-49). Kranz spends a small paragraph on the question whether Hygieia must be seen as personification or goddess, but is limited to fifth and fourth century BC and focuses on votive reliefs, where he primarily follows Stafford and Leventi and does not have its own vision, making his argument not convincing. 9 (Stafford, 2000:147). 10 Licymnius, Fragment 769 in (Campbell, 1993:35; Lardinois, Blok, van der Poel, 2011:220). 11 (Godderis 2005:22). The Corpus Hippocraticum is wrongly attributed to Hippocrates (ca. 460-370 v.Chr.). 12 (Nutton, 2012:52). 13 Plutarch, Life of Pericles 3.13.8. 14 (Lanzilotta en Gallarte, 2012:1). 15 (Stadter, 1992:3-4). 16 Pausanias 2.11.6. 17 See (Kranz, 2010:1-6), who questions this thesis on the basis of this votive reliefs. Kranz is under the assumption that “Hygieia” has surpassed another female deity and criticizes Pausanias’ assumption of Hygieia. 18 (Pretzler, 2007:12-13). 19 (Pretzler, 2007:55-56; Habicht, 1998:103, 133). The image that Pausanias takes over uncritically Herodotus or quotes, is contra with the thought that Pausanias writes nothing about what other authors such as Herodotus have said. 20 (Bremmer and Erskine, 2010:394). For an overview of the debate about the Orphic Hymns see (Edmonds 2011:3-14). 21 (Lardinois, Blok, van der Poel, 2011:220). 22 This stone would be taken by Greek-speaking soldiers in the Roman army as talisman to their garrison cities. The function as anthem would then fall away, because singing just before an attack seems not likely. See (Versnel 1981:210). 23 IG IV² 1, 132. I accept the second and third century AD as timing. 24 For the relation between Hygieia and food see (Wilkins, 2005:136-149). 25 LSJ s.v. ὑγίεια. 26 Homer, Ilias 8.1.524 cited in (Brill, 2005:7): “Let it be thus, highhearted men of Troy. Let that word (μύϑος) that has been spoken now be a strong (ὑγιὴς) one.” 27Alcmaeon, περὶ φύσεως in: (Godderis, 1999:255; Godderis, 2005:402-403). 28 (Godderis, 1999:256; Godderis, 2005:404). 29 (Godderis, 1999:258). 30 (Godderis, 1998:258); Horstmanshoff, 1999). 31 (Martini en Bartholomew, 2012:9). 32 (Godderis, 1999:259; Godderis, 2005:408-409); De aere aquis locis 7. 33 (Godderis, 1999:262-263; Godderis, 2005:420). 34 (Godderis, 1999:263-264). 35 (Rijkers, 2009:1). 36 (Brill, 2005:9). 37 The concept of health in ancient times is complicated. Although the focus is often on humors, this is not a unique concept with a fixed meaning. For example, Plato refers to Hippocrates, but fits his own vision, with the relationship between doctor and patient as central point. 38 A long and critical treatment of the historiography would take away space for discussion. It is here sufficient to briefly see the perspectives around the debate of Hygieia and personification. The many angles make it a complicated discussion.

39 Hippocrates, Eed van Hippocrates in:(Hooff en Horstmanshoff 1997:128-129). The order of figures evokes a planning at by most important to less important; Athanassakis (2013:54, 188). 40 Licymnius, Fragment 769 (from Sextus Empiricus, Against the Ethicists) (trans. Campbell 1993:35; “Licymnius.” Cancik and Schneider 2013. Reference. 12 May 2013; Plutarch, Life of Pericles 13.8-9 in (Perrin, 1958:43, 45). The existence of a separate cult of Athena Hygieia in the Peloponnese is under discussion. See (Leventi, 2003:85). 41 Liddell, Scott and Jones s.v. ὑγίεια. 42 Sobel (1990:1-2). Sobel views images of Hygieia from vase paintings, votive reliefs, sculpture, gems and coins; (Mitropoulou, 2001). Mitropoulou uses votive reliefs and statues to characterize Hygieia; (Leventi, 2003:29-34). Leventi views Hygieia from iconography and pays attention to representations on votive reliefs, vase paintings and statues; (Kranz, 2010:1- 3). Hygieia is analyzed by Kranz from vase paintings, votive reliefs and sculpture in the fifth and fourth century BC; (Croissant, 1990:554). 43 (Brill, 2005:1-22). Brill views Hygieia as health concept from Plato; (King, 2005:1-19). King looks at Hygieia from Hippocrates, Plato and Galen only from religion. For philosophy, semantics and religion see (Roscher, 1896; Hastings, 1917; Webster, 1954; Hamdorf, 1964; Lind, 1996; Timmer, 2001; Borg, 2002; Clark, 2007). 44 (Fears, 1981:830, 832; Shapiro, 1993:12; Smith, 1997:5; Stafford, 2000:3; Messerschmidt, 2003:1). 45 See (Wroth, 1884; Walters, 1899; Compton, 1998; Axtell, 1907; Stafford, 2000:147-172; Fears, 1981:827-948; Croissant, 1990:554; Kranz, 2010:43-49; Leventi, 2003:2, 9; Hamdorf 1964; Shapiro, 1993:125-131). 46 See (Versnel in Schlesier, 2011:30-37; Deacy and Villing, 2001:138-139; Mitchell-Boyask, 2007:162); Parker, 1996:175). 47 (Shapiro, 1993:12; Smith, 1997:5; Stafford, 2000:3); Messerschmidt 2003:1); Smith, 2011:10-11). 48 Demetrios van Phaleron, περὶ ‘Eρμηνείας 265. In: (Clay, 1902:188-189; Messerschmidt, 2003:1; Stafford, 2000:5). 49 (Stafford, 2000:5-6; Messerschmidt, 2003:1). 50 Aelius Theon (Progymnasmata, ed. Spengel, Rhetores Graeci II, 115.11-28), cited in (Stafford, 2000:6). 51 Contra (Stafford, 2000:6). 52 (Stafford, 2000:6). 53 (Kennedy, 2003:84). The speech of the Sea to the Athenians in the works of Aristide is no longer traceable. See footnote 43. 54 Progymnasmata 9.1-7, ed. Rabe. 55 (Axtell, 1907:95). 56 (Fears, 1981:328, 330). 57 (Shapiro, 1947:138). 58 (Straten,1995:63-72). 59 (Beumer, 2015:13); Kranz, 2010:4). 60 (Kranz, 2010:5; Riethmüller I 2005:134). 61 (Riethmüller I, 2005:134). 62 (Horstmanshoff, 1989:188-211; Littman, 2009:456, 464-467). Despite Thucydides’ careful description, in the past hundred years, scholars and physicians have disagreed about the identification of the disease. Based on clinical symptoms, two diagnoses have dominated the modern literature on the Athenian plague: smallpox and typhus. New methodologies, including forensic anthropology, demography, epidemiology, and paleopathogy, including

DNA analysis, have shed new light on the problem, arguing that typhus or typhoid is current the accepted pestilence. 63 (Wickkiser, 2008:62-63 64 (Garland, 1992:120-121). 65 (Boersma, 1970:95). 66 (Beumer, 2015:12-16). 67 (Wickkiser, 2008:74). 68 (Wickkiser, 2008:80; Schlesier, 2011:70-71). 69 (Wickkiser, 2008:71-72). 70 (Schouten, 1963:53). 71 (Wissowa, 1912:308). 72 (Parker, 1996:153-159). 73 (Cruse, 2004:125-129; Axtell, 1907:13-15; Fears, 1981:859). 74 (Roscher, deel III 1897-1902:2070). 75 (Clark,2007:vii). 76 (Clark, 2007:13). 77 (Schouten, 1963:54). 78 (Riethmüller I, 2005:77-81). 79 (Edelstein,1998:89). 80 (Croissant, 1990:554; Voor Eros en Peitho see Athanassakis 2013:54). 81 (Compton, 2002:3, 29). 82 (Mikalson, 2004:46); IG XII 4, 1, 286; IG XII 4, 1, 287; IG XII 4, 1, 344; IG XII 4, 1, 71. 83 (Edelstein, 1998:87). 84 (Jayne, 1925:333). 85 See (Schlesier, 2011:30-37) where Sourvinou-Inwood discusses Mikalson concerning the question whether Athena Hygieia is a separate goddess. Mikalson argues that there are independent deities and Sourvinou-Inwood argues that the deities, worshipped in the polis, are all the same. 86 Contra Sourvinou-Inwood who uses five criteria to prove the uniqueness of a deity like a common iconography, which is missing by Hygieia and Athena Hygieia. See Schlesier (2011:31); View the discussion about Athena Hygieia en Hygieia in (Leventi, 2003:35-45 and Wroth, 1884:96; Walters, 1899: 166-168). 87 Pausanias 1.23.4. In: (Burgersdijk, 2011:53). Pausanias describes Hygieia as Health, daughter of Asklepios and as epithet of Athena, but after mine opinion Ὑγιείας should be translated as Hygieia. 88 LSJ s.v. ἐπικλησις. 89 LSJ s.v. ἐπικλησις; (Bremmer and Erskine, 2010:67). 90 Leventi 2003:39). 91 Athens, EM 6278, IG³ 824, (Raubitschek, 1949:255-258), no. 225; Immerwaher, (1990:71- 72). 92 (Leventi, 2003:39). 93 (Duffin, 2013:43; David Litwa, 2014:100-101, 107-108). 94 (Duffin, 2013:98). 95 (Emmel, Gotter and Hahn, 2008:19); Dagron, 1978). 96 (Saradi, 2008:113). 97 (Emmel, Gotter and Hahn, 2008:123). 98 (Davis, 2001:74-75).