Hesiod - Works and Days 370-375

Greek
1

I have analysed the verses 370-375 of Works and Days by Hesiod and I have arrived at a completely different rendering to that which is accepted. I’d like anyone to chime in and give their take on my rendering.

The verses : μισθὸς δ᾽ ἀνδρὶ φίλῳ εἰρημένος ἄρκιος ἔστω. καί τε κασιγνήτῳ γελάσας ἐπὶ άρτυρα θέσθαι. πίστεις γάρ τοι ὁμῶς καὶ ἀπιστίαι ὤλεσαν ἄνδρας.μὴ δὲ γυνή σε νόον πυγοστόλος ἐξαπατάτω αἱμύλα κωτίλλουσα, τεὴν διφῶσα καλιήν. ὃς δὲ γυναικὶ πέποιθε, πέποιθ᾽ ὅ γε φηλήτῃσιν.

Are generally accepted as : Let the wage promised to a friend be fixed; even with your brother smile—and get a witness; for trust and mistrust alike ruin men. Do not let a flaunting woman coax and cozen and deceive you: she is after your barn. The man who trusts womankind trusts deceivers.

And often “barn” is translated as Granary. What brought me here is the difference between the lexical and archaeological disagreement between the image of a Granary and the fact that apparently such granaries were attributed to the Wanax, translated as King. Of course Wanax is the most ancient form of Highest Divinity and not a King (Wanax) or Queen (Wanassa) at all. Wanax, Wanassa being language of the cult really sparked my intrigue.

So, here’s what I found and the differentiation I made to the norm :

ὄλλυμι as “Ruin” is inaccurate as the overlying theme of the word ὄλλυμι is Death, ending of life.
φηλητής looks incredibly similar to λῃστής which most definitely does not mean robber, thief, or knave. Both words claim to have the same meaning. φη- is as/like/for so the word renders as like leistes or on behalf of leistes. Of course, λῃστής is not a robber or brigand at all but wider reading shows they were pederasts who were people traffickers.
καλιά translated as Granary is incredibly inaccurate. Often translated as wooden hut it is interestingly “A shrine or grotto, containing the image of a god”.

So the rendering becomes : Let the payment spoken to a dear man be sufficient. And even with a brother, having smiled, set it upon a witness. For trusts and mistrusts alike have brought men to their deaths. Let not a buttock-adorned woman thoroughly deceive your mind, sweetly chattering while seeking out your shrine, grotto, or hidden sacred dwelling. But whoever has placed trust in a woman has placed trust in the leistai.

To paraphrase an interpretation : Make sure to have a witness when you pay your debts because deceit will lead to your death. Let not the woman of alluring display beguile your mind with honeyed speech as she seeks your religious affiliation. To trust such a woman is to trust the agents of the traffickers.

Or in a completely collapsed form : Make sure to have witness to you paying your debts or you may end up being sacrificed to the gods.

Please excuse my liberties! I’m just trying to reach the core of this passage and its message. It’s not about grain. Thoughts, please.

2

There’s a lot of questionable and unsourced assumptions here, like:

Of course Wanax is the most ancient form of Highest Divinity and not a King (Wanax) or Queen (Wanassa) at all.

the overlying theme of the word ὄλλυμι is Death

λῃστής is not a robber or brigand at all but wider reading shows they were pederasts who were people traffickers

(What “wider reading”?)

φη- is as/like/for

Unless you can explain what leads you to believe these claims, the whole argument is quite nonsensical.

3

Wanax/Wanassa is most often used in poems such as Orphic Hymns in address to deities which supposedly lived during the Mycenaean. Homer uses it often in address to Demeter, Persephone, Nausicaa. They always have a religious context. It’s never used to refer to the King or Queen of a region, these are βασιλεύς and βασίλισσα.
ὄλλυμι - Just read the entry in the LSJ. I. destroy, make an end of, and of living beings, kill, II. lose life, die, I. perish, come to an end, and of living beings, die, esp. a violent death II. of things, to be lost…to have perished, to be dead, undone,ruined … then right at the end is also of things, to be in a state of ruin. So predominently of death.
By 'wider-reading" I mean non scripture based reading. λῃστής definitions often ignore the people-stealing aspect of the word. This is because it is used biblically in reference to jesus. It is often used in contextual reference to gods (this is a very large and sprawling debate and wont fit in here).
φή • (phḗ) (Epic)

like, as

Synonym: ὡς (hōs)
Read it on Wiktionary. Etymologically incomplete, it just seems to be a prefixed modifier.

So what led me here was the word used for Granary, καλιά - wooden dwelling, hut, bird’s nest, shrine or grotto, containing the image of a god. But archaeology suggests that such Granaries were actually internal stone rooms or most often unground pits as silos. There’s inconsistency. I read (still trying to trace the source I read) that many small models of the supposed above ground wooden granaries (the kind with the guard tower on top) were kept by people as trinkets. That just made no sense to me. This is why I dug deeper into the language of the passage. The mainstream is a sterile rendering but the language suggested something else in the dual, as is common in greek.

The whole “Beward a woman with adorned buttocks, she only wants your granary” is taken in modern day to be comedic but I don’t think Works and Days reads at all as a comedy. It’s a deep warning and one which has an underlying understanding of something well known to those contemporary to the text. There seems to be a disconnect between the ‘paying of debts’ and ‘beware…granary’. The two parts of the paragraph don’t align without some deeper paradigm.

Hope this helps!

4

Wanax/Wanassa is most often used in poems such as Orphic Hymns in address to deities which supposedly lived during the Mycenaean. Homer uses it often in address to Demeter, Persephone, Nausicaa. They always have a religious context. It’s never used to refer to the King or Queen of a region, these are βασιλεύς and βασίλισσα.

But that’s not true: ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων. And Nausicaa isn’t a deity.

ὄλλυμι - Just read the entry in the LSJ.

I think it says quite clearly that “destroy, make an end of” is the primary meaning. It’s etymologically related to English ‘fall’ and Latin aboleo ‘retard, destroy’.

By 'wider-reading" I mean non scripture based reading.

Why would you bring up the Bible at all? Those texts are separated from Hesiod by a good six centuries or more.

φή • (phḗ) (Epic)

like, as

There is nothing to indicate that this is more than a coincidence, or else every word that happens to start with φη would be related.

I won’t argue more about this, because what you’re doing is word magic, not philology.

5

I do see your point about Nausicaa but she was never actually a reigning Queen, so why is she referred to as Queen? It doesnt add up. These wanax, wanassa all seem to be mythical figures. βασιλεύς also goes back to the Mycenaean so one cant even argue the term comes from a later time period. It is also found in Linear B. The reason I bring up Wanax/Wanassa at all is because the breakdowns I’ve read on this passage all seem to want to make this relation of Grain stores belonging to the Wanax/Wanassa. Why not the βασιλεύς and βασίλισσα when the terms coexisted and also mean King and Queen? If the Wanax/Wanassa is the supreme ruler whilst the βασιλεύς/βασίλισσα, which actually translate as King/Queen, is a local ruler then the difference seems to be Godly relation and that religion/cult always takes the highest order. So although my “Highest Divinity” comment is a bit strong, I do believe it still stands. Even Nausicaa had favour of Athena.

Your point about ὄλλυμι seems disingenuous! The first entry clearly says :

I. destroy, make an end of, and of living beings, *kill,
*
So “destroy, make an end of” applies to non-living things. Where the object is living it means “kill”. The passage is clearly speaking of living men so Kill applied here.

Why should I not bring up the bible separated by 6 centuries when the Wanax/Wanassa is a term from the Mycenaean up to 1000 years before Hesiod and other scholars are making this link?

“or else every word that happens to start with φη- would be related.” makes no sense. By your logic every word that starts with παρα- would also be related and you know this isn’t true. Whilst the leistai were indeed as described they were also well known for taking people and being involved with slaving, which is often downplayed. There is clear overlap in both form and meaning between φηλήτῃσιν and λῃστής, as much as I might overstate it’s meaning.

To further the justification for my logic, the word used here for Granary, καλιά, seems incorrect as the word for Granary actually appears to be σιτηρεῖον. If a Kalia is a wooden hut or even a shrine then Granary is a real stretch and unfounded.

I did mention I take liberties, as sacrifice is not at all mentioned here. I just aim to highlight a difference in the background context of the passage. Whilst I do make strong statements I see that the standard translation appears to flatten several important ambiguities.

My ‘word magic’ is basic on reading and research. I am but an amateur but as much as I appreciate the feedback your comments don’t seem to actually engage with my arguments.