Greek Purity in Context: The Long Life of a Ritual Concept or Defining the Cs of Continuity and Change
p. 35-48
Note de l’auteur
This paper has only been slightly modified from the form in which it was delivered at the Liège conference, adding principally references and bibliography. I am very grateful to Henry Heitmann-Gordon (Munich) for correcting my English.
Texte intégral
1. Confession
1In a volume dedicated to purity and purification, let me appropriately begin with a confession, clearing my conscience and removing an enthymiston. I had at least two good reasons not to accept the invitation to speak at the original conference: first, I wanted to avoid the embarrassment of speaking in the presence of scholars who have contributed more to this subject than I will ever be able to understand. Second, I have no new insights to present. The little that I can contribute to the subject, that is, some thoughts on how the idea of purity was associated with morality and the idea of the purity of the mind developed, was published two decades ago in German, in a volume edited by Jan Assmann.1 I also do not have the excuse that I am presenting in English what very few people have read in German, since an English version of my ideas on the purity of the mind was presented in a conference in Heidelberg in 2008 and was published recently.2
2If a lex sacra for conferences existed, its text would probably be, adapting the Epidaurian couplet (see below, with n. 30):
When you enter this conference which smells of intelligence, you have to be original. Originality means to say something new.
3With such a lex sacra in mind, the panegyriarchai of our conference should have stood up and shown me the door. To paraphrase the text from Euromos (see below, with n. 23):
If you are not original and your mind is empty of thoughts, then stay away from the sacred precinct of research. This sacred house does not like those who recycle their publications and punishes them.
4Having given a promise to Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge to come to the event—and she can be very persuasive—, I spent days in distress. My escape from distress is cooking. And cooking is precisely what I decided to do for my talk. Successful cooks re-arrange the ingredients of traditional recipes, change the quantities, add a new sauce, and present a new taste. So, instead of serving you last week’s warmed-up food, I will revise an old recipe. The recipe, well known to students of Greek religion, is called ‘Continuity and Change’, in this case continuity and change in the concept of ritual purity. My ingredients are the sources; the re-arrangement is guided by seven words, all of which start with the letter ‘C’: corporeality, community, consequence, communication, complementation, consolidation, and context; the sauce is the concept of ritual dynamics, i.e. the exploration of continuities, conflicts, and changes in rituals (here you have more ‘C’-words). Whether the taste will be entirely new and agreeable is fortunately not up to the cook to decide. Hopefully, I will not cause stomachache. So, let us begin with the cooking—which, by the way, is another word that starts with a ‘C’.
2. Corporeality
5For the entrée, I have something light and easy, C-orporeality in the concepts of impurity and purification. Impurity resides in human bodies, no matter what its origin is. When the origin of impurity is physical (giving birth, producing menstrual blood, coming into contact with a corpse, eating forbidden food, having sexual intercourse etc.), this is immediately clear. Then the impurity resides in the body of the mother after giving birth, the menstruating woman, those who have touched a corpse, consumed impure food, or had sexual intercourse. What about impurity of metaphysical origin, as it were—an act of injustice, plotting against someone, godless thoughts and so on—, that is, the impurity that is diversely expressed as impurity of the mind, the heart, or the soul (nous, phren, psyche, kardia)?3 Even then that impurity resides in a body, the body of the individual who is polluted by thoughts in heart, mind, or soul.
6Even in cases in which the pollution is hereditary, e.g. the impurity of those who were involved in the killing of Kylon in Athens, it is transmitted from generation to generation in human bodies. Impurity resides in the physical remains of those who are long dead; this is why the skeletal remains were removed from Delos.4 In the Selinountian law, the miaroi Tritopatores are approached as physical bodies.5 One pours a libation through an opening of their graves. What about the case of the elasteroi, the avenging spirits in the same law? Can we associate spirits with embodiment? Yes, we can, if we assume that these spirits reside in the body of the impure person. There are good reasons to assume that this is the case. The verb that is used in connection with the purification from the elasteroi is not καθαίρειν, but ἀποκαθαίρειν.6 It is precisely the verb used in one of the Epidaurian healing miracles that narrates how Asklepios removed lice from the body of a worshipper:7 τοὺς φθεῖρας ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος ἀποκαθαίρειν. I would then claim that the corporeality of impurity presents an element of continuity throughout the centuries. The idea of the corporeal aspect of impurity persisted even in Christianity. The famous palindromic inscription at the entrance of Hagia Sofia, but also of other churches,8 mentions the washing of the face along with the removal of sins.
7Why is the aspect of corporeality significant? On the one hand, the corporeality of pollution presented a clear threat to the community, but on the other it also offered an equally clear solution. One needs to identify this physical body and either clean it, if such a cleaning was possible, or remove it permanently, and thus put an end to the threat. Corporeality allows for containment and control—two more ‘C’-words. Exactly as an agoranomos can set up in the market of Piraeus or Akraiphia a stele listing the price of meat or fish in order to control prices9 or a magistrate a list of fines for transgressions in order to contain crime, a priest can set up in a sanctuary an analogous tariff for the removal of impurity:10 You had sex with your wife? One day; With a prostitute? 30 days. What about an unmarried girl? This will cost you a little more, 41 days.11 Socrates was not wrong when he described piety as a techne emporike.12 The association of the concept of pollution with a clearly defined physical frame, the frame of the human body—or in some cases an animal or an object—,13 is an important device that allows a community and its ritual experts to control and contain the impurity. Impurity moves together with its corporeal bearer. A nice illustration of this embodiment and containment of pollution is provided by the cathartic law of Cyrene (late fourth century BC):14
The woman in childbed shall pollute the house; she shall not pollute those who are outside the house, unless they come in. An individual who is in this house shall be polluted for three days; but he himself shall not pollute anyone else, nor wherever this person goes.
8When the impurity from some crimes or transgressions cannot be removed—this is mentioned in the text from Lindos15—, then its embodiment must be removed. At times, this became an important political weapon, justifying efforts to permanently remove political opponents.16
3. Community
9Corporeality exists in time and space, consequently, it affects those who are in the same spatial and temporal context; it affects a community, my second ‘C’, and the second important element of continuity. Impurity can be transmittable and infectious. It can affect even persons who actually had nothing to do with the deed that originally caused it. As late as the time of Aristotle, the city of Dodona asked the oracle of Zeus whether the god had caused bad weather because of the impurity (ἀκαθαρτία) of one of the citizens.17 The affected community in some cases is the family-line.18
4. Consequences
10Impurity has visible negative consequences. When it is accompanied by a violation of ritual code or is caused by a transgression of norms, it arouses divine wrath and leads to divine punishment. The text from Dodona alludes to this punishment, as do innumerable other sources, for instance the so-called ‘confession inscriptions’—which should rather be called records of divine punishment. A man in Lydia explains:19 “I was punished by the god, because I wanted to be with a woman. For this reason I ask everyone not to disparage the god, for he shall have this stele as an exemplum.” And then he refers to extenuating circumstances: “(I wanted to be) with my own wife, Basilis.” The violation of some undetermined ritual norm concerning sexual intercourse appeared less severe, if a man had slept with his own wife. In the cult of Mes, impurity originating in sexual intercourse with one’s own wife could be removed on the same day.20 We notice here a certain consistency—yet another word that starts with a ‘C’. Among the numerous sources referring to transgressions with regard to sexual intercourse, both literary and epigraphic, I only mention an incident narrated by Philostratos in the life of Apollonios. When a man suffering from blindness in one eye visited the Asklepieion at Aigai in Kilikia, the god appeared to the priest in a dream, asking him to send him away (ἀπίτω). He had slept with his wife’s daughter from her first marriage. He, therefore, did not deserve the god’s mercy (ἄξιος γὰρ μηδὲ τὸν ἕτερον τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἔχειν).21 I will return to the possible significance of the cult of Asklepios for ideas of purity below.
5. Communication
11The god uses the word ἀπίτω ( “let him go away”), which brings me to my next ‘C’: communication. Impurity is a factor that disturbs the communication between mortals and gods, in particular when the impure individual is present in a space where and at a time when the institutionalized communication takes place: in a sanctuary and in a ritual. Many cult regulations that concern themselves with impurity express this one thought: the impure individual or the cause of impurity should not be there.22 Regulations of this type are not concerned with the fate of the impure individual; they do not provide instructions about his treatment; they are only concerned with his removal from the sacred space and the ceremony; they do not protect the community in general, but its rituals, the space and the time of the community’s ritualised communication with the divine. I give three examples:
No one is allowed to bring into the shrine an unclean person (or object).23
Pass the perirrhanterion and the gates of the temple being clean and pure.24
If you have a pure heart and if you exercise justice in your soul, then enter this sacred place.25
12One of the longest relevant texts, the cult regulation of a private cult association in Philadelphia, is more specific:
Whoever, woman or man, does any of the things written above, let him not enter this House. For great are the gods set up in it. They watch over these things, and will not tolerate those who transgress the ordinances.26
13Then, after condemning the adulteress, the author of the text continues:
A woman is not chaste, but defiled and full of endemic pollution ([μεμιασμέ]- νην καὶ μύσο[υ]ς ἐμφυλίου πλή[ρ]η), and unworthy to reverence this god whose holy things these are that have been set up. She is not to be present at the sacrifices, not to offend the purifications and cleansings, not to see the mysteries being performed (σ[έβεσθαι ἀναξίαν] τὸν θεὸν τοῦ[το]ν [ο]ὗ ταῦτα τὰ ἱερὰ ἵδρυ[ται, μηδὲ θυσίαις] παρατυγχ[άνει]ν μηδὲ τ[οῖς] ἁγ[νι]σμοῖ[ς καὶ καθαρμοῖς] προσκόπτειν μηδὲ ὁρᾶν ἐπιτελούμ[ενα τὰ μυστήρια).
14The presence of an impure person disturbs not only individual communication with the divine, but that of the entire cult community.
15I cannot stress enough the importance of this idea and its connection with a fundamental feature of the divine in Greek religion. Unlike the Christian god a pagan god was not omnipresent.27 When in the first book of the Odyssey the gods held a council to discuss the return of Odysseus, they could only do so because Poseidon was absent, visiting the Ethiopians and receiving a sacrifice of bulls and sheep. While feasting there, he could not be elsewhere. This idea is expressed in the hymn of Isyllos at Epidaurus:28 the sick child asks the god “Please have mercy on me!” And the god responds: “Take courage. I will come to you in due course of time. You stay here while I ward off disaster from the Spartans.” While in Sparta, Asklepios could not be in Epidaurus. The presence of a god in a place is the result of his personal choice; mortals have to compete to attract his attention. His coming was not to be taken for granted. In communication, some of the aspects that I mentioned before are interlinked: corporeality—the physical presence—of an impure person; community, affected by the disturbed communication; and consequence, the loss of divine support. All these aspects remain more or less unchanged throughout the centuries. After the first part of my paper was dedicated to continuities, I shall now move on to changes.
6. Complementation
16For the most significant change, the c-ombination of the purity of the body with the purity of the mind, I use the term complementation, for lack of another word starting with a ‘C’. In genetics, complementation describes the process through which two related but different chromosomes are combined in a single cell and produce a normal phenotype. The term complementation may be the outcome of the desperate search for a word starting with a ‘C’ that could serve to describe an innovation in the concept of purity, but somehow it still nicely expresses a development that we can clearly trace in the literary sources of the fifth century BC and that probably goes back to the end of the Archaic period. As Saskia Peels has explained using linguistic theory for the understanding of piety,29 the vocabulary of purity and morality are related. What is new, is their combination in the ritual normative texts that we conventionally call leges sacrae; what they produce is indeed a new phenotype, a new concept of purity.
17The first explicit reference to the distinction between the purity of the mind and the purity of the body is not found in a cult regulation but in the work of an intellectual, Euripides, in the late fifth century BC. In his tragedy Hippolytos, when the nurse asks Phaidra if her hands are clean from blood, Phaidra responds: “My hands are clean, but my mind has a miasma.” And in Orestes, when Menelaos claims to have clean hands, i.e., to be blameless, Orestes responds: “and yet your mind is not pure.”30 Cult regulations adopted the idea of spiritual impurity after a substantial delay. Despite the objections of Jan Bremmer,31 I see no reason to abandon the idea that the earliest cult regulation attesting it is an inscription written in the entrance of Asklepios’ temple in Epidauros in the late fourth century or later, but not much later.32 “When you enter the temple which smells of incense, you have to be pure. Purity means to think piously.” Contrary to Jan Bremmer’s claim, the vocabulary of this text is well attested in that period and earlier.33 The Epidaurian text is a metrical cult regulation in the guise of an oracle, in which Apollo does what he is supposed to do: to provide exegesis ( “purity means…”) concerning purity, exactly as he did in fourth-century Cyrene. Apollinian metrical oracles are attested from a very early period; and more importantly, the idea expressed in this oracle is consistent with ideas found in the late-fourth-century healing miracles of Asklepios. The god’s blessing reaches only those who approach him with trust (pistis) and honesty; two of the punitive miracles have dishonest persons as their victims.34 Finally, a more or less securely dated metrical regulation, from third-century-BC Crete,35 shows that the idea of having metrical cult regulations allowing only pious persons to enter a sanctuary, is not, as Jan Bremmer thought, an idea that first developed in the first century AD.36
18Such a radical change in the attitude towards pollution and purification as the one publicly declared in Epidauros required the approval of the highest possible authority on matters of purity: Apollo. Apollo’s innovative exegesis was also an implicit criticism of the cult regulations of other sanctuaries that simply demanded clean hands; but it was also a response to the criticism that we find in literary sources on the dissociation of rituals from values (see n. 43, below). This normative ritual text should be seen in the context of competition among cults and sanctuaries, of criticism, of conflict.
7. Consolidation
19Once this idea was formulated, it spread out, found its expression in a more or less standardized vocabulary, and became a component of Greek religious ideas. Although I have labeled this phenomenon consolidation, there were other good candidates starting with a ‘C’: circulation and conceptualization. The longest example is the cult regulation from Philadelphia, already cited above, dating to around 100 BC.37 Although the author of this text does not use such notions as soul and mind, it is clear that the entire set of provisions is founded upon the idea of internal purity. The offences, which prevent a person from attending the cult, are connected with malice and deceit, which cannot be washed away through rituals of purification. The text lists crimes that are not committed by the hand, but by the intellect: poisons, magic spells, and so on. The author of the regulation did not only condemn visible actions; he also condemned intentions, wishes, plans, even knowledge. Interestingly enough, although the purity of the mind is the primary interest of this cult association, rituals of purification, i.e. clearly physical acts, were still important. The text refers to purifications, cleansings, and sacrifices.
20The lack of a formulaic language that expressed the concept of internal purity in the Hellenistic period reflects the fact that this thought had not yet become part of a standard set of regulations. The standardization of expressions occurred later, in the first century AD. A cult regulation from Rhodes (first century AD) containing provisions concerning purity is an instructive example.38 The text begins with an epigram. The first verse is identical to the first verse of the metrical inscription of Epidaurus: “You have to be pure inside the temple that smells of incense.” Also the second verse is a quotation: “Clean not through washing, but pure in mind.” This verse is taken from an oracle of Sarapis preserved in a manuscript in Vienna:39
Come here with clean hands and with a pure mind and with a true tongue. Clean not through washing, but pure in mind. For pious persons one drop of water is sufficient; the evil man cannot be washed by the entire ocean, with all its waves.
21The composer of the Rhodian epigram was obviously familiar with earlier works and adapted existing formulations. The idea of the purity of the mind had now found its standard expression. It had become an integral part of religious thought, and the relevant evidence is widely found throughout the Greek East, not only in religious texts but also in honorary inscriptions, proverbs, epitaphs, etc.40
8. Context
22It is now time to approach the last, and I think, most important ‘C’, the context: the Greek interest in making distinctions. This context has a very diverse intellectual background. In philosophy, making distinctions means to categorize observable phenomena; in political institutions, distinction-making can be seen in concepts concerning the re-arrangement of the citizen-body in tele; in law, it concerns the exact circumstances of a transgression; in religion, it refers to the requirements for a blessed afterlife. Needless to say, these phenomena were interlinked. This general trend towards distinctions and boundaries had a deep impact on the perception of traditional ritual actions.
23A passage in Euripides’ lost tragedy Oedipus helps us understand the problem and the attack against an undifferentiated application of the rules of supplication:41 “When a man who is unjust sits at an altar, I would bid the tradition farewell and, not fearing the gods, would take him off to court. A bad man ought always to suffer badly.” This passage and a related passage in the Ion (see again n. 42) illustrate a fundamental problem of ritual actions: they do not make moral distinctions. Touching an altar or a cult statue automatically places an individual under the protection of a divinity—the criminal, the runaway slave, and the victim of unjust prosecution alike. Considerations of guilt, right, justice, intentions, and morality have no bearing on the claim of a suppliant that he not be forced to leave the sanctuary nor be delivered to his pursuers.42
24A good guess is that the criticism of ritual automatisms originated in the circles of the religious experts of mystery cults. This is a good guess not least because it cannot be disproved, since we know so little about initiatory cults. What we do know is that from the late sixth century BC onwards—and probably already earlier—the idea developed that an individual’s moral conduct during his lifetime justifies the expectations of a better life after death. The so-called ‘Orphics’ belong to the best known representatives of such ideas. Initiation aimed at making the initiate conscious of the divine origin of his soul and preparing him for the journey to the underworld, where his soul would join the blessed. In a recent study about the meaning of βάκχος and βακχεύειν in Orphism, A. Jiménez San Cristóbal has convincingly drawn a fundamental distinction between those who performed Orphic (and other mystic) rituals (μύσται) and those who internalized the values of the Dionysiac-Orphic cult and lived a life in accordance with the Orphic precepts, thereby posthumously attaining a permanent state of holiness in union with Dionysos (βάκχοι, βεβακχευμένοι).43 This difference is expressed by the Orphic verse ναρθηκοφόροι μὲν πολλοί, βάκχοι δὲ παῦροι.44 The Pythagoreans, a group associated with the Orphics, continued to respect traditional provisions about the purity of the body, but also stressed the priority of the purity of the mind. A preoccupation with the purity of the mind becomes obvious in the late fifth century BC also in the Eleusinian mysteries. Aristophanes’ comedy Frogs alludes to this idea, when the chorus of the initiates calls on all those whose mind was not pure to stay away from Eleusis.45 Somewhat later the Cynic philosopher Diogenes criticized the belief that initiation into mysteries automatically guaranteed the initiate a place among the Blessed, no matter whether he was a saint or a crook.46 From the Hellenistic period onwards the privileged souls in the Underworld are often called eusebeis ( “pious”), not makares ( “blessed”), indirectly shifting the focus to virtuous life as a requirement for a better afterlife.47
25We may observe an analogous process of attributing the efficacy of rituals to the moral standing of those who perform them from the fourth century onwards in a series of seemingly unrelated practices.48 We observe it in the exclusion of certain categories of criminals from the right of asylum, and in the demand for a justification of asylum. In the same period the ritual of incubation in the cult of Asklepios is freed of automatisms. The god cures only those who approach him with trust, only those who fulfil the promise to reward him with a dedication. From the third century BC onwards, we observe a similar shift in magic with the development of a new and distinct group of curses, the ‘prayers for justice’.49 They share one common feature: they do not force a divinity to harm another person by simply applying magical formulas, but they present arguments to motivate a divinity to act. Unlike ordinary curses (defixiones), the author of the curse justifies himself, as in the following example:50 “having been wronged, and not having wronged first, I demand that what I have written down and deposited to you be accomplished.”
26Later still, another ritual with a certain amount of automatism comes to be criticized: oath-taking. A further step in this development concerns the efficacy of sacrifices; the gods reject the gifts of the miaroi.51 Literary and epigraphic texts state that certain individuals can never successfully sacrifice—the ritual fails because of their moral shortcomings.52 Later still, an oracle at Didyma (second century AD) makes Apollo say that he is not interested in animal sacrifice, but instead likes all music, old music in particular—the older the better.53 This oracle is connected with a tendency to place an emphasis on spiritual offerings and on the praise of the god with words.54
27Let us return to purity: most of the causes of impurity in Greek cult are morally irrelevant (natural death, birth, menstrual blood, etc.). Consequently, the removal of miasma did not require moral revulsion. Some forms of miasma were, however, subject to moral scrutiny. It did make a difference whether one had sexual intercourse with one’s own wife or with the wife of another man, just as in secular law it made a difference whether one had killed by accident, in war, or intentionally. As in law the exact circumstances mattered, the exact circumstances of miasma made its removal either easier or more difficult. The connection between secular law and the concept of purity was possible also because several causes of defilement, e.g. murder and adultery, were not only subject to sacred regulations, but also to secular law. In order to put an end to uncontrolled reactions to homicide, lawgivers introduced fine distinctions with regard to the exact circumstances under which the killing had occurred.55 Already in the seventh century BC, Draco’s law on homicide treated separately different categories of manslaughter, such as involuntary homicide, premeditated murder, the killing of a murderer and so on. This differentiation moved the focus from the physical act of killing to the intention of the killer. After this first step had been taken, later Athenian legislation introduced a fine distinction between deed and attempted deed, accident, premeditation, and complicity. According to Greek secular law, homicide committed in defense of a community and its legal order did not cause ritual impurity.56
28The idea of individual responsibility, which first occurred in secular law, gradually influenced sacred regulations. A cult regulation from Kleonai from the first half of the sixth century BC explicitly states that persons who kill in self-defense or who have slain a cursed person are not impure (miaroi).57
29Under the influence of these factors—legal distinctions, the differentiation of attitudes towards the afterlife, and the general criticism of ritual automatisms—the perception of purity began to change, especially in cult places of Asklepios. Why did the cult of Asklepios adopt and propagate the idea of a pure mind? As I have argued in my earlier article,58 I suspect that the ancient perception of disease as the result of a crime and of repentance as a prerequisite of being cured may explain why the sanctuary of a healing god showed such a strong interest in the purity of the mind. The collection of healing miracles in Epidauros may support this interpretation. A certain Kephesias, for instance, who laughed at the cures of Asklepios, was trampled by his horse; the god cured him only after Kephisias had entreated him earnestly:59
When riding, was struck by his bullheaded horse which had been tickled beneath the saddle, so that instantly his foot was crippled and on a stretcher was he carried into the temple. Later on, he made him well.
30This simple story reveals the interdependence of disease and sin, repentance and cure. The healing presupposes the deep and unlimited belief in the omnipotence of the god. Such stories, read aloud by the priests and pilgrims, must have made a deep impression on the thousands of sick people who came to the sanctuary expecting to be cured. In a place where true belief was rewarded with healing, and deceit and weakness were punished, people must have realized that what counts is a virtuous life, true piety, just thoughts, and a pure heart. It cannot be a coincidence that it is in Epidauros that we find the earliest confession of sins in Greek literature, again in one of the healing miracles. The fishmonger Amphimnastos had vowed to give a tenth of the profit from the fish to Asklepios. When he did not fulfil his vow a disaster occurred:60
With a big crowd standing around this spectacle, Amphimnastos confessed the whole deception that he had done connected with Asklepios, and when he had earnestly prayed to the god, the fish appeared to live again, and Amphimnastos dedicated the tenth part to Asklepios.
31Amphimnastos had to confess his sin publicly and to ask for forgiveness. His propitiation of the god did not take the form of external acts of worship, e.g., the offering of a sacrifice, the washing of the body. It required a volte-face of the mind.
Conclusion
32Archaic and Classical sacred regulations concerned themselves with an ethically neutral pollution originating in physical processes, transmissible through physical contact and removable through rituals focusing on the body. In the course of the Archaic period homicide law developed an elaborate idea of responsibility which influenced cult regulations. The idea of the purity of the mind was also promoted by religious movements interested in the immortality of the soul. Already in the fifth century BC, works of literature reflect the idea that the purity of the mind, the heart, or the soul should be aspired after,61 but sacred regulations were rather slow in adopting it. A decisive part in this development may have been played by the cult of Asklepios and the belief in the interdependence of disease and sin, repentance and cure. From the second century BC onwards, sanctuaries increasingly demanded, in addition to the requirement of external purity, also justice, piety, pure and honest thoughts; in some cases they even warned that there were some sins for which one could never atone.
33The idea that a ritually cleansed body cannot free a person from guilt and cannot be a sufficient requirement for a harmonious relationship between mortals and immortals can be understood as an implicit criticism of rituals. I regard this as part of a wider process of fundamental change in the perception of rituals in Classical and Hellenistic Greece. This process leads from the traditional view that ritual actions are effective when correctly performed to the idea that a ritual’s efficacy depends (also) on the moral and other justifications of the individual who performs it. Also, the observance of rituals did not automatically make people better. As the Epicurean Diogenes of Oinoanda observed:62
A clear indication of the complete inability of the gods to prevent wrongdoings is provided by the nations of the Jews and Egyptians, who, while being the most superstitious of all peoples [in other words observing rituals], are the vilest of all peoples.
34And yet, the same texts that stress the importance of a pure mind usually require the observance of purification rituals. What are we to make of this apparent discrepancy? How can the idea of a pure mind co-exist with the requirement of external purity? The answer is provided by the function of rituals as a form of communication. By performing a ritual an individual makes clear that he accepts the customary norms; he asserts his belief in the power of the gods and in the rules his community has agreed upon. It is not the form of the ritual that counts, but the fact that a person is willing to perform it. What matters is not the physical act, but the attitude. The inscription in Epidauros demanding the purity of the mind was written on the facade of a temple surrounded by basins, where the pilgrims could clean their hands. A new perception of ritual purity was added to an old one; it never replaced it.
Notes de bas de page
1 Chaniotis (1997), p. 142-179.
2 Chaniotis (2012), p. 123-139. Admittedly, both articles appeared in general volumes with a small distribution and have attracted little attention among students of Greek religion, but they can be downloaded for free on the site academia.edu. Whoever wants to read them can do so by clicking two buttons.
3 For references, see Chaniotis (1997), p. 154-158, 163-166. See now Petrovic – Petrovic (2016).
4 D.S. 12.58.
5 NGSL 27 / IGDS ii 18, A 10-11.
6 B lines 1-2: [αἴ] κ᾿ ἄνθροπος [αὐτορρέκ]τ]ας ἐλ]αστέρον ἀποκα[θαίρεσθαι | λει].
7 IG IV2.1 122 no. 28.
8 Kiourtzian (2000), no. 66: νῖψον ἀνομήματα μὴ μόναν ὄψιν.
9 SEG 47, 196 (Piraeus); 60, 495 (Akraiphia).
10 E.g., LSCG 55, Athens, 2nd c. AD; LSS 91, Lindos, 3rd c. AD.
11 E.g. I.Lindos 487: [ἀπὸ] διακορεύσεως μα΄; IG XII.1 789 l. 18: ἀπὸ παρθενείας.
12 Pl. Euthphr. 14e. On this dialogue, see the paper by H. willey in the present volume.
13 LSCG 154, B 33-35, Kos, 3rd cent. BC: “If someone commits suicide in a deme by hanging himself, the person who sees the deceased must first get the corpse down and cover it with a cloth. He must fell the tree, from which the suicide had hanged himself, and burn it. He must also burn the rope.” LSCG 55, Athens, 2nd c. AD: “Whoever is impure is not allowed to enter the sanctuary. If someone has come into contact with garlic, swine, or woman must purify himself.”
14 SEG 50, 1638 (LSS 115), A 16-20.
15 LSS 91, Lindos, 3rd c. AD: ἀπὸ τῶν παρανόμων οὐδέποτε καθαρός. See also n. 22 below.
16 See Salvo in the present volume.
17 Lhôte (2006), p. 64f. no. 14 (4th c. BC): “The citizens of Dodona ask Zeus and Dione if it is because of the impurity of a man that the god brings the bad weather.”
18 E.g. I.Kibyra 43: “they and their descendants (καὶ αὐτοὶ καὶ γενεαὶ αὐτῶ[ν]) should be accursed and sinners (ἐναγεῖς ἔσ[τωσα]ν καὶ ἀλειτήριοι) with regard to the emperors, the senate, the fatherland, and the sanctuaries and gods in the fatherland.”
19 MAMA IV 284, Dionysopolis.
20 E.g. LSCG 55, cult regulation of a sanctuary of Men Tyrannos, Athens.
21 Philostr. VA 1.10.
22 LSCG 139, Lindos, 2nd/3rd c. AD: ἀφ᾿ ὧν χρ[ὴ] πα[ρ]ίν[α]ι αἰσίως ε[ἰ]ς τὸ ἱε[ρ]όν· πρῶτον μὲν καὶ τὸ μέγιστον, χεῖρας καὶ γνώμην καθαροὺς καὶ ὑγιε[ῖς] ὑπάρχοντας καὶ μηδὲν αὑτοῖς δεινὸν συνειδότας, “First and most important! They must enter with clean hands and with pure thoughts, being healthy and knowing nothing evil in their consciousness”. LSS 86, Lindos, 3rd c. AD: θύιν οἷς καὶ τὸ συνειδὸς ἄριστον, “Only whoever has a good consciousness is allowed to sacrifice”. LSS 91, Lindos, 3rd c. AD: [Κα]θαρο[ὺ]ς [καὶ ἁγνοὺς | π]εριραντηρίων εἴσω καὶ τῶν τοῦ ναοῦ [πυλῶν ἴ] ναι ὅσιον… | μὴ τὸ [σῶ]μα μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν κεκαθαρμένους. | … ἀπὸ τῶν παρανόμων οὐδέποτε καθαρός. Alphabetical oracle from Tymbriada: Brixhe – Hodot (1988), no. 46: ψυχῆς καθαρμὸν σώματός τε προσδέχου. Honorific inscription from Side, SEG 31, 1288: οὐ στιλπναῖς ἐσθῆσι κεκασμένος εἴδεαι ἀμ[φί] | θηητός, καθαρῇ δὲ νόω περιλάμπεαι αἴγλῃ. On LSS 91 and for further discussion of these rules, see A. and I. Petrovic in this volume.
23 LSCG 55, sanctuary of Men, Athens, 2nd c. AD: [μηθένα] ἀκάθαρτον προσάγειν.
24 LSS 91, Lindos, 3rd c. AD.
25 SEG 43, 710, Euromos, ca. 100 AD.
26 TAM V.3 1539, ca. 100 BC.
27 Chaniotis (2009b), p. 199f.
28 IG IV2.1 128, l. 67-77; Kolde (2003), p. 196-220.
29 Peels (2016); cf. also her paper in the present volume.
30 E. Hipp. 316-317: Nurse: ἁγνὰς μέν, ὧ παῖ, χεῖρας αἵματος φορεῖς; Phaedra: χεῖρες μὲν ἁγναί, φρὴν δ᾿ ἔχει μίασμά τι. E. Or. 1604: Menelaos: ἁγνὸς γάρ εἰμι χεῖρας. Orestes: ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τὰς φρένας.
31 Bremmer (2002), p. 106-108.
32 Porph. Abst. 2.19, citing the temple inscription of Epidauros (ca. 340 BC): ἁγνὸν χρὴ ναοῖο θυῶδεος ἐντὸς ἔμμεναι· ἁγνεία δ᾿ ἐστὶ φρονεῖν ὅσια.
33 See SEG 52, 343.
34 LIDonnici (1995), nos. A7 and C4.
35 IC I.xxiii 3, sanctuary of Megale Meter (Rhea?, Leto?, Kybele?), Phaistos, 3rd c. BC: πάντες δ᾿ εὐσεβίες τε καὶ εὐγλώθιοι πάριθ᾿ ἁγνοὶ | ἔνθεον ἐς Μεγάλας Ματρὸς ναόν· ἔνθεα ἔργα | γνωσῆθ᾿ ἀθανάτας ἄξια τῶδε ναῶ, “Come all to the temple of Great Mother, a temple full of god; come pious and good of tongue, pure. You will see here works of the goddess, full of divinity, worthy of this temple”.
36 See also Parker in this volume.
37 TAM V.3 1539.
38 LSS 108, Lindos, 1st c. AD: ἁγνὸν χρὴ ναοῖο [θ]υώδεος ἐντὸς ἰόντα ἔνμεναι· οὐ λουτρῶι ἀλλὰ νόω καθαρόν.
39 Merkelbach (1995), p. 85: ἁγνὰς χεῖρας ἔχων καὶ νοῦν καὶ γλῶτταν ἀληθῆ | εἴσιθι, μὴ λοετροῖς, ἀλλὰ νόω καθαρός. | ἀρκεῖ γὰρ θ᾿ ὁσίοις ῥανὶς ὕδατος· ἄνδρα δὲ φαῦλον | οὐδ’ ἄν ὁ πᾶς λούσαι χεύμασι ὠκεανός. Cf. A. Ch. 72-74; S. OT 1227f.; AP 14.71 and 74.
40 For this evidence see Chaniotis, (1997), p. 163-167. LSS 59, sanctuary of Zeus Kynthios and Athena Kynthia on Delos, 2nd c. AD: ἰέναι εἰς τὸ ἱερ[ὸν τοῦ] Διὸς τοῦ Κυνθίου [καὶ τῆ]ς Ἀθηνᾶς τῆς Κυνθί[ας χε]ρσὶν καὶ ψυχῇ καθα[ρᾷ, ἔ]χοντας ἐσθῆτα λευ[κήν, ἀνυ]ποδέτους… “Enter the sanctuary of Zeus Kynthios and Athena Kynthia with clean hands and with a pure soul, with a white dress, without shoes, etc.” LSS 82, Asklepieion of Mytilene, 2nd c. AD: ἁγνὸν πρὸς τέμενος στείχειν ὅσια φρονέοντα, “Come pure to the sacred precinct, with pious thoughts”.
41 E. Oedip. fr. 1049 N: ἐγὼ γὰρ ὅστις μὴ δίκαιος ὢν ἀνὴρ | βωμὸν προσίζει, τὸν νόμον χαίρειν ἐῶν | πρὸς τὴν δίκην ἄγοιμ᾿ ἂν οὐ τρέσας θεούς· | κακὸν γὰρ ἄνδρα χρὴ κακῶς πάσχειν ἀεί. Cf. E. Ion 1313- 1319: δεινόν γε, θνητοῖς τοὺς νόμους ὡς οὐ καλῶς | ἔθηκεν ὁ θεὸς οὐδ᾿ ἀπὸ γνώμης σοφῆς· | τοὺς μὲν γὰρ ἀδίκους βωμὸν οὐχ ἵζειν ἐχρῆν, | ἀλλ᾿ ἐξελαύνειν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ψαύειν καλὸν | θεῶν πονηρὰν χεῖρα· τοῖσι δ᾿ ἐνδίκοις - | ἱερὰ καθίζειν, ὅστις ἠδικεῖτ᾿, ἐχρῆν· | καὶ μὴ ᾿πὶ ταὐτὸ τοῦτ᾿ ἰόντ᾿ ἔχειν ἴσον | τόν γ᾿ ἐσθλὸν ὄντα τόν τε μὴ θεῶν πάρα, “Shame that a god ordained bad laws for mortals, statutes not in wisdom framed! Never should unrighteous persons sit on altars, but they should be hounded thence. Unmeet is that hands sin-stained should touch the gods. But righteous men, whoever was wronged, should claim their sanctuary, and not the good and evil come alike hither to win the same boon of the gods” (trans. A. Way, modified).
42 Chaniotis (1996), p. 65-86; (2007), p. 233-246.
43 Jiménez San Cristóbal (2009), p. 46-60.
44 Pl. Phd. 69c.
45 Ar. Ra. 354-355: εὐφημεῖν χρὴ κἀξίστασθαι τοῖς ἡμετέροις χοροῖσιν, ὅστις ἄπειρος τοιῶνδε λόγων ἢ γνώμῃ μὴ καθαρεύει, “Let him use pious words and stand aside from our sacred chorus, who has no experience of such mystic words or is not clean in his mind”. Cf. Origenes Cels. 3.59; Lib. Decl. 13.52 (ed. Foerster).
46 Plu. Mor. 21f; D.L. 6.39.
47 GV 1572, Demetrias, Hellenistic: αἰνὴ Φερσεφόνεια ὅσιον δἐχου ἄνδρα Ἀγαθοκλῆ, | πρὸς σὲ κατερχόμενον, χρηστοσύνης πρύτανιν· | εὐσεβέων λειμῶνα κατοίκισον· ἦ γὰρ ἀληθὴς | ψυχὴ καὶ καθαρὰ ζῶντι δίκαιος ἐνῆν, “Persephone, who arouses dread, receive a devout man, Agathokles, who descends to you, a leader in kindness; settle him in the meadow of the pious; for while he was alive he was inhabited by a soul that was true, pure, and just”. SEG 59, 284, Athens, funerary epigram for Tryphaina, 3rd c. AD: Ναίεις δ’ Ἠλυσίου ζάθεον πέδον· οὕνεκα μήτηρ, | κλεινὴ Ἀλεξάνδρα, θέσμα τελεσσαμένη | Δηοῦς καὶ Κούρης καθαρῇ φρενὶ πάσας ἔδεκτο | ἀμφί σοι ἀσβέστους ἃς ἐφόρεις χάριτας, “You dwell in the divine fields of Elysium. On account of this, your mother, the noble Alexandra, performed the customary rites of Deio and Kore with a pure mind, and has received, because of you, all the inextinguishable grace, which you used to carry”.
48 For discussion and references, see Chaniotis (2012).
49 For the latest treatment of this subject, see Versnel (2012), p. 33-45. See also Cesteros and Chronopoulou in the present volume.
50 I.Oropos 745a (c. 200 BC): ἀξιῶι οὖν ἀδικούμενος καὶ οὐκ ἀδικῶν πρότερος, ἐπιτελ[ῆ] γενέσθα<ι> ἃ καταγράφω καὶ ἃ παρατίθεμαι ὑμῖν.
51 Pl. Lg. 716e: παρὰ δὲ μιαροῦ δῶρα οὔτε.
52 Versnel (1985), p. 247-269; Chaniotis (1997), p. 168.
53 I.Didyma 217; SEG 15, 670 (SGO I, p. 76-77).
54 Bradbury (1995), p. 331-356; Chaniotis (2002), p. 76-77.
55 Gernet (1917), p. 350-388; MAcdowell (1963), p. 60-69; Triantaphyllopoulos (1985), p. 13-14, 105-107 n. 94-98; Gagarin (1991), p. 81-99.
56 SEG 51, 1105 B 10-11 (Eretria, law against tyranny, c. 350 BC): καὶ ἄν τις [αὐτὸν ἤ τινα αὐτοῦ ἀπο] κτείνει, καθαρὸς ἔστω χεῖρας, “And if someone kills him [the individual, who establishes tyranny or oligrachy] or one of his (men?, family?), let him be pure in hands”. On tyrannicides, see also Jaccottet in the present volume.
57 LSCG 56, Kleonai, ca. 575/550 BC: <αἰ> αἰνητὸν ϝρέζαντα ἄ[νδρα ἀπείργηι,] μὴ μιαρ[ὸ]ν εἶμεν· αἰ ἄ[ν]θ[ρ]οπον hα[ιμάξηι ποιήσ]αντα χρῆμα μηθέν, μιαρὸν εἶμεν, [αἰ δὲ κατάρ]ατον, μηθὲν π[αράνο]- μον εἶμεν, “If someone kills in defence a man, who is fighting in a praiseworthy way, let him not be impure. If he kills a man who has done nothing, let him be impure. If he kills a person who has been cursed, let it not be unlawful”.
58 Chaniotis (1997), p. 152-154.
59 LiDonnici (1995), p. 113 no. B16.
60 Lidonnici (1995), p. 121 no. C4.
61 In a recently published monograph, Andrej and Ivana Petrovic follow this idea back to early Greek literature: cf. Petrovic – Petrovic (2016).
62 Smith (1998), p. 132.
Auteur
achaniotis@ias.edu
Professor in the School of Historical Studies at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton. He is a Senior Editor of the Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (SEG) and will soon publish a third edited volume issuing from the ERC-funded project “The Social and Cultural Construction of Emotions: The Greek Paradigm”, entitled Unveiling Emotions III: Arousal and Display of Emotions in the Greek World (Franz Steiner Verlag).
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
The Iconography of Greek Cult in the Archaic and Classical Periods
Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organised by the Swedish Institute at Athens and the European Cultural Centre of Delphi (Delphi, 16-18 Novembre 1990)
Robin Hägg (dir.)
1992
Entre Asclépios et Hippocrate
Étude des cultes guérisseurs et des médecins en Carie
Cécile Nissen
2009
The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Period
Gunnel Ekroth
2002
Opera inedita
Essai sur la religion grecque & Recherches sur les Hymnes orphiques
Jean Rudhardt
2008
La norme en matière religieuse en Grèce ancienne
Actes du XIIe colloque international du CIERGA (Rennes, septembre 2007)
Pierre Brulé (dir.)
2009
Le donateur, l’offrande et la déesse
Systèmes votifs des sanctuaires de déesses dans le monde grec
Clarisse Prêtre (dir.)
2009
Héros et héroïnes dans les mythes et les cultes grecs
Actes du colloque organisé à l’Université de Valladolid, du 26 au 29 mai 1999
Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge et Emilio Suárez de la Torre (dir.)
2000
Le Bestiaire d’Héraclès
IIIe Rencontre héracléenne
Corinne Bonnet, Colette Jourdain-Annequin et Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge (dir.)
1998