The Voice of the Pythia ______

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: [email protected] Supervisor: I.J.F. De Jong Word Count: 23639

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

1. Narrator and focalization 4

2. Oracles and speech mode 11

3. Oracles and time 17

4. Reaction and fulfilment 31

Conclusion 51

Appendix I: Table of oracles and their presentation in the Histories 56

Appendix II: Vocabulary 59

Appendix III: Index of oracles 61

Bibliography 63

Introduction

A feature that is unlikely to escape the attention of any reader of Herodotus’ Histories, is the prominent place taken by oracles in this work. Not only do oracles appear with great frequency, but they are also presented at crucial points in the narrative, often at the beginning of stories or prior to the occurrence of important events. Moreover, Herodotus mentions oracles on many occasions when discussing causes and effects in history.

For more than half a century, the oracles in the Histories have been the subject of systematic research by classical scholars. Most of them adopted what De Bakker (2007: 2) calls a ‘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

1 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

1 Cf. Barthes (1966: 1).

2 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.

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. 3 On the characteristics of the Herodotean narrator, cf. De Jong (2013: 256-67).

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 conclusion.

5 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).

6 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. 11 Cf. De Jong (2013, 275). Duckworth’s remarks refer to the epic of Homer.

7 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 used to prove the hybris of the aggressor.

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.

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.

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). 15 On these oracles see also De Bakker (2007: 60-1).

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

16 As in 1.13, 1.53, 2.151, 2.152, 3.64, 5.1, 5.79, 7.178 and 9.33.

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.

17 Herodotus shows a marked interest in wordplay, etymology, metaphors and puns, cf. De Bakker (2007: 71).

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).

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). 22 This epithet is associated with λοξός (‘crooked’), because of the enigmatic character of Apollo’s speech.

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.

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). 25 For a discussion of the various suggestions made on this subject cf. De Jong (2013: 267-73).

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.

26 ἐκέχρητό is also found in 2.151.3, 3.64.4 and 7.220.3.

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 πάσης (2.153).

19 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

29 Cf. 2.139.3, 3.64.4, 5.1.3, 5.92β, 6.77.2.

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 oracles that should have prevented him from going to war against the Persians (1.53, 1.55).

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). 32 Cf. 7.35.1, where the Persians give the Hellespont three hundred lashes of the whip.

22 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).

23 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’).

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

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: 64-78).

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).

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,

ᾗ χαλκός μὲν ὐπέστρωται, χαλκὸν δ᾿ἐπίεσται.

I know the amount of sand and measures of the sea, I understand the dumb and I can hear the ones without speech. The scent of an armored tortoise has come to my sense Boiling in bronze together with lambs’ meat Bronze is underneath it and bronze covers it. (1.47.3)

When Croesus receives this oracle, he is pleasantly surprised and praises its accuracy. It is then that Herodotus, by means of an analepsis, informs his narratees of the preceding events: a hundred days after the dispatch of his envoys, Croesus devoted himself to an activity that would be impossible to guess by cooking a lamb and a tortoise together in a bronze cauldron. By choosing this order of presentation, Herodotus has left his narratees, for some time, wondering about the meaning of an oracle that, in the end, proves not to be as enigmatic as it seemed. The story provides a unique example of an oracle that is fulfilled simultaneously with its issuing. Moreover, although the oracle does not explicitly refer to the future, it does contain some elements that can be interpreted as foreshadowing later events of the Croesus logos. Several scholars have identified the second line of the oracle as anticipating the story of Croesus’ mute son that we have discussed before.37 According to Barker (2006: 13), ‘the oracle’s repeated description of the cauldron as bronze evokes the common Homeric epithet for weapons of war’.

For Kindt (2006), the story of Croesus’ oracle test provides ‘the key to our understanding of the Croesus logos’. Croesus has subverted the normal procedure of an oracle consultation by asking a question of which he already knows the answer and by challenging the oracle with ‘obscure doings’, where it should be the oracle who challenges the inquirer with ‘an obscure divine answer’. In doing so, Croesus has committed a ‘violation of the border between the human and divine spheres’, against which he is warned by Apollo in a ‘statement of authority’ in the first two lines of the oracle.38 Christ (1994), on the other hand, rightly points to the fact that Herodotus does not deliver any negative comment on Croesus’ investigations: ‘far from condemning Croesus for his test of the oracles, Herodotus emphasizes that he precipitates his

37 Cf. Kindt (2006: 36); Stein [1889] (1962: ad loc); Sebeok and Brady (1979: 11). By contrast, Asheri (2007: 110) prefers to read the Pythia’s opening words more as a general statement on her omniscience and rejects the suggested allusion to Croesus’ mute son. 38 Kindt (2006: 36-8).

29 downfall by failing to be equally rational in assessing Delphi’s ambiguous responses’. Moreover, when the Pythia delivers her final comment on Croesus’ mistakes (1.91), she does not mention his test of oracles, but rather his failure to comprehend other responses and to question the oracle again. Christ provides ample additional textual evidence to illustrate Herodotus’ tolerant attitude toward the rational scrutiny of oracles.39 It is therefore regrettable that Kindt, who does refer to Christ in a footnote40, has not made any attempt to refute his arguments.

39 Christ (1994: 189-93). 40 Kindt (2006: 44, note 51).

4. Reaction and fulfilment

In the previous sections, we have discussed different narratological elements involved in the presentation of oracles in the Histories. Thus, we have looked at the narrators presenting oracles, the focalization of oracles, the form in which they are presented as speeches and the moment at which they are presented within the temporal order of the events recounted. In the present section, we will focus on how oracles are reacted upon in the narrative following their presentation. In my discussion of this subject, I intend to use the word ‘reaction’ in its broadest sense, not restricted to the actions undertaken by the characters in response to an oracle, but including any statement referring to the oracle, either by the characters, or by the Herodotean narrator himself. Using this broad definition, we can say that every oracle mentioned in the Histories is, in some way, reacted upon. There is always some reference made to its meaning, purpose or effect. As we will see, the way in which a reaction is presented largely depends on the function of the oracle within the narrative.

The Histories contains many examples of oracles that are merely referred to as a kind of footnote providing an explanation for historical or ethnographical facts:

οἱ Φωκαιέες ἐστέλλοντο ἐς Κύρνον. ᾿Εν γὰρ τῇ Κύρνῳ εἴκοσι ἔτεσι πρότερον τούτων ἐκ θεοπροπίου ἀνεστήσαντο πόλιν, τῇ οὔνομα ἦν ᾿Αλαλίη. The Phocaeans set sail for Cyrnus, where twenty years earlier, following the advice of an oracle, they had established a city called Alalia. (1.165.1)

The city of Alalia is said to have been established in reaction to an oracle (ἐκ θεοπροπίου). The narratees are not informed of the origin of the oracle nor of its precise contents, but only of the effect it produced after it was reacted upon. In all but a few cases, reactions presented like this concern events occurring prior to the timeframe of the main story, thus involving an external narratorial analepsis. An exception to this rule is found in a narratorial comment concerning the cult of Artachaeës by the Acanthians, which is said to have been prompted by an oracle (ἐκ θεοπροπίου, 7.117.2). The oracle in reaction to which this cult was established must have been issued after the events of the main story, recounting Xerxes’ arrival at Acanthus. Thus, we are dealing with an external prolepsis, the main purpose of which is to provide an explanation for religious practices that existed in Herodotus’ time.

The reactions to oracles presented as an explanatory footnote strongly resemble those that follow oracles solicited in response to a curse or divine punishment. As we have discussed in the previous section, these oracles follow a specific narrative pattern in which the recipients, by complying with the oracle, manage to lift the curse laid upon them. In these stories, the interpretation of the oracle is usually not reflected upon, as the oracular command tends to be sufficiently non-enigmatic to be understood immediately. In fact, it is the oracle itself that often provides an explanation about the origins of the curse.41 Moreover, the oracles presented in these stories are always obeyed. This is not self-evident, as the Histories contains many oracles that are either disregarded or forgotten, even when properly understood. To my view, this reflects Herodotus’ general notion that humans are more likely to heed the gods when suffering adversities, than when enjoying good fortune. An obvious example of this kind of behavior are the reactions of the Therans to an oracle received by Grinnus, king of Thera:

Χρεωμένῳ δὲ τῷ Γρίννῳ τῷ βασιλέι τῶν Θηραίων περὶ ἄλλων χρᾷ ἡ Πυθίη κτίζειν ἐν Λιβύῃ πολιν. ῾Ο δὲ ἀμείβετο λέγων· ᾿Εγὼ μέν, ὦναξ, πρεσβύτερός τε ἤδη εἰμὶ καὶ βαρὺς ἀείρεσθαι· σὺ δέ τινα τῶνδε των νεωτέρων κέλευε ταῦτα ποιέειν. ῞Αμα τε ἔλεγε ταῦτα καὶ ἐδείκνυε ἐς τὸν Βάττον. Τότε μὲν τοσαῦτα, μετὰ δὲ ἀπελθόντες ἀλογίην εἶχον τοῦ χρηστηρίου, οὔτε Λιβύην εἰδότες ὅκου γῆς εἴη οὔτε τολμῶντες ἐς ἀφανὲς χρῆμα ἀποστέλλειν ἀποικίην. ῾Επτὰ δὲ ἐτέων μετὰ ταῦτα οὐκ ὗε τὴν Θήρην, ἐν τοῖσι τὰ δένδρεα πάντα σφι τὰ ἐν τῇ νησῳ πλὴν ἑνὸς ἐξαυάνθη. Χρεωμένοισι δὲ τοῖσι Θηραίοισι προέφερε ἡ Πυθίη τὴν ἐς Λιβύην ἀποικίην. ᾿Επείτε δὲ κακοῦ οὑδὲν ἦν σφι μῆχος, πέμπουσι ἐς Κρήτην ἀγγέλους διζημένους εἴ τις Κρητῶν ἢ μετοίκων ἀπιγμένος εἴη ἐς Λιβύην.

Although Grinnus, king of the Therans, had come to consult the Pythia about other matters, she instructed him to found a city in Libya. He replied, ‘My Lord, I am now too old and heavy to move. You better command one of these younger men to do those things’, and as he said this, he pointed to Battus. That was all that happened at the time, and after they had returned home they ignored the oracular response, for they had no idea where Libya was and would not dare to send a colonial expedition off into the unknown. But afterwards, it did not rain in Thera for seven years, in which all the trees on the island withered away except for one. When the Therans consulted the

41 As is the case with the oracle to the Cnidians discussed previously on p. 21-2.

oracle, the Pythia again urged them to colonize Libya. Since they obtained no solution to their problem, they send messengers to Crete to enquire if a Cretan or foreign resident might have gone to Libya. (4.150.3-151.2)

Since the Pythia gives an unattractive response to the Therans, the oracle is initially ignored. As a consequence, the story suggests, they are hit by a curse causing seven years of drought. The story then follows the general pattern described above: the Pythia is consulted again, but this time, the Therans comply to the oracle and, eventually, found the city of Cyrene. The presentation of Grinnus’ reaction to the first oracle has some features that are interesting from a narratological point of view, as it involves scenic presentation (Grinnus pointing to Battus) and the use of direct speech by the recipient, both of which seldom occur when immediate reactions to oracles are recounted. As De Bakker (2007: 39-41) has rightly observed, Herodotus’ use of scenic presentation and direct speech often serves to focus on a specific character. In this case, Herodotus draws attention to the unusual circumstance that Grinnus, as a king, personally attended the meeting with the Pythia, whereas the normal procedure for kings is to send emissaries. More importantly, his presence serves a significant narrative purpose, not so much because of his words, as because of his actions: by pointing to Battus, he brings this character, that has been mentioned for the first time only a view lines earlier, into the spotlight. The gesture of the king foreshadows Battus’ appointment as the leader of the expedition to Libya, where he is to become the first Greek king in Africa and the founder of the Battiad dynasty. Thus, the scene has symbolic content: the old king points at the future king.

Another remarkable feature of Grinnus’ reaction to the Pythia is his polite, but overt protest against the oracle. The Histories contains only a handful of other instances where oracles are openly challenged by their recipients: (1) Croesus lodges a complaint to the Pythia about two oracles, after their fulfillment led to his defeat against the Persians (1.90.4); (2) Aristodicus challenges an oracle about the surrender of Pactyes to the Persians (1.159); (3) Mycerinus complains about an oracle concerning his lifespan (2.133); (4) Battus protests against an oracle to found a colony in Libya (4.155.4); (5) the Athenians demand a better oracle after the Pythia predicts the destruction of their city (7.141.2).

Here, we will discuss the stories of Aristodicus and Mycerinus. The reactions of the Athenians (5) will be dealt with at the end of this section.

The Egyptian king Mycerinus receives an oracle foretelling that he has only six years left to live. In much distress, he sends back a message protesting that his predecessors, Cheops and Chephren, have lived much longer. During their rule, that lasted for a total of one hundred and six years, the temples had been shut down and the Egyptians suffered all kinds of oppression, whereas he has respected the gods and treated his subjects well. Mycerinus receives a second oracle informing him that his just behavior is the very reason he will have to die. He has not done what he was destined to do (οὐ γὰρ ποιῆσαί μιν τὸ χρεὸν ἦν ποιέειν, 2.133.3) as Egypt was fated to be afflicted (δεῖν γὰρ Αἴγυπτον κακοῦσθαι) for a hundred and fifty years, something which his predecessors understood (μαθεῖν τοῦτο). Mycerinus then reacts in the following manner:

Ταῦτα ἀκούσαντα τὸν Μυκερῖνον, ὡς κατακεκριμένων ἤδη οἱ τούτων, λύχνα ποιησάμενον πολλά, ὅκως γίνοιτο νύξ, ἀνάψαντα αὐτὰ πίνειν τε καὶ εὐπαθέειν, οὔτε ἡμέρης οὔτε νυκτὸς ἀνιέντα, ἔς τε τὰ ἕλεα καὶ τὰ ἄλσεα πλανώμενον καὶ ἵνα πυνθάνοιτο εἶναι ἐνηβητήρια ἐπιτηδεότατα. Ταῦτα δὲ ἐμηχανᾶτο θέλων τὸ μαντήιον ψευδόμενον ἀποδέξαι, ἵνα οἱ δυώδεκα ἔτεα ἀντὶ ἓξ ἐτέων γένηται, αἱ νύκτες ἡμέραι ποιεύμεναι.

When Mycerinus heard this, believing that his punishment was already decided, he had a huge amount of lamps made, and whenever it became night, he drank and had a good time, after he had kindled them. He relaxed neither at day or at night, traversing the marshes and woods and wherever he thought it to be a place of amusement. He had contrived this because he wanted to proof that the oracle was lying and in order that he would have twelve years instead of six, by turning the nights into days. (2.133.4)

Mycerinus’ reaction provides an interesting example of successful oracle management, highlighting the problematic relationship between human thinking and divinely ordained fate. Mycerinus both accepts and opposes the oracle. He realizes that its fulfilment cannot be prevented, but refuses to resign himself to his fate. His aim is to prove that the oracle is false (τὸ μαντήιον ψευδόμενον ἀποδέξαι) by making twelve years out of six. Being unable to

34 interfere with nature, which is the domain of the gods, he resorts to human tools (‘lamps’, λύχνα) and manages, in a limited fashion, to achieve his goal.42

The oracle received by Aristodicus concerns the fate of Pactyes, a Lydian who fled to the city of Cyme after a failed rebellion against the Persians. When envoys, sent by Cyrus, arrive in Cyme to demand his delivery, the Cymaeans consult the oracle of Didyma about the required course of action. The oracle tells them to deliver Pactyes to the Persians. While the majority of the Cymaeans are willing to heed this advice, they are prevented from doing so by Aristodicus, who suspects that the oracular messengers are lying (τοὺς θεοπρόπους οὐ λέγειν ἀληθέως, 1.158.2) and asks for a second embassy to be sent to Didyma, this time including himself. However, the oracle gives the same answer. Herodotus then comes up with the following scene:

Πρὸς ταῦτα ὁ ᾿Αριστόδικος ἐκ προνοίης ἐποίεε τὰδε· περιιὼν τὸν νηὸν κύκλῳ ἐξαίρεε τοὺς στρουθοὺς καὶ ἄλλα ὅσα ἦν νενοσευμένα ὀρνίθων γένεα ἐν τῷ νηῷ. Ποιέοντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ταῦτα λέγεται φωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ ἀδύτου γενέσθαι φέρουσαν μὲν πρὸς τὸν ᾿Αριστόδικον, λέγουσαν δὲ τάδε· ᾿Ανοσιώτατε ἀνθρώπων, τί τάδε τολμᾷς ποιέειν; τοὺς ἱκέτας μου ἐκ τοῦ νηοῦ κεραΐζεις; ᾿Αριστόδικον δὲ οὐκ ἀπορήσαντα πρὸς ταῦτα εἰπεῖν· ῏Ωναξ, αὐτὸς μὲν οὕτω τοῖσιν ἱκέτῃσι βοηθέεις, Κυμαίους δὲ κελεύεις τὸν ἱκέτην ἐκδιδόναι; τὸν δὲ αὖτις ἀμείψασθαι τοισίδε· Ναὶ κελεύω, ἵνα γε ἀσεβήσαντες θᾶσσον ἀπόλησθε, ὡς μὴ τὸ λοιπὸν περὶ ἱκετέων ἐκδόσιος ἔλθητε ἐπὶ τὸ χρηστήριον.

After this, Aristodicus deliberately acted as follows: he went around the temple and chased away all the sparrows along with all the other birds that were nesting in the temple. It is said that while he was doing this, a voice came out from the inner shrine calling to Aristodicus, and saying, ‘Most ungodly of men, how dare you do this? How dare you rob my temple of its suppliants?’ Without hesitation Aristodicus replied: ‘My Lord, do you come to the aid of your own suppliants, yet tell the Cymaeans to give up theirs?’ The god answered, ‘Indeed I give you these orders, so that you may perish all the sooner for your impiety, and never again come to consult the oracle on the surrender of suppliants.’ (1.159.3-4)

42 The Histories contains a number of cases where characters try to interfere with nature, some of which I have mentioned in the previous section (p. 22). These infringements on the sphere of the divine are usually either unsuccessful, or punished afterwards by the gods.

As the words ἐκ προνοίης suggest, Aristodicus had already taken into account the possibility that the messengers had been telling the truth. Considering all possibilities is one of the most important preconditions for successful oracle interpretation in the Histories, as we shall see in other oracles yet to be discussed. Apollo’s first speech is preceded by λέγεται referring to an unspecified source. Herodotus seems to have added this phrase as a kind of disclaimer, indicating that he is not totally convinced of the veracity of the story. He displays the same skepticism on other occasions where supernatural voices are involved.43 The presentation of the dialogue in direct speech serves to highlight the wordplay involved in the use of ἱκέτης (‘suppliant’), literally referring to Pactyes and metaphorically to the birds nesting in the temple.44

We will now turn to the meaning of this story. Apollo explicitly says that he wants to punish the Cymaeans for their impiety. However, this impiety does not – at least not primarily – consist of Aristodicus’ disrespectful behavior in the temple, but must have originated from earlier events, as it provided Apollo with a reason to deliver his treacherous oracles. So what sin did the Cymaeans commit? An answer to this question is provided by an oracle delivered to Glaucus, that is recounted in the embedded narrative of Leotychidas to which we have already paid some attention in our previous section about narrator and focalization.45 The Spartan Glaucus, having received a deposit of money from a Milesian visitor, consults the oracle on the question of whether to give the money back to the children of the depositor, or to swear an oath that he has never received it. He receives an answer warning him that all of his family and household will perish, should he deliver the oath. The following reaction is recounted:

Ταῦτα ἀκούσας ὁ Γλαῦκος συγγνώμην τὸν θεὸν παραιτέτο αὐτῷ ἴσχειν τῶν ῥηθέντων. ῾Η δὲ Πυθίη ἔφη τὸ πειρηθῆναι τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὸ ποιήσαι ἴσον δύνασθαι.

43 Recounting a meeting between the long-distance runner Philippides and the god Pan (6.105), Herodotus is careful to point out that we have only Philippides’ word to go on. A story about a talking dove, presumably delivering the message of a god, he clearly disbelieves (2.57.2). 44 On Herodotus’ use of direct speech to highlight wordplay and puns, cf. De Bakker (2007: 43). 45 Cf. above p. 7.

After hearing this response, Glaucus asked the god to forgive the things he had said. But the Pythia replied that putting the god to the test and committing the act was one and the same thing. (6.86γ.2)

When we apply this lesson to the story of Aristodicus, the impiety of the Cymaeans appears to have consisted of the fact that they dared to ask permission of the oracle to commit the sacrilegious act of surrendering Pactyes to his enemies. Because this question by itself revealed their sinful intent, Apollo deliberately provokes them to commit the act and thereby make their punishment possible. As has been pointed out by De Bakker (2007: 156-8), Xerxes’ decision to campaign against Greece is influenced in a similar fashion. In this case, the divine sends its messages in the form of dreams urging Xerxes (and later his uncle Artabanus) to stick to his military plans. Another example, also mentioned by De Bakker, is found in a story about the Ethiopian Sabacus, ruler of Egypt. In this case, both a dream and an oracle are involved. While asleep, Sabacus sees a vision in which a man urges him to assemble all the priests of Egypt and cut them in half. Greatly disturbed by this dream, Sabacus remembers an oracle predicting that his rule over Egypt would last for fifty years. He now understands that his reign is about to come to an end, and concludes that the dream must have been send by the gods in order punish him if he were to commit the acts it urged him to do. Thus, he decides to flee from Egypt. By accepting the oracle, but disobeying the dream, Sabacus fulfills his destiny but avoids any further punishment.

The story of Aristodicus also contains some clues about the way in which oracles, according to Herodotus, must be handled. Although their messages always reveal a divine truth, they should never be taken at face value, but have to be carefully scrutinized by using human logic. Aristodicus reasons that the god cannot possibly have intended to permit an act that is morally reprehensible. Therefore, he decides that the oracle requires a further test, which he executes with remarkable courage. Moreover, the story provides an example of the important role assigned to individual citizens in the Histories when the response of communities to oracles is at stake. Aristodicus, opposing the majority of the Cymaeans, succeeds in reversing their decision to deliver Pactyes to the Persians.

The reactions we have discussed up till now were given in response to oracles that, while misleading in the case of the Cymaeans, consisted of fairly non-enigmatic commands or predictions. Reactions to enigmatic oracles tend to follow more complicated patterns, because

37 a process of interpretation and understanding is involved. In order to explore these patterns and distinguish between the different narrative tools employed by Herodotus in their presentation, we now return to the oracle to Arcesilaus which we have previously discussed in connection with the use of direct speech.46 During his exile in Samos, Arcesilaus, king of Cyrene, consults the oracle about his prospects to recapture the city. As we have seen, the Pythia advises him to return peacefully to his country (σὺ μέντοι ἥσυχος εἶναι κατελθὼν ἐς τὴν σεωυτοῦ), but adds two enigmatic prohibitions by saying that (1) if he finds an oven full of amphoras, he should not bake them but send them away on a fair wind (ἢν δὲ τὴν κάμινον εὕρῃς πλέην ἀμφορέων, μὴ ἐξοπτήσῃς τοὺς ἀμφορέας ἀλλ᾿ ἀπόπεμπε κατ᾿ οὖρον), and (2) if he fires the oven, he should not enter the place surrounded by water (εἰ δὲ ἐξοπτήσεις τὴν κάμινον, μὴ ἐσέλθῃς ἐς τὴν ἀμφίρρυτον). Moreover, the Pythia warns him that acting otherwise will lead to the death of both him and the fairest bull (εἰ δὲ μή, ἀποθανέαι καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ ταῦρος ὁ καλλιστεύων). We will now look at how the oracle is reacted upon:

῾Ο δὲ παραλαβὼν τοὺς ἐκ τῆς Σάμου κατῆλθε ἐς τὴν Κυρήνην καὶ ἐπικρατήσας τῶν πρηγμάτων τοῦ μαντηίου οὐκ ἐμέμνητο, ἀλλὰ δίκας τοὺς ἀντιστασιώτας αἴτεε τῆς ἑωυτοῦ φυγῆς.

But he [Arcesilaus] returned to Cyrene, together with the men from Samos, and as soon as he took control of the situation, forgot the oracle, and instead demanded justice upon his enemies for his banishment. (4.164.1)

The immediate reaction of Arcesilaus is recounted through his actions and his (lack of) thoughts. It is this kind of reaction that is consistently found in the Histories following enigmatic oracles. Herodotus refrains from commenting on the oracle from his perspective as an omniscient narrator. By not giving away any clues about the meaning of the oracle he does not only create suspense as to the outcome of the story, but also involves his narratees in the process of deciphering the oracle by themselves.

After Arcesilaus has taken Cyrene, his opponents flee, and some manage to escape from Libya. However, not all of them are that lucky:

46 Cf. above p. 15-6

῾Ετέρους δέ τινας τῶν Κυρηναίων ἐς πύργον μέγαν ᾿Αγλωμάχου καταφυγόντας ἰδιωτικὸν ὕλην περινήσας ὁ ᾿Αρκεσίλεως ἐνέπρησε. Μαθὼν δὲ ἐπ᾿ ἐξεργασμένοισι τὸ μαντήιον ἐὸν τοῦτο, ὅτι μιν ἡ Πυθίη οὐκ ἔα εὑρόντα ἑν τῇ καμίνῳ τοὺς ἁμφορέας ἐξοπτῆσαι, ἔργετο ἑκὼν τῆς τῶν Κυρηναίων πόλιος, δειμαίνων τε τὸν κεχρησμένον θάνατον καὶ δοκέων ἀμφίρρυτον τὴν Κυρήνην εἶναι.

Others of the Cyrenaeans, who had taken refuge in a tall tower which was the property of a man called Aglomachus, Arcesilaus burned, after he had piled wood around the tower. Too late he realized that this was the meaning of the prophecy, because the Pythia had forbidden him to bake the amphoras he found in the oven. Fearful of his foretold death and believing that the place surrounded by water was Cyrene, he deliberately stayed away from the city of Cyrene.(4.164.2-3)

Through the partial fulfilment of the oracle, some of its significance is revealed to Arcesilaus, who, by now, remembers again. The narrative follows a pattern similar to the one we have previously encountered in the story of Psammetichus, where the twelve kings remember the oracle of the bronze bowl after Psammetichus has poured a libation with his helmet.47 Just as in the case of the oracle to the Egyptian kings, the oracle to Arcesilaus is reflected upon through the focalization of its recipient(s). There is, however, an important difference between the two oracles. Whereas the oracle of the bronze bowl consists of a single prediction of which the fulfilment becomes inevitable after its conditions have been met, the oracle to Arcesilaus offers its recipient a second chance when complying to the last command of the Pythia. Arcesilaus supposes ‘the place surrounded by water’ (τὴν ἀμφίρρυτον) to be Cyrene and therefore decides to go to the city of Barca, where his father-in-law, Alazeir, is king:

Παρὰ τοῦτον ἀπικνέεται, καί μιν Βαρκαῖοι τε ἄνδρες καὶ τῶν ἐκ Κυρήνης φυγάδων τινὲς καταμαθόντες ἀγοραζοντα κτείνουσι, πρὸς δὲ καὶ τὸν πενθερὸν αὐτοῦ ᾿Αλάζειρα. ᾿Αρκεσίλεως μέν νυν εἴτε ἑκὼν εἴτε ἀέκων ἁμαρτὼν τοῦ χρησμοῦ ἐξέπλησε μοῖραν τὴν ἑωυτοῦ.

So he went to him [Alazeir], but some Barceans and exiles from Cyrene who noticed that he was in the agora murdered him, as well as his father-in-law Alazeir. Thus

47 Cf. above p. 19.

Arcesilaus, whether deliberately or unwillingly, misunderstood the oracle and fulfilled his destiny. (1.164.4)

The Herodotean narrator delivers his own comment after the oracle has been fulfilled. Yet some of its enigmatic content remains unexplained. Concerning ‘the fairest bull’ (ταῦρος ὁ καλλιστεύων), Hollmann (2011: 116) suggests that ‘Herodotus takes for granted the cultural code against which the animal imagery of the oracle must be read’. Such claims are hard to validate from our modern perspective, but the narratees may infer from the events of the story that ‘the fairest bull’ must have referred to ‘the king’. The events also make clear that the place to be avoided by Arcesilaus must have been Barca, although it is not explained why this city is called ‘the place surrounded by water’ (τὴν ἀμφίρρυτον).48

Arcesilaus failed to respond to the oracle two times: first by neglecting it, and then by misinterpreting it.49 His first failure can be seen as a moral one. Because of his greed for revenge, he did not think of the advice of the oracle to return to his country peacefully (ἥσυχος) and abstain from burning the ‘amphoras’ (τοὺς ἀμφορέας), meaning his enemies. A moral evaluation of brutal revenge is provided by Herodotus later in the story, when Arcesilaus’ mother, Pheretime, has avenged her son by carrying out a massacre in Barca:

῾Ως γὰρ δὴ τάχιστα ἐκ τῆς Λιβύης τεισαμένη τοὺς Βαρκαίους ἀπενόστησε ἐς τὴν Αἴγυπτον, ἀπέθανε κακῶς· ζῶσα γὰρ εὐλέων ἐξέζεσε, ὡς ἄρα ἀνθρώποισι αἱ λίην ἰσχυραὶ τιμωρίαι πρὸς θεῶν ἐπίφθονοι γίνονται.

For as soon had she avenged herself on the Barcaeans, and returned from Libya to Egypt, she suffered a horrible death, for while she was still alive, she became teemed with worms. So for men all too violent revenge leads to resentment from the gods. (4.205.1)

The second failure of Arcesilaus is of an intellectual nature, as it consists of his misinterpretation of the oracle (ἁμαρτὼν τοῦ χρησμοῦ) by supposing it referred to Cyrene,

48 The ancient city of Barca was situated south of Cyrene, approximately 50 kilometers off the coast. 49 Hollmann (2011: 116) suggests, that Herodotus, in his evaluation of the oracle, uses the expression εἴτε ἑκὼν εἴτε ἀέκων (‘deliberately or unwillingly’) to refer to Arcesilaus’ wilful disregard of the oracle on the one hand, and his involuntary misinterpretation on the other.

40 instead of Barca. As pointed out by Hollmann (2011: 115), Arcesilaus rightly understands that τὴν ἀμφίρρυτον qualifies a city, but fails to determine which city. In this respect, his error resembles many other cases of misinterpretation in the Histories. For instance, Cambyses receives an oracle foretelling his death in Agbatana (3.64.4), which he understands to refer to the Persian capital instead of Agbatana in Syria. Croesus is foretold that he will destroy ‘a great empire’ (μεγάλην ἀρχήν, 1.53.3) which he understands to be the Persian empire instead of his own. In all of these cases, the mistake made by the characters is that they jump to conclusions, instead of considering all possibilities.

The reactions recorded in the story of Arcesilaus follow a narrative pattern that contains a number of elements found in most of Herodotus’ stories dealing with enigmatic oracles. The elements involved are (1) the immediate reaction of the recipient, (2) a delayed (mis)understanding of the oracle by the recipient, and (3) the evaluation of its fulfilment by the narrator. The reactions to the oracle to Arcesilaus are predominantly presented through the actions and thoughts of the recipient, whereas the evaluation by the narrator is restricted to a single remark at the end of the story. Herodotus also uses the opposite procedure, where a short immediate reaction is followed by a more extensive evaluation. An example of this is found in connection with an oracle to the people of Siphnos:

᾿Αλλ᾿ ὅταν ἐν Σίφνῳ πρυτανήια λευκὰ γένηται λεύκοφρύς τ᾿ ἀγορή, τότε δὴ δεῖ φράδμονος ἀνδρὸς φράσσασθαι ξύλινόν τε λόχον κήρυκά τ᾿ ἐρυθρόν.

But when on Siphnos the town-halls turn white, and the marketplace white-browed, then there is need of a shrewd man to look out for a wooden ambush and a red herald. (3.57.4)

This highly enigmatic oracle was issued in response to the question whether the Siphians, living in great prosperity, were to remain wealthy for a long time. It is presented in an analepsis at the moment when the Siphnians are visited by a Samian fleet. The double use of the root *φραδ- in φράδμων ἀνήρ (‘a shrewd man’) and φράσσαθαι (‘to be on the lookout’) is worth noting. The following reaction is recorded:

Τοῖσι δὲ Σιφνίοισι ἦν τότε ἡ ἀγορὴ καὶ τὸ πρυτανήιον Παρίῳ λίθῳ ἠσκημένα. Τοῦτον τὸν χρησμὸν οὐκ οἶοί τε ἦσαν γνῶναι οὔτε τότε ἰθὺς οὔτε τῶν Σαμίων ἀπιγμένων. ᾿Επείτε γὰρ τάχιστα πρὸς τὴν Σίφνον προσῖσχον οἱ Σάμιοι, ἔπεμπον τῶν νεῶν μίαν πρέσβεας ἄγουσαν ἐς τὴν πόλιν. Τὸ δὲ παλαιὸν ἅπασαι αἱ νέες ἦσαν μιλτηλιφέες· καὶ ἦν τοῦτο τὸ ἡ Πυθίη προηγόρευε τοῖσι Σιφνίοισι φυλάξασθαι τὸν ξύλινον λόχον κελεύουσα καὶ κήρυκα ἐρυθρόν.

At the time, both the agora and the city hall of the Siphnians were adorned with Parian marble. The Siphnians were unable to make sense of this oracle, neither immediately after it was given nor later, when the Samians came. For as soon as the Samian ships anchored near Siphnus, they sent ambassadors in one of their ships to the city. Now in the old days all ships were painted red, and this was what the Pythia had predicted to the Siphnians when she warned them to look out for a wooden ambush and a red herald. (3.57.4-58.2)

The reaction of the recipients is only briefly mentioned as they are unable to interpret the oracle (τοῦτον τὸν χρησμὸν οὐκ οἷοί τε ἦσαν γνῶναι). Moreover, there is no delayed interpretation because the Siphnians also fail to understand the oracle once the Samians arrive. Now that the shrewd man (φράδμων ἀνήρ) does not appear among the Siphnians, it is the Herodotean narrator who takes up the role of interpreting the oracle. He does so in typical Herodotean fashion by providing all the clues, but leaving plenty of work for the narratees, as a complete reading is withheld. To start with, he tells that the public buildings of the Siphnians were clad in Parian marble, leaving it to the narratees to conclude that this marble must have been white (which they may have known). Herodotus then informs the narratees that the Samians sent ambassadors and that their ships were painted red. He indicates that this is what the Pythia referred to but provides no further information. So it is up to the narratees to infer that the expression ‘wooden ambush’ is used to connect the notion of the (wooden) ship approaching Siphnos with the evil intentions of the ambassadors it carries, whereas the latter are referred to as the ‘red herald’, because they arrive in a ship painted red. The oracle foreshadows the fate of the Siphnians who, after refusing to give a loan to the Samians, are attacked by them and stripped of their wealth. The careful regulation of information serves to involve the narratees in the process of interpretation of the oracle and appeal to their intellectual capacities. Would they have done any better than the Siphnians, they may be left to ask. Thus, the moral message is more strongly conveyed, telling all those who, like the

Siphnians, enjoy good fortune to beware of the vicissitudes of fate and heed the warnings of the gods.

An unusual pattern of reactions is recorded following an oracle to Tisamenus of Elis, a diviner (μάντις) enrolled in the Spartan army at the time of the battle of Plataea.50 The oracle is presented in an analepsis at the moment when the Greek and the Persian army face each other on the eve of the battle. Tisamenus, it is recounted, had once received an oracle predicting that he would win the five greatest contests.

῾Ο μὲν δὴ ἁμαρτὼν τοῦ χρηστηρίου προσεῖχε γυμνασίοισι ὡς ἀναιρησόμενος γυμνικοὺς ἀγῶνας, ἀσκέων δὲ πεντάεθλον παρὰ ἓν πάλαισμα ἔδραμε νικᾶν ὀλυμπιάδα, ῾Ιερωνύμῳ τῷ ᾿Ανδρίῳ ἐλθὼν ἐς ἔριν. Λακεδαιμόνιοι δὲ μαθόντες οὐκ ἐς γυμνικοὺς ἀλλ᾿ ἐς ἀρηίους ἀγῶνας φέρον τὸ Τεισαμενοῦ μαντήιον, μισθῷ ἐπειρῶντο πείσαντες Τεισαμενὸν ποιέεσθαι ἅμα ῾Ηρακλειδέων τοῖσι βασιλεῦσι ἡγεμόνα τῶν πολέμων.

Tisamenus, misunderstanding the oracle, began to devote himself to gymnastic exercise, thinking that he would win gymnastic contests. After practicing the Pentathlon51, he missed the Olympic victory by just one fall in a match against Hieronymus of Andros. But the Spartans, who realized that the oracle to Tisamenus did not refer to gymnastics, but to military contests, tried to bribe him to be a leader in their wars together with their kings, descendants of Heracles. (9.33.2-3)

Herodotus exploits the double meaning of the word ἀγών (‘contest’) referring to both athletics and warfare. The immediate reaction of the recipient is recounted through his actions, presented from the omniscient perspective of the narrator, who knows that Tisamenus has misinterpreted the oracle (ἁμαρτὼν τοῦ χρηστηρίου). The delayed, correct interpretation does not come from the recipient or the narrator, but from a third party, the Spartans. This construction has a somewhat artificial flavour as it raises the question of how the Spartans became so interested in an oracle delivered to a man from Elis and why they thought this oracle would apply to their wars. However, in the narrative it serves the clear purpose of

50 Diviners like Tisamenus are frequently attested in the Histories as accompanying armies, where their main task consisted of looking for omens in the entrails of sacrificial animals in order to determine the right moment for military action. 51 The five events of the Penthatlon were running, jumping, wrestling and throwing of the spear and the discus.

43 providing an explanation for the unusual measures taken by the Spartans in the events that follow. Tisamenus, confronted with the unexpected Spartan interest in his services, demands to be granted a full Spartan citizenship and, later on, even raises his price by including his brother. Eventually all his demands are met, making this story one of the few cases where misinterpretation by the recipient is left unpunished. The fulfilment of the oracle is evaluated by the narrator:

Συγχωρησάντων δὲ καὶ ταῦτα τῶν Σπαρτιητέων, οὕτω δὴ πέντε σφι μαντευόμενος ἁγῶνας τοὺς μεγίστους Τεισαμενὸς ὁ ᾿Ηλεῖος, γενόμενος Σπαρτιήτης, συγκαταιρέει. Μοῦνοι δὲ δὴ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἐγένοντο οὗτοι Σπαρτιήτῃσι πολιῆται. Οἱ δὲ πέντε ἀγῶνες οἵδε ἐγένοντο, εἷς μὲν καὶ πρῶτος οὗτος ὁ ἐν Πλαταιῇσι, ἐπὶ δὲ ὁ ἐν Τεγέῃ πρὸς Τεγεήτας τε καὶ ᾿Αργείους γενόμενος, μετὰ δὲ ὁ ἐν Διπαιεῦσι πρὸς ᾿Αρκάδας πάντας πλὴν Μαντινέων, ἐπὶ δὲ ὁ Μεσσηνίων ὁ πρὸς ᾿Ιθώμῃ, ὕστατος δὲ ὁ ἐν Τανάγρῃ πρὸς ᾿Αθηναίους τε καὶ ᾿Αργείους γενόμενος· οὗτος δὲ ὕστατος κατεργάσθη τῶν πέντε ἀγώνων.

After the Spartans gave in to his demands, Tisamenus of Elis, who had now become a Spartan, helped them to win the five greatest contests by serving as a diviner. Only they [Tisamenus and his brother], of all people, ever became citizens of Sparta. The five contests were: first, the one at Plataea; next the one at Tegea against the Tegeans and Argives; after that, at Dipaia against all the Arcadians, except for the Mantineians; then against the Messenians near Ithome; and finally at Tanagra against the Athenians and Argives, that final one completed the five contests. (9.35)

The narrator marks the fulfilment by word-echo, recalling the ‘five greatest contests’ (πεντε…ἀγῶνες τοὺς μεγίστους) mentioned in the oracle. However, the oracle has not yet been fulfilled on the story-level. Thus, the evaluation becomes proleptic, referring on the one hand to events yet to be told within the story (internal prolepsis), and on the other hand to events outside the timeframe of the Histories (external prolepsis), because the events covered in Herodotus’ work end shortly after the battle of Plataea.52 As the outcome of battle must have been well-known by his narratees, Herodotus feels free to anticipate it. By including

52 The battles at Tegea, Dipaia and Ithome were part of a series of domestic wars fought by Sparta on the Peloponnesian peninsula in the period 473-465 BC. The battle of Tanagra took place in 457 BC during the Peloponnesian wars.

44 contemporary events such as the battle of Tanagra in his narrative, he establishes a connection between the Persian Wars and those of his own time, with possible political implications.53

The oracles that provoke the most lengthy reactions recorded in the Histories are the two oracles issued to the Athenians on the eve of Xerxes’ invasion of Greece. As these oracles foreshadow the capture of Athens by the Persians and their subsequent defeat in the battle of Salamis, they concern some of the most crucial events of Herodotus’ work. The oracles have attracted considerable scholarly attention, most of it from a referential perspective focusing on the authenticity of the oracles and their significance for the historical events.54 From a narratological perspective, the reactions presented to the oracles to the Athenians differ significantly from the patterns we have discussed previously. To begin with, the reactions of the Athenians are foreshadowed in a narratorial comment taking up the whole of chapter 7.139, in which Herodotus tries to convince his narratees that the Athenians should be considered ‘the saviors of Greece’ (᾿Αθηναίους...σωτῆρας, 7.139.5) for resisting the Persians at sea. To back up his arguments, and highlight the decisive role of the Athenians, Herodotus uses hypothetical narration describing the catastrophic scenarios that might have happened, had the Athenians decided on a different course of action. Apart from delivering a historical judgement on the role of the Athenians, the comment creates a pause in the narrative building up to the events to come. It ends with the following prolepsis:

Οὐδε σφεας χρηστήρια φοβερὰ ἐλθόντα ἐκ Δελφῶν καὶ ἐς δεῖμα βαλόντα ἔπεισε ἐκλιπεῖν τὴν ῾Ελλάδα, ἀλλὰ κατακμείναντες ἀνέσχοντο τὸν ἐπιόντα ἐπὶ τὴν χώρην δέξασθαι.

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, but they stood fast and had the courage to confront the invader of their country. (7.139.6)

Because the narratees must have been familiar with the role the Athenians played during the battle of Salamis, Herodotus gives away nothing by saying that they stood fast and confronted the invader. Rather, he creates suspense by referring to χρηστήρια φοβερά (‘terrifying

53 For Herodotus’ references to the Peloponnesian War, cf. e.g. Stadter (1992: 801-2), Moles (1996), Pelling (1997). 54 For instance How & Wells (1928 ad loc.), Evans (1982), Robertson (1987), Maurizio (1997), Bowden (2005).

45 oracles’) the contents of which are yet to be revealed. The story then moves on to the consultation of the Pythia, which is presented as a scene. Here, we find one of the rare occasions that the Pythia is mentioned by name (Aristonice, 7.140.1).55 By providing this extra information, Herodotus highlights the importance of the occasion. The use of the historic present χρᾷ has the same function.56 What follows is the famous oracle that urges the Athenians to ‘flee to the end of the world’ (φεῦγ΄ ἔσχατα γαίης) because their city is bound to be devastated (7.140). I will not go into a discussion of the text of this oracle itself, as my main interest here concerns the reactions presented to it. The narrator describes the feelings of the recipients using embedded focalization: ‘they thought themselves lost because of the evils foretold’ (προβάλλουσι δὲ σφέας αὐτοὺς ὑπὸ τοῦ κακοῦ τοῦ κεχρησμένου, 7.141.1). However, a man called Timon, one of the most eminent citizens of Delphi (τῶν Δελφῶν ἀνὴρ δόκιμος ὅμοια τῷ μάλιστα, 7.141.1), advises the Athenians to return to the Pythia to ask for a second oracle. The appearance of an ‘eminent citizen’ coming to the rescue is a Herodotean topos we have already noticed in the case of Aristodicus, who is described as ἀνὴρ τῶν ἀστῶν ἐὼν δόκιμος (1.158.2). Themistocles, the man to play a crucial role in the interpretation of the second oracle to the Athenians, is described in similar terms (τῶν τις ᾿Αθηναίων ἀνὴρ ἐς πρώτους νεωστὶ παριών, 7.143.1). Lichas (1.67.5), the eminent Spartan who manages to solve the oracle about the bones of Orestes, fulfills a similar role.57 The Athenians do as they are advised to and make a second request, presented in direct speech, in which they threaten the Pythia not to leave the temple before obtaining a more favorable oracle. Her response, the so- called ‘wooden wall’ oracle, does not completely satisfy their needs, as the first part of it repeats the prediction made in the first oracle, namely that Attica will be captured. However, in the second part of the oracle it is said that Zeus will grant the Athenians a wooden wall (τεῖχος ξύλινον, 7.141.3) that will hold and protect them. Again, the Athenians are urged to withdraw, but it is predicted that they will confront the enemy at some later point of time. The last lines predict that Salamis will destroy many ‘sons of women’ (τέκνα γυναικῶν, 7.141.3), either at the time of sowing or at harvest time.58 The oracle provokes the following reactions:

55 The other Pythia whose name is recorded by Herodotus is Periallus, who was bribed by the Cleomenes and later removed from her office (6.66). 56 De Jong (2013: 286). 57 Cf. above p. 12. Lichas is said to have been one of the ἀγαθοεργοί, an honorary title rewarded to the retirees of the knights (1.67.5). 58 The phrase ἤ που σκιδναμένης Δημήτερος ἢ συνιούσης is commonly understood to refer to the time of sowing and that of harvest, cf. Stein [1889] (1962: ad loc.): ‘“entweder wenn das Korn verstreut wird oder wenn es sich sammelt”, d.h. entweder zur Saat- oder zur Erntezeit’, How & Wells (1928: ad loc.): ‘When the corn is scattered or gathered’, Mikalson (2003: 54): ‘either when Demeter is sown, or when she is gathered.’ However, Robertson (1987: 15-6) comes up with a different interpretation arguing that the present participles should be understood as

Ταῦτά σφι ἠπιώτερα γὰρ τῶν προτέρων καὶ ἦν καὶ ἐδόκεε εἶναι, συγγραψάμενοι ἀπαλλάσσοντο ἐς τὰς ᾿Αθήνας. ῾Ως δὲ ἀπελθόντες οἱ θεοπρόποι ἀπήγγελλον ἐς τὸν δῆμον, γνῶμαι καὶ ἄλλαι πολλαὶ ἐγίνοντο διζημένων τὸ μαντήιον.

As this answer seemed, and actually was, gentler than the previous one, they left for Athens, after they had written down the oracles. When they returned the envoys reported it to the assembly of people and there were many different opinions voiced of those who tried to interpret the oracle. (7.142.1)

The first reactions recounted are those of the oracular messengers, who consider the oracle favorable enough to return home. The narrator intrudes upon their embedded focalization pointing out that the oracle actually was (καὶ ἦν) less harsh than the previous one. On their arrival in Athens, the oracle sparks a debate among the people to which Herodotus devotes the chapters 142 and 143. He starts by presenting two opinions about the meaning of the ‘wooden wall’ mentioned in the oracle. According to the first opinion, advocated by some of the older citizens, the wooden wall refers to a fence (ῥηχῷ 7.142.1) that surrounded the Acropolis in ancient times. Thus, the oracle predicts the preservation of the Acropolis (τὴν ἀκρόπολιν χρῆσαι περιέσεσθαι, 7.142.1). According to others, the wooden wall refers to the Athenian ships. They propose to prepare the fleet and abandon the city. Herodotus mentions that the proponents of the second option risk losing their case because the oracle interpreters (οἱ χρησμολόγοι) argue that the last lines of the oracle predict that, once they have prepared for a sea battle, they will be defeated at Salamis (7.143.3). However, Themistocles, who makes his first appearance at this point of the story, opposes their view arguing that these last lines do not refer to the Athenians, but rather to their enemies. He does so by drawing attention to the adjective by which Salamis is addressed: ὦ θείη Σαλαμίς, and argues that if the sons of the Athenians were to die at Salamis, the island would have been called σχετλίη (‘cruel’) instead of θείη. Eventually, Themistocles’ opinion is favored over that of the χρησμολόγοι, who advised to abandon Attica and settle elsewhere (7.143.3).59

continuous actions, denoting the time when the seed is in the ground or the time it is harvested and stored away. According to this interpretation, the phrase would mean ‘either before or after the harvest’. 59 On the question of what positions are taken by which parties during the Athenian debate, scholars have come up with conflicting views. Most of the confusion is caused by Herodotus himself who does not opt for a systematic presentation of the different opinions, but constructs a narrative that is aimed at drawing his audience into the story and highlighting the role of Themistocles. According to Hollman (2011:110), Barker (2006: 20-1) and Manetti (1993: 33) the χρησμολόγοι adhere to the same interpretation of the wooden wall as the ‘older

The discussion of the Athenians is one of the two occasions in the Histories where a decision over the interpretation of an oracle is reached in a debate between characters.60 Its presentation in indirect speech indicates that Herodotus’ main interest concerns the content of the debate rather than the characters involved. The exception is Themistocles whose rephrasing of the oracle is quoted verbatim.61 Herodotus does not give his own opinion about the different positions taken in the debate, but the narratees are already informed of his views, as he exposed them in 7.139. The interpretation of the oracle that is eventually adopted by the Athenians and the means by which this decision is reached has been commented upon by different scholars. Barker (2006: 20-23) draws attention to the importance of the ‘institutional framework’ for interpretation provided by the popular assembly that allows for different opinions to be expressed. He opposes this to the ‘solipsistic, emotional and immediate response’ to oracles by authoritarian rulers such as Croesus. The position taken by the χρησμολόγοι represents ‘the expertise of a closed group’ which is overcome by ‘reasoned argument’. Thus, the account of the Athenian debate makes a case for democracy by providing ‘the clearest example of the importance – and success – of debate in Herodotus’. Hollmann (2011: 110-1) focuses on the interpretative strategies involved in the debate. He distinguishes between two issues at stake, the first one being the meaning of the wooden wall. Here, the choice is between a literal interpretation, identifying the wall as the ancient fence around the Acropolis, and a figurative one, in which the wall metaphorically refers to ships.62 The other issue concerns the ‘sons of mothers’ that are foretold to die at Salamis. The problem is not the meaning of the phrase (‘soldiers’), but to which soldiers it refers, Greek or Persian. This a familiar problem in Herodotean oracles, which we have already discussed in relation to the oracle to Arcesilaus. The interpretation proposed by Themistocles, who takes it to refer to the Persians, is, as Hollmann rightly states, ‘based on a rhetorical appeal to the internal logic

citizens’, namely that it refers to a fence. However, Evans (1982: 28) claims that the χρησμολόγοι interpret the wooden wall as referring to the fleet. In fact, the matter cannot be decided upon without considering the measures proposed by the different parties. Kirchberg (1965: 92) provides the only plausible solution by distinguishing between three positions: (1) the position of the elders who are in favour of retreating to the Acropolis fortified with a wooden fence; (2) the position of the χρησμολόγοι who want to prepare a fleet in order to flee to another country; (3) the position of Themistocles and his party who want to prepare the fleet to fight the Persians at Salamis. 60 The other one is a debate amongst the Thebans over an oracle on the question which allies they should choose in their war against the Athenians (5.79-80). 61 Cf. De Bakker (2007: 107-8). Moreover, Herodotus devotes special attention to this character in an analeptic comment referring to a previous debate that was decided in his favor and led to the building of two hundred war ships by the Athenians (7.144). 62 ‘Wood’ representing ‘ships’ is also found in the oracle to the Siphnians discussed on page 41f.

48 and consistency of the text’ by which he manages to convince the Athenians of his interpretational skills.

When we look at the narrative after the Athenian debate, there are a number of references to the oracle made.63 For instance, the Athenians are said to prepare their evacuation in a rush ‘because they were eager to obey the oracle’ (τῷ χρηστηρίῳ τε βουλόμενοι ὑπηρετέειν, 8.41.2); Themistocles refers to the oracle in a speech to the council of admirals (8.60γ). Interestingly, the fulfilment of the oracle in the battle of Salamis, which takes place in the last part of book 8, is not noted or evaluated. This may have to do with the fact that Herodotus has already provided some kind of evaluation in his proleptic comment in 7.139. Moreover, as the oracle has already been treated extensively, and the outcome of the events must have been familiar to the narratees, an evaluation has become redundant. However, Herodotus does present an evaluation of the fulfilment of another prediction made by the oracle. This concerns the capture of Athens of which Herodotus gives the following account:

Καὶ αἱρέουσι ἔρημον τὸ ἄστυ καί τινας ὀλίγους εὑρίσκουσι τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ἐν τῷ ἱρῷ ἐόντας, ταμίας τε τοῦ ἱροῦ καὶ πένητας ἁνθρώπους, οἳ φραξάμενοι τὴν ἀκρόπολιν θύρῃσί τε καὶ ξύλοισι ἠμύνοντο τοὺς ἐπιόντας, ἅμα μὲν ὑπ᾿ ἀσθενείης βίου οὐκ ἐκχωρήσαντες ἐς Σαλαμῖνα, πρὸς δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ δοκέοντες ἐξευρηκέναι τὸ μαντήιον τὸ ἡ Πυθίη σφι ἔχρησε, τὸ ξύλινον τεῖχος ἀνάλωτον ἔσεσθαι· αὐτὸ δὴ τοῦτο εἶναι τὸ κρησφύγετον κατὰ τὸ μαντήιον καὶ οὐ τὰς νέας.

They [the Persians] captured the city, that was deserted. However, they discovered a few Athenians in the sanctuary, temple servants and poor people, who tried to ward off the invaders by barricading the Acropolis with doors and wood. They had refused to withdraw from their country to Salamis, partly because of their lack of resources but also because they believed that they had found the true meaning of the oracle delivered by the Pythia, which had said that the wooden wall would not be taken. Thus, they believed that this and not the fleet was their shelter in accordance with the oracle (8.51.2).

63 The oracle is mentioned in 7.145.1, 8.41.2, 8.51.2, 8.53.1 and 8.60γ.

Apparently, these few defenders are the only Athenians who still believe in the interpretation of the ‘older citizens’ (τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, 7.142.1) of the assembly who were convinced that the oracle had predicted that the Acropolis would provide shelter against the invaders. Using various tactics, they manage to put up a brave defence against the Persians, who seem unable to capture them. However, as Herodotus tells us:

Χρόνῳ δ᾿ἐκ τῶν ἀπόρων ἐφάνη δή τις ἔσοδος τοῖσι βαρβάροισι· ἔδεε γὰρ κατὰ τὸ θεοπρόπιον πᾶσαν τὴν ᾿Αττικὴν τὴν ἐν τῇ ἠπείρῳ γενέσθαι ὑπὸ Πέρσῃσι.

After some time a way out of their difficulties appeared to the barbarians, for the prophecy had ordained that all of Attica on the mainland was to fall under the control of the Persians. (8.53.1)

The evaluation of Herodotus has the clear purpose of refuting any literal interpretation of the wooden wall as referring to a defensive structure made of wood around the Acropolis. Eventually, the Acropolis is captured and set on fire, after its remaining defenders either have been murdered or thrown themselves of the rocks.

Conclusion

The aim of my research has been to investigate how, and to what purposes Herodotus uses narrative devices in his presentation of oracles and how oracles can be analyzed narratologically. In presenting my conclusions, I will mainly follow the order of subjects as discussed in the different sections, but deviate from this order wherever it is necessary to combine findings from different sections in order to make a case.

Herodotus, the omniscient external narrator, frequently uses the phrase ἐκ θεοπροπίου when referring to oracles that provide an explanation for specific historical circumstances or ethnographical facts, such as the establishment of dynasties, colonies or religious practices. The events to which these oracles relate usually have occurred at a moment prior to the timeframe of the main story and are presented within an external narratorial analepsis. Moreover, the precise contents of these oracles are not provided by the narrator who is mainly concerned with the effects they produced. The narrator’s purpose in presenting these oracular references is to display his insight in the workings of history and establish his authority as a historian.

Where oracles are not just referred to, but actually presented to the narratees, Herodotus introduces the secondary narrator of the Pyhia, or other oracular priest, presenting the oracle in direct or indirect speech. However, the words uttered by the Pythia are not her own, but those of the god Apollo. The secondary narrator is not a human character but a divine voice representing the same omniscience as the primary narrator and possessing an even greater authority. An important difference between the Pythia and the Herodotean narrator is that the former, as an internal narrator, engages directly with the characters of the Histories and plays an active role in shaping the events of the narrative. Predictions made by the Pythia are actorial prolepses, but they do not have the same status as prolepses made by human characters. The latter are mostly unreliable, because they derive from the limited perspective of the characters, whereas oracles derive from a divine perspective. Yet, oracles can be equally functional in creating suspense because of their enigmatic content. Herodotus uses embedded focalization of the recipients as a narrative tool to enhance this effect, as it allows him to regulate information and focus on the interpretation of the characters, while withholding the true meaning of the oracles to his narratees.

The function of oracles as authoritative arguments is highlighted when they are presented within an embedded narrative. The Histories contains a few instances where oracles are presented in speeches of characters. In all of these cases, the oracles have a persuasive function in the process of decision-making. In their paradigmatic narratives, the Corinthian Socles and the Spartan Leotychidas refer to historical examples of oracles in order to convey moral and political lessons that reflect some of the general themes of the Histories. By doing so, they become a mise en abime of the Herodotean narrator.

When we look at the form in which oracles are presented, we can distinguish between two main types of presentation: in direct speech and metrical form, or in indirect speech and prose. Each type is used to produce different narrative effects. Presentation in direct speech and metrical form serves to highlight the enigmatic character of the oracular speech, thus creating suspense about its possible meaning and fulfilment. The narratees are invited to participate in the process of interpretation and to identify with the recipients of the oracle.

Other narrative considerations underlie the narrator’s choice for presentation in indirect speech and prose. It may be that the oracle is not particularly enigmatic and its presentation mainly serves to provide the characters with a motive for their ensuing actions. It may also be that an oracle is presented to give an explanation for events that have already been recounted. Moreover, oracles that are forgotten by its recipients may be presented in indirect speech in order not to put too much emphasis on their occurrence, thus drawing the narratees into reproducing the failure of the characters to take them properly into account. Finally, oracles issued in other languages than Greek are always presented in indirect speech.

When looking at the presentation of oracles within the temporal structure of the narrated events, we can distinguish between two kinds of presentation: chronological or analeptic. In the case of 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, the narrator refers to oracles that were issued at a point in time prior to these events. Both kinds of presentation serve narrative purposes that are closely related to the temporal structure of the narrative surrounding the oracle and the function of the oracle within the narrative. In my discussion I have distinguished between different types of ‘oracle stories’ that involve a different handling of the element of time.

A chronological order of events is followed in a number of stories that have the oracle presented at its very beginning. The oracle introduces the theme of the story and hints in an enigmatic way at how it will end. In many cases, a second oracle is requested by the characters in order to provide additional information that may help them to come up with an adequate response. As the story unfolds, some crucial event takes place by which the characters are reminded of the oracle and some 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. At the end of the story, the oracle is always fulfilled, but the fate of the characters largely depends on how they have responded to them. The oracles presented in these stories serve different narrative purposes at the same time. First of all, they provide the framework of the story by connecting beginning and end. Moreover, the initial presentation of the oracle creates suspense, as its true significance is not immediately revealed to the narratees. Finally, the oracle serves to mark the events recounted as divinely preordained, thus adding force to the narrative and strengthening the authority of the narrator.

A different type of oracle story is that which combines an oracle with a divine curse or portent that has usually been provoked by some action of the characters. The narrative of this kind of story follows a standard pattern of chronologically presented events in which a sinful act is followed by a divine punishment that leads the afflicted characters to consult the oracle. The reply of the oracle usually consists of a non-enigmatic command that is obeyed by its recipients and enables them to lift the curse. Herodotus mainly uses these kind of stories in order to present a moral lesson to his audience, but they may also serve to provide an explanation for religious practices.

Herodotus frequently presents oracles that were issued at a point of time prior to the events recounted. Such analeptic presentation of oracles may occur either before or after their fulfilment. When presented before fulfilment, the oracle provides a powerful tool for effective storytelling. It allows the narrator to temporarily freeze the action at a crucial point of the story in order to inform the narratees of an oracle that may have been issued a long time ago, but appears to be related to the events that are about to take place. Thus, the narrator creates suspense and challenges his narratees to discover the meaning of the oracle. Moreover, the narrator may use the analepsis to provide background information and add significance to the events recounted. When the oracle is presented after fulfilment, its main function is to provide

53 an explanation for the events recounted. Moreover, the narrator may use the oracle in order to support his value judgement on the behavior of the characters.

The narrative of the Histories provides a wide variety of reactions to oracles. The kind of reaction that is presented largely depends on the narrative function of the oracle. Non-enigmatic oracles that have been solicited in response to a curse or divine punishment are always obeyed by their recipients, thus producing the desired effect. Enigmatic oracles, on the other hand, provoke a more complicated pattern of reactions because a process of interpretation is involved. In most cases, the narrative contains the following elements: (1) the immediate reaction of the recipients, (2) a delayed (mis)understanding of the oracle by the recipients, and (3) the evaluation of its fulfilment by the narrator. The immediate reaction of the recipients (1) is recorded through their thoughts and actions. The true significance of the oracle is not revealed to the narratees, although some of its meaning may become clear once the characters reconsider the oracle at stage (2). It is only after its fulfilment that the oracle is evaluated from the omniscient perspective of the narrator (3).

The outcome of the stages (1) and (2) determine whether an oracle will be successfully responded to or not. By examining failure and success of the different reactions recorded, it is possible to discover some general principles underlying the workings of oracles in the Histories. One of the mistakes often committed by Herodotus’ characters is to neglect an oracle, either out of forgetfulness or because of a failure to come up with a satisfying interpretation. Such behavior is punished as it reveals a hubristic lack of attention to what is divinely ordained. The same applies to the behavior of those recipients who stick to their initial understanding of the oracle, instead of considering all possible interpretations. Moreover, any attempt to prevent the fulfilment of an oracle is doomed to fail, because oracular predictions derive from a divine knowledge of human destiny.

The inevitability of the fulfilment of oracles does not imply that Herodotus’ oracle stories represent a fatalistic world-view. Herodotus grants his characters the possibility to actively influence their fate by giving the right response to the oracles they receive. Decoding the enigmatic oracular speech serves as a necessary precondition to such a response. This the characters can achieve by making best use of their capacity of human reasoning, carefully looking at the oracle from all possible angles and being particularly cautious of ambiguities. They should even consider the possibility that an oracular command is deliberately issued in

54 order to invite them to commit a hubristic act for which they will subsequently be punished. This may happen when the question put to the oracle by itself reveals sinful intentions, thus provoking the anger of the gods.

Herodotus’ oracle stories also suggest that successful oracle interpretation is more likely to be accomplished by communities than by individual autocrats. The latter are completely dependent on their own judgement and the often unreliable advice of professional interpreters, whereas the former reach their decisions through debate, allowing for different opinions to be expressed. In this process, a crucial role is played by ‘eminent citizens’ who tend to step forward to present a solution when the others are at a loss.

When reasoning does not suffice to solve the oracle, or when the oracle predicts a future event that seems unacceptable to its recipients, the characters still have the option to return to the Pythia for a second oracle. In a number of cases recorded in the Histories this appears to be a particularly successful strategy. The most prominent of these cases is the story of the Athenians who are confronted with an oracle predicting the loss of their city to the Persians. By demanding a second oracle of the Pythia and arriving at the right interpretation through debate, they manage, while being unable to prevent the destruction of Athens, to turn their fate around and deliver a decisive blow to the invaders. The story of the Athenians may serve as an example of how the oracles in the Histories serve to display the complex interaction between human and divine forces in history.

Appendix I

Table of oracles and their presentation in the Histories

Form of presentation: Direct S.: the oracle is presented in direct speech and metrical form. Direct S. (p): the oracle is presented in direct speech and prose. Indirect S.: the oracle is presented in indirect speech. Reference: the oracle is referred to without its contents being presented.

Presentation in temporal order of events: Chronological: the oracle is presented at the moment of its occurrence within the events of the main story. Analeptic (a): presentation of an oracle that was issued and fulfilled at a point in time prior to the events of the main story. Analeptic (b): presentation of an oracle that was issued at a point in time prior to the events of the main story, but is fulfilled as these events are recounted. Proleptic: reference to an oracle that will be issued at some point of time after the events of the main story.

Response of recipients: Successful: the recipients manage to use the oracle to their advantage. Unsuccessful: the recipients fail to use the oracle to their advantage.

Presentation in Response of Form of Place Origin Recipient temporal order recipients presentation of events 1.7.4 - Lydians Reference Analeptic (a) Successful 1.13.2 Delphi Lydians Indirect S. Chronological Unsuccessful 1.19.3 Delphi Alyattes Indirect S. Chronological Successful 1.47.3 Delphi Croesus Direct S. Chronological Successful 1.49 Amphiaraus Croesus Reference Chronological - 1.53.3 Delphi Croesus Indirect S. Chronological Unsuccessful 1.55.2 Delphi Croesus Direct S. Chronological Unsuccessful 1.64.2 - Peisistratus Reference Chronological Successful 1.65.3 Delphi Lycurgus Direct S. Chronological - 1.66.2 Delphi Spartans Direct S. Chronological Unsuccessful 1.67.2 Delphi Spartans Indirect S. Chronological Unsuccessful 1.67.4 Delphi Spartans Direct S. Chronological Successful 1.85.2 Delphi Croesus Direct S. Analeptic (b) Unsuccessful 1.158.1 Branchidae Cymaeans Indirect S. Chronological Unsuccessful 1.159.2 Branchidae Aristodicus Indirect S. Chronological Successful 1.159.3 Branchidae Aristodicus Direct S. (p) Chronological Successful

1.165.1 - Agyllaeans Reference Analeptic (b) Successful 1.167.2 Delphi Agyllaeans Indirect S. Chronological Successful 1.174.5 Delphi Cnidians Direct S. Chronological Successful People of Marea 2.18.3 Ammon Indirect S. Analeptic (b) - and Apis 2.52.3 Dodona Pelasgians Indirect S. Chronological Successful 2.111.2 Bouto Pheros Indirect S. Chronological Successful 2.133.1 Bouto Mycerinus Indirect S. Chronological Successful 2.133.3 Bouto Mycerinus Indirect S. Chronological Successful 2.134.4 Delphi Delphians Reference Proleptic - 2.139.3 Meroe Sabacos Indirect S. Analeptic (b) Successful Twelve 2.147.4 - Indirect S. Analeptic (b) Unsuccessful Egyptian kings 2.152.3 Bouto Psammetichos Indirect S. Chronological Successful 2.158.4 - Necos Indirect S. Chronological Successful 2.174.1 - Amasis Indirect S. - Successful 3.16.6 - Amasis Indirect S. Analeptic (a) Unsuccessful 3.57.4 Delphi Siphnians Direct S. Analeptic (b) Unsuccessful 3.64.2 Bouto Cambyses Indirect S. Analeptic (b) Unsuccessful 4.15.3 Delphi Metapontines Indirect S. Chronological Successful 4.149.2 - Aegidae Reference Proleptic Successful 4.150.3 Delphi Grinnus Indirect S. Chronological Unsuccessful 4.151.1 Delphi Grinnus Indirect S. Chronological Successful 4.155.3 Delphi Battus Direct S. Analeptic (b) Unsuccessful 4.156.2 Delphi Therans Indirect S. Chronological Unsuccessful 4.157.2 Delphi Theran colonists Direct S. Chronological Successful 4.159.3 Delphi Greeks Direct S. Chronological Successful 4.161.2 Delphi Cyrenaeans Indirect S. Chronological Successful 4.163.2 Delphi Arcesilaus Direct S. (p) Chronological Unsuccessful 4.178 - Spartans Indirect S. - - 4.203.1 - Cyrenaeans Reference Chronological Successful 5.1.2 Strymon Paeonians Indirect S. Analeptic (b) Successful 5.43 Delphi Dorieus Indirect S. Chronological Unsuccessful 5.63.1 Delphi Spartans Indirect S. Chronological Successful Cleisthenes of 5.67.2 Delphi Indirect S. Analeptic (b) Successful Sicyon 5.72.3 Athens Cleomenes Direct S. (p) Analeptic (a) Unsuccessful 5.79.1 Delphi Thebans Indirect S. Chronological Successful 5.82.1 Delphi Epidaurians Indirect S. Chronological Successful 5.82.2 Delphi Epidaurians Indirect S. Chronological Successful 5.89.2 Delphi Athenians Indirect S. Chronological - 5.90.1 Athens Spartans Indirect S. Analeptic (b) Unsuccessful 5.92.β.2 Delphi Eëtion Direct S. Chronological Successful 5.92.β.3 - Bacchiads Direct S. Analeptic (b) Unsuccessful 5.92.ε.2 Delphi Cypselus Direct S. Analeptic (b) Successful 5.92.η.2 Thesprotia Periander Indirect S. Analeptic (a) Successful 5.114.2 - Amathusians Indirect S. Chronological Successful 6.19.2 Delphi Argives (part I) Direct S. Analeptic (a) Unsuccessful

6.34.2 Delphi Dolonci Indirect S. Analeptic (b) Successful 6.36.1 Delphi Miltiades Indirect S. Chronological Successful 6.52.5 Delphi Spartans Indirect S. Chronological Successful 6.66.3 Periallus Spartans Indirect S. Chronological - 6.76.1 Delphi Cleomenes Indirect S. Analeptic (b) Unsuccessful 6.77.2 Delphi Argives (part II) Direct S. Analeptic (b) Unsuccessful 6.86.2 Delphi Glaucus Direct S. Chronological Unsuccessful 6.98.3 - - Direct S. Analeptic (a) - 6.118.3 - Thebans Reference Proleptic Successful 6.135.3 Delphi Parians Indirect S. Chronological Successful 6.139.2 Delphi Pelasgians Indirect S. Chronological Unsuccessful 7.117.2 - Acanthians Reference Proleptic Successful 7.140.2- Successful Delphi Athenians Direct S. Analeptic (b) 3 7.141.3- Successful Delphi Athenians Direct S. Analeptic (b) 4 7.148.3 Delphi Argives Direct S. Analeptic (b) Successful 7.169.2 Delphi Cretans Direct S. (p) Chronological Successful 7.178.2 Delphi Delphians Indirect S. Chronological Successful 7.189.1 - Athenians Reference Analeptic (a) Successful 7.189.1 - Athenians Indirect S. Analeptic (a) Successful 7.197.1 - Achaeans Reference Analeptic (a) Successful 7.197.3 - Achaeans Reference Analeptic (b) Successful 7.220.4 Delphi Spartans Direct S. Analeptic (b) Successful 8.20.2 Bacis Euboeans Direct S. Analeptic (a) Unsuccessful 8.36.2 Delphi Delphians Indirect S. Chronological Successful 8.77 Bacis - Direct S. - - 8.114.1 Delphi Spartans Indirect S. Analeptic (b) Successful Greeks at 8.122 Delphi Indirect S. Chronological Successful Salamis 8.134.2 Amphiaraus Thebans Indirect S. Analeptic (b) Successful Thebans and 8.135.2 Ptoïum Indirect S. Chronological Unsuccessful Mys 8.141.1 - Spartans Indirect S. Analeptic (b) Successful 9.33.1 Delphi Tisamenus Indirect S. Analeptic (b) Unsuccessful 9.42.3 - Illyrians Indirect S. Analeptic (b) - 9.43 Bacis - Direct S. Analeptic (b) - Dodona and 9.93.4 Apollonians Indirect S. Chronological Successful Delphi

Appendix II

Vocabulary

The word ‘oracle’ can have three different meanings. Firstly, it may refer to a religious institution, a shrine or temple where a priest or priestess acting as an intermediary between men and gods can be consulted. Secondly, it may refer to this intermediary him or herself. Thirdly, it may refer to the divine message delivered by the intermediary. When we look at the words used by Herodotus to refer to these different meanings, we encounter much of the same ambiguity. The frequently used terms χρηστήριον and μαντήιον may indicate an oracular message as well as an oracular shrine.64

Apart from these words, Herodotus also uses the terms θεοπρόπιον, χρησμός and λογίον for oracle in the sense of divine message. A clear distinction between the meaning of these words is hard to make, as different terms are sometimes applied to the same prophecy.65 According to Levy, the words μαντείον or χρηστήριον are mostly used if the message can be connected to a particular shrine. The terms λογίον and θεοπρόπιον would signify a message whose origin is unknown.66 The term θεοπρόπιον is frequently used in the general expression ἐκ θεοπροπίου (‘by a divine command’).67

The term used by Herodotus for ‘oracle’ when referring to the intermediary delivering the message is πρόμαντις.68 The oracle can also be referred to with the term προφήτης (‘prophet/prophetess’).69 In the case of the shrine at Ptoion (8.135) both πρόμαντις and προφήτης are used refer to one and the same person. The oracle of Delphi is mostly called the Pythia (Πυθίη), in a few cases πρόμαντις (6.66.2-3; 7.141) or προφήτης (9.93). The frequently attested word μάντις, is not to be confused with πρόμαντις. Herodotus uses μάντις for

64 For instance, Mardonius sends an envoy from Europus to consult the different oracular shrines: τὰ χρηστήρια, τῶν χρηστηρίων (8.133.1); ἐπὶ τὸ χρηστήριον (8.134.1). In the following chapter Amphiaraus is said to have spoken to the Thebans διὰ χρηστηρίων, ‘through oracles’ (8.134.2). Also cf. Powell (1938) s.v. χρηστήριον and μαντήιον. 65 For instance, χρηστήριον and χρησμός are used when the Paionians interpret a favorable oracle (συνεβάλοντο οἰ Παίονες τὸ χρηστήριον, 5.1.3) and say to each other that it will surely be fulfilled (ὁ χρησμὸς ἐπιτελεόμενος ἠμιν 5.1.3). The oracles delivered to Croesus are first referred to as τὰ θεοπρόπια, then as τοῖσι χρηστηρίοισι (1.54.1). The combination of these terms is also found in 2.151, 3.57-58 and 4.80-82. 66 Lévy (1997: 357-360). Having checked his examples I agree with Lévy’s observations. 67 1.7; 1.165; 2.134; 4.149; 6.118; 7.117; 7.197.1; 7.197.3; 9.93. 68 1.182; 2.55; 6.66.2; 6.66.3; 7.111; 7.141; 8.135. 69 8.135; 9.93. The function of the Delphian προφήτης mentioned in 8.36-7 remains somewhat obscure.

59 individual diviners who are not connected to an oracular shrine.70 They do not deliver oracles, but make predictions by interpreting visual signs, a skill known as μαντική. In most cases, the μάντιες mentioned by Herodotus look for omens in the entrails of sacrificial animals (σφάγια or ἱρά) in order to decide the right moment for a military action to be undertaken. Another category of professionals are the oracle interpreters or χρησμολόγοι, whose main task appears to have consisted of advising leaders or communities on oracular matters.71

70 For locations see Powell (1938) s.v. μάντις. 71 On the role of the χρησμολόγοι in the debate concerning the ‘wooden wall’ oracle. cf. above p. 47-8. Some individual χρησμολόγοι are mentioned by name: Amphilytus (1.63), Onomacritus (7.6) and Lysistratus (8.96).

Appendix III

Index of Oracles

Place Page 1.7.4 4 1.13 n.15; 13f 1.19 23 1.47.3 n.4; 28f 1.50.1 n.3 1.53.3 n.15; n.29; 28 1.55 9; n.29 1.65.3 5 1.66.2 n.4 1.67 11f 1.85.2 27f 1.91 n.5; 14; 15; n.20; 30 1.158.1 35 1.159 33; 35ff 1.165.1 31 1.167.2 23 1.174.5 21f. 1.182.2 5n.3 2.111.2 22 2.133 33; 34f 2.147.4 18 2.151 n.15; n.25 2.152 n.15; 20 3.57.4 41ff 3.64 n.15; n.25 4.15 n.32 4.151.1 32f 4.155.3 n.5; 33 4.157.2 n.4 4.159 n.4; n.6 4.163 n.5; 15f; n.20; 38ff 5.1 n.3; n.15 5.67.2 9 5.72 n.6 5.79 9; n.15 5.82.1 n.32 5.92 6; n.6; n.29 5.114.2 n.32 6.19.2 24 6.66.3 n.54

6.82.1 n.3 6.86γ 7; 36f 7.117.2 31 7.140 9f; 33; 45f 7.141.3 n.4; 46ff 7.148.3 n.38 7.169 n.20 7.178 n.15 7.189 12f 7.220.4 n.25; 26f 8.20 25 8.36.1 n.3 8.135 14 9.33.2 n.15; 43ff 9.42 7f 9.43.2 8

Bibliography

Asheri, D., Lloyd, A. and Corcella, A. (2007). Herodotus Books I-IV. Oxford.

Bakker, M.P. de (2007). Speech and Authority. http://dare.uva.nl/document/2/52575

Baragwanath, E (2013). Motivation and Narrative in Herodotus. Oxford.

Barker, E. (2006). ‘Paging the Oracle: Interpretation, Identity and Performance in Herodotus’ History’, Greece and Rome. 53.1: 1-28.

Barthes, R. (1966). ‘Introduction à l’analyse structural des récits’, Communications 8, 1966, 1-27.

Bowie, A.M. (2007). Herodotus. Histories Book VIII. Cambridge.

Calame, C. (1996). Mythe et histoire dans l’Antiquité grecque: La creation symbolique d’une colonie. Lausanne.

Carbonell, C.O. (1985). ‘L’Espace et le temps dans l’oeuvre d’Hérodote’. Storia della Storiografia 7: 138-49.

Christ, M. R. (1994). ‘Herodotean Kings and Historical Inquiry.’ CA 13: 167-202.

Crahay, R. (1974). ‘La Bouche de la vérité’, J.P. Vernant, ed., Divination et rationalité. 201-219. Paris.

Evans, J.A.S. (1982). ‘The Oracle of the “Wooden Wall”’. The Classical Journal 78.1: 24-9.

Fontenrose, J. (1978). The Delphic Oracle. Los Angeles.

Gould, J. (1989). Herodotus. London.

Harrison, T. (2000). Divinity and History. The Religion of Herodotus. Oxford.

Hartog, F. (1999). ‘Myth into Logos: The Case of Croesus, or the Historian at Work’, R. Buxton, ed., From Myth to Reason? Studies in the Development of Greek Thought. 183-95. Oxford.

Hollmann, A. (2011). The Master of Signs. Signs and the Interpretation of Signs in Herodotus’ Histories. Washington.

Hornblower, S. (2013). Herodotus. Histories Book V. Cambridge.

How, W.W. and Wells, J. (1928). A Commentary on Herodotus. Oxford.

Huber, L. (1965). Religiöse und politische Beweggründe des Handelns in der Geschichts- schreibung des Herodot. Tübingen.

Hude, C. (1927). Herodoti Historiae. 2 vols. Oxford.

Immerwahr, H.R. (1966). Form and Thought in Herodotus. Ohio.

Jong, I.J.F de (2007). Herodotus and the Dream of Cambyses (Hist. 3.30, 61-65).

Jong, I.J.F de (2013). ‘Narratological aspects in the Histories of Herodotus’, R.V. Munson, ed., Herodotus and the Narrative of the Past. 253-91. Oxford.

Jong, I.J.F de (2014). Narratology & Classics. A Practical Guide. Oxford.

Kindt, J. (2006). ‘Delphic Oracle Stories and the Beginning of Historiography: Herodotus’ Croesus Logos’, Classical Philology 101.1: 34-51.

Kirchberg, J. (1965). Die Funktion der Orakel im Werke Herodots. Göttingen.

Kurke, L. (2009). ‘ “Counterfeit Oracles” and “Legal Tender”: The Politics of Oracular Consultation in Herodotus.’ The Classical World. 102.4: 417-38.

Lachenaud, G. (1978). Mythologies, Religion et Philosophie de l’Histoire dans Herodote. Lille.

Lévy, E. (1997). ‘Devins et oracles chez Hérodote’, J.G. Heintz, ed., Oracles et prophéties dans l’antiquité. 345-65. Paris.

Manetti, G. (1993). Theories of the Sign in Classical Antiquity. Translated by Christine Richardson. Indianapolis.

Maurizio, L. (1997). ‘Delphic Oracles as Oral Performances: Authenticity and Historical Evidence. CA 16: 308-34.

Mikalson, J.D. (2003). Herodotus and Religion in the Persian Wars. UNCP.

Moles, J. (1996). ‘Herodotus Warns the Athenians’. Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 9: 259-84.

Parke, H.W. and Wormell, D.E.W. (1956). The Delphic Oracle, 2 vols. Oxford.

Parker, R. (1985). ‘Greek States and Greek Oracles’, P.A. Cartledge - F.D. Harvey eds., Crux: Essays in Greek History presented to G.E.M. de Ste. Croix on his 75th Birthday. London.

Pelling, C. (1997). ‘East is East and West is West - or are they? National Stereotypes in Herodotus’, Histos 1: 51-66. http://research.ncl.ac.uk/histos/documents/1997.04PellingEastIsEast5166.pdf

Pelling, C. (2006). ‘Educating Croesus: Talking and Learning in Herodotus Lydian Logos’, CA 25.1: 141-177.

Piérart, M. (2003). ‘The Common Oracle of the Milesians and the Argives (Hdt. 6.19 and 77)’, P. Derow - R. Parker eds., Herodotus and his World. Essays from a Conference in Memory of George Forrest. 275-96. Oxford.

Powell, J.E. (1938). A Lexicon to Herodotus. Cambridge.

Robertson, N. (1987). ‘The True Meaning of the “Wooden Wall”.’ CP 82.1: 1-20.

Rood, T. (2007). ‘Herodotus’, I.J.F. De Jong, R. Nünlist eds., Time in Ancient Greek Literature. 115-30. Leiden.

Sebeok, T.A. and Brady, E. (1979). ‘The Two Sons of Croesus. A Myth about Communication in Herodotus.’ QUCC 30. 7-22.

Segal, C. (1986). Pindar’s Mythmaking: The Fourth Pythian Ode. Princeton.

Stadter, P. (1992). ‘Herodotus and the Athenian Arche’, ASNP 22. 3-4, 781-809.

Stahl, H.P. (1975). ‘Learning Through Suffering? Croesus’ Conversations in the History of Herodotus’, Yale Classical Studies 24: 1-36.

Stein, H. [1881-1901] (1962). Herodotus erklärt von Heinrich Stein. Berlin.

Strassler, R.B. (2007). The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories. New York.

��