κατὰ τὴν μαντείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. The spell of the ancestral institutions had hold upon the Athenians still, and the orthodox machinery of oligarchic propaganda was thus set in motion in 103/2, as in 411 and 405. Apollo was invoked in place of history, and the ivvɛɛrnois was his prescription. The wink, accordingly, came from Delphi. There an eight year period persisted from of old, perpetuated through the recurrence at this interval of three festivals, the Septerion, Herois, and Charila 1), and carried back by an unswerving tradition to the Pythian enneeteris, which, it was thought, had been superceded for the Pythia by the penteteris in 582/1 B.C. This enneeteris had one of its limits in 582/1 (Ol. 49, 3)2). It, therefore, fell between the third years of the uneven numbered Olympiads. Consequently, 102/1 (Ol. 169, 3), the beginning of the first enneeteris at Athens, was the beginning of a similar cycle at Delphi. The restoration was thus correct in detail. Prior to 103/2 the theoria had been dispatched in 106/5, 128/7, and 138/7. It may have been sent oftener, but from the nature of the record and the content of the Delphian decrees it is unlikely that such was the case). The intervals are thus 10, 22, and 9 years. From the inscription numbered 484) in Colin's collection the following extract is made: καὶ νῦν δέ, ψα[φι]ξαμένου τοῦ δήμου Αθηναίων] πέμπειν τὰν πυθαΐδα ποθ ̓ ἁμὲ δι' ἐτῶν πλειόνων τοῖς τε χρησμοῖς καὶ ταῖς ἱστορίαις [ἀ]κολούθως, συνεπέδωκε αὐτοσαυτὰν [ἃ σύν]οδος κτλ. The document is not dated certainly. M. Colin weighs the evidence 3) and decides for 128/7. The alternative 138/7 is rejected by him for epigraphical and other reasons. Thus, the didaάozaλo of the chorus of лvdaïσταὶ παῖδες *) were Κλέων Εὐμήλου and Φιλίων Φιλομήλου in our document, and Ἐλπίνικος Επικράτου and Κλέων Επιμήλου in 138/7. They should have been the same, had the two belonged to 138/7. The epigraphical criteria are in favor of 128/7, but when taken by themselves they are, M. Colin thinks, inconclusive, and the prosopographical data favor the earlier year so slightly that they are quite negligable. Hence 128 7 is preferable for the inscription from which we learn that the Athenians had decided to send the Pythais δι' ἐτῶν πλειόνων. What does d'i☎v äåɛióνov mean? M. Colin says "more frequently" -il est question d'un vote des Athéniens ordonnant l'augmentation du nombre des pythaïdes). That is assuredly wrong ). If лheiórov is conπλειόνων 1) Mommsen, Delphica pp. 206 ff. 2) Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und Athen I pp. 10 ff. 3) Gruppe (Berl. phil. Woch. 1907 p. 51), in reviewing Colin's book, dissents, but this is one of the places in which the author has the advantage over his critic. 4) BCH XXX p. 272. 6) BCH XXX p. 329. 5) Ibid. pp. 222 and 285. 7) Ibid. p. 295. 8) Gruppe (Berl. phil. Woch. 1907 p. 50) advisedly refrains from a translation. strued as a comparative, the phrase means ", at longer intervals", i. e. „less frequently". This would accord with the facts; for after 128/7 the next Pythaïs went in 106/5; before 128/7, the preceding one went in 138/7. But it is inconceivable that the Delphians should have set it down to the credit of the Athenians that they had decided to dispatch the procession less often than formerly. Пletóvov must be taken in the sense in which лλɛоvázis is common of an indefinite period. There is question of a πλεονάκις vote to send the, theoria „at intervals of several years". i. e. „at irregular intervals". If there was an innovation in the time, it was to leave something undetermined which had earlier been otherwise. That suits 128/7. The Athenians, stimulated by oracles and bistorical precedents, resolve to send a Pythaïs to Delphi, and for the future to send others as circumstances should dictate. In 138/7 the phrase should conceivably have been di' ¿tāv déza; for the second Pythaïs followed the first at an interval of ten years. Since it went in the first year of an Olympiad, the only reason evident to us for sending it at this time is that 128/7 was ten years after 138/7. This notion is, however, unsatisfactory. It is hardly conceivable that oracles were issued from Delphi to urge the Athenians to change the interval from a decade to an indefinite period. On the other hand, since a Pythaïs was sent in 138/7, if the matter settled in 128/7 was solely the dispatch of a second, not the fixing of a cycle, it is inexplicable that oracles and historical precedents had to be obtained to bring this about, the interval being so short. Only one interpretation is admissable, namely that prior to 128/7 the Pythaïs had not been an established institution: it had, indeed, been sent in 138/7, but without any understanding for its renewal in the future. The Delphian priests, however, pleased with so striking an act of reverence and esteem, were indisposed to let the matter drop, and by means of oracles and arguments based upon historical investigations convinced the Athenians of their obligation to dispatch theoriai at intervals of several years. Thus the Pythaïs of 128/7 was sent; but there the Athenians stopped. Δι' ἐτῶν πλειόνων allowed them to determine whatever interval they chose, and it was not till 106/5 that they were seen again at Delphi. Thus is explained the unusual brilliancy of the procession of this year. By size and display Athens sought to make amends for the long omission. Delphi, however, was still dissatisfied, and upon the change of government in 103/2 the priests made and established the claim that a Pythaïs was due from Athens once in every one of the venerable nine year cycles; for such, it seemed, had been the ancestral custom (τà лáτqiα). The history and organization of the occasional Pythaïs have been discussed at length by M. Colin. The acquisition of Delos, he explains, had opened a new era for Athens. The control of the Apollo cult on the island, and the renewed prosperity of the city combined to stimulate the Athenians to emphasize in a more conspicuous way the bond of union between the centres of Apollo worship. That was the procession, which, following the line of Apollo's mythical progression from his birth place on Delos to Delphi, first received the delegates who represented the Paralia and the Marathonian tetrapolis, and then passed along the sacred way into Boeotia and through it and Phocis to its destination. First marched the ephebes 1), sometimes 100 strong: then the Pythaïs proper, made up of theoroi, pythaïstai 2), and kanephoroi the élite of the city 1) In 1065 and 97/6 B.C. they were accompanied, not by the regular corps of instructors (didéozchoı), as in 128/7 (BCH XXX p. 227), but by a specially appointed corps called nadevrai. That the two were not the same is clear from a comparison of BCH XXX p. 229 and IG II 5 1226. That the paideutai did not exist continually as assistants of the didaskaloi is probable from the fact that two of the paideutai of 976 (BCH XXX pp. 230 f.), Herodotos and Kallias, had been didaskaloi in 117/6, 107,6, 101/0, and doubtless, in the intervening and following years. All the didaskaloi could not accompany the part of the ephebes which went to Delphi, but there was no reason why some of them should not be chosen as paidentai. Colin's explanation (BCH XXX p. 235) is thus inadequate. 2) There was, doubtless, a different religious function to be performed by the theoroi and the pythaïstai, but to define what it was lies beyond the limits of our knowledge. At any rate, the presence of the latter gave character and name to the procession; theirs was the distinctive work of the occasion. Some of the pythaistai were adults. This is not proven by the case of [Tuoziÿç Irлáo̟zov who appears as pythaïstes in No. 7 (BCH XXX p. 200) and as victor iz tov inaiov ázáμTov in No. 43; for it is doubtful whether the two documents belong to the same year, especially since Timokles' name not only is not entered on the list of knights for 128 7, but was never listed at all. His family belonged to the Peiraieus, hence to Hippothontis, but no gap appears in No. 8 (Ibid. p. 238) among the knights of this tribe. Hipparchos, his father, was a knight in 128 7 B.C. and otọarnyòç inì tồ vavtizór to boot; that is to say a man of mature years (Ibid. p. 226). Possibly the son, Timokles, rode his father's horse in the races of the knights. Timokles may thus have been still a boy in 128/7. But that adults could be pythaïstai is proven by the case of Nikanor, son of Hermippos, of Aphidna, pythaïstes klerotos in 106/5 (Ibid. p. 201), who was at that time 31 years old, his ephebate having occurred in 1198 (P. A. s. v.). Adults, there, accordingly, were among the pythaïstai, but the great majority of them were children, whereas the theoroi were always of citizen age, the youngest of those whose birth-years we know being Xáons Xáontos vewToos, who was theoros (Ibid. p. 196) and ephebe (Ibid. p. 237) in 128/7. In fact, the whole group of pythaïstai in 138/7 is designated ar9cïorai naïdes (Ibid. p. 198). In 128,7 it is designated лv9άiorai zinowroi, but we can prove that 12 of the lot were under 13 years of age, and we may surmise the same fact for quite a number of others: besides, we have evidence (Ibid. p. 273) for the existence in 128/7, as in 138.7, of a chorus of av9aiora naïdes, who must be listed among the av9aista zigoto!. The яv9aista for 106/5 were catalogued in several groups: No. 14 (Ibid. p. 201) av9aiora zingotoi; No. 12 (Ibid. p. 185) пv9aiora who were sons of the nine archons and the other civil leaders of the Pythaïs; No. 136 (Ibid. p. 201); and No. 17. To be sure, the latter document is held by Colin to contain the names of theoroi, but this is incorrect, in the first place by reason of position under the management of two groups of high officials 1) - flanked on either side by the Athenian knights and light armed cavalry, and attended by a great chorus of professional artists- singers, bards, flute players etc. In the rear? came a detachment of mercenary soldiers2). It was a brilliant spectacle, well calculated to exhibit the renewed strength of the once imperial city. = on the treasury. The stone cutter began on the upper tier of stones, given in Colin, Plate VA, by listing the officers of the Pythaïs in their two groups Nos. 13 a and 12 (Ibid. pp. 179 and 184): then in listing the knights he put them in four columns, the first three of which were continued down into the 2nd tier of stones = No. 15, the fourth even into the third tier = Pl. IV A No. 30: then he listed the ephebes in three columns on the first and second tiers. After the ephebes came the 13 pythaistai klerotoi on tier 1 of Plate V, after which he put the rest of the pythaïstai on the 2nd tier under the names of the leaders of the Pythaïs = No. 17. This gave them the advantage of a good position. To their left he put the theoroi who are listed partly in No. 18 (Ibid. p. 243), and partly in No. 13b, where the theoroi are conjoined with the pythaïstai Ez yevōr, as in the Pythaïs of 97/6 = Nos. 23 a & b. The kanephoroi were then listed under these latter No. 29. Pl. IV A. That No. 17 was confined to the second tier seems clear both from the space left after ovvoiov in No. 12 (Ibid. p. 184) and the space vacant over -ovog in Col. II of 17 itself. That it does not contain theoroi, as Colin surmises, is patent if the theoroi are found in Nos. 18 and 13b, as above maintained; and Colin must himself admit that No. 18 contains theoroi for 106,5 B.C. The same conclusion is obvious, however, for other reasons. First, No. 17 contains the names of 10 children whose age is demonstrably under 13, and, doubtless, the names of many other children besides. Secondly, it contains space for 66 names. There were 39 aides avdaiorai in 138/7 when the whole Pythaïs was smaller, whereas there were only 14 theoroi in 138/7, 15 in 128/7, and 16 in 97 6. Thirdly, it lists the names in unbroken columns, as the pythaïstai are listed, whereas the theoroi are always listed in tribal or other groups; and finally, it contains the names of Xapiaardoos Paróżewg, who is expressly designated лv9άioτng in No. 13b, a document, like No. 17, of the year 106 5. What the heading of No. 17 is we do not know, but it was, perhaps, either avdaïorai zingwtoi, as in 128/7, or av9aistai raides as in 138/7; in any case, its members were mainly children. σται The πυθαΐσται of 97/6 are listed as πυθαΐσται κληρωτοί No. 17 p. 202, avdaï and лv9aiora naides. There were, seemingly, 8 of the first, 31 of the second, and 18 of the latter. That the 31 were mostly juniores is clear from the absence of their names in IG II 2 985. 1) One group had charge of the Pythaïs, the other of its escort. Some one person was in general command, after 103/2 B.C., quipotorn9ɛis. The archon led the Pythaïs: the hoplite-general the escort, and each section of Pythaïs and escort had its own leader an do798ooos for the pythaistai, another for the theoroi, a hipparch for the cavalry, and kosmetes for the ephebes. The whole was thus well organized. That the soldiers, cavalry, and ephebes, were an escort merely, is shown by the fact that their officers, the hipparchs, phylarchs, tarantinarchs, and kosmetai were not asked to contribute to the anagzai. The other officials who went to Delphi made subscriptions the life long ones being, however, exceptions. Those who paid tolls, but did not go to Delphi, were mainly Delian priests and magistrates. 2) BCH XXX p. 242. The mercenaries in Athens had been Athenian citizens since the last quarter of the third century. Colin, therefore, gives himself unnecessary trouble over their good Athenian names. About 500 men and women mostly young and children, after making elaborate preparations, travelled over 100 miles to Delphi, stayed there long enough to perform the necessary sacrifices and to hold musical and athletic contests, and then returned home. Their visit in Delphi was a leisurely one; for they must have rested before giving their entertainment, and they waited to receive laudatory decrees from the Delphian folk. They probably remained there three days, and since they must have spent six days in going and coming, provision had to be made in advance for a nine days jaunt. The procession was accompanied by an oriάtwo, whom M. Colin has correctly taken to be the conductor" of the party, the person appointed to arrange the details of feeding and lodging the crowd both on the way and while in Delphi 1). Two other men were appointed rì rà≤ л00σódovg 2), and one τì tà áлаozás. The latter appears in 128/7 (Diokles, son of Diokles) 3), 106/5 (Amphikrates, son of Epistratos)), and 97/6 (Sarapion, son of Sarapion)), and since Diokles was at the same time hipparch, and Sarapion hoplite-general, the position έлì vàs dлagzás was a most honorable one. This officer figures at the head of a long list of subscribers published in IG II_2 985): [Αγαθῆι τύχηι τῆς βουλῆς καὶ τοῦ δήμου τοῦ ̓Αθηναίων. Ὁ κεχειροτον[ημένο]ς ἐπὶ τὴν ἐξαποστολὴν τῆς ἱερᾶς Πυθαῖδος καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς ἀπα]ρχὰς τῆς πρώτης ἐννεετη[ρίδος ̓Αμφικράτης Ἐπιστράτου Πε [ριθοίδης ἀνέγραψε τῶν τε ἱερέων καὶ τῶν] ἀρχόντων τὰς ἀπαρχὰς [τ]ῶι Ἀπόλλωνι τῶι] Πυθίωι κα[τὰ τὸ ψήφισμα τοῦ δήμου ὃ Δωσίθεος ? ἐγ Μυρρινού]ττης εἶπεν. The subscription list which follows is capable of a more complete restoration than is given to it in Inscriptiones Graecae II 985. Thus Col. II C, as von Schoeffer') observed many years ago, is misplaced: the epimeletes of Delos in the year to which this fragment belongs was & Oilov, that is to say ['Aqıστίων ἐξ Οί]ου, not [Σωκράτης ἐξ Οίου, as I have restored it in Klio VII p. 218 note 1; for now that we have learned that Zongάing was epimeletes in 117/6 B. C.) the explanation I have given for the apparent duplication of epimeletai in 98/7 is not tenable. We must place the fragment C in the year in which Aristion was epimeletes, viz: in 95/4 (see Klio, loc. cit.) The juncture is then made between fragments C and E as follows: E Col. I 0 [Ἱερεὺς Διὸς Κυνθίου ἐν Δήλῳ]? = 6) As restored by Colin in BCH XXX p. 202. H]? |