Much like this text concerning the priesthood of Asclepius and the gods sharing his precinct, other sales of priesthoods at Miletos were inscribed on the anta-blocks of the relevant temple (cf. CGRN 138 and CGRN 248). Block A lists the names of the strategoi enacting the law concerning the sale and specifies the required conditions and procedures for the purchase of the priesthood (compare again CGRN 248). After a missing passage, Block C details which sacrifices different categories of people were to offer in the cult of Asclepius, how shares from the sacrifice were to be apportioned to the priest (here, distinctly called τὰ ἱερά and not γέρη or γέρα), and the penalties for non-compliance with these rules. Numerous parallels between this inscription and the contract of sale for the priesthood of Rome (CGNR 248) have led Rehm to suggest that the latter served as a model for the formulation of this law or that they both reflect local norms.

Block A

Lines 1-9: The first nine lines of the inscription list the six strategoi who were responsible for the law (νόμος) governing the sale of the priesthood. As Rehm points out, it is surprising that there is no reference in this document to the people or the council, except to limit the scope of the decision to priesthoods which the demos has not yet sold (lines A8-9). Yet according to Rehm, the strategoi act implicitly as representatives of the demos. In two other decrees from Ionia (CGRN 177, Priene, and CGRN 212, Pergamon), and in the priestly contract of the cult of Asclepius in Pergamon (CGRN 206, lines 3-4), it is indeed after a proposal by the strategoi that the people and the council legislate. Mentions of the strategoi at Miletos are rare, except for references in the “prophet inscriptions” of Didyma where the prophets honored recall having exercised this charge once or twice (cf. I.Didyma 253, 255, 258, 281, 388, 389). The only one of the six strategoi known to us from another ancient document is Lucius Junius Rufus, who held the office of γραμματεὺς τοῦ θεοῦ in the sanctuary of Didyma (I.Didyma 139; on this office, see Lesgourgues). The cult of Ἀσκληπιὸς πρὸ πόλεως is not known from other sources in Miletos. This qualification is unlikely to have the strict geographical meaning of "in front of the city" or "at the gates of the city" (Wiegand 1906: 260), but rather points towards a tutelary deity who "protects the city" (Robert - Robert). This interpretation is supported by the qualification of Athena at Miletos as τῆς πρ[ὸ πόλε]ως Πολιάδο[ς Ἀ]|θηνᾶς in an inscription of the 2nd or 3rd century AD (cf. Herrmann = Milet VI.3 1142; cf. also I.Didyma 182). These two deities are perhaps to be identified with the Milesian Asclepius and Athena who elsewhere qualified as Soter (CIG 2864 and I.Didyma 121) and Soteira (Milet II.3 401 and Wiegand 1905: 547) respectively. As in the sale of the priesthood of Asclepius at Pergamon (CGRN 206, lines 8-9), the office covers not only service to Asclepius himself, but also to all the deities who share the god's sanctuary (compare also the ἐντεμένιοι θεοί in the cult of Apollo at Miletos, CGRN 100, lines 3-4). It is thus a sort of "micro-pantheon" that the priest must serve. The clarification in lines 8-9 excludes from the contract "what had been sold before by the people": the neuter indefinite pronoun might refer to certain male or female priesthoods for the ἐντεμένιοι θεοί which had been sold previously. A similar though more explicit clause at CGRN 193 (Hyllarima), lines 13-15, excludes any previously sold priesthoods from a large-scale sale in the community.

Lines 10-11 : As in CGRN 248 (Miletos), line 4, the sale of the priesthood is accompanied by a registration of the priest. We note that the buyer (ὁ πριάμενος) is not necessarily the priest himself since ἱέρεω is here an accusative form, dependent on the active verb ἀπογράψει. Moreover, the one who will take charge of the priesthood is referred to with the noun ὁ ἀπογραφίς. The registration takes place in the presence of two distinct groups of officials, the basileis and the treasurers. The basileis (cf. Herda, p. 229-234; CGRN 6, line 3; CGRN 100, line 5; CGRN 201, lines 22-23; CGRN 248, line 5) are undoubtedly relevant: the βασίλειον acted as the central archives in Miletos (Herda, p. 233-234). The tamiai or treasurers appear here in their capacity as administrators of the public and sacred finances. Note that these two titles were seen as particularly noteworthy, as evidenced by the mention of the office of basileus in the prophet and hydrophoros inscriptions (e.g. I.Didyma 84 and 339) and by the series of tamiai inscriptions (I.Didyma 389-391).

Lines 12-13 : The duration of fifty years for which the priesthood is awarded is remarkable: it is neither a short duration like the three years and eight months found in the diagraphe for the priesthood of the goddess Rome (CGRN 248, lines 7-8), nor a lifetime office, as was often the case elsewhere (cf. CGRN 37, Chios, line 5; CGRN 221, Kos, line 16). The fact that the priesthood may be inherited precludes the idea that the fifty-year period corresponds to a lifetime position and instead shows that it is indeed a strict temporal delimitation of the office. On the initiation or consecration of priests and priestesses taking office, see CGRN 85 (Kos), Face A, lines 1-6; CGRN 175 (Priene), line 36; CGRN 220 (Kos), lines 47-50; CGRN 248 (Miletos), lines 12-13. On Zeus Telesiourgos, see also CGRN 248 with Commentary.

Lines 14-15 : The reference to the priest’s right to wear clothes of his choice is striking; for a parallel: CGRN 176, Priene, lines 19-20. However, it cannot be excluded that the text subsequently contained a more restrictive clause on the missing Block B. On the regulation of the priest's attire in priesthood sales: cf. CGRN 124 (Pergamon), lines 1-4; CGRN 221 (Kos), lines 22-24.

Block C

Lines 1-13: This part of the regulation defines the sacrifices to be offered to Asclepius by different groups of people, including agents of the Milesian cults. The animal to be sacrificed is always a sheep, which is male in the first two cases preserved. The hydrophoros was a young priestess of Artemis at the sanctuary of Didyma. There are numerous honorary inscriptions in the sanctuary commemorating this annual office (cf. Marcellesi). The paraphylax was a magistrate responsible for maintaining order in the sanctuary of Didyma (see Robert 1937). The agonothetes was in charge of the Didymeia. The stephanephoros was the eponymous magistrate of the city (for further discussion of the office of aisymnetes/stephanephoros/priest of Apollo, see the complexities evoked in CGRN 201). The text also emphasizes the sacrifices to be made by two further groups particularly concerned with issues of health: the paidonomoi, in charge of the children’s physical education, and women who had given birth. The unparalleled use of the verb ζώννυμι here is probably referring to belt-loosening during childbirth and to wearing a belt again after having passed the whole period of impurity caused by childbirth (on this period, see e.g. CGRN 99, Cyrene, line 109; CGRN 144, Ptolemais, lines 11-12). On the portions attributed to the priest at Miletos, see CGRN 39 and especially CGRN 138, lines 15-18 (an almost identical list, with the exception of the skin and the remaining ἱερά). On fines for denying priests their prerogatives from the sacrifice, see e.g. CGRN 37, lines 14-15 (Chios: 10 dr.), CGRN 142, lines 20-23 (Kos: 50 dr.) and CGRN 208, line 20 (Kos: 30 dr. for each portion).

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike International License 4.0 .

All citation, reuse or distribution of this work must contain somewhere a link back to the DOI (https://doi.org/10.54510/CGRN249), as well as the year of consultation (see “Home” for details on how to cite or click “Export Citation” to create a reference for this specific file).