Kernos Revue internationale et pluridisciplinaire de religion grecque antique 24 | 2011 Varia Impiety in Epigraphic Evidence Aurian Delli Pizzi Édition électronique URL : http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/1934 DOI : 10.4000/kernos.1934 ISSN : 2034-7871 Éditeur Centre international d'étude de la religion grecque antique Édition imprimée Date de publication : 1 janvier 2011 Pagination : 59-76 ISSN : 0776-3824 Référence électronique Aurian Delli Pizzi, « Impiety in Epigraphic Evidence », Kernos [En ligne], 24 | 2011, mis en ligne le 01 février 2014, consulté le 20 avril 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/1934 ; DOI : 10.4000/kernos.1934 Kernos Kernos 2A (2011), p. 59-75. Impiety i Epigraphic Evide ce∗ Abstract3 The aim of this paper is to highlight several features of the concept of impiety (iq•psk) and of its use in inscriptions. Two main types of epigraphic teNts mention impietyM 1. preventive laws, where formulations such as iqp ±qzw, iqppzw and ±|xmx ±qzw iqppÙ have a dou.le effect inasmuch as they categorize an offence as an impiety and, in addition, they give a culprit the status of impious and 2. reports of trials or of past wrongs. (eing regarded as impious entails other conse-uences on the relationship .etween the culprit and gods .ut also .etween the culprit and the human community – the main issue .eing that these conse-uences are seldom eNplicitly mentioned. Moreover, instead of a single law or teNt defining impiety or proceedings to take place in case of impiety, there is an array of teNts in which impiety appears, the sum of which forms what a community would legally recognize as an impiety. Résumé M 2et article vise L mettre en eNergue diff rentes particularit s du concept dIimpi t (iq•psk) et de son utilisation dans les inscriptions. DeuN types principauN de teNtes pigraphi-ues mentionnent lIimpi t M 1. des lois pr ventives, dans les-uelles des formulations telles -ue iqp ±qzw, iqppzw et ±|xmx ±qzw iqppÙ ont un dou.le effet dans la mesure oJ elles d finissent une infraction comme tant une impi t et, de surcroTt, elles conf;rent au coupa.le le statut dIimpie et 2. des rapports de proc;s ou de torts commis par le pass . Útre consid r impie entraTne dIautres cons -uences, dans la relation du coupa.le avec les dieuN mais galement avec la communaut humaine – le pro.l;me tant principalement -ue ces cons -uences sont rarement eNplicitement mentionn es. De plus, au lieu dIune loi uni-ue d finissant lIimpi t ou envisageant les proc dures L mettre en place en cas dIimpi t , il y a un ensem.le de teNtes dans les-uels apparaTt lIimpi t , dont la somme forme ce -uIune commu- naut reconnaTtrait l galement comme impi t . The concept of impiety (iq•psk) in ancient Greek religion is compleN. Firstly, definitions provided .y ancient authors themselves point out, as potential victims of an impious act, different actors whose connections with each other do not seem a priori o.vious to us, such as gods and parents.1 It was ∗ I am eNtremely grateful to Prof. Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge, Angelos 2haniotis andRo.ert Parker for theirhelpful criticisms on earlier drafts of thispaper.Many thanks to Dr. (eate Dignas and2harles 2rowther for their interest in my research andtheir support. Athina Mitropoulos and Justine Potts have kindly contri.utedto the improvement of my English. Any remaining error is mine. 1 See in particular ps.-Aristotle, 4irtues and vices, 1251aM “There are three types of offence (isk)M impiety, greediness(j~px|pk)andoutrage (Ûls).Impietyisafault(j~•~psk)regarding gods, daemons or deceased persons, parents or homeland_, and Poly.ius, XXXVI, 9M “Impiety means committing a wrong (·klzo|ps|) in respect of what is related to gods, parents and deceased persons_. A common point .etween these elements is that normally they should all .e granted a certain amount of honour (zsn). }q•psk can thus .e seen as a lack of zsn. 50 A. DELLI PI&&I similarly pro.lematic for ancient authors to define piety as well as impiety, as is o.vious in PlatoIs Euthyphro.2 Moreover, modern scholarship has mostly fo- cused on the legal treatment of impiety and on Athenian case studies, such as Socrates and other philosophersI alleged trials for impiety.3 This focus has led to two assumptionsM .eing impious could only .ring an individual to .e prosecuted in a court and, since most of the impious individuals studied .y scholars would .e philosophers, impiety was intrinsically linked to atheism or, at least, to a pro.lem of |xºps| zx¹ rpx”.A I am convinced that several essential aspects of impiety have .een neglected through these approaches.5 This paper cannot claim comprehensiveness, .ut I would like to focus on a specific issueM the use of impiety in epigraphic docu- mentary evidence. Impiety is an offence, an isk – i.e., to put it crudely, a wrong that you might do and that is likely to .e punished in some way.5 Imperative formulations used in preventive laws, such as iqp ±qzw, iqppzw and ±|xmx ±qzw iqppÙ, categorize a given isk as an impiety, .ut also imply that from now on the culprit will .e regarded as impious, and this status will 2 On this dialogue, see L. (R)IT &AIDMAN, .e commerce des dieux: euse.eia, essai sur la pi5t5 en GrQce ancienne, Paris, 2001, p.15A-157. One couldo.Pect to my statement that not much could easilybedefinedwithaninterlocutorsuchasSocrates. 3 It is however not certain that these trials took place, andscholars have different positions on the matter. E. DERENNE, .es procQs d2impi5té intentés auxphilosophes 8 AthQnes au 4me etau I4me siQcles avant c.7C., Li;ge/Paris, 1930, provides a -uite o.solete though inescapa.le overview of these trials. More recently, on Protagoras, see D. LENFANT, “Protagoras et son proc;s d’impi t M peut-on soutenir une th;se et son contraire?_, Ktema 27 (2002), p.135-15A, which rightly casts dou.t on the historicity of this trial and criticizes anachronistic concepts, such as “intellectual freedom_ or “tolerance_X on Nino, Phryne andNeaira, see e.g. 1. TRAMPEDA2,, “Gefhhrliche Frauen. &u athenischen Ase.ie-Prozessen im A. Jh. v. 2hr._, in R. VON DEN ,OFF, St. S2,MIDT (eds.), Konstruktionen von Wirklichkeit. Lilder im Griechenland des l. und a. cahrhunderts v. Chr., Stuttgart, 2001, p. 137-155X R. PAR1ER, 1olytheism and Society at Athens, ONford, 2005, p. 133-135X E. EIDINO , 3racles, Curses and Risk among the Ancient Greeks, ONford, 2007, p.29 and 153X on Aristotle, see R.BODE)S, “LIimpi t d’Aristote_, Kernos 15 (2002), p. 51-55 andM.-F. (ASLE&, .es pers5cutions dans l2Antiquité: victimes, h5ros, martyrs, Paris, 2007, p.35-39. For an overview of the trials for impiety in Athens in the fourth century (2, see L.-L. S)LLIVAN, “Athenian Impiety Trials in the Late Fourth 2entury (2_, C6 A7 (1997), p.135-152. For cautious remarks a.out the historicity of all these trials, see S. 1RA)TER, Lmrgerrecht und Kultteilnahme. 1olitische und kultische Rechte und 1flichtenin griechischen 1oleis,Romundantikem cudentum,Berlin,200A, p.231-2A9. A On the -uestion of “un.elief_ and |xºps| zx¹ rpx”, see . FA,R, "IE JIHD "&J. :um 1roblem der Anfnge des Atheismus bei den Griechen, ,ildesheim, 1959, p. 150-152 et passimX R. PAR1ER, Athenian Religion: A 0istory, ONford, 1995, chap. IXX M. GIORDANO-&A2,ARDA, “As Socrates Shows, the Athenians Did Not (elieve in Gods_, Numen 52 (2005), p. 325-355X ,. 2AN2I1- LINDEMAIER, “Gottlosigkeit im Altertum. Materialismus – Pantheismus – Religionskritik – Atheismus_, in R. FA(ER,S. LAN ERD (eds.), Atheismus: Ideologie, 1hilosophie oder Mentalitt9, ürz.urg, 2005, p. 15-3A. 5 Impiety will .e the topic of my doctoral research, entitled “Transgression of Norm in AncientGreekReligioninClassical,HellenisticandRomanPeriodsMtheCaseofImpiety._ 5 The link .etween iq•psk andisk is o.vious in some statements, though clearly on a rhetorical level. See e.g. the parallel in Andocides, 3n the mysteries, 31M Õ|k zswlnqzp | zx¹ iqpx|zk,σ»ºzpδτx¹ †| isx|zkX ibid.,132Mν|δ iqp{κk is{εqs¿|ετ• ‘plo. Impiety in Epigraphic Evidence 51 legitimize the application of sanctions from other mem.ers of the community. In other words, iqp ±qzw, “let him .e impious_, should .e understood as a shorter version of “let him .e punished as one who is regarded as impious_.7 Far from .eing a simple linguistic twist, the connection .etween committing an iq•psk and .eing iqpn has not insignificant conse-uences for how we should understand impiety and its implications in Greek society, as well as the Greek legal system in general. O.viously elliptic formulations in “adPective + ±qzw_ in preventive laws are not restricted to impiety, and it is pro.a.ly wise to consider that what is said here a.out iq•psk cannot .e systematically applied to other concepts. For eNample we have several attestations of i|uqsx| ±qzw. In these cases, however, i|uqsx designates an o.Pect, not a person.8 Moreover, the term ™qsx is used a lot, especially in the eNpression z• ‘plo k z• ™qsk9, .ut surprisingly its antonym is -uite rare in epigraphic teNts. This suggests that the difference .etween i|uqsx and iqpn is more important than usually thought or at least shown in translations.10 Moreover, there are also many eNamples of ‘pluq~x ±qzw, to which I will return .elow, and zwl”mx ±qzw, in epitaphs from Asia Minor, which I will pass over in the present paper. Studying the way ancient Greeks delimited the concept of impiety is of first importance, as it may help us avoid .eing trapped in a pro.lem of inaccuracy -uite common in modern scholarshipM impiety has often .een discussed even in cases where ancient authors did not mention it.