Morphology

The word appears in two variants, ἄθυτος and ἄθυστος, the latter of which occurs only in the Semonides verse (7.56), transmitted by the Stobaios manuscripts, otherwise attested elsewhere (Ath. 5.7 = 179d) with the lesson ἄθυτος. It is possible, therefore, that the controversy is the result of an error or reinterpretation intended to explain the long product of the pre-final syllable by closing it with a consonant (this is, moreover, unnecessary, since the syllable, though open, can clearly be long as in Eur. H. 147). Both variants are clearly synonymous and show an identical structure: alpha privativum + element (-thu- or -thus-) + derivational morpheme adiectivum verbale + ending. Such a structure suggests the meaning: not-burned-in-offering/not-sacrificed/not-offered/not-do-offering.

Attestations

The syntactic relationships into which the word enters in its various occurrences, as well as the contexts in which it appears, testify to the fact that it either had a number of different specialised meanings and uses, or that it was understood in a generic way, as imprecise: incompatible with the ritual norms associated with sacrifice. The second part of the alternative seems more likely.

1) On several occasions the word is attested in a context which does not allow us to doubt that it refers to a ritual which, for some reason, did not take place at all:

X. HG. 3.2.22: ἄθυτος ἀπῆλθεν (about Agis, who was not allowed by the Aeolians to make a sacrifice) - he went away without making a sacrifice. Here the adjective refers to the noun denoting the sacrificer.

Lys. 25.6.3: ἄθυτα τὰ πάτρια ἱερὰ γίγνεσθαι - according to tradition the sacrificial rites will not be fulfilled.

Lys. 30.20.1: ἱερὰ ἄθυτα τριῶν ταλάντων γεγένηται - offerings of the value of three talents were not made. In this and the previous case the adjective specifies the noun naming the ritual.

D.H. 8.25: γενέσθαι καὶ ἀθύτους - remain without offerings. Here the adjective refers to gods who will not receive due worship.

2) A derivative of meaning 1 is Plato's metonymic use of the word: who was not sanctified by the sacrificial ritual at the nuptials:

Pl. Leg. 841D: ἄθυτα δὲ παλλακῶν σπέρματα καὶ νόθα μὴ σπείρειν - without performing the sacrificial ritual [at the nuptials] sow seed among the girls and beget bastards.

3) Also evident, though rare, is the juxtaposition of the word in question with the adjective θύσιμος, which indicates the meaning unsuitable for sacrifice:

Plu. de Isid. 363B: κἂν μίαν ἔχῃ τρίχα μέλαιναν ἢ λευκήν, ἄθυτον ἡγεῖσθαι- θύσιμον γὰρ οὐ φίλον εἶνναι θεοῖς, ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον (about the sacrifice of a red ox in Egypt) - and if it has even one hair of white or black, they think it unfit for sacrifice. For it is not what they consider suitable for sacrifice that is pleasing to the gods, but the opposite.

4) In contrast to καλὰ τὰ ἱερά (good signs, resulting from successful sacrifices) - [a ritual] which has failed:

Aesch. (3.131; 152): (an accusation against Demosthenes, who had sent out an army to fight) ἀθύτων καὶ ἀκαλλιερήτων ὄντων τῶν ἱερῶν - though the sacrifices failed and the signs were bad.

5) In Jewish literature the word gains meaning: [a ritual] performed contrary to religious regulations:

Ph. V.M. 2.107.2: ἄθυτοι θυσίαι - sacrifices contrary to regulations.

LXX Le. 19.7: ἐὰν δὲ βρώσει βρωθῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ, ἄθυτόν ἐστιν - if anyone eats the food [of the sacrifice] on the third day, it [the food] will be unclean (Hebrew: פִּגּ֥וּל; lat. vulg. impurum).

The case of Euripides' use of the word may be problematic (H. 147):†σὺ δ'† ἀμφὶ τὰν πολύθηρον Δίκτυνναν ἀμπλακίαις ἀνίερος ἀθύτων πελανῶν τρύχηι; the philological tradition dictates that this grammatically complex passus be translated as: and thou mayest lose thyself by reason of thy transgression against the animal Diktinna, not having offered her a grain-feast, in sacrifice to her. Commentators (Barret 1964: ad loc.; Halleran 1995: ad loc.) agree that the structure of ἀνίερος ἀθύτων πελανῶν is pleonastic. In other words, ἀθύτων (in sense 1) as an appendage to πελανῶν contributes nothing here that the word ἀνίερος does not. This is not an unusual phenomenon in poetry, so the alternative interpretation presented below, restoring an independent meaning to the adjective ἄθυτος in this context, is purely hypothetical.

The quoted sentence forms part of a longer passus in which the chorus inquires into the causes of Phaedra's suffering. According to the proposed diagnosis, it is due to the neglect of the ritual in honour of Diktynna, a marginal goddess from the Athenian point of view, although close to the heroine (cf. Willetts 1962: 179-93. Reading this somewhat outdated study, one should maintain considerable reserve towards the author's bold ideas). Both, after all, come from Crete.

The details of the ritual in question are not known, and perhaps Euripides was referring here only to the stereotypical depiction of a secondary cult. Characteristically, the ritual was to be reduced to the offering of πελανός, i.e. grain food, incomparably less prestigious than any blood sacrifice. It is possible that the image of the rite itself is completed by the adjective, which, at least theoretically, could mean not intended to be burnt. Under such an interpretation, Phaedra's negligence would consist in the fact that she did not lay out a meal or porridge for the goddess of animals. In such an interpretation, the last segment of the sentence should be translated: having failed to offer a grain offering to Dictyne as a non-burning sacrifice. This understanding of the passus is supported by the gloss in Hesychius (meaning 5): ἀπύρου- ἀθύτου. Σοφοκλῆς Μυσοῖς - fireless = ἀθύτου. Sophocles in The Mysicians (fr. 384). Unfortunately, we do not know the context of Sophocles' use of the word.

Perhaps in a similar sense the word appears in its first attestation, in Semonides in his Satire on Women (fr. 7.56): ἄθυτα δ' ἱρὰ πολλάκις κατεσθίει - often devours meat without sharing it with the gods. The context in which Athenaeus quotes it (Ath. 5.7 = 179d) allows us to conclude that in his view ἄθυτος in this case refers to food not shared with the gods before eating. It is therefore not directly related to the ritual of a thysia-type sacrifice (associated inseparably with the killing of an animal). However, it cannot be excluded that the interpretation of the erudite is contrary to the author's own intentions. In such a case, it seems acceptable to give the adjective ἄθυτος the meaning of 2 (often devours meat from failed sacrifices) or 5 (often devours food laid out for the gods). Finally, there is the possibility that the word here denotes the remains of animal parts sacrificed to the gods that failed to burn, fell off the altar, or were snatched from it (meaning 6).

Three instances of inscriptional attestation of the word in question from Asia Minor of the imperial period probably fit into the context of the passus from Semonides:

LSAM 84.11 - a text specifying, the conditions of admission to a certain form of mysterious worship of Dionysus Bromios in Smyrna (2nd century AD): μεθ' ἀθύτοις θυσίαις ἱερῶν ἐπὶ χῖρας ἰάλ[λειν] (literally, neither lay hands on the non-sacrificial offerings of holiness). Sokolowski (ad loc.) probably rightly assumes that the phrase χῖρας ἰάλλειν must mean food (this is the sense this formula has in Homer, e.g. Od.1.149). Actually all meanings except 1 and 2 fit this context.

Petzl 1994: 123.5 (Ortaköy) - a warning of some misfortune that may fall on those who do what the author of the inscription does: ἱερὸν ἄθυτον αἰγοτόμιον ἔσθειν (to eat a piece of goat meat from an unsacrificed sacrifice).

Petzl 1994: 1 (Akçaalvu 1st-2nd century AD): a certain Meidon held a feast at which his or the temple servants (διάκονοι) ate ἄθυτα. This caused Meidon to have some kind of difficulty in speaking for three months. Finally, through a soothsayer's dream, he decided to break the crisis by putting up a stele with an inscription. The inscribed stele features a representation of an eagle with its wings half spread sitting on a bomos-type altar. A human hand is reaching towards it, giving it something in its beak or taking it away. Since the stele comes from the tabernacle of Zeus Trosos, the species of the bird is probably not accidental (an attribute of the god). Remaining in the realm of conjecture (no better, or for good measure, any explanation has yet been proposed), it can be surmised that the scene depicts an act of transgression against the divine regulations, and therefore of man reaching for the ἄθυτα. It was clearly a part of the sacrificial animal which, metaphorically speaking, the eagle was to bring to Zeus, or one which, at the end of the ritual, was to become - literally - bird food, i.e. waste (cf. the introduction to Aristophanes' Birds). Most probably, therefore, we are dealing here with the word ἄθυτος in the least attested sense 6 (cf. Berthiaume 1982: 90-1).

The last four cases, although there may be elusive differences between them for us, seem to fit into a common pattern (cf. Packer 2010: 142-3). They clearly testify to the existence of a taboo prohibiting the eating of objects described as ἄθυτα. Contrary to the most obvious interpretation, clearly this is not meat not derived from sacrifices, but something that was sacrificed uniquely or ineffectively. It is also possible that ἄθυτα is a remnant or still-burning piece of the divine part.