18. Syll3 631.4–6. The festival took place in October, and included a procession from the sacred aire to the temple: Roux 1976: 203. There were probably many more such “mini” festivals for which evidence has not survived: Amandry 2000: 17.
19. Rousset 1996: 46. During the second century BC, the bringing-in of outsiders to settle Delphic disputes, not just with neighbors, but also within their own polis, would become a common feature of the political scene: Daux 1936a: 473–82, Gauthier 2000.
20. End of Aetolian use of the sanctuary: Daux 1936a: 276. Amphictyony’s jibe: Habicht 1987: 60.
21. Colonisation by Paros: Parke and Wormell 429; Parke and Wormell 1956a: 243, 246, 277. Eudocus’s statue: Jacquemin 250bis.
22. Daux 1936a: 301.
23. Careful diplomatic line, see Polyb. 25.3. Use of Delphi: Polyb. 27.1–2.
24. Sacrificing at Delphi: FD III 4 75; Livy 42.40.8; Polyb. 25.3.1; Daux 1936a: 315. Perseus using Delphi as a center of propaganda: Polyb. 25.3.2; Plut. Vit. Aem. 28, 36. He also asserted his right to two Macedonian votes on the Amphictyonic council, first given to Philip after the Third Sacred War in the fourth century BC: CID IV 108.
25. Parke and Wormell 430. A statue was also erected in the sanctuary in his honor: Jacquemin 349; Jacquemin, Laroche, and Lefèvre 1995.
26. Eumenes’ embassy to Rome: Daux 1936a: 317. His attempted murder by Perseus: Polyb. 22.18.4; Livy 42.15–17; Plut. Mor. 489E.
27. Rome’s grievances against Perseus: Parke and Wormell 1956a: 260. Their inscription at Delphi: Syll3 643 (FD III 4 75); Livy 42.40; Daux 1936a: 320–25. The details of the inscription tallies with what the literary sources tell us Eumenes II reported to the Roman Senate: Livy 42.13.5, 9.
28. See Bousquet 1981.
29. Jacquemin 418; FD III 4 36; Plut. Vit. Aem. 28.2; Laroche and Jacquemin 1982: 207–12, 15–18. For the frieze: Kähler 1965, Picard 1991: 124–26. For the monument: Bommelaer 1991: 235, Jacquemin 1999: 239.
30. Eckstein 2008: 342, 349, 365, 381.
31. That close relationship between Pergamon and Rome continued. In 133 BC, Attalus III would, on his death without an heir, gift Pergamon and its territories to Rome.
32. Syll3 671–72/FD III 3 328. Eumenes II gave one talent for his festival, and Attalus II gave 18,000 drachmas (three talents) for his. The rituals involved a torchlight procession from the gymnasium, and the victors of competitions were awarded money rather than laurel wreaths: Roux 1976: 205, Bommelaer 1991: 216, Rousset 2002a: 226.
33. Erecting a statue of Attalus at Delphi: FD III 3 121; Jacquemin 149. Other statues of Eumenes II and Attalus II were erected in the sanctuary by unknown dedicators at this time (e.g., Jacquemin 505) and placed within the stoa of Attalus complex; Jacquemin and Laroche 1986: 788–89. Delphi honoring Attalus’s artists: Syll3 682.
34. Definite action by Amphictyony in this period: Daux 1936a: 350. Arbitration over Lamia: CID IV 110. Honoring Hegesandros of Athens 150 BC: CID IV 112, who was also honored by the Delphians: Jacquemin 170. Rearrangement of Amphictyony: Daux 1936a: 352.
35. See Parke and Wormell 1956a: 261.
36. Mummius celebrates at Delphi: Polyb. 39.6.1. Shrinking world of Delphi: Daux 1936a: 483.
37. Arbiters of land dispute: FD III 2 130 col. II; Rousset 1996: 46. Revival of Pythaïs: Daux 1936a: 532–40, Mikalson 1998: 269–70. See Strabo 9.2.11. Celebration of 138/7 BC: Syll3 696. Celebration of 128/7 BC: Syll3 697–99. Celebration of 106/5 BC: Syll3 771. Celebration of 98/7 BC: Syll3 728. See Daux 1940: 37, Parke and Wormell 1956a: 262–63. Hymns: Bélis 1992: 131–35.
38. CID IV 114 (completed with help of copy of the decree inscribed in Athens: IG II2 1132.94; Spawforth 2012: 152). See also Additional letters inscribed in Athens, which accompanied this decree: CID IV 115, 116.
39. The Delphians honored them for their performance in 128 BC: FD III 2 47. Amphictyony honors in 125 BC: FD III 2 69, CID IV 117. The date of 125 has been disputed and some argue for a date of 117 BC: Spawforth 2012: 152. Restatement in 112 BC?: CID IV 120 (FD III 2 70). The Roman Senate became involved because there was a dispute between the guild members of Athens and those of Isthmia, which was finally resolved by the Roman Senate in favor of Athens: Daux 1936a: 355–69. It seems the guild members of Isthmia and Nemea, perhaps as a last attempt at gaining favor, or perhaps in recognition of the Roman decision, put up a statue at Delphi in 112 BC of the Roman P. Cornelius Lentulus: Jacquemin 474; Pomtow 1914: 302–303. The Amphictyony also put a statue up for Antipatrus of Athens in 130 BC (CID IV 113), and the Delphians honored the guild members of Athens in 106 BC and again in 97 BC with statues as well: FD III 2 48 and FD III 2 48.
40. CID IV 117.11–14. See Daux 1936a: 369, Spawforth 2012: 152.
41. Dating to 117 BC: Rousset 2002a: 131–32. Inscribing Amphictyonic attendance: Daux 1936a: 372. The account: CID IV 119: contains the letter to the Amphictyony from the Roman proconsul, the lists of attendance at the emergency Amphictyonic session, the report of the Amphictyony, the accounts of moneys lost, the redefining of the sacred land of Apollo, the reparations made to the Delphian whistle-blowers, and the accounts of restitution made to the god.
42. These inscriptions make clear first that the sacred land could be used for the grazing of animals belonging to Pythian Apollo, and second, that there was a distinction between the sacred land controlled by Delphi (which could not be used except for the god’s benefit) and land controlled by the city, which could be apportioned to, and cultivated by, its residents. In turn this land was split into public territory run by the city, and private plots: CID IV 108, 119; Rousset 2002b: 227–28, 230. The territory of Delphi was “a mosaic, composed of private properties, public territories and sacred domains” (my translation): Rousset 2002b: 234.
43. See Daux 1936a: 372–84, 699–707, Parke and Wormell 1956a: 278, Rousset 2002a: 131.
44. Daux 1936a: 386.
45. See Parke and Wormell 1956a: 278.
46. Jacquemin 183, 184. Inscription in Greek: FD III 1 526. Inscription in Latin: Syll3 710B. Unusual use of bilingual honors: Vatin 1967. Rufus in turn made an offering in the sanctuary (Jacquemin 421), as did a family relation: Jacquemin 422.
47. Roman law copied at Delphi: FD III 4 37; Daux 1936a: 601. A copy of this law has also been found in Cnidus: Hassall, Crawford and Reynolds 1974: 195–209. During this period, 91–89 BC, Rome was also beset with its own social war, see Crawford 1978. Kidnappers near Delphi: FD III 1 457; Parke and Wormell 1956a: 278.
48. Stadium refitting: Bommelaer 1991: 215. Alexandros: FD III 2 48. Eastern Locrians: Jacquemin 340. Antipatros: Syll3 737; Weir 2004: 109. He also received a statue in the sanctuary put up and paid for by the Delphians: Jacquemin 146.
49. Daux and Bousquet 1942–43: 113–25, Roux 1976: 181, Partida 2009: 302.
50. For Sulla’s difficult position and need for military funds: Diod. Sic. 38.7;
Plut. Vit. Sull. 12, 19; Paus. 9.7.5; App. Mith. 54, 122. See Daux 1936a: 398. Sulla and the consultation of the oracle: Parke and Wormell 1956a: 280. Sulla and the gold statue of Apollo: Plut. Vit. Sull. 29; Stat. Silv. 5.3.293. For discussion of the degree to which Romans thought of plundering sanctuaries outside their own territory as religious sacrilege, see Pape 1975: 37, Jacquemin 1999: 239.
51. The silver bowl appears several times in Delphic inscriptions between the sixth and first centuries BC e.g., FD III 5 63 and FD III 3 224; Bourguet 1897: 489. Sulla reapportioning Theban land: Parke and Wormell 1956a: 279.
52. For the impact of Sulla on the way Rome related to Greece: Kallet-Marx 1995. The Soteria festival, started by the Aetolians in 279 BC, may also have fallen by the way side by this time: Nachtergael 1977: 376–78. Delphi was, however, also used by the pro-Sulla camp. The nearby city of Chaeronea, for example, put up honors in the sanctuary at Delphi in this period for a Thracian chief who had been sent to fight for Sulla against Mithridates: Daux 1936a: 401.
53. Parke and Wormell 434 (see 154). Sulla executed all Athenians, even those who sought refuge in A
thens’s main sanctuary on the acropolis: Paus. 1.20.7
54. Polygnota: FD III 3 249–50; Daux 1936a: 405–406, Weir 2004: 81. Flaccus in Greece: Daux 1936a: 406.
55. Damage visible on the remains of the temple: Reinach 1910, Courby 1927: 116. The fire seems to have taken place in the same year as the one that consumed the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.62).
56. See App. Ill. 4; Plut. Vit. Num. 9; Daux 1936a: 392, Parke and Wormell 1956a: 278–79.
57. Amphictyony active: CID IV 127 (dated to end second century BC/beginning first century BC); Giovanni 1978: 64–72. For the picture of Amphictyonic activity in this period: Sanchez 2001: 420. Repairs to temple earlier: Weir 2004: 93. Spartan consultation: FD III 1 487. Other Greek cities seem to have been similarly indebted to this individual, as the same monument carries other inscribed thanks: FD III 1 488–96; Spawforth 2012: 191. See Diod. Sic. 16.57.4 “the Spartans, even today, continued to consult Delphi on matters of great weight.” Cicero: Parke and Wormell 435; Parke and Wormell 1956a: 283, 407–408, Flacelière 1977. No more oracles in verse form: Cic. Div. 1.19.37.
58. E.g., FD III 3 11: The sale to Pythian Apollo of a slave called Heraclea for the price of two mines of silver, guaranteeing Heraclea’s right to be free and independent. Each of these manumissions mentions the archon at Delphi in the year it was inscribed, as well as the parties and a series of witnesses to the contract. See Daux 1936a: 15–60, Parke and Wormell 1956a: 261–62. The manumissions will be published as a collection in the fifth volume of the Corpus des Inscriptions de Delphes. At present, see: Lejeune 1939.
59. Down to 190 BC: Daux 1936a: 220. After 167 BC: Daux 1936a: 269, 491–95, McInerney 2011: 98. We should not understand these manumissions as a statement of the rejection of slavery, in fact they were the “motor” of enslavement, because a slave had to buy his or her freedom, providing the master with money to purchase another slave. As well, the master could impose conditions on the soon-to-be-freed slave, for example, that they return each year to put a fresh crown on their master’s statue in the sanctuary.
60. Caesar: Parke and Wormell 1956a: 283. Caes. B Civ. 3.56. Calenus is also mentioned in a surviving Delphic inscription: FD III 1 318. Consultation by Censorinus: Parke and Wormell 1956a: 408. He was clearly a religious enthusiast: he was also initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries: Beard, Price, and North 1998: 152–53, Spawforth 2012: 144. Response to Censorinus: Parke and Wormell 436; Val. Max. De Miraculis 1.8.10. Anthony and Delphi: Plut. Vit. Ant. 23; Daux 1936a: 409. Offer to repair the temple: Plut. Vit. Ant. 23.4; Pelling 1988: 176. Dispatch of sacred embassy and renewal of friendship: Spawforth 2012: 148, 149.
CHAPTER 10. RENAISSANCE
1. Nicopolis: Strabo 7.7.6. In later years, Nicopolis would dedicate a statue in the Apollo sanctuary at Delphi: FD III 1 542 (end first century AD). The first attested epimeletai (under Tiberius), and their immediate successors, would also happen to be from the city: Pouilloux 1980: 284–87. Augustus and the Amphictyony: Parke and Wormell 1956a: 283. Epimeletai: Sanchez 2001: 529, Weir 2004: 56. There had been informal epimeletai appointments under the Aetolians. The surviving inscriptions record epimeletai from the time of Tiberius to the end of second century AD: Pouilloux 1980: 282. For discussion of the reorganization of the Amphictyony, see Daux 1975: 354–55, 9.
2. Discussion over the letter E: Plut. Mor. 384–394. Livia’s offering: Plut. Mor. 385F; Jacquemin 1999: 75.
3. Spawforth 2012: 147. See Agora XVI 337.7–8.
4. “Lively interest” in Olympia: see Spawforth 2012: 164. No need for oracles: see Strabo’s description of Delphi and its current poor state in the early first century AD: 9.3.6–8. Chryselephantine statue: e.g., Langenfeld 1975: 247–48. Strabo’s description of Zeus at Olympia: Strabo 8.3.30.
5. Privileged position of Greece in Roman world: Barrow 1967: 2. Roman misunderstanding of the Amphictyony: Plin. HN 35.35.59. See Spawforth 2012: 160–61.
6. Robert 1929: 37, Weir 2004: 109.
7. Only Delphi and Amphictyony dedications: Jacquemin 1999: 79. Athens honoring Augustus: Jacquemin 079.
8. Barrow 1967: 2–3.
9. Tiberius: Amphictyony: CID IV 136. City of Delphi: Jacquemin 200. Agripinna Major: CID IV 133.
10. Statue of Poppaeus: Jacquemin 189. For discussion of the accompanying inscription and the “saving” referred to, see Eilers 2001. Statue of Theocles: Jacquemin 197 (while in post); Jacquemin 198 (when retired). Epimeletai from Nicopolis: Pouilloux 1980: 293.
11. Amphictyony: Jacquemin 031 (Caligula), CID IV 137 (Drusilla). Koinon: Jacquemin 008, IG VII 2711.
12. Measures of L. Iunius Gallio: FD III 4 286 (AD 52); Pouilloux 1971: 377. Unbroken chain of Imperial communication: see Jacquemin 1999: 274, Weir 2004: 88. Publicly inscribing Claudius’s letter on the temple: Weir 2004: 89.
13. Claudius statues: Jacquemin 155, 156. Statue of Claudius erected in the third century AD by the city of Delphi (reusing a base originally set up in the sanctuary by Pharselis): Jacquemin 157. Claudius as magistrate at Delphi: SEG 51.607; Spawforth 2012: 235. The eponymous archon was a member of the city of Delphi’s prytaneis, a board of nine magistrates tasked with overseeing the city’s role in administering the Delphic sanctuaries, as well as the money given to the sanctuary by the Amphictyony and ruling as judicial magistrates over the city: Arnush 1991: 11–15.
14. Secretary of the Archives: Weir 2004: 51, 55. Stars of stadium and theater: Jacquemin 1999: 79. Theater refurbishment: Picard 1991: 129, Partida 2009: 306. All this during a time, when, as has been recently highlighted, most cities in Greece were cobbling together both private and public funds to continue hosting their festivals: Camia 2011: 73. Competitions for Maidens: FD III 1 534; Weir 2004: 138.
15. Musical competitions had to be inserted into the games at Olympia for him: Spawforth 2012: 236. Declaring freedom of Greece: Barrow 1967: 2–3.
16. Reorganizing the Amphictyony: Jacquemin 1999: 229. Statue of Nero: CID IV 138 (end AD 54). Agrippina Minor (AD 54–55): Jacquemin 144. Nero’s consultation of the oracle: Parke and Wormell 461; Parke and Wormell 1956a: 283.
17. Settling soldiers on sacred land: Dio Cass. 62.14.2; Dio Chrys. 31.148; Paus. 10.7.1; Rousset 2002a: 275. Removing statues: Plin. HN 34.36. Pliny is at pains to point out that this still left over three thousand statues at Delphi. For descriptions of Nero’s collection in the Domus Aurea (Golden House) in Rome: Tac. Ann. 15.45, 16.23. Removing a statue from Amphictyonic dedication: Jacquemin 1999: 228.
18. Parke and Wormell 597, 243. This story also signifies how prevalent, by the time of Nero, the understanding that the Pythia was inspired by vapors must have been (even though the first time it is mentioned in the sources is the first century BC in Diodorus Siculus: see chapter 1).
19. Weir 2004: 133.
20. Titus/Domitian statue: Syll3 817; Spawforth 2012: 238. Statue: Jacquemin 201 Domitian inscription: Syll3 821A; FD III 4 120; Haussoullier 1882: 451, Jacquemin 1999: 75.Where it was placed, see Weir 2004: 153, Spawforth 2012: 238. What Domitian was repairing: Weir 2004: 93. Plaque from the Cnidian treasury: Courby 1927: 219.
21. Difficult times for Rome: Weir 2004: 151. Domitian’s involvement in procession between Athens and Delphi: Weir 2004: 149–50. Letter from Domitian to Delphi: Syll3 821C.2–3; Sanchez 2001: 450–51, Spawforth 2012: 238. Publication and copying of the games: Weir 2004: 166.
22. Agonothetes: these officials had been part of the Soteria festival in the third century BC, but not the Pythian: FD III 4 125–28. Return to local control: Sanchez 2001: 529, Spawforth 2012: 56–58.
23. Statue of Domitian by temple: FD III 4 444. Thought originally to be for Augustus, this has now been disproved: Jacquemin and Laroche 1986: 785–88. For discussion, see Courby 1927: 277–81. For the niche, Guide de Delphes 528; Bommelaer 1991: 171. See Weir 2004: 94, 153.
24. Additions to the gymnasium: Pouilloux 1980: 289, Bommelaer 1991: 73, 76, Weir 2004: 101–103. New library and dining room: Weir 2004: 101. The new colonna
de more likely belonged to the Hadriannic period (AD 117–38). Peristyle house: Guide de Delphes 299. Rebuild of Pythia’s house: Syll3 823A. Discussion: Bousquet 1952b: 28–29.
25. Dio Chrysostom: Parke and Wormell 462. Nerva: Jacquemin 185; Trajan: CID IV 149. A citizen of Delphi even erected a statue to Matidia Minor, half-sister of the Empress Sabina and wife of the Emperor Hadrian: Jacquemin 256. Amphictyony honors proconsul of Asia: CID IV 143; City of Delphi honors proconsul: Jacquemin 154.
26. Amphictyony honoring an agonothetes: Jacquemin 055; wife of the epimelete: Jacquemin 174; Agonothetes: Jacquemin 175; Grammarian Jacquemin 179. Gortyn: Jacquemin 304. Hypata: Syll3 925B. Sophists: Jacquemin 470–71. Memmia Lupa: Bommelaer 1991: 101, 210. Statue: Jacquemin 258.
27. Letters: FD III 4 287–88; FD III 4 301. This was perhaps a Delphic initiative to draw the emperor into communication with the sanctuary: Flacelière 1976. Balancing the books: Barrow 1967: 4.
28. FD III 4 290–99; Rousset 2002a: 145, Rousset 2002b: 219, Weir 2004: 50. It is interesting that in these inscriptions the land in question—the sacred land that for centuries could not be cultivated on pain of displeasing Apollo—is referred to simply as the territory of Delphi. It seems that parts of Delphi’s sacred history—by the Roman corrector, at least—are being forgotten: Rousset 1996: 47. As a result, the city of Delphi now has full control over a vast area of land it could exploit, divide, and sublet, allowing it much more financial muscle in comparison to most major central Greek cities: Rousset 2002b: 241.
29. Dio Cass. 69.2.5. The status of a corrector, established first under Trajan, evolves over the course of the second and third centuries AD. Established first as a position to help (and control) free cities over which the proconsul of a province had no authority (like Delphi), by the third century AD, the same individual could be proconsul and corrector (e.g., Cn. Claudius Leonticus who is known at Delphi), suggesting the evolution of a greater degree of control over free cities during this time: Vatin 1965: 136–43.
Delphi Page 39
