Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros35VariaHesiod’s Religious Norms in Conte...

Varia

Hesiod’s Religious Norms in Context: On Works & Days 724–760

Andrej Petrovic et Ivana Petrovic
p. 185-232

Résumés

L’article analyse la section des Travaux & Jours d’Hésiode (724–760), qui dote le fermier de l’expertise nécessaire pour faciliter la relation harmonieuse d’une maisonnée avec les dieux. Par ses prescriptions systématiques, cette section représente, selon nous, le plus recueil le plus ancien de normes religieuses grecques, et nous la contextualisons à la fois dans la structure des Travaux & Jours, et dans le cadre plus large de la religion grecque. La section est soigneusement développée et placée à dessein vers la fin du poème, dans un souci de symétrie et de rythme : Hésiode distribue des normes sociales divinement sanctionnées aux côtés des normes religieuses dans trois sections distinctes du poème, fournissant des conseils de prudence toujours plus spécifiques sous forme d’ordres et de prescriptions. Le passage 724–760 est également structuré avec art et divisé en sections en ἀπό et en ἐπί. Les chevauchements du matériel hésiodique et des normes rituelles épigraphiques plus récentes montrent qu’ils ont en commun des caractéristiques linguistiques et thématiques. De plus, des lecteurs bien informés tels que Platon, Plutarque et Proclus ont interprété à plusieurs reprises les normes d’Hésiode à la lumière de leur propre expérience religieuse.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

This article is based on a talk we delivered at the “Autorité, normes et rituels en Grèce ancienne” conference (Collège de France, Paris, May 2018). We thank Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge, Mat Carbon, and Saskia Peels-Matthey, the organizers of the conference, for their invitation and their comments; we also thank the participants of the conference for their comments and suggestions. In particular, we would like to thank Eftychia Stavrianopoulou and Angelos Chaniotis. Furthermore, we thank Lilah Grace Canevaro, Mat Carbon, Jenny Clay, Renaud Gagné, and Jon Mikalson for their insightful comments and suggestions on a draft of this paper, which has also profited much from referee’s incisive suggestions. Hesiod’s text follows West’s (1978) edition. Abbreviations of the epigraphic corpora follow Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. When we quote norms from the CGRN, we use both texts and translations, unless otherwise stated. We list more often quoted corpora with the abbreviations we have employed at the start of the bibliography.

Aims and objectives

  • 1 The sections of W&D with calendar-like features (esp. the farmer’s year, v. 383–617, and sailing, (...)
  • 2 The section has been analyzed also within the framework of non-Greek traditions, see below, p. 20 (...)

1This paper explores the section of Hesiod’s Works and Days (henceforth W&D) dedicated to religious norms (v. 724–760) with a twofold aim. Our first aim is to contextualize the religious norms within the poem’s structure and to explicate the place of this section within the larger religious framework of the poem. Our second aim is to scrutinize and partly exculpate this section, which has been repeatedly belittled in scholarship as a rambling digression dealing with the realm of the obscure, the occult, and the superstitious, by reading it in the light of its ancient reception and of the surviving Greek religious regulations. It is our contention, firstly, that the section of W&D containing religious norms is purposefully and carefully developed and positioned within the poem’s structure. Secondly, significant portions of this section, rather than dealing with peripheral religious idiosyncrasies, cohere well with attested religious beliefs of the Greeks and find parallels in ancient normative texts.1 Regarding our second contention, our perspective is inevitably diachronic; and, while it is certainly correct that the nature, volume, and explanatory power of the surviving evidence all vary and are marked by diachronic ebbs and flows, it is nevertheless possible to find remarkable thematic and stylistic parallels for Hesiod’s rules in Greek ritual norms as well as in later Greek literary sources.2

  • 3 On the problems concerning the term “sacred law” and on terminological issues more generally, see (...)
  • 4 Cf. CarbonPirenne-Delforge (2012), p. 26, for the linguistic features and general characterist (...)

2Regarding the term from the title of this paper, “religious norms”, we employ it here unpolemically, as a convenient shorthand that encompasses both “ritual norms” in the strict sense (that is, texts which prescribe and regulate actual ritual action3) and the norms relating to cult (that is, the wider category of texts which define expectations concerning religious behavior beyond the ritual action proper). To further clarify and flesh out this point: Hesiod’s instruction to the worshipper—for instance, “to propitiate [the gods] with libations and burnt offerings, both when [he] go[es] to bed and when the divine light returns” (v. 338–339)—would represent a ritual norm; his stern warning not to beget children after a funeral (v. 735–736) would, in such a taxonomy, represent a cultic norm. In this paper, therefore, the term “religious norm” embraces both of these prescriptive categories. What is at stake for us in relation to Hesiod’s passage is that the precepts of W&D 724–760 are characterized by the same features that we apply as criteria in the current definition of inscriptional ritual norms: his instructions pertain to ritual, they have an unequivocal normative character, and the language is distinctly prescriptive, relying on the use of infinitives and imperatives.4

  • 5 On Zeus as guarantor of moral and social order in early Greek epic, see Allan (2006).
  • 6 Verdenius (1985), comm. ad v. 336, importantly notes that Hesiod “does not draw a sharp distincti (...)

3Another term we employ which requires clarification is “divinely sanctioned social norm”. Divinely sanctioned social norms are specific to the socio-political circumstances of the early Archaic period, in which social relationships were as a rule governed by religious beliefs.5 In Hesiod’s world, the gods are ever watchful and vigilant when it comes to preserving the integrity of a polis as a social unit, family relationships, codes of friendship, and the conditions of xenia. The “divine sanction” of such norms denotes that the gods both keep an eye on the human goings-on and ensure that infringements are appropriately punished. In Hesiod’s poem, the gods are equally watchful when it comes to religious and social norms.6 “Religious”, “cultic”, and “social” norms are etic terms we employ for what in Hesiod’s time was designated by θέμις and νόμος. These were the Greek emic terms encompassing both the social and religious spheres.

Contextualization of religious norms within W&D

The authenticity of W&D 724–760

  • 7 Twesten’s (1815) edition rejects v. 724–759, a view largely endorsed by Wilamowitz (1928), comm. (...)
  • 8 See West (1978), comm. ad v. 706, and v. 724–759 for an overview of older attempts to expunge or (...)
  • 9 See West (1978), p. 333–334.
  • 10 Kirchhoff (1889), p. 76–80.
  • 11 Wilamowitz (1928), p. 124–130.

4The section 724–760 has been repeatedly subjected to scrutiny regarding its authenticity and structure. Following a tradition which goes back to early nineteenth-century analyst views,7 scholars have claimed that this section is different in spirit from the preceding parts, being very much unlike the “genuine Hesiod”.8 While the textual tradition of the W&D does not provide sufficient reasons to doubt the authenticity of the section, nineteenth- and early twentieth-century scholarship in particular sought to identify in it later interpolations and evidence of a post-Hesiodic poet at work.9 In fact, Kirchhoff thought that everything following verse 694 is the work of a post-Hesiodic “Fortsetzer”,10 while Wilamowitz condemned all the ritual rules in verses 724 to 759 on the grounds that, among other reasons, there is too much silly superstition and the entire section reflects “Asiatic” rules of decency.11

  • 12 West (1978), p. 329–330, 333–334.
  • 13 See Hamilton (1989), p. 78–84 and Lardinois (1998) for defenses of the Days, as well as the conti (...)
  • 14 See Parker (1983), p. 291–294 on “Hesiodic life”, followed by Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 41–5 (...)

5Nowadays, following Martin West’s powerful plaidoyer for authenticity, such views by and large have been silenced and are considered outdated, and the dominant view is that the section of the poem following v. 694 is genuine12—or at least as genuine as the first part of the poem, even if some (minor) interpolations may have occurred in various sections.13 Increasingly, the section is perceived as a unified guide to conduct which reflects genuine religious sensitivities of the seventh century BC.14

  • 15 West (1978), p. 56. See also Verdenius (1962). Ercolani (2010), p. 395 and 402 suggests that the (...)
  • 16 See e.g. Beall (2001), p. 165, and Canevaro (2015), p. 138, on Hesiod “adopting the opaque langua (...)
  • 17 We agree with Ercolani’s assertion (2010, p. 395), that what might appear in v. 724–759 to some a (...)

6While authenticity is not an issue any more for most critics, some objections concerning the section 724–760 persist. Firstly, some scholars underscore its apparent “rambling” nature. So, for instance, according to West, Hesiod “seem[s] to be led from topic to topic by associations of thought, without the aim of covering a particular, definable area of knowledge”.15 And, secondly, there remains the issue of the section’s “obscurity” and apparent “occult superstition”.16 We will demonstrate both that there are certain organizational principles at work in W&D 724–760 and that Hesiod’s religious norms emerge as significantly less occult17 when read through the lens of ancient interpretations and Greek inscriptional ritual norms.

The place of 724–760 within the religious framework of W&D

  • 18 On the W&D as a guide for managing the Iron Age human condition through self-sufficiency, see Can (...)
  • 19 We follow Clay’s (2003, p. 38) observation that one of Hesiod’s central tenets is that “the human (...)
  • 20 ἔρδειν has two basic meanings in early Greek epic: “tun, handeln” and “opfern, Riten ausüben, vol (...)

7In a nutshell, W&D is a self-help book for the Iron Age farmer,18 the main point of which is: agricultural work combined with a religiously correct (i.e. just) life leads to success.19 The structure and overall argument of the poem thus revolve around two topics: work (ἐργάζεσθαι) and acts of religious reverence (often qualified as ἔρδειν20).

  • 21 This is evident from several explicit couplings of work and religiously correct behavior: we disc (...)
  • 22 No English word conveys the full meaning of εὐδαίμων, whose earliest attestation is in Hesiod. Gi (...)

8Work and religiously correct behavior, including the observance of justice, are not only the two major themes of the poem, but also two sides of the same coin.21 Hesiod coalesces and prominently places the two in the closing lines 826–827: εὐδαίμων τε καὶ ὄλβιος, ὃς τάδε πάντα | εἰδὼς ἐργάζηται ἀναίτιος ἀθανάτοισιν, “fortunate22 and prosperous is the one who labors, aware of all this, while giving gods no cause for offence.” Hesiod considers his poem to be a roadmap towards eudaimonia and prosperity. The stations on this road are seasonal works and adherence to the religious norms; the goal of work is survival and economic flourishing (ὄλβος), and the goal of obeying the norms is to be εὐδαίμων and ἀναίτιος ἀθανάτοισιν, “giving the gods no cause for offence”.

  • 23 On justice in Hesiod, see Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 44–48, with bibliography, where we argue (...)
  • 24 Clay (2003), p. 31–48, and (2009) observes a gradual narrowing of focus in W&D from polis to oiko (...)
  • 25 The beginning of the “Days” section (v. 765–769) is illustrative of the need for the farmer to pr (...)
  • 26 Kurke (2011), p. 205, sees the rules of section 724–760 as bringing “to the forefront the religio (...)
  • 27 Here, too, we find both ritual norms and theology, which we cannot discus at length here. Hesiod (...)

9The religious theme in the poem starts with the hymn to all-powerful Zeus (v. 1–10) and continues with the glorification of Justice, Dike, as a unique gift from Zeus to humans. While the roles of Zeus and Dike in the poem have been emphasized and discussed,23 less attention has been paid to the specific way in which Hesiod weaves the thread of religious norms throughout the poem. In our view, Hesiod’s elaborations on Zeus as the divine watcher, Dike’s vigilance, and “thrice countless” other divine watchers (phylakes) provide the fundament for the later section of the poem which contains a set of specific religious norms. As the religious theme progresses throughout the poem, the focus gradually becomes narrower:24 Hesiod first lays out the general divinely sanctioned social norms in a city (v. 225–247), and then the particular norms (v. 320–335), which he rounds off with yet another set of general religious norms (v. 336–341), but this time with an individual farmer in mind. Hesiod then provides a long series of instructions about specific works throughout the farmer’s year. In the final third of the poem, Hesiod returns to the social norms and teaches about the correct treatment of friends (v. 706–723); finally, the section 724–760 provides detailed instructions about the religious norms from the perspective of an individual household,25 laid out from a distinctly male perspective.26 The instructions about correct religious behavior and the observance of divinely sanctioned social norms are not mere side-remarks, but are in fact, we posit, the second main theme of the poem, especially prominent in the first and third part, while in between, in v. 381–694, the emphasis is on farming and sailing.27 Proper religious conduct is as central as work for Hesiod’s poetic endeavor. By taking a closer look at the way in which Hesiod treats religious norms in the poem, we will now demonstrate that W&D represents the earliest extant Greek collection of ritual norms, which are underpinned by both a theology and an anthropogony (the myth of the races).

10At the beginning of the poem, Hesiod invokes the Muses to sing Zeus, who will feature as the major god throughout (v. 1–10). Hesiod’s brother’s unjust behavior (v. 11–41) rouses Hesiod to lay out the principles of agriculture; two myths about the origin of agriculture are told next (v. 42–201). In the first version, Hesiod explains that before Prometheus, humans did not have to work the fields at all, but then, in revenge for Prometheus’ deception, Zeus concealed the means of life in the earth (v. 47). Hesiod concludes this episode by stating: “There is simply no way to escape the mind of Zeus” (v. 105: οὕτως οὔ τί πῃ ἔστι Διὸς νόον ἐξαλέασθαι). This is an important point, which Hesiod will reiterate many times.

11An alternative tale about the origins of agriculture is the myth of the races (v. 106–201). Here, too, Hesiod stresses that there was a time, before the Iron Age, when generations of men lived without toil or sickness. The Golden race enjoyed a blessed life and became the daimones, watchers of men (v. 121–126). The myth about the Silver race introduces the first ritual norm, which is programmatic in character (v. 134–137):

[…] ὕβριν γὰρ ἀτάσθαλον οὐκ ἐδύναντο
ἀλλήλων ἀπέχειν, οὐδ’ ἀθανάτους θεραπεύειν
ἤθελον οὐδ’ ἔρδειν μακάρων ἱεροῖς ἐπὶ βωμοῖς,
ἣ θέμις ἀνθρώποισι κατ’ ἤθεα.

For they were not able to restrain themselves from committing violent hubris against each other, nor did they want to serve the immortals and sacrifice on the sacred altars of the blessed gods, as is norm for humans across nations.

  • 28 See Clay (2003), p. 38.
  • 29 W&D 320–335 (divinely sanctioned social norms) are followed by v. 336–341 (religious norms); v. 7 (...)
  • 30 See e.g. W&D 333–334. For the narrative strategies Hesiod employs to construct his own authority (...)

12An important motif that is introduced here is the entanglement of improper social behavior with religious transgressions.28 In two further instances in the poem, Hesiod mirrors this structure by combining instructions about divinely sanctioned social norms with religious norms.29 Throughout the poem, Hesiod keeps reminding his audience that their behavior is judged and scrutinized by divinities and that prosperity is the divine reward for correct behavior, while those who transgress the rules experience the “diminishing of houses” or even worse, ominously oblique catastrophes.30

  • 31 The expression θέμις (ἐστί) is a formula attested in ritual norms relating which activities are a (...)

13The passage 134–137 represents a religious norm because it identifies “serving the gods” (ἀθανάτους θεραπεύειν) and “sacrificing” (ἔρδειν) as the central elements of ritual action, and it qualifies this as θέμις (“what is religiously correct”). Hesiod, that is, employs the prescriptive language and the terminology attested in early ritual norms (the earliest of which stem from late seventh/early sixth century BC).31 The norm is phrased in the broadest possible terms, as a fundamental religious covenant valid across human societies. Like Perses’ unjust behavior, which prompts the composition of the poem, this religious norm is introduced as a negative example. Because the Silver race was neither orderly nor god-fearing, they were promptly destroyed and became a cautionary tale.

  • 32 As is evident in his punishment for Prometheus’ trickery, which extended to the whole human race, (...)
  • 33 On shipwrecks and pollution, see Parker (1983), p. 9; on crop failure and storms due to pollution (...)

14The Bronze race and the race of heroes destroyed themselves by fighting (v. 143–173), and so we progress to the present, Iron Age. By the end of the myth of the races, Hesiod has imparted the basic lessons which will become the main tenets in his theology: Zeus monitors human behavior, especially adherence to justice and the performance of religious rituals, and he cannot be deceived. Zeus dispenses punishments that can extend from an individual to an entire community.32 The notion that an individual transgressor can compromise an entire community is reiterated later as well. In our view, the principle of collateral damage partly accounts for the element of uncertainty in the poem, such as Hesiod’s claims that crop success or failure and smooth sailing or shipwreck are ultimately in the hands of the gods.33

  • 34 As Jenny Clay has pointed out to us, at the very beginning of the poem Hesiod invites Zeus to lis (...)
  • 35 V. 267–268: πάντα ἰδὼν Διὸς ὀφθαλμὸς καὶ πάντα νοήσας / καί νυ τάδ’ αἴ κ’ ἐθέλησ’ ἐπιδέρκεται, οὐ (...)

15Hesiod represents the human condition in the Iron Age as the result of Zeus’ punishment: hard work is required in order to obtain sustenance from the earth, women are a terrible evil, and the earth and sea are full of evils, too. The myth of the races demonstrates that the gods watch human behavior and punish impiety. The notion that divine beings observe and judge human behavior is extraordinarily important in the poem.34 As we have remarked about the Prometheus episode, Hesiod emphasizes that one cannot escape the mind of Zeus (v. 105), and he reiterates this with regard to kings as judges: “The eye of Zeus, seeing everything and noticing everything, this, too, if he wishes, observes, and it does not escape him […].”35 In addition, Zeus has personal assistants, men of the Golden Age, who have become his watchers, “thrice uncountable phylakes”. His daughter, Justice, also observes human behavior and reports it to Zeus (v. 249–262):

[…] ἐγγὺς γὰρ ἐν ἀνθρώποισιν ἐόντες
250 ἀθάνατοι φράζονται, ὅσοι σκολιῇσι δίκῃσιν
ἀλλήλους τρίβουσι
θεῶν ὄπιν οὐκ ἀλέγοντες.
τρὶς γὰρ μυρίοι εἰσὶν ἐπὶ χθονὶ πουλυβοτείρῃ
ἀθάνατοι Ζηνὸς φύλακες θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων,
οἵ ῥα
φυλάσσουσίν τε δίκας καὶ σχέτλια ἔργα,
255 ἠέρα ἑσσάμενοι, πάντῃ φοιτῶντες ἐπ’ αἶαν.
ἡ δέ τε παρθένος ἐστὶ Δίκη, Διὸς ἐκγεγαυῖα,
κυδρή τ’ αἰδοίη τε θεοῖς οἳ Ὄλυμπον ἔχουσιν·
καί ῥ’ ὁπότ’ ἄν τίς μιν βλάπτῃ σκολιῶς ὀνοτάζων,
αὐτίκα πὰρ Διὶ πατρὶ καθεζομένη Κρονίωνι
260 γηρύετ’ ἀνθρώπων ἄδικον νόον, ὄφρ’ ἀποτείσῃ
δῆμος ἀτασθαλίας βασιλέων, οἳ λυγρὰ νοέοντες
ἄλλῃ παρκλίνωσι δίκας σκολιῶς ἐνέποντες.

  • 36 We follow West (1978) and Verdenius (1985) comm. ad v. and understand τρὶς γὰρ μυροι as denoting (...)

[…] since being close to mortals
250 immortals observe how many with crooked judgements
maltreat each other without regard for
divine punishment.
For thrice countless
36 they are on the much-nourishing earth,
Zeus’
immortal watchers of humans,
they who
keep watch on justice and dreadful deeds,
255 clothed in air, going everywhere upon the earth.
And that virgin Justice is there, the offspring of Zeus,
renowned and respected among the gods, who dwell on Olympus,
who, whenever someone hurts her with crooked speech,
immediately sits herself next to her father Zeus, son of Kronos, and
260 reports the unjust mind of men, so that the people pay
for the wickedness of their kings, who, thinking baneful thoughts,
bend just judgements in another direction by speaking crookedly.

  • 37 The watchers in this passage are the Golden race δαίμονες which Hesiod mentions in v. 121–126. On (...)
  • 38 For this etymology, see Chantraine, s.v. ὄπις, p. 808, who lists ὄσσε, ὄψ, and ὄπωπα as etymologi (...)
  • 39 Burkert (1981), but see Verdenius’ (1985, p. 111) reservations on his etymologizing.
  • 40 Chantraine s.v. ὄπις, p. 808, points out that the popular etymology developed from association wi (...)
  • 41 Verdenius (1985), comm. ad v. 187.
  • 42 LfgrE s.v. ὄπις: Kontrollierender Blick der Götter, Göttl. Vergeltung, Strafe, die innerl. gefürc (...)
  • 43 In the section above, v. 251; in the section in which Hesiod outlines the impending punishment of (...)

16Any crookedness or deviation from a perceived norm is subject to scrutiny: this passage is replete with the concepts of watching, observing, and reporting. The infinite number of watchful daimones,37 whose sole task is to monitor human behavior, together with Dike, whose divine status is stressed here, create an impression of alarming urgency. This impression is further intensified by Hesiod’s use of the ominous term ὄπις (v. 251), which forges a critical link between the process of observation and the resulting divine punishment. The notion of ὄπις is central for understanding the purpose and consequences of divine observation. The substantive is most probably an etymological cognate of ὄψεσθαι and ὄπωπα.38 Burkert speculates that it was derived from the adverb *ὄπιν and was equivalent to ὄπισθεν.39 Regardless of its actual etymology, the ancient Greeks derived it from ὄπισθεν, conceptualizing it as (divine) attention, typically expressed as ἐπιστροφή, and associating such attention with looming punishment.40 The word ὄπις primarily denotes “the regard paid by the gods to human affairs”.41 In early Greek epic, it mostly connotes divine vengeance as a result of this controlling, all-penetrating gaze.42 In the W&D, the word ὄπις occurs three times, always in relation to divine scrutiny.43

  • 44 Clay (2003), p. 144.

17In the first 300 lines of the poem, Hesiod provides his audience with a detailed explanation of the mechanism of divine monitoring: infallible Zeus, divine Justice, and the “thrice countless watchers” observe human behavior and, as a result, dispense appropriate rewards and punishments.44 In the rest of the poem, Hesiod does not elaborate further on the scrutinizing divine gaze, but merely refers to it as common knowledge and as a basic principle at work. The scrutinizing divine gaze is the linchpin of Hesiod’s theology, and this notion is activated every time he mentions proper social and religious behavior. We have already discussed the way in which divine observation (v. 105, 249–262) underpins the punishment referred to in the programmatic ritual norm (v. 134–137). We now offer an overview of other instances of religious norms in the poem.

  • 45 We discuss these lines in Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 44–46.
  • 46 W&D 225–226: οἳ δὲ δίκας ξείνοισι καὶ ἐνδήμοισι διδοῦσιν / ἰθείας καὶ μή τι παρεκβαίνουσι δικαίου
  • 47 W&D 238: οἷς δ’ ὕβρις τε μέμηλε κακὴ καὶ σχέτλια ἔργα.

18The initial third of the poem provides a series of negative examples (Perses, unjust kings, Pandora and women in general, the Silver Age, the impending doom of the Iron Age), and it reaches its climax in a set of religiously correct behaviors which result in divine blessings (v. 225–237). The negative pendant to this picture closely follows (v. 238–247), in which the transgressions of a bad man result in a pollution so perilous that the entire community is engulfed in it and suffers as collateral damage.45 The passage is very general, and the focus is on a city as a community (πόλις, v. 227). Both good and bad human behavior pertain, respectively, to obedience or disobedience of divinely sanctioned social norms, referred to very broadly as a set of opposites: “those who pass just judgements on foreigners and their own people, and do not violate justice”46 and “men set on bad transgression and wicked deeds”.47

  • 48 W&D 333–334: τῷ δ’ ἤτοι Ζεὺς αὐτὸς ἀγαίεται, ἐς δὲ τελευτήν / ἔργων ἀντ’ ἀδίκων χαλεπὴν ἐπέθηκεν (...)

19Hesiod returns to divinely sanctioned social norms in v. 320–335. This time, he is more precise about the nature of specific norms and lists gaining wealth by force, stealing, and deception (v. 320–326), wronging a suppliant or a guest (v. 327), engaging in illicit sexual intercourse (v. 328–329), and offending orphans (v. 330) or aged parents (v. 331–332). All violations of these norms result in divine punishment: the gods annihilate those who rob and steal, and they diminish the perpetrators’ houses (v. 325–326). The other offenses Zeus punishes personally.48 Hesiod, therefore, advises his listener to completely abstain from all such deeds (v. 335).

20From the basic divinely sanctioned social norms, Hesiod transitions to basic ritual norms (v. 336–341):

κὰδ δύναμιν δ’ ἔρδειν ἱέρ’ ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσιν
ἁγνῶς καὶ καθαρῶς, ἐπὶ δ’ ἀγλαὰ μηρία
καίειν·
ἄλλοτε δὲ σπονδῇσι θύεσσί τε
ἱλάσκεσθαι,
ἠμὲν ὅτ’ εὐνάζῃ καὶ ὅτ’ ἂν φάος ἱερὸν ἔλθῃ,
340 ὥς κέ τοι ἵλαον κραδίην καὶ θυμὸν ἔχωσιν,
ὄφρ’ ἄλλων ὠνῇ κλῆρον, μὴ τὸν τεὸν ἄλλος.

According to your ability perform sacrifices for the immortal gods
in a ritually pure and clean way, and
burn gleaming thighbones;
at other time
appease them with libations and fumigations,
both when you go to bed and when the sacred light arrives,
so that the gods may have a benevolent heart and mind towards you,
and that you might buy the allotment of another man, and not he yours.

21This set of ritual instructions focuses on an individual farmer, and forms a pendant to the initial, negative set of norms in v. 134–137—disregard of those norms had resulted in the destruction of the Silver Age, whereas adherence to these norms will result in agricultural prosperity for the Iron Age farmer. This is the first instance of infinitives used as imperatives in the poem, a construction we find frequently in the section 724–760 and in the earliest inscriptional ritual norms. In this particular norm, animal sacrifice, libations, burnt offerings and ritual purity are specified as essential elements of ritual actions, but religious ritual is also connected with personal flourishing and success: the result of reverent religiosity is economic prosperity.

22The structural entanglement of divinely sanctioned social norms with the ritual norms is carefully crafted, with an eye to symmetry: just as the ritual norms of v. 336–341 are preceded by a set of divinely sanctioned social norms (v. 320–334), so is the section with specific ritual norms (v. 724–760) preceded by the third and the final set of divinely sanctioned social norms (v. 706–723). The opening of the third section (v. 706) reminds the audience that everything they do is subject to a scrutinizing gaze: εὖ δ’ ὄπιν ἀθανάτων μακάρων πεφυλαγμένος εἶναι (“Be extremely careful to avoid the vengeance of the blessed gods”).

Hesiod’s religious norms and their contexts

23Let us now turn our attention to v. 724–760. This section contains religious norms which engage with topics such as purity, conduct at festivals and banquets, sacrifice, libations, and prayer. Purity regulations are particularly pronounced and detailed as the section deals with purity of hands, inner purity, purity of nature and purity of sacred space. Particular attention is paid to an individual’s management of bodily emissions and byproducts (urine, feces, semen, fingernails, and, perhaps, menstrual blood) and, secondly, to the religiously correct performance of everyday activities.

24As in the other sections in W&D where Hesiod outlines religious norms and divinely sanctioned social norms, the notion that the gods are observing and evaluating human behavior is present throughout. These prescriptive instructions are religious norms, some of which are very similar in form and nature to epigraphic ritual norms, as we will now demonstrate. This section is not, we claim, haphazardly organized, but relies on structural principles which we will also explore.

25We now provide the full text and translation of the injunctions of v. 724–760, followed by analysis of their meaning, ancient interpretations, and specific overlaps with Greek ritual norms.

ἀπό-section

μηδέ ποτ’ ἐξ ἠοῦς Διὶ λείβειν αἴθοπα οἶνον
725 χερσὶν ἀνίπτοισιν μηδ’ ἄλλοις ἀθανάτοισιν·
οὐ γὰρ τοί γε κλύουσιν, ἀποπτύουσι δέ τ’ ἀράς.
μηδ’ ἄντ’ ἠελίου τετραμμένος ὀρθὸς ὀμείχειν·
αὐτὰρ ἐπεί κε δύῃ, μεμνημένος, ἔς τ’ ἀνιόντα,
μήτ’ ἐν ὁδῷ μήτ’ ἐκτὸς ὁδοῦ προβάδην οὐρήσεις
730 μηδ’ ἀπογυμνωθείς· μακάρων τοι νύκτες ἔασιν·
ἑζόμενος δ’ ὅ γε θεῖος ἀνήρ, πεπνυμένα εἰδώς,
ἠ’ ὅ γε πρὸς τοῖχον πελάσας εὐερκέος αὐλῆς.
μηδ’ αἰδοῖα γονῇ πεπαλαγμένος ἔνδοθι οἴκου
ἱστίῃ ἐμπελαδὸν παραφαινέμεν, ἀλλ’ ἀλέασθαι.
735 μηδ’ ἀπὸ δυσφήμοιο τάφου ἀπονοστήσαντα
σπερμαίνειν γενεήν, ἀλλ’ ἀθανάτων ἀπὸ δαιτός.
757 μηδέ ποτ’ ἐν προχοῇς ποταμῶν ἅλαδε προρεόντων
758 μηδ’ ἐπὶ κρηνάων οὐρεῖν, μάλα δ’ ἐξαλέασθαι,
759 μηδ’ ἐναποψύχειν· τὸ γὰρ οὔ τοι λώιόν ἐστιν.
μηδέ ποτ’ αἰενάων ποταμῶν καλλίρροον ὕδωρ
ποσσὶ περᾶν πρίν γ’ εὔξῃ ἰδὼν ἐς καλὰ ῥέεθρα,
χεῖρας νιψάμενος πολυηράτῳ ὕδατι λευκῷ·
740 ὃς ποταμὸν διαβῇ κακότητ’ ἰδὲ χεῖρας ἄνιπτος,
τῷ δὲ θεοὶ νεμεσῶσι καὶ ἄλγεα δῶκαν ὀπίσσω.
μηδ’ ἀπὸ πεντόζοιο θεῶν ἐν δαιτὶ θαλείῃ
αὗον ἀπὸ χλωροῦ τάμνειν αἴθωνι σιδήρῳ.

ἐπί-section

μηδέ ποτ’ οἰνοχόην τιθέμεν κρητῆρος ὕπερθεν
745 πινόντων· ὀλοὴ γὰρ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ μοῖρα τέτυκται.
μηδὲ δόμον ποιῶν ἀνεπίξεστον καταλείπειν,
μή τοι ἐφεζομένη κρώξει λακέρυζα κορώνη.
μηδ’ 
ἀπὸ χυτροπόδων ἀνεπιρρέκτων ἀνελόντα
ἔσθειν μηδὲ λόεσθαι, ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῖς ἔπι ποινή.
750 μηδ’ ἐπ’ ἀκινήτοισι καθίζειν, οὐ γὰρ ἄμεινον,
παῖδα δυωδεκαταῖον, ὅ τ’ ἀνέρ’ ἀνήνορα ποιεῖ,
μηδὲ δυωδεκάμηνον· ἴσον καὶ τοῦτο τέτυκται.
μηδὲ γυναικείῳ λουτρῷ χρόα φαιδρύνεσθαι
ἀνέρα· λευγαλέη γὰρ ἐπὶ χρόνον ἔστ’ ἐπὶ καὶ τῷ
755 ποινή. μηδ’ ἱεροῖσιν ἐπ’ αἰθομένοισι κυρήσας
μωμεύειν ἀΐδηλα· θεός νύ τε καὶ τὰ νεμεσσᾷ.
ὧδ’ ἔρδειν·

  • 49 We agree with West (1978), comm. ad loc. on the meaning of ἐξ ἠοῦς here. Alternatively, one can g (...)

Do not ever at dawn49 pour libations of scintillating wine to Zeus
725 with unwashed hands, nor to other immortals:
for they do not listen to you and spit out your prayers.
Do not urinate while standing, turned towards the sun:
moreover, when the sun sets and until it rises, bear it in mind,
do not urinate either while walking on the road or besides the road,
730 or completely naked: for the nights belong to the blessed.
The godlike man does it in a crouching position, since he knows what is sensible,
or having gone to the wall of a well-fenced courtyard.
Do not show your genitals stained with semen within the house
near the hearth, but shun this.
735 And one ought not beget offspring having returned from an ill-omened funeral,
but from the festival of the gods.
757 Do not ever urinate in the mouths of rivers flowing into the sea
758 nor in springs; this is to be shunned altogether,
759 and do not defecate (there) either: for this is not more advantageous for you.
Never cross the beautifully flowing water of the ever-rolling rivers
on foot before you have prayed, looking at the beautiful currents,
having washed your hands with lovely, foaming water.
740 Whoever crosses the river with badness and hands unwashed,
the gods resent him and afterwards give him trouble.
And at the bountiful feast of the gods do not
cut the dry from the five-branched green with shining iron.
And do not ever place an oenochoe above the crater
745 when people are drinking: for a destructive fate is placed upon that.
And do not, when building a house, leave it unsmoothed
lest a croaking crow settles on it and croaks at you.
And from pots from which sacrifices and libations have not been offered, one ought
take neither food nor bathwater, since there is a punishment for these actions, too.
750 And do not place on the immovables, for that is not better,
a twelve-day-old child, since that unmans a man,
nor a twelve-month-old: the same (outcome) is put in place.
And a man ought not wash his skin in female bath water:
a destructive lot is a temporary punishment for this.
755 When you happen to attend burning sacrifices,
do not find fault with what is consumed: the god resents this, too.
Thus you should act.

  • 50 Infinitives other than v. 724 and 759: 727: ὀμείχειν; 734: παραφαινέμεν and ἀλέασθαι; 736: σπερμα (...)
  • 51 V. 729: οὐρήσεις. On short-vowel subjunctives, see West (1978), comm. ad v. 293.
  • 52 Punishments: v. 726, 741, 745, 749, 754–755, 756. Warnings: v. 750 and 759. An exegesis is provid (...)

26This section contains a series of, on our count, twenty discreet ritual injunctions, all of which relate direct and permanent prohibitions. The thread is emphatically declarative in style and, syntactically, loosely held together by the repetition of the conjunction μηδέ. The prohibitions are constructed with a negation (μηδέ or μήτε), followed by an infinitive. There are fourteen such constructions, involving seventeen infinitives, starting with μηδέ … λείβειν in v. 724 and ending with μηδ’ ἐναποψύχειν of v. 759.50 On one occasion the prohibition is introduced with an aorist subjunctive.51 Another striking feature of the section is the conciseness of the instructions and the nearly complete lack of exegesis. In a style evocative of later ritual norms and legal acts, instead of proffering explanations, Hesiod’s injunctions warn of sanctions, dire consequences, and ominous punishments in case of transgressions.52

  • 53 Allan (2010) provides an analysis of the use of the imperatival infinitive in ancient Greek and d (...)

27The main characteristics of the language Hesiod employs in this section are precisely the hallmarks of the earliest extant ritual injunctions: declarative style, lack of exegesis, and, most strikingly, infinitive constructions.53 Hesiod’s first procedural infinitive construction in the poem is introduced in v. 336–338, verses that deal with the general ritual norm regarding sacrifices, libations, and purity. Furthermore, there are also thematic overlaps, since rules of purity feature prominently in early ritual norms. In fact, the oldest surviving ritual norm concerning purity, the fragmentary text from Kleonai in Argolis dated to the first half of the sixth century BC, provides parallels for Hesiod’s injunctions in three respects. Firstly, we note the use of infinitives to express prohibitions; secondly, the enumerative patterning; and thirdly, the repetition of μή and μηδέν (CGRN 3, lines 5–10):

5 [..?..] μὲ μιαρ[ὸν ε]ἶμε-
←[ν
] αἰ ἄνθροπον hΑ[..?..]
→[..?..]ΑΝΤΑ χρε῀μα μεθ-
←έν
μιαρὸν εἶμεν [..?..]
→[..?..]ΑΤΟΝ μεθὲν Π++
10 ←[..]ΟΝ εἶμεν

5 […] let him not be polluted; if with respect to a man (?) […] no thing: let him be polluted […] no [… (10)…] he/there is to be

  • 54 See e.g. IG I3 4.B 11–20 (Athens, early 5th c. BC).
  • 55 See CGRN 12, comm., with further literature. On ἐς τοῦ δρόμου as equivalent to κ τοῦ δρόμου in D (...)

28While it would be possible to enumerate a number of examples of similar syntax employed for prohibitions in the ritual norms of the Archaic and Classical periods,54 we adduce here just one further example. This is the sixth-century BC text from Delphi which regulates the handling of the wine prepared for use in libations55 and threatens punishment in consequence of transgression (CGRN 12, lines 1–4):

τὸν ϝοἶνον με`̄ φάρεν ἐς τοῦ δρ-
όμου· αἰ δέ κα φάρει, hιλαξάστο
τὸν θεὸν hο῀ι κα κεραίεται καὶ
μεταθυσάτο…

No carrying wine from the racecourse. If someone carries it out, he must appease the god for whom the wine is mixed and sacrifice afterward…

29The Delphic text is relevant for our understanding of the Hesiodic passage not only due to its syntactical features, or because it deals with the handling of wine at libations, but also because it implies that the transgression of the norm results in divine anger which needs to be expiated.

30Having noted the stylistic correspondences between v. 724–760 and inscriptional norms, we now provide a thematic analysis of the individual injunctions.

724–726

31The first religious norm of the section refers to the performance of libation in the morning (v. 724: ἐξ ἠοῦς) and picks up precisely where the general rule about the individual farmer’s religious reverence had left off (v. 336–341). As we have seen, the general rule specified that ritual actions, sacrifices, and libations be conducted in a religiously correct and pure way (v. 337: ἁγνῶς καὶ καθαρῶς), at the same times of the day, i.e. at bedtime and when daylight breaks (v. 339: ὅτ’ ἂν φάος ἱερὸν ἔλθῃ). Here, in v. 724–726, the rule is formulated as a prohibition, and the emphasis is on preliminary purification and the consequences of incorrect ritual behavior.

  • 56 For the early Archaic parallels, see Hoessly (2001), p. 20–21 on νίζω relating to hands, and p. 3 (...)
  • 57 Chaniotis (1997) and (2012).
  • 58 Proclus ad v. 724–726. Cf. LSAM 20, lines 3–4, 12, and 59 (= CGRN 191), where παράγγελμα is used (...)
  • 59 For the act of “spitting out” what is polluted, see also Empedocles, B 115 DK, v. 10 where the ve (...)
  • 60 For ἄθυτα ἔστω, cf. e.g. IG XII 4, 1.304, line 39 (Iscr. di Cos ED 216 B 39), Hellenistic period: (...)

32The warning against the performance of libations with unwashed hands is perfectly traditional and ubiquitous from the standpoint of Greek mainstream purity beliefs and practices.56 The request for handwashing prior to ritual performance is widely attested in the corpus of Greek ritual norms,57 and the ancient readers of the passage would have had such regulations in mind. This is demonstrated by Proclus’ comments on the passage and his qualification of v. 724–726 as παράγγελμα καθαρότητος.58 The gods’ “spitting out of prayers” of the polluted59 represents a ritual failure in consequence of a normative infringement comparable to stipulations in ritual norms regarding unfit or rejected sacrifices.60

727–732 and 757–759

  • 61 We accept West’s arguments for transposing v. 757–759: see West (1978), p. 338, and also Hunter ( (...)
  • 62 West (1978) comm. ad v. 727–732 and 757–759; Nagy (1990), p. 70–71, followed by Kurke (2011), p.  (...)
  • 63 Olivelle (2004), p. 25: “[T]he likely period for the composition of the MDh would be 2nd–3rd cent (...)
  • 64 Herodotus, 1.138.2: ἐς ποταμὸν δὲ οὔτε ἐνουρέουσι οὔτε ἐμπτύουσι, οὐ χεῖρας ἐναπονίζονται οὐδὲ ἄλ (...)

33In these two sets of rules, Hesiod provides advice about urination and defecation.61 The striking similarities with the Laws of Manu 4.45–50 have been noted and discussed.62 We do not question the value of cross-cultural comparison of Hesiod’s rules with this ancient Indian law code which, on the latest authoritative account, was composed at some point in the second or third century AD.63 Similarly, scholars have adduced parallels from other non-Greek traditions, closer to the Greeks both chronologically and geographically, such as the Persian, in which, as Herodotus testifies, bodies of water were carefully guarded from pollution.64 But our concern here is the way in which these rules relate to the Greek religious sphere and how they cohere with other Greek evidence.

  • 65 V. 759: μηδ’ ἐναποψύχειν. On ἐναποψύχειν as “shit”, see West (1978), comm. ad v. and Cambridge Gr (...)
  • 66 W&D 391–392: γυμνὸν σπείρειν, γυμνὸν δὲ βοωτεῖν, / γυμνὸν δ’ ἀμάειν… (“Naked sow, and naked drive (...)
  • 67 We agree with Beall (2001), p. 165, who notes that Helios is felt as personalized in v. 727. Alth (...)
  • 68 V. 730. According to Proclus ad v. 727–732, the divinity in question is Enodia. Clay (2003), p. 8 (...)
  • 69 V. 757–758. On rivers as divinities, see Hes. Th. 337–345.

34In v. 727–732 Hesiod advises the avoidance of urinating while facing the sun, apparently worried about what is exposed to the sun. He then elaborates on urinating in general, advising urination with occluded genitalia—one should either squat or be turned towards the wall, but in either case not open to view (v. 730: μηδ’ ἀπογυμνωθείς). In v. 757–759, Hesiod expands the prohibitions on urination to rivers and springs, and attaches to it the prohibition on defecation.65 The issue at stake cannot be the offence to the divine resulting from the exposure of the naked body, because in another passage Hesiod is very emphatic about performing agricultural work in the nude.66 Rather than nudity, it is the act of urination and defecation that is perceived as offensive to the divinities. The divinities in question are Helios,67 an unspecified group of divinities active at night,68 rivers, and springs.69

  • 70 West (1978), comm. ad v. 721.
  • 71 Parker (1983), p. 292.
  • 72 Currie (2005), p. 172–200, quote at p. 173.
  • 73 Ercolani (2010), comm. ad v. 731–732.
  • 74 Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 41–52.
  • 75 Hesiod introduces the second explanation of the necessity of work by saying that the gods and men (...)

35Another intriguing characteristic of v. 727–732 is the focus on the rewards for correct religious behavior: a θεῖος ἀνήρ (v. 731) performs such actions in a squatting position. The exact meaning of the phrase θεῖος ἀνήρ and its implications in this context are mystifying: whereas West read it as synonymous with θεουδής, “god-fearing” or “godly”,70 Robert Parker draws a parallel with the religious regulations associated with the Pythagorean and “Orphic” lives. According to Parker, Hesiod’s use of this term implies that an “ordinary individual can […] approach the condition of the godlike man by obedience to the rules.”71 Bruno Currie provides a thorough analysis of the θεῖος ἀνήρ concept from Homer to the end of the Classical period and identifies many possible applications of the term on a sliding scale, from the highest, marked use (to designate a super-human figure and recipient of cult) to the lowest (in the sense of rhetorical hyperbole). In his view, Hesiod’s θεῖος ἀνήρ is a “godlike man”, someone who “maintains a ‘godlike’ status by adhering to certain rules of conduct”, with the aim of the rules being “approximation to the divine”.72 Andrea Ercolani reads it in the light of Homeric passages where even a tower, house, or a drink are θεῖος, in these cases having merely “generica connotazione di eccellenza, straordinarietà”.73 We have argued elsewhere that Hesiod’s θεῖος ἀνήρ essentially keeps the domains of the living and the dead, and of humans and the gods separated74 and, following Parker, do see a unified guide to conduct at work here; it is, however, one which is not restricted to v. 724–760, but rather, as we suggest in Section 2.2, extends to the whole W&D.75 What is it, then, that the θεῖος ἀνήρ knows (πεπνυμένα εἰδώς)? Everything that Hesiod has espoused thus far, that is, all the ways in which mortals are vulnerable and essentially different from the gods. The difference is most evident in the case of pollution—humans produce it, the gods abhor it, and yet, in order to establish a successful communication with the divine, humans must approach the gods on their terms, in purity, shunning the processes which emphasize human ephemerality: birth, sex, death, and, yes, excrement and urine. θεῖος ἀνήρ is, in our view, a skillfully employed oxymoron, and the force of θεῖος here is “one who encounters the gods on their own terms”, i.e. paying careful attention to purity or, when purity cannot be achieved (such as during the act of defecation and urination), at least sparing the gods from abhorrent sight.

  • 76 See Wächter (1910), p. 134–137, and Dillon (1997), passim and esp. p. 126 (with epigraphic eviden (...)
  • 77 See SEG 46.1157 for the location. See also LSCG 115, 4th c. BC, Garden of Heracles, Thasos. This (...)
  • 78 A further example: a 1st-c.-AD text from Gabel Toukh, north of Ptolemaïs in Egypt, warns a potent (...)
  • 79 Aristophanes, Plutus, 1182–1184: νῦν δ᾽ οὐδὲ εἷς | θύει τὸ παράπαν οὐδὲν οὐδ᾽ εἰσέρχεται, | πλὴν (...)

36Illuminating in this respect are the epigraphic parallels. A number of Greek inscriptions demonstrate a keen interest in protecting the sacred and public spaces, and the gods, too, from pollution caused by bodily products, and some even threaten divine retribution in case of violation. Alongside robust epigraphic records relating to prohibitions on emptying the guts of sacrificial animals (ὄνθος) and policing excretion on sacred grounds (κόπρος),76 the prohibitions on human urination and defecation in sacred spaces are epigraphically attested already in the fifth century BC. Among the earliest prohibitions against defecation is the fifth-century-BC text from Nymphaion on the Black Sea coast (CIRB 939 = SEG 56.890), which explicitly states that defecation is prohibited in the sanctuary: μὴ χέσες ἱερόν. Similarly, a text from fourth-century Andros, perhaps from a sanctuary of Demeter, specifies that women are not allowed to defecate on the sacred ground (SEG 43.568): μὴ χέζειν γυναῖκα.77 Α text from Miletus, unfortunately of unknown date, curses transgressors (I.Milet II 3, 406): οἱ ὧδε χέζοντες εἰς ὥρας μὴ ἔλθοιεν, “may those who defecate here never return here”.78 These attestations lend support to Aristophanes’ insinuation that defecation in sanctuaries was not a rare occurrence.79

  • 80 Efforts to preserve cleanliness of roads are also attested in early Greek inscriptions: a fifth-c (...)
  • 81 I.Eph. II 567, late first century BC or later, carved on the Gate of Mazaeus and Mithridates, wit (...)
  • 82 See SEG 49.1461; Trinkl (1999) suggests that a relief found at Ephesus representing Zeus was inte (...)

37In Ephesus, a series of post-Classical inscriptions explicitly prohibits urination in various prominent public spaces and threatens the transgressors with the wrath of the goddess of the roads,80 Hecate (I.Eph. II 567), and the goddess of the city, Artemis (I.Eph. 569): “If someone should urinate here, Hecate is furious with him”; “Artemis is furious with the one urinating here.” In one case (I.Eph. II 568), the threat facing the urinator is vague, but ominous:81 “If someone should urinate here, he will have himself to blame.” Apparently, not even the father of gods and men shrank from chiding public urinators.82

  • 83 LSS 50, lines 1–5. NGSL, p. 29 draws attention to following parallels: LSCG 152, Kos, 4th c. BC, (...)

38A concern for protecting the sanctity of bodies of water is evident already in the fifth century BC: a religious regulation from Delos prohibited washing, bathing, and the disposal of κόπρος in the spring dedicated to the Nymphs: μὴ πλύνεν ἐπὶ τὲν κρή[νε]ν μηδέν, μηδὲ κολυμ[βᾶν ἐν τ]ε῀ι κρήνει, μηδὲ [βάλ]λ[εν] κ[α]τ̣ὰ τὴ̣ν κρήν[εν κόπρον μηδέ τι ἄλλ]ο.83

39We can confidently conclude that these inscriptions testify to attempts to shield sacred and public spaces from defilement caused by urination and defecation, with some even relegating the punishment of the transgressors to the divine sphere. When read in the context of Greek inscriptional evidence, Hesiod’s religious norms are in line with traditional religious norms.

733–734

  • 84 See e.g. Hom. Il. 6.267–268: οὐδέ πῃ ἔστι κελαινεφέϊ Κρονίωνι / αἵματι καὶ λύθρῳ πεπαλαγμένον εὐχ (...)
  • 85 See Parker (1983), p. 76.
  • 86 δεῖν οὖν <τὸν> μεμολυσμένον ἀπὸ γονῆς ἀποκρύπτειν τὰ αἴτια τοῦ μολυσμοῦ καὶ μὴ γυμνοῦν ἐγγὺς τῆς (...)
  • 87 For the Greek material, see Parker (1983), p. 74–103; for pollution by the emission of semen, bes (...)
  • 88 For the view that menstrual blood, milk, and semen develop successively from blood (with women be (...)
  • 89 Apollodorus (3.14.6) describes Athena’s horror at Hephaestus’ ejaculation. On this episode, see M (...)
  • 90 Burkert (1983), p. 60, n. 11, offers a catalogue of myths about the punishment of those who have (...)
  • 91 CGRN 5, lines 1–2, Olympia, 525–500 BC: αἰ δὲ βενέοι ἐν τἰαροῖ, βοΐ κα θοάδοι καὶ κοθάρσι τελείαι(...)

40Hesiod goes on to advise the avoidance of the hearth while one is stained with semen (v. 733: γονῇ πεπαλαγμένος), employing in this section the language commonly used in early Greek poetry for filth and pollution, and especially that resulting from blood and gore.84 The principle at work here must be the same as with urination and defecation: it is the bodily emission, rather than the display of the genitals, that is offensive to the hearth-fire that is Hestia.85 Proclus’ scholia on v. 733 appropriately interpret the prohibition as a violation of the altar, emphasizing that the hearth received daily libations and burnt offerings: exposing a semen-stained naked body is what constitutes violation of this sacred space, not the nudity itself.86 Sex is a widely attested source of pollution, which needs to be purified by the passage of time or by washing before one is admitted to a sanctuary.87 The defiling power of semen is explicable also from the perspective of the ancient understanding of the biological production of sperm, which was viewed as a result of the heating of blood, one of the greatest pollutants. Other defiling emissions of humans—that is, menstrual blood and breast milk—were also perceived as the products of concocted blood.88 And the emission of divine semen, too, can provoke the disgust of the gods in myth.89 Protection of the hearth (that is, an altar) and its virginal goddess, Hestia, from semen is fully in line with the Greek taboo on having intercourse in the sacred precincts. This is documented both in cautionary myths90 as well as in inscribed ritual norms: in fact, one of the earliest surviving purity regulations, dated to the late sixth century BC, details comprehensive penalties for those who engage in intercourse in a sanctuary.91

735–736

  • 92 West (1978), p. 337, with a reference to Demosthenes, 43.62; West also points out that in the Law (...)
  • 93 Scholia ad v. 735–736.

41There is a direct thematic and verbal link between this rule and the previous one, as γονῇ of v. 733 foreshadows σπερμαίνειν γενεήν in v. 736: the previous rule related where one can, and cannot, ejaculate, while the injunction of v. 735–736 advises about the auspicious occasion for conception. Here, too, we find traditional purity beliefs at work, as West has pointed out (ad loc.): death and, relatedly, attendance at a funeral represented a source of considerable pollution, which is regularly reflected in surviving ritual norms of all periods. Furthermore, West draws attention to evidence suggesting that Solon’s laws severely restricted women of child-bearing age from attending funerals.92 Conversely, one would have to adhere to purity requirements in order to participate in a religious festival. Proclus notes this, too: “One should not start [sc. a new life] from pollution, but from purity.”93

  • 94 For medical views on “critical days” for conception, see Eight Months’ Child, 9, with King (1998) (...)
  • 95 Cf. CGRN 71. For a tabular view of the extant purity regulations which include clauses on the tem (...)

42The injunction maps out the rules for auspicious versus inauspicious conception in a manner that is evocative (and perhaps nothing more than that) of later medical writers’ views concerning the critical times and days that are particularly favorable, or the opposite, for conception.94 But what is most remarkable, perhaps, in terms of the phrasing of this injunction, is the verbal overlap with Greek purity regulations: ἀπὸ δυσφήμοιο τάφου and ἀπὸ δαιτὸς ἀθανάτων are reminiscent of the traditional formulaic language of purity norms with their hallmark ἀπό-clauses (be “free from”), such as ἀπὸ κήδους or ἀπὸ γυναικός and the like.95

737–741

  • 96 Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 41–52. For literary attestations of prayers before traversing a bo (...)
  • 97 In inscriptional norms, this formulation finds parallels in statements such as “one will have him (...)
  • 98 On the ancient understanding of ὄπις as related to ὄπισθεν, and the divine punishment that will e (...)

43The theme of movement (grave-house; festival-house) leads us to the next rule, which specifies what to do while on the road. We have discussed v. 737–741 in detail elsewhere, and we argue that this is the earliest Greek attestation of a request for inner purity, which is here obtained by the purifying power of prayer.96 Χεῖρας ἄνιπτος in v. 740 picks up on v. 725, χερσὶν ἀνίπτοισιν, and reinforces the pervasive theme of purity. In this passage we again note the effort to preserve the sanctity of bodies of water, with humans themselves, and not just their bodily emissions, conceptualized as potential offenders of divine rivers. Just as when entering a sanctuary, one is required to conduct both physical and mental purifications before encountering the divine majesty that is a river. If a person should enter the divine realm in a state of impurity and with incorrect inner disposition, the threat of divine nemesis will loom over the transgressor’s head. It is noteworthy that Hesiod uses νεμεσάω to indicate divine punishment in both passages in which a request for inner purity is formulated (cf. v. 756).97 Here, the phrase ἄλγεα δῶκαν ὀπίσσω (v. 741) recalls the notion of ὄπις, the all-penetrating and scrutinizing gaze of the gods capable of identifying both outer and inner impurity and inflicting punishment on the transgressors.98

  • 99 On the regulation prohibiting the pollution of this river by the tanning of hides, see n. 83. Pha (...)
  • 100 On Phaedrus 230b 2–e 1 as the quintessential locus amoenus and its influence in later literature, (...)
  • 101 Plato, Phaedrus 242a 1–2: κἀγὼ τὸν ποταμὸν τοῦτον διαβὰς ἀπέρχομαι πρὶν ὑπὸ σοῦ τι μεῖζον ἀναγκασ (...)

44An episode from Plato’s Phaedrus supports our interpretation of Hesiod’s passage as a request for inner purity. Socrates and Phaedrus venture outside the city and cross the river Ilissus99 in order to converse in a beautiful place underneath a large plane tree, close to the shrine of Pan, Achelous, and the nymphs (229a 1–230e 5).100 Phaedrus presents Lysias’ speech on eros, which argues that an eromenos should associate with the man who does not love him and not with the one who does (230e 6–234c 5). In response, Socrates presents a speech (237a 7–241d 1) arguing that eros is indeed harmful. However, as Socrates prepares to return to the city,101 his daimonion prevents him just as he is about to cross the river Ilissus again (242b 7–d 7):

ΣΩ. Ἡνίκ’ ἔμελλον, ὠγαθέ, τὸν ποταμὸν διαβαίνειν, τὸ δαιμόνιόν τε καὶ τὸ εἰωθὸς σημεῖόν μοι γίγνεσθαι ἐγένετο—ἀεὶ δέ με ἐπίσχει ὃ ἂν μέλλω πράττειν—καί τινα φωνὴν ἔδοξα αὐτόθεν ἀκοῦσαι, ἥ με οὐκ ἐᾷ ἀπιέναι πρὶν ἂν ἀφοσιώσωμαι, ὡς δή τι ἡμαρτηκότα εἰς τὸ θεῖον. Εἰμὶ δὴ οὖν μάντις μέν, οὐ πάνυ δὲ σπουδαῖος, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ οἱ τὰ γράμματα φαῦλοι, ὅσον μὲν ἐμαυτῷ μόνον ἱκανός· σαφῶς οὖν ἤδη μανθάνω τὸ ἁμάρτημα. Ὡς δή τοι, ὦ ἑταῖρε, μαντικόν γέ τι καὶ ἡ ψυχή· ἐμὲ γὰρ ἔθραξε μέν τι καὶ πάλαι λέγοντα τὸν λόγον, καί πως ἐδυσωπούμην κατ’ Ἴβυκον, μή τι παρὰ θεοῖς
ἀμβλακὼν τιμὰν πρὸς ἀνθρώπων ἀμείψω·
νῦν δ’ ᾔσθημαι τὸ ἁμάρτημα.
ΦΑΙ. Λέγεις δὲ δὴ τί;
ΣΩ. Δεινόν, ὦ Φαῖδρε, δεινὸν λόγον αὐτός τε ἐκόμισας ἐμέ τε ἠνάγκασας εἰπεῖν.
ΦΑΙ. Πῶς δή;
ΣΩ. Εὐήθη καὶ ὑπό τι ἀσεβῆ· οὗ τίς ἂν εἴη δεινότερος;

  • 102 Text: Burnet; translation: Fowler (1914; Loeb), modified.

Socrates: My good friend, when I was about to cross the stream, the sign that is divine and usually comes to me came — it always holds me back from something I am about to do — and I thought I heard a voice from it which forbade my going away before I purified myself as having committed an offence against the divine. Now I am a seer, not a very good one, but, as those who are barely literate say, good enough for my own purposes; so now I understand my error. How prophetic the soul is, my friend! For all along, while I was speaking my discourse, something troubled me and “I was distressed”, as Ibycus says, “lest I be buying honor among men by sinning against the gods.” But now I have seen my error.
Phaedrus: What do you mean?
Socrates: Phaedrus, a dreadful speech it was, a dreadful speech, the one you brought with you, and the one you made me speak.
Phaedrus: How so?
Socrates: It was foolish, and impious. What could be more dreadful than that?
102

  • 103 Plato, Phaedrus 242d–e.
  • 104 Plato, Phaedrus 243a 2–4: ἐμοὶ μὲν οὖν, φίλε, καθήρασθαι ἀνάγκη· ἔστιν δὲ τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσι περὶ(...)

45As Socrates clarifies, Eros is a god, so he cannot be harmful.103 He now understands that purification is necessary since his speech was offensive against Eros.104 Following Stesichorus’ example, Socrates proceeds to deliver his own palinode, a long, magnificent speech glorifying eros as a type of divine madness and which he ends with a prayer, asking Eros to forgive him, Lysias, and Phaedrus and to grant them his favors (257a2–b6).

  • 105 On Plato’s manifold reception of Hesiod, see Boys-Stones — Haubold (2010). On Hesiodic resonances (...)
  • 106 Plato, Phaedrus 242a 1 and 242b 7; Ἡνίκἔμελλον, ὠγαθέ, τὸν ποταμὸν διαβαίνειν is almost a hexam (...)
  • 107 On the extraordinary agency of Socrates’ daimonion in this passage, see Yunis (2011), p. 122–123.
  • 108 van der Veer (1936), p. 48–49, points out that the palinode represents a case of moral cleansing. (...)
  • 109 Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 35.

46Plato is thoroughly familiar with Hesiod105 and we posit that this episode is a response to the Hesiodic precept about the crossing of rivers: it can hardly be by chance that Plato uses the expression ποταμὸν διαβαίνειν twice,106 or that Socrates’ daimonion107 prevents him from crossing the river due to pollution. Socrates’ pollution is, as he explains, caused by a transgression against Eros, and his purification consists of giving a religiously correct speech about the god, coupled with a prayer.108 In his first speech, Socrates expressed wrong ideas about Eros, or rather he failed to acknowledge Eros as a god. The speech is a result of a wrong attitude towards the divine. Socrates achieves inner purity by correcting this attitude. This is entirely in keeping with the way we have defined inner purity: “In the Greek religious context, inner purity is the reflective propositional attitude of the worshipper rooted in the worshipper’s acknowledgment of normative expectations that govern religious behaviour, expectations which are based on the admittance of specific ethical, moral, and theological postulates and assumptions, and resulting in the submission of the self to the scrutiny of a projected divine authority.”109 In our discussion of Hesiod, we suggested that W&D 737–741 is a request for inner purity when crossing a river and that prayer might be a way for the worshipper to achieve a religiously correct mindset. Socrates’ example supports this view: he does not wish to cross the river in the state of inner impurity, so he purifies himself by expressing religiously correct thoughts and prays to Eros, asking forgiveness at the end.

742–743; 744–745

  • 110 West (1978), comm. ad v. 742–743, provides the solution of the riddle: “Do not cut your nails at (...)
  • 111 West (1978), comm. ad v. 742–743, draws attention to the Pythagorean acusmata (Iamblichus, Vita P (...)
  • 112 Proclus, scholia ad v. 742–743: “He recommends therefore not to cut the nails at festivities of t (...)

47These verses regulate behavior at a festival and a banquet: do not cut nails at a δαίς and do not put an oenochoe above a crater. The two injunctions introduce certain problems which are generally absent in the previous sections. The language of v. 742–743 is riddling, while the sense is not.110 The language of v. 744–745 is clear, while the content is puzzling. The first injunction is easy to understand from the traditional perspective of purity beliefs: the cutting of nails is inappropriate in the pure divine precinct and at a festival, since nails, when cut off, become dead tissue.111 Hence, the cutting of nails, as well as representing a kind of undesirable bodily emission and, as such, matter out of place, also translates into a pollution of sacred space with death: this interpretation, endorsed by Plutarch and the scholia, is in line with the widespread purity requirements for sacred spaces, in which death has no place.112

  • 113 For the etymology of θάλεια as derived from θάλλω (“blühend, üppig”), see Frisk s.v. Even though (...)

48The riddling language of the injunction establishes a connection between the human body and vegetation: the fingernails on the “five-branched” (hand) have green (χλωροῦ) and dry (αὗον) parts. The growth and health of the human body reflects the occasion, as the festival is “flourishing” (δαιτὶ θαλείῃ).113 The association between growth and the festival, and between the human body and the plant, additionally reinforces the previous instruction to sow offspring (σπερμαίνειν γενεήν) right after the festival (v. 736: ἀθανάτων ἀπὸ δαιτός).

  • 114 Plutarch, Moralia 28b; Tryphon, De tropis, 23 West. See Hunter — Russell (2011), comm. ad Mor. 28 (...)
  • 115 Plut. Mor. 156d–e. Some scholars attribute a large portion of Proclus’ comment on W&D 744–745 to (...)

49The next instruction, to avoid putting an oenochoe above a crater, is puzzling, and might be related to the sanctity of ritual time. In How to Study Poetry, Plutarch quotes the rule as one of the hotly debated philological problems of the kind often discussed at symposia, and Tryphon quotes it as an example of a riddle (αἴνιγμα).114 One of the interlocutors in Plutarch’s Symposium of the Seven Sages interprets the rule to mean that one should keep pouring wine generously.115 West notes that jugs were put on the mixing bowls or hung above them when they were not in use. Πινόντων (v. 745) certainly indicates that several people are drinking, so the context is that of a private banquet or maybe even a festival, as the preceding lines imply.

  • 116 See Canevaro (2015), p. 139–140, with bibliography.
  • 117 See below on the structuring principle of the passage. Ritual norms seldom demonstrate comparable (...)
  • 118 Following the suggestion of scholia ad v. 744a.
  • 119 For μοῖρα as “share, portion” in Hesiod, Th. 413 and 789; fr. 257.5 MW.

50Older scholia on these verses (ad v. 744a) note that the crater is sacred (ἐπεὶ ὁ κρατὴρ ἱερός ἐστι) and hence support the view that Hesiod has a ritual context in mind. Some scholars have observed that symbolically ending the ritual drinking before its proper closure could be perceived as a violation of the social code as well as a disturbance of the ritual, while others have noted that the injunction might relate to beliefs (“superstitions”) regarding threats resulting from the placement of certain objects upon each other.116 Regarding placement, ὀλοὴ γὰρ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ μοῖρα τέτυκται, literally “destructive fate is built upon this”, is a remarkable phrase because several of the following instructions deal with things that are either built or placed on top of each other.117 The expression ὀλοὴ μοῖρα might be related to the use of the oenochoe: as its name attests, this was a “wine-pourer”, a jug used for the distribution of wine from the common crater into individual cups. In any case, regardless of whether the Hesiodic rule was meant to encourage the host to keep pouring the wine or to discourage him from refilling the cups while people are still drinking,118 the violation of the rule would be a distribution-related transgression, so that having a destructive μοῖρα (“part, portion, share”), a noun related to μείρομαι (“receive as one’s portion”), is an appropriate punishment for the host who violates the rules of the proper distribution of wine.119

746–747

51After we have been instructed on what ought not be placed ὕπερθεν, we learn what must be. Verse 746, μηδὲ δόμον ποιῶν ἀνεπίξεστον καταλείπειν continues the theme of building and stacking, picking up on the conceptual metaphor of building from the previous line (τέτυκται). The theme of ominous outcomes when things are placed on top is also sustained: in the event that a house is left incomplete (“unsmoothed, unpolished”), a crow will sit on it and caw. Several interpretations are possible.

  • 120 For an overview of the most important sources, see now Mynott (2018), p. 21–32.
  • 121 Artemidorus, Oneirocritica 2.20.50–51; cf. Mynott (2018), p. 287. For Roman examples, see Dunbabi (...)
  • 122 Scholia ad v. 746a: ἔνιοι δὲ ἀνεπίρρεκτον γράφουσι, τουτέστιν ἀθυμίαστον. Both adjectives are hap (...)

52These verses indicate a move from the bad dinner host of v. 744–745 to a bad homeowner. Both Proclus’ and the older scholia explain that the cawing of a crow foretells the arrival of winter. West ad loc. provides additional evidence for crows’ presaging bad weather120 and reasonably points out that an unpolished roof would provide an easy foothold for a crow. Another peculiar quality that the ancient Greeks associated with a crow was procrastination: “A crow indicates a long duration and delay in one’s affairs.”121 This is in line with Plutarch’s and Proclus’ comments on these verses, since they point out that an unfinished house would attract the censure and contempt of the neighbors who would “make a great noise in their indignation at your failure to finish” (Plutarch, fr. 94 Sandbach). A house-owner who delays the completion of his home finds his pendant in a bird that symbolizes procrastination. With this interpretation, we would leave the ritual context altogether, and this seems to have bothered those who, according to the scholia, wrote ἀνεπίρρεκτον instead of ἀνεπίξεστον in this verse and explained it as “unconsecrated”.122

  • 123 The association of the crow with misfortune is widespread due to its color and carrion diet; see (...)
  • 124 Athenaeus, 359e–360a. For the symbolism in the Greek context, see Mynott (2018), p. 272–273. Crow (...)
  • 125 Foufopoulos — Litinas (2005), p. 15–16.
  • 126 Vita G, ch. 77: Xanthus claims to be an expert reader of bird signs and sends Aesop to see whethe (...)
  • 127 See West (1978), comm. ad v. 828. According to the scholion on this line, in the ancient manuscri (...)

53On the other hand, West points out that a single crow was also a portent of misfortune not only in ancient, but also in modern Greece, and an especially ill omen at a wedding.123 This was based on the widespread belief that crows mate for life and stay alone after the death of their partner. For this reason, the so-called coronistai (“crowers”) performed “crow-songs” at weddings, soliciting gifts and offering blessings for the virtuous bride.124 Consequently, an appearance of a single crow at a wedding presaged the death of one of the partners. According to Horapollo, guests at wedding parties would encourage the bride to shoo the single crow away in case it appeared on that day.125 An episode from The Life of Aesop suggests that observing a pair of crows in front of a gate was a good omen and presaged festivities, while a single crow was a bad sign.126 If, then, a single crow cawing on a roof was understood as announcing an imminent death in the house, Hesiod is continuing the motif of family planning from the previous injunctions (v. 735–736, the auspicious and inauspicious occasions for child-begetting). It is also possible that Hesiod was deliberately vague about the meaning of the crow’s cawing in order to elicit the interest of his audience in the poem which, according to the ancient tradition, immediately followed W&D, The Ornithomanteia (“bird divination”).127

  • 128 Mynott (2018), p. 24.
  • 129 This observation is rooted in reality: because their beaks are too weak to break animal hides, cr (...)
  • 130 For visual evidence, see Lewis — Llewellyn-Jones (2018), p. 476 and 480–481, with bibliography. O (...)
  • 131 On roofs as cross-cultural focal points of superstitions, see West (1978), p. 341. Mat Carbon has (...)

54But purity concerns cannot be entirely excluded. Both the raven and the crow (the Greek sources do not distinguish clearly between the names or the species128) were vilified as indiscriminately omnivorous scavengers, impure creatures especially prone to peck out the eyes of the dead,129 raiders of divine altars, and unwelcome squatters in divine temples.130 Therefore, the sources occasionally associate corvids with the spreading of pollution by their very presence, and the arrival of a crow on the roof of an unfinished house may have been viewed as an exceptionally inauspicious omen for its inhabitants,131 as well as an avoidable violation of purity requirements.

  • 132 Some have also provided a poetological interpretation: see the discussion in Canevaro (2015), p.  (...)
  • 133 Verdenius (1962), p. 152–153, observes that ὕπερδε of v. 744 (= ὕπερθεν West) introduces a series (...)

55While this interpretation can be corroborated from several angles,132 it is clear that the passage is carefully connected with the previous and the following injunctions through verbal echoes: ἐπ’ αὐτῷ μοῖρα τέτυκται (v. 745) is picked up by ἐφεζομένη (v. 747) and the compounded verbal adjectives ἀνεπίξεστον (v. 746) and ἀνεπίρρεκτον (v. 748), and continued in v. 749: ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῖς ἔπι ποινή; v. 750: ἐπ’ ἀκινήτοισι; v. 752: ἴσον καὶ τοῦτο τέτυκται; v. 754: ἐπὶ χρόνον; v. 754–755: ἔστ’ ἐπὶ καὶ τῷ | ποινή; and v. 755: ἱεροῖσιν ἐπ’ αἰθομένοισι. All these injunctions are either about wrong things placed on top or about threatened punishment as a check upon transgressions.133

748–749

  • 134 Scholia ad v. 748c ed. Pertusi. Sikes (1893), p. 392, supports this interpretation.
  • 135 The prepositional phrase ἐφ’ ὧν glosses ἀθύτων and clarifies its meaning. The meaning is “for”, “ (...)
  • 136 On first offerings at meals, see Jameson (1949); Jim (2014), p. 117–129; Ekroth (2021).
  • 137 See Jim (2014), p. 125, commenting on v. 336–339: “what is recommended here is that one should ma (...)
  • 138 West (1978), comm. ad v. 748, rejects Plutarch’s interpretation and posits that “the danger with (...)
  • 139 See Diodorus, 5.68.1: “It is told that Hestia invented the building of houses, and that on accoun (...)
  • 140 ThesCRA VIII, p. 23 refers to Plato, Cratylus, 401b1 (ἀφ᾽ Ἑστίας ἀρχώμεθα κατὰ τὸν νόμον;) and Ar (...)
  • 141 On daily offerings, see Nilsson (1940), p. 73; ThesCRA VIII p. 18–19 and 23–24. Ekroth (2021) pro (...)
  • 142 See ThesCRA VIII, p. 23, with a detailed overview of everyday and periodic rituals performed for (...)

56The next prohibition on eating or drawing bathwater from an unconsecrated pot is, in our opinion, well explained by the scholia, which clarify the expression “from pots ἀνεπιρρέκτων” as follows: ἀφ’ ὧν οὐδὲν τοῖς θεοῖς ἂν ἀπάρξῃ τε καὶ θύσῃς, τουτέστι ἀθύτων, ἐφ’ ὧν θυσίαν οὐκ ἐποίησας — ῥέζειν γὰρ τὸ θύειν· τουτέστι σπένδε πρῶτον καὶ τότε ἔσθιε· μηδὲ μὴν λούσῃ ἐὰν μὴ εὔξῃ καὶ σπείσῃς134 (“from which you do not sacrifice or give first fruits to the gods, that is, out of pots without sacrifice, regarding pots135 from which you did not perform a sacrifice; because ῥέζειν means to sacrifice, that is, first pour a libation and then eat. Don’t even take a bath if you don’t pray and pour a libation”). In a similar vein, Plutarch (fr. 95 Sandbach) interprets the lines as referring to the daily sacrifice of food to the gods.136 Plutarch discusses the lines in Moralia (703d) as well and specifies that they refer to daily offerings of food to the fire as first-offerings in thanksgiving for its service. We posit that v. 748–749 are an elaboration of the θύεσσι and σπονδῇσι which Hesiod recommends be offered daily at v. 336–341,137 yet another indication that the section 724–760 expands on the section 336–341. Hesiod had already marked out the hearth as a place of sanctity in v. 733–734. The hearth receives daily sacrifices and the chytropous, we submit, is a vessel from which one performs daily sacrifices and libations.138 As the divinity of the hearth, Hestia occupies the central place in household rituals,139 so much so that other divinities venerated in the household are customarily referred to as θεοὶ ἐφέστιοι or ἐπίστιοι. Furthermore, all religious activities undertaken by the household members started with a prayer to Hestia, and “to start with Hestia” became an apothegm meaning to start something at its proper beginning.140 But most importantly for Hesiod’s lines, Hestia received regular libations at the beginning and at the end of a meal, as well as daily food offerings.141 In this sense, Hesiod’s injunction corresponds well to the Greek concept of the entire household as a sacred precinct in which the fire represents its altar.142 A share of the water heated in a chytropous for bathing, like a portion of the food cooked in it, needs to be offered to the gods before humans can use them.

750–752

  • 143 Plato, Leges 8.843a 1: τἀκίνητα κινεῖν ἀληθῶς τοῦτο εἶναι (“this is truly ‘to move the non-movabl (...)
  • 144 Diogenianus, Paroemiae, 2.6, 2nd c. AD, ed. Schneidewin and von Leutsch: κίνητα κινεῖς· ὅτι οὐ δ (...)
  • 145 Scholia ad v. 750a.

57The next injunction continues the theme of wrong things placed on top of each other and prohibits placing a young male child “on/at” (ἐπί) ἀκίνητα. The preceding and the following verses tackle rules of indoor life, and we suggest that this rule, too, probably relates to indoor activities. The main problem of interpretation is the precise meaning of ἀκίνητα, “things that ought not be moved”. By Plato’s day, the expression (μὴ) κινεῖν τὰ ἀκίνητα, “(don’t) move the non-movables”, was already proverbial,143 and it denotes a reckless and perilous, often sacrilegious action. Paroemiographers explain the proverb as referring to graves and altars.144 We find the same interpretation of ἀκίνητα in the scholia to Hesiod.145

  • 146 Canevaro (2015), p. 140–141.
  • 147 In the Archaic period, the household hearth was not moveable, and Hesiod provides an indirect att (...)
  • 148 Hamilton (1984); Laes (2014); ThesCRA VI, p. 2–3. On Callimachus’ Iambus 12 and the amphidromia r (...)
  • 149 The sources specify that women who assisted at the birth were purified (but the specific means of (...)
  • 150 Depictions of the supplication ritual performed in private houses attest to the possibility of si (...)
  • 151 One could think of a Boeotian version of a ritual akin to the Athenian and Ionian apatouria, at w (...)

58West ad loc. rightly points out that “tombs are the most likely to injure the procreative powers”, but he is hard-pressed to find any ancient Greek parallels for placing a young child on a tomb. Canevaro suggests that ἀκίνητα are boundary markers and adduces Egyptian and Old English rituals.146 We think that the injunction refers to altars, and more specifically, the main household focus of religious activity, the hearth. As we noted in our discussion of the preceding verses 748–749 and of 733–734, the hearth was seen as a household altar and the focal point of family cult, which received daily sacrifices.147 Furthermore, the connection of the hearth with rituals involving newborns is attested. Amphidromia, the ritual in which the father officially introduced a newborn child into the household, derives its name from the ceremonial running around the hearth with the infant (ἀμφι-δρομέω). The extant sources on amphidromia mainly discuss the Athenian ritual mentioned from the fifth century BC onwards, and are conflicting and unclear. It is difficult to ascertain whether it was celebrated on the fifth, seventh, or tenth day after the birth of a child, but the timing of the ritual might have been different at various localities.148 What is clear from our sources is that amphidromia involved the circling of the hearth with the child, household purification,149 and presents. The child was probably also named on that day. A local, Boeotian version of amphidromia might explain both the precise specification of the infant’s age (twelve days old) and the connection with ἀκίνητα. If this or a similar ritual was what Hesiod had in mind, then a warning not to place the child at the altar would make perfect sense.150 With the reference to the age of twelve months, Hesiod may have had another rite of passage in mind, but the scantiness of the evidence pertaining to Boeotian rituals associated with children makes it difficult to say anything certain.151

  • 152 The thought that close (in this case, sexual) contact with a goddess can make a man weak and impo (...)
  • 153 BDAG, s.v.
  • 154 Cambridge Greek Lexicon, s.v.
  • 155 Proclus comm. ad 750–752 endorses Plutarch’s Platonizing interpretation: babies should not be lef (...)

59If the prohibition refers to the hearth, why would contact with it render a man unmanly (ἀνέρ’ ἀνήνορα)? Hestia was a virginal divinity, and her divine status might have something to do with the sapping of a man’s virility.152 In addition to ἀνέρ’ ἀνήνορα, these lines might contain yet another, rather crude wordplay: one of the meanings of κινέω is “bang”,153 “fuck”,154 and placing a child on ἀκίνητα might deprive him of the ability to perform κινεῖν actions.155

753–755

60The rule of v. 753–755 continues the thread of the dangers regarding men. We remain in the house, still in Hestia’s vicinity: a portion of the water heated in a chytra on the hearth has been given to the goddess (v. 748–749), and the rest has now been used by a female family member for bathing. The use of the adjective γυναικείῳ strongly suggests that the water was used by a mature woman, rather than a young daughter — perhaps by the wife, who now lives an auspicious life with her husband in a polished house on which not a single crow can sit.

  • 156 West (1978), comm. ad loc., adduces examples of beliefs among Germans and Scots of an “infection” (...)
  • 157 For περίττωμα as “refuse, surplus”, see above n. 112. In The Symposium of the Seven Sages (Mor. 1 (...)
  • 158 But cf. Parker (1983), p. 103, commenting on v. 753–755: “There is no reason to see in that a ref (...)
  • 159 It is true, as Parker (1983), p. 101–102, notes, that purity concerns regarding menstrual blood a (...)

61The injunction stipulates that a man who uses “female water” for washing will experience temporary (ἐπὶ χρόνον) punishment. Is this rule continuing the themes of sex, family planning, and procreation? Is the punishment loss of virility, or pollution? It is possible, as West asserts based on cross-cultural parallels, that the use of such water was thought to lead to emasculation.156 Or, if the thought is continued from v. 750–752, to (temporary) sexual dysfunction. But Plutarch (fr. 97 Sandbach) explains such a threat explicitly in terms of pollution beliefs associated with female bodily emissions: certain distinctly female effluences (ἀπόρροιαί τινες ἐκ τῶν γυναικείων σωμάτων καὶ περιττωμάτων) present in the bath water can render men polluted (ὧν ἀναπίμπλασθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας μολυσματῶδές ἐστι).157 The natural inference for Plutarch (and for Proclus, who quotes him) seems to be that a woman might contaminate the bath water with menstrual blood or perhaps even breastmilk and render a man polluted for a period of time.158 If this is the case, then Hesiod’s injunction represents the earliest testimony for the polluting force of menstruation. This belief is attested in later ritual norms prescribing the exclusion of menstruating woman from sanctuaries for a certain period.159 In addition, the temporary character of this punishment in Hesiod finds a parallel in later inscriptional evidence, where pollution caused by contact with menstruation is restricted to a specific number of days.

755–756

  • 160 Robertson (1969), p. 168. Following Robertson’s interpretation, Kurke (2011), p. 210–212, sees th (...)
  • 161 West (1978), p. 343–344. Wilamowitz (1928), p. 128, suggests that the phrase represents an extens (...)

62These verses contain another reference to ἀκίνητα: we find ourselves at an altar, and the injunction ominously warns against incorrect inner disposition during sacrifice. In the case that someone transgresses against the injunction and approaches the sacrifice with an incorrect attitude, the transgressor is again, as in v. 741, facing the threat of divine nemesis. In both cases, incorrect inner disposition provokes divine νεμεσᾶν. What constitutes a transgression against the ritual is denoted by the verb μωμεύω. While seldom attested in early Greek literature, its meaning is clear: to “find fault” or “blame”. What is less clear is the meaning of the word ἀίδηλα, which has attracted the attention of both ancient and modern scholars. Robertson has argued that ἀίδηλα denotes the process of destruction by fire. Therefore, ἀίδηλα is to be taken as an adjective and the direct object of μωμεύειν, so that the meaning would be “to not find fault with what is being consumed or consuming”.160 West has objected to this view, positing that the adjective alone would be insufficient to designate the action of the fire, and he proposed instead that ἀίδηλα should be taken adverbially, the whole phrase being essentially synonymous with the Homeric ὀλοὰ μωμᾶσθαι, “to carp balefully”.161 On both interpretations, it is the incorrect attitude towards the ritual that will be sanctioned. No matter how we take the meaning of ἀίδηλα here, the admonition relates, as scholars have recognized, to a critique of the quantity of a sacrificial offering, whether it is too much or too little that is being offered. A pious worshipper ought to sacrifice according to his ability, as Hesiod has warned in v. 336.

  • 162 Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 50–51.

63Elsewhere we have raised the question whether Hesiod objects here to the attitude or to its loud expression, and we have tentatively suggested that the offensive attitude may have been entirely internal, since μωμεύω does not necessarily connote a loud expression of mockery.162 We can corroborate this suggestion further with the view of older scholia. Grappling with the exact meaning of μωμεύειν ἀίδηλα, the scholiast glossed ἀίδηλα as ἀδήλως and warned against the mocking attitude itself, even when it is not expressed aloud (ad v. 756a):

μὴ ἀδήλως κατὰ σεαυτὸν καὶ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ σου μωμεῖν τὰ ἱερά. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἑξῆς συνάψαι· ἀίδηλα θεός νύ τοι καὶ τὰ νεμεσσᾷ, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀδήλως καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν τοιούτων μέμφεται. Ἢ οὕτως· μὴ ἐπὶ τοῖς αἰθομένοις ἱεροῖς ἀίδηλα κηρανθῆναι καὶ ἄξια τοῦ ἄδηλα εἶναι ὅτι μάταια διανοηθῇς· θεὸς γὰρ καὶ περὶ τούτων μέμφεται.

Do not criticize the rituals secretly to yourself and in your soul. It is possible to attach [sc. ἀίδηλα] to the following words, too [sc. like this]: ἀίδηλα θεός νύ τοι καὶ τὰ νεμεσσᾷ. ἀίδηλα is used in the meaning ἀδήλως—such [actions/people] the god secretly censures. Or like this: at burning sacrifices, do not be vexed at ἀίδηλα and do not hold them as equal to nothing, for you are thinking foolish thoughts; for the god censures this too.

64At least some ancient readers of v. 755–756, therefore, grasped the critique of the ritual as silent and entirely internal, and assumed that god would also be offended by the attitude itself, without any verbal expression of mockery or critique: a pious worshipper must not hold irreverent thoughts.

Conclusion

65Let us now draw together the main strands of our argument. At the outset of this paper, we suggested that the section 724–760 containing religious norms is purposefully developed and carefully positioned within W&D. Having established the prominence of religious themes throughout the poem, and specifically the prominence of the motif of ἔρδειν, we demonstrated in Section 2.2 that the norms of v. 724–759 represent an explication of the general ritual norm from v. 135–137, which is elaborated in v. 336–341. Rather than representing an afterthought or an appendage, the section 724–759 fits well within the poem’s overall structure, which is characterized, as others have observed as well, by a narrowing of vision and the general funneling movement from the general to the particular. With an eye to rhythm and symmetry, Hesiod carefully distributes divinely sanctioned social norms alongside religious norms in three distinct sections. At each step he elaborates in ever more detail the constituent parts of his theological worldview and provides ever more specific cautionary advice in the form of ordinances and injunctions.

66Regarding the topics covered in v. 724–759, we suggested in Section 3 that the vast majority of the injunctions can be well understood from the perspective of traditional Greek purity beliefs, of customary rules of ritual—relating in particular to sacrifice and prayer—and of traditional religious tenets. Even seemingly outlandish injunctions such as those relating to urination and defecation can be understood through the prism of Greek inscriptional religious norms. As we established, Hesiod’s collection of Greek ritual norms, the earliest of its kind, was repeatedly read in antiquity by very well-informed readers such as Plato, Plutarch, and Proclus in the light of their own lived religious experience. While the ambiguity and riddling character of some of the injunctions cannot be denied, the collection is, on the whole, clearly aligned with beliefs and practices well attested in Greek religion. Formally, the rules of v. 724–759 are expressed in a fashion that bears a striking resemblance to later inscriptional ritual norms. In both content and style, Hesiod’s tabulated injunctions belong to the same class, namely, that of religious prohibitions: they are marked by the consistent use of negation (μή or μηδέ/μήτε) and by the use of prescriptive language, both of which sustain a sense of coherence throughout the section and convey the impression of what will at a later point become hallmarks of Greek procedural texts. Simultaneously, the entire section reverberates with proverbial instruction and is characterized by a patina of folk-wisdom, uniquely condensed and paratactically expressed. Of course, one should immediately qualify this statement by acknowledging that most Greek folk-wisdom is attested in post-Hesiodic sources: given the cultural status and resonance of Hesiodic poems, some of the hallmarks of Greek folk-wisdom literature are bound to be, at least to some extent, Hesiodic.

67In terms of the organizational principles of its structure, the collection starts with a detailed elaboration of the fundamental rules laid down in v. 336–341. Picking up exactly where v. 341 ends, the section 724–760 starts with one type of sacrifice (libation) and ends with another (burnt sacrifice), and is formally unified by ring composition. Within the section, the segment 724–743 starts in the morning and primarily revolves around situations that an Iron Age farmer might experience outside of his house. When we reach night-time with the drinking rule of v. 744–745, we transition to a series of injunctions pertaining to the house and the goings-on in it. This segment ends in v. 755, after which the generalizing rule on sacrifice with the (only instance of) a generalized θεός (v. 756) appears, rounding off the section.

  • 163 See above p. 217.

68The bipartite division of the section is strikingly marked by repeated use of the prepositions ἀπό and ἐπί: the section predominantly dedicated to outside experiences (v. 724–743) features eight instances of ἀπό, while the house/household section (v. 744–755) contains nine uses of ἐπί (with only one instance of ἐπί in the first and one of ἀπό in the second section). We discussed the thematic consistency of the ἐπί-section with its epicenter in the household.163 The ἀπό-section is more loosely organized, but it does revolve around actions mostly performed while away from home and the metaphorical and literal issuing of matter from the body—from the gods “spitting out” the prayers to human bodily emissions and by-products.

69One of the most important elements in Hesiod’s theological outlook is the assumption of incessant divine heedfulness of human affairs, which results in the critical divine assessment of human conduct. Time and again, Hesiod emphasizes the precarious position of an Iron Age farmer both as a member of a community and as an individual. This means that he might at any point be engulfed in divine wrath either on account of his own transgression or deficiency, or as collateral damage. To be able to shield himself from such a threat, at least to some extent, the best an individual can do is to avoid hubris against others and demonstrate proper respect for the gods, being perpetually mindful of the fragility of his own position and the constant divine scrutiny of every aspect of his life. For Hesiod, god is both in the whole and in the detail, alert to major and minor transgressions alike. The lack of proper respect for the gods, coupled with antisocial behavior, led to the extinction of the Silver race and triggered the concatenated deterioration of circumstances ultimately resulting in the vicissitudes of life in the Iron Age. The section 724–759 invests an Iron Age head of a household with the religious authority and expertise necessary for ensuring the household’s harmonious relationship with the gods. The rules in this section pertain either to household religion or to the ritual behavior of the members of an oikos outside the house itself. There are household divinities whom one must respect and venerate (Hestia features prominently in this section), as well as rivers with their own divinities, Zeus, Helios, and nightly makares to bear in mind. The gods are observing and see everything, and Hesiod’s rules, we posit, simultaneously alert the farmer to the constant presence of these divinities and instruct him about the ways to avoid their anger. Approximately 2.38 billion people currently practice some form of Christianity, and perhaps it is easier to imagine that their divinity might be too busy to monitor each individual’s daily activities, but with Hestia in each house, and daimones everywhere, no action is too minute to warrant scrutiny and due diligence. Rather than observing Hesiod’s rules as overanxious superstitions, if we conceptualize Hestia in the oikos as a mini-sanctuary, and bear in mind that rivers were considered divine and gods were imagined to attend their festivals, Hesiod’s rules can be seen as the oikos-pendant of the ritual rules affixed at the entrances to sanctuaries. Both aim to ensure respectful communication with the divine. The final verses of the poem indicate that knowing Hesiod’s rules will prevent his audience from offending divinities. Giving the gods no cause for offence, being ἀναίτιος ἀθανάτοισιν (v. 827), is in our view the chief goal and the unifying motif of the entire section.

  • 164 V. 754–755 clearly relate to a temporary ποινή.

70In the “outside” section (v. 724–743), the sanctions for transgressions clearly indicate that the gods are present and monitor human actions: v. 726 explains that the punishment for an incorrectly performed libation is immediate ritual failure: οὐ γὰρ τοί γε κλύουσιν, ἀποπτύουσι δέ τ’ ἀράς. Similarly, Hesiod posits that the presence of the Sun (v. 727) during the day and of the makares at night (v. 730) should inhibit behavior while outside. The rules about bodies of water close with a particularly ominous warning: ὃς ποταμὸν διαβῇ κακότητ’ ἰδὲ χεῖρας ἄνιπτος, | τῷ δὲ θεοὶ νεμεσῶσι καὶ ἄλγεα δῶκαν ὀπίσσω (v. 740–741). Here the immediate anger of the divinities results in a delayed punishment, but it is nevertheless clear that the gods are observing the process of river-crossing as it ensues. The breach of the in-house rules results in vague or temporary punishments (ὀλοὴ μοῖρα, v. 745; ποινή, v. 749 and 755),164 which, at least to some extent, garner their intimidating force from the vagueness itself and the dreadful combination of unpredictability and inevitability. With the final rule regulating behavior at a sacrifice, Hesiod ends the section on a strong and very menacing note: θεός νύ τε καὶ τὰ νεμεσσᾷ (v. 756) is yet another reminder that the gods are observing even individual utterances, or one’s very thoughts.

  • 165 See the discussion in Gagarin (2008), p. 13–38.
  • 166 See Chaniotis (2009), p. 102, on the oral character of ta patria and ta nomima; Carbon — Pirenne- (...)

71The written codification of Greek laws that starts at some point in mid-seventh century BC was preceded by a period in which norms of behavior and social and religious rules were transmitted orally. Michael Gagarin has recently analyzed such oral traditions in the context of the emergence of written laws. Furthermore, and unlike Gagarin, some scholars assign significant weight to the phenomena of unwritten and sung laws, memorization and performance of laws with the aid of music, and to references to magistrates whose task was to memorize laws.165 Similarly, in the context of ritual norms, which first emerge in written form towards the end of the seventh or in the early sixth century BC, scholars have drawn attention to the existence of unrecorded norms of oral or unwritten character. It has been suggested that such oral traditions provide the background for some of the early ritual norms. It seems uncontroversial that an oral tradition of ritual rules precedes and accompanies the written fixation of ritual norms, and that such oral traditions do not necessarily deviate significantly in their content from the later written norms. Throughout the Classical and Hellenistic periods, an oral tradition of patria and nomima seems to coexist and interact with the written ritual norms.166

72If this holds true, then both the divinely sanctioned social norms as well as religious norms we have discussed in Hesiod’s W&D may represent a reflection of such oral traditions, albeit a reflection provided from the perspective of individual farmer and his oikos, rather than from the perspective of a civic body or a polis. In the course of their written fixation, the ritual norms have undergone a formal transformation from poetry to prose, but could nevertheless retain the essential core of their traditional content, and, as we can see, some of the hallmarks of the prescriptive language that we have identified in W&D 724–760.

Abbreviations

CGRN

J.-M. Carbon, S. Peels, and V. Pirenne-Delforge, A Collection of Greek Ritual Norms (CGRN), Liège, 2017– (http: //cgrn.ulg.ac.be, consulted in 2021).

LGS

H. von Prott and L. Ziehen, Leges Graecorum sacrae e titulis collectae, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1896 and 1906.

LSAM

F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées de l’Asie Mineure, Paris, 1955.

LSCG

F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques, Paris, 1969.

LSS

F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques, Supplément, Paris, 1962.

NGSL

E. Lupu, Greek Sacred Law: A Collection of New Documents, 2nd ed., Leiden/ Boston, 2009.

ThesCRA

Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum. Vols. I–VIII.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

R.J. Allan, “The infinitivus pro imperativo in Ancient Greek. The Imperatival Infinitive as an Expression of Proper Procedural Action”, Mnemosyne 63 (2010), p. 203–228.

W. Allan, “Divine Justice and Cosmic Order in Early Greek Epic”, JHS 126 (2006), p. 1–35.

E.F. Beall, “Notes on Hesiod’s Works and Days, 383–828”, AJPh 122 (2001), p. 155– 171.

R. Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Leiden/Boston, 2010.

M. Blidstein, Purity, Community, and Ritual in Early Christian Literature, Oxford, 2017.

D. Bonanno, “Figlia della notte e compagna di Aidos: Nemesis, dike e il senso del limite in Esiodo”, in D. Bonanno, P. Funke, and M. Haake (eds.), Rechtliche Verfahren und religiöse Sanktionierung in der griechisch-römischen Antike, Stuttgart, 2016, p. 103–114.

G.R. Boys-Stones, “Hesiod and Plato’s History of Philosophy”, in G.R. Boys-Stones and J.H. Haubold (eds.), Plato and Hesiod, Oxford, 2010, p. 31–51.

G.R. Boys-Stones and J.H. Haubold (eds.), Plato and Hesiod, Oxford, 2010.

W. Burkert, “ΘΕΩΝ ΟΠΙΝ ΟΥΚ ΑΛΕΓΟΝΤΕΣ: Götterfurcht und Leumannsches Missverständnis”, MH 38 (1981), p. 195–204.

W. Burkert, Homo Necans. The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth, tr. P. Bing, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 1983.

W. Burkert, Greek Religion. Archaic and Classical, tr. J. Raffan, Malden, MA/Oxford, 1985.

L.G. Canevaro, Hesiod’s Works and Days: An Interpretative Commentary, PhD Dissertation, Durham University, 2012.

L.G. Canevaro, Hesiod’s Works and Days: How to Teach Self-Sufficiency, Oxford, 2015.

J.-M. Carbon, “Ritual Cycles: Calendars and Festivals”, in E. Eidinow and J. Kindt (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, Oxford, 2015, p. 537–550.

J.-M. Carbon, “Introduction. Probing the ‘Incubation Chamber’”, in J.-M. Carbon and S. Peels-Matthey (eds.), Purity and Purification in the Ancient Greek World, Liège, 2018 (Kernos, suppl. 32), p. 11–20.

J.-M. Carbon and V. Pirenne-Delforge, “Beyond Greek ‘Sacred Laws’”, Kernos 25 (2012), p. 163–182.

J.-M. Carbon and V. Pirenne-Delforge, “Codifying ‘Sacred Laws’ in Ancient Greece”, in D. Jaillard and C. Nihan (eds.), Writing Laws in Antiquity. L’écriture du droit dans l’Antiquité, Wiesbaden, 2017, p. 141–157.

J.-M. Carbon and V. Pirenne-Delforge, “Two Notes on the Collection of Greek Ritual Norms. Looking Back, Looking Forward”, Axon 3 (2019), p. 103–116.

J. Casabona, Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en Grec, Aix-en-Provence, 1966.

A. Chaniotis, “Reinheit des Körpers — Reinheit der Seele in den griechischen Kultgesetzen”, in J. Assmann and T. Sundermeier (eds.), Schuld, Gewissen und Person, Gütersloh, 1997, p. 142–179.

A. Chaniotis, “The Dynamics of Ritual Norms in Greek Cult”, in P. Brulé (ed.), La Norme en matière religieuse en Grèce ancienne, Liège, 2009, p. 91–105.

A. Chaniotis, “Greek Ritual Purity from Automatism to Moral Distinctions”, in P. Rösch and U. Simon (eds.), How Purity is Made. Persistence and Dynamics of the Purity Mindframe in the Perspective of Ritual Science, Wiesbaden, 2012, p. 123–140.

P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots, Paris, 1968–1980.

E. Cingano, “The Hesiodic Corpus”, in F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Hesiod, Leiden, 2009, p. 91–130.

J.S. Clay, Hesiod’s Cosmos, Cambridge, 2003.

J.S. Clay, “Works and Days: Tracing the Path to Arete”, in F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Hesiod, Leiden, 2009, p. 71–90.

J.S. Clay, “The Justice of Zeus in the Theogony?”, in J.J. Clauss, M. Cuypers, and A. Kahane (eds.), The Gods of Greek Hexameter Poetry, Stuttgart, 2016, p. 21–31.

B. Currie, Pindar and the Cult of Heroes, Oxford, 2005.

M.P.J. Dillon, “The Ecology of the Greek Sanctuary”, ZPE 118 (1997), p. 113–127.

M. Douglas, Purity and Danger: An analysis of the concept of pollution and taboo, London/New York, 1966.

J. Draycott, “Hair today, gone tomorrow. The use of real, false and artificial hair as votive offerings”, in J. Draycott and E.-J. Graham (eds.), Bodies of Evidence. Ancient Anatomical Votives, Past, Present and Future, London/New York, 2017, p. 77–94.

M.D.K. Dunbabin et al., “The man who came late to dinner. A sundial, a raven, and a missed dinner party on a mosaic at Tarsus”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 32 (2019), p. 329–358.

G. Ekroth, “Behind closed doors? Greek sacrificial rituals performed inside buildings in the Early Iron Age and the Archaic period”, in J. Lamaze and M. Bastide (eds.), Around the hearth. Ritual and commensal practices in the Mediterranean Iron Age from the Aegean world to the Iberian peninsula, Berlin, 2021, p. 13–39.

A. Ercolani, Esiodo Opere e Giorni: Introduzione, traduzione e commento, Rome, 2010.

A. Faulkner, The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite. Introduction, Text, and Commentary, Oxford, 2008.

H. Frisk, Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg, 1954–1972.

J. Foufopoulos and N. Litinas, “Crows and Ravens in the Mediterranean (the Nile Valley, Greece and Italy) as Presented in the Ancient and Modern Proverbial Literature”, BASP 42.1 (2005), p. 7–39.

M. Gagarin, Writing Greek Law, Cambridge, 2008.

R. Gagné, Ancestral Fault in Ancient Greece, Cambridge, 2013.

R. Garland, The Greek Way of Life, London, 1990.

L. Gawlinski, The Sacred Law of Andania, Berlin, 2012.

M. Grohmann, “Heiligkeit und Reinheit im Buch Leviticus”, in Ch. Schwöbel (ed.), Gott – Götter – Götzen, Leipzig, 2013, p. 266–281.

R. Hamilton, “Sources for the Athenian Amphidromia”, GRBS 25 (1984), p. 243–251.

R. Hamilton, The Architecture of Hesiodic Poetry, Baltimore, 1989.

R. Hannah, Greek and Roman Calendars. Constructions of Time in the Classical World, London, 2005.

F. Hoessly, Katharsis: Reiningung als Heilverfahren. Studien zum Ritual der archaischen und klassischen Zeit sowie zum Corpus Hippocraticum, Göttingen, 2001.

R. Hunter, Hesiodic Voices. Studies in the Ancient Reception of Hesiod’s Works and Days, Cambridge, 2014.

R. Hunter and D. Russell, Plutarch. How to Study Poetry, Cambridge, 2011.

M.H. Jameson, The Offering at Meals: its Place in Greek Sacrifice, PhD Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1949.

T.S.F. Jim, Sharing with the Gods: Aparchai and Dekatai in Ancient Greece, Oxford, 2014.

H. King, Hippocrates’ Woman: Reading the Female Body in Ancient Greece, London, 1998.

A. Kirchhoff, Hesiodos’ Mahnlieder an Perses, Berlin, 1889.

M. Kleijwegt, “Beans, baths and the barber… A sacred law from Thuburbos Maius”, Antiquités africaines 30 (1994), p. 209–220.

H. Koning, Hesiod: The Other Poet, Leiden, 2010.

S. Kravaritou, “La construction d’un ‘calendrier’ en Grèce ancienne. Temps du rituel et temps du récit”, Kernos 15 (2002), p. 31–40.

L. Kurke, Aesopic Conversations: Popular Tradition, Cultural Dialogue, and the Invention of Greek Prose, Princeton, 2011.

Ch. Laes, “Infants between biological and social birth in antiquity: A phenomenon of the ‘longue durée’ ”, Historia 63.3 (2014), p. 364–383.

A. Lardinois, “How the Days fit the Works in Hesiod’s Works and Days”, AJPh 119 (1998), p. 319–336.

J. Larson, Understanding Greek Religion: A Cognitive Approach, London/New York, 2016.

S. Lewis and L. Llewellyn-Jones, The Culture of Animals in Antiquity. A Sourcebook with Commentaries, London/New York, 2018.

B. Lincoln, “Treatment of Hair and Fingernails among the Indo Europeans”, in B. Lincoln, Religion, Culture, and Politics in Pre-Islamic Iran. Collected Essays, Leiden, 2021, p. 265–275.

H. Lloyd-Jones, The Justice of Zeus, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 1971.

J.P. Lynch, “Hipparchos’ Wall in the Academy at Athens: a Closer Look at the Tradition”, in K.J. Rigsby (ed.), Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on his Eightieth Birthday, Durham, NC, 1984, p. 173–179.

R. Martin, “Hesiodic Theology”, in A.C. Loney and S. Scully (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Hesiod, 2018, p. 125–141.

P. Marzillo, Der Kommentar des Proklos zu Hesiods “Werken und Tagen”, Tübingen, 2010.

J. McInerney, “The Location of the Hephaisteion”, TAPhA 149 (2019), p. 219–260.

J. Mikalson, “Unanswered Prayers in Greek Tragedy”, JHS 109 (1989), p. 81–98.

J. Mynott, Birds in the Ancient World, Oxford, 2018.

G. Nagy, Greek Mythology and Poetics, Ithaca, NY, 1990.

F. Naiden, Ancient Supplication, Oxford, 2006.

F. Naiden, Smoke Signals for the Gods, Oxford, 2013.

J. Neils, “Children and Greek Religion”, in J. Neils, J. H. Oakley, K. Hart, and L.A. Beaumont, Coming of Age in Ancient Greece: Images of Childhood from the Classical Past, New Haven, 2003, p. 139–163.

G. Németh, “Mεδ’ ὄνθoν ἐγβαλε῀ν. Regulations concerning everyday life in a Greek temenos”, in R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek cult practice from the archaeological evidence, Stockholm, 1998, p. 59–64.

M.P. Nilsson, Greek Popular Religion, New York, 1940.

M.P. Nilsson, Geschichte der Griechischen Religion. Erster Band. Die Religion Griechenlands bis auf die Griechische Weltherrschaft, Munich, 19673.

P. Olivelle, Manu’s Code of Law, Oxford, 2004.

R. Parker, Miasma. Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion, Oxford, 1983.

R. Parker, “What are Sacred Laws?”, in E.M. Harris and L. Rubinstein (eds.), The Law and the Courts in Ancient Greece, London, 2004, p. 57–70.

R. Parker, Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford, 2005.

R. Parker, “The New Purity Law from Thyateira”, ZPE 205 (2018), p. 178–183.

S. Peels, Hosios: A Semantic Study of Greek Piety, Leiden, 2016.

A. Pertusi, Scholia vetera in Hesiodi Opera et dies, Milan, 1955.

A. Petrovic, “Sacred Law”, in E. Eidinow and J. Kindt (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, Oxford, 2015, p. 339–352.

A. Petrovic and I. Petrovic, “ ‘Look who is talking now!’: Speaker and Communication in Greek Metrical Sacred Regulations”, in E. Stavrianopoulou (ed.), Ritual and Communication in the Graeco-Roman World, Liège, 2006 (Kernos, suppl. 16), p. 151–179.

A. Petrovic and I. Petrovic, Inner Purity and Pollution in Greek Religion. Volume I: Early Greek Religion, Oxford, 2016.

A. Petrovic and I. Petrovic, “Purity of Body and Soul in the Cult of Athena Lindia: On the Eastern Background of Greek Abstentions”, in J.-M. Carbon and S. Peels-Matthey (eds.), Purity and Purification in the Ancient Greek World, Liège, 2018 (Kernos, suppl. 32), p. 225–258.

I. Petrovic, “Poetry for the New Goddess: a Gift that Keeps on Giving”, in J.J. Klooster, M.A. Harder, R.E. Regtuit, and W.G. Wakker (eds.), Callimachus Revisited: New Perspectives in Callimachean Scholarship, Leuven, 2019, p. 285–303.

G. Petzl, Die Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens, Bonn, 1994.

M. Ricl, Svest o grehu u maloazijskim kultovima rimskog doba, Beograd, 1995.

N. Robertson, “How to Behave at a Sacrifice: Hesiod Erga 755–56”, CPh 64 (1969), p. 164– 169.

C. Romano, “Works, Days, and Divine Influence in Hesiod’s Story World”, Kernos 33 (2020), p. 9–31.

I. Rutherford, “Hesiod and the Literary Traditions of the Near East”, in F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, and Ch. Tsagalis (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Hesiod, Leiden, 2009, p. 9–35.

W. Sallaberger, “Körperliche Reinheit und soziale Grenzen in Mesopotamien”, in P. Burschel and Ch. Marx (eds.), Reinheit, Vienna, 2011, p. 17–45.

E.E. Sikes, “Folk-Lore in the ‘Works and Days’ of Hesiod”, CR 7 (1893), p. 389–394.

T.A. Sinclair, Hesiod. Works and Days, Hildesheim, 19662.

J.C. Thom, “The Pythagorean Acusmata”, in D.C. Wolfsdorf (ed.), Early Greek Ethics, Oxford, 2020, p. 3–18.

E. Trinkl, “Ein Zeusrelief aus Ephesos. Die Unterbindung großstädtischer Unsitten”, in P. Scherrer, H. Taeuber, and H. Thür (eds.), Steine und Wege. Festschrift für D. Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag, Vienna, 1999, p. 173–180.

B. Tsakirgis, “Fire and Smoke: hearths, braziers and chimneys in the Greek house”, in R. Westgate, N. Fischer, and J. Whitley (eds.), Building Communities. House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond, 2007 (ABSA Studies, 15), p. 225–231.

A. Twesten, Commentatio Critica de Hesiodi Carmine quod Inscribitur Opera et Dies, Kiel, 1815.

J.A.G. van der Veer, Reiniging en Reinheid bij Plato, Paris/Amsterdam, 1936.

A. Varone, “Newly Discovered and Corrected Readings of iscrizioni ‘privatissime’ from the Vesuvian Region”, in R. Benefiel and P. Keegan (eds.), Inscriptions in the Private Sphere in the Greco-Roman World, Leiden, 2016, p. 111–130.

W.J. Verdenius, “Aufbau und Absicht der Erga”, in Entretiens VII. Hésiode et son influence, Vandœuvres/Geneva, 1962, p. 109–170.

W.J. Verdenius, A Commentary on Hesiod, Works and Days vv. 1–382, Leiden, 1985.

A. Vergados, Hesiod’s Verbal Craft. Studies in Hesiod’s Conception of Language and Its Ancient Reception, Oxford, 2020.

T. Wächter, Reinheitsvorschriften im griechischen Kult, Giessen, 1910.

I.C. Werrett, Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Leiden, 2007 (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, 72).

M.L. West, Hesiod, Works and Days. Edited with Prolegomena and Commentary, Oxford, 1978.

M.L. West, Hesiod. Theogony and Works and Days, Oxford, 1988.

U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Hesiodos. Erga, Berlin, 1928.

H. Yunis, Plato. Phaedrus, Cambridge, 2011.

Haut de page

Notes

1 The sections of W&D with calendar-like features (esp. the farmer’s year, v. 383–617, and sailing, v. 618–694) have attracted comparisons with the relevant inscriptional evidence, and especially with sacred calendars. Whereas Kravaritou (2002) and Hannah (2005), p. 18–27, emphasize the similarities, Carbon (2015), p. 537–538, highlights the disconnect between the poem and the inscriptional evidence. Starting with Wächter (1910), scholars discussing ancient Greek pollution beliefs occasionally adduced individual injunctions from Hesiod alongside inscriptional evidence, but there has been no systematic attempt to analyze the section 724–760 as a whole and situate it within the context of Greek ritual norms. Both Parker (1983) and Larson (2016) occasionally adduce verses from this section in their respective discussions of purity matters.

2 The section has been analyzed also within the framework of non-Greek traditions, see below, p. 203.

3 On the problems concerning the term “sacred law” and on terminological issues more generally, see NGSL, p. 3–5; Parker (2004); Chaniotis (2009); CarbonPirenne-Delforge (2012); Petrovic (2015); Carbon — Pirenne-Delforge (2019). We follow the definition of “ritual norms” laid down by CarbonPirenne-Delforge (2012). On ritual norms vs. cult regulations, see CarbonPirenne-Delforge (2019). Moreover, the application of the term “religion”, alongside the concept of religion itself, to the cultures of the ancient world has recently come under fire, but this is not the occasion to weigh in on the issue.

4 Cf. CarbonPirenne-Delforge (2012), p. 26, for the linguistic features and general characteristics of ritual norms.

5 On Zeus as guarantor of moral and social order in early Greek epic, see Allan (2006).

6 Verdenius (1985), comm. ad v. 336, importantly notes that Hesiod “does not draw a sharp distinction between morality and religion” and points out that Zeus punishes transgressions of social rules in the poem. In his insightful discussion of the “Days” section, Lardinois (1998), p. 332, observes that “the different themes of the poem—the power of Zeus, justice, agriculture, social relations, the rhythm of the days, etc.—are woven together. But these themes are not simply poetic inventions: they represent cosmological categories which the Greeks actually believed to be interconnected.” He adduces Zeus’ punishment of the unjust city (v. 238–247) as an illustrative example. See also Canevaro (2015), p. 138, n. 164, on the lack of conceptual dichotomy between the social and religious aspects of the world in Hesiod. We follow this line of argument and go a step further by calling divinely sanctioned social rules “divinely sanctioned social norms”.

7 Twesten’s (1815) edition rejects v. 724–759, a view largely endorsed by Wilamowitz (1928), comm. ad v. 760–764.

8 See West (1978), comm. ad v. 706, and v. 724–759 for an overview of older attempts to expunge or transpose the lines.

9 See West (1978), p. 333–334.

10 Kirchhoff (1889), p. 76–80.

11 Wilamowitz (1928), p. 124–130.

12 West (1978), p. 329–330, 333–334.

13 See Hamilton (1989), p. 78–84 and Lardinois (1998) for defenses of the Days, as well as the continuous readings in Clay (2003) and Clay (2009).

14 See Parker (1983), p. 291–294 on “Hesiodic life”, followed by Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 41–52. Instead of conceptualizing this section as reflecting popular superstitions, as has often been the case, Kurke (2011), p. 205 sees the rules as “part of the weaponry of the elite, enabling them to exert and maintain social control through privileged religious knowledge and practice”.

15 West (1978), p. 56. See also Verdenius (1962). Ercolani (2010), p. 395 and 402 suggests that the impression of randomness and incoherence given by the section 724–759 is partly owed to an accretive process through which the section developed.

16 See e.g. Beall (2001), p. 165, and Canevaro (2015), p. 138, on Hesiod “adopting the opaque language of ritual”.

17 We agree with Ercolani’s assertion (2010, p. 395), that what might appear in v. 724–759 to some as taboos or “superstitions” are in fact “norme di comportamento spicciolo rispondenti a convincimenti diffusi e accettati”.

18 On the W&D as a guide for managing the Iron Age human condition through self-sufficiency, see Canevaro (2015). For an overview of scholarly opinions on the main narrative threads of W&D, see Canevaro (2015), p. 22–24.

19 We follow Clay’s (2003, p. 38) observation that one of Hesiod’s central tenets is that “the human need to gain a livelihood (food, and, beyond mere subsistence, prosperity) must […] be moderated and informed by the rules of just behavior”. See also p. 31–48.

20 ἔρδειν has two basic meanings in early Greek epic: “tun, handeln” and “opfern, Riten ausüben, vollziehen”: see LfgrE s.v. The verb is attested twelve times in Hesiod’s extant work and predominantly denotes acts associated with religious reverence (Hesiod, Theogony, 417; W&D 136, 327, 336; fr. 283.3 MW; and see below on W&D 760). In addition, in those cases when ἔρδειν is used more generally, such action is closely associated with religiously correct behavior, e.g. W&D 35, 362, or 382, where Hesiod distinguishes between ἔρδειν and ἐργάζεσθαι. ἔρδειν appears also in the sections containing divinely sanctioned social norms (W&D 708, 710). The scholia interpret ἔρδειν as an equivalent of θύειν (Scholia Hesiod W&D ed. Pertusi [1955], ad v. 336–341). ἔρδειν in the sense of “sacrifice” is also found in CGRN 18 (sacrificial norm, 475–450 BC, Thasos); 39, line 4 (sale of priesthood, c. 400 BC, Miletus); 201, lines 15 and 30 (Molpoi statute, 200 BC, but possibly Archaic in origin, Miletus); cf. Carbon ad CGRN 201. For a discussion of ἔρδειν in early epic, see Casabona (1966), p. 39–62.

21 This is evident from several explicit couplings of work and religiously correct behavior: we discuss W&D 336–341 below, p. 197. Cf. also v. 309: ἐργαζόμενος πολὺ φίλτερος ἀθανάτοισιν (“if you work, the gods will love you much more”); 382: ὧδ’ ἔρδειν, καὶ ἔργον ἐπ’ ἔργῳ ἐργάζεσθαι (“act in this fashion, and work, work upon work”; tr. West, modified).

22 No English word conveys the full meaning of εὐδαίμων, whose earliest attestation is in Hesiod. Given the importance of watchful daimones in the poem, the basic meaning ‘to have a good daimon’ is probably palpable here.

23 On justice in Hesiod, see Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 44–48, with bibliography, where we argue that Justice is an ordinance given to men by Zeus, and those who violate it are religiously polluted and represent a source of danger not only for themselves, but also for the entire community. A κακὸς ἀνήρ commits ἄδικα ἔργα, which result in divine punishment, whereas moral righteousness and adherence to justice coexist with ritual correctness. Clay (2016) points out that justice in Hesiod always appears in the context of human beings and that she emerges in the moment when resources become scarce. On Zeus in Hesiod, see Clay (2003), p. 140–149, who emphasizes Zeus’ prominent position in W&D and “the very attenuated position of the other gods of the pantheon in Hesiod’s poem” (p. 142). Building on Lloyd-Jones (1971), Allan (2006) discusses the presentation of the gods and divine justice in early Greek epic and sees the roles of Zeus and divine justice in them as coherent, contrary to the formerly influential views about the moral progression of the gods.

24 Clay (2003), p. 31–48, and (2009) observes a gradual narrowing of focus in W&D from polis to oikos, as well as a “progressive darkening of vision” ([2003], p. 47), especially in v. 724–756, where she sees a departure from reciprocity and generosity, and a movement towards “vague and nameless punitive measures” ([2003], p. 47; see also p. 147–149). We see the destabilization of the world’s principles deriving at least in part from the threat pollution presents: the danger of communal pollution and punishment as a result of one bad man’s transgression accounts for the unpredictability of outcome for an individual (v. 238–247). Another destabilizing factor stems from perjury, as Gagné (2013), p. 159–177, points out: generational decline and destruction in W&D is directly associated with one of the greatest crimes one can commit against dike, namely, oath-breaking.

25 The beginning of the “Days” section (v. 765–769) is illustrative of the need for the farmer to provide guidance to the members of the household in religious matters. On Hesiod’s promotion of the ideal of self-sufficiency, see Canevaro (2015), esp. p. 81–89, where she lays out Hesiod’s “didactic hierarchy”: the poet instructs the farmer, the farmer his workers.

26 Kurke (2011), p. 205, sees the rules of section 724–760 as bringing “to the forefront the religious dimension of sophia as ritual expertise”, endowing the one who knows them with a “special authority and status within his community”. We agree with Kurke insofar as this community is the farmer’s oikos and, in that respect, the rules can be seen as ‘the weaponry of the elite’ enabling the farmer to “exert and maintain social control through privileged religious knowledge and practice”, as Kurke argues ibidem. However, almost all inscriptional ritual norms are written with a male reader in mind, and Hesiod’s rules are neither exceptional nor extraordinary in this regard. Greek society and religion were hierarchical and deeply patriarchal, and both the inscriptional and Hesiodic rules reflect this. Since most of the rules in Hesiod’s section 724–760 deal with ritual purity, they also illustrate the phenomenon which Mary Douglas observed and eloquently argued for in her pathbreaking study (Douglas [1966]): purity and pollution are instruments of social control. Female bodies are more prone to pollution than male bodies, and a male control and viewpoint are implied throughout.

27 Here, too, we find both ritual norms and theology, which we cannot discus at length here. Hesiod is careful to note that crops and sailing are both controlled by divinities and that sowing (v. 465–466) must be accompanied by prayers to Zeus and Demeter. Ultimately, crop success or failure, smooth sailing or shipwreck are in the hands of the gods. Zeus determines the success or failure of a harvest: v. 483–484; Zeus and Poseidon may cause a shipwreck, if they so decide (v. 667–669). Wealth and poverty are, ultimately, godsent.

28 See Clay (2003), p. 38.

29 W&D 320–335 (divinely sanctioned social norms) are followed by v. 336–341 (religious norms); v. 706–723 (social norms) are followed by v. 724–760 (religious norms).

30 See e.g. W&D 333–334. For the narrative strategies Hesiod employs to construct his own authority regarding divine matters and to strengthen the belief in the reality of divine influence, see now Romano (2020).

31 The expression θέμις (ἐστί) is a formula attested in ritual norms relating which activities are allowed to take place, or which groups are allowed to gain access to a sanctuary or to participate in a ritual. On this, see Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 96–97. The earliest examples of this formula in the extant ritual norms deal, as in Hesiod’s passage, with sacrifices: see e.g. CGRN 17, lines 1–2 (Thasos, 475–450 BC) which, as in Hesiod, combines the verb ἔρδειν with (οὐ) θέμις: Νύμφηισιν κἀπόλλωνι Νυμφηγέτηι θῆλυ καὶ ἄρσεν ἅμ βόληι προσέρδεν· ὄϊν οὐ θέμις οὐδὲ χοῖρον (“To the Nymphs and Apollo Nymphegetes bring to sacrifice a female and a male animal, whichever one wishes. A sheep or a piglet are not religiously permitted”). For other early examples of the formula related to sacrifice, see e.g. CGRN 23 and CGRN 27. The formula is attested already in Linear B; see Burkert (1985), p. 46 with n. 36. On (οὐ) θέμις, see in particular Peels (2016), p. 55–61 and 173–206.

32 As is evident in his punishment for Prometheus’ trickery, which extended to the whole human race, who thereby become collateral damage. On communal punishment as a protreptic strategy directed at Perses in W&D, see Clay (2003), p. 41. On Hesiod’s theology in general, see Martin (2018), with further literature.

33 On shipwrecks and pollution, see Parker (1983), p. 9; on crop failure and storms due to pollution, p. 257–258.

34 As Jenny Clay has pointed out to us, at the very beginning of the poem Hesiod invites Zeus to listen and watch (W&D 9).

35 V. 267–268: πάντα ἰδὼν Διὸς ὀφθαλμὸς καὶ πάντα νοήσας / καί νυ τάδ’ αἴ κ’ ἐθέλησ’ ἐπιδέρκεται, οὐδέ λήθει

36 We follow West (1978) and Verdenius (1985) comm. ad v. and understand τρὶς γὰρ μυροι as denoting an infinitely large number.

37 The watchers in this passage are the Golden race δαίμονες which Hesiod mentions in v. 121–126. On the manifold reception of Hesiod’s daimones in antiquity, see Koning (2010), p. 165–172.

38 For this etymology, see Chantraine, s.v. ὄπις, p. 808, who lists ὄσσε, ὄψ, and ὄπωπα as etymological cognates, as well as Beekes, EDoG, s.v. ὄπις, p. 1091: “The connection with ὀπ- in ὄψομαι […] can hardly be rejected.”

39 Burkert (1981), but see Verdenius’ (1985, p. 111) reservations on his etymologizing.

40 Chantraine s.v. ὄπις, p. 808, points out that the popular etymology developed from association with the adverb ὄπισθεν (see e.g. Philoxenus, fr. 568 Theodoridis: ὄπις, ἐξόπισθεν ἑπομένη τίσις). The expression θεῶν ὄπιν οὐκ ἀλέγοντες (Homer, Iliad 16.388; W&D 251) especially suggests the connection with ὄπισθεν: see Burkert (1981), p. 199–200. Hesiod’s ἄλγεα δῶκαν ὀπίσσω (v. 741) seems to pick up on this sense, too: see below, p. 210. Burkert (1981, p. 197) claims that there was also an ancient Greek association of ὄπις with ὄψεσθαι. We could not find any direct evidence to support this, but Burkert may have inferred it on the basis of ancient interpretations of ὄπις as ἐπιστροφή.

41 Verdenius (1985), comm. ad v. 187.

42 LfgrE s.v. ὄπις: Kontrollierender Blick der Götter, Göttl. Vergeltung, Strafe, die innerl. gefürchtet werden sollte.

43 In the section above, v. 251; in the section in which Hesiod outlines the impending punishment of Zeus for the Iron race in case they fail to venerate justice, v. 187: σχέτλιοι, οὐδὲ θεῶν ὄπιν εἰδότες (“dreadful men, not knowing the vengeance of the gods”); and in the line immediately preceding the section of divinely sanctioned social norms, v. 706: εὖ δ’ ὄπιν ἀθανάτων μακάρων πεφυλαγμένος εἶναι (“Be extremely careful to avoid the vengeance of the blessed gods”). Similarly, the Keres in the Theogony (v. 221–222) “never cease from their destructive wrath until they exert terrible vengeance (κακὴν ὄπιν) on whoever commits a crime”.

44 Clay (2003), p. 144.

45 We discuss these lines in Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 44–46.

46 W&D 225–226: οἳ δὲ δίκας ξείνοισι καὶ ἐνδήμοισι διδοῦσιν / ἰθείας καὶ μή τι παρεκβαίνουσι δικαίου.

47 W&D 238: οἷς δ’ ὕβρις τε μέμηλε κακὴ καὶ σχέτλια ἔργα.

48 W&D 333–334: τῷ δ’ ἤτοι Ζεὺς αὐτὸς ἀγαίεται, ἐς δὲ τελευτήν / ἔργων ἀντ’ ἀδίκων χαλεπὴν ἐπέθηκεν ἀμοιβήν (“With such a man Zeus himself is indignant and at the end, in return for unjust deeds, he inflicts a dreadful requital”. ἀγαίομαι, “to hold in contempt”, may be etymologically cognate to ἄγος, “attention of the divine”, here negative; see Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 47 with n. 28.

49 We agree with West (1978), comm. ad loc. on the meaning of ἐξ ἠοῦς here. Alternatively, one can grasp the meaning as “from the dawn onwards”.

50 Infinitives other than v. 724 and 759: 727: ὀμείχειν; 734: παραφαινέμεν and ἀλέασθαι; 736: σπερμαίνειν; 738: περᾶν; 743: τάμνειν; 744: τιθέμεν; 746: καταλείπειν; 749: ἔσθειν and λόεσθαι; 750: καθίζειν; 753: φαιδρύνεσθαι; 756: μωμεύειν; 758: οὐρεῖν and ἐξαλέασθαι. Three of these are accusative infinitive constructions (735–736; 748–749; 753–754).

51 V. 729: οὐρήσεις. On short-vowel subjunctives, see West (1978), comm. ad v. 293.

52 Punishments: v. 726, 741, 745, 749, 754–755, 756. Warnings: v. 750 and 759. An exegesis is provided only in v. 751.

53 Allan (2010) provides an analysis of the use of the imperatival infinitive in ancient Greek and demonstrates that the infinitive’s distinctive function in this usage (and the way it differs from the imperative) is to refer to an appropriate action which has to be carried out as an element of a specific practical action or conventional social procedure. Such use of infinitives is attested from Homer onward and is particularly common in inscriptions regulating proper procedure, such as religious norms or laws. On imperatival infinitives in ritual norms, see also NGSL, p. 5–6.

54 See e.g. IG I3 4.B 11–20 (Athens, early 5th c. BC).

55 See CGRN 12, comm., with further literature. On ἐς τοῦ δρόμου as equivalent to κ τοῦ δρόμου in Delphic inscriptions, ibidem on line 1.

56 For the early Archaic parallels, see Hoessly (2001), p. 20–21 on νίζω relating to hands, and p. 37–40, on purification before libations in Homer; see also Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 107–109. The rule is so important that it seems to have been formulaic — cf. Hector’s words in Hom. Il. 6.266–268: χερσὶ δ᾽ ἀνίπτοισιν Διὶ λείβειν αἴθοπα οἶνον | ἅζομαι· οὐδέ πῃ ἔστι κελαινεφέϊ Κρονίωνι | αἵματι καὶ λύθρῳ πεπαλαγμένον εὐχετάασθαι.

57 Chaniotis (1997) and (2012).

58 Proclus ad v. 724–726. Cf. LSAM 20, lines 3–4, 12, and 59 (= CGRN 191), where παράγγελμα is used as an emic term to designate ritual instructions.

59 For the act of “spitting out” what is polluted, see also Empedocles, B 115 DK, v. 10 where the verb ἀποπτύω is used to denote the Elements spitting out the daimon, which is conceived of as λῦμα. Cf. Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 87–89. For spitting as an act of purification in Aeschylus, see fr. 354 Nauck: ἀποπτύσαι δεῖ καὶ καθήρασθαι στόμα, quoted by Plutarch, De Iside, 20 (358e) in the context of pollution emanating from inappropriate stories and outlandish views about the gods. Maschalismos, accompanied by licking and spitting out the blood of the victim, constitutes an attempt to avert pollution for murder (Apollonius Rhodius, 4.478–479, with scholia).

60 For ἄθυτα ἔστω, cf. e.g. IG XII 4, 1.304, line 39 (Iscr. di Cos ED 216 B 39), Hellenistic period: τ̣ ἱερὰ ἔστω ἄθυτα. See also LSAM 84 with examples in Sokolowski’s commentary, p. 188 ad line 11. On unanswered and rejected prayers in tragedy and Homer, see Mikalson (1989). For instances of failed sacrifices attested in literature, in several cases because of impurity, see Naiden (2013), p. 333–339. For failed prayers, Naiden (2013), p. 189, with the literature in n. 274.

61 We accept West’s arguments for transposing v. 757–759: see West (1978), p. 338, and also Hunter (2014), p. 182–184. In terms of composition, v. 757–758 cap the two μηδ’ … ἀλλ’ constructions from two previous injunctions (v. 733–734, 735–736) with μηδέμάλα (758), while ἐξαλέασθαι (758) picks up on ἀλέασθαι from v. 734, as pointed out by Canevaro (2012), p. 341.

62 West (1978) comm. ad v. 727–732 and 757–759; Nagy (1990), p. 70–71, followed by Kurke (2011), p. 205–207, but see also the reservations in Rutherford (2009), p. 19–22.

63 Olivelle (2004), p. 25: “[T]he likely period for the composition of the MDh would be 2nd–3rd centuries CE. Indeed, this corresponds to the date of 3rd century CE assigned to the MDh by the great Indian scholar of epigraphy and numismatics, D.C. Sircar (1968, 52).” Previous scholarship tended to date the text more vaguely between the 2nd c. BC and 2nd c. AD; see Olivelle (2004), p. 23–24.

64 Herodotus, 1.138.2: ἐς ποταμὸν δὲ οὔτε ἐνουρέουσι οὔτε ἐμπτύουσι, οὐ χεῖρας ἐναπονίζονται οὐδὲ ἄλλον οὐδένα περιορῶσι, ἀλλὰ σέβονται ποταμοὺς μάλιστα. Cf. Wächter (1910), p. 134–135, with n. 2.

65 V. 759: μηδ’ ἐναποψύχειν. On ἐναποψύχειν as “shit”, see West (1978), comm. ad v. and Cambridge Greek Lexicon s.v. The verb is understood in the same way by Plutarch (fr. 98 Sandbach), which is why he athetized these verses as “trivial and unworthy of the Muse of education”. See Hunter (2014), p. 182–186.

66 W&D 391–392: γυμνὸν σπείρειν, γυμνὸν δὲ βοωτεῖν, / γυμνὸν δ’ ἀμάειν… (“Naked sow, and naked drive the oxen, and naked reap”).

67 We agree with Beall (2001), p. 165, who notes that Helios is felt as personalized in v. 727. Although Helios did not play a major role in civic cults, as the all-seeing divinity he was frequently invoked in oaths, and there are several intriguing references in tragedy to the need for polluted individuals to avoid the sun: Heracles veils himself after the murder of his children in order to avoid the sun (Euripides, Hercules Furens, 1231–1232), Creon orders the attendants to take Oedipus out of the sun and not to expose his agos uncovered (Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, 1425–1428); Jason asks Medea how she can look at the sun after killing her children (Euripides, Medea, 1327); the chorus protests at Orestes’ displaying a bloody sword to the sun (Euripides, Orestes, 821–822). Parker (1983), p. 316–317, suggests that “when heroes or their attendants say that they pollute the sun, or that earth itself will not receive them, it is tempting to see this rejection by the very elements as an extreme extension of their exclusion from the society of men”.

68 V. 730. According to Proclus ad v. 727–732, the divinity in question is Enodia. Clay (2003), p. 89–90, understands μάκαρες as an apotropaic euphemism signifying evil spirits or ghosts that emerged from the perished Silver race.

69 V. 757–758. On rivers as divinities, see Hes. Th. 337–345.

70 West (1978), comm. ad v. 721.

71 Parker (1983), p. 292.

72 Currie (2005), p. 172–200, quote at p. 173.

73 Ercolani (2010), comm. ad v. 731–732.

74 Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 41–52.

75 Hesiod introduces the second explanation of the necessity of work by saying that the gods and men have a common origin or starting point (v. 108), and he calls Perses δῖον γένος in v. 299, indicating that even a person like Perses can become a θεῖος ἀνήρ if he internalizes Hesiod’s lessons.

76 See Wächter (1910), p. 134–137, and Dillon (1997), passim and esp. p. 126 (with epigraphic evidence gathered in n. 123). Dillon correctly stresses that the main concern of such stipulations is the pollution of the sanctuary caused by human or animal excrement (pointing to Aristophanes, Vespae, 394; Ranae, 366; and the lexicographic tradition). On κόπρος in sanctuaries, see also Larson (2016), p. 137–138. On ὄνθος and κόπρος in the Hekatompedon inscription, IG I3 4, see Németh (1998), p. 59–64. For the (late) anecdotal tradition about mass-defecations in the temple of Pythion in the 6th c. BC as a form of anti-tyrannical protests, see Lynch (1984), p. 177–179. Proclus’ exasperated comment regarding the prohibition on defecating into the mouths of the rivers (ad v. 757–759, “not everyone is sane and some people might transgress even this rule”) is revealing.

77 See SEG 46.1157 for the location. See also LSCG 115, 4th c. BC, Garden of Heracles, Thasos. This lease stipulates that the grounds need to be kept clean from κόπρος, and that those emptying pots containing κόπρος in the area are to be punished (a freeman’s pot would be confiscated, a slave could be whipped). See Dillon (1997), p. 125–126.

78 A further example: a 1st-c.-AD text from Gabel Toukh, north of Ptolemaïs in Egypt, warns a potential defecator of the wrath of Pan (I.Pan 15): ἱερός τόπος. ὃς ἐὰν ̣δε̣ [μ]ο̣ [χ]έσῃ ο̣ὐρήσῃ Πᾶνα̣ ἕξ̣[ει κεχολωμένον].

79 Aristophanes, Plutus, 1182–1184: νῦν δ᾽ οὐδὲ εἷς | θύει τὸ παράπαν οὐδὲν οὐδ᾽ εἰσέρχεται, | πλὴν ἀποπατησόμενοί γε πλεῖν μύριοι. We thank Mat Carbon for drawing our attention to this passage.

80 Efforts to preserve cleanliness of roads are also attested in early Greek inscriptions: a fifth-century-BC inscription from Paros prohibited disposing ἐκ[α]θάρματ[α] on the road: IG XII 5, 107: ὃς ἂν βάλληι τὰ ἐκ[α]θάρματ[α] ἄνωθεν τῆς ὁδο῀, μίαν καὶ πεντήκοντα δραχμ[]ς ὀφελέ[τ]ω τῶι θέ[λ]οντι πρ[]χ[σαι ․․]. For interpretation of ἐκαθάρματα as possibly excrement, see LGS 104.

81 I.Eph. II 567, late first century BC or later, carved on the Gate of Mazaeus and Mithridates, with an image of Hecate: ε̣ τις ἂν ὧδε οὐρήσι, Ἑκάτη αὐτῷ κεχλωται. I.Eph. II 569: ὧδε οὐρήσαντι Ἄρτεμ[ις] [κε]χόλωται. I.Eph. II 568: ὃς ἂν ὧδε οὐρήσει, αὑτὸ[ν α]ἰτιάσεται. For a Roman parallel, with Hecate sternly warning against cacare and miare, “si neglexerit, viderit”, see CIL III 1966, Salona; cf. CIL IV 7038; CIL IV 7716, Pompeii (cacator, cave malum, aut si contempseris, habeas Iove[m] iratum). For a discussion, see Varone (2016), p. 111–130. Notable is also the stipulation regarding urination in CGRN 225, Marmarini, 3rd–2nd c. BC, face B, lines 80–81: ἐὰν δέ τις ἐν τῶι περιστύλωι οὐρήσει αἷμα ποήσει, καθαιρέτω τὸν προγεγραμμένον καθαρμόν.

82 See SEG 49.1461; Trinkl (1999) suggests that a relief found at Ephesus representing Zeus was intended to ward off urinators from public spaces.

83 LSS 50, lines 1–5. NGSL, p. 29 draws attention to following parallels: LSCG 152, Kos, 4th c. BC, the spring of the Nymphs in the sanctuary of Asclepius; LSS 4 (IG I3 257), Athens, 440–430 BC, protection of the river Ilissus upstream from the precinct of Heracles from soaking animal skins and other katharmata; LSS 81, Samos, 1st c. AD, protection of the spring Imbrasos sacred to Hera. Mat Carbon has pointed out to us a similar concern expressed in I.Priene (2014) 377, 3rd c. BC (SEG 62.906). A preference of ritual norms for the term κρήνη is pointed out by Gawlinski (2012), p. 194–195.

84 See e.g. Hom. Il. 6.267–268: οὐδέ πῃ ἔστι κελαινεφέϊ Κρονίωνι / αἵματι καὶ λύθρῳ πεπαλαγμένον εὐχετάασθαι.

85 See Parker (1983), p. 76.

86 δεῖν οὖν <τὸν> μεμολυσμένον ἀπὸ γονῆς ἀποκρύπτειν τὰ αἴτια τοῦ μολυσμοῦ καὶ μὴ γυμνοῦν ἐγγὺς τῆς ἑστίας· βωμὸς γὰρ καὶ αὕτη τῶν θεῶν καὶ καθημερινῶν θυσιῶν καὶ σπονδῶν ὑποδοχή· μὴ οὖν ἀπογυμνούμενον μολύνειν τὴν ἑστίαν (ed. Pertusi), “When a person is stained with semen, he should cover the cause of the stain, and not expose it in the vicinity of the hearth: for the hearth, too, is an altar of the gods, and the receptacle of daily sacrifices and libations. Hence, one should not stain the hearth by being nude [sc. in such circumstances].” Ercolani (2010), p. 400 asserts that sexual taboos related to fire and the hearth are attested in Greek culture and adduces Hipponax fr. 78.10 West, which in our view is too fragmentary to be conclusive. Nevertheless, Greek belief concerning the polluting power of ejaculate is in line with similar beliefs attested widely in other Mediterranean and Near Eastern traditions: see Leviticus 15, esp. 16–18, with Grohmann (2013), p. 271, and Blidstein (2017), p. 39 (and p. 115 on Didache); for complementary views in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Werrett (2007), p. 51–52, 60–61, 159–161; for Mesopotamian views concerning deviant and polluting vs. normal and auspicious ejaculation, see Šumma ālu 104 § 36, with Sallaberger (2011), p. 25–28.

87 For the Greek material, see Parker (1983), p. 74–103; for pollution by the emission of semen, besides this passage in Hesiod, Parker adduces Ar. Ra. 753, with the scholion. The scholiast glosses κμιαίνομαι as ἀποσπερματίζειν ὡς οἱ ὀνειρώττοντες. Parker (1983), p. 342, tentatively discusses the possibility of the Cyrenaean cathartic law mentioning a wet dream as pollution, but in the end urges caution.

88 For the view that menstrual blood, milk, and semen develop successively from blood (with women being too “cold” to produce semen), see Aristotle, Parts of Animals, 650a 8 ff. and Generation of Animals, 774a 1, with King (1998), p. 33–34 and 96–97. Similar views are attested among the Hippocratics and early philosophers (specifically Empedocles: cf. fr. B 68 DK). On (menstrual) blood, see below on v. 753–755. For a possible case of the defiling power of breast milk in cult, see Petrovic — Petrovic (2018), p. 237.

89 Apollodorus (3.14.6) describes Athena’s horror at Hephaestus’ ejaculation. On this episode, see McInerney (2019). In a later source, γονοπώτης is mentioned in a typology of the most hubristic and polluted individuals (Manetho, Apotelesmatica 4.311). On oral sex as source of pollution, see Parker (1983), p. 97 and 99.

90 Burkert (1983), p. 60, n. 11, offers a catalogue of myths about the punishment of those who have had sex in a sanctuary.

91 CGRN 5, lines 1–2, Olympia, 525–500 BC: αἰ δὲ βενέοι ἐν τἰαροῖ, βοΐ κα θοάδοι καὶ κοθάρσι τελείαι, “But if (a person) were to fuck in the sanctuary, he would be penalized with (the sacrifice of) a bovine and with a perfect purification” [tr. CGRN, modified]. The sacrifice of an ox is, of course, an expensive affair, as was the perfect (that is complete) purification of the sanctuary, as Mat Carbon and Saskia Peels point out in comm. ad CGRN 5. The prohibition of intercourse on sacred grounds was a fundamental rule and, for that reason, rarely explicitly formulated, but requirements for a passage of time after intercourse are frequently attested. Nevertheless, from the later period there are several instances of confession inscriptions in which the transgression of intercourse in a sanctuary and the resulting divine punishment is admitted. See Petzl (1994), no. 110 = Ricl (1995), 113; especially interesting is the case of a repeat offender, Theodorus: Petzl (1994), no. 5 = Ricl (1995), 78. Cf. Carbon (2018), p. 11–12.

92 West (1978), p. 337, with a reference to Demosthenes, 43.62; West also points out that in the Laws (12.947d), Plato prohibits women of childbearing age from attending officials’ funerals. See also Parker (1983), p. 70, with n. 123, and Garland (1990), p. 24–25.

93 Scholia ad v. 735–736.

94 For medical views on “critical days” for conception, see Eight Months’ Child, 9, with King (1998), p. 27.

95 Cf. CGRN 71. For a tabular view of the extant purity regulations which include clauses on the temporal duration of abstentions, see Petrovic — Petrovic (2018), p. 228–231, to which one should now add the new text from Thyateira, discussed in Parker (2018), p. 178–183.

96 Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 41–52. For literary attestations of prayers before traversing a body of water, see Ercolani (2010), p. 402.

97 In inscriptional norms, this formulation finds parallels in statements such as “one will have himself to blame”, “the gods abhor those who are not hosioi”, “this will be a burden on one’s conscience” (enthumion), and similar. Some of the relevant evidence is collected in Petrovic — Petrovic 2006. In v. 200, Hesiod conceptualizes nemesis as an external inhibitor of human injustice that, coupled with the internal one, aidōs, might eventually leave the human realm in consequence of the transgressions of the Iron Age men. In the Theogony, 223–224, Nemesis is a daughter of Night and a bane for mortal men. For an insightful discussion of the Hesiodic divine Nemesis, which sooner or later reaches the transgressor, and her role in the maintenance of dike, see Bonanno (2016).

98 On the ancient understanding of ὄπις as related to ὄπισθεν, and the divine punishment that will eventually, but inevitably, reach the culprit, see above p. 195.

99 On the regulation prohibiting the pollution of this river by the tanning of hides, see n. 83. Phaedrus notes and praises the purity and the clarity of its waters (229b 7–8: χαρίεντα γοῦν καὶ καθαρὰ καὶ διαφανῆ τὰ ὑδάτια φαίνεται).

100 On Phaedrus 230b 2–e 1 as the quintessential locus amoenus and its influence in later literature, see Yunis (2011), p. 96, with bibliography. For a map of the route Socrates and Phaedrus took, Yunis (2011), p. xii.

101 Plato, Phaedrus 242a 1–2: κἀγὼ τὸν ποταμὸν τοῦτον διαβὰς ἀπέρχομαι πρὶν ὑπὸ σοῦ τι μεῖζον ἀναγκασθῆναι (“I will cross this river and go before you force me to do something worse”). On the force of τι μεῖζον here, see Yunis (2011), comm. ad loc.

102 Text: Burnet; translation: Fowler (1914; Loeb), modified.

103 Plato, Phaedrus 242d–e.

104 Plato, Phaedrus 243a 2–4: ἐμοὶ μὲν οὖν, φίλε, καθήρασθαι ἀνάγκη· ἔστιν δὲ τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσι περὶ μυθολογίαν καθαρμὸς ἀρχαῖος, ὃν Ὅμηρος μὲν οὐκ ᾔσθετο, Στησίχορος δέ (“My friend, I must purify myself, and there is an ancient purification for those who transgress in regard to mythical discourse, which Homer didn’t know, but Stesichorus did”). Even though Socrates refers to his first speech as μυθολογία here and as μῦθος at 237a 9 and proclaims that he might be inspired by the Nymphs towards the middle of it (238d 1–2), the speech itself does not treat eros as a god at all, but defines it as a type of ἐπιθυμία (237d 4 and 238b 5–c 3). Since Socrates does not treat eros as divine, his transgression was, strictly speaking, not so much a wrong μυθολογία but a lack of μυθολογία. It was Socrates’ neglect of the divine aspects of eros that caused his inner pollution.

105 On Plato’s manifold reception of Hesiod, see Boys-Stones — Haubold (2010). On Hesiodic resonances in the Phaedrus specifically, Boys-Stones (2010), esp. p. 49–50. Boys-Stones juxtaposes Hesiod’s correction of the portrayal of Eris (Th. 226, where she is represented as a baneful goddess, vs. W&D 11–12, where she also has positive aspects) as parallel to Socrates’ double account of Eros.

106 Plato, Phaedrus 242a 1 and 242b 7; Ἡνίκἔμελλον, ὠγαθέ, τὸν ποταμὸν διαβαίνειν is almost a hexameter. Cf. W&D 740: ὃς ποταμὸν διαβῇ.

107 On the extraordinary agency of Socrates’ daimonion in this passage, see Yunis (2011), p. 122–123.

108 van der Veer (1936), p. 48–49, points out that the palinode represents a case of moral cleansing. In his analysis of various meanings of the verb ἀφοσιοῦν in Plato’s corpus, van der Veer (p. 116) notes that Plato employs the verb three times to denote religious purification as the result of an offence against a deity (Plato, Phaedo 60e 2, 61b 1; Phaedrus 242c 3).

109 Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 35.

110 West (1978), comm. ad v. 742–743, provides the solution of the riddle: “Do not cut your nails at a sacrifice.” On Hesiod’s riddling language, see Canevaro (2015), p. 138–139 and 168–180; Vergados (2020), p. 189–205.

111 West (1978), comm. ad v. 742–743, draws attention to the Pythagorean acusmata (Iamblichus, Vita Pythagorae, 154; Protrepticus, 21), according to which hair and nails must not be cut at a sacrifice or a festival. For a discussion of the relevant acusmata, see Parker (1983), p. 294–295, and Thom (2020). Cf. IL Af. 225, a 2nd-c.-AD ritual norm from Thuburbo Maius which includes the stipulation that the visitor abstain from entering the sanctuary of Asclepius for three days after visiting a barber shop; according to Kleijwegt (1994), this regulation might share the same concerns as the acusmata. For an analysis of the treatment of hair and nails among the Indo-Europeans, see Lincoln (2021), p. 265–275. In the more mainstream Greek religious tradition, the practice of dedicating hair was common, but evidence for the dedication of fingernails and toenails is slim (attested, as far as we can see, on the Roman side for the flamen Dialis; nails used as ousia in magical practices clearly represent a different matter altogether). For the hair ex-votos, and an overview of the most important interpretations of the practice, see Draycott (2017).

112 Proclus, scholia ad v. 742–743: “He recommends therefore not to cut the nails at festivities of the gods. One ought to attend the festivities having cut the nails and purified oneself, instead of doing that on the occasion. For in some way, also, if people separate the nails from the body, this is to make dead one of our parts, as the nails have grown together with the body and they coexist with what nourishes them. It is necessary, then, if you haven’t taken care to cut the nails which predecease the rest of the body, not to deprive them of life during the festivities of the gods who have a life eternal. For this is alien to the gods.” The view that fingernails are unclean was espoused by Plutarch before Proclus: in Moralia, 352d–e, Plutarch comments on W&D 742–743 and explains that περίττωμα (“refuse, surplus”), such as food left-overs, excrement, wool, fur, hair, and nails, are impure and therefore must not be dealt with during festivals. Plutarch’s commentary on W&D in at least four books is lost. Proclus relied on it heavily, but the extent to which Plutarch can be recuperated from Proclus is subject to debate. See Marzillo (2010), p. xlviii–li, and Hunter (2014), p. 167–215.

113 For the etymology of θάλεια as derived from θάλλω (“blühend, üppig”), see Frisk s.v. Even though θάλεια is always used of banquets in epic, the connection with θάλλω (bloom, sprout, grow) was nevertheless felt; cf. Scholia vetera in Odysseam 3.420e 2 ed. Pontani: θάλειαν] τὴν ποιοῦσαν θάλλειν καὶ χαίρειν τὸν θύοντα; 8.76c: θαλείῃ: τῇ θαλλούσῃ θάλλειν ποιούσῃ.

114 Plutarch, Moralia 28b; Tryphon, De tropis, 23 West. See Hunter — Russell (2011), comm. ad Mor. 28b and Hunter (2014), p. 178–179.

115 Plut. Mor. 156d–e. Some scholars attribute a large portion of Proclus’ comment on W&D 744–745 to Plutarch (fr. 93 Sandbach), but the attribution of this particular fragment is far from certain: see Hunter (2014), p. 178–179. Proclus (or Plutarch fr. 93 Sandbach) compares this injunction to the Pythagorean acusmata and offers an allegorical interpretation: do not put private before common interest. Other interpretations from the scholia (ad v. 744a): that which spends and empties (oenochoe) is not superior to that which keeps and protects (crater); only those who drink heavily keep an oenochoe on a crater.

116 See Canevaro (2015), p. 139–140, with bibliography.

117 See below on the structuring principle of the passage. Ritual norms seldom demonstrate comparable concerns regarding the placement of ritual objects above or below each other. An exception is CGRN 35 (= LSCG 97), a funerary regulation from Iulis, Ceos, 5th c. BC. The norm stipulates that, following a funeral, the bier is to be brought back into the house and the house purified with sea water; it then instructs (lines 21–23): μὲ ὑποτιθέναι κύλικα ὑπὸ τὴ[γ κλίν]ην, μεδὲ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐκχεν μεδὲ τὰ καλλύ[σμα]τα φέρεν ἐπὶ τὸ σῆμα (“and do not place a wine-cup under the bier, and do not pour out water and do not bring the sweepings to the tomb”). Parker (1983), p. 35–36, suggests that the motivation of the lawgiver was to curb superstitious practices that take beliefs in death pollution too far. In his view, (p. 36), “the point of these rituals was to banish death pollution from the house, the first two by catching it in a vessel of water which was then poured away, and the third by sweeping it out with the household’s physical dirt and depositing it where it belonged, at the tomb”. It is possible that Cean magistrates perceived the placement of a wine cup under a bier as a structural violation of order, a mixing of realms, and a ritual transgression.

118 Following the suggestion of scholia ad v. 744a.

119 For μοῖρα as “share, portion” in Hesiod, Th. 413 and 789; fr. 257.5 MW.

120 For an overview of the most important sources, see now Mynott (2018), p. 21–32.

121 Artemidorus, Oneirocritica 2.20.50–51; cf. Mynott (2018), p. 287. For Roman examples, see Dunbabin (2019).

122 Scholia ad v. 746a: ἔνιοι δὲ ἀνεπίρρεκτον γράφουσι, τουτέστιν ἀθυμίαστον. Both adjectives are hapax legomena, ἀνεπίξεστος from ἐπιξέω (“polish”) and ἀνεπίρρεκτος from ἐπιρέζω (“offer sacrifices besides or in addition”).

123 The association of the crow with misfortune is widespread due to its color and carrion diet; see Foufopoulos — Litinas (2005). West (1978), p. 341, adduces modern Greek and German beliefs that the perching of a crow on the roof announces a death in the house.

124 Athenaeus, 359e–360a. For the symbolism in the Greek context, see Mynott (2018), p. 272–273. Crows were believed to be exceptionally long-lived, and hence presented an apt reference in the blessings of the bride and groom; on longevity, see Lewis — Llewellyn-Jones (2018), p. 473.

125 Foufopoulos — Litinas (2005), p. 15–16.

126 Vita G, ch. 77: Xanthus claims to be an expert reader of bird signs and sends Aesop to see whether there is any bad omen in front of the gateway, instructing him that a pair of crows (δικόρωνον) means εὐφροσύνη. Aesop sees two and reports the happy sign to his master, but in the meantime one flies off. When Xanthus sees only one crow present, he punishes Aesop with a flogging, but shortly afterwards he receives a dinner invitation. Aesop complains and says that he, who actually saw a pair of crows was beaten, whereas Xanthus, who saw only one, got invited, and concludes that bird signs are pointless. Kurke (2011), p. 208–210, sees this passage as a response to W&D 746–747 and one of the three instances in which The Life of Aesop subverts Hesiod’s sophia. She reads the episode as a critique of the power relations underpinning the authority of interpreting omens. Intriguingly, in a fable told by Dion of Prusa, a single crow really does represent a bad omen (34.5).

127 See West (1978), comm. ad v. 828. According to the scholion on this line, in the ancient manuscripts Ornithomanteia immediately followed W&D, but Apollonius of Rhodes proclaimed it spurious. West is skeptical about the faith modern scholars place in Apollonius’ judgement on the issue of authenticity and points out multiple mentions of bird omens in W&D, including v. 747. On the Hesiodic corpus, see Cingano (2009).

128 Mynott (2018), p. 24.

129 This observation is rooted in reality: because their beaks are too weak to break animal hides, crows feed on the soft and easily accessible parts of corpses, see Foufopoulos — Litinas (2005), p. 17.

130 For visual evidence, see Lewis — Llewellyn-Jones (2018), p. 476 and 480–481, with bibliography. On corvids and their appetite for corpses in literary sources, Mynott (2018), p. 402. In Sophocles’ Antigone, 1006–1022, Tiresias reports that scavenger birds and dogs, who were feasting on the unburied corpse of Polynices, have spread pollution to the altars and braziers, resulting in a complete failure of ritual communication with the gods in Thebes.

131 On roofs as cross-cultural focal points of superstitions, see West (1978), p. 341. Mat Carbon has suggested to us that an unfinished roof may have facilitated the penetration of pollution into the house.

132 Some have also provided a poetological interpretation: see the discussion in Canevaro (2015), p. 137–138.

133 Verdenius (1962), p. 152–153, observes that ὕπερδε of v. 744 (= ὕπερθεν West) introduces a series of verses in which the “placement atop” is a structural principle: “Der Begriff »auf« bleibt der Leitgedanke” (p. 153).

134 Scholia ad v. 748c ed. Pertusi. Sikes (1893), p. 392, supports this interpretation.

135 The prepositional phrase ἐφ’ ὧν glosses ἀθύτων and clarifies its meaning. The meaning is “for”, “as a result of”, and here explains the reason for qualifying the pots as ἀνεπιρρέκτων. See BDAG, s.v. ἐπί, II i.

136 On first offerings at meals, see Jameson (1949); Jim (2014), p. 117–129; Ekroth (2021).

137 See Jim (2014), p. 125, commenting on v. 336–339: “what is recommended here is that one should make offerings at meals both in the mornings and evenings.” But with respect to v. 748–749, she (n. 40) rejects Plutarch’s and Jameson’s (1949, p. 143–150) interpretation and endorses the view that the verses ordain that “there should be a sacrifice for purification before a new pot was used”. For a similar view, see Ercolani (2010), p. 406. We could not find any Greek parallels for an initiatory purification of new pots. Sinclair’s (1966), p. 77, interpretation of Moschopoulos’ ἀφ’ ὧν as “over them” and as relating to an apotropaic sacrifice is problematic.

138 West (1978), comm. ad v. 748, rejects Plutarch’s interpretation and posits that “the danger with pots is that they may have been polluted through being used by some unholy person”. We do not think it probable that Hesiod had the possibility of an unholy visitor wandering in and polluting the pots in mind here. On the use of chytrai in household rituals from the Archaic period onwards, see ThesCRA V, p. 334–335.

139 See Diodorus, 5.68.1: “It is told that Hestia invented the building of houses, and that on account of this benefaction nearly everyone in every house established her shrine, where she receives honours and sacrifices.” On the role of the hearth in household rituals, Parker (2005), p. 14–16; ThesCRA VIII, p. 22–25, with bibliography.

140 ThesCRA VIII, p. 23 refers to Plato, Cratylus, 401b1 (ἀφ᾽ Ἑστίας ἀρχώμεθα κατὰ τὸν νόμον;) and Aristophanes, Vespae, 846, with scholia. See also Nilsson (1967), p. 338.

141 On daily offerings, see Nilsson (1940), p. 73; ThesCRA VIII p. 18–19 and 23–24. Ekroth (2021) provides an overview of solid food thrown into the fire in Greek sanctuaries; for an overview of the daily offerings of food and drink to the fire in household ritual from Homer onwards, p. 28–31.

142 See ThesCRA VIII, p. 23, with a detailed overview of everyday and periodic rituals performed for household divinities.

143 Plato, Leges 8.843a 1: τἀκίνητα κινεῖν ἀληθῶς τοῦτο εἶναι (“this is truly ‘to move the non-movables’ ”); Leg. 11.913b 8–9: ἐπὶ πολλοῖς γὰρ δὴ λεγόμενον εὖ τὸ μὴ κινεῖν τὰ ἀκίνητα (“for in many situations is the proverb ‘do not move the non-movables’ really well suited”).

144 Diogenianus, Paroemiae, 2.6, 2nd c. AD, ed. Schneidewin and von Leutsch: κίνητα κινεῖς· ὅτι οὐ δεῖ κινεῖν, οὐ βωμοὺς, οὐ τάφους (“you are moving the non-movables: that which one oughtn’t move, no altars, no graves”). Zenobius Paroemiogr. 1.55, 2nd c. AD, ed. Schneidewin and von Leutsch: κίνητα κινεῖν· καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν, ὅτι μὴ δεῖ κινεῖν μήτε βωμοὺς, μήτε τάφους ἡρῷα (“to move the non-movables: used hyperbolically, because one ought move neither the altars, nor graves, nor hero-shrines”). Cf. Suda α, 888.

145 Scholia ad v. 750a.

146 Canevaro (2015), p. 140–141.

147 In the Archaic period, the household hearth was not moveable, and Hesiod provides an indirect attestation for this by remarking that the steering-oar should be hung “above the smoke” (W&D 45 and 629) when not in use. See also West (1978), comm. ad v. 45. From the late Archaic period onward, multi-room single-entrance courtyard houses without a fixed hearth became the norm, and portable braziers were used instead of fixed hearths. On the transition from a fixed hearth to braziers, see Tsakirgis (2007).

148 Hamilton (1984); Laes (2014); ThesCRA VI, p. 2–3. On Callimachus’ Iambus 12 and the amphidromia ritual, a possible attestation of the practice outside Athens, see Petrovic (2019), with bibliography.

149 The sources specify that women who assisted at the birth were purified (but the specific means of their purification are not attested). Carrying the child around the hearth may have been a form of purification, but the hearth also represents the very core of the household and the ritual symbolizes the inclusion of the new member into the family group. See Parker (1983), p. 51–52.

150 Depictions of the supplication ritual performed in private houses attest to the possibility of sitting at the hearth while the fire is still burning. Homer’s Odysseus sits “at the hearth in the ashes by the fire” (Od. 7.153–154: κατ’ ἄρ’ ἕζετ’ ἐπ’ ἐσχάρῃ ἐν κονίῃσι / πὰρ πυρί). On the role of the hearth in supplication, see Naiden (2006), p. 38–41.

151 One could think of a Boeotian version of a ritual akin to the Athenian and Ionian apatouria, at which a child, typically about one year old, was introduced to the community; but at Athens, at least, such ceremonies took place outside the house. On the apatouria, see Neils (2003), p. 143–145.

152 The thought that close (in this case, sexual) contact with a goddess can make a man weak and impotent is found in the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite 185–190, where Anchises fears lest Aphrodite makes him ἀμενηνὸν ἐν ἀνθρώποισιν and explains that a man who sleeps with immortal goddesses becomes οὐ βιοθάλμιος (“not flourishing in life”). On Anchises’ fear of losing his virility, see Faulkner (2008), comm. ad v. 188–190.

153 BDAG, s.v.

154 Cambridge Greek Lexicon, s.v.

155 Proclus comm. ad 750–752 endorses Plutarch’s Platonizing interpretation: babies should not be left unmoved, for then they become weak. In Leg. 7.789b–e, Plato famously endorses neonatal and even pre-natal exercise regimes.

156 West (1978), comm. ad loc., adduces examples of beliefs among Germans and Scots of an “infection” of either sex with the properties of the other.

157 For περίττωμα as “refuse, surplus”, see above n. 112. In The Symposium of the Seven Sages (Mor. 158a–b), Plutarch praises Hesiod’s medical knowledge due to his instructions regarding diet (W&D 585–596), infants (750–752), as well regarding this passage about female bathwater. See Hunter (2014), p. 171–173.

158 But cf. Parker (1983), p. 103, commenting on v. 753–755: “There is no reason to see in that a reference to menstruation.” On breast milk as a possible source of pollution, see Petrovic — Petrovic (2018), p. 237.

159 It is true, as Parker (1983), p. 101–102, notes, that purity concerns regarding menstrual blood appear only in late ritual norms of non-Greek cults. However, nearly all surviving ritual norms that contain the apo-clause and predicate access to sanctuaries on periods of abstention pertain to non-Greek cults and are attested outside central Greece; see Petrovic — Petrovic (2018); this may or may not be a peculiarity of the epigraphic record.

160 Robertson (1969), p. 168. Following Robertson’s interpretation, Kurke (2011), p. 210–212, sees the verses as a “warning against criticizing diverse local sacrificial practices” and “a general Panhellenic admonition to respect the diversity of epichoric practice, endorsed by the threat of the god’s nemesis” (p. 211). She argues that, since this is precisely what Aesop did at Delphi according to the biographical tradition, Aesop’s criticism of the Delphic priests is one of the three extensive parodies of Hesiod’s precepts in the Aesopic tradition. For Callimachus’ allusion to W&D 755–756 at the end the Hymn to Apollo, see Petrovic (2019), p. 292–296.

161 West (1978), p. 343–344. Wilamowitz (1928), p. 128, suggests that the phrase represents an extension of the request for euphemia: one should not make plain one’s objections to a sacrifice by unintelligible murmuring (“unverständliches Brummen”).

162 Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 50–51.

163 See above p. 217.

164 V. 754–755 clearly relate to a temporary ποινή.

165 See the discussion in Gagarin (2008), p. 13–38.

166 See Chaniotis (2009), p. 102, on the oral character of ta patria and ta nomima; Carbon — Pirenne-Delforge (2017), esp. p. 143 and 154, on the oral/unwritten background of ritual norms.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Andrej Petrovic et Ivana Petrovic, « Hesiod’s Religious Norms in Context: On Works & Days 724–760 »Kernos, 35 | 2022, 185-232.

Référence électronique

Andrej Petrovic et Ivana Petrovic, « Hesiod’s Religious Norms in Context: On Works & Days 724–760 »Kernos [En ligne], 35 | 2022, mis en ligne le 01 février 2024, consulté le 19 juillet 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/4231 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/kernos.4231

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search