isolated evidence concerning their being regarded asphysically(or pathogenically)
polluting. Even though undertaking is seen as a marginalized and ‘‘dirty’’ profession
throughout Greco-Roman antiquity (Derda 1991), it would be rash to suppose that
the religious categorization of death as a ritual pollution is exclusively reflective of
more general Greek societal notions of death. Quite the contrary: when the Greek
funerary regulations detail both the ritual pollution affecting the house of the dead
and the different means as well as conditions of subsequent purification (Frisone
2000:30, 57), they categorize the family as only temporarily ‘‘polluted’’ and limit the
state of pollution to the immediate household and those entering the house; these
may attain post-pollution normality through purification.
The modern ethnographic fascination with all things impure and polluted disre-
gards the simple fact that the actual impact of purity regulations in any given society
may be quite limited. Social life, to become tolerable, admits employment of different
interpretative models to make different sense of the world in different situations. The
superstitious man in Theophrastus’Characters(16) does not understand this prin-
ciple: he begins his day with the ritual washing of his hands and the besprinkling of his
body, and puts a piece of laurel wreath in his mouth. He purifies the house on a
regular basis, fearing that the goddess Hecate may have taken possession of it by
means of some hostile spell. He avoids contact with women in childbed and with
death, and avoids even the sight of a tombstone so as not to contract a pollution.
When he encounters someone else chewing garlic, he purifies himself and summons
priestesses to circle him with a cathartic squill or puppy. As if all this were not enough,
he participates in the Orphic Mysteries once a month, entailing further purificatory
measures. The superstitious man whose life is dedicated to the desperate attempt to
avoid any kind of ritual pollution is a caricature, meant as a criticism of unreasonable
‘‘superstitious’’ and improper social behavior. This example may serve to illustrate the
point made at the beginning of this chapter, namely that ‘‘purity’’ and ‘‘pollution’’
ought to be understood as categories constructed in order to establish temporary
differentiation – be it with regard to a biological condition, or a dietary or social
practice. The object of that differentiation – be it the corpse, childbirth, or the
chewing of garlic – may be classified as either ‘‘physically not polluted’’ or ‘‘ritually
not pure.’’ The classificatory model one is applying must depend (something the
superstitious man has clearly misunderstood) on the respective situation and context.
The separation between the two categories of ‘‘pure’’ and ‘‘polluted,’’ maintained
only within a given (ritual) situation, can and must be abandoned afterwards, if we
wish to return to a normal life. For if only a situation prevailed in which every single
exposure to a corpse, to childbirth, or to someone chewing garlic entails ritual
pollution, everyday life in the Greek world would be passed with constant religious
scruple and ritual purifications, and hence become unbearable.
The conceptualization of boundaries – both real and imagined – between the
sacred and the secular realms – between purity and normality – is a matter of serious
attention in Greek religion. Purity is associated with the sacred realm, whereas
pollution occurs in the social world beyond its boundaries. Truth to tell, Greek
mythology does not portray the gods as particularly pure beings; the shortcomings
of their anthropomorphism are criticized already by Xenophanes of Colophon
(frr. 166–72 Kirk/Raven/Schofield) in the sixth century BC. But the cult statues of
gods are attended by temple personnel, who clean and wash them as part of the
180 Andreas Bendlin