“Yet if the boundaries are violated the tones turn shrill: the anosios draws the wrath of the gods; hence no one should have anything to do with him unless he is prepared to suffer harm himself. Above all the murderer is anosios (unholy), whereas whoever does just killing, be it in war or on the basis of a court judgment is hosios. Thus hosion assumes the general moral meaning of what is permitted, contrasted with adikon unjust; hosion and dikaion designate the duties towards gods and towards men, or the same duties in their divine and their civil aspect.” (Greek Religion, 270)

This makes “hosios kai dikaios” (or its opposite) sound like a set phrase. Could the thing Fowler is referring to be supposed to have “anosios” for “anisos”?

I’ve never read Fowler, I don’t think, so I must have gotten it somewhere else myself.

(pp. 202-203) Sacred places sometimes had inscriptions such as “Let no unfair or unjust person enter”; and this [4th century] scholium implies that the author of Plato’s inscription had substituted ageometretos, ‘ungeometrical’, for anisos kai adikos, ‘unfair or unjust’, in the normal formula; also the scholium seems to indicate that the inscription was not put up by Plato.

p.204, and the last paragraph of the section:
I have dwelt on this story … at such length because it provides a convenient way of introducing what we find, time and time again, … the evidence for many stories cannot be traced back any earlier than a period five, six, seven, or even eight hundred years after the event, and we often have little indication of whether the stories are authentic, plausible, or misleading. It is now worth pursuing this question even further …

As to occurring only in a late commentary, the value all depends on who the commentator had open when he wrote—presumably some old German dissertation has speculation on the sources, but who knows where to look?

I think the person who wanted to place the inscription (if it existed) at the entrance to the precinct rather than the temple may have been on to something.

… Words very meaningful and significant for us here, together, tonight. Words we might do very much worse than to consider. And I use this word ‘consider’ advisedly. Because I am using it, you see, in its original Greek sense of ‘con-sid-er’, of putting one’s self in the way of thinking about something. I want us here, together, tonight to put ourselves in the way of thinking about … to put ourselves in the way of thinking about … what we ought to be putting ourselves in the way of thinking about.

As I was on my way here tonight, I arrived at the station, and by an oversight I happened to go out by the way one is supposed to come in. As I was going out, an employee of the railway company hailed me. ‘Hey Jack!’ he shouted, ‘Where do you think you’re going?’. That, at any rate, was the gist of what he said. But you know, I was grateful to him because, you see, he put me in mind of the kind of question I felt I ought to be asking you here tonight: ‘Where do you think you’re going?’

But speaking of iconography …

“Every sacred precinct and every festival had its own distinctive rules; of precinct rules we have some knowledge through surviving examples of the inscriptions set up at the entrances, while for festival rules we are dependent on chance allusions in literary sources. (176-177). citation to H.J. Stukey TAPA 67 1936 286-95. Don’t have access to that.

And for “impure” it may or may not be a privative like akathartos. It could be a general term, miaros, agos, enages, or it could be a narrow term lexous (having given birth!—about which Parker has an interesting appendix “’Enter pure from. . . ’ requirements in sacred laws” which considers questions about sacred laws that require purity apo lexous (from having given birth), certain foods, contact with death, birth pollution, abortion, defloration, menstruation, sex—though he seems to be concerned with the degree of contamination of impurity in these laws.

I take it that Draco’s law is the exclusion of homicides? (Here looking at Moulinier Le Pure et l’impure 43 of which there seems to be some evidence in a 5th century mutilated epigraphic copy (?) and later oratory.)

Looks like Lois sacre’es des cite’ss greceques might be a place to look (Sokowlowski 1969), perhaps a reference there will point to an inscription.

Don’t see a lot of obvious references, in the several general scholarly works I have sitting here, to something specific like “No Shirts, No Shoes” signs—though there seems to be good reason to believe that they existed. So I’d guess—and I’m only guessing—that the reference would be later . It sounds more like the kind of thing later sources would claim was true. But that there were exclusions of a wide and varied category of the “impure” probably having more to do with contact with death and sex than justice seems likely. But, I’m not looking at the relevant collections of inscriptions.. (Can you search PHI? (http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/main)) I’ve never used it, but perhaps it might work—and I don’t really know that much about this, just have a couple of relevant books sitting right here.

I must live in a happier alternate universe. The threshold insignias I am most familiar with are: “Enter to grow in wisdom” and “Leave to better serve thy country and thy kind”…