The erection and mutilation of the Hermai

Abstract

A paper on the herms needs no excuse. There is no proper treatment in English of the origins of the herm or of the erection of herms by Hipparkhos. The Eion herm monument has been well studied by Jacoby and Harrison, but the recent treatment by Clairmont demands their reconsideration. The scholarly literature on the mutilation has been very narrowly focused on the questions of who mutilated the herms and why. These questions are clearly closely inter-related, and yet the attempts to answer the question ‘why?’ have been singularly unsatisfactory. Some have arbitrarily chosen to emphasise a single feature of the herm, and with little evidence have made wild claims: thus Farnell could write that ‘the mutilation of the phallic Hermai of Athens produced… in the Athenians the despondent sense that the luck of the state was gone and the divine power of fertilisation impaired’, Crome that ‘with this mutilation must be connected the religious world of the phallus cult of the old native population which had certainly always been strange to the oligarchs’. Others have ignored the fact that it was specifically herms that were mutilated and have reduced the activity of the hermokopidai to a massive act of general impiety, as Dover does when he argues that the mutilation was politically significant because as an act of impiety it would seem to bring down the wrath of the gods on the whole community, as a conspicuous act of vandalism it would make the number of people involved seem large, and as an offence against nomos it would prompt concern for the fact that a body of men had set themselves beyond the law.