I’m looking into miasma again (previous research here, here and here) and the more I read, the more I’m struck by the gap between ancient texts and modern interpretations. Among Hellenic polytheistic communities, miasma is generally defined as the ickiness of mortal life, as in this explanation by Elani Temperance:
Miasma occurs whenever the space or person comes into contact with death, sickness, birth, sex, excessive negative emotions and bodily fluids. It also comes from a lack of contact with the Hellenic Gods. […] The most important things to remember about miasma is that it holds no judgment from the Gods, and that everyone attracts miasma. It’s a mortal, human, thing.
Or in this similar one by shipping-the-gods:
Miasma translates to the vague word “pollution”, but it isn’t as bad as you might think. It’s just the everyday things we hold onto throughout our lives as humans. It is humanness, and nothing to ashamed of or scared of.
If these definitions were historically accurate, we would expect to find a number of ancient texts describing purification from miasma before a ritual. However, I went through all instances of the word “miasma” in ancient texts, using the TLG Text Search tool, and to my surprise, this usage does not appear a single time. Let me repeat that: there is not a single text in which a regular person purifies themselves of miasma before a ritual. All attested purifications from miasma are expiatory rituals designed for criminals.
Instead of miasma being “everyday things” of which the presence “holds no judgement from the Gods”, in ancient texts it has the following causes (excluding fragmentary texts and passages with vague context):
murder (by far the most common, mentioned by ten authors)
murder of a family member
murder of fellow citizens
murder of animals (only in Plutarch)
abandonment of a person to death
incest, both contemplated and acted upon
crime against a member of the priesthood
dedication of plunder taken from Greek people to the Greek Gods
taking offerings from temples
using bad language (only in Charondas)
In the above contexts, miasma is often coupled with the words ἀσεβής (impious), ἀκαθαρός (impure) and ἀνόσιος (unholy). It’s also worth noting that there are no mentions of miasma in the poetry of Homer or Hesiod; its earliest appearance is in Aeschylus’ plays.
The only causes which overlap to some extent with modern understanding are the following:
natural death and funerary rites
pollution associated with birth and death (mentioned by Diogenes Laertius in the phrase “death, birth and all miasma”, though it should be clarified that this is in relation to Pythagoreanism, not to the mainstream cult)
certain diseases, disabilities and disfigurements (explainable by the fact that illness and physical deformities were considered to be signs of moral failure)
In summary, what ancient texts tell us is that miasma is not a morally neutral and inherently human occurrence. Its most normal cause is death, and possibly also birth; but more commonly, miasma is caused by (what the Ancient Greeks considered to be) severe physical impurity and by crime, specifically crimes against another person, especially one of the same family or social group, and crimes against the Gods.
Nevertheless, as I’ve discussed in previous posts, the impurities described at the beginning of this post do exist in Hellenic polytheism; the term for them is not miasma but lyma, a mild form of spiritual (and physical) pollution that can simply be translated as “dirt”. From Homer onwards, it’s lyma, not miasma, that ancient people purified themselves of before ritual.
So how did this confusion arise? How did the current definition of miasma, as used by Hellenic polytheists, come to be? I would point in part towards Christian and Christian-influenced texts, which understand miasma as a softer, less specific kind of impurity; in 2 Peter 2:20, for example, it refers to worldly things, as opposed to the holiness of God. It’s also worth noting that of the 923 occurrences of the word “miasma” in Greek literature, over 600 are found in Christian texts.
But beyond ancient interpretations, I would also point towards the nature of the modern Hellenic polytheistic community. Since many worshippers don’t have access to scholarly resources, and even fewer can read ancient texts in their original language, much of the information found online is essentially from a handful of (often simplified) sources. As that information travels, it gets reinterpreted and expanded upon via UPG, while still being presented in an authoritative manner. Somehow, along the way, we decided to call all spiritual pollution miasma; somehow, along the way, we assumed that miasma was caused by mortality; somehow, along the way, we interpreted it not as a defilement but as a distraction from worship. In short, somehow, along the way, we created for ourselves a whole new definition of spiritual pollution which has almost nothing to do with the ancient understanding of it, and yet which is almost universally accepted among modern worshippers.
This is not inherently a bad thing; in fact, I find it quite fascinating. I would still highly encourage my fellow reconstructionists to use the ancient definitions of miasma and lyma in their worship - because we strive to be close to our religious ancestors, because these terms preserve a nuanced view of pollution which is lost in the all-encompassing “miasma”, and because they lessen the otherwise strenuous expectation that we should go through elaborate purifications before each ritual. But if the neo-definition of miasma, or your personal definition, suits your own practise better, I’ll not be the one to stop you from using it.
What this topic does highlight is how easy it is for what is essentially UPG to get widely accepted by the Hellenic polytheistic community. Our religion is growing and thriving, and as it develops, new understandings naturally arise - which is great! But it’s just as important that, as a community, we strive towards giving an honest representation of what is new and what is historical, so that each individual may make an informed choice of what suits their practise best.
