Delphi

by Michael Scott

  3. Parke and Wormell 1956a: 240.

  4. Parke and Wormell 270. See also another later story of a Delphic oracle concerning Alexander: Parke and Wormell 269.

  5. Alexander’s dealing with embassies from sanctuaries: Alexander also did not make any efforts to revive the use of the oracle at Delphi for mainstream political consultations, which had ceased after the middle of the century, in contrast to his efforts to revive dormant oracles at other sites, like Didyma: Morgan 1989: 29, Arnush 2005: 105–106. New temple at Delphi: Diod. Sic. 17.103.4, 18.4.5; Parke and Wormell 1956a: 242. Theban treasury: Parke and Wormell 1956a: 241–42.

  6. For a study of the use of the civic honor of proxenia as a political tool by Boeotia and Athens in diplomatic relations: Gerolymatos 1986. Collective promanteia for the Aetolians: SEG 17.230; Arnush 2000: 300–301. This is in the context of a substantial growth in the numbers of such awards during the fourth century BC: only four honorific decrees are known from the city of Delphi before 373 BC, but between 373 and 300 BC, there are ninety-nine: Empereur 1981. Delph’s risk taking: Arnush 2000: 307.

  7. There seems to have also been a certain degree of tension within the city: inscriptions dating to 330–27 BC detail the sums collected from the rental of a number of properties (eleven houses, a farm, a garden, and nineteen plots of land) that had previously been confiscated from members of the city, a number of whom had been exiled from Delphi following the Third Sacred War and many of whom were confirmed as still in exile and living in Athens in 363 BC: CID II 67–72; Rousset 2002b: 230, Rousset 2002a: 205–10.

  8. Representatives “not seated”: CID II 102 col. I A.4–17; col. II A.24–33. The crown: FD III 5 58.4–8 (money set aside), CID II 97.5–6 (money redistributed); Marchetti 1977, Arnush 2000: 302–303, Marchetti 2011: 144–49.

  9. In 321–20BC five proxeny decrees were issued, one for Patron of Elateia in Phocis: Daux 1933: 69–70, Arnush 2000: 297–300, 307. Phocis stopped paying its fine circa 322–21 BC: Arnush 1991: 20.

  10. Acanthus column: FD III 4 462 (attribution to Athens is debated): Pouilloux and Roux 1963: 122–49.

  11. Parke and Wormell 274; See Bowden 2005: 133.

  12. For the towers: Skorda 1992b: 54–56, Maass 1997: 27, 70, Weir 2004: 77. Diod. Sic. (2.136) tells the story of a philosopher from Eretria who was attacked en route to Delphi in the late fourth/early third century BC. Rousset has argued that these towers were probably constructed for the surveillance of isolated pieces of territory and the exploitation of land rather than for safeguarding against attack: Rousset 2002b: 236.

  13. For the inscriptions: Empereur 1984. Ambryssian inscription: Roux 1976: 184. For the cult of Pan and the Nymphs at the cave: Pasquier 1977, Amandry 1984a. For the incredible collection of offerings (including 25,000 knuckle bones) found at the cave from the sixth through the beginning of the second century BC: BCH Suppl. 9 (1984); Picard 1991: 241–61.

  14. Parke and Wormell 1956a: 244. Indeed one of those local questions at the end of the fourth century—on the issue of childlessness—shows how active the mythology surrounding Delphi must have been. The children begotten following the consultation were named Delphis and Pytho: Parke and Wormell 334. More widely, Parke and Wormell also argue that no private individual inquiries from outside the local region are known (with the exception of Cicero) between the end of the fourth century BC and the first century BC: Parke and Wormell 1956a: 407.

  15. See Paus. 10.18.5; Plut. Mor. 401D.

  16. “Sanctimonious humbug”: Parke and Wormell 1956a: 252. Oracle’s decline in the Hellenistic period: Parke and Wormell 1956a: 244, Parker 2000: 87, 102. Oracles for Hellenistic kings as rehashings of older responses: e.g., Parke and Wormell 431 (to Attalus I of Pergamon rehashing that given to Cypselus). Demetrios Poliorcetes as an oracle: Plut. Vit. Demetr. 11–13; Parke and Wormell 1956a: 245.

  17. Oracle helping create a long-term and more glorious history of Messenia to cover over its centuries under Spartan domination: Parke and Wormell 1956a: 248–53. Hellenistic cities also continued to use the oracle for moral leverage, particularly in securing recognized rights of asylia (sacred protection) e.g., Syll3 635b. Foundation of new sanctuaries: Parke and Wormell 1956a: 371–74.

  18. Parke and Wormell 331, 332. Parke and Wormell 1956a: 326.

  19. Tarquinius Superbus: Parke and Wormell 438, 439. Rome consulting before the fall of the city of Veii, fourth century BC: Parke and Wormell 440. Camillus’s dedication at Delphi (a gold mixing bowl, placed in the treasury of the Massalians in the Athena sanctuary, and melted down by Phocians in Third Sacred War): Diod. Sic. 14.93.2; Livy 5.21.2. Consultation during the Samnite War: Parke and Wormell 352. Involvement in process of Magna Mater transfer: Parke and Wormell 356; and Asclepius: Parke and Wormell 353.

  20. Aetolians: Flacelière 1937: 41–42, 49–50, Parke and Wormell 1956a: 254. Power over Delphi: see Plut. Vit. Demetr. 40.7–8. Flacelière argues that their occupation of Delphi took place soon after the battle of Ipsus in 301 BC, which created a power vacuum in mainland Greece: Flacelière 1937: 57. Later, the text of a treaty between the Aetolians and Boeotians seems to have been erected at Delphi: Flacelière 1937: 58–59, 67.

  21. Control over council: Flacelière 1937: 49–50. The Amphictony council was still functioning (it recognized the games in Alexandria in honor of Ptolemy Soter in 279 BC), as was the city of Delphi (it established a convention with Pellana during the 280s: FD III 1 486). Indeed the third century BC would be the city’s most diplomatically active century: 326 honorific decrees were given out between 279–200 BC compared to 141 in the period 400–279 BC: Jacquemin 1999: 78. Failure of war to “free” Delphi: Just. Epit. 24.1.1; Paus. 10.37.5. See Bourguet 1911: 488. Aetolian victory dedication: Jacquemin 1999: 63.

  22. See Paus. 10.22–24; Just. Epit. 24.6–8. See also reference to Gauls in Callim. Hymn 4.183–85. For numbers: Flacelière 1937: 103.

  23. Leave things as they are: Parke and Wormell 329. Successful defeat of the invasion: Parke and Wormell 1956a: 255. For more on the Gaulish invasion and later celebration by the Aetolians of its defeat: Nachtergael 1977.

  24. Diod. Sic. 5.32.5; Strabo relates that the gold taken from Delphi supposedly traveled as far as Toulouse: Strabo 4.1.13.

  25. Sources for war: Segre 1929. Delight at Delphi’s survival: Cos: Syll3 398 1.1–25; Honors for helping with return of the money: Syll3 405, 406, 416, 417, 418, and FD III 1 189 (all 275–71 BC). Gaulish shields on the temple: Paus. 10.19.4. The Gaulish invasion became a mental marker in history: Polybius used it as a point around which to date less important events (e.g., Polyb. 1.6.5, 2.20.6), and Cicero refers to it as the moment when the Gauls set out to “plunder Pythian Apollo and the oracle of the whole world” Cic. Font. 14.30.

  26. Phocian statue: Jacquemin 402. Aetolians as saviors: Flacelière 1937: 93, 98, 112, 258, Parke and Wormell 1956a: 258–59, Jacquemin 1999: 256. Place in Amphictyonic records: Flacelière 1937: 113.

  27. The Aetolians erected a monument to their victory at the other sanctuary around which their koinon was based, at Thermon, but their commemoration at Delphi was, understandably, more vocal than anywhere else: Flacelière 1937: 107–108. For discussion of the west stoa: Amandry 1978: 751–81, Amandry 1981a: 729–32, Bousquet 1985, Bommelaer 1991: 218–19, Perrier 2011.

  28. Female Aetolia: Courby 1927: 288–91, Bommelaer 1991: 223, Partida 2009: 296. The placement of this monument on the west end of the temple terrace (as opposed to the east end, which had been popular since the time of the Persian Wars) suggests that the west stoa (which opened onto the west end of the temple terrace) also performed the function of some kind of major (ceremonial?) access point to the sanctuary from the city, rather than being simply a dead-end annex to the sanctuary as it often appears on modern maps: Perrier 2011: 48. Statue base on temple terrace: Courby 1927: 291–99. Statues of chiefs: Paus. 10.15.2; Statue of general: Paus. 10.16.4.

  29. The same picture holds true for Delphian awards of promanteia as well: Pouilloux 1952, Arn
ush 2005: 108–109.

  30. Athenians: Jacquemin 1999: 229. Chians: Amandry 1986: 205–18, Bommelaer 1991: 173–75. Later stele erected around the altar: Jacquemin 1999: 223. Rearrangement of sanctuary: Bommelaer 1991: 146.

  31. Soteria: Flacelière 1937: 107, Roux 1976: 201, Fontenrose 1988: 137, Bommelaer 1991: 29. New popularity for Delphi: Fontenrose 1988: 137, Valavanis 2004: 222. Lists of those giving hospitality to the Delphic theoroi sent out to announce the games are substantial in this period: Plassart 1921, Daux 1980: 120–122. At some point in the third century BC, new powers were endorsed for the protection of people at Amphictyonic meetings, Pythian or Soterian festivals, giving magistrates full powers to prosecute anyone committing an offence: CID IV 51.

  32. Hellenistic kings’ focus on Delos and Samos: Bommelaer 1991: 22, Jacquemin 1999: 78. Although Sostratus of Cnidus did put up statues of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II at Delphi 275–70 BC: Jacquemin 120, and a statue of Seleucius II (246–26 BC) was erected by an unknown dedicator near the statue of Aetolia at the west end of the temple terrace: Jacquemin 515; Bommelaer 1991: 225. Absences of Western Mediterranean: Jacquemin 1999: 74–78.

  33. For the same argument regarding the attraction of Delphi and Delos during the archaic period (but in reverse), see: Roux 1984. See Jacquemin 1999: 256.

  34. Jacquemin 386, 386. See Bousquet 1952a.

  35. FD III 4 178; Paus. 10.16.6; Courby 1927: 312.

  36. Grants from the Amphictyony: CID IV 12; Flacelière 1937: 120–22. Symbiosis of Apollo Patroos and Apollo Pythios in Athens: Daux 1940: 262, Parke and Wormell 1956a.

  37. Plut. Vit. Marc. 8; Parke and Wormell 1956a: 270.

  38. Flacelière 1937: 179–89. Possible alliance with Athens: IG IX 12 176—date disputed, see discussion in Flacelière 1937: 190. For a broader view of the complex military and political maneuvers of this period: Walbank 1981, Malcolm Errington 2008.

  39. See Flacelière 1937: 208, 227, 228.

  40. One large festival: the Aetolian invitation to the world to come and celebrate their Soteria: IG IX I2 194a. Their declaration of its isoPythian status: Fontenrose 1988: 137. See Bommelaer 1991: 29. Stadium refitting: Bommelaer 1991: 215. See Valavanis 2004: 190. See also to records of works before the Pythia in c. 250 BC (for discussion on date see CID IV p. 24): CID II 139; CID IV 57; Pouilloux 1977, Le Graff 2010.

  41. Athens: Syll3 408; Chios: Syll3 402; Tenos: FD III 1 482; Cycladic city: FD III 1 481; Smryna FD III 1 483. For discussion of the dating, which is argued to be either from original institution of the Soteria c. 274 BC, or from its reorganization c. 242 BC: Flacelière 1937: 125, 135–48, Parke and Wormell 1956a: 259. The lists of Soteria participants and winners were also now being inscribed and publicized in the sanctuary: e.g., CID IV 31, 42, 45, 47, 48, 53, 55 (participants) and CID IV 61, 67, 73, 75, 79, 84, 89 (winners) during the period 270–20 BC (participants come from mostly before 242 BC and winners mostly after). One of these victor lists was inscribed on the reverse side of a stele originally placed inscribed and placed in the sanctuary in the fifth century BC: Jacquemin 1999: 226.

  42. Individual Aetolian dedications all date from after the middle of the century: Jacquemin 1999: 64. Invention of two column monument: Flacelière 1937: 266, Partida 2009: 274–96. Aristaineta: Jacquemin 297; Charixenus: Jacquemin 298. The Aetolian Lycus also dedicated in the sanctuary 250–25 BC, alongside other anonymous Aetolians: Jacquemin 299, 300; Bommelaer 1991: 235–36.

  43. Lamius: Jacquemin 296.

  44. Jacquemin 388.

  45. CID IV 85 (Syll 3 523). This inscription also banned campfires in the sanctuary and was accompanied by another inscription banning visitors from bathing in the small fountain in the southwest corner of the temple terrace: Maass 1997: 29. For discussion of the Attalid stoa: Flacelière 1937: 270, Roux 1952, Roux 1987.

  46. See Jacquemin 1999: 256.

  47. Aetolian dominance at Delphi: See Flacelière 1937: 245–56. Statue of Aetolian general: Jacquemin 187. Granting of asylia: Thebes: CID IV 70. Apollo Ptoios: CID IV 76; Boiotian sanctuary: CID IV 77.

  48. Interaction Athens and Delphi: Flacelière 1937: 272. Athenian monument update: statues were added for Antigonus I of Macedon, Ptolemy III of Egypt, and Athens’s own Demetrius Poliorcetes. The tribes of Antigonids and Demetriads were suppressed by 200 BC (another example of how Athens sought to keep pace with events, although its statues at Delphi do not seem to have been removed): Jacquemin 1999: 228.

  49. Achaean league: see Polyb. 4.25.8; Flacelière 1937: 294, Parke and Wormell 1956a: 260. Aratus buried as a hero: Parke and Wormell 358. Men from Sardia: Syll3 548; Arnush 2005: 108.

  50. Response to Romans requesting gifts: Parke and Wormell 354. Response indicating greater victory: Parke and Wormell 355.

  51. Parke and Wormell 1956a: 275.

  52. FD III 4 21–24; Flacelière 1937: 298–304.

  53. Flacelière 1937: 309–40. The Delphians set up a statue of an anonymous Aetolian at this time as well: Jacquemin 207.

  CHAPTER 9. A NEW WORLD

  1. The role of the Aetolian governor at Delphi: see IG IX 12 174; Roussel 1926, Daux 1936a: 215–20, Pouilloux 1980: 282. For their rights to keep herds on public land: Syll3 553A; FD III 4 175.

  2. Decline in visitors to Corycian cave: Empereur 1984: 340. Proxenia: Parke and Wormell 1956a: 261. Proxenia: Syll3 585; Arnush 2005: 110.

  3. Territory: Rousset 2002b: 240. Theoroi: about thirty Delphians are sent away as theoroi in the middle of the second century BC: Daux 1949b: 27–30. Satyrus of Samos: FD III 3 128; Weir 2004: 108. He was given an honorary statue by the Amphictyony in the sanctuary as well: Jacquemin 053. Ai Khanoum: Taplin 1989: 2. Statues: CID IV 99 (statues of Antiocheia and Antiochus III). Equestrian statue: Jacquemin 494. The statue personifying the people of Antiocheia is argued to have been in a new style—youthful and energetic—to complement a renewed era of civic iconography: Biard 2010.

  4. Declaration of freedom: Polyb. 18.46.5. Dedications by Flaminius: Plut. Vit. Flam. 12.11–12. Delphic statue: Syll3 616. Delphi’s honoring of Flaminius: Jacquemin 191. A portrait head of Flamininus has been tentatively identified in the sanctuary excavations at Delphi: FD IV Album p. 40; Chamoux 1965, Picard 1991: 111. There are, however, some notes of not outright approval for the Roman victory over Philip, detected by some scholars in oracular responses said to be from the period e.g., Parke and Wormell 357; Parke and Wormell 1956a: 276.

  5. Proxeny decrees for those in Flaminius’s army e.g., Syll3 585.

  6. Antiochus’s forces: Livy 26.11.5. His declaration of freedom: Flacelière 1937: 356–59.

  7. Daux 1936a: 225–26.

  8. There are a series of oracles from this period that threaten Rome with all manner of misfortunes if does not retire from Greece. Only one is attributed to the Delphic oracle, and all seem to have been composed by supporters of Antiochus in the short period between his triumphant arrival in Delphi and his eventual defeat in 189 BC: Parke and Wormell 1956a: 276–77.

  9. Glabrio confiscating properties: seventy properties were taken belonging to fifty-nine different owners, forty-six of which were Aetolian, and they were in turn given to “the god and the city”: Daux 1936a: 10, 229, Michaud 1977, Rousset 2002a: 250–69, Rousset 2002b: 232. Changes to sacred land: Rousset 2002a: 226. Letter to Delphians: Roussel 1932: 7–10.

  10. CID IV 103. Statue: Jacquemin 143; See Michaud 1977. The Amphictyony were also quick to put up a statue of Glabrio in the sanctuary: Jacquemin 019.

  11. Problems with Amphissa: Daux 1936a: 257. Tussle for power within Delphi: see Syll3 613A; Habicht 1987.

  12. Another Roman general, P. Cornelius Scipion (Scipio Africanus) was tasked with dealing with the Aetolians and seems to have, with Athenian help, ensured a truce at this point, leaving Glabrio free to deal with Antiochus: Daux 1936a: 257. Scipio himself also seems to have dedicated an offering in the sanctuary at Delphi at this time: Jacquemin 420. Defeat of Antiochus: Eckstein 2008: 344.

  13. Albinus’s reply: CID IV 104. Refor
m of Amphictyony: see Holleaux 1930: 39, Habicht 1987: 61. Some of the leading families in Athens, acting as ambassadors for the Amphictyony, were prominent in this reorganization. One of the Amphictyonic ambassadors, Nicostratus, was even honored with a statue and inscription in the sanctuary by the Amphictyony (much, probably, to the chagrin of the city of Delphi, whose plan to achieve complete control over the sanctuary, Habicht argues, he had thwarted): Syll3 613 A; Habicht 1987: 62.

  14. For the Romaia festival, which included processions, sacrifices, a banquet, and gymnastic competitions: Roux 1976: 205. Glabrio’s statues base and its inscriptions: Daux 1936a: 262. The letter of Livius Salinator: CID IV 105 (Syll3 611); Daux 1936a: 231.

  15. Delphians dependent on Aetolian business: Daux 1936a: 269. The Delphians even erected a statue to the Aetolian general Pantaleon in the period 186–72 BC: Jacquemin 187. Rome leaving: Eckstein 2008: 346. For more detail on the complicated politics of this period down through to the 170s BC at Delphi: Reinach 1910, Habicht 1987.

  16. FD III 3 237, 299. For discussion of the building of the theater, which was not finished until the Imperial period: Daux 1936a: 686–95, Roux 1976: 165–75, Bommelaer 1991: 206–10. In fact nearly all major construction at Delphi in this period is related to the musical and athletic festivals: Bommelaer 1991: 22.

  17. Asylia for Eumenes: CID IV 107. Statue by Aetolians: FD III 3 230; Courby 1927: 275–89, Jacquemin and Laroche 1986: 785. Statue by the Amphictyony: Jacquemin 035. A little later, the Aetolians placed a statue of King Prusias II of Bithynia atop a monumental column, also on the temple terrace: FD III 4 76; Courby 1927: 262–65, Jacquemin and Laroche 1986: 786–88. The statue seems to have been surrounded by a ring of bronze “spikes,” perhaps to keep birds from landing and defecating on it and the plinth: Perrier 2008. Jacquemin characterizes these statue dedications as the last acts of a dying koinon: Jacquemin 1999: 64. In the following century, the Delphians would continue the relationship with Bithynia by honoring King Nicomedes III with a statue (94 BC), the decision to erect it inscribed on the column of Prusias: FD III 4 77.