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
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.
The section has been analyzed also within the framework of non-Greek traditions, see below, p. 203.
On the problems concerning the term “sacred law” and on terminological issues more generally, see NGSL, p. 3–5; Parker (2004); Chaniotis (2009); Carbon — Pirenne-Delforge (2012); Petrovic (2015); Carbon — Pirenne-Delforge (2019). We follow the definition of “ritual norms” laid down by Carbon — Pirenne-Delforge (2012). On ritual norms vs. cult regulations, see Carbon — Pirenne-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.
Cf. Carbon — Pirenne-Delforge (2012), p. 26, for the linguistic features and general characteristics of ritual norms.
On Zeus as guarantor of moral and social order in early Greek epic, see Allan (2006).
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”.
Twesten’s (1815) edition rejects v. 724–759, a view largely endorsed by Wilamowitz (1928), comm. ad v. 760–764.
See West (1978), comm. ad v. 706, and v. 724–759 for an overview of older attempts to expunge or transpose the lines.
See West (1978), p. 333–334.
Kirchhoff (1889), p. 76–80.
Wilamowitz (1928), p. 124–130.
West (1978), p. 329–330, 333–334.
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).
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”.
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.
See e.g. Beall (2001), p. 165, and Canevaro (2015), p. 138, on Hesiod “adopting the opaque language of ritual”.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
See Clay (2003), p. 38.
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).
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).
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.
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.
On shipwrecks and pollution, see Parker (1983), p. 9; on crop failure and storms due to pollution, p. 257–258.
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).
V. 267–268: πάντα ἰδὼν Διὸς ὀφθαλμὸς καὶ πάντα νοήσας / καί νυ τάδ’ αἴ κ’ ἐθέλησ’ ἐπιδέρκεται, οὐδέ ἑ λήθει…
We follow West (1978) and Verdenius (1985) comm. ad v. and understand τρὶς γὰρ μυρίοι as denoting an infinitely large number.
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.
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.”
Burkert (1981), but see Verdenius’ (1985, p. 111) reservations on his etymologizing.
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, ἡ 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.
Verdenius (1985), comm. ad v. 187.
LfgrE s.v. ὄπις: Kontrollierender Blick der Götter, Göttl. Vergeltung, Strafe, die innerl. gefürchtet werden sollte.
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”.
Clay (2003), p. 144.
We discuss these lines in Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 44–46.
W&D 225–226: οἳ δὲ δίκας ξείνοισι καὶ ἐνδήμοισι διδοῦσιν / ἰθείας καὶ μή τι παρεκβαίνουσι δικαίου.
W&D 238: οἷς δ’ ὕβρις τε μέμηλε κακὴ καὶ σχέτλια ἔργα.
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.
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”.
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).
V. 729: οὐρήσεις. On short-vowel subjunctives, see West (1978), comm. ad v. 293.
Punishments: v. 726, 741, 745, 749, 754–755, 756. Warnings: v. 750 and 759. An exegesis is provided only in v. 751.
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.
See e.g. IG I3 4.B 11–20 (Athens, early 5th c. BC).
See CGRN 12, comm., with further literature. On ἐς τοῦ δρόμου as equivalent to ἐκ τοῦ δρόμου in Delphic inscriptions, ibidem on line 1.
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.
Chaniotis (1997) and (2012).
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.
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).
For ἄθυτα ἔστω, cf. e.g. IG XII 4, 1.304, line 39 (Iscr. di Cos ED 216 B 39), Hellenistic period: τ̣ὰ 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.
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 μηδέ… μάλα (758), while ἐξαλέασθαι (758) picks up on ἀλέασθαι from v. 734, as pointed out by Canevaro (2012), p. 341.
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.
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.
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.
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.
W&D 391–392: γυμνὸν σπείρειν, γυμνὸν δὲ βοωτεῖν, / γυμνὸν δ’ ἀμάειν… (“Naked sow, and naked drive the oxen, and naked reap”).
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”.
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.
V. 757–758. On rivers as divinities, see Hes. Th. 337–345.
West (1978), comm. ad v. 721.
Parker (1983), p. 292.
Currie (2005), p. 172–200, quote at p. 173.
Ercolani (2010), comm. ad v. 731–732.
Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 41–52.
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.
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.
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.
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 ὁ τόπος. ὃς ἐὰν ὧ̣δε̣ ὁ[μ]ο̣ῦ [χ]έσῃ ἢ ο̣ὐρήσῃ Πᾶνα̣ ἕξ̣[ει κεχολωμένον].
Aristophanes, Plutus, 1182–1184: νῦν δ᾽ οὐδὲ εἷς | θύει τὸ παράπαν οὐδὲν οὐδ᾽ εἰσέρχεται, | πλὴν ἀποπατησόμενοί γε πλεῖν ἢ μύριοι. We thank Mat Carbon for drawing our attention to this passage.
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[ὰ]ς ὀφελέ[τ]ω τῶι θέ[λ]οντι πρ[ῆ]χ[σαι ․․]. For interpretation of ἐκαθάρματα as possibly excrement, see LGS 104.
I.Eph. II 567, late first century BC or later, carved on the Gate of Mazaeus and Mithridates, with an image of Hecate: ε̣ἴ τις ἂν ὧδε οὐρήσι, ἡ Ἑκάτη αὐτῷ κεχ⟨ό⟩λωται. I.Eph. II 569: ὧδε οὐρήσαντι ἡ 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 ἢ οὐρήσει ἢ αἷμα ποήσει, καθαιρέτω τὸν προγεγραμμένον καθαρμόν.
See SEG 49.1461; Trinkl (1999) suggests that a relief found at Ephesus representing Zeus was intended to ward off urinators from public spaces.
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.
See e.g. Hom. Il. 6.267–268: οὐδέ πῃ ἔστι κελαινεφέϊ Κρονίωνι / αἵματι καὶ λύθρῳ πεπαλαγμένον εὐχετάασθαι.
See Parker (1983), p. 76.
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.
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 ἐκμιαίνομαι 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.
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.
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.
Burkert (1983), p. 60, n. 11, offers a catalogue of myths about the punishment of those who have had sex in a sanctuary.
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.
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.
Scholia ad v. 735–736.
For medical views on “critical days” for conception, see Eight Months’ Child, 9, with King (1998), p. 27.
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.
Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 41–52. For literary attestations of prayers before traversing a body of water, see Ercolani (2010), p. 402.
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
Text: Burnet; translation: Fowler (1914; Loeb), modified.
Plato, Phaedrus 242d–e.
Plato, Phaedrus 243a 2–4: ἐμοὶ μὲν οὖν, ὦ 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.
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.
Plato, Phaedrus 242a 1 and 242b 7; Ἡνίκ’ ἔμελλον, ὠγαθέ, τὸν ποταμὸν διαβαίνειν is almost a hexameter. Cf. W&D 740: ὃς ποταμὸν διαβῇ.
On the extraordinary agency of Socrates’ daimonion in this passage, see Yunis (2011), p. 122–123.
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).
Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 35.
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.
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).
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.
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 ἢ θάλλειν ποιούσῃ.
Plutarch, Moralia 28b; Tryphon, De tropis, 23 West. See Hunter — Russell (2011), comm. ad Mor. 28b and Hunter (2014), p. 178–179.
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.
See Canevaro (2015), p. 139–140, with bibliography.
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 ἐκχε῀ν 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.
Following the suggestion of scholia ad v. 744a.
For μοῖρα as “share, portion” in Hesiod, Th. 413 and 789; fr. 257.5 MW.
For an overview of the most important sources, see now Mynott (2018), p. 21–32.
Artemidorus, Oneirocritica 2.20.50–51; cf. Mynott (2018), p. 287. For Roman examples, see Dunbabin (2019).
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”).
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.
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.
Foufopoulos — Litinas (2005), p. 15–16.
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).
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).
Mynott (2018), p. 24.
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.
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.
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.
Some have also provided a poetological interpretation: see the discussion in Canevaro (2015), p. 137–138.
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).
Scholia ad v. 748c ed. Pertusi. Sikes (1893), p. 392, supports this interpretation.
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.
On first offerings at meals, see Jameson (1949); Jim (2014), p. 117–129; Ekroth (2021).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
See ThesCRA VIII, p. 23, with a detailed overview of everyday and periodic rituals performed for household divinities.
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”).
Diogenianus, Paroemiae, 2.6, 2nd c. AD, ed. Schneidewin and von Leutsch: ἀκίνητα 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: ἀκίνητα κινεῖν· καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν, ὅτι μὴ δεῖ κινεῖν μήτε βωμοὺς, μήτε τάφους ἢ ἡρῷα (“to move the non-movables: used hyperbolically, because one ought move neither the altars, nor graves, nor hero-shrines”). Cf. Suda α, 888.
Scholia ad v. 750a.
Canevaro (2015), p. 140–141.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
BDAG, s.v.
Cambridge Greek Lexicon, s.v.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”).
Petrovic — Petrovic (2016), p. 50–51.
See above p. 217.
V. 754–755 clearly relate to a temporary ποινή.
See the discussion in Gagarin (2008), p. 13–38.
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