The Voice of the Pythia

(1)

_______________________________________________________________

A narratological analysis of the oracles in Herodotus’ Histories

Aegeus Consults the Pythia Seated on a Tripod. Attic red-figure c.440 BC.

University of Amsterdam

MA-Thesis Classics and Ancient Civilizations: Classics Alban Thung

Name: A.D.Thung Student ID: 10086544 Email: alban.thung@student.uva.nl

Supervisor: I.J.F. De Jong Word Count: 23639

(2)

‘referential approach’ focusing on the historical ‘reality’ to which Herodotus refers. Thus, the oracles and the stories in which they appear are considered as useful source-material for our understanding of the ancient world and, more specifically, of the workings of the Delphic oracle. Drawing from the Histories and other, mainly literary, sources, some scholars invested their efforts in determining the authenticity of the oracles transmitted to us, compiling oracle collections such as those by Parke and Wormell (1956) and Fontenrose (1978). However, their research is seriously impeded by a lack of non-literary evidence of both the oracles and, in many cases, even the events to which these allegedly refer. The reliance on literary texts for the authentication of oracles has been severely criticized by Maurizio (1997) who argues that the oracles recorded in writing have emerged from a process of oral transmission and reflect the opinions and beliefs of a community rather than the words of the Pythia.

Acknowledging that the authenticity of the oracles recorded in the Histories cannot be determined as long as other, independent evidence is lacking, we may also opt for another approach, one that sets aside the question of historicity, and instead focuses on the ways the oracles are presented in the Herodotean narrative. Such a ‘presentational approach’ can be applied in order to determine the religio-philosophical concepts underlying Herodotus’ work, more specifically, his views on the role of the divine in history as reflected in his presentation of oracles. One of the first scholars to have systematically dealt with this subject is Kirchberg (1965), whose study on the function of oracles in Herodotus’ work remains a valuable

contribution to this field of research. Others have followed in her footsteps of whom I mention Lachenaud (1978), Harrison (2000), Mikalson (2003) and Kindt (2006). A representational approach to oracles offers other possibilities as well. Barker (2006), for instance, has sought to establish a connection between the process of interpretation of oracles

(4)

2

as presented in the Histories and the notions of individual freedom and institutional

governance. Manetti (1993) and Hollmann (2011: 94-118) applied the theoretical framework provided by semiotics in order to analyse the mechanisms involved in oracle interpretation. The aim of this thesis is to investigate the oracles presented in Herodotus’ Histories from a narratological perspective. Narratology, founded in the 1960’s as a new branch of literary criticism, offers a theoretical framework that can be applied to any kind of ‘narrative’, whether conveyed by language, written and oral, or by image, moving and fixed.1 Its central concept is that of the narrator who presents his narrative to an audience: the narratees. The narrator cannot be equated with the author, but rather is a creation of him, just a his characters are. Thus, the narrator of the Histories, who introduces himself as Herodotus of Halicarnassus on the first page of book 1, is a construction of the historical Herodotus who is likely to have lived between 484-425 BC. To what extend the two coincide is a question that does not concern narratology: our Herodotus is the narrator presenting the narrative of the Histories.

Can narratology be applied to historiographical texts? I will not dwell on this question here for long, but rather refer to De Jong (2014: 167-72) who has discussed the issue with special reference to classical literature and comes up with a positive answer. To my view, the most convincing argument is the fact that most of the narrative devices used in fictional literature can be found in classical historiography as well. The use of these devices in the presentation of oracles by Herodotus will be my main point of attention in this thesis. They fall into different narratological categories, such as time, rhythm, focalization, status of the narrator and structure of the narrative. These categories have provided the framework of my thesis. In the first section, I discuss the different narrators-focalizers involved in the presentation of the oracles in the Histories. This is followed by a section focusing on the form in which the oracles are presented, more specifically, the use of direct versus indirect speech and prose versus metrical form. The third section deals with the category of time, paying attention to the point in time at which an oracle is presented within the narrated events and the function of the oracle in relation to these events. In this section, I distinguish between different kinds of ‘oracle stories’ consisting of specific elements presented in a specific order. The narrative patterns followed by Herodotus in his oracle stories are further elaborated in the fourth section

(5)

3

which deals with the ways the oracles are reacted upon by the characters, and how they are evaluated by the narrator.

Narratology focuses on the formal characteristics of the narrative, but does so in order to attribute meaning to these characteristics. As this study will show, Herodotus uses a wide range of narrative devices in his presentation of oracles. My aim is to investigate to what narrative purposes these devices are used and, on a more general level, how oracles function within the Herodotean narrative.

(6)

4 1. Narrator and focalization

When an oracle is presented in the Histories, different voices may be involved. In the first place, there is the voice of the Herodotean narrator:

Παρὰ τούτων ῾Ηρακλεῖδαι ἐπιτραφθέντες ἔσχον τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐκ θεοπροπίου, ἐκ δούλης τε τῆς ᾿Ιαρδάνου γεγονότες καὶ ῾Ηρακλέος, ἄρξαντες ἐπι δύο τε καὶ εἴκοσι γενεὰς ἀνδρῶν, ἔτεα πέντε τε καὶ πεντακόσια, παῖς πατρὸς ἐκδεκόμενος τὴν ἀρχήν, μέχρι Κανδαύλεω τοῦ Μύρσου.

By them, the Heraclids were entrusted with the rule, obtaining it through the sanction of an oracle. They were descendants of a slave-woman of Iardanos and Heracles. They governed for twenty-two generations, 505 years, handing down the rule from father to son until it reached Candaules, son of Myrsus. (1.7.4)2

Herodotus, the primary narrator-focalizer, is an external narrator since he does not himself take part in the events recounted.3 The oracle presented here is the first one mentioned in the Histories. The oracle is only briefly referred to and its contents are not further specified. Yet, its presentation is significant for more than one reason. First of all, the oracle is part of a genealogy tracing the origins of a dynasty of rulers, a subject of major importance in the Histories. The Herodotean narrator establishes a causal relationship between the oracle and the rise of the Heraclidean dynasty, as indicated by ἔσχον τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐκ θεοπροπίου. The oracle, together with the mythical ancestor of Heracles, thus serves to provide both an explanation and a source of legitimacy to the rule of the Heraclids. Moreover, since Herodotus refers back to a remote past of more than half a millennium before his time, he cannot have had any other than mythical sources at his disposal. The mentioning of an oracle may be seen as an attempt to make up for this lack. Hence, the oracle also serves to establish the authority of the Herodotean narrator.

The other voice presenting oracles in the Histories, is that of the priest issuing the oracle. As in the following example, this is in most cases the voice of Pythia of Delphi:

2

The citations of Herodotus’ Histories are taken from the Oxford text of Hude (1927). The translations of the texts quoted from the Histories are based on Strassler (2007) with some adaptations of my own.

(7)

5 Λυκούργου τῶν Σπαρτιητέων δοκίμου ἀνδρὸς ἐλθοντος ἐς Δελφοὺς ἐπι τὸ χρηστήριον, ὡς ἐσήιε ἐς τὸ μέγαρον, ἰθυς ἡ Πυθίη λέγει τάδε· ἥκεις, ὦ Λυκόοργε, ἐμὸν ποτὶ πίονα νηὸν Ζηνὶ φίλος καὶ πᾶσιν ᾿Ολύμπια δώματ᾿ ἔχουσι. Δίζω ἤ σε θεὸν μαντεύσομαι ἢ ἄνθρωπον· ἀλλ᾿ ἔτι καὶ μᾶλλον θεὸν ἔλπομαι, ὦ Λυκόοργε.

Lycurgus, one of Sparta´s most worthy men, went one day to the oracle at Delphi, and as soon as he entered its inner shrine, the Pythia spontaneously proclaimed: ‘You have come, Lycurgus, to my rich temple,

You are dear to Zeus and to all on Olympus, Do I speak to a god or a man? I know not, Yet, I rather think to a god, Lycurgus.’ (1.65.3)

Here, the Pythia acts as a secondary narrator presenting the oracle in direct speech and metrical form. While addressing the Spartan lawmaker Lycurgus, she speaks in the first person, welcoming him to my rich temple (ἐμὸν πίονα νηὸν) and using three first person verbs: δίζω (‘I doubt’), μαντεύσομαι (‘I shall declare’) and ἔλπομαι (‘I believe’). However, the words uttered by the Pythia are not her own, but those of the god Apollo. In several

instances, Herodotus explicitly mentions the god as speaking through the oracle.4 Moreover, it seems unlikely that the Pythia would claim the temple in Delphi to be her own, whereas this is appropriate in the case of Apollo. Therefore, the oracular ‘I’ must be Apollo.5 There are only three instances of oracular speech in the Histories where Apollo is referred to in direct speech in the third person, indicating that the Pythia is speaking and not the god.6

As has been pointed out by Kindt (2006: 35), the secondary narrator of the Pythia in some ways resembles the primary Herodotean narrator. Both narrators possess an ‘authoritative

4_{Cf. 1.50.1: τὸν ἐν Δελφοῖσι θεὸν (‘the god who resides in Delphi’) ; 1.182.2: ἡ πρόμαντις τοῦ θεοῡ (‘the}

priestess of the god’); 5.1.2: χρήσαντος τοῦ θεοῦ (‘after the god had told them in an oracle’); 5.67.2: ἐπεὶ δὲ ὁ θεὸς τοῦτό γε οὐ παρεδίδου (‘since the god would not grant his request’); 6.82.1: τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ χρησμόν (‘the oracle given by the god’); 8.36.1: ὁ δὲ θεός σφεας οὐκ ἔα κινέεν (‘the god did not allow to move them’).

5_{Other instances of first person verbs or pronouns used in oracles are: 1.47.3 οἶδα δ᾿ἐγὼ (‘I know’), συνίημι (‘I}

understand’), ἀκούω (‘I hear’); 1.66.2 μ΄αἰτεῖς (‘you ask me’), δώσω (‘I shall give’), ἐγὼ μεγαίρω (‘I do not hold a grudge’); 4.157.2 ἄγαμαι (‘I admire’); 4.159.3 φαμι (‘I declare’); 7.141.3 ἔπος ἐρέω (‘I shall speak’).

6_{1.91; 4.155; 4.163. Two of these have been discussed by Hollmann (2011: 99), who arrives at the same}

(8)

6

voice’ in the sense that in their communication with the narratees they convey authority to statements they make in their roles as historian and divine instance, respectively. Both of them are omniscient narrators and both have their own way of presenting and withholding information. An important difference, however, is that the oracle engages directly with the characters of the Histories and plays an active role in shaping the events of the narrative. The oracle is an internal narrator, as opposed to the external Herodotean narrator.

In the case of the oracle to Lycurgus, the omniscience of the god is highlighted by the fact that the Pythia spontaneously reacts to him entering the temple. Lycurgus needs not introduce himself, as Apollo already knows who is coming.7 It is remarkable though, that no question is being asked, and no answer is being given. In the lines immediately following the oracle Herodotus tells us that, according to some sources, the oracle continued by dictating the Spartan laws to Lycurgus. Thus, the oracle appears to be connected to the establishment of the rule of law in Sparta.8 The presentation of the oracle also serves an ethnographical purpose, as it offers an explanation for the cult of Lycurgus in Herodotus’ time. The shrine of Lycurgus in Sparta is mentioned by Herodotus in 1.66.1 and also attested in other historical sources.9 Oracles can be part of an embedded narrative, a ‘tale in a tale’. This is the case when the oracles are mentioned by characters in one of the speech sections of the Histories. The lengthy speech of Socles to the Spartans and their allies in 5.92 contains no less than three oracles in close succession. Rood (2007: 130) has labeled Socles’ story a ‘paradigmatic narrative’ as it conveys a warning against the evils of tyranny. To this purpose, Socles

presents the history of the rule of the Cypselids over Corinth. The oracles in this story contain predictions of their rise as a dynasty of tyrants. Socles, in his role as a historian, can be seen as a mise en abyme of the Herodotean narrator. The theme of his narrative reflects an

important theme of the Histories as a whole, just as his use of oracles as a tool for providing historical causation and authority to the narrative, reflects the similar practice by the

Herodotean narrator.

The embedded narrative of Leotychidas (6.86) is equally paradigmatic. Leotychidas tries to persuade the Athenians to hand back their hostages to the Aeginetans by telling the story of

7

Other cases of seemingly spontaneous oracles are 4.159; 5.72; 5.92.β.

8_{Cf. Barker (2006: 17-8).} 9_{Cf. Fontenrose (1978: 115).}

(9)

7

the Spartan Glaucus, who was given money as a deposit by a visitor from Miletus. Unwilling to pay it back many years later, Glaucus consults the oracle asking for permission to declare by oath to the children of the Milesian that he never received the money. However, he is fiercely rebuked by the Pythia for even daring to ask. According to Leotychidas, Glaucus’ offence was severely punished by the gods:

Γλαύκου νῦν οὔτε τι ἀπόγονον ἔστι οὐδεν οὔτ᾿ ἱστίη οὐδεμία νομιθομένη εἶναι Γλαύκου, ἐκτέτριπταί τε πρόρριζος ἐκ Σπάρτης.

Today, there exists not a single descendant of Glaucus, nor a single household that is reckoned to derive from him. His line has been completely eradicated from Sparta. (6.86.δ)

As in the case of Socles, the embedded narrative of Leotychidas reflects an important theme of the Histories, in this case that of divine retribution in history.10 The oracle does not only serve as a moral warning of Leotychidas to the Athenians, but also as a warning of the Herodotean narrator to his narratees.

The last example of embedded presentation of an oracle is to be found in a speech of the Persian commander Mardonius before the battle of Plataea (9.42). Mardonius reminds his generals of an oracle predicting the destruction of the Persians after the ransacking of the shrine at Delphi. Therefore, he argues, the Persians will come out victorious if they decide to leave the shrine unharmed. Mardonius’ speech serves to explain the Persian decision to refrain from attacking the Delphic temple and to highlight the expectations of the Persians prior to their confrontation with the Greeks. These expectations, as Herodotus’ narratees well knows, will not be fulfilled. Thus, the oracle and its interpretation by Mardonius constitute an unreliable actorial prolepsis, giving the wrong impression of the events to come. As has been pointed out by Duckworth (1933: 21), this kind of ‘false foreshadowing’ serves to ‘keep the interest of the reader fixed on the events in store for the characters, even though he knows the true outcome’.11 After Mardonius’ speech, the Herodotean narrator steps in to explain that the

10

Leotychidas himself is to meet a similar fate of which the reader has already been informed in an earlier chapter (6.72). His moral stance vis-à-vis the Athenians thus becomes ironic to the Herodotean narratee.

(10)

8

oracle was never meant to refer to the Persians. Instead, he quotes another oracle that does refer to the relevant battle:

Τὴν δ᾿ἐπὶ Θερμώδοντι καὶ ᾿Ασωπῳ λεχεποίῃ ῾Ελλήνων σύνοδον καὶ βαρβαρόφωνον ἰυγήν, τῇ πολλοὶ πεσέονται ὑπὲρ λάχεσίν τε μόρον τε τοξοφόρων Μήδων, ὅταν αἴσιμον ἦμαρ ἐπέλθῃ, By the Thermodon and the grassy banks of the Asopus A gathering of Greeks, and a great howling of Barbarians, Many there shall fall, before time, before the hour of their doom, Among the bow-wielding Medes, when the fateful day arrives. (9.43.2)

The prediction of the death of the Medes is, of course, a reliable prolepsis foreshadowing the defeat of the Persians at Plataea. Herodotus uses his authority as an omniscient narrator to overrule the claims made by his character, Mardonius. His intervention at this point illustrates the importance Herodotus attaches to providing for an oracle as a proof that the outcome of the battle was divinely preordained.The river Asopus is a seed, because the battle of Plataea begins with the Persians crossing the Asopus (9.59).12

Returning to the subject of oracles in embedded narrative, it is clear that in the case of the oracle presented by Mardonius, the embedding serves a different purpose than in the cases of Socles and Leotychidas. However, all three of them have the common characteristic that they are related to the process of decision-making, thus highlighting the function of oracles as authoritative arguments.

As an omniscient narrator, Herodotus is able to look into the minds of his characters. He often presents their feelings and thoughts, using embedded focalization. With regard to oracles, embedded focalization is used on a few occasions to present a character’s motives for consulting the oracle:

12_{As pointed out by Immerwahr (1966: 293), the crossing of rivers is an important topos in the Histories, always}

(11)

9

τοῦτον ἐπεθύμησε ὁ Κλεισθένης ἐόντα ᾿Αργεῖον ἐκβαλεῖν ἐκ τῆς χώρης. ᾿Ελθὼν δὲ ἐς Δελφοὺς ἐχρηστηριάζετο εἰ ἐκβαλεῖν ἐκ τῆς χώρης.

Cleisthenes was desperate to have him [Adrastus] banished from Sicyonian territory, so he went to Delphi and asked for permission to evict Adrastus.

(5.67.2)

Θηβαῖοι δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐς θεὸν ἔπεμπον, βουλόμενοι τείσασθαι ᾿Αθηναίους. The Thebans sent emissaries to Apollo, desiring to be avenged on the Athenians. (5.79.1)

However, embedded focalization plays a much more significant role as a devise to describe the reaction of characters upon receiving an oracle.

Tούτοισι ἐλθοῦσι τοῖσι ἔπεσι ὁ Κροῖσος πολλόν τι μάλιστα πάντων ἥσθη, ἐλπίζων ἡμίονον οὐδαμὰ ἀντ᾿ ἀνδρος βασιλεύσειν Μήδων, οὐδ᾿ὦν αὐτος οὐδ᾿ οἱ ἐξ αὐτοῦ παύσεσθαί κοτε τῆς ἀρχῆς.

This response [of the Pythia], when delivered to Croesus, delighted him more than anything. He was confident that never a mule would rule the Medes instead of a man, and therefore assumed that he and his descendants would never lose power.

(1.56.1)

Ταῦτα ἀκούσαντες οἱ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων θεοπρόποι συμφορῇ τῇ μεγίστῃ ἐχρέωντο. Προβάλλουσι δὲ σφέας αὐτους ὑπο τοῦ κακοῦ τοῦ κεχρησμένου…

When they heard this, the Athenians sent to consult the gods were plunged into an extreme distress. They considered themselves lost under the evils that the oracle had revealed were due to them.

(7.141.1)

Embedded focalization of the recipients of oracles is a very effective tool for the Herodotean narrator to regulate information, because it allows him to focus on the (often misguided) interpretation of the oracle by his characters, while withholding its true meaning to his narratees. Thus, it may be used to create suspense, or even misdirect the audience. The interpretation of oracles in the Histories will be discussed in more detail at a later point.

(12)

10

In the examples cited above, the focalization is explicit, as indicated by the verbs ἐπεθύμησε, βουλόμενοι, ἥσθη and ἀκούσαντες. Implicit embedded focalization (that is, without a verb indicating the perception or emotion of a character) is harder to detect and mostly ambiguous, as one cannot be sure of what has to be ascribed to the narrator and what to the character. However, the following example seems convincing enough:

Οὐδε σφεας χρηστήρια φοβερὰ ἐλθόντα ἐκ Δελφῶν καὶ ἐς δεῖμα βαλόντα ἔπεισε ἐκλιπεῖν τὴν ῾Ελλάδα ...

Not even the terrifying oracles that had come from Delphi and thrown them [the Athenians] into a state of alarm could persuade them to abandon Greece. (7.139.6)

Obviously, the strong emotional expression φοβερὰ (‘terrifying’) does not apply to the Herodotean narrator, but to the Athenians receiving the oracles.

(13)

11 2. Oracles and speech mode

In this section, I will pay attention to the form in which the oracles are presented by discussing their characteristics as speeches. A systematic study of the extensive corpus of speeches in the Histories has been completed in 2007 by De Bakker, some of whose findings will serve as the starting point of our discussion here. As for oracles, De Bakker distinguishes between two main types of presentation: in direct speech and metrical form (1) and in indirect speech and prose (2).13 He rightly observes that enigmatic or ambiguous oracles are mostly presented in direct speech and metrical form, whereas non-enigmatic oracles are presented in indirect speech.14 This seems to indicate that Herodotus uses different speech modes in order to produce different narrative effects. An interesting example of how this is achieved can be found in 1.67, where two oracles in different speech modes are presented in close

succession.15 The oracles are received by the Spartans when consulting the Pythia on how to conquer Tegea: Πέμψαντες θεοπρόπους ἐς Δελφοὺς ἐπειρώτων τίνα ἄν θεῶν ἱλασάμενοι κατύπερθε τῷ πολέμῷ Τεγεητέων γενοίατο. ἡ δὲ Πυθίη σφι ἔχρησε τὰ Ὀρέστεω τοῦ Ἀγαμέμνονος ὀστέα ἐπαγαγομένους. ῾Ως δὲ ἀνευρεῖν οὐκ οἷοι τε ἐγίνοντο τὴν θήκην τοῦ ᾿Ορέστεω, ἔπεμπον αὖτις τὴν ἐς θεὸν ἐπειρησομένους τὸν χῶρον ἐν τῷ κέοιτο ᾿Ορέστης. Εἰροτῶσι δὲ ταῦτα τοῖσι θεοπρόποισι λέγει ἡ Πυθίη τάδε· ῎Εστι τις ᾿Αρκαδίης Τεγέη λευρῷ ἐνὶ χώρῳ, ἔνθ᾿ἄνεμοι πνείουσι δύω κρατερῆς ὑπ᾿ ἀνάγκης, καὶ τυπος ἀντιτυπος, καὶ πῆμ᾿ ἐπὶ πήματι κεῖται. ἔνθ᾿ Αγαμεμνονίδην κατέχει φυσίζοος αἶα· τὸν σὺ κομισσάμενος Τεγέης ἐπιτάρροθος ἔσσῃ.

After they [the Spartans] had sent emissaries to Delphi, they inquired as to which god they should propitiate in order to defeat the Tegenas in war. The Pythia instructed them to bring the bones of Orestes, the son of Agamemnon, back to Sparta. But since

13_{De Bakker (2007: 27-8) distinguishes between three different modes of speech: Direct Discourse (DD),}

Indirect Discourse (ID) and Record of Speech Act (RSA), cf. De Bakker (2007: 27). As the distinction between ID and RSA does not play a significant role in his treatment of oracles, I will simply refer to both of them as ‘indirect speech’.

14_{De Bakker (2007: 60).}

(14)

12

they were unable to discover where Orestes’ tomb was located, they sent another embassy to the god at Delphi to ask where Orestes was buried. When this embassy made its inquiry, the Pythia replies:

‘There is a place called Tegea; it lies in Arcadia’s plain, Where two winds blast by powerful force

Stroke is met here by counter-stroke, woe lies upon woe, The son of Agamemnon in this fertile earth lies.

You will be Tegea’s guardian when you have brought him home.’ (1.67.3-4) The passage above is part of a lengthy digression dealing with the rise of Sparta as the dominant Greek power. In the previous chapter the Spartans have just been bitterly defeated because of their failure to interpret yet another oracle. This time, however, the Spartans will come out victorious, as Herodotus has already informed his narratees in a narratorial prolepsis (ἤδη οἱ Σπαρτιῆται κατυπέρτεροι τῷ πολέμῳ ἐγεγόνεσαν, τρόπῳ τοιῷδε γενόμενοι, 1.67.1). Solving the mystery of the burial place of Orestes has to provide the key for this crucial development. Thus, the main narrative function of the first oracle of our example is to pave the way for the second. Therefore, its content is only summarized in indirect speech without providing details or possible ambiguities. The second oracle, by contrast, is presented in direct speech, highlighting its highly enigmatic content. In doing so, Herodotus not only creates suspense about its possible solution, but also provides information essential for the ensuing narrative in which the Spartan Lichas eventually succeeds in decoding the oracle and recovering the bones of Orestes.

The narrative considerations underlying Herodotus’ choice of speech modes in the

presentation of oracles are not always as obvious as in the story of the bones of Orestes. In particular, they pose a problem when Herodotus departs from his normal procedure by presenting enigmatic or ambiguous oracles in indirect speech.16 In some of these cases, the choice of speech mode seems to be related to the point of time in the narrative at which the oracle is presented.

Λέγεται δὲ λόγος ὡς ᾿Αθηναῖοι τὸν Βορῆν ἐκ θεοπροπίου ἐπεκαλέσαντο, ἐλθόντος σφι ἄλλου χρηστηρίου τὸν γαμβρὸν ἐπίκουρον καλέσασθαι. Βορῆς δὲ κατὰ τὸν ῾Ελλήνων

(15)

13 λόγον ἔχει γυναῖκα ᾿Αττικήν, ᾿Ωρείθυιαν τὴν ᾿Ερεχθέος. Κατὰ δὴ τὸ κῆδος τοῦτο οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, ὡς φάτις ὅρμηται, συμβαλλόμενοι σφίσι τὸν Βορῆν γαμβρὸν εἶναι, ναυλοχέοντες τῆς Εὐβοίης ἐν Χαλκίδι ὡς ἔμαθον αὐξόμενον τὸν χειμῶνα ἢ καὶ πρὸ τούτου, ἐθυοντό τε καὶ ἐπεκαλέοντο τόν τε Βορῆν καὶ τὴν ᾿Ωρείθυιαν τιμωρῆσαι σφίσυ καὶ διαφθεῖραι τῶν βαρβάρων τὰς νέας (…)

The story goes that the Athenians had summoned Boreas, the north wind, on the advice of an oracle and that another oracle they received had told them they should call on their son-in-law as their ally. According to the story of the Hellenes, Boreas had a wife from Attica, Oreithyia, the daughter of Erechtheus. On the basis of this connection by marriage, as the story goes, the Athenians concluded that Boreas was their son-in-law. When they learned that a storm was rising, while their fleet was being stationed at Chalcis in Euboea, or perhaps earlier, they sacrificed and summoned Boreas and Oreithyia to aid them and destroy the ships of the Persians. (7.189.1-2)

In this example, Herodotus refers to two oracles issued at a time prior to the main story (analeptic presentation). Moreover, the oracles are presented after they have been fulfilled, which is exceptional in the Histories. Because the narratees have already been informed of the effects that the oracles may have had on the course of events (that is, the occurrence of a storm destroying part of the enemy fleet) no expectations are raised, and the oracles merely serve as an explanation after the fact. This may be the reason why Herodotus has refrained from presenting the oracles in direct speech, but only mentions the enigmatic use of the expression ‘son-in-law’ (meaning ‘the northern wind’) because of its interesting etiology.17 Another example of presentation in indirect speech is the oracle delivered on the rule of Gyges:

᾿Ανεῖλε τε δὴ τὸ χρηστήριον καὶ ἐβασίλευσε οὕτω Γύγης. Τοσόνδε μέντοι εἶπε ἡ Πυθιή, ὡς ῾Ηρακλείδῃσι τίσις ἥξει ἐς τὸν πέμπτον ἀπόγονον Γύγεω. Τούτου τοῦ ἔπεος Λυδοί τε καὶ οἱ βασιλέες αὐτῶν λόγον οὐδένα ἐποιεῦντο, πρὶν δὴ ἐπετελέσθη.

(16)

14

And the oracle answered and Gyges thus became king. This much the Pythia said, however, that revenge on behalf of the Heraclids would occur in the fourth generation after Gyges. The Lydians and their kings did not pay any attention to this statement until it was fulfilled. (1.13.2)

In this case, the oracle is presented chronologically, at the moment of its occurrence within the main story. Its content is proleptic, foreshadowing the end of the dynasty of the Mermnads that will occur much later in the narrative, when Croesus is defeated by the Persians. This has led De Jong to conclude that ‘the narratees thus know from the beginning that he [Croesus] is doomed’.18 To my opinion, this is not so obvious. Rather, I think that Herodotus has opted to present the oracle loosely in indirect speech in order not to draw too much attention to its content. In the ensuing narrative, the oracle is not referred to for over seventy chapters, before it is evaluated at the end of the Croesus logos in a speech by the Pythia (1.91). By this time, most of the Herodotean narratees are likely to have forgotten it, just as the Lydians did. Thus, Herodotus draws his audience into reproducing the same mistake as his characters.19 The Gyges oracle, from its initial presentation up to its evaluation after fulfilment, encircles the story of the Mermnads.

As we have seen in the previous examples, different considerations may influence the choice of speech mode of individual oracles. A more general rule can be derived from the fact that oracles in direct speech are absent in the second book of the Histories, which is dedicated to Egypt. Oracles deriving from Egyptian shrines, such as Bouto and Thebes, are never

presented in direct speech. Most likely, this has to do with the fact that these oracles originally must have been issued in the Egyptian language. Presenting them in Greek hexameters would therefore not have been credible. In general, Herodotus shows great consciousness of the language in which oracles are issued. There is one instance were a Greek oracle unexpectedly delivers a speech in a foreign language, something which Herodotus considers a ‘great miracle’ (θῶμά μέγιστον).20

18

De Jong (2014: 173) refers in a footnote to Stahl (1975: 4): ‘we see his [Croesus’] success against the background of his expected doom […]’.

19_{On this kind of interaction between the Herodotean narrator and his audience, cf. Pelling (1997: 173).} 20

Cf. 8.135.1. This happens after the oracle is consulted by an emissary of the Persian commander Mardonius and a delegation of Thebans. The Thebans, as Greeks, do not understand the oracle, but the oracle is understood by the emissary, who comes from western Anatolia and speaks the Carian language. Interestingly, Herodotus claims not to know the content of this oracle (8.136).

(17)

15

We have now discussed the two main types of presentation of oracles: in direct speech and metrical form (1) and in indirect speech and prose (2). A third type of presentation discussed by De Bakker is that in direct speech and prose. This type of presentation is only found in three oracles in the Histories.21 One of them is the speech delivered by the Pythia in reply to Croesus’ accusations of ingratitude after his defeat (1.91.1-6). This speech is not an oracle in the ordinary sense, but rather a lecture, educating Croesus on his failure to understand previous oracles. The Pythia distinguishes between herself and Apollo, who is referred to as Λοξίας22 instead of ὁ θεὸς, which is normally used by Herodotus when referring to the god. A reference to Apollo as Λοξίας is also found in another oracle presented in direct speech and prose. This oracle is issued on request of Arcesilaus III, the exiled king of Cyrene, when he is staging a military come-back:

ἡ δὲ Πυθίη οἱ χρᾷ τάδε· ᾿Επὶ μὲν τέσσερας Βάττους καὶ ᾿Αρκεσίλεως τέσσερας, ὀκτὼ ἀνδρῶν γενεάς, διδοῖ ὑμῖν Λοξίης βασιλεύειν Κυρήνης· πλέον μέντοι τούτου οὐδὲ πειρᾶσθαι παραινέει. Σὺ μέντοι ἥσυχος εἶναι κατελθὼν ἐς τὴν σεωυτοῦ. ῍Ην δὲ τὴν κάμινον εὕρῃς πλέην ἀμφορέων, μὴ ἐξοπτήσῃς τοὺς ἀμφορέας ἀλλ᾿ ἀπόπεμπε κατ᾿ οὖρον· εἰ δὲ ἐξοπτήσεις τὴν κάμινον, μὴ ἐσέλθῃς ἐς τὴν ἀμφίρρυτον· εἰ δὲ μή, ἀποθανέαι καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ ταῦρος ὁ καλλιστεύων. Ταῦτα ἡ Πυθίη ᾿Αρκεσίλεῳ χρᾷ. The Pythia prophesized the following things: ‘To four kings named Battus and four named Arcesilaus - for eight generations of men, does Loxias grants the kingship of Cyrene. His advice is not to attempt to go beyond that. As for you, return to your own land in peace, and if you find a kiln full of amphoras, do not fire them, but send them away with a fair wind. If you fire them, do not enter the place surrounded by water. If you do, both you and the prize bull will die.’ That was the response given to

Arcesilaus by the Pythia. (4.163.2-3)

Does the form of presentation of this oracle also suggest that the words come from the Pythia, instead of from the god? I find it hard to give an unequivocal response to this question. In fact, the oracle consists of two parts, each of them using a different kind of language. In the first part (up to πειρᾶσθαι παραινέει) the Pythia uses straightforward language, and refers to

21_{1.91, 4.163 and 7.169. For a discussion of 7.169 I refer to De Bakker (2007: 61-2).}

(18)

16

Apollo in the third person, calling him Λοξίης and using the third person verbs διδοῖ and παραινέει. Here, the Pythia seems to render the message of Apollo in her own words.

However, after these first lines the language changes. Arcesilaus is now addressed directly by the second-person pronoun σὺ and the imperative forms μὴ ἐξοπτήσῃς and μὴ ἐσέλθῃς. More importantly, the speech gets highly enigmatic and even reveals some traces of hexameter, as in ἀλλ᾿ ἀπόπεμπε κατ᾿ οὖρον. Clearly, Herodotus wants to suggest divine speech.

The contrast between both parts of the oracle is also reflected in their content. The first part of oracle is an external prolepsis, foreshadowing the end of the dynasty of Battus, an event that took place during Herodotus’ lifetime.23 The Histories do not contain any reference to Arcesilaus’ son and grandson who ruled Cyrene after him. Therefore, the content of this part of the oracle does not seem to have much relevance to the narrative, but refers to events that may have been known to Herodotus’ narratees. The second part of the oracle addresses Arcesilaus’ request for advise on his return to Cyrene. This part is an internal prolepsis, creating suspense and foreshadowing the death of Arcesilaus and his father-in-law Alazeir, that are recounted in the following chapter of the Histories. From a narratological point of view, each part of the oracle provides information on a different level, which may provide an explanation for its unusual form of presentation, combining direct speech, enigmatic language and prose.

23

Arcesilaus’ grandson (Arcesilaus IV), the last ruler of the dynasty, ruled from 462 until his assassination in 440 B.C., cf. Segal (1986: 13) and Calame (1996: 59). The main story of the Histories comprises the period from 560 to 478 BC.

(19)

17 3. Oracles and Time

As a narratological concept, the element of time deals with the temporal relationship between the narrative and the events recounted. In the previous sections, we have already seen that oracles are often used to foreshadow events to be recounted at a later point in the narrative. We have also seen that oracles may refer to events that have already been recounted in order to provide an explanation for their occurrence or to support the authority of the narrator. In this chapter, we will attempt a more systematic investigation into the element of time by taking a closer look at the presentation of oracles within the temporal structure of the narrated events.

The oracles in the Histories are presented either chronologically or within an analepsis. In the case of a chronological presentation, the issuing of the oracle is mentioned at the moment of its occurrence within the events of the main story. In the case of analeptic presentation, Herodotus refers to oracles that were issued at a point in time prior to these events.

The effect of a chronological or an analeptic presentation can only be appreciated when taking into consideration the narrative surrounding the oracle. More specifically, there are two aspects that are crucial to our understanding: (1) the temporal structure of the narrated events and (2) the function of the oracle in relation to these events. When considering the temporal structure of the narrated events, we are confronted with the complicated, sometimes

seemingly chaotic way in which Herodotus presents his subject matter. Instead of following the chronological order of events, the narrative of the Histories frequently jumps forth and back in time creating, in the words of Gould, ‘a landscape bewildering criss-crossed and looped by stories without discernible paths or sense of structured connection’.24 This problem has, of course, since long attracted the attention of various scholars, who have, with some success, attempted to discern some structural principles underlying the work as a whole.25 However, a study that systematically deals with the subject of time on a textual level yet remains to be written. By discussing the presentation of oracles in relation to the temporal structure of the narrative, one of my goals is to show how Herodotus employs anachronies in a way that effectively serves his narrative purposes.

24_{Gould (1989: 42).}

(20)

18

We will start this discussion by taking a closer look at two oracles connected with the rule of Psammetichus. ᾿Ελευθερωθέντες Αἰγύπτιοι μετὰ τὸν ἱρέα τοῦ ῾Ηφαίστου βασιλεύσαντα (οὐδένα γὰρ χρόνον οἷοί τε ἦσαν ἄνευ βασιλέος διαιτᾶσθαι) ἐστήσαντο δυώδεκα βασιλέας, δυώδεκα μοίρας δασάμενοι Αἴγυπτον πᾶσαν. Οὗτοι ἐπιγαμίας ποιησάμενοι ἐβασίλευον νόμοισι τοισίδε χρεώμενοι, μήτε καταιρέειν ἀλλήλους μήτε πλέον τι δίζησθαι ἔχειν τὸν ἕτερον τοῦ ἑτέρου, εἶναι τε φίλους τὰ μάλιστα. Τῶνδε δὲ εἴνεκα τοὺς νόμους τούτους ἐποιέοντο, ἰσχυρῶς περιστέλλοντες· ἐκέχρητό σφι κατ᾿ ἀρχὰς αὐτίκα ἐνισταμένοισι ἐς τὰς τυραννίδας τὸν χαλκέῃ φιάλῃ σπείσαντα αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ ἱρῷ τοῦ ῾Ηφαίστου, τοῦτον ἁπάσης βασιλεύσειν Αἰγύπτου·

After the reign of the priest of Hephaestus, the Egyptians, who found themselves without a master, established twelve separate kingships, divided into twelve separate parts, because at no point in the past had they been able to live without a king. When the kings had arranged marriages between them, they ruled in accordance with the following laws: none of them should attempt the overthrow of any of their peers, nor should he strive to obtain more than the other, but instead maintain the friendliest of relations. This arrangement was first negotiated, and then rigorously enforced because of the following: an oracle had declared to them, delivered the moment they were appointed to their kingships, that the one who would pour a libation from a bronze bowl in the temple of Hephaestus would become the king over all Egypt. (2.147.2-4) The passage above is part of Herodotus’ logos on Egypt, which follows a broadly linear pattern set by the succession of the Egyptian kings. The oracle, as indicated by the use of the pluperfect ἐκέχρητό, is presented as an analepsis because it was issued when the rule of the twelve kings was established, an event mentioned a few lines earlier.26 Herodotus

explicitly mentions the oracle as the reason for the arrangements made between the kings, but the main narrative purpose of the oracle is to set the stage for the coming events that will lead to the rise of Psammetichus to power. The presentation of the oracle at the beginning of the story of the rule of the twelve kings, creates suspense as to how it will end.

(21)

19

The mention of the oracle of the bronze bowl at the end of chapter 2.147 also allows

Herodotus to pick up the story four chapters later (2.151), when the kings have assembled to pour out libations in the temple of Hephaestus. By devoting the intermediate chapters (2.148-50) to a lengthy description of the monuments erected during the reign of the twelve kings, Herodotus creates a pause in the narrative, thus delaying the fulfillment of the oracle. The meeting in the temple is enlivened by scenic narrative and embedded focalization. It appears that the high priest has provided the twelve kings with only eleven golden bowls:

᾿Ενθαῦτα ὡς οὐκ εἶχε φιάλην ὁ ἔσχατος ἑστεὼς αὐτῶν Ψαμμήτιχος, περιελόμενος τὴν κυνέην ἐοῦσαν χαλκέην ὑπέσχε τε καὶ ἔσπενδε. Κυνέας δὲ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ἅπαντες ἐφόρεον βασιλέες καὶ ἐτύγχανον τότε ἔχοντες. Ψαμμήτιχος μέν νυν οὐδενὶ δολερῷ νόῳ χρεώμενος ὑπέσχε τὴν κυνέην, οἱ δὲ φρενὶ λαβόντες τό τε ποιηθὲν ἐκ Ψαμμητίχου καὶ τὸ χρηστήριον ὅ τι ἐκέχρηστό σφι, τὸν χαλκέῃ σπείσαντα αὐτῶν φιάλῃ τοῦτον βασιλέα ἔσεσθαι μοῦνον Αἰγύπτου ἀναμνησθέντες τοῦ χρησμοῦ (…)

As a result, Psammetichus, last in line, found himself without a bowl. He therefore took off his bronze helmet, held it out and made a libation. All the kings carried identical helmets of bronze too, as was their custom. Although Psammetichus did this without any preconceived plan, what he had done did not escape his fellow kings’ notice; nor that which the oracle had foretold them, that whoever of them used a bronze cup for pouring out a libation would be sole king of Egypt. (2.151.2-3) The name of Psammetichus is, at this point of the narrative, mentioned for the first time in connection with the reign of the twelve kings. However, in previous parts of the Histories Psammetichus has already been recorded a number of times as the king of Egypt.27 Thus, for Herodotus’ narratees, all pieces now fall into place. It is interesting to notice that the analeptic repetition of the oracle is phrased slightly different than the initial version. Instead of the words τοῦτον ἁπάσης βασιλεύσειν Αἰγύπτου (‘he would become king of all of Egypt’) we now find τοῦτον βασιλέα ἔσεσθαι μοῦνον Αἰγυπτου (‘he would be the sole king of Egypt’). The difference reflects the shift in focalization from the narrator to Psammetichus’ fellow kings, whose primary concern lies with their possible exclusion from power.28 The

27

For example in 2.2.1, 2.28.4 and 2.30.2.

28_{At the end of the story, the narrator confirms the oracle’s fulfilment using the words κρατήσας δὲ Αἰγύπτου}

(22)

20

presentation of the oracle as an actorial analepsis follows a pattern more often encountered in the Histories. When crucial developments of the narrative are about to take place, Herodotus’ characters often tend to remember a previous oracle related to these events.29 This serves to mark these events as divinely preordained, adding force to the narrative by creating a sense of destiny.

Having rightly identified Psammetichus’ bronze helmet as the bronze bowl mentioned in the oracle, the Egyptian kings hope to prevent the fulfillment of the oracle by exiling

Psammetichus to the marshes of the Nile delta. In doing so, they make a fatal mistake, as Herodotean oracles cannot be prevented from being fulfilled. On the contrary, any attempt to do so is likely to be instrumental in achieving the opposite. This is also the case with

Psammatichus, who did not use his helmet in the temple with foreknowledge (ἐξ οὐδεμιῆς προνοίης), but seeing himself unjustly punished now wishes to take revenge on the other kings. As the story approaches its conclusion, the pace of the narrative is accelerated and the ensuing events are presented in close chronological succession. Psammetichus consults the oracle in Bouto who replies that ‘revenge will come from the sea, when bronze men appear’ (ὡς τίσις ἥξει ἀπὸ θαλάσσης χαλκέων ἀνδρῶν ἐπιφανέντων, 2.152.4). Not long afterwards, Psammetichus receives a message that bronze men have indeed landed in Egypt in the form of Ionian and Carian freebooters wearing bronze armour. Realizing that the oracle is about to be fulfilled, Psammetichus manages to secure their support and overthrows the other kings. It is interesting to note that the ‘bronze bowl’ of the first oracle has a follow-up in the ‘bronze men’ in the second, thus connecting beginning and end of the story. Also remarkable is Herodotus’ management of narrative speed, accelerating towards the end of the story, where Psammetichus’ take-over of power is actually summarized in a single sentence. The meeting in the temple, by contrast, is emphasized through scenic presentation, taking up a whole chapter. It is there, Herodotus suggests, that the fate of the kings was sealed, at the moment the meaning of the oracle revealed itself. The function of the second oracle goes beyond the story of Psammetichus, as the ‘bronze men’ who served as Psammetichus’ allies became the first Greeks to settle in Egypt. This enables Herodotus to make a link between the rise of Psammatichus and his own activities as a historian, for it is thanks to the Greek settlers ‘that we Greeks have such reliable information about events in Egypt from the time of king

(23)

21

Psammetichus onwards’ (οἱ ῝Ελληνες οὕτω ἐπεμισγόμενοι τούτοισι τὰ περὶ Αἴγυπτον

γινόμενα ἀπὸ Ψαμμητίχου βασιλέος ἀρξάμενοι πάντα καὶ τὰ ὕστερον ἐπιστάμεθα ἀτρεκέως, 2.154.4).

I have discussed the story of Psammetichus as an example of a specific kind of ‘oracle story’ that often occurs in the Histories in relation to a change of power, military conquest or colonization. Although the structure of none of these stories is identical, there are some striking similarities in the elements they contain. As we have seen in the example of

Psammetichus, the story usually has an oracle at its very beginning. The oracle introduces the theme of the story and hints in an enigmatic way at how it will end. As the story unfolds, some crucial event takes place by which the characters are ‘reminded’ of the oracle and a part of its significance becomes clear. This moment of discovery, often presented as a scene, may involve a repeating analepsis when the oracle is recalled by the characters. The inclusion of a second oracle is also an element that is often encountered in these oracle stories, although the point of time at which it is presented may vary according to its function. In the case of

Psammetichus, the second oracle mainly serves to provide the plot with its final turn, leading to the fulfilment of the initial oracle. A second oracle may also be included as ‘additional evidence’ or to give the characters ‘a second chance’.30 At the end of the story, the oracles are always fulfilled, but the fate of the characters largely depends on how they have responded to them.

When we look for narrative patterns followed by Herodotus in relation to oracles, there is, apart from the kind of oracle stories we have just discussed, another type of story that stands out because of its distinctive features as well as its frequent occurrence. This type of story combines an oracle with a divine curse or portent that has usually been provoked by some action of the characters. The story of the Cnidians (1.174) provides a typical example of this kind of narrative. These inhabitants of a peninsula on the Ionian coast were so alarmed by the advance of the Persian army in Asia Minor that they decided to dig a canal through the isthmus connecting Cnidos to the mainland, with the intention to turn it into an island.

Καὶ δὴ πολλῇ χειρὶ ἐργαζομένων τῶν Κνιδίων, μᾶλλον γάρ τι καὶ θειότερον ἐφαίνοντο τιτρώσκεσθαι οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τοῦ οἰκότος τά τε ἄλλα τοῦ σώματος καὶ μάλιστα τὰ

30_{The reign of Cypselus is foreshadowed by two, mutually supportive oracles (5.92). Croesus receives two}

(24)

22 περὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς θραυομένης τῆς πέτρης, ἔπεμπον ἐς Δελφοὺς θεοπρόπους ἐπειρησομένους τὸ ἀντίξοον.῾Η δὲ Πυθίη σφι, ὡς αὐτοὶ Κνίδιοι λέγουσι, χρᾷ ἐν τριμέτρῳ τόνῳ τάδε· ᾿Ισθμὸν δὲ μὴ πυργοῦτε μηδ᾿ ὀρύσσετε· Ζεὺς γάρ κ᾿ἔθηκε νῆσον, εἴ κ᾿ ἐβούλετο. Κνίδιοι μὲν ταῦτα τῆς Πυθίης χρησάσης τοῦ τε ὀρύγματος ἐπαύσαντο καὶ ῾Αρπάγῳ ἐπιόντι σὺν τῷ στρατῷ ἀμαχητὶ σφέας αὐτοὺς παρέδοσαν.

But as a huge workforce of the Cnidians were setting about this task, it was because the workers seemed to suffer more injuries and in a more divine way than was natural, on their bodies and especially in their eyes because the splintering of the rock, that they send messengers to Delphi to ask what force they were up against. The Pythia’s response, so the Cnidians themselves claim, gave them the following reply to in iambic trimeters:

‘Do not wall of the isthmus, nor dig through it;

Had Zeus wished it to be an island, he would have made it so.’

After the Pythia had responded in this way the Cnidians halted the excavations and surrendered without a fight to Harpagus when he approached with his army. (1.174.4-6)

By digging a canal, the Cnidians have, unwittingly, angered the gods and are therefore beset by misfortune. The moral point that Herodotus wants to make is that the boundaries of nature should be respected.31 Kindt (2006: 48) notes that the infliction of the eyes of the Cnidians is a striking expression of the fact that they ‘lost sight of their natural place in the world by acting like gods’. A similar offence against nature is committed by the Egyptian king Pheros (2.111.2) who, out of anger over a flooding of unprecedented height, hurls a javelin into the Nile.32 He is promptly afflicted by blindness and regains his sight only ten years later, after an oracle has told him to wash his eyes with the urine of a woman who has slept with her

husband only. The narrative of these kind of stories follows a standard pattern of chronologically presented events in which a sinful act is swiftly followed by a divine

punishment that leads the afflicted characters to consult the oracle. The oracle replies with a

31

The bridging of the Hellespont (7.34-5) is perhaps the most notable example of this recurrent theme. As soon as this work is completed, a sudden storm destroys it again. Other examples are Necos’ failed project to dig a canal to the Red Sea (2.158), as well as the canal dug by Xerxes through the isthmus of Athos (7.22-4).

(25)

23

command that is not too enigmatic as to prevent its recipients from obeying it and, in doing so, repair the damage. An interesting case is the refusal of the Pythia to grant an audience to emissaries of the Lydian king Alyattes asking for a diagnosis of the king’s illness (1.19). She warns that she will not receive them before the temple of Athena, burned down accidently by Alyattes, has been rebuild. After fulfilling this task (and even building two temples instead of just one) Alyattes is restored to good health (1.22.4). So in retrospect, the Pythia did deliver a kind of oracle, Herodotus suggests.

Oracles issued in response to misfortunes often contain specific religious commands, as in the case of the Agyllaeans who are punished with a mysterious disease after killing a number of Phocaean captives.

Οἱ δὲ ᾿Αγυλλαῖοι ἐς Δελφοὺς ἔπεμπον, βουλόμενοι ἀκέσασθαι τὴν ἁμαρτάδα. ἡ δὲ Πυθίη σφέας ἐκέλευσε ποιέειν τὰ καὶ νῦν οἱ ᾿Αγυλλαῖοι ἔτι ἐπιτελέουσι· Καὶ γὰρ ἐναγίζουσί σφι μεγάλως καὶ ἀγῶνα γυμνικὸν καὶ ἱππικὸν ἐπιστᾶσι.

The Agyllaeans, desperate to expiate their offence, sent an embassy to Delphi. The Pythia ordered them to do things which they still do to this day. They make great sacrifices to the Phocaeans and stage athletic contests and chariot races. (1.167.2) The story of the Agyllaeans, apart from making a moral point, serves to establish a link between the historical narrative and Herodotus’ present time, providing an explanation for religious practices he has encountered in his research.33

The Histories contains many examples of oracles presented as an analepsis. Herodotus may resort to this kind of anachrony for different purposes. As we have already discussed, his characters may ‘remember’ an oracle, that was mentioned at some earlier point in the

narrative by the narrator, thus highlighting a crucial event or making the pieces fall into place. Herodotus may also refer to oracles in an analepsis providing an explanation for events. For

33

A similar story is presented in connection with the Amathousians who consulted the oracle in reaction to an event they interpreted as an omen: the head of Onesilus, king of Salamis, which they had hung over the city gates, was infested by a swarm of bees, filling it with honeycombs. The oracle advised them to offer yearly sacrifices in honour of Onesilus. ‘This the Amathousians did, and have done up to my time’ (᾿Αμαθούσιοι μέν νυν ἐποίευν ταῦτα καὶ τὸ μέχρι ἐμεῦ, 5.115.1). The origins of religious monuments, such as temples and statues are sometimes explained is a similar manner, as in the case of the altar for Apollo erected by the Metapontines (4.15) and the statues of Damia and Auxesia erected by the Epidaurians (5.82).

(26)

24

instance, having recounted the capture of Miletus by the Persians, Herodotus brings up an oracle that had been given to the Argives, but of which the second part relates to the fate that was to befall the Milesians:

Καὶ τότε δή, Μίλητε, κακῶν ἐπιμήχανε ἔργων, πολλοῖσιν δεῖπνόν τε καὶ ἀγλαὰ γενήσῃ, σαὶ δ᾿ ἄλοχοι πολλοῖσι πόδας νίχουσι κομήταις, νηοῦ δ᾿ ἡμετέρου Διδύμοις ἄλλοισι μελήσει. Τότε δὴ ταῦτα τοὺς Μιλησίους κατελάμβανε, ὅτε γε ἄνδρες μὲν οἱ πλεῦνες ἐκτείνοντο ὑπο τῶν Περσέων ἐόντων κομητέων, γυναῖκες δὲ καὶ τέκνα ἐν ἀνδραπόδων λόγῳ ἐγίνοντο, ἱρὸν δὲ τὸ ἐν Διδύμοισι, ὁ νηός τε καὶ τὶ χρηστήριον, συληθέντα ἐνεπίμπρατο.

Miletus, you deviser of evil deeds, the moment comes That you will be a splendid prize and a feast to many,

Your wives will wash the feet of a great host of long-haired men And others will have the tending of my temple at Didyma.

And now was the moment these things befell the Milesians, when most of the men were slaughtered by the Persians, who have long hair; their women and children were reduced to slavery; and the sanctuary at Didyma - temple and oracular shrine alike – was plundered and put to the torch. (6.19.2-3)

The ‘evil deeds’ mentioned in the oracle clearly refer to the Ionian revolt that is condemned by Herodotus as a disaster for the Ionians and, in the longer run, for all the Greeks, because the Athenian naval support of the Ionians gave the Persians an excuse for invading Greece.34 The punishment, that Herodotus must have felt Miletus deserved, is traced back to an oracle showing that the Milesians brought their misfortune upon themselves.

In a similar fashion, Herodotus comments on the fate of the Euboeans whose flocks are slaughtered by order of Themistocles during the Battle of Artemisia:

34_{Cf. 5.28.1: ἤρχετο ἐκ τὸ δεύτερον ἐκ Νάξου τε καί Μιλήτου ῎Ιωσι γίνεσθαι κακά (‘for the second time}

calamities befell the Ionians because of Naxos and Miletus’), 5.30.1: τότε δὲ ἐκ τουτέων τῶν πολίων ὧδε ἤρχετο κακὰ γίνεσθαι τῇ ᾿Ιωνίῃ (‘from these cities calamities befell the Ionians in the following way’) and 5.97.3: αὗται δε αἱ νέες ἀρχὴ κακῶν ἐγένοντο ῎Ελλησί τε καὶ βαρβάροισι (‘these ships were the beginning of calamities between Greeks and barbarians’).

(27)

25 Οἱ γὰρ Εὐβοέες παραχρησάμενοι τὸν Βάκιδος χρησμὸν ὡς οὐδὲν λέγοντα, οὔτε τι ἐξεκομίσαντο οὐδὲν οὔτε προεσάξαντο ὡς παρεσομένου σφι πολέμου, περιπετέα τε ἐποιήσαντο σφίσι αὐτοῖσι τὰ πρήγματα. Βάκιδι γὰρ ὧδε ἔχει περὶ τούτων ὁ χρησμός· Φράζεο, βαρβαρόφωνος ὄταν ξυγὸν εἰς ἅλα βαλλῃ βύβλινον, Εὐβοίης ἀπέχειν πολυμηκάδας αἶγας. Τούτοισι οὐδὲν τοῖσι ἔπεσι χρησαμένοισι ἐν τοῖσι τότε παρεοῦσί τε καὶ προσδοκίμοισι κακοῖσι παρῆν σφι συμφορῇ χρᾶσθαι πρὸς τὰ μέγιστα.

Now the Euboeans, who had dismissed an oracle given to them by Bacis as speaking nonsense, had not made any preparations nor gathered supplies considering that war was on their doorstep. They then brought doom upon themselves. The oracle had run as follows:

‘When a man speaking a barbarian tongue throws a yoke

of papyrus over the sea, make sure to move your loud-bleating goats away from Euboea.’

Since the Euboeans neither put these verses to good use in the circumstances at that time, neither in face of future evils, they could only make the most of their present misfortune. (8.20)

The ‘yoke of papyrus’ mentioned in the oracle refers to the bridges the Egyptians helped building over the Hellespont in order to allow Xerxes’ army to cross it (7.34). The Euboeans, Herodotus argues, are paying the price for neglecting an oracle that had warned them of the coming events. By blaming the Euboeans for their own misfortunes, Herodotus seems to exculpate Themistocles, who could be accused of having greatly wronged the Euboeans by first collecting a bribe from them (8.4) and then having their livestock slaughtered.

In the previous two examples, the oracles are presented as an analepsis after they have been fulfilled. Thus, the oracle provides an explanation for events that have already been

recounted. Herodotus also brings up oracles of the past in connection to important events that are about to take place. This type of oracle presentation may serve to provide a motive for the characters’ actions. An example is Leonidas’ decision to make a last stand against the

(28)

26

Persians at Thermopylae.35 When the Greeks receive the news that their force has been outflanked by the Persians, they face the choice of either retreating or fighting a lost battle. Herodotus gives two versions of the events that follow: according to the first version (7.119), the Greeks fail to reach a decision and those in favor of withdrawal make a disorderly retreat, leaving Leonidas and his men to fend for themselves. According to the other version (7.220), it is Leonidas who decides to dismiss his allies but for himself to remain on his post with a small force of Spartans, Thespians and Thebans. This version Herodotus considers to be the most plausible (ταύτῃ καὶ μᾶλλον τὴν γνώμην πλεῖστός εἰμι), and he delivers the following argument for his preference:

᾿Εκέχρηστο γὰρ ὑπὸ τῆς Πυθίης τοῖσι Σπαρτιήτῃσι χρεωμένοισι περὶ τοῦ πολέμου τούτου αὐτικα κατ᾿ ἀρχὰς ἐγειρομένου, ἢ Λακεδαίμονα ἀνάστατον γενέσθαι ὐπὸ τῶν βαρβάρων ἢ τὸν βασιλέα σφέων ἀπολέσθαι. Ταῦτα δέ σφι ἐν ἔπεσι ἑξαμέτροισι χρᾷ ἔχοντα ὧδε· ῾Υμιν δ᾿, ὦ Σπάρτης οἰκήτορες εὐχόροιο, ἢ μέγα ἄστυ ἐρικυδὲς ὑπ᾿ ἀνδράσι Περσεΐδῃσι πέρθεται, ἢ τὸ μὲν οὐχί ἀφ᾿ ῾Ηρακλέους δὲ γενέθλης πενθήσει βασιλῆ φθίμενον Λακεδαίμονος οὖρος. Οὐ γὰρ τὸν ταύρων σχήσει μένος οὐδὲ λεόντων ἀντιβίην· Ζηνὸς γὰρ ἔχει μένος· οὐδέ ἕ φημι σχήσεσθαι, πρὶν τῶνδ᾿ ἔτερον διὰ πάντα δάσηται. Ταῦτά τε δὴ ἐπιλεγόμενον Λεωνίδην καὶ βουλόμενον κλέος καταθέσθαι μούνων Σπαρτιητέων, ἀποπεμψαι τοὺς συμμάχους μᾶλλον ἢ γνώμῃ διενειχθέντας οὕτως ἀκόσμως οἴχεσθαι τοὺς οἰχομένους.

For at the very first tremors of war, the Spartans had immediately consulted the oracle; and the Pythia had told them that either Lacedaemon would be destroyed by the

Barbarians, or else their king would die. The oracle she gave them, in hexameters, ran as follows:

For you, inhabitants of broad-landed Sparta,

Either your great and glorious city must be wasted by Persian men,

Or if that does not happen, then the border of Lacedaemon will mourn a dead

35_{Herodotus’ presentation of the character of Leonidas has been thoroughly discussed by Baragwanath (2013:}

(29)

27

king, from Heracles’ line.

The might of bulls or lions will not restrain him with opposing strength; for he has the might of Zeus.

And he, I declare, will not be restrained until he utterly tears apart one of these.

Bearing this in mind, and desiring to store up glory for the Spartans alone, Leonidas dismissed the allies, rather than that those who left, retreated in disorderly fashion because they had conflicting opinions. (7.220.3-4)

What Herodotus suggests is that Leonidas, because of the oracle, must have been well aware that he would have to die in order to save Sparta. The presentation of the oracle at this point of the narrative, thus serves to highlight his heroic decision.36

A particularly striking example of Herodotus’ use of analeptic presentation of oracles as a tool for effective storytelling can be found at the end of the Croesus logos. Having recounted the fall of Sardis (1.84), Herodotus interrupts his story for a narratorial analepsis in which he reminds his narratees of Croesus’ deaf and mute son who, up till that point, has not played any role in the narrated events, but was mentioned as a seed in 1.34.3. In his prosperous past, Herodotus tells us, Croesus had asked the Pythia for advice on his son’s illness and received the following answer:

Λυδὲ γένος, πολλῶν βασιλεῦ, μέγα νήπιε Κροῖσε, Μὴ βούλευ πολύευκτον ἰὴν ἀνὰ δώματ᾿ ἀκούειν Παιδὸς φθεγγομένου. Τὸ δέ σοι πολὺ λώιον ἀμφὶς ἔμμεναι· αὐδήσει γὰρ ἐν ἤματι πρῶτον ἀνόλβῳ. ‘Lydian of race, king of many, big fool Croesus, Desire not to hear at home that much prayed-for sound,

Of your son’s voice. It is far better for you to stay away from that: For he shall speak for the first time on a day of disaster.’

(1.85.2)

36

Another example of a decision that Herodotus explains by means of an oracle presented as an analepsis is the refusal of the Argives to join the Greek alliance. As in the case of Leonidas, Herodotus presents different versions of the events, the oracle being part of the version advanced by the Argives (7.148).

(30)

28

The presentation of the oracle at this point in the narrative serves a number of purposes. First of all, it creates a pause during which the fate of Croesus is kept hanging in the air. Secondly, it involves the narratees in interpreting the oracle and brings to mind previous oracles of the story that were equally ominous for the Lydian king. Thirdly, by presenting information previously withheld, it provides a background for the events to come and makes the following scene gain considerable depth. In this scene, Croesus’ mute son, seeing that his father is about to be killed by a Persian soldier, all of a sudden starts speaking and manages to save Croesus’ life. Thus, the oracle is fulfilled, as is another oracle of which Herodotus reminds us in a narratorial analepsis a few lines later (1.86.1). This oracle, that was presented earlier in the narrative (1.53.3), predicted that Croesus would destroy a mighty empire, as he has by now indeed accomplished by destroying his own. The simultaneous fulfilment of the two oracles represent a double reversal of fate: Croesus, once a mighty king, is led away in captivity, while his son, until recently mute, is from now on able to speak fluently. Herodotus brings together the stories of both characters to highlight a theme he has previously elaborated in the famous speech delivered by Solon (1.32): the instability of human fate.

Before finishing this section, there is one more oracle that needs to be discussed with regard to the element of time. This oracle, which is also part of the Croesus logos, relates to the order of narrated events in a manner that stands out as quite unusual compared to the other oracles of the Histories. The oracle is issued at the moment when Croesus has just started to consider a possible war against the Persians, after they have taken over power from the Medes (1.47.1). In order to gain advise on this matter, Croesus decides to subject the great oracular institutions of his time to a test and find out which of them will prove to be trustworthy. In executing his plan he sends out envoys to the different shrines with instructions to ask the oracles on precisely the hundredth day after their departure what Croesus is doing at that very moment. The answers are to be put down in writing and reported back to the king (1.47.1). What Croesus’ plan exactly entails is not revealed at this point of the narrative. What follows instead is a scenic presentation of the envoys’ reception at Delphi, where the Pythia delivers the following oracle:

Οἶδα δ᾿ἐγὼ ψάμμου τε ἀριθμὸν καὶ μέτρα θαλάσσης, Καὶ κωφοῦ συνίημι καὶ οὐ φωνεῦντος ἀκούω.

ὀδμή μ᾿ ἐς φρένας ἦλθε κραταιρίνοιο χελώνης ἑψομένης ἐν χαλκῷ ἅμ᾿ ἁρνείοισι κρέεσσιν,

The Voice of the Pythia - A Narratological Analysis of the Oracles in Herodotus' Histories