Copyright by Bronwen Lara Wickkiser 2003
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Copyright by Bronwen Lara Wickkiser 2003 The Dissertation Committee for Bronwen Lara Wickkiser certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: The Appeal of Asklepios and the Politics of Healing in the Greco-Roman World Committee: _________________________________ Lesley Dean-Jones, Supervisor _________________________________ Erwin Cook _________________________________ Fritz Graf _________________________________ Karl Galinsky _________________________________ L. Michael White The Appeal of Asklepios and the Politics of Healing in the Greco-Roman World by Bronwen Lara Wickkiser, B.A., M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin May 2003 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My work has benefited immeasurably from the comments and suggestions of countless individuals. I am grateful to them all, and wish to mention some in particular for their extraordinary efforts on my behalf. First and foremost, Lesley Dean-Jones, whose wide-ranging expertise guided and vastly enhanced this project. Her skill, coupled with her generosity, dedication, and enthusiasm, are a model to me of academic and personal excellence. Also Erwin Cook, Karl Galinsky, and L. Michael White, unflagging members of my dissertation committee and key mentors throughout my graduate career, who have shown me how refreshing and stimulating it can be to “think outside the box.” And Fritz Graf who graciously joined my committee, and gave generously of his time and superb insight. It has been an honor to work with him. Special thanks also to Erika Simon and Jim Hankinson who encouraged this project from the beginning and who carefully read, and much improved, many chapters. Various fellowships and grants enabled my research, including the William S. Livingston Graduate Fellowship and a Classics Departmental Fellowship from the University of Texas at Austin; the Thomas Day Seymour and Gorham Phillips Stevens Fellowships from the American School of Classical Studies at Athens; and the Henry Haskell and Adelia Johnson Alumni Fellowships from Oberlin College. I am grateful to the faculty, staff, and students of both the Department of Classics at UT and the American School at Athens for all manner of assistance towards completing this project. In Athens in particular I had the joy of sharing ideas with other young scholars working on Asklepios and iv healing cults. These colleagues include Marilena Gorrini of the Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, and Jesper Jensen of the University of Aarhus, Denmark. Thanks also to Eran Lupu for engaging discussions about incubatio that led to this dissertation topic, and to Molly Richardson for navigating me over epigraphical hurdles. Any errors in the text are my own. Many friends whose support was steadfast, and whose brilliance and common sense have enriched me, if not also this work, deserve special thanks. Among them are Bill Caraher, Caitlin Downey, Brent Nongbri, Peter Schultz, Anita Tarar, and Mariah Wade. Finally, I thank my parents and brother for their encouragement and love from as long as I can remember. I cannot imagine having produced this without such friends and family. v The Appeal of Asklepios and the Politics of Healing in the Greco-Roman World Publication No. ___________ Bronwen Lara Wickkiser, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 2003 Supervisor: Lesley Dean-Jones The cult of the Greek healing god Asklepios was one of the most popular cults in all of antiquity. Over the course of a millennium beginning in the 5th c. BC, sanctuaries of Asklepios spanned the Greco-Roman world and attracted countless individuals in search of cures. Scholars have long studied the cult in accordance with dichotomies like rational vs. irrational and public vs. private. These dichotomies are not only misleading when applied to Asklepios-cult, pitting it against “rational” Greek medicine and placing it beyond the political interests of the state, but have driven the cult into interpretive gridlock. Consequently, fundamental questions about the cult’s development remain unanswered. This study begins by exploring why the cult only arose in the 5th c. BC despite the fact that Asklepios had been known as a healer since Homer. Adducing evidence from the Hippocratic corpus, I argue that developments in Greek medicine were critical to the rise of the cult in the 5th c. BC. As Greek medicine began to define itself as a techne and to delimit its boundaries by specifying the kinds of illnesses that it could and could not treat, it generated vi a void in healing. The god Asklepios, whose mythology portrayed him as a trained physician, was ideal for filling the void left by mortal medicine. Since translocal factors alone fail to explain the spread of Asklepios- cult, this study next examines local factors that motivated Athens and Rome, two of antiquity’s best-documented cities, to import Asklepios. Analysis of the placement of the cult within both the topography of Athens and the Athenian civic calendar, indicates that Athens’ immediate motivation for importing Asklepios in 420 BC was not plague (as many have argued) but imperial ambitions in the context of the Peloponnesian War. Similarly, examination of ancient sources for the cult’s importation to Rome, as well as of the topography of the area surrounding Aesculapius’ sanctuary there, demonstrates that Rome imported Aesculapius ca. 291 BC not because of a literal plague, but in response to a metaphorical plague manifest in the Samnite Wars, Demetrios Poliorketes, and the patrician- plebeian struggle. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................xiii INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 1: ASPECTS OF TRADITION AND DEVELOPMENT IN GREEK TH NATURAL HEALING FROM THE BRONZE AGE TO THE 5 C. BC.................13 I. The Bronze Age and Homer ..................................................................16 A. Evidence from the Bronze Age.....................................................16 B. Homer...............................................................................................16 II. From Homer to the 5th c. BC ..................................................................20 III. The 5th c. BC: Tradition and Development............................................26 A. Continuance of the Tradition ........................................................26 B. Development within the Tradition...............................................28 1. Techne.................................................................................30 2. Iatrike ..................................................................................32 3. Limits of the Techne of Iatrike..........................................35 4. Training and Legitimation ..............................................39 IV. Conclusions...............................................................................................44 CHAPTER 2: THE LIMITS OF IATRIKE AND THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF ASKLEPIOS-CULT................................................................................................46 I. Alternatives to Iatrike: What Iatroi Condoned......................................47 II. The Early Development of Asklepios-Cult ..........................................54 III. The Popularity of Asklepios-Cult in the 4th c. BC ................................61 IV. The Development of the Aspect of Healing in Asklepios-Cult.........70 V. Traditional Explanations for the Popularity of Asklepios..................74 A. Demand for a Healing God ...........................................................75 B. Other Healing Gods........................................................................76 VI. Conclusions...............................................................................................78 viii CHAPTER 3: IATROI AND ASKLEPIOS....................................................................80 I. Asklepios as Iatros in Myth and Cult.....................................................80 A. Mythology........................................................................................80 B. Techniques of Healing in Asklepios-Cult ....................................87 II. Asklepios’ Colleagues: The Healing Heroes........................................92 III. Asklepios and Iatroi..................................................................................98 IV. Asklepios and Chronic Cases.................................................................107 V. Conclusions...............................................................................................110 CHAPTER 4: THE ARRIVAL OF ASKLEPIOS IN ATHENS IN 420/19 BC.............112 I. Description, Text, and Translation of the Telemachos Monument...116 II. Interpretation of the Telemachos Monument: Signs of Polis- Interest.......................................................................................................119 A. The Rhetoric of the Inscription......................................................119 B. The Eleusinian Cult of Demeter and Kore ..................................123 C. The Location of Asklepios’ Sanctuary..........................................128 III. Conclusions...............................................................................................131