IGII34 1768 Donation of a house and garden to Asklepios in accordance with an oracle

Donation of a house and garden to Asklepios in accordance with an oracle

IG II³ 4 1768 Date: Ca. 350-325 BC

The god instructed (echrēsen) the Athenian People to dedicate the house of Demon and the garden belonging with it to Asklepios, and that Demon himself should be his priest.

Uninscribed

The priest, Demon son of Demomeles of Paiania, dedicated (5) both the house and the garden, as the god commanded (prostaxantos), the Athenian People also having granted that he be priest of Asklepios in accordance with the oracle.^[1]

Previous - IG II² 4962 Next - IG II² 4970

References:

IG II³ 4 1768 (Translated text) (IG Online)

IG II² 4969 (PHI)

Syll.³ 1005

Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public Land, 42-44

Translation by: Stephen Lambert, Feyo Schuddeboom

Images: Louvre - (1)

Monument type: Base

Inscription type: Dedication (priest of Asklepios), Dedication (Asklepios), Oracle

Findspot: Unknown (Louvre Ma 108)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] The foundation of the cult of Asklepios in 420/19 BC on the south slope of the Acropolis is documented by the “Telemachos monument”, SEG 47.232, and, demonstrably from mid-iv BC, but perhaps in fact from the start, the priesthood was appointed by lot from all Athenians, annually from each tribe in rotation. Like the priesthood of Athena Nike (IG I³ 35), this was a “democratic” priesthood, not, like older state priesthoods, appointed from a genos (RO 37, cf. Lambert, Historia 59, 2010, 156-8; for decrees honouring the priests see IG II³ 1, 359 with notes). Demon of Paiania is discussed by Davies, Athenian Propertied Families (1971), 116-8. A relative of Demosthenes, he was involved in a legal dispute concerning a shipping loan ca. 340 (Dem. 32.31 and passim) and was sufficiently prominent (his ties with Demosthenes were perhaps relevant) to be among the leading Athenians whose extradition was demanded by Alexander following the sack of Thebes in 335 (Plut. Dem. 23.4). He next appears in the context of the affair of Harpalos (treasurer of Alexander the Great, who sought refuge in Athens and was alleged to have bribed a number of prominent Athenians). In spring 323 BC the comic poet, Timokles F4 K-A, alleges that he was a recipient of Harpalos’ money, being like Kallisthenes a poor man (ironic?); and later that year he proposed the recall of Demosthenes (Plut. Dem. 27.6, [Plut.] Mor. 846d). It is not perhaps coincidental that in this inscription, which cannot be dated precisely, but would fit comfortably into the period of Demon’s other known activities ca. 350-325, we also find him engaged in a financial transaction, this time involving the priesthood of Asklepios, which, in the absence of further specification, and given the consultation of the Delphic oracle, ought to be the major state priesthood in the cult founded by Telemachos. In the 5th cent. it was probably not uncommon for wealthy individuals to make grand donations to endow cults and sacrifices. Thus Nikias, “having bought an estate for 10,000 drachmas he consecrated it, and from the revenues from it the Delians were obliged to sacrifice and banquet, asking many benefits for Nikias from the gods. And he wrote this on a stele, which he left as a guardian of his donation in Delos.” Plut. Nik. 3.6. Demon’s gesture is more ambiguous as regards the balance of material benefit. The donation is more modest than Nikias' and in exchange he gets a turn at the annual priesthood of Asklepios (though the length of Demon’s tenure is not quite clear), the implication apparently being that the revenues from the priesthood will to an extent compensate him for his donation. Though the transaction seems relatively modest, it required the Assembly to obtain sanction from the oracle at Delphi, presumably because it entailed disturbing the usual mechanism of appointment to this priesthood. This rather confirms the impression that Demon was a man of some political influence. One suspects that there was more to the transaction than meets the eye; e.g. one reason for donating one’s property to a god might be to avoid liturgies or reduce obligations to property taxes (eisphora), or to protect it from creditors (Aischin. 3.21, shows an awareness of the latter possibility, stating that for that reason it was not permitted for an official to consecrate or dedicate property until he had passed his euthynai at the end of his term of office; cf. Isai. 4.9 and L. Rubinstein, in K. Harter-Uibopuu and W. Riess eds.,Symposion 2019, [2021], 455-79, at 474-75). City cults typically generated income by renting out property holdings (cf. IG I³ 84) and we may assume that this was what happened with Demon’s house and garden (which might or might not have been located in physical proximity to the sanctuary of Asklepios). It is not impossible that he continued to reside there, paying (one might speculate) a favourable rent to Asklepios. We do not know where this inscription was found. It might plausibly have been set up on the property or in the sanctuary of Asklepios. We do not know if this was the same property as the house (sunoikia) of Demon in Kolonos mentioned by Aischin. 1.125 (APF p. 118, cf. ZPE 125, 1999, 111). [SDL]

Added: 10 Jan 2017
Updated: 8 Jan 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_1000