We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
In a recent number Mr. O. J. Todd has discussed the clumsy scansion of a line in a Delphic oracle, and has called fresh attention to the problem of the Pythia's prophesyings in verse. The chief difficulty consists in the differences between the indications on this subject as given by our various sources. The conventional phrases in most authors from Pindar and Herodotus until late periods describe the responses as uttered by the Pythia herself. This picture seems to imply that the Pythia originated the verse form of the oracle. But this view would take no account of the existence of the official known as the προφήτης whose business was evidently to deliver the response to the inquirer.
1 C.Q. xxxiii (1939), pp. 163 ff.Google Scholar
2 For the προφήτης cf. Herod, . viii. 36Google Scholar, and Eur. Ion, 415Google Scholar, which is discussed further below.
3 For some examples see Parke, , The History of the Delphic Oracle, p. 38, note I.Google Scholar
4 For these instances see Parke, , op. cit., p. 32, notes 2 and 4.Google Scholar
5 MrTodd, , C.Q., loc. cit.Google Scholar, did not cite the Plutarch passage. It would be the more important reference of the two, as Theon, the speaker in the dialogue, probably represents Plutarch himself (cf. Flacelière, R., Sur les Oracles de la Pythie, p. 22Google Scholar). But the following sentence is so corrupt in our MSS. that one cannot ascertain positively whether Plutarch accepted this theory or not.
6 For the view that the inquirers and the Pythia were in one room cf. Courby, , Fouilles, ii, pp. 66 ff.Google Scholar and Holland, Leicester B., A.J.A. xxxvii (1933), pp. 208 ff.Google Scholar For the view that there were separate rooms, Flacelière, , Annales de l'École des Hautes Études de Gand, tome ii (1938), pp. 99 ff.Google Scholar, who lays stress on their separateness, and Schober, P.W. Supplement v, col. 125, who still emphasizes their connexion.
1 See Cagnat, , I.G.R.R.P., vol. iv, nos. 1586–9.Google Scholar
2 Eur. Ion, 413–16.Google Scholar In The History of the Delphic Oracle, p. 29Google Scholar, I was rash enough to write that those admitted to the sanctuary included ‘some representatives of the Delphic community selected by lot’. At that time I was inclined to suppose that this passage referred to some civil representatives such as those whom we find in the regulations of the oracle of Apollo Coropaeus (Ditt. Syll. 1157, 17Google Scholar) present beside the religious officials. But this interpretation is far-fetched. In answer to Xuthus' simple question Ion must be referring to the Priests, as has been usually supposed. I can only plead in extenuation of my previous aberration that these difficult problems of Delphic organization are full of pitfalls.
1 Farnell, , Cults of the Greek States, iv, pp. 189–213Google Scholar, assumes throughout that the προφήται and ὅσιοι are identical, and without further discussion he alludes to the oracle as the work of the ‘Holy Ones’. For discussion of the subject see Malten, , P.W. viii., col. 2492Google Scholar, s.v. ‘Hosioi’; Harrison, Miss, Prolegomena, pp. 500 ff.Google Scholar; Dempsey, , The Delphic Oracle, appendix BGoogle Scholar; Halliday, , Plutarch's Greek Questions, pp. 57 ff.Google Scholar Miss Harrison and Dempsey in distinguishing the ὅσιοι from the priests both associate the ὅσιοι with the Dionysiac cult. Halliday's discussion is the most balanced.
2 B.C.H. xxii (1898), pp. 76 and 77Google Scholar, dating from the end of the 1st century b.c. Cf. B.C.H. xlix (1925), p. 83Google Scholar, an inscription in honour of one Theonice, daughter of the ὅσιοις Timaeus and granddaughter of the ἱερεύς Hippocrates and the Pythia Theonice, dating about a.d. 200.
3 Plutarch, , Moralia, 386 BGoogle Scholar, and Pomtow, , P.W. iv, col. 2606.Google Scholar
4 See, e.g., Pomtow, in P.W. ivGoogle Scholar, cols. 2586 and 2588, and Daux, G., Delphes au IIe et au Ier siècle, p. 54.Google Scholar The earliest epigraphical evidence on the ἱερε
ς dates from the beginning of the 2nd century b.c. when the decrees of fictitious sale to the god were first inscribed. But there is no reason to suppose that the priestly organization had changed since the classical and archaic periods.
1 For the προφήτης cf. the passages in Plutarch already quoted, and Herod, . viii. 36Google Scholar, where it is preceded immediately by a reference to consulting the god; also Aelian, , Nat. An. x. 26Google Scholar and Berlin Pap. 11517 (Schubart, , Hermes, lv, 1920, pp. 188 ff.).Google Scholar
2 For the use of the lot in the oracle cf. Halliday, , Greek Divination, pp. 210 and 211Google Scholar, and Parke, , op. cit., pp. 13 and 29.Google Scholar
3 Moralia, 292Google Scholar, Halliday, D., Plutarch's Greek Questions, p. 57Google Scholar, note I, supposes that Euripides in the Ion included the ὄσιοι in his reference to appointment by lot. This is possible, but the plural might merely be meant to cover both ἱερες.
4 Cagnat, , I.G.R.R.P., vol. iv, no. 1586.Google Scholar
5 See Harrison, Miss, Prolegomena, pp. 500 ff.Google Scholar
6 B.C.H. xx (1896), p. 719Google Scholar, ὁσίου το
, [Πυθίου] where the first upright of the Π is preserved, and Fouilles, iii. 2Google Scholar, no. 118, line 5 (p. 119), restored ὁσίου τ[ο], Πυθίου
1 Cf. Plutarch, , Moralia, 403 E.Google Scholar
