Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-5ngxj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-18T09:02:20.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONTAGIOUS ΑΣΕΒΕΙΑ

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2016

F.S. Naiden
F.S. Naiden*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
*
naiden@email.unc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ἀσέβεια is one of Greek religion's vexatious topics. It was a crime, or γραφή, as well as a religious wrong according to ‘sacred law’. It happened to be the charge in the most famous Greek trial, that of Socrates, and thus became part of a locus classicus, with the result, as Kenneth Dover showed, that later reports of ἀσέβεια trials were often distorted by the influence of Socrates' example. Focussing mostly on the sources found reliable by Dover, this article proposes that ἀσέβεια sometimes resembled μίασμα, which was contagious religious pollution. An impious person could sometimes spread his or her ἀσέβεια, and others could catch it.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , May 2016 , pp. 59 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 A γραφή, or, less often, a suit before the Eumolpidae, or a request that the king archon take action, as at Dem. 22.27, with J. Lipsius, Das Attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren (Leipzig, 1905), 2.358-69, and D. MacDowell, The Law in Classical Athens (Ithaca, NY, 1978), 197–202. For the problematic phrase ‘sacred law’, see R. Parker, ‘What are sacred laws?’ in E. Harris and L. Rubinstein (edd.), The Law and the Courts in Ancient Greece (London, 2004), 57–71, at 61; reprised as ‘Law and religion’, in M. Gagarin and D. Cohen (edd.), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law (Cambridge, 2005), 61–82. See also E. Lupu, Greek Sacred Law, A Collection of New Documents (Leiden, 2005), 5–9. For ἀσέβεια, or ‘impiety’, and ἄγος, see L. Moulinier, Le pur et l'impur dans la pensée des grecs (Paris, 1952), 248–9; R. Parker, Miasma. Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford, 1983), ch. 5, passim.

2 Dover, K., ‘The freedom of the intellectual in Greek society’, Talanta 7 (1975), 24–54 Google Scholar = The Greeks and their Legacy (Oxford, 1988), 135–58, followed by R. Wallace, ‘Private lives and public enemies’, in A. Boegehold and A. Scafuro (edd.), Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology (Baltimore, 1994), 127–56. Less sceptical towards Hellenistic sources: Rudhardt, J., ‘La définition du délit d'impiété d'après la législation attique’, MH 17 (1960), 87–105 Google Scholar, and M. Ostwald, From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law, Society, and Politics in Fifth-Century Athens (Berkeley, 1986), 196, in connection with the decree of Diopeithes (Plut. Per. 32.5).

3 Parker (n. 1 [2005]), 66–8. A similar view: M. Gagarin, ‘Law and religion in early Greece’, in A. Hagedorn and R. Krantz (edd.), Law and Religion in the Eastern Mediterranean (Oxford, 2013), 59–78, at 73. Earlier views: E. Caillemer, ‘Asebeia’, Dar.-Sag. (1877), 1.465-7; Thalheim, T., ‘Asebeias graphe’, RE 2 (1896), 1529–61Google Scholar; Lipsius (n. 1), 1.359. The oldest expression of such a view, but less broad than the preceding: G. Schoemann, De comitiis Atheniensium (Greifswald, 1819), 301. Cf. the narrow view of Rudhardt (n. 2), 101–2.

4 Cohen, D., ‘The prosecution of impiety in Athenian law’, ZRG 105 (1988), 695–701 Google Scholar, at 695–6, anticipated by Dover (n. 2), 25, saying that the charge of ἀσέβεια had ‘wide application’. See also D. Cohen, Law, Sexuality, and Society, The Enforcement of Morals in Classical Athens (Cambridge, 1991), 104, and especially 203–17. A similar view: A. Momigliano, ‘Asebeia: impiety in Greece’, in P. Wiener (ed.), Encyclopedia of the History of Ideas (New York, 1973), 5.2.565-6; and D. Phillips, The Law of Ancient Athens (Ann Arbor, 2013), 407–11, with the remark ‘possibly no [definition of ἀσέβεια] existed’. Somewhat similar to Cohen's view, but of independent origin, is the view that ἀσέβεια trials were political affairs; see Ostwald (n. 2), 196–8; and O'Sullivan, L.L., ‘Athenian impiety trials in the late fourth century b.c. ’, CQ 47 (1997), 136–52Google Scholar. For a survey of ‘political trials’, see R. Baumann, Political Trials in Ancient Greece (London, 1990).

5 Xen. Ap. 10, οὓς μὲν ἡ πόλις νομίζει θεοὺς οὐ νομίζοι. So also Mem. 1.1.1 and Pl. Ap. 26b, with the meaning ‘accept’, κατὰ τὴν γραφὴν ἣν ἐγράψω θεοὺς διδάσκοντα μὴ νομίζειν οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζει, … .

6 Pl. Ap. 26c, with the meaning ‘believe’ or ‘disbelieve’, ἐγὼ γὰρ οὐ δύναμαι μαθεῖν πότερον λέγεις διδάσκειν με νομίζειν εἶναί τινας θεούς – καὶ αὐτὸς ἄρα νομίζω εἶναι θεοὺς καὶ οὐκ εἰμὶ τὸ παράπαν ἄθεος … The literature on this aspect of the case is large, but see W. Fahr, Θεοὺς νομίζειν. Zum Problem der Anfänge des Atheismus bei den Griechen (Hildesheim, 1969), 160–2; R. Parker, Athenian Religion, A History (Oxford, 1996), ch. 9; Giordano-Zacharya, M., ‘As Socrates shows, the Athenians did not believe in gods’, Numen 52 (2005), 325–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Emphasis on regulations and sanctions: F. Naiden, ‘Sanctions in sacred laws’, in E. Harris and G. Thür (edd.), Symposion 2009. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Vienna, 2009), 125–38. Striking a balance between regulations with sanctions and those without: Pizzi, A. Delli, ‘Impiety in epigraphic evidence’, Kernos 24 (2011), 59–76 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Emphasis on social control without regulation: Cohen (n. 4 [1988] and [1991]).

8 ‘Social control’: Parker (n. 1 [1983]), with background literature criticized by A. Bendlin, ‘Purity and pollution’, in D. Ogden (ed.), A Companion to Greek Religion (Malden, MA, 2007), 178–90. The view of M. Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London, 1966) is two-sided. Pollution rules are sometimes a matter of social control (69), but sometimes a matter of giving support to legal prohibitions (132).

9 Unimportant: Bendlin (n. 8). The opposite view: E. Harris, ‘The family, the community, and murder: the role of pollution in Athenian homicide law’, in C. Ando and J. Rupke (edd.), Public and Private in Ancient Mediterranean Law and Religion (Berlin, 2015), 11–35. A middle view: Arnaoutoglou, I., ‘Pollution and Athenian homicide law’, Revue internationale des droits de l'antiquité 40 (2001), 109–37Google Scholar.

10 To judge from the literature in nn. 1, 3 and 4 above, and also from the monographs of M. Gagarin, Draco and Early Athenian Homicide Law (New Haven, 1981); D. MacDowell, Athenian Homicide Law in the Age of the Orators (Manchester, 1962); and A. Tulin, Dike Phonou: The Right of Prosecution and Attic Homicide (Stuttgart, 1996). So also the articles of C. Bearzot, ‘Anomalie procedurali ed elusione del “nomos” nei processi per tradimento: “eisanghelia” e “asebeia’”, in M. Sordi (ed.), Processi e Politica nel Mondo Antico (Vita e Pensiero 22) (Milan, 1996), 71–92; and D. Leão, ‘Materia religiosa: processos de impiedade (asebeia)’, in D. Leão, L. Rossetti and M. Fialho (edd.), Nomos. Direito e sociedade na Antiguidade Clássica (Coimbra, 2004), 201–26.

11 Save for the cases discussed below, this phrase or the like appears only once, at Dem. 21.114.

12 Cf. Dover (n. 2), 24–5 and Ostwald (n. 2), App. B, for similar lists of fifth-century ἀσέβεια cases. A much longer list: Filonik, J., ‘Athenian impiety trials: a reappraisal’, Dike 16 (2013), 11–96 Google Scholar. Particulars appear below.

13 Thuc. 1.126.11, ἐναγεῖς ἐκαλοῦντο; so also Hdt. 5.71.1.

14 The procedure: Dem. 59.86. The remaining three cases: the Halicarnassians (Hdt. 1.144.1-4), Cleomenes (Hdt. 5.72.1), unnamed defendant (Lys. 7).

15 Convicted, in approximate chronological order: Athenian magistrates of 625, Diagoras, the violators of the Mysteries and the Herms, Socrates, Archias, the sister of Lacedaemonius and the Halicarnassians. Acquitted: Andocides, Diodorus and his uncle. Unknown: Cleomenes, the defendant in Lys. 7, Menesaechmus, the Delians and the Rhenaeans.

16 Andoc. 1.132: νῦν δὲ ἀσεβῶ καὶ ἀδικῶ εἰσιὼν εἰς τὰ ἱερά; Substantially similar: Lys. 6.52.

17 [Dem.] 59.86: ἀπαγορεύουσιν οἱ νόμοι ταῖς γυναιξὶ μὴ εἰσιέναι εἰς τὰ ἱερὰ τὰ δημοτελῆ … ἵνα μὴ μιάσματα μηδ’ ἀσεβήματα γίγνηται ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς, …

18 Archias' punishment likely mild (though no mention of a fine): Parker (n. 1 [2004]), 60. No information: Menesaechmus, sister of Lacedaemonius.

19 Sex and birth pollution: Nilsson, GGR 3 94–8, Parker (n. 1 [1983]), 74–104. Death pollution: Nilsson, GGR 3 98–101, Parker (n. 1 [1983]), 32–62. Some warnings and their contents: LSAM 29 (sex and death), 35, 55 (sex and death), 68 (violence); LSCG 53, 55 (sex and death), 130; LSCG Supp. 59 (sex), 91 (violence). These are all Classical and Hellenistic examples.

20 As at Eur. IT 280–4, with other sources cited by Parker (n. 1 [1983]), 37 n. 4.

21 Thuc. 2.51.4–6, where the well are afraid of the sick; SIG 943.7–10.

22 Hipp. Flat. 6.96, 6.98 with F. Hoessly, Katharsis. Reinigung als Heilverfahren. Studien zum Ritual der archaischen und klassischen Zeit sowie zum Corpus Hippocraticum (Göttingen, 2001), 274–8. At Syll.3 943.7-10, doctors are reported to take sick after caring for patients at a time when ‘many especially destructive diseases were spreading’, but the diseases are not described. General Hippocratic opposition to treating the ill as though they were polluted: Hipp. Morb. Sac. 358.16-19l.

23 Epilepsy: Hipp. Morb. Sac. 140.23-8, 140.36-8j.

24 Hipp. Morb. Sac. 144–50j. Νóσος in general as a lack of ὁσίη: Willi, A., ‘Νóσoς and ὁσίη, etymological and sociocultural observations on the concepts of disease and divine (dis)favour in ancient Greece’, JHS 28 (2008), 153–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Thuc. 3.87.

26 Moulinier (n. 1), 253.

27 Lys. 2.7 vs Soph. Ant. 256; Thuc. 1.126.12 vs Andoc. 1.112.

28 Θέμις for xenia: Od. 9.267-8, 14.322. Θέμις for supplication without xenia: Od. 13.223.

29 Regulation: LSCG 109, 110, IG xii.5 225, LSCG Supp. 63. Unwritten law: Hdt. 5.32, 5.71, Soph. OC 1758.

30 Pl. Phd. 67b.

31 Mysteries: IG i3 427 (414 b.c.e.). No offence specified: IG i3 426.100-1.

32 IG vii 2418.1-3 (355–346 b.c.e.); IG Bulg. i2 388(2).5–6 (200–150 b.c.e.).

33 Delos: IG ii2 1635–40. Ephesus: IEph. 2. Lysimachus: IG xii.8 150.3-8.

34 Caillimer (n. 3) as in A. Boeckh, Die Staatsaushaltung der Athener (Berlin, 18862), 2.104; Parker (n. 1 [2004]), 65, as in D. MacDowell, Andokides On the Mysteries (Oxford, 1962), 17, or IG ii2 1635.134-40. Recent treatment: Delli Pizzi (n. 7).

35 IG v.2 262.25-35: εἴ σις ἰν το ἱεροῖ το̑ν τότε̣ [ἀπυθανόντο̄ν] / φονε̄́ς ἐστι, εἴσ’ αὐτὸς εἴσε [το̑ν ἐσγόνο̄ν] / σις κὰ το̄̓ρρέντερον, εἴσε τ[ο̑ν ἀνδρο̑ν] / εἴσε τᾶς φαρθένο̄, ἰνμενφὲ[ς ἐ̑ναι κὰ] / τὸ χρε̄στε̄́ριον· /… εἰ Θ̣έμανδρος φονε̄́ς ἐσστι̣ ε̣[ἴσε] / το̑ν ἀνδρο̑ν εἴσε τᾶς φαρθέν[ο̄] / το̑ν τότε ἀπυθανόντο̄ν ἰν το̣[ἱεροῖ] / κὰς με̄̀ προσσθαγενὲς τὸ ϝέ[ργον] / τὸ τότε ἐ̑, οὕτο̄ς ἰν μ̣όνφον θε̑[ναι]·

36 K. Latte, Heiliges Recht (Tübingen, 1920), 45–7. Other views: the murderers other than Themander have already been condemned by the oracle, as at G. Thür and H. Taeuber, Prozessrechtlichen Inschriften der griechischen Poleis, Arkadien (Vienna, 1994), no. 8; and the murderers have been exiled following conviction, as at H. van Effenterre and F. Ruzé, Nomima II. Receuil d'inscriptions politiques et juridiques de l'archaïsme grec (Rome, 1995), no. 2.

37 In the Cylonian case, the holy ground took the form of the suppliants being attached to the shrine by ropes: Plut. Sol. 2.1. Some were killed at the Areopagus: Thuc. 1.126.11.

38 Dem. 24.7.

39 Unsure about fabrication: Harris, E., ‘The penalty for frivolous prosecution in Athenian law’, Dike 2 (1999), 123–42Google Scholar, at 29 = Democracy and the Rule of Law in Classical Athens (Cambridge, 2006), 410. So also Filonik (n. 12), 77.

40 Dem. 22.4.

41 Authentic in the view of R. Wallace, ‘Withdrawing graphai in ancient Athens. A case study in sycophancy and legal idiosyncracies', in H. Rupprecht (ed.), Symposion 2003. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Vienna, 2006), 57–66, at 60. Qualified doubt: Filonik (n. 12), 77.

42 Plut. Comp. Lyc. et Num. 3.6: ὡς γὰρ παρ’ ἡμῖν οἱ ἱστορικοὶ γράφουσι τοὺς πρώτους ἢ φόνον ἐμφύλιον ἐργασαμένους ἢ πολεμήσαντας ἀδελφοῖς ἢ πατρὸς αὐτόχειρας ἢ μητρὸς γενομένους.

43 Pl. Leg. 9.869b: ἐὰν δὲ μὴ … αἰκίας δίκαις ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἔνοχος ἂν γίγνοιτο καὶ ἀσεβείας ὡσαύτως καὶ ἱεροσυλίας, τὴν τοῦ γεννητοῦ ψυχὴν συλήσας, …

44 Andoc. 1.11, 1.29.

45 Background: A. Rubel, Stadt in Angst. Religion und Politik in Athen während des Peloponnesischen Krieges (Darmstadt, 2000), 49–119 for the cases of 415 b.c.e., and 178–232 for the trial of Andocides. No statute of limitations for murder in Athens: Lys. 13.83 with Lipsius (n. 1), 2.853 n. 24.

46 Thus D. MacDowell (n. 34), App. I.

47 Lys. 6.10, citing Pericles.

48 Andoc. 1.29.

49 Lys. 6.51-5. Other religious language in the speech: W. Furley, Andokides and the Herms, A Study of Crisis in Fifth-Century Athenian Religion (London, 1996), 109–16.

50 [Dem.] 59.86: ἀλλὰ μόναις ταύταις ἀπαγορεύουσιν οἱ νόμοι ταῖς γυναιξὶ μὴ εἰσιέναι εἰς τὰ ἱερὰ τὰ δημοτελῆ … , ἐὰν δ’ εἰσίωσι καὶ παρανομῶσι, νηποινεὶ πάσχειν ὑπὸ τοῦ βουλομένου ὅ τι ἂν πάσχῃ, πλὴν θανάτου … διὰ τοῦτο δ’ ἐποίησεν ὁ νόμος, πλὴν θανάτου, τἄλλα ὑβρισθεῖσαν αὐτὴν μηδαμοῦ λαβεῖν δίκην, ἵνα μὴ μιάσματα μηδ’ ἀσεβήματα γίγνηται ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς, …

51 A similar view: Filonik (n. 12), 67 n. 207.

52 [Dem.] 59.87.

53 Dem. 21.115, 25.54.

54 The exception being that, if a homicide defendant had previously committed phonos akousios, and thus been exiled, he stood trial while in a boat that lay offshore (Dem. 23.77-8, [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 57.3).

55 Antiph. 5.82: μὴ καθαροὶ χεῖρας …

56 Antiph. 5.83: ἐμοὶ τοίνυν ἐν πᾶσι τούτοις τὰ ἐναντία ἐγένετο. τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ ὅσοις συνέπλευσα, καλλίστοις ἐχρήσαντο πλοῖς.

57 Pl. Euthyd. 4c; so also Dem. 21.120.

58 Antiph. 1.1.10.

59 Antiph. 5.82: πολλοὶ ἤδη ἄνθρωποι μὴ καθαροὶ χεῖρας ἢ ἄλλο τι μίασμα ἔχοντες …

60 Ar. Nub. 1263: κατὰ σεαυτὸν τρέπου.

61 Ar. Ach. 1120. So also Alciphr. 2.6.2, words addressed to a repulsive old man.

62 Eur. Supp. 226-8: κοινὰς γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τὰς τύχας ἡγούμενος | τοῖς τοῦ νοσοῦντος πήμασιν διώλεσεν | τὸν οὐ νοσοῦντα κοὐδὲν ἠδικηκότα.

63 Hes. Op. 238–46.

64 Cf. the phenomenon of ἀσέβεια descending from the guilty party to his descendants, as in the Cylonian case; see R. Gagné, Ancestral Fault in Ancient Greece (Berkeley, 2013), 306–25.

65 Mysteries: IG i3 427; the episode of 415 b.c.e. (Thuc. 6.53). Sacrifice: Cleomenes (Hdt. 5.72.1), Archias (Dem. 59.116), Menesaechmus (Lycurg. fr. B.4 ed. Blass). Sacrifice and θεωρία: IEph. 2. Supplication: Thuc. 1.126.11-12.

66 Rhenaeans/Delians (Hyper. fr. A.4 ed. Blass), a double case; Delians (IG ii2 1635–40).

67 Plunder: IG vii 2418.1-3 (355–346 b.c.e.); IG Bulg. i2 388(2).5-6 (200–150 b.c.e.). Objects: Herms (Thuc. 6.27) and olive trees (Lys. 7).

68 Halicarnassians (Hdt. 1.144.1-4).

69 The sister of Lacedaemonius (Dem. 57.8), IG i3 426.100-1, Lys. 6.17 and IG xii.8 150.3-8.

70 Cf. regulations to ban persons (LSCG 109, 110, LSCG Supp. 63) and species of animals (LSCG Supp. 63, LSCG 114) with sacrificial regulations such as LSCG Supp. 116a forbidding animal sacrifices in a particular cult.

71 Fine: TAM II 77, 564, 590, 592, 596, 693, 767. Fine and trial: IG ix.1 643.5-12. Fine and curse: TAM II 51, 210, 213, 221, 331; Aphrodisias 410, 419, 421–2, 438–9, 448, 451, 455, 464–5, 470, 474, 482, 509, 525, 535, 550, 553–4, 558, 566, 574. Curse or anger without a fine: IG ix.2 106, IC I xviii.64, INapoli 2.94, 126. These fines are unspecified, but in the following cases fines are paid to both a shrine and the community: TAM II 87, 648, 744; DAW 44.6 (1896), 56, 128; Hicks, E., ‘Inscriptions from western Cilicia’, JHS 12 (1891), 231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, no. 11.

72 A similar view about fines taken for granted: Delli Pizzi (n. 7), 57. The contrary view: Parker (n. 1 [2004]), 64.

73 Tit. Calymnii 77.2-4 (second century b.c.e.), SEG LV 930.57-8 (undated).

74 IG ii2 1013.56-8.

75 I.Iasos 220.7-8.

76 Lindos II 419.67-9, 86–8.

77 LSAM 53.22-8.

78 LSAM 69.10-15, esp. 12: … ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἰς [τὸν πάντα α]ἰῶνα τὴν αὐτὴν διαμεῖναι τῆς ἀνθαιρέσεως τάξιν καὶ θρησκείαν καὶ εὐσέβιαν τῶν θεῶν, …

79 [Dem.] 59.12, 107; Dem. 21.54-5, 199, 205; Lycurg. Leoc. 147.

80 The remaining charge, ἕτερα δὲ καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέροι (Xen. Ap. 10; similarly, Mem. 1.1.1, Pl. Ap. 26c), involves another issue, Socrates' δαίμων; see P. Pucci, Xenophon, Socrates' Defense (Amsterdam, 2002), 26–7.

81 Pl. Ap. 26b: πῶς με φῂς διαφθείρειν, ὦ Μέλητε, τοὺς νεωτέρους; ἢ δῆλον δὴ ὅτι κατὰ τὴν γραφὴν ἣν ἐγράψω θεοὺς διδάσκοντα μὴ νομίζειν οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζει … ;

82 Xen. Mem. 1.2.56: διδάσκειν τοὺς συνόντας κακούργους τε εἶναι καὶ τυραννικούς, … Κακουργία defined: Antiph. 5.8-10.

83 Xen. Mem. 1.2.31: λόγων τέχνην μὴ διδάσκειν, …

84 Aeschin. 1.173. Xenophon's rebuttal: Mem. 1.2.39.

85 Joseph. Ap. 2.266; Pl. Meno 91e. Diog. Laert. 9.52 does not mention a trial or a charge.

86 ’Aσέβεια: Suda Π 2365. Corruption: schol. Pl. Resp. 600c.

87 Diod. Sic. 12.39.2; so also Plut. Per. 32.5. Other views: Dover (n. 2), 41; Wallace (n. 2), 137. These two writers also discuss the other cases mentioned in this paragraph and the next one.

88 Aspasia: δίκην ἔφευγεν ἀσεβείας, Aeschin. Socr. fr. 25 ed. Dittmar, with Hermipp. apud Plut. Per. 31.1.

89 Plut. Dem. 14.6.

90 Pl. Leg. 9.869, where the act of κακουργία linked to ἀσέβεια is murder; Dem. 22.69, where it is theft. More links among these and other serious crimes: M. Hansen, Apagoge, Endeixis and Ephegesis against Kakourgoi, Atimoi, and Feugontes (Odense, 1976), 41–4. Overlap between ἱεροσυλία and ἀσέβεια: Cohen (n. 4 [1991]), 101. Examples of an offence being labelled both: IEphesos 113.22-3 (unstated offences), 212.214-17 (defacing statues). Similar: IG xii.5 654.7-11 (violator of unstated shrine regulations to be ἱερóσυλος and ἐναγής).

91 Dem. 22.69: τί γὰρ βούλεσθ’ εἴπω; τὰ πομπεῖ’ ὡς ἐπεσκεύασεν, καὶ τὴν τῶν στεφάνων καθαίρεσιν, ἢ τὴν τῶν φιαλῶν ποίησιν τὴν καλήν; ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τούτοις γε, εἰ μηδὲν ἄλλ’ ἀδικῶν ἔτυχεν τὴν πόλιν, τρίς, οὐχ ἅπαξ τεθνάναι δίκαιος ὢν φανεῖται· καὶ γὰρ ἱεροσυλίᾳ καὶ ἀσεβείᾳ καὶ κλοπῇ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς δεινοτάτοις ἔστ’ ἔνοχος.

92 Arist. VV 1251a. Similar: Polyb. 36.9.

93 Ar. Ran. 1078–81. The guilty parties: the nurse in Hipp. 500, 519; Auge, fr. 266 ed. Nauck; Canace, fr. 19.

94 Dem. 23.79.

95 [Dem.] 59.109.

96 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England in Four Books (R. Kerr [ed.]) (London, 1873), 447–50. Henry VIII made heresy a crime subject to the law courts, but Elizabeth I reversed him.

97 A recent monographic treatment: L. Levy, Blasphemy, Verbal Offense Against the Sacred, from Moses to Salman Rushdie (Chapel Hill, NC, 1995).

98 Ex. 6.28.

99 Additional Classical sources in notes below. For later sources, see Filonik (n. 12).

100 That is, assembly or popular court, unless otherwise specified.

101 Hdt. 5.71.

102 Ar. Av. 1017. Later particulars, i.e. ridiculing the Mysteries: Melanthios FGrHist 326 F3, Krateros FGrHist 342 F 16.

103 And 1.29-33; Lys. 6.11 (Andocides and Archippus).

104 Andoc. 1.44.

105 Lys. 6.52. Additional charge relating to supplication, Andoc. 1.110-16.

106 Aeschin. 1.173 (for charge of instructing Critias).

107 Xen. Mem 1.1.2.

108 Countercharges by Delians and Rhenaeans, presumably in Athens, which controlled the shrine of Delian Apollo after 422 b.c.e.

109 ἰνμενφὲς.

110 & πόλεμον ἀνεπάγγελτον ἡ̣μῖν ἐξενεγκά̣ν̣των.

111 & [ἐ]γχειρήσαντας συλῆσαι τὰ ἀναθήματα.