Lampinen Studiesin Ancient Oraclesand Divination

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/258726506
Θεῷ μεμελημένε Φοίβῳ – Oracular Functionaries at Claros and Didyma in the

Imperial Period
Chapter · January 2013
CITATIONS READS
2 612
1 author:
Antti Lampinen
Finnish Institute at Athens / Φινλανδικό Iνστιτούτο Aθηνών, Athens, Greece
20 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The Faces of the Other - Depictions of otherness in the Late Roman World (2008-12) View project
'Profit or Amusement’: The Uses of Barbarians and Ethnography in the Greek Literature from Hellenism to Early Byzantium View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Antti Lampinen on 02 March 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

es
tra
tto
A C TA I N S T I T U T I R O M A N I F I N L A N D I A E Vo l . 4 0
STUDIES IN ANCIENT ORACLES

AND DIVINATION
edited by
Mika Kajava
ROMA 2013
es
tra
tto
Direttore degli Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae
Mika Kajava
Classical Philology, P.O. Box 24
FIN – 00014 University of Helsinki
Redazione del vol. 40

Mika Kajava
ISBN 978-88-7140-529-2
ISSN 0538-2270
© Institutum Romanum Finlandiae
Roma 2013
www.irfrome.org
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Finito di stampare nel mese di settembre 2013

es
tra
tto
Θεῷ μεμελημένε Φοίβῳ
Oracular Functionaries at Claros
and Didyma in the Imperial Period*
Antti Lampinen
1. Introductory remarks
That the Roman Imperial period brought about changes in the prominence of Greek oracular sites is known
well enough. Delphi, the formerly principal seat of Apolline μαντική, was less and less consulted, whereas
the great sanctuaries of Asia Minor, especially Didyma and Claros, acquired great wealth and importance
that lasted nearly until the eclipse of the traditional religion.1 The philhellenic policies of the Antonines ben-
efited both Greek and Ionian sanctuaries, but Greece proper seems not to have been able to capitalize upon
those benefits – possibly on account of its comparatively low population.2 In rich and populous Asia, on the
other hand, oracular activity increased in scope and impact, as is attested by literary and archaeological evi-
dence. The reasons for and manifestations of this increasing oracular visibility have lately been studied quite
extensively, as well as the complex and often syncretistic theologies that these resurgent Apolline oracles
promoted.3 Such topics of research contrast rather starkly with the fact that we still know very little of the
actual organization and functioning of these oracular sanctuaries during their flowering in the Imperial pe-
riod. In this paper, I set out to examine and compare the hierarchies of Clarian and Didymaean oracular spe-
cialists and their respective functions at the sanctuaries, as revealed by both written and epigraphic sources,
as well as to provide some analysis of the formation and subsequent evolution of the two establishments. It
will come clear that both centres responded in dynamic and unique ways to the intensified and more com-
petitive demand for divinatory services; if there are common elements in organization and the portfolios of
functionaries, they stem from something other than any essential similarity between the sanctuaries or their
geographical proximity to each other.
While several tendencies in the histories of Claros and Didyma seem commensurate, their origins
appear to be rather dissimilar despite their geographical closeness to each other. Both emerge as oracular
* I would like to thank Prof. Angelos Chaniotis (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton) for his numerous invaluable remarks
and notes regarding this contribution while it was being prepared – any mistakes left are thus decidedly those of my own. Likewise
I would like to offer sincere words of gratitude to Prof. Mika Kajava (Univ. of Helsinki), Prof. Jyri Vaahtera (Univ. of Turku) and
Docent Martti Nyman (Univ. of Turku), along with all the members of our research group for their insightful and inspiring feedback
concerning divination and sacral organisation in antiquity – not to mention all the other refreshing discussions not strictly pertinent
to questions at hand.
1 For instance, Graf 2009, 60-2.
2 Plutarch, already, foreshadows this modern notion in De def. or. 414c, stating that in addition to the weakened power of the
oracular power itself, the diminished population of Greece had no need for as many oracles as there had been in the olden days –
and this in a time which is characterized by Robert Flacelière as “a kind of renaissance” for the Delphic establishment (Flacelière
1961, 81). Even though Plutarch’s idea is partly influenced by the literary topos of declining ages of the world, there are numerous
other indications of Greek depopulation as well, already summed up by Walbank 1944, 10-20, and more recently, as well as more
critically, examined by Alcock 1993, 27 (of the topoi), 53-5, 89-91. Cf. also Lane Fox 1986, 33.
3 Exemplified by such contributions as Parke 1985; Várhelyi 2001; Dignas 2002; Busine 2005; and a very crucial article of Bu-
sine 2006. For a recent general account of the oracles of Didyma and Claros, see Stoneman 2011, 84-100.
es
tra
50 Antti Lampinen
tto
centres at roughly the same time, and excluding the Didymaean hiatus of c. 494-331 BC their respective
periods of activity span an approximately similar length of time, with alternating phases of florescence and
stagnation. There are numerous differences, as well, the most striking of which seems to be the degree to
which the sanctuaries adapted to the “classical” form of Apolline mantic establishment as exemplified by
Delphi; the modes of such adaptation may be implied in the organization and character of the functionaries,
the recording of the oracular proceedings and the mantic ritual itself. The differing configuration taken by
the mantic operations at Claros and Didyma may be partly explained by the historical circumstances, and
indeed it seems that despite the understandable similarities in their respective development, the two oracular
establishments may have catered to a rather different clientele for quite a long time.4 By the later Imperial
period, however, this distinction had in all likelihood abated significantly.
Sources for the two sanctuaries are diverse, and in the field of epigraphy the evidence for their
organization is still effectively accruing, as it has been since the late 19th century. Though not entirely un-
complicated, the evidence drawn from the inscriptions constitutes our only source in many instances, and
hence is substantially relied upon in this paper. Among the literary sources the situation is more complex, as
there are almost no contemporary descriptions of the functioning of the two sanctuaries, and nearly all the
information is incidental. Concerning Claros we may have something resembling a contemporary testimony
in the form of an annoyed invective by Oenomaus of Gadara, the Cynic philosopher (fl. AD 120), who seems
to have disparaged the establishment based on his own experience and that of his informants. His tirade has
been preserved by Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica for reasons that are not difficult to fathom.5 Moreover,
it may be that Tacitus had visited the sanctuary while he was acting as the proconsul of Asia in AD 112-3,
and that he accordingly had some personal knowledge of the establishment, which he used to furnish his
much discussed and puzzling testimony on the functioning of the oracle at the time of Germanicus’ visit
there. The value of Tacitus’ description will be discussed below. Other, minor sources on the Clarian proce-
dure and functionaries include Nicander of Colophon and Pliny the Elder, who both provide interesting and
invaluable information for discussing the inspired and mediating officials at Claros.
At Didyma the situation with extant sources is broadly similar to that of Claros, necessitating a
thoughtful examination of the meagre literary attestations, as well as placing an even greater weight on the
epigraphic record of the sanctuary – which luckily is tremendously copious. The literary evidence for the
seer at Didymeion comes from several inconclusive and cursory mentions by various authors in addition to
the elaborate and persuasive account in De mysteriis of Iamblichus, the Neo-Platonist philosopher and theu-
rgist.6 Describing both Clarian and Didymaean inspired divination, Iamblichus’ report is heavily influenced
by the author’s own religious-philosophical notions of divinity, and thus needs to be carefully interpreted
in order to pass as a reliable testimony – all the more so as Iamblichus almost certainly could not have wit-
nessed a mantic session at either of the sanctuaries.7
4 A pair of maps illustrating the distribution of Hellenistic clients for the two sanctuaries is provided in Debord 1982, 19-21. Ac-
cording to these, Didyma (p. 19) seems to have attracted offerings mostly from the Ionian cities around Smyrna, as well as those
around Miletus and Halicarnassus, in addition to the islands and certain dynasts from further off, such as the Attalids, Seleucids,
Prusias of Bithynia and Brogitaros of the Galatians. Claros (p. 21), on the other hand, seems to have predominantly catered for
three geographical areas: the Thracian coast, the northern littoral of Asia Minor, and the inland cities of Caria, Lycaonia and Pisidia.
Consulting cities can, obviously, be found outside these areas as well, and some, such as Kios, seem to have consulted both sanctuar-
ies. Moreover, it should be noted (as Debord rightly does, p. 20) that the testimonies of consultations at the two sanctuaries do not
exactly correspond either in nature or date.
5 Oenom. ap. Eus. praep. evang. 5, 21, 6 – 23, 4.
6 Iambl. myst. 3, 11; cf. Busine 2002, 196-7.
7 Two well-contextualized studies of Iamblichus’ theory of divination are Athanassiadi 1993 and Shaw 1998.
es
tra
ORACULAR FUNCTIONARIES AT CLAROS AND DIDYMA 51
tto
Attempting to classify the Greek oracular practitioners is not a new pursuit, though there are good
reasons not to give unreserved credence to groupings essentially located within the elite literary discourse
of antiquity, such as philosophical writings. In a famous passage of Timaeus, Plato – while explaining the
purpose of the liver and its location – distinguishes between those men who engage in divination through
an altered form of consciousness and those, who, while in full possession of their faculties, interpret and
pass judgment on an inspired utterance.8 The latter he professes to call προφῆται μαντευομένων instead
of μάντεις, which term he reserves exclusively for the former group of inspired seers. In expounding the
oracular pronouncements a prophet uses only his reason and understanding.9 Plato is clearly biased against
technical diviners who use only craft (τέχνη) in interpreting the divine will, while favouring inspired divina-
tion on the basis of his philosophical standpoint, although there is also some evidence that the Greeks more
generally regarded even ecstatic prophesy as a kind of techne.10
Thus it may be slightly surprising (though hardly decisive) that female prophetesses – their gender
being the one less credited with mental excellence and acumen in ancient theories – are widely attested
throughout Greece at all times, including the most prestigious diviner of them all, the Pythia of Delphi. She
is expressly called προφῆτις by Euripides, Plato himself and Philodemus of Gadara.11 Pythia clearly is an
inspired seer, with numerous other (male) functionaries both putting forward the enquirer’s question and af-
terwards giving a poetic form to the prophecies.12 As Plato’s statement appears not to reflect any widespread
state of nomenclature, the term μάντις is avoided in this paper wherever possible, unless it is specifically
used by relevant ancient sources – which happens very rarely.
On the other hand, Plato is probably right in distinguishing inspired seers from the expounders
(ὑποκριταί) of their visions, and their functions seem to have been largely separate in the eyes of ancient
Greeks.13 The data from Claros and Didyma seems to corroborate this functional grouping well enough,
although the handicap of such restrictive definitions will become particularly evident in the matter of no-
menclature among the functionaries. Luckily, not all groupings are so redundant. One relatively uncompli-
cated aspect appearing from the evidence seems to be the connection of a προφήτης (or a προφῆτις) with an
oracular centre: (s)he belongs to a class of ‘dependent diviners’ in the sense of being part of a hierarchy in an
established oracular shrine. The neat distinction constructed by Plato cannot, however, be simply extrapo-
8 Pl. Ti. 71e-72b: ἱκανὸν δὲ σημεῖον ὡς μαντικὴν ἀφροσύνῃ θεὸς ἀνθρωπίνῃ δέδωκεν· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἔννους ἐφάπτεται μαντικῆς
ἐνθέου καὶ ἀληθοῦς, ἀλλ᾿ ἢ καθ᾿ ὕπνον τὴν τῆς φρονήσεως πεδηθεὶς δύναμιν ἢ διὰ νόσον, ἢ διά τινα ἐνθουσιασμὸν παραλλάξας.
ἀλλὰ συννοῆσαι μὲν ἔμφρονος τά τε ῥηθέντα ἀναμνησθέντα ὄναρ ἢ ὕπαρ ὑπὸ τῆς μαντικῆς τε καὶ ἐνθουσιαστικῆς φύσεως,
καὶ ὅσα ἂν φαντάσματα ὀφθῇ, πάντα λογισμῷ διελέσθαι ὅπῃ τι σημαίνει καὶ ὅτῳ μέλλοντος ἢ παρελθόντος ἢ παρόντος κακοῦ
ἢ ἀγαθοῦ· τοῦ δὲ μανέντος ἔτι τε ἐν τούτῳ μένοντος οὐκ ἔργον τὰ φανέντα καὶ φωνηθέντα ὑφ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ κρίνειν, ἀλλ᾿ εὖ καὶ
πάλαι λέγεται τὸ πράττειν καὶ γνῶναι τά τε αὑτοῦ καὶ ἑαυτὸν σώφρονι μόνῳ προσήκειν. ὅθεν δὴ καὶ τὸ τῶν προφητῶν γένος
ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐνθέοις μαντείαις κριτὰς ἐπικαθιστάναι νόμος· οὓς μάντεις αὐτοὺς ὀνομάζουσίν τινες, τὸ πᾶν ἠγνοηκότες ὅτι τῆς δι᾿
αἰνιγμῶν οὗτοι φήμης καὶ φαντάσεως ὑποκριταί, καὶ οὔτι μάντεις, προφῆται δὲ μαντευομένων δικαιότατα ὀνομάζοιντ᾿ ἄν.
9 Such philosophical demarcations in the field of oracular activities are, in all probability, something that most Greek contempo-
raries of Plato would have found either incomprehensible or irrelevant. The popular notions concerning oracular rites and practitio-
ners had very little to do with any elevated, structurally consistent speculations and generalizations – these latter were attempts to
create order out of the myriad parallel traditions that constituted ‘Greek divination’. Thus, having read Plato, we should not expect
to find such clear-cut distinctions of mantic practitioners among our sources, especially those pertaining to a much later age. For
the early and classical meaning of the word μάντις, see Flower 2008, 22-72; Bremmer 2010, 13-6; cf. also Casevitz 1992, which
abandons the generally favourably regarded Platonic etymology of μάντις and proposes a derivation from μηνύω, instead (p. 15).
Another recent treatment of the subject can be found in Trampedach 2008.
10 Flower 2008, 86-7.
11 Eur. Ion 42, 321; Pl. Phdr. 244a; Phld. acad. ind. P 26 M.
12 Flacelière 1961, 47-52.
13 Though even this distinction is not without its exception; in Hdt. 1, 62, Amphilytos, an itinerant χρησμολόγος from Acarnania,
utters an inspired prophecy in verse despite his denomination. Cf. Flower 2008, 64.
es
tra
52 Antti Lampinen
tto
lated to apply to the organization of Asiatic oracular shrines in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, even if it
could have been applied to them in some poorly documented phase of their development.
For the purposes of this paper, only oracular officials sensu stricto are examined – that is to say,
the functionaries that evidently played some active and consistent part in the oracular procedures of the
respective sanctuaries. Officials with largely or exclusively administrative or fiscal functions – however
elevated their prestige might be – such as the Didymaean ταμίαι, or treasurers, as well as such agents that
played purely supporting roles in the oracular performance, such as the γραμματεῖς, or oracular scribes,
will receive only very marginal treatment here. Thus the focus of this analysis will be largely on the vari-
ously named functionaries that were most fundamentally concerned with the relaying of Apollo’s will to
the mortal enquirers at our two sanctuaries – whether they were the ones to receive the divine message in
some altered state of mind, or the versifying transmitters of that selfsame message to the expectant enquirers
(θεωροί).
In what follows, it will be argued that at both Claros and Didyma the structure and organization
of the oracular staff presents a unique response to the great popular demand for oracular activities, while
also negotiating the boundary between mythic origins and later adaptations. The question of mythological
roots for the sanctuaries gave expression to their tangled and often uneasy relationship with the Delphic
paradigm of Apolline prophecy, while some of the later developments (which we would call “historical”)
present an equally tangled question of possible non-Greek roots of the μαντική in Asia Minor. Another aim
of this study is to give further proof that there did not exist among the Greeks such a rigid terminological
and organizational classification among the mantic practitioners as Plato’s statements seem to imply, and
as many of the earlier scholars of the oracular centres assumed. Lately a much more pluralistic approach to
oracular functionaries has arisen, with no two μάντεις or two προφῆται – often separated not by geography
only, but by hundreds of years as well – being uncritically accepted to have held similar positions or to have
performed the same duties.14 Likewise, the technical or professional character of many appellations has been
called into question, which, indeed, accounts well for the terminological flexibility often encountered in the
official titles of oracular functionaries.
In order to reach such objectives, it is necessary to start with the historical development of the
shrines, concentrating particularly on the alleged mythical and historical roots of the different oracular of-
fices. Though the main chronological focus of this study will be the Roman period – with some Hellenistic
material taken up if necessary – it would be inconceivable to examine the later period in isolation from the
preceding eras. After the historical introduction, the various titles of oracular functionaries will be examined
in a descending “order of transmission” from the inspired seer through the intermediaries to minor officials.
The respective roles of officials in consultations will be noted at this stage, in addition to which the last
section will attempt to reconstruct the oracular consultations as they may have taken place in antiquity. It is
hoped that such an approach may contribute to our knowledge of Clarian and Didymaean oracular function-
aries as one of the best-documented group of mantic practitioners in the ancient world.
14 The recognition of the dynamism of divinatory functions and the associated nomenclature of diviners is very much part of such
contributions as Georgoudi 1998 and Dillery 2005; Bremmer 2010, 14-6. Flower 2008 is very valuable, as well; lastly, in the con-
text of Late Antiquity, see Fowden 1982.
es
tra
tto
2. History of the two sanctuaries
2.1. Claros
The documentable history of the Clarian oracle, situated in the valley of the river Ales (Hales), begins only
in the 4th century BC, though its traditional foundation is placed during the colonizing period of the 8th cen-
tury by authors writing in the mythical register.15 This claim is entirely in accordance with a general topos
concerning the age of the principal oracular sanctuaries: venerable antiquity was an essential component in
creating the respectability of such an institution, and the traditional sequence of Delphic mythical temples
was in itself a powerful formative force shaping the narrative traditions of other Apolline oracles.16 The
Homeric Hymn to Apollo mentions Κλάρος αἰγλήεσσα, “brilliant Claros”, as an abode of Apollo,17 and it
seems to have featured also in the Epigoni.18 Clarian foundation myths are alluded to by Strabo and Pausa-
nias.19 Another possible literary source to pre-Hellenistic Claros may be the Homeric Hymn to Artemis,
which has been put forward as an original piece composed for the occasion of dedicating the new temple of
Artemis Claria in the 7th century BC.20 The selfsame fragmentary hymn incorporates a mention of Claros as
ἀμπελόεσσα,21 or “rich in vineyards”, but there is no mention of an oracle yet. Though Herodotus does not
say a word concerning Claros – notably excluding it from the list of oracles tested by King Croesus, which
probably signifies that it constituted no source of concern for the intensely competitive Delphi, – at least it
possessed some kind of sanctuary in the archaic period (for the 6th-century priesthood there of Apollo and
Artemis, see n. 20), for otherwise it would be hard to conceive how the legendary material of religious and
even mantic nature would have come to be attached to Claros.
Pausanias reports how the Colophonians considered their sanctuary and oracle to be of the re-
motest antiquity: Κολοφώνιοι δὲ τὸ μὲν ἱερὸν τὸ ἐν Κλάρῳ καὶ τὸ μαντεῖον ἐκ παλαιοτάτου γενέσθαι
νομίζουσιν.22 Manto, the daughter of Teiresias the seer, received in her captivity a command from the
Delphic Apollo to found a colony, and after sailing to Claros was taken as a wife by Rhacius, the leader of
Cretan settlers already resident in the area. Their son Mopsus, a seer not unworthy of his grandsire, expelled
the Carians from the area.23 Scholiasts to Apollonius of Rhodes and Nicander attest an interesting, though
improbable etymology, deriving the name Claros from the verb κλαίω, which would refer to the weeping
15 Some of the earlier research on Claros took these mythologizing accounts at face value – a policy that led Picard (1922, 116),
for instance, to proclaim rather audaciously that “l’oracle était certainement institué au moment de la guerre de Troie”.
16 Paus. 10, 5, 9-11; cf. also Sourvinou-Inwood 1979. A more distant influence was naturally the primeval oracle of Dodona,
which may partly have prompted the Delphic establishment to promote its ancient origin.
17 Hymn. Hom. Ap. 40.
18 Epig. fr. 4 Kinkel (Schol. in Apoll. Rhod. 1, 308).
19 Str. 14, 1, 27; Paus. 7, 3, 1-2.
20 Parke 1985a, 121. A significant testimony to an early phase of the cult was revealed when, in 1959, Louis Robert’s excavators
found, very close to the altar and temple of Artemis, an archaic kore consecrated to Artemis by Timonax son of Theodoros during
his first term of office as priest of Artemis at Claros (τὸ πρῶτον ἰρεύσας) towards the late 6th century BC (other finds, showing
that Timonax as priest also dedicated at least two kouroi to Apollo, suggest that he was in charge of a joint cult of the two deities):
Robert 1960a, 21-2; Lejeune 1998, 1145-51, cf. SEG XLVIII 1406-8.
21 Hymn. Hom. Dian. 5.
22 Paus. 7, 3, 1. He then proceeds to narrate the story of Manto and Mopsus.
23 Clara Talamo considers Mopsus to have been the first Clarian prophet, but this has little grounding in ancient sources, even
mythographical ones: Talamo 1998, 244.
es
tra
54 Antti Lampinen
tto
of Manto,24 while others considered the name to stem from the word κλῆρος denoting a lot – presumably
that of Rhacius25 or that of Apollo.26 The legend of Manto contains many Delphic motifs, and her character
mainly serves to connect Claros to the Greek mainland.27 Notable also is the Aeolic connection of the Tei-
resian family of seers; this has been used to assume an originally Aeolic allegiance of the sanctuary, which
thus would have been under the care of Notion at first, before being acquired by Colophon during the 4th
century when the two cities were joined in συμπολιτεία.28 Another proof of the non-Ionian character of
the sanctuary at this point is that even the temple begun in the 4th or early 3rd centuries BC was not of the
Ionian, but of the Dorian order.29 We shall return to this point when discussing the Tacitean evidence on the
sacerdotes of Claros.
The Delphic connections of the Clarian legends, and the forms of Delphic influence on the Asian
oracles may be worth examining here. That the organization and divinatory practice at Claros was less af-
fected by the “Delphic model” – malleable and tendentious though such a concept may be – than the one
prevalent at Didyma, for instance, has formed the long-lasting consensus amongst researchers at least since
Picard.30 In the mythical register, however, Delphic reflections are relatively easy to come by, and the motif
of Manto is just one of such instances. Another one is the alleged absence of snakes and scorpions from
the sacred grove at Claros,31 which recalls the killing of Pytho by the invader Apollo at Delphi.32 It seems
relatively safe to argue that the version of the story of Manto recorded by Pausanias was given form in a
Colophonian milieu33 at a time when it became essential to connect the Clarian foundation stories with the
Delphic paradigm through the medium of a shared history. Learned writers with connections to the sanctua-
ry, such as Nicander of Colophon, could have been involved in the invention of this tradition.
Strabo further elaborates the foundation-story by supplying the story of Calchas, who came to Cla-
ros after the Trojan War, and, having confronted Mopsus in a contest of oracular prowess and lost, expired
of grief and/or shame.34 One version of the contest given by Strabo seems to come originally from Hesiod,
whereas Pherecydes of Syros is given as the source for a particularly rustic version involving a pregnant
24 Schol. in Apoll. Rhod. 1, 388; Schol. in Nic. Ther. 958, Alex. 11; cf. also Parke 1985a, 113 and Johnston 2008, 81. This tradition
also includes the elegant aspect of referring to the Clarian oracular fountain, as well.
25 Eutecn. paraphr. Nic. Alex. 11. The difficulty of dating Eutecnius the “σοφιστής” makes it improbable that the mythographical
sources of this tradition could ever be reconstructed.
26 Clearch. ap. Schol. in Apoll. Rhod. 1, 368; Schol. in Nic. Ther. 958.
27 Parke 1985a, 113, 115. It may have been the prevalence of Delphic motifs in the story of Manto that led Bouché-Leclercq
(1879-82, II 249) to claim that Manto “fut sans doute la première prophétesse d’Apollon à Klaros.” On Manto cf. also Flower 2008,
29, 212.
28 Parke 1985a, 118-9, 123, 126.
29 Robert 1954a, 1-2, 12-3.
30 Picard 1922, 108-11, 238. It should be noted that one of Picard’s aims in his study was to collect evidence for the “indigenous-
ness” of the Clarian (as well as Ephesian) establishment (cf. ibid. 539-41). There is little to be gained, however, from postulating
some kind of indigenously flavoured “mantique ionienne” based on such severely lacunose evidence. Besides, even in the purely
practical and symbolical organization of the sanctuary there are some unquestionably Delphic elements, such as the ὀμφαλός found
in the first room of the subterranean mantic complex; Flacelière 1961, 44-7.
31 Ael. NA 10, 49.
32 It was read exactly so already by the earliest modern researchers on Claros: Bouché-Leclercq 1879-82, 66 n. 3; Picard 1922,
67. Picard in particular seems to endorse this theory of an invading Apollo appropriating a pre-existing oracular site of the Mother
Goddess (e.g., ibid. 111, 388-90), since it suits his reconstruction of an ancient “Carian” substratum in Claros’ myth and ritual.
33 Talamo 1998, 245. The article treats the Clarian traditions at length, discussing not only the feminine characters of Manto and
Lampousa, but also the personages of Mopsus and Calchas, as well as relations between the alleged masculine and feminine pro-
phetic traditions at Claros.
34 Str. 14, 1, 27. The latest modern treatment of Mopsus can be found in Flower 2008, 43-5.
es
tra
tto
sow.35 Later, while explaining the origins of Pamphylians, Strabo quotes Callinos on Calchas’ death at Cla-
ros.36 Calchas and his burial at Claros were also mentioned by Lycophron.37
Rather interestingly, the Suda explains that “the Colophonian Sibyl” was called Lampousa, and was
a descendant of Calchas.38 A Colophonian Sibyl is also mentioned by Clemens of Alexandria,39 but since
these female mantic characters receive ample study elsewhere in this volume, they will only interest us here
inasmuch as they relate to the early traditions on Clarian seers. Now Calchas is sometimes considered as a
representative of “pre-Apollonian divination” – Clara Talamo, for example, sees him in this way40 –, though
the excavations conducted at the site in the 1950s under the direction of Louis Robert yielded in fact very
little evidence of any religious interaction with local traditions or even traces of non-Apollonian beliefs or
rituals at the sanctuary.41 Already Bouché-Leclercq was inclined to postulate a rivalry between the Clarian
Sibyl, “a descendant of Calchas”, and Manto, mother of Mopsus,42 and Picard went as far as to consider the
Sibylline tradition of Claros a distinctly Ionian development, promoted in antagonism to the Delphic “tradi-
tion sacerdotale réguliere” of a suppressed and weeping Manto, and (rather melodramatically) of an Apollo
who seemed to have forgotten his Asiatic roots.43 It seems that neither of these mantic families acquired a
position as eponymous ancestors, which stands in contrast to the Didymaean Branchidae – or at least we no
longer possess any references to their professed descendants.
However the mythical roots were presented, the first historically attested Clarian oracles date from
the time of Alexander, with the earliest one preserving an oracular sentence concerning a new site for the
city of Smyrna on the slope of Mt. Pagus, which the god emphatically favours.44 Subsequently the Clarian
oracle was very active during the Wars of the Diadochi, and greatly benefited from their patronage. It has
been remarked that at this phase the oracle seemed to attract many of its visitors from among the non-
Hellenized inhabitants of Western Asia Minor,45 and, indeed, the sanctuary’s greatest benefactors were the
Attalids, the majority of whose subjects were only recently Hellenized.46 It was during this period of revival
35 Hes. fr. 278 (Str. 14, 1, 27); Pherec. FGrH 3 F 142 (Str. 14, 1, 27). The legend of the contest was probably intended in the first
place to supply heroic credentials for the founder of the oracle at Claros; Flower 2008, 45.
36 Call. ap. Str. 14, 4, 3.
37 Lyc. Alex. 424-30.
38 Suda s.v. Σίβυλλα Κολοφωνία, ἥτις ἐκλήθη καὶ Λάμπουσα, ἀπόγονος Κάλχαντος. καὶ αὐτὴ μαντείας καὶ χρησμοὺς δι᾿
ἐπῶν, καὶ ἄλλα.
39 Clem. Al. protr. 1, 21, 132-3.
40 Talamo 1998, 242.
41 Várhelyi 2001, 14.
42 Bouché-Leclercq 1879-82, 175-7.
43 Picard 1922, 420. Such a notion is somewhat hard to reconcile with the observation that the name Mopsus may have a Luwian
origin, as attested by Hittite texts (of the 7th century BC): Parke 1985a, 115. Thus Mopsus would himself be a representative of
the earlier, perhaps sub-Hittite mantic tradition of Asia Minor, a supposition somewhat reinforced by his strong connection with
Cilicia and its oracular tradition – namely, the famous oracle of Amphilochus and Mopsus at Mallos, as well as the toponym Mop-
souestia (cf. Xanth. FGrH 765, 17; also Nic. Dam. FGrH 90, 16). On Mopsus and Hittite-Luwian Muksus, as well as the Cilician
royal dynasty of Moxos, see Barnett 1953; Burkert 1992, 52; and Flower (2008, 43), who adopts a cautious view on the historical
truthfulness of the Mopsus tradition. It could, of course, be argued that Mopsus actually belongs to the Asiatic tradition of seers, but
his adoption as the son of Manto represents a Greek appropriation of these native traditions. Besides, the very fact that Mopsus did
not engender a (Greek) prophetic family would indicate his exclusion from the authentic Greek tradition. The theories of Apollo’s
Anatolian origin have been more critically examined in recent studies; see, e.g., Graf 2009, 12-3, 132-3, 136-7.
44 Robert 1954a, 5.
45 Várhelyi 2001, 14.
46 Levin 1989, 1629.
es
tra
56 Antti Lampinen
tto
that the slow construction process of the partly preserved oracular temple was begun,47 and it was also at this
point, if not earlier, that the subterranean oracular session came to be the method of divination.
On the death of Attalus III in 133 BC, the Clarian sanctuary passed peacefully into the hands of the
Romans, which partly ensured the continuing prestige of the sanctuary. The first century of Roman rule
was, however, somewhat troubled, with Cilician pirates plundering Claros as well as Didyma.48 Strabo’s
choice of tense in his account of Claros may be explained by the fact that there was such a meagre level of
cultic continuity during the last decades of the Republic that the geographer felt it safer to say how ἐν ᾧ
καὶ μαντεῖον ἦν ποτὲ παλαιόν.49 Indeed, the author need not have meant a complete cessation of oracular
activity at the site, since the imperfect tense can just as well denote a sanctuary at which the scale of ope-
ration has considerably diminished instead of entirely ceasing. The situation described by Strabo may refer
generally to the late Republic since, though his point of reference is mainly Augustan, his “present” seems to
extend at least from the mid-first century BC to the early first century AD.50 In any case, the early Imperial
period was certainly rather prestigious and active at Claros, although Germanicus’ ill-boding consultation in
AD 18 and the puzzling charge against Lollia Paullina of using the Clarian Apollo’s simulacrum for magical
purposes cast a somewhat sinister shadow on the sanctuary.51 As evidence of the adaptability of the oracular
services at Claros, Ovid seems to refer to the Clarian Apollo answering enquiries submitted to him in written
form, apparently letters.52
2.2. Didyma
For writers in the mythical register, Didyma appears (often by its more ancient name of Branchidae) as a
functioning oracular centre already in the 11th century BC – that is, before the Ionian colonization.53 As
noted earlier in connection with Claros, this kind of testimony has no bearing in assuming any real oracular
activity at the site. Rather it is merely an indication of the need of Asiatic sanctuaries to appear as ancient
as Delphi did – or conversely of the attempt of Delphi to link these Apolline oracles to itself in some kind
of ancillary liaison by employing suitably ancient heroes and motifs to argue for their dependency. Quite
possibly the appropriation worked both ways. In the mythical traditions of Didyma we see the Delphic
paradigm at work just as clearly as at Claros: the eponymic ancestor of the Branchidae, Branchos, is given
a Delphic pedigree by several authors.54 The Milesians may very well have recognized these origins only
47 Parke 1985a, 128-9. The temple was still unfinished – like its megalomaniacal counterpart at Didyma – at the time of Pausanias;
cf. 7, 5, 4.
48 Thus it is no wonder that the Ionian League erected a statue at Claros for Pompey after he had vanquished the pirates; Robert
1952, 17. On the general disorder of the Greek cults during the first century BC, cf. Lane Fox 1986, 74.
49 Str. 14, 1, 27.
50 Clarke 1999, 285-9. Interestingly, the expression τὸ παλαιόν in Strabo’s passages pertaining to Asia Minor often seems to use
the defeat of Mithridates VI and subsequent reorganization of Asia by Pompey (in 65-63 BC) as a terminus between the ‘old days’
and ‘our times’, cf. Pothecary 1997, 237, 241. The case of the Clarian sanctuary would fit the theory quite nicely.
51 For Germanicus’ visit, see Tac. ann. 2, 54, and for Lollia Paullina, Tac. ann. 12, 22. As both incidents are recorded by Tacitus,
the possibility of some authorial strategy should not be disregarded.
52 Ov. fast. 1, 20: aut Clario missa legenda deo.
53 Diog. Laert. 8, 5 (Menelaus dedicates Euphorbus’ shield at the temple); Lyc. Alex. 1378-81 (Neleus receives earth and water
from a maid at Branchidae); Parthen. 1 (Lyrcus son of Phoroneus consults the oracle); Paus. 5, 13, 11 (Heracles founds the great
altar of ashes – probably just an extrapolation of him doing the same at Olympia), 7, 2, 6 (Didyma founded before the colonization);
Orph. Arg. 152-3 (Erginus, hailing from “the country of Branchos”, joins the Argonautae). None of the sources predates the Hel-
lenistic resurgence of Didyma.
54 Callim. Branch. 229 Pfeiffer; Con. narr. 33; Str. 9, 3, 3. 9; Asclepiades of Tragilus FGrH 12 F 15 (Schol. in Pind. Nem. 7, 62);
cf. also Picard 1922, 109.
es
tra
tto
after a restructuring of the oracular establishment in 331 BC along the Delphic model. There are remains of
a narrative tradition that Branchos was a Chian or a Thessalian.55
Whatever his origin, Branchos clearly had a very special relationship with Apollo: several authors
mention the god’s love for him.56 Statius and his commentator opt to interpret this only as filial love: accor-
ding to them, Branchos is Apollo’s son,57 and the cult myth apparently had Apollo enter Branchos’ mother
in a dream as the sun.58 In any event, Branchos grew up to be a rather remarkable man: he sported a magical
staff received from his divine father,59 and subsequently ritually purified the city of Miletus by employing
an incantation that used each letter of the Greek alphabet once.60 Another feature of the early Didymaean
hierarchy of functionaries that received aetiological treatment in the cult myth is the presence of more than
one auxiliary priestly family in addition to the eponymous Branchidae, namely the Euangelidae and – if
acting already – the Bacchiadae.61 Branchos reportedly obtained an assistant in the character of Euangelos,
the eponymic ancestor of the minor priestly family (or association) of the Euangelidae,62 who even after the
Persian sacking of Miletus in 494 BC remained a prominent Milesian family.63
The real birth of Didyma has been dated to approximately the 9th century BC,64 and this chronology
would, indeed, accommodate well the need of an immigrant population to consolidate itself for a few ge-
nerations before founding an oracular sanctuary. There appears to have been no significant cultic (or other)
activity antedating the Geometric period at the site of later Didymeion, though excavations at Miletus have
yielded a wealth of Mycenaean finds.65 Thus the evidence in support of some kind of ‘Carian’ basis for the
oracular establishment is just as lacking at Didyma as at Claros.66
Already in Herodotus we find the Didymaean sanctuary enjoying great prestige, firmly controlled by
a priestly clan or association of the Branchidae.67 Apollo Didymeus was even known abroad, at least in Ly-
dia68 and Egypt69 – apparently Pharaoh Necho II sent him gifts after a victory over the Kingdom of Judah at
the battle of Megiddo in 609 BC. In about 545 BC, Miletus submitted peacefully to Persian authority, along
55 Varro ap. Lact. Plac. Theb. 8, 198.

56 Lact. Plac. Theb. loc. cit.; Ter. Maur. metr. 1885-88; Long. DC 4, 17; Philostr. epist. 5, 8, 51. In the tradition concerning Br-
anchos there seem to be some – probably rather superficial and altogether too universal – connections with the international folk-
tale motif AT 673 (The White Serpent’s Flesh), which also finds other parallels in classical literature, such as the story of the seer
Melampous (Apollod. bibl. 1, 9, 11-12) or the biography of Apollonius of Tyana (Philostr. v. Apoll. 1, 20). Concerning the motif and
its parallels in antiquity, see Hansen 2002, 462-9.
57 Stat. Theb. 3, 478-79; Lact. Plac. Theb. loc. cit.
58 Fontenrose 1988, 113.
59 Varro ap. Lact. Plac. Theb. loc. cit.
60 Apollod. Cerc. ap. Clem. Al. strom. 5, 8, 48, 674P (108-9).
61 Con. narr. 44; Hsch. s.v. Βακχιάδαι; Schol. in Nic. Alex. 11.
62 Con. narr. 44; I.Didyma 50.IA.40, 509 III.
65 On the Mycenaean phase at Miletus (prob. Myc. *Milātos, cf. mi-ra-ti-jo, “Milesian (man)” [from Thebes], mi-ra-ti-ja, “Mile-
sian (women)” [Pylos]; Hit. Millawanda), see, e.g., Niemeier 1999, 144, 149-50, 153-4; as well as Niemeier 2002; cf. also Fonten-
rose 1988, 7. For Milesian history during the prehistoric and archaic periods, reference should be made to Greaves 2002.
66 Contrary to, e.g., Parke 1988, 58.
67 Hdt. 1, 46, 2; 1, 157, 3 – 159, 4; 5, 36, 3; 6, 19, 2-3. After the 330s, the name of Branchidae is almost purely literary, somewhat
archaizing and never found in the Milesian and Didymaean epigraphic record: Fontenrose 1988, 3.
68 Herodotus (1, 92, 2) describes how King Croesus dedicated offerings to Didyma as sumptuous as those given to Delphi, though
not taken from his own property but that of a defeated Lydian rival of his. The latter point may easily be a Delphic elaboration de-
signed to downplay this early importance of its Asiatic sibling.
69 Hdt. 2, 159, 3.
es
tra
58 Antti Lampinen
tto
with the rest of the Greek subjects of the former Lydian Kingdom. Not long afterwards, the building of a
new, quite substantial temple of stone was initiated,70 and in the 510s a new cult image of Apollo Didymeus
in bronze, sculpted by Canachus, was received into the ἄδυτον.71 Even at this early stage the sanctuary had
made a policy of recording the divine answers in epigraphic form,72 and this tendency became one of the
most enduring practices at Didymeion.
This early period of increasing prestige and wealth, however, was not to last. Having failed in an
invasion of Naxos in 499 BC, the Milesian tyrant Aristagoras incited his own subjects to rebellion against
his Persian masters.73 After spreading quickly among the Ionians and gaining some initial success, such as
the pillaging of Sardis, the revolt had to withstand the inevitable Persian backlash. In 494 BC, the Persians
decisively crushed the combined Greek fleet at Lade74 and very soon after sacked Miletus and its sanctuary,
the Didymeion.75 This initiated a period of about 160 years during which Apollo Didymeus was silent, alt-
hough the cessation of all cultic activity at the site does not seem likely.76
The most notable effect of the Persian Wars in Didyma was without doubt the disappearance of the
Branchidae. Several Greek authors wrote about their fate, and these sources have been thoroughly examined
by Hammond.77 Most accounts, the majority of which seem to have been enhanced by Alexander-historians,
suppose that the Branchidae were transported by Xerxes to Sogdiana, where their descendants were later
encountered by Alexander, who supposedly punished them severely as Medizers and temple-robbers.78 Be
that as it may, even at Miletus there was evidently no great urge to repatriate the priestly clan: they are no
longer heard of as the keepers of the sanctuary, and when revived in the 330s, Didymeion functioned wit-
hout them. Considering the number of hereditary priestly offices in Greece at large, it is probable that their
dealings with the Persians had conferred an aura of illegitimacy to the whole bloodline of the Branchidae,
so that even if their descendants were at Miletus in Alexander’s time, they were not reinstated.79 It is in all
probability at this point that the Delphic influence came to play a large part in the organization and ritual
of the sanctuary, which would remain unchanged throughout the subsequent history of Didymeion. Such
influence seems to be attested at least in the gender of the inspired seer, who at Didyma was a woman – a
feature that will be discussed at length below.
Clearly the rupture in the mantic tradition was not irreparable, since Didymaean Apollo was giving
out oracles very shortly after the city’s “liberation” by Alexander in 331 BC, probably using a 5th-century
shrine.80 Unsurprisingly, the prophecies were very favourable to Alexander, and it was from Didyma that he
received, while at Memphis, the pronouncement of his divine birth.81 Genuine or not, the Milesians clearly

71 Paus. 2, 10, 5; 9, 10, 2; Plin. nat. 34, 6, 75.
72 As attested by a fragment of a prose oracle concerning raiding or piracy from c. the 550s BC; I.Didyma 11, cf. Jackson 1995.
73 Hdt. 5, 37. The course of events from the viewpoint of the Milesians is included in Gorman 2001, 134-46.
74 Hdt. 6, 6-17.
75 Hdt. 6, 18-21.
77 Hammond 1998.
78 For which see Parke 1985b.
79 Levin 1989, 1620. At any rate there are no known cases in Hellenistic or Roman Didyma of a member of the oracular establish-
ment mentioning his (or hers, for that matter) descent from the Branchidae. This is not very surprising, since judging by Str. 17, 1,
43 C 814 (who quotes Callisthenes), the tradition concerning “the temple-robbery and the betrayal” of the Branchidae seems to have
been well-established by the Hellenistic period; cf. also Hammond 1998, 341.
81 Callisth. FGrH 124 F 14 (Str. 17, 1, 43).
es
tra
tto
managed to convince the Hellenistic autocrats of the ability of their oracular Apollo to act as a kingmaker.
The Seleucids – who had the right of προμαντεία to the sanctuary from the time of Antiochus I82 – used to be
the most generous patrons of the Didymaean Apollo before the defeat at Magnesia of Antiochus III,83 whe-
reas the kings of Bithynia seem to have patronized the sanctuary after that.84 There are also donations and
dedications made by the Ptolemies as well as others in their honour,85 and when combined with the Gallic
plundering of Didyma in 277/6 BC and the evidence from Callimachus’ Delian hymn with its galatomachic
imagery,86 it could be argued that Ptolemy II Philadelphus was possibly trying to pose as a more competent
defender of Asia Minor from barbarians than the Seleucids or even the Attalids.87 The Egyptian contacts,
already attested by Herodotus, were evidently once again cultivated at Didyma.
It was under the Seleucids that the centuries-spanning building project of the gigantic new temple
was begun,88 though it may be that the architectural plan came to incorporate some Egyptian features.89 The
sanctuary received its own panhellenic festival when the quadrennial Didymaea were initiated in 207 or 203
BC.90 Inscriptions from the 2nd century BC include mentions of a χρησμογράφιον,91 which may or may
not be identical with the “House of the Prophets” easily recognized by the hundreds of inscriptions record-
ing the prophets’ tenures.92 In 133 BC, Miletus and Didyma were bequeathed to Rome by Attalus III along
with his entire realm, and about a hundred years later the Didymeion shared with Claros the depredations
of Cilician pirates. By the Augustan Age, however, the sanctuary had evidently recovered to the extent that
Conon could call it the most notable among the Greek oracles after the Delphic one.93
The exemplary effect of Delphi – whether real or perceived – with which all the other sanctuaries
seem to have wished to accommodate their foundation myths and even divinatory practices, has been at-
tested at several instances in both sanctuaries. At Claros the mythical contact seems to have been relatively
well-established, whereas in Didyma the real or believed contacts with Delphi may have been realized in the

83 Levin 1989, 1621-2. Examples of the Seleucid patronage include, for instance, OGIS 214 = Bringmann 1995, no. 280, examined
already by Cyriac of Ancona, and I.Didyma 493 = Bringmann 1995, no. 282.
84 Günther 1971, 94.
85 Benefactions given by the early Ptolemies: Bringmann 1995, nos. 273-5. Dedications and honours to the Ptolemies and other
Hellenistic monarchs are collected in Kotsidu 2000, 383-99.
86 Callim. hymn. 4, 171-6. Also Callim. aet. (fr. 80, 3) betrays an interest in Milesian affairs, which probably is partly that of Cal-
limachus’ patron, Philadelphus.
87 Miletus and Didyma belonged to Ptolemy’s realm in the period of 280-258 BC; Parke 1986, 129. For a recent, highly competent
study about Ptolemaic intentions and achievements in spreading their influence to Asia Minor, see Meadows 2012. The change in
geopolitics from the reign of Soter to that of Philadelphus is called “simply astonishing” by Meadows (ibid. 116). Honours to Soter:
Kotsidu 2000, 385 no. 264; Philadephus: ibid. 386 no. 266; Philotera, Philadephus’ sister: ibid. 386 no. 265.
88 Paus. 7, 5, 4; Str. 14, 1, 5.
89 Parke 1986, 125-7.
91 I.Didyma 31, 32.
92 The chresmographion was not included in the structure of the temple itself, since there are clear indications of some distance
between it and the prodomos of the temple; e.g., a summary of building work at the sanctuary in I.Didyma 31, ll. 5-7: εἰσήχθη μὲν
ἀπὸ τοῦ χρησμογραφίου εἰς τὸν πρόδομον τοῦ ναοῦ.
93 Con. narr. 33. It may have been Conon’s statement that prompted Themistius over three centuries later to rank Claros – along
with Didyma – as the foremost dwelling of Apollo: Them. 27, 334a. On the other hand, it was precisely these two sanctuaries that
participated the longest in the debate between Christianity and the various “paganisms” of Late Antiquity – thus, perhaps, rising to
greater prominence than Delphi in the minds of contemporaries. Be that as it may, it need not be doubted that Conon was known
to Themistius (4th century), since even Photius (9th century) admires the nice Attic language of his Diegeseis, FGrH 26 T 1 (Phot.
bibl. 186, p. 130 b 25). The two sanctuaries are also grouped together by Himer. orat. 60, 3.
es
tra
60 Antti Lampinen
tto
form that the oracular ritual and the organization of the sanctuary took, although mythologizing interpreta-
tions are evident, as well. Dependency on the Delphic paradigm constitutes a widely-used theme in dis-
cussing the “Greekness” of the oracular centres, while it is usually interpreted in contrast to a hypothetical
“Asiatic” or even “Anatolian” influence on the first stage of Clarian and Didymaean establishments. Though
some substratum of native μαντική seems plausible in archaic and perhaps even classical Asia Minor, it
should perhaps be recognized that any reconstruction of it through our Greek and Roman sources is tentative
at best, and speculative at worst.
The established view is that the post-renovation organization and cult at Didyma reflected a strong Del-
phic influence, and many of the mythographic themes are quite easily explained as relatively late innovations
motivated by a desire to establish a contact between the centres, although Branchos himself may not have been
originally a Greek personage.94 On the other hand, the rather numerous traditions concerning the Branchidae
have been used to point to the possibility that their mantic association was of relative antiquity at the site, and
came within the orbit of the Anatolian mantic tradition such as the Telmessoi of Lykia.95 However that may
be, the Delphic themes cannot be conclusively excluded even in the early phase of the oracle during the tenure
of the Branchidae, although they only become evident in the Hellenistic organization of the ritual life at the
sanctuary. In the later phase of the cult there is nothing that could be called non-Greek for certain.
The Hellenization of the Clarian oracle has sometimes been seen as a relatively late development,
with many of the shrine’s features related to its earlier non-Greek phase.96 Of such a non-Greek phase we
have virtually no evidence, though it is possible that at least the cultic activity – if not the oracle – predates
the Greek occupation of the site.97 By the Roman period, however, there was probably no vestige left of the
hypothetic non-Greek nature of the Clarian oracle. Though the Greek novels often include exotic circum-
stances and places, the choice by Xenophon of Ephesus for a prophecy by the Clarian Apollo as the motivat-
ing factor behind the adventures of Anthia and Habrocomes probably does not stem from such considera-
tions; on the contrary, the common popularity and fame of Apollo Clarios must have influenced the choice.98
Considering that Xenophon was probably writing in the first half of the second century, the popularity of
Claros is not surprising.
3. Oracular functionaries at Claros
3.1. Inspired seer
The great question concerning the Clarian organization of oracular functionaries is whether the προφήτης
or the θεσπιῳδός acted as the inspired diviner; the problem will be treated under this and the following
heading.99 Tacitus, our earliest literary source, famously uses the word sacerdos in a rather widely discussed
94 Parke 1985a, 117.

95 Hdt. 1, 78; 1, 84, 3; Arr. 1, 25, 8; 2, 3, 3-4; Cic. div. 1, 41, 91; 42, 94; Fontenrose 1988, 78; Lebrun 1990, passim; cf. also
Chaniotis 2002, 79.
96 Picard 1922, 554-6; Levin 1989, 1599-649.
97 If the oracle, too, had been pre-Hellenic, then the tradition concerning Mopsus in connection with Claros might have some
grounding in actual historical developments.
98 Xen. Eph. 1, 5, 9 – 6, 2; 1, 7, 1-2; Saïd 1997, 381; cf. also Parke 1985a, 149.
99 The principal pair among the more recent contributors to the question, namely, H.W. Parke and Louis Robert, occupy entirely
opposite positions concerning the matter, as Parke (1985a, 220) envisions the prophet as drinking of the mantic spring and the
θεσπιῳδός as giving a poetic form to the oracular utterance, whereas Robert (1967, 305) considers that the inspired chanting out of
the divine will was done by the θεσπιῳδός, appointed for life, while it was the prophet who sat in the anteroom with the consultants,
es
tra
tto
passage of his Annales, thus imparting some ambivalence to the question of the official’s Greek title.100
Certainly the word sacerdos itself could denote an oracular functionary as well as any consecrated religious
operator; Cicero uses the word several times as a convenient cover-all term for a mantic specialist.101 The
epigraphic evidence at Claros is somewhat incoherent, since the titles ἱερεύς, πρύτανις and προφήτης are
frequently used in no clear order of precedence, as noted already by Picard.102 This terminological convolut-
edness is not markedly dispersed by the later literary sources, among which the foremost is Iamblichus’ De
mysteriis.103 He uses προφήτης twice and ἱερεύς once while writing of the Clarian inspired diviner drinking
of the mantic spring.104 This does not, however, mean that the terms are simply synonyms for the same post,
for they are clearly distinguishable offices, albeit perhaps at times simultaneously occupied by the same
person. Many of the erstwhile Clarian prophets were later in their life appointed ἱερεῖς of the sanctuary – a
highly respected and probably not very demanding post διὰ βίου to crown one’s sacral career.105 Moreover,
on certain rare occasions the prophet of the Clarian sanctuary seems to have been bestowed the honourable
office of πρύτανις of Κολοφῶν ἀπὸ θαλάσσης – that is, the town of Notion.106 There is also evidence point-
writing down the utterances (cf. also Robert 1992, 286: “sur des tablettes posées sur ses genoux”). The short but refreshingly clear
discussion of the Clarian functionaries in Busine (2005, 50-1) mainly reiterates points made elsewhere.
100 Tac. ann. 2, 54: atque illum in regressu sacra Samothracum visere nitentem obvii aquilones depulere. igitur adito Ilio quaeque
ibi varietate fortunae et nostri origine veneranda, relegit Asiam adpellitque Colophona ut Clarii Apollinis oraculo uteretur. non
femina illic, ut apud Delphos, sed certis e familiis et ferme Mileto accitus s a c e r d o s numerum modo consultantium et nomina
audit; tum in specum degressus, hausta fontis arcani aqua, ignarus plerumque litterarum et carminum edit responsa versibus com-
positis super rebus quas quis mente concepit. et ferebatur Germanico per ambages, ut mos oraculis, maturum exitum cecinisse. Cf.
also Suvi Randén in this volume.
101 E.g., Cic. Pis. 48 and div. 1, 76, in which a female soothsayer is meant.
102 Picard 1922, 197-8, 207. Earlier, Haussoullier had noted that the ἱερεύς seems to have come right after πρύτανις and before
both the θεσπιῳδός and the προφήτης in most of the Colophonian inscriptions: Haussoullier 1898, 260. Likewise, one should note
the point made by Busine (2006, 289) that the epigraphic record does not testify to a variance in the organization, but to a variance
in the recording of it.
103 Iambl. myst. 3, 11: οἱ δὲ ὕδωρ πιόντες, καθάπερ ὁ ἐν Κολοφῶνι ἱερεὺς τοῦ Κλαρίου, οἱ δὲ στομίοις παρακαθήμενοι, ὡς αἱ
ἐν Δελφοῖς θεσπίζουσαι, οἱ δ᾿ ἐξ ὑδάτων ἀτμιζόμενοι, καθάπερ αἱ ἐν Βραγχίδαις προφήτιδες. […] Τὸ δὴ ἐν Κολοφῶνι μαντεῖον
ὁμολογεῖται παρὰ πᾶσι δι᾿ ὕδατος χρηματίζειν. Εἶναι γὰρ πηγὴν ἐν οἴκῳ καταγείῳ καὶ ἀπ᾿ αὐτῆς πίνειν τὸν προφήτην ἔν τισι
τακταῖς νυξίν, ἱερουργιῶν πολλῶν γενομένων πρότερον, πιόντα δὲ χρησμῳδεῖν οὐκέθ᾿ ὁρώμενον τοῖς παροῦσι θεωροῖς. Τὸ
μὲν οὖν εἶναι μαντικὸν ἐκεῖνο τὸ ὕδωρ αὐτόθεν πρόδηλον· τὸ δὲ πῶς ἐστι τοιοῦτον, οὐκέτ᾿ ἄν, κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν, πᾶς ἀνὴρ
γνοίη· δοκεῖ μὲν γὰρ διήκειν τι δι᾿ αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα μαντικόν· οὐ μέντοι τό γε ἀληθὲς οὕτως ἔχει. [...] Καὶ μὴν ἥ γε ἐν Βραγχίδαις
γυνὴ χρησμῳδός, εἴτε ῥάβδον ἔχουσα τὴν πρώτως ὑπὸ θεοῦ τινος παραδοθεῖσαν πληροῦται τῆς θείας αὐγῆς, εἴτε ἐπὶ ἄξονος
καθημένη προλέγει τὸ μέλλον, εἴτε τοὺς πόδας ἢ κράσπεδόν τι τέγγουσα τῷ ὕδατι ἢ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος ἀτμιζομένη δέχεται τὸν
θεόν, ἐξ ἁπάντων τούτων ἐπιτηδεία παρασκευαζομένη πρὸς τὴν ὑποδοχὴν ἔξωθεν αὐτοῦ μεταλαμβάνει.
104 Ibid. A point worth noting already at this occasion is the omission of the mediating officials in Iamblichus’ report – both in de-
scribing the Clarian practice as well as the Didymaean one. Parke must surely be right in ascribing this fact to Iamblichus’ exclusive
interest in the act of inspiration itself – making both the Clarian θεσπιῳδός and the Didymaean προφήτης quite insignificant agents
in his sublime philosophy of the mysteries; Parke 1985a, 221. The Clarian section of Iamblichus’ description has been scrutinized
most recently by Busine 2002, 190-4.
105 Clearly the post was occupied on a long-term basis, as evidenced by Μ. Οὔλπιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος, who is mentioned as ἱερατεύων
over a period of several years under Hadrian; Macridy 1905, 155-73 (2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 6). It may be that Οὐλπία
Μελιτίνη, a subsequent πρύτανις (Macridy 1905, no. 7) of Colophon was a relation of his – since the prytany was rarely bestowed
on mortals at Colophon, it would seem reasonable that a female occupant not belonging to the imperial family would come from
a well-established local family. Moreover, it also becomes clear from the epigraphic record that the post of ἱερεύς was probably
mostly reserved for those who had already served as a prophet: Γ. Ἰούλιος Ζώτιχος, who had been a prophet during the 65th prytany
of Apollo in the early 130s AD (a προσκύνημα of Iconium; Macridy 1905, no. 4.2), is later found occupying the post of ἱερεύς dur-
ing the prytany of Οὐλπία Μελιτίνη, a possible female relative of his predecessor (ibid. no. 7); cf. also Macridy 1912, nos. 15-17,
20, 22, 26, in which Ζώτιχος is also a ἱερεύς under several prophets (in fact, he seems to have been a priest during at least 15 years
in the 160s and 170s AD). The oracular cursus honorum both in Claros and Didyma is nicely examined by Busine 2006, 298-300.
106 Such is the case with a προσκύνημα of Laodicea on the Lycus first published by Macridy 1905, no. 2.1, which can be dated by
the prytany of a certain Criton, who serves at the same time as a προφήτης. Another example of a character serving at the same time
as a prophet and a prytane is Κλ. ῾Ροῦφος, who is mentioned in a προσκύνημα of an unknown city, published by Macridy 1905,
no. 2.4. Another Laodicean προσκύνημα, this time with Κλ. ῾Ροῦφος in both posts can be dated by its mention of the proconsulate
es
tra
62 Antti Lampinen
tto
ing to the conclusion that in some years the ἱερεύς of the sanctuary assumed the role of the προφήτης itself –
or the other way around – as is suggested for instance by a 2nd-century delegation list of Bargasa.107 Perhaps
this happened on occasions when candidates to serve as a prophet were lacking,108 or when the lifetime post
of the priest fell vacant. It may well have been in such a year that Germanicus visited the sanctuary, being
served by a ἱερεύς acting as a προφήτης and enabling Tacitus to call the mantic official sacerdos.
Puzzlingly, Tacitus seems quite certain that the inspired seer of Claros was ignarus plerumque litter-
arum et carminum, which would be rather hard to reconcile with his descent from certain (and thus probably
somehow privileged) Ionian families also mentioned by the author.109 It is especially hard to believe how
at the very time of Tacitus’ writing, the same illiterate προφῆται would have occasionally gained the high
distinction of serving their city as a πρύτανις (cf. n. 106) – especially as the secretaries of the temple were
often recruited from the same families.110 They need not have been accomplished poets, to be sure, but en-
tirely ignari litterarum? Parke sees Tacitus simply repeating a popular superstition concerning the character
of the Clarian prophet,111 and indeed, the easiest refutation of the Tacitean evidence stems from the obvi-
ously stylistic nature of his contrast between the allegedly illiterate prophets and the great accuracy of their
oracular utterances. Thus the whole motif could be seen simply as a device for enhancing the credibility
and inspired authority of the oracle.112 Tacitus is most likely conflating two different oracular functionaries
in his report and thus giving a faulty impression of a single person being responsible for the whole of the
oracular procedure.
What then of the alleged Milesian or, rather more probably, Ionian ancestry of the Clarian sacerdos?
In this context, the Hellenistic (2nd-century) decree concerning the honours given to the chresmologos
Menophilos son of Philetairos from Smyrna, who had been invited to preside over the manteion at Claros
(see n. 118), appears as an intriguing piece of evidence, for Smyrna had been settled by Aeolians and Ionians
alike. Robert notes how “la cite de Smyrne avait été enlevée à la population éolienne par Colophon et les
rapports entre les deux cités furent constants à travers la grande plaine fertile qui les unit”.113 Also, we have
already met the Clarian Apollo involved in the refounding of Smyrna in the late 330s BC.114 Thus the ap-
pointment of Menophilos would seemingly be in harmony with what we read concerning the ethnicity of the
sacerdos from Tacitus’ account – and all the more so if Tacitus used the Hellenistic Nicander of Colophon,
a poet employed at the sanctuary of Claros, as his source for the Clarian μαντική.
The Platonic opinion on the character of προφῆται as a general group of mantic specialists was re-
ferred to in the introductory part, and, as will be seen presently, it does not fit too neatly with the divergent
of C. Julius Alexander Berenicianus to AD 132-3 (first published by Chamonard – Legrand 1894, 216, and later by Macridy 1905,
no. 5.3). ῾Ροῦφος is moreover mentioned as a πρύτανις and a προφήτης in a προσκύνημα of Neocaesarea Pontica, which probably
dates from the same general period as the first one from Laodicea since it is inscribed on the same slab, but with a change in the
tenure of the prophet-prytane; Macridy 1905, no. 2.2. Perhaps Criton’s death prompted a change in the joint post, after which Κλ.
῾Ροῦφος presided over a very active year with several surviving προσκυνήματα. Later ῾Ροῦφος served as a priest on and after the
80th prytany of Apollo (in the 150s AD); Picard 1922, 205.
107 SEG XXVI 1289, ll. 3-4: ἱερέως δὲ καὶ προ[φήτ]ου Γ(αΐου) Ἰ(ουλίου) Ἀγαθοκλέους. Also see Busine 2006, 287.
108 Picard 1922, 199, 218. At Didyma, as well, it became increasingly hard to find volunteers for the post in the 2nd century AD,
as will be seen.
109 Tac. ann. 2, 54.
110 Picard 1922, 219-20. Whether the families were among the upmost social classes, or rather more middle class is not evident;
Picard (ibid. 213), at any rate, considers the prophet to have been “pris surtout dans la classe moyenne”.
111 Parke 1940, 86.
112 Graf (2009, 72) correctly notes the likelihood of this claim having been influenced by what was said of Pythia.
113 Robert 1992, 288 (= SEG XLII 1065).
114 Paus. 7, 5, 3.
es
tra
tto
testimonies on the functions of prophets, whether male or female, at Claros and at Didyma. Iamblichus, a
Neo-Platonist, seems to use the word ὑποφήτης for inspired seers in general, while pondering whether they
should abstain from eating meat.115 In the literature ὑποφήτης is, indeed, used effectively as a synonym for
προφήτης, as attested by Apollonius of Rhodes and Lucian.116 Maximus of Tyre appears to use the word
specifically in the context of the Clarian inspired seer.117 Also the Clarian decree honouring Menophilos for
having meritoriously supervised the oracle (l. 23: ἐπὶ τῆι τοῦ μαντείου προστασίαι), calls him ὁ ὑποφήτης
τοῦ θεοῦ on line 31, although he is also called a χρησμολόγος on line 4.118 In this particular case the term
χρησμολόγος might be best understood as description of Menophilos’ personal and well-known occupa-
tion, whether professional or stemming from a more informal interest (see also below n. 144). The prefix
ὑπο- itself might encompass a very wide set of associations, but the ones having to do with “acting under”,
“functioning in auxiliary fashion, or in adjunct capacity”, or some other notion of subordination, seem the
most likely. These nuances might have made the term particularly attractive for Neo-Platonists and other
theoreticians of the sacred. On the whole, it would seem rather safe to make the general argument that
προφήτης / προφῆτις and ὑποφήτης form a distinctive semantic set in themselves, even though there may
be some evidence that Menophilos himself could also have been a ἱερεύς at Claros, a possibility which shall
be examined below (at nn. 143-6, 155-6). Certainly he was not ignarus litterarum, being a χρησμολόγος,
a professional compiler and interpreter of old oracular responses119 – and should we choose to accept the
Tacitean testimony on the Clarian inspired seer, this poses problems, especially if we want to entertain the
notion of Tacitus using Nicander as his source.
At Claros the prophets were elected annually, though unfortunately we have no certainty of whether
the election was by lot, as at Didyma – Picard’s guess to that effect rests upon inference. In any case, there
are frequent changes of prophets during prytanies.120 Just as in Didyma, the prophet could be re-elected to
the post even after a short interval.121 The office was a very prestigious one, its holders being apparently
selected from among the leading families of Colophon (and/or perhaps other Ionian cities), and sometimes
gaining the honour of functioning as the πρύτανις – a rare distinction usually reserved at Colophon for
115 Iambl. myst. 5, 1.

116 Apoll. Rhod. 1, 1310-11 (ὑποφήτης, of Glaucus; cf. Eur. Or. 364: προφήτης); Luc. Alex. 22: καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ προφήτης
μου δεηθῇ καὶ εὔξηται ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, in comparison with ibid. 24: Τιέμεναι κέλομαι τὸν ἐμὸν θεράπονθ᾿ ὑποφήτην· οὐ γάρ μοι
κτεάνων μέλεται ἄγαν, ἀλλ᾿ ὑποφήτου; cf. also Chaniotis 2002, 73-4. On the other hand, Lucian in his famous parody of the busy
oracular profession chosen by Apollo (bis. acc. 1) also uses the term πρόμαντις of a (female) seer at an Apolline shrine.
117 Max. Tyr. dialex. 8, 1: ὁ δὲ ἐν Ἰωνίᾳ ὑποφήτης, ὕδωρ ἐκ πηγῶν ἀρυσάμενος καὶ πιών, μαντικῶς ἔχει.
118 Robert 1992, 284 (= SEG XLII 1065). The existence of both terms in the same honorary inscription prompted John Dillery
to use it – quite optimistically – as proof of the improved station of χρησμολόγοι since the Classical period: Dillery 2005, 223.
Perhaps a better way to assess Menophilos’ title is to suppose no particularly negative connotations for the term χρησμολόγος apart
from the Classical Comedy. The overlap between the terms μάντις and χρησμολόγος has been noted, for example, by Hupfloher
2009, 274.
119 This is the most common interpretation of the term (cf. Dillery 2005, 169-70; Johnston 2008, 109, 137-9), and also one which
would suit the case of Menophilos quite well.
120 Picard 1922, 215. Besides, as we have seen (nn. 105, 107), there are examples of prophets that later became ἱερεῖς, which was
a long-term office at Claros; op. cit. 198. Additionally there are cases of a ἱερεύς serving also as a προφήτης in some years.
121 The prophet Criton (who also served as a πρύτανις, cf. above n. 106), for instance, served as a prophet at least three times;
Macridy 1912, nos. 18, 21 (the latter a προσκύνημα from Phocaea with a description προφητεύοντος Κρίτωνος τρίς). Another in-
stance of a prophet serving multiple terms would be a certain Φαῦστος, in office for at least two terms (both of which, interestingly,
are among the few years distinguished at Claros by mortal πρυτάνεις; cf., respectively, Αἴλιος Δημοκράτης and Οὐλπία Μελιτίνη
(the latter in Macridy 1905, no. 7; and above n. 105). Though both years of Φαῦστος’s tenure can be dated between the 80th and
the 85th prytany of Apollo (late 150s / early 160s AD), it would seen improbable that they were consecutive, at least in the light of
Pliny’s testimony; cf. below at n. 126.
es
tra
64 Antti Lampinen
tto
Apollo himself or the emperor.122 According to Iamblichus, it was the προφήτης who on certain prearranged
nights and after extensive ritual preparations drank from the sacred spring while unseen by the consult-
ants, and while under divine inspiration spoke the god-given answers.123 Parke, based on his reading of the
sources, considers the προφήτης (who we have seen was at times the same person as, or called by the name
of, ἱερεύς) the vehicle of prophecy at Claros, and moreover equates him with the Tacitean sacerdos.124 This
is the best explanation of the prophet’s duties at Claros, and the argument is reinforced by Pliny’s Natural
History.
Pliny the Elder, an eminent compiler of magical arcana, has an interesting though ruefully short note
on the curious properties of the mantic water at Claros: it is said to reduce the lifespan of anyone drinking
it.125 This supports the notion that the Clarian προφήτης was a short-term (though potentially renewable)
position of an inspired diviner: if there existed in antiquity some tradition concerning the unhealthy (magical
or otherwise) properties of the mantic water at Claros, it could well be viewed as an aetiological explana-
tion – a Clarian rationale for the practice of choosing prophets only for one year or for other similarly short
periods of time.126 As we have seen (n. 99), L. Robert wishes to reconstruct the Clarian rite with roles of
inspired and mediating functionaries that are opposite to the ones suggested by Parke, but taken together
with the Plinian evidence, his notion that the yearly replacement of the prophet is well in keeping with the
inspirational character of the θεσπιῳδός seems quite puzzling.127 In any case, it seems considerably more
likely that the prophet of Apollo Clarios was the inspired seer of the sanctuary.
A male inspired seer was certainly not unheard of among the Greeks, who found in their heroic
myths and traditions several noted μάντεις. Among the historically verified diviners dependent on oracular
sanctuaries, however, such functionaries are quite rare. Much of this apparent uniformity can be explained
by the prevalence of the Delphic paradigm in organizing an oracular sanctuary, as well as the widely dif-
fused custom that an inspired diviner should be kept hidden from profane eyes. In consequence, the gender
of the Clarian seer has been variously and enthusiastically interpreted. Picard chose to see the existence of a
male prophet at Claros as an important indication of “l’influence asiatique”, but such an assumption would
122 Picard 1922, 219. Most of the Clarian inscriptions of the Antonine age are dated by the year of Apollo’s prytany, for the god
held the office thirty-eight times in fifty-four years; Lane Fox 1986, 77-8. An example of imperial prytanies is a προσκύνημα of
Iconium, mentioning L. Aelius Caesar as the prytane (in AD 136/7) and Κλ. Κριτόλαος, a former γραμματεύς (e.g., Macridy 1905,
nos. 2.2, 2.4, 5.3), now elevated to the prophethood.
123 Iambl. myst. 3.11. There seems to be no real reason besides mere wishful thinking to suppose that these “certain nights” were
in any way connected with the nightly festivities of Hecate mentioned in Paus. 3, 14, 9, as suggested by Bouché-Leclercq 1879-82,
252.
124 Parke 1940, 86.
125 Plin. nat. 2, 232: Colophone in Apollinis Clarii specu lacuna est, cuius potu mira redduntur oracula, bibentium breviore vita.
126 Alternatively, this may be a case of an awe-inspiring story on the part of the sanctuary: for the mantic water to have a very clear
and definitely grim effect would no doubt have heightened the tension at the consultations.
127 Robert 1967, 305; cf. Parke 1985a, 220. Though generally very well versed with Anatolian oracles, it may be that Robert was
in this case too influenced by an analogy of the Didymaean prophets (or rather, prophetesses) as well as the strict meaning of the
title θεσπιῳδός: “Il faut marquer que le thespiode n’était pas, comme on l’a cru, celui qui mettait en vers les oracles que la prophète
aurait émis; exerçant sa charge à vie, il était le medium qui buvait l’eau du puits sacré dans la sale de l’adyton où il entrait seul et
qui chantait les oracles; tel est le sens du mot ‘thespiôdos’ et du verbe ‘thespiôdein’” (thus Robert 1989, 3 with n. 10). Of the earlier
theories concerning the interpretive / poetical role of θεσπιῳδός at Claros, cf. also Chamonard – Legrand 1894; Haussoullier
1898, 267; and Picard 1922, 209. Another reason for Robert to see the Clarian θεσπιῳδός as the inspired diviner is the use of the
word χρησμῳδεῖν in Iambl. myst. 3, 11 (also cf. n. 152 below) in connection with the Clarian mantic specialist, who utters the oracu-
lar answers in an altered state of mind. This should not, however, be seen as conclusive at all, since χρησμῳδός can just as well mean
“chanting oracles, or delivering them in verse”, LSJ s.v. χρησμῳδός. The lexico-semantic element of “chanting” does not necessar-
ily equate the two terms, and, moreover, Iamblichus also uses the term (not title!) χρησμῳδός of the Didymaean female prophetess,
whose official title did not have the element of ἀείδω; myst. 3, 11. Regarding the opposing views taken by Robert and Parke on the
officials’ religious functions, Busine (2006, 288) stated that “one cannot choose between these divergent speculations, etc.”
es
tra
tto
put serious stress on our meagre data – all the more so when there is also evidence of a male seer at the
sanctuary of Apollo Ptoios in Boeotia, at least in the mythical register imagined by Pindar.128 Thus the gen-
der of the seer cannot simply be seen as a factor in a hypothetical distinction between Asiatic and Hellenic
types of divination. Neither is there any real reason to suppose that the two sanctuaries at Ptoion and Claros
shared historically anything more fundamental than the gender of the inspired seer, though both tripods and
fountain water seem to have played a part in the cult in both sanctuaries.129
If the Clarian προφήτης was the inspired seer of the sanctuary, who was it that delivered the pro-
nouncements to the enquirers? Should we take Tacitus’ cecinisse to mean that during his time of writing it
was the same person (the sacerdos) at Claros who both drank the sacred water and gave the prophetic reply
to the consultants? This does not seem probable, for both at Delphi and at Didyma the inspired seer and the
mediating official were clearly separate individuals. Besides, cecinisse does not necessarily have to refer to
the very act of mantic, inspired chanting, but may just as well denote the poetic transmission of the divine
message to the consultants. For this task, which conceivably was quite crucial to the public assessment of
the oracle’s abilities, a trained specialist was needed.
3.2. Mediating official
The θεσπιῳδός of the Clarian sanctuary was a lifetime post130 and quite distinct from that of the prophet. He
figures predominantly among the officials of the sanctuary, and was, since the inscriptions of the 2nd century
AD, frequently placed at the head of all the functionaries of Claros.131 He seems to have taken the role of a
ceremonial leader of the sanctuary, like the Didymaean προφήτης, who – it will be argued – fulfilled essen-
tially the same function as the Clarian θεσπιῳδός. The daily running of the sanctuary was no doubt firmly
in the hands of professional bureaucrats, probably the ταμίαι.
Though probably not the referent of Tacitus’ sacerdos, the office of θεσπιῳδός seems to have been
mostly reserved for members of certain old families, largely of Ionian descent. Exceptions from this ethnic
distinction, however, are easy to come by – for instance, the earliest Clarian θεσπιῳδός mentioned in the
epigraphic record, Asclepides Demophilou, is a descendant of Ardys the Heraclid, king of Lydia.132 In any
case, he had a respectably ancient pedigree, to which some other θεσπιῳδοί referred, as well.133 The scho-
128 Pind. fr. 51d Maehler: ναοπόλος μάντις (the hero Teneros); Herodotus (8, 135) provides the information that at Ptoion the
sentences spoken by a πρόμαντις were taken down by three men of Theban origin – unfortunately we have no information on the
title of these officials; cf. Str. 9, 2, 34 (with a mention of the three peaks of mount Ptoôs, which may have a connection with the three
Thebans); Plut. de def. or. 5 (412a-b); Paus. 9, 33, 3. Cf. also Ducat 1971, 446-8; Guillon 1943, II 118, 137-9; Flaceliere 1949;
Defradas 1954, 78; Flower 2008, 89.
129 Ducat 1971, 448; the tripods of Claros are, admittedly, only those mentioned by Nic. Alex. 9. The oracular functionaries at
Ptoion have been examined recently by Hupfloher 2009, 284-6.
130 Robert 1954b, 207, 211; Picard 1922, 209. Θεσπιῳδός seems to feature in the inscriptions of the sanctuary only from the
130s onward. The general patchiness and relatively late multiplication of the Clarian epigraphic record, however, has to be borne
in mind.
131 Picard 1922, 208.
132 Parke 1985a, 221; the inscription (a προσκύνημα of Amissos) is published in Haussoullier 1898, 259; Macridy 1905, no. 5.4;
OGIS 530; and IGR IV 1586. It is dated by the 63rd prytany of Apollo, which corresponds to AD 132, and also mentions a certain
Ἑρμίας Ἀττάλου as the prophet (l. 10). Asclepides is frequently found as θεσπιῳδός in the early προσκυνήματα, such as those of
Laodicea (Macridy 1905, no. 2.1 – with Criton as both prophet and prytane, as we have seen [above n. 106]; no. 3.2 with the two
high offices separate; and no. 5.3 with Κλ. ῾Ροῦφος as a prophet-prytane, above n. 106) and Neocaesarea (ibid. no. 2.2, again with
Κλ. ῾Ροῦφος occupying both posts; above n. 106) and that of the unnamed town (ibid. no. 2.4) from the same year as that of the
Neocaesareans.
133 Macridy 1912, no. 1, a προσκύνημα of Heraclea Salbace, describes the θεσπιῳδός Τιβέριος Κλαύδιος Ἄρδυς as τῶν ἀπὸ
Ἄρδυος Ἡρακλειδῶν Πατρογενίδου; cf. also ibid. nos. 2-12, all of which have been inscribed (with the same formula) during the
es
tra
66 Antti Lampinen
tto
liast for Nicander’s Alexipharmaca linked the Milesian (and thus Ionian) priestly clan of Bacchiadae with
Claros, and they are also mentioned by Hesychius.134
At this point it is useful to turn to Nicander’s testimony concerning his own position at Claros. Ni-
cander son of Xenophanes was a native of Colophon,135 and there seems to be some evidence that he had in-
herited his (unspecified) office from some ancestor,136 in addition to which the Suda presents him as the author
of a treatise Περὶ χρηστηρίων πάντων.137 He represents a rare case in antiquity: a true author’s voice from
someone employed at an oracular shrine – Plutarch being, of course, another famous case. Our only source on
Nicander’s life, apart from what can be gleaned from his own writings, is the mention in the Suda, probably
derived from Hesychius, that according to some he was of Aetolian descent. It is probable, however, that this
detail pertains to an earlier Nicander of the 3rd century BC.138 Although no source mentions his official title, he
describes himself as sitting by the Clarian tripods of Apollo139 – which, unless he is indulging in poetic licence,
could be taken to indicate that he held a position requiring attendance at mantic sessions.
It seems safe enough to surmise that Nicander was not an inspired seer, but rather a professional
poet and perhaps even a performer in long-term employment by the sanctuary, although Robert eventually
came to regard the post as that of the mantic diviner. If one chooses, however, to follow Parke in allotting
functions to the officials of the Clarian sanctuary, Nicander may well have been a θεσπιῳδός of Apollo,
and moreover one with notable literary talent and a deep interest in his occupation. This is entirely in keep-
ing with the apparent length of the terms served by the θεσπιῳδοὶ, the position surely demanding notable
professionalism in versification.140 On the other hand, the only evidence for using erudition as a criterion to
exclude someone from the post of προφήτης would be the testimony of Tacitus (above n. 100), which may
simply be a device to underline the trustworthiness and inspired nature of Clarian pronouncements.
Another Clarian official known to us is Gorgos, whose Hellenistic funerary inscription describes him
as a μεγαλόφρων mythographer in the service of Clarian Apollo. Of his official title we have no information,
but his epitaph certainly makes no secret of the scope of his erudition.141 With such wide learning, Gorgos
could very well have served the oracle as a θεσπιῳδός, and in any case he seems to have had access to the
tenure of Κλαύδιος Ἄρδυς but with several different prophets – thus confirming the θεσπιῳδός as a long-term office. Chaniotis (2002,
79) notes the frequent role of royal families in administering different sanctuaries of Asia Minor, in referring to Debord 1982, 53-5.
134 Schol. in Nic. Alex. 11; Hsch. s.v. Βακχιάδαι. It is, of course, quite impossible to know which Clarian office they were con-
nected with, if not several of them.
135 Nic. Ther. 957-8: Καί κεν Ὁμηρείοιο καὶ εἰσέτι Νικάνδροιο / μνῆστιν ἔχοις, τὸν ἔθρεψε Κλάρου νιφόεσσα πολίχνη; Nic.
Alex. 11. It is an unfortunate fact that the two poets of Colophon called Nicander – the other being the son of Anaxagoras commemo-
rated in Delphi in 254/3 BC (SGDI 2653; Syll.³ 452; FGrH 271.2 T 1) and thus about a hundred years senior to the more famous
Nicander – are often confused with each other in the ancient sources, thus making our second-hand sources potentially unreliable,
as noted in Chaniotis 1988, 335 (for the dating, see n. 733).
136 Parke 1985a, 129.
137 Suda s.v. Νίκανδρος.
138 Suda s.v. Νίκανδρος (ν 374): κατὰ δέ τινας Αἰτωλός. Cf. also Chaniotis 1988, 336-7, and n. 135 above.
139 Nic. Alex. 9. Cf. also Himer. orat. 11, 3.
140 Johnston (2008, 81) thinks that the apparent variation in the metric complexity and poetic aspiration of the Clarian oracular
responses could be explained by the realization on the part of the mantic specialists of the need to match the poetic and performative
talents of the enquirer, who most likely was expected to deliver the divine message in his hometown.
141 Gorgos FGrH 17 T; IGR IV 1655: Τὸν πάσης πολύβυβλον ἀφ᾿ ἱστορίης μελεδωνὸν / πρέσβυν ἀοιδοπόλων δρεψάμενον
σελίδα, / τὸν σοφίην στέρξαντα νόῳ μεγαλόφρονα Γοργὸν, / τὸν Κλαρίου τριπόδων Λητοίδεω θέραπα / Κεκροπὶς ἐν κόλποις
κρύπτει κόνις· εὐσεβίης δὲ / εἵνεκεν εὐσεβέων χῶρον ἔβη φθίμενος (also published, with translation, in Merkelbach – Stauber
1998-2004, I 363; 3.5.2). Lane Fox (1986, 188) incorrectly calls the poet Gorgo and uses his epitaph to demonstrate the elaborately
philosophising tendencies of oracular poets – though rather awkwardly in close connection with a much later obituary of Plotinus
from Delphi (Porph. Plot. 22). On Gorgos, see also Chaniotis 1988, 310-1 (with further bibliography); Gazzaniga 1974.
es
tra
tto
archives of the temple – perhaps even compiling a collection of Apollo’s oracular responses.142 He, however,
was not the only member of the intelligentsia from Claros, for we have already examined the decree con-
cerning Menophilos, a χρησμολόγος of Smyrnaean extraction appointed to direct the Clarian sanctuary as a
ὑποφήτης, which forms an interesting piece of evidence at this point.143 His honorary inscription enables us
to pose some additional questions regarding the overall structure of the Clarian establishment.
3.3. Other officials
The reasons given for the appointment of Menophilos are the will of the god himself combined with the man’s
reputation of piety. Menophilos seems to have already been an expert on divination before his appointment –
perhaps even an owner of a renowned collection of χρησμοί or qualified in some other way.144 Interestingly
enough, the oracular establishment is called both χρηστήριον (on line 11) and μαντεῖον (on lines 8 and 23),
which could be taken to mean that the mantic act of prophesying and the writing of the χρησμοί took place at
the same locale – that is, if the expressions are not simply used as alternating synonyms to avoid repetition,
which is also quite possible. Furthermore, if these two stages of the process were separate, Menophilos was
meant to act as the supervisor of both – at least nominally. Indeed, no mention of a separate χρησμογράφιον
has been found at Claros.145 Thus his appellation as a χρησμολόγος does not stem from his tenure of some
Clarian office, but from his activities and interests before his nomination to the post of ὑποφήτης.146 Clearly he
was well versed in interpreting or cataloguing previous oracular utterances and known for this activity, though
this need not mean that he was asked to perform such a function at the Κλάριον.
The classical usage of the word χρησμολόγος does not generally seem to have implied an inspired
diviner, but rather a person who interprets or collects oracular utterances. As Henrichs remarks, translating
χρησμολόγος in classical texts as “oracle-monger” with slightly derogatory undertones is mainly based on
its use by Aristophanes.147 Without doubt the word could very well, in some cases, mean a “self-appointed
religious expert”,148 but just as clearly a completely reputable and even esteemed figure is meant in other
contexts,149 and Aristophanes is mainly using his wit and fantasy to create a disreputable character for his
142 Gazzaniga (1974, 148) seems to draw far-flung conclusions based on the word ἀοιδοπόλων in the epitaph of Gorgos, and
declares that “l’opera di Gorgos sia consistita nel raccogliere in un corpus tutta la produzione poetica e sacra del Tempio, cioè tutti
gli oracoli pronunciati dal dio Clario fin dalle lontane origini...e negli archivi del tempio conservati.” Such optimistic constructions
have very little factual evidence behind them.
143 Robert 1992 = SEG XLII 1065; above at n. 118.
144 Unfortunately, the Hellenistic meaning of χρησμολόγος is somewhat unclear – or at any rate it varies considerably, thus mak-
ing the interpretation of the inscription much harder: Robert 1992, 289.
145 Parke 1985a, 223.
146 Though, interestingly, the foundation myth of Claros contains the motif of two mantic practitioners, Calchas and Mopsus, en-
gaging each other in a divinatory contest much in the same way that freelancing χρησμολόγοι might have been pitted against each
other in interpreting the divine message. Cf. also Dillery 2005, 176.
147 Henrichs 2003, 217; cf. also Flower 2008, 62. Dillery (2005, 194) interprets Ar. Pax 1043-47 exactly the other way, deeming
perhaps slightly too boldly that “mantis was a positive term, whereas chrêsmologos had distinct negative connotations.” (Cf. also
above n. 118). In any case, by the time of Iamblichus the possible negative connotations of the term χρησμολόγος seem to have
considerably diminished, if not entirely non-existent. On such development, or even a decline of the χρησμολόγος in general after
the Peloponnesian War, see, e.g., Flower 2008, 139.
148 Henrichs 2003, 218.
149 A χρησμολόγος could apparently also be called a μάντις on occasion; Schol. in Ar. Av. 521, concerning the Athenian Lampon.
As Johnston (2008, 137) puts it, “the religious expert, especially the freelance religious expert, could wear a lot of different hats as
occasion demanded.” Menophilos, it could be argued, is a fine example of such a case.
es
tra
68 Antti Lampinen
tto
purposes.150 At least in classical times such a χρησμολόγος could also function as a χρησμῳδός, as attested
by a comedy fragment of Eupolis, in which a certain Hierocles, who in Aristophanes’ Pax is called pejo-
ratively a χρησμολόγος, is characterized as a χρησμῳδός.151 Although neither term should be taken as too
rigorous a job description,152 a compiler of oracles would probably, on occasion, also recite them. This is
by no means surprising: an itinerant peddler with roll(s) of “genuine” oracles from various venerable seers
probably endeavoured to enhance his performance by chanting out the texts. During the classical period the
vocal component was the paramount factor in oracular communication,153 while Pausanias’ testimony con-
cerning Amphiaraus may be used to infer that there was nothing inherently unbelievable in a χρησμολόγος
receiving inspiration from Apollo.154
Thus Menophilos, the ὑποφήτης of Claros, could possibly be seen as assuming the role of either a
ἱερεύς or rather more plausibly that of the προφήτης of the sanctuary; in any case he was somehow involved
in the divinatory ritual.155 He was meant to preside over the oracle in its entirety, both the μαντεῖον and the
χρηστήριον (if the words are meant to denote different institutions). If interpreted functionally, this would
mean that both the προφήτης and the θεσπιῳδός were his subordinates, while he himself was present at the
oracular session, probably as an officiant. No doubt the ἱερεύς, the ceremonial leader of the sanctuary, also
had something to do with the pre-consultation sacrifices.156 This simplified picture is, of course, complicated
by the fact that the Clarian inscriptions mention priests and prophets in a rather haphazard manner. Since the
positions of ἱερεύς and προφήτης were occasionally occupied by the same man,157 the sacerdos in Tacitus’
account would be more easily explained. Could it be that the Clarian ἱερεύς might double as the prophet in
the mantic ritual – at least in some cases or at certain times? Perhaps he was called προφήτης only in con-
sultations that involved initiation (cf. above nn. 123, 149)? There is some evidence to suggest that there were
several ἱερεῖς in the sanctuary at any given time,158 much in the same way that there were several Hosioi at
Delphi; both groups seem to have been present at an oracular consultation. In any case it can be established
that the Clarian ἱερεύς was nominated for life in a fashion similar to the θεσπιῳδός, or at any rate for very
long periods.159 Maybe these ἱερεῖς then rotated the role of προφήτης among themselves. Moreover, the
overall system of Clarian functionaries should be seen foremost as very flexible and interactive – thus mak-
ing the narrow way our literary sources have sometimes been read too constricting and even misleading.
150 Bowden 2003, 264.

151 Eup. fr. 231 K-A; Ar. Pax 1045-1126.
152 As Flower (2008, 63) notes, “The situation in ancient Greece may have been fluid because a mantis or chrēsmologos, unlike
a hiereus, was not authorized by the state or by a sanctuary; anyone could call himself by those terms, and legitimacy depended on
one’s being accepted as such by one’s clients.”
153 Fontenrose 1978, 93-5.
154 Paus. 1, 34, 4: χωρὶς δὲ πλὴν ὅσους ἐξ Ἀπόλλωνος μανῆναι λέγουσι τὸ ἀρχαῖον, μάντεών γ᾿ οὐδεὶς χρησμολόγος ἦν,
ἀγαθοὶ δὲ ὀνείρατα ἐξηγήσασθαι καὶ διαγνῶναι πτήσεις ὀρνίθων καὶ σπλάγχνα ἱερείων. Discussed in Flower (2008, 64), who
notes that by χρησμολόγος Pausanias probably means in this instance an inspired “singer of oracles” (rather than an interpreter of
earlier prophecies).
155 On the synonymy of ὑποφήτης and προφήτης, see the discussion above (at n. 116), and cf. Luc. Alex. 24. The probable con-
nection of a Clarian ὑποφήτης with the oracular procedure is proposed by Oesterheld 2008, 34-5 n. 26.
156 Oesterheld 2008, 120-1 n. 223. Cf. also above n. 102 and nn. 208, 229 below (regarding Didyma) on the order of functionaries
in the inscriptions, which probably reflects the respective prominence of their offices.
157 As suggested already by Picard 1922, 198-9 (and cf. above nn. 105, 120). Cf. also Georgoudi 1998, 350. One should note that
Iamblichus uses both terms while discussing the inspired seer at Claros, myst. 3, 11; hence, he should not be interpreted as providing
fixed titles.
158 Picard 1922, 197.
159 Picard 1922, 209.
es
tra
tto
The γραμματεύς of Claros was not, of course, an oracular functionary in the mantic sense, but
nevertheless played an important role in the oracular session, thus meriting some discussion, in addition to
which the post seems to have been one from which a distinguished person could rise to become a prophet –
we have already met Κλ. Κριτόλαος as an example of such advancement.160 He and Κλ. Βάσσος, who may
have been his brother, served for the second time as γραμματεῖς during the joint prophethood and prytany
of Κλ. ῾Ροῦφος in AD 132-3.161 The γραμματεῖς seem to have numbered two, or at any rate the surviving
προσκυνήματα mention them in pairs, which probably reflects the need to employ two scribes at any par-
ticular oracular session simply to ensure reliable documentation of a chanted response. Of the method of
their election there is no information whatsoever, but it would seem conceivable that most of them were rela-
tively young members of the literate classes only recently embarked on their career of holding sacral office.
A person could clearly serve multiple times as a γραμματεύς, as evidenced by the Claudian brothers above,
and there is no reason to argue that these periods, of probably one year, could not have been consecutive.
Whether coming from an established line of oracular practitioners or being elected by lot from
among candidates put forward by the citizen body – which two options need not be mutually exclusive – the
oracular functionaries were by the Roman period mostly civilians in the sense that they very rarely were
held to possess some inherent faculty of divination in the way the mythical diviners were. Even though there
were those who advertised their descent from certain families, most genealogies appearing in inscriptions
can simply be explained as ordinary family pride. Tacitus’ passage appears to reflect a rather restrictive view
of the qualifications for a functionary at the Clarian oracle, besides being so vague in identifying his post as
to render the whole testimony quite confusing. Thus it is no wonder that any research taking the Tacitean
evidence (above n. 100) at face value and wishing to incorporate it without interpretation into Iamblichus’
much later description must necessarily postulate a fundamental change in the structure of the cultic organi-
sation and ritual, as Parke was forced to do.162 It is my view that the flexibility and adaptability of the Clarian
cult structure itself negates the need for such forced accommodation.
It seems that the only high office connected with the Clarian oracular procedure that could not be
freely combined with the other offices was that of the θεσπιῳδός, the poetic mediator of the Apolline speech.
His post was occupied on a long-term basis and naturally needed considerable specialization in crafting the
verses, which would probably be a good enough reason to prevent just any high official from assuming the
duties involved with the title. Though it seems unlikely that the θεσπιῳδός was believed to have (or, indeed,
need) any innate mantic ability, there is epigraphic evidence that his office was somehow and sometimes
connected with a respectable descent from the Lydian royal house of the Herakleidai (see above nn. 132-3).
The function of the Clarian θεσπιῳδός in an oracular consultation is best envisioned as that of the poetic
deliverer, who may have versified the response in the oracular cave itself, delivering it to the consultants in
the anteroom, as well as to the γραμματεῖς waiting there to write the answers down for them.163
The other two high Clarian offices of προφήτης and ἱερεύς demonstrate a high degree of intermin-
gling both between them and with the highest secular office of Colophon, that of the πρύτανις. Of these,
ἱερεύς seems to have been a long-term office, and its holders were in all probability already quite accom-
160 See above n. 122.

161 Macridy 1905, no. 5.3.
162 Parke 1985a, 148, 221-2.
163 The case of consultants who had arrived on behalf of their hometowns, however, must have been different, since they were not
supposed to learn the divine answer before returning to their town with the sealed answer: Graf 2009, 73.
es
tra
70 Antti Lampinen
tto
plished individuals in terms of their career. Judging by the epigraphic record, it was precisely to these ex-
perienced cult practitioners that the sanctuary turned when the post of προφήτης, for instance, fell vacant.
The ἱερεῖς were probably the administrative and cultic directors of the sanctuary, and since the prytany of
Colophon was predominantly bestowed upon Apollo himself, they would also have had much influence
in the running of the state as a whole. This is corroborated by the lack of pairings ἱερεύς–πρύτανις in the
inscriptions of Claros; such a combination of power probably existed, but this was masked under the pious
rubric of ἐπὶ πρυτάνεως Ἀπόλλωνος. It need not be doubted that ἱερεύς, too, had his part to play in oracular
consultations, at least as an officiant in the sacrifice. In contrast to Didyma, there is no evidence of the office
of hydrophor at Claros.
The short-term post of προφήτης was almost certainly that of the inspired seer at Claros, and through
the Plinian note on the properties of the mantic spring (above n. 125) we may catch a glimpse of the aetio-
logical cultic notion perhaps employed to explain the duration of the tenure. As the prophethood could be
held multiple times, even in succession, it was in all probability the office most valued by any noble wishing
to obtain distinction and renown among his peers, and it seems likely that many of the ἱερεῖς of the sanctu-
ary had served as prophets at some time in their career, perhaps through rotation. The προφήτης was not
an experienced versifier, but mainly chosen for his pious character, as we learn from the decree concerning
Menophilos, as well as his possible Ionian ancestry or other such qualification. It is quite clear that he came
from the upper stratum of society, for many a προφήτης also served as a πρύτανις during his tenure. Taci-
tus’ mention of the illiteracy of the prophet need not be taken as anything more than a device by the Clarian
establishment to enhance the prestige and trustworthiness of its predictions, always in need of reinforcing
in cases where the inspired seer did not communicate directly with the clients. That was in all probability
the case at Claros, for there is nothing in the Tacitean testimony that would require direct contact between
the inspired seer and the enquirers (θεοπρόποι), and the Iamblichan account indeed seems to reject such a
possibility in stressing the seclusion of the προφήτης, who may have actually stayed in the subterranean part
of the μαντεῖον in preparation for the consultation.
We have seen how Claros possessed a tradition of female seers in the mythical accounts, but this is
in marked variance with the historically attested functionaries. Our factual sources seem, instead, to place
Claros among the few Apolline oracles where the inspired seer was a man, and there is no reason to suspect
that the inspired mantic functionary at Claros would have ever been a woman. Even in the mythical register
the most active mantic characters at Claros are men, and what we hear of the female characters can well be
some reflection of the Delphic tendency to connect the other mantic centres to itself by mythographic ties.
That the possible Delphic hegemonic endeavours did not result in the Clarian oracular organization and
ritual being accommodated with the influential Delphic paradigm is perhaps the most interesting aspect
of Claros’ historical development. The reasons for this are undoubtedly very diverse and in all probability
involve some conscious counter-measures by the Clarian establishment.
The Didymaean cult myth, on the other hand, clearly implies male seers in the early pre-Persian
phase of the sanctuary, and in this case there quite probably were male mantic functionaries involved in
the oracular procedure of the archaic Branchidae. Our meagre evidence, however, can not prove that the
inspired seer was not a woman already at that date, with the Branchidae constituting a governing and ritual
body of the functionaries. Herodotus, our main historical source for Didyma before its sack by the Persians,
does not provide any details concerning the mantic ritual or the inspired seer. In a case where the inspired
seer was already a woman, the discarding of the Branchidae from the leading posts of the sanctuary would
es
tra
tto
not have resulted in any radical restructuring of organization and ritual, and the functionaries formerly cho-
sen from among the mantic association of the Branchidae would have afterwards been chosen from among
the Milesian populace, albeit only its higher echelon. It is unclear whether the peculiarity of the renovated –
or at any rate, slightly more democratized – Didyma, namely, that there were no functionaries with lifetime
posts at the sanctuary,164 was already a feature of the organization in the time of the Branchidae.
4. Oracular functionaries at Didyma
4.1. Inspired seer
The most interesting mantic specialist at Didyma is certainly the Didymaean προφῆτις, an elusive inspired seer
whose gender has only been recently confirmed by a second-century AD hydrophor inscription of a certain
Platainis, unearthed by German excavators.165 Naturally the Iamblichan account166 of the oracular session at
Didymeion has been available, although occasionally it has been considered corrupted by Delphic analogies –
which it is, at least in the sense that the entire Didymaean rite had in all likelihood come under heavy Delphic
influence.167 In the inscription, Platainis, daughter of Melas, ἡ καλουμένη Τρυφῶσα, a hydrophor of Artemis
Pythie in the prophet year of Claudius Charmes the younger (c. AD 110/115), mentions her great-grandmother
(μήμη) Tryphosa (born c. AD 5), who had been chosen as a προφῆτις by the god himself.168 There are also a
few other inscriptions that may refer to a prophetess, of which at least the quite fragmentary ταμίας-inscription
mentioning a προφῆτις by the name of Cleopatra seems rather convincing, if the reconstruction is correct.169
The literary sources are very late with the dubious exception of Demon, an atthidographer of the early Hel-
lenistic period.170 As Parke has noted, the lack of frequent mentions of the προφῆτις in the epigraphic record
should not be very surprising, considering the Delphic scarcity of inscriptions mentioning Pythia.171
Another remarkable inscription has been found in the city of Miletus, in a funerary altar at the ne-
cropolis by the Sacred Gate. Dating from the Imperial period, it mentions another female mantic functionary
164 Also noted by Johnston 2008, 85.

165 SEG XXX 1286 = Fontenrose 1988, 192 no. 17. The meticulous recent contribution by Günther (2012) fleshes out the person
of Platainis, her great-grandmother and the possible connections of the family of Melas, with great prosopographic skill.
166 Iambl. myst. 3, 11; Orig. Cels. 1, 70.
167 Though these influences need not have taken an active, agressively hegemonistic form. Much more likely is a scenario where
the popularity and prestige of Delphi and the dissemination through literature of its ‘model’ worked in a slow and perhaps hardly rec-
ognized way in transforming the expectations directed to, and hence the services offered by, the other oracular centres of Apollo.
168 Tryphosa the prophetess is evidently a descendant of still another Tryphosa (daughter of Apollonios, probably the stephane-
phor in 39/38 BC), who is attested as a hydrophor in the prophet year of Moschion, son Hephaistion (41/40 BC, I.Didyma 395), see
Günther 2012, 153-60. Though it has been noted that the hydrophor’s father often held the prophethood at the same time (Con-
nelly 2007, 40; Bremmer 2008, 44), this does not seem to be the case in this instance. An example of fathers and daughters serving
concurrently would be I.Didyma 310, a hydrophor inscription by Αἰλία Αἰλιανή. Regarding Tryphosa and the Delphic influence in
the Didymaean organization, see also Connelly 2007, 80-1. There is no reason to suppose, however, that the Didymaean prophetess
would have had the title of ‘Tryphosa’ along the lines of the Delphic prophetess being called ‘Pythia’; besides, such a hypothesis is
defied by the above-mentioned hydrophor of the prophet year of Moschion.
169 I.Didyma 273. Cf. 235B, an intriguing graffito perhaps congratulating a woman named Γάϊς for a καλὴ προφητίσκη – the
choice of words could perhaps be considered ironic, perhaps testifying to disappointed expectations. It is a pity that Γάϊς is not given
her title. The first line emended as Γάϊε by Rehm was suggested by Robert in his review of Rehm’s Inschriften von Didyma to read
Γάϊς instead, probably correctly; Robert 1959, 665; Connelly (2007, 80) is led to use the earlier reading by her sources.
170 Demon FGrH 327 F 16 (Schol. vet. in Ar. Plut. 1002); Iambl. myst. 3, 11; Porph. epist. ad Aneb. 14; Orig. Cels. 1, 70. 384;
whereas Luc. bis acc. 1 and Const. ap. Ps.-Eus. VC 2, 50 probably refer to Delphi or borrow a very general and perhaps popular
image.
171 Parke 1985a, 56.
es
tra
72 Antti Lampinen
tto
who in all probability belonged to the sanctuary at Didyma; the text simply reads Εἰρήνῃ πρόμαντι χαῖρε.172
Although her affiliation is not stated expressly, the very site of her grave by the Sacred Way leading to the
Didymeion makes it relatively safe to assume that she was employed there. One notable thing is her title,
apparently suggesting that the inspired prophetess at Didyma could have been known either as προφῆτις or
πρόμαντις, a circumstance that actually seems to be corroborated by the literary testimonies as well.
It may be that he female prophetess of Didyma stems from the renovation of the oracle in the 330s,
and probably had no precedent during the Branchidae tenure of the sanctuary – though technically such an
assertion cannot be decisively made due to our lacunose sources. The cultic myth of the Branchidae, how-
ever, seems to imply a male seer in the oldest tradition of the sanctuary (cf. at n. 160). The method of choos-
ing the prophetess is still unknown, but it could hardly always have happened through divine intervention as
in the case of Tryphosa (n. 168), which is presented as a special circumstance, unless the formulation of the
inscription (ἣν ὁ θεός χρησσμῶι κατέστησε) is simply a conventional form of referring to an election by
lot. Some further influences from the Delphic establishment would not, however, be surprising. With regard
to Delphi, for instance, there is clear evidence for several contemporary Pythias in the period of the sanctu-
ary’s greatest florescence,173 but so far our meagre evidence on the Didymaean prophetesses cannot be used
for any trustworthy analogies. The mantic ritual itself with its elaborate preparations and probable parallels
with the Delphic procedure will be examined below.
Fontenrose, while discussing the configuration of Branchidae preceding the Persian sack of 494 BC,
uses the word μάντις of the ‘oracle-speaker’ on several occasions.174 The same name is repeated frequently
by Johnston in the context of post-restoration rite at Didyma, while additionally using the term in her dis-
cussion of the Iamblichan passage on Didymaean rite.175 This is rather curious, for we have very little – if,
indeed, any – evidence of the term in connection with the ‘oracle-speaker’ at Didyma, and Iamblichus does
not use the word, instead describing the inspired female seer as προφῆτις.176 Both researchers seem to be
viewing the situation through the lens of Plato’s theoretical construction, which, as has been noted earlier,
is not entirely suitable for interpreting the various forms of actual mantic practice. While the terminology,
functionaries and rite under the Branchidae are entirely beyond our reconstructive abilities – and thus, per-
haps, fair game for hypotheses – the names of officials at the Asiatic sanctuaries in the Imperial period are
comparatively well documented, and thus should be approached without the extra burden of Platonic cat-
egorizations. The only conceivable ground for using the term μάντις of the Didymaean (or, for that matter,
Clarian) inspired seer is precisely as a kind of general category of inspired seer, with no regard for her (or
his) freedom from or commitment to a particular oracular establishment.177 What needs to be borne in mind,
however, is that there is no official designation of the Didymaean seer as μάντις to be found among either
the epigraphic or literary evidence, and that the use of the term is mostly a device of categorization em-
ployed by modern research. The term πρόμαντις used by Maximus of Tyre of the Didymaean προφῆτις178
172 Milet VI 2, 546.

173 Flacelière 1965, 42. Two of the Pythias were regular ones, whereas an understudy was expected to substitute for them in the
event of exhaustion or other such obstacle.
174 Fontenrose 1988, 45. He does this more or less consistently (e.g., 1988, 46, 52, 78) while discussing the early organization of
the Branchidae, and though there are few facts supporting this usage, there are just as few to refute it.
175 Johnston 2008, 85.
176 Iambl. myst. 3, 11.
177 There is, however, enough evidence to claim that the word μάντις specifically carried connotations of independence from any
particular cult or sanctuary, although Dillery (2005, 171) most usefully emphasizes that we “should not expect exactitude in this
distinction either.”
178 Max. Tyr. dialex. 8, 2.
es
tra
tto
does not belong to the semantic field of μάντις as closely as might be thought – rather, it is used as a variant
and alternative of προφήτης / προφῆτις, carrying quite evident connotations of attachment to an oracular
establishment.179 We have also seen it used thus in the funerary inscription of Eirene the πρόμαντις at Mi-
letus (n. 172).
To add a further complication to the matter, the Didymaean prophetess is called χρησμῳδός by
Iamblichus, who reports that ἥ γε ἐν Βραγχίδαις γυνὴ χρησμῳδός.180 Why does he choose this word to
represent an inspired seer? The simplest explanation would be to see the word as a general categorical desig-
nation instead of a real title at the sanctuary. Additionally the idea of chanting could have been so dominant
in the literary image of the inspired female seer that it was entirely possible to characterize her as a “chanter
of the oracles”. Thus it is not the oral, perhaps artistic deliverance of the written oracles to the consultants
(which was a function of another member of the staff at Didyma, as will be seen), but rather the inspired
chanting of the divine message itself that prompted the use of this name. As a further proof on the use of
the term, Maximus of Tyre, when writing of Pythia, tells that this πρόμαντις, sitting on a tripod and filled
with the prophetic spirit, χρησμῳδεῖ the divine will, while generally she is called either μάντις, προφῆτις
or πρόμαντις.181 It is on the usage of Maximus that Fontenrose seems to base his own frequent use of the
title πρόμαντις while explaining the role of the inspired female seer at Didyma – and combined with the
evidence of Eirene’s funerary inscription, the choice appears to be supported by the epigraphic evidence, as
well. Semantically, however, this term should be kept quite separate from the use of the word μάντις with
its slightly archaizing flavour and no official attestations at Didyma.182
While it was the inspired προφῆτις/πρόμαντις who uttered the divine insight, the very inspirational
nature of her possession made it impossible for her to deliver Apollo’s will to the enquirers without profan-
ing herself – besides, such a practice would have lacked a Delphic parallel. Thus a mediating agent was
needed, and at Didyma this position was apparently reserved for a male functionary, who probably was
called προφήτης.
4.2. Mediating official
At Didyma, προφήτης was the title for the highest official of the shrine, who was responsible for publicizing
the oracular responses. He was elected for one year by lot from among the applicants put forward by the five
demes of Milesians, the δῆμοι of Ἀργασέων, Τιχιεσσέων, Λερίων, Καταπολειτίων and Πλατεῶν.183 From
179 According to LSJ s.v. πρόμαντις, the term is mostly Classical and post-Classical in its use, in contrast with the term μάντις
which is often encountered already in Homeric texts. Moreover, the context of the word is very often that of the Apolline μαντική,
with Hdt. 6, 66; 7, 111. 141; Thuc. 5, 16 referring particularly to Pythia, Hdt. 1, 182 to a female prophetess of Apollo at Patara, ibid.
8, 135 to a male prophet of Apollo at Ptoion. Luc. bis. acc. 1 uses the word of a female Apolline seer, as noted earlier (n. 116). On
occasion a god other than Apollo is meant, such as Dionysus in Paus. 10, 33, 11 and Zeus Naïos of Dodona in Hdt. 2, 55. On the
priestess at Patara, see Flower 2008, 224; Lebrun 1990, 193-5.
180 Iambl. myst. 3, 11, 67.
181 Max. Tyr. dialex. 8, 1. In this passage, too, we need not see the verb χρησμῳδεῖ as anything more but a technical term for
chanting oracular verses while inspired by the god. No connection with the official Didymaean nomenclature is likely. On the di-
verse terminology concerning Pythia, see Flower 2008, 217-8.
182 In the mythical register, however, Branchos certainly acts much like μάντις as a freelancing diviner would, for instance when
stopping the plague with a magical incantation. Moreover he had received his mantic abilities because of the great love Apollo felt
towards him, which certainly is a common motif among the mythical seers; Johnston 2008, 110-1.
183 Parke 1985a, 46-7. Usually there were less than five candidates; the demes could also apparently nominate the same candidate.
A rather typical way of expressing the deme of origin in inscriptions concerning the prophets can be seen, for instance, in I.Didyma
229 II (Robert 1960b, 449 = Fontenrose 1988, 239-40 no. B2): ll. 1-4: Προφήτης Φιλόδημος Παμφίλου, δήμου Τιχιεσσέων,
πατριᾶς Νειλεϊδῶν, φρήτρας Πελαγωνιδῶν. This Philodemos had, in addition, been the stephanephor of Miletus in the very year
es
tra
74 Antti Lampinen
tto
the Imperial period there are cases of an uncontested single candidate being elected without the drawing of
lots, as well as elections by acclamation184 – all in all, the whole procedure accorded well with the ethos of
post-Alexandrean, democratic Miletus, rejecting the memory of the disreputable and dynastic Branchidae.
Some family traditions still appeared: many of the prophets are sons or grandsons of previous ones, and
there are about ten or so families who particularly distinguish themselves as giving the Milesian state nu-
merous prophets, stephanephors, hydrophors and other high officials.185 It may well be that such hereditary
rights for prophethood could be bought at least for a few generations, as suggested by Lane Fox.186 In selling
the sacred offices the ταμίαι of the sanctuary may have played an important role: at least in nearby Mylasa
the priest paid the purchase price to them.187 At Didyma, the Roman Emperor himself was thrice appointed
a prophet,188 but whether the appointments were accompanied by a voluntary ‘donation’ is not recorded.
The prophet was meant to direct and supervise the Didymaean cult and sanctuary, apparently resid-
ing at the so-called “Prophets’ House” of the sanctuary for the year of his office.189 His duties included pre-
siding over the sacrifices and certainly over the oracular sessions, while possibly also playing a role in the
performance of the oracular responses.190 Though his functions seem to mirror relatively closely those of the
two Delphic ἱερεῖς – also official heads of the cult who were exclusively called προφῆται in the Classical
period,191 though chosen for life in the manner of Clarian prophets – the prophet is never explicitly equated
with ἱερεύς in the Didymaean inscriptions.192 There exists, however, an interesting dedication to Phoibos by
ἱρεὺς ὁ Φοίβου Βάσσος, who may very well have been a προφήτης.193 As a special duty the prophet with
the στεφανηφόρος of Miletus was supposed to provide annually a great feast for the Kosmoi and the Molpoi,
(AD 66) of his prophethood, but since the tenures of stephanephors and Didymaean prophets of the first century AD did not coincide
for about half a century or so because the Didymaean year was synchronized with the Roman year instead of the Milesian one, he
had served the rest of his tenure ἐπὶ στεφανηφόρου Διαγόρου (l. 6). In an epigram that follows, he is described ὡς μόνος ἐμ πάτρᾳ
στεφανηφόρος ἠδὲ προφήτης (l. 11). The claim that Philodemos was in his home town “singularly called both stephanephor and
prophet” may be poetic exaggeration, and probably does not mean that he was the first Milesian ever to serve in both offices at the
same time. On the other hand, if not simple rhetoric, the sheer mention of this distinction might point to it as something out of the
ordinary. Cf. also Oesterheld 2008, 341.
184 On single candidates, I.Didyma 236B III, 279a.6, 286.2, 288.3; on acclamation, 269.4, 270.4, 288.3.
185 I.Didyma, pp. 380-7, cf. Parke 1985a, 50; most recently Busine 2006, 292-4. An interesting case is I.Didyma 284, which com-
prises a list of prophets and stephanephors of a family in c. AD 40: the brothers Sophanes and Chionis and their sons Nicomedes,
Aristeas, Sophanes and Philostratos. The στεφανηφόρος was the highest, and eponymous, official of the Milesian state, and like
the prytanies of Colophon, it, too, was often bestowed upon the oracular god; for Apollo as stephanephor, see I.Didyma 463 (cf.
Fontenrose 1942, 170). Hadrian, too – always an avid holder of honorary Greek offices – was named the stephanephor of Miletus
at least once: I.Didyma 306A (cf. SEG XLV 1603), see also Randén in this volume (p. 187). Although the observation of Hupfloher
(2007, 163) is no doubt correct about the broader context of imperial-era μάντεις of the Greek east, including bearers of slave names
operating under this title, this does not seem to have been a possibility in Didyma.
186 Lane Fox 1986, 77-8; Connelly 2007, 50. On selling and buying priesthoods in Asia Minor in roughly the same period, see
Dignas 2002, 207-8, 251-71.
187 I.Mylasa I 305.
188 On Trajan, see I.Didyma 318, on Hadrian, see I.Didyma 494, 2-3; Julian’s election is not corroborated by the epigraphic record,
but he mentions his own prophethood in epist. 451b-c.
189 The name of the house seems to be corroborated by a late imperial προφήτης-inscription I.Didyma 302+3, which mentions τὴν
στ[οὰν τὴς προ]φητικῆς (οἰκίας) (l. 10); cf. Robert 1960b, 460-3.
190 Parke 1985a, 52; and see below (pp. 78, 87). The oral performance of the oracular responses as it was practised at Delphi is
examined in Maurizio 1997.
191 Flower 2008, 218.
192 Georgoudi 1998, 353. To be exact, the term ἱερεύς is not found in the Delphic inscriptions either, though it is used by Plut.
mor. 292d, 386b, 438b, for instance: cf. Fontenrose 1988, 46.
193 I.Didyma 82, also discussed in Georgoudi (1998, 353) and Oesterheld (2008, 262-3, especially n. 640). Cf. below at nn. 210-
3.
es
tra
tto
the priestly associations of Apollo Didymeus and Milesian Apollo Delphinios, respectively.194 Additionally
the prophet was expected to spend money on the well-being and entertainment of the general populace,195 as
well as to oversee the erection of the most important monuments, such as imperial sculpture.196 Such eco-
nomically cumbersome duties led gradually in the Imperial period to a situation where the wealthy citizens
of Miletus seem to have avoided the nomination despite the prestige inherent in the office. The year AD 60,
for example, went apparently without a prophet,197 and the next one would have been as well, had not the
aged Claudius Damas volunteered to take on the office for a second time.198 There are other such multi-term
prophets; Poseidonios, for one, seems to have been in office three times,199 while Theon, son of Theon acted
twice as a prophet, but also listed his (earlier) duties as stephanephor, γυμνασιάρχης, παιδονόμος, χορηγός,
κωτάρχης, ἀγωνοθέτης and βοηγός.200
As a final official act, the retiring prophet gave an account of his year of incumbency in epigraphic
form – a great amount of these ‘προφήτης-inscriptions’ are preserved201 and they constitute a remarkable
source for the organization and running of the Didymeion. Judging from this epigraphic evidence, the post
of a προφήτης was used – perhaps to balance the evident financial burden it occasioned – by its tenants as
a fine opportunity for self-advertisement. Often this involved the oracular god himself, as in the case of the
prophet Philodemos, who in the first century CE had been granted several crowns or wreaths by Apollo as
a reward for his ὁσία.202 In all probability such honours were proclaimed in the form of oracular utterances.
Philodemos is in addition called αὐτοέτης (“having the same year”, “in the same year”, sim.) in the epigram
forming the latter part of his honorific inscription; the puzzling term is examined at length by Fontenrose,
who concludes that it may have been applied to prophets who had also held some other high post during
their tenure of prophethood.203 On the whole, and in accordance with the stylistic development of honorific
inscriptions in general, the προφήτης-inscriptions become increasingly elaborate during the Imperial Pe-
riod, so that by the 3rd century each forms a long composition, with the prophets adorning themselves with
194 The cult law of the Kosmoi and Molpoi: Milet I 3, 133. Whether the Kosmoi as an association were some kind of inheri-
tors of the Branchidae, or whether they were created in conscious imitation of the Delphic Hosioi, is unclear. On the banquet and
the Milesian ψήφισμα concerning it, as well as the possible lapse of the banqueting tradition later in the Imperial period, see also
Chaniotis 2003, 180, 183-4.
195 Chaniotis 2003, 182; Fontenrose 1988, 53.
196 Milet I 6, 189 (cf. SEG I 426), dedication to Domitian and the people of Miletus.
198 I.Didyma 237 II. Since Damas informs that he had taken the office δωρεάν, or gratis, it may be inferred that there was some
kind of reimbursement for the prophet for the expenses of his tenure. Besides, as Lane Fox (1986, 78) notes, the priestly offices also
brought some income back to their holders. On Damas, see especially the thorough treatment in Chaniotis 2003, 179-84.
199 I.Didyma 282 = Fontenrose 1988, 240-1 no. B5 (cf. Robert 1960b, 456-8; Oesterheld 2008, 343). Though the choice of
words in the metric inscription opens up the interpretation that Poseidonios had actually been thrice elected as prophet by lot, in re-
ality he may have volunteered, with the εὐσεβέσιν κλήροις, Ποσιδώνιε, τρίς σε λαχόντα being but poetic elaboration. The choice
of Poseidonios is attributed in the inscription to Apollo himself: Ἀπόλλων σε προφήτην ἠσπάσατ᾿ αὐτός, probably in the sense that
the god had guided the sortition. It may be that the Poseidonios mentioned as βοηγός in AGIBM 923c, tentatively dated to 12/11
BC, could be the same person when still a young man – which would place his prophethood even as late as AD 30; cf. Fontenrose
1942, 172-3.
200 I.Didyma 262-3.
201 I.Didyma 202-306.
202 I.Didyma 229, ll. 7-8 (cf. Robert 1960b, 451; SEG XLVIII 1412; BE 2004, 296). The oracular god is often invoked as a witness
for the virtuous qualities of the prophets; just one example would be the honorific inscription of Οὔλπιος Μένανδρος, which reads:
Οὔλπιε θεῖε Μένανδρε, θεῷ μεμελημένε Φοίβῳ, μάρτυς σῆς ἀρετῆς οὐ βροτός, ἀλλὰ θεός; I.Didyma 223A (cf. Robert 1960b,
458; SEG IV 465) = Merkelbach – Stauber 1998, I 19, 25.
203 Fontenrose 1988, 49. A rather interesting occasion for the use of the term is the inscription in honour of Τι. Κλαύδιος
Μαρκιανὸς Σμάραγδος, a prophet also serving as κωτάρχης, or the priest of the Kabeiroi (I.Didyma 270), a position which in itself
is frequently mentioned in the προφήτης-inscriptions.
es
tra
76 Antti Lampinen
tto
such adjectives as εὐσεβής, φιλόδοξος, φιλάγαθος and φιλόκαισαρ.204 Often, in addition to the benefac-
tions and honorary offices of the prophet, the litany also includes those of not only his parents, but of his
grandparents as well. Some, such as prophet Thaliarchos, saw it fit to mention their fathers’ excellence in
the Olympic games.205
4.3. Other officials
It appears from the epigraphic record – especially from the ταμίας-inscriptions, since it was those officials
in particular who had to deal with the people of the sanctuary in general – that the Didymaean populace
associated with the sanctuary was divided into three distinct categories. The outlying, secular land outside
the τέμενος was in the hands of the προσχῶροι or ‘neighbours’, whereas those living inside the sanctuary’s
borders were known as οἱ τὸ ἱερὸν κατοικοῦντες, οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, or some other variation
thereof.206 The most interesting group for the purposes of this paper, however, is the οἱ περὶ τὸ μαντεῖον
(πάντες) or the administrative staff of the cult.207 This certainly involved the prophet, and almost certainly
the Kosmoi as well, if a parallel drawn from the Delphic Hosioi is valid. It may also be surmised that the two
annual ταμίαι and some other functionaries such as the hydrophor of Artemis Pythie and the γραμματεῖς
were included in this group.208
The possibility of the cult of Apollo Didymeus also possessing a ἱερεύς or even being headed by one
has already been mentioned, and has lately been considered by for instance Stella Georgoudi.209 In addition
to the altar inscription of Βάσσος (above n. 193), which fails to mention both functionaries at the same time
and thus provides only circumstantial evidence, and a not altogether convincing case from the late 3rd cen-
tury BC,210 we have a dedicatory epigram to Apollo Didymeus by a delegation of Rhodians, which is dated
ἐπὶ προφήτου Τιβ(ερίου) Κλα(υδίου) Ἱεροκλέους, θεοπρόπων Μά(ρκου) Αὐρ(ηλίου) Θέωνος ποιητοῦ καὶ
Εὐτυχέους ἱερέως.211 Georgoudi uses the last one as conclusive evidence that the prophet and ἱερεύς in the
cult of Apollo Didymeus were separate offices.212 This, however, is based on a faulty interpretation of the evi-
dence, since the simplest and most probable meaning is not that M. Aurelios the poet and Eutyches the priest
were involved in the dedication as representatives of the Didymeion, but rather as those of the Rhodians, which
is indeed the most widespread meaning of the term θεοπρόπος in Ionia. It may be that M. Aurelios had com-
posed the accompanying epigram in elegiacs, but in any case the cult that Eutyches was a priest of is not given,
and was certainly a Rhodian one, not that of Didyma. Thus there is no conclusive evidence to call into question
204 For just a few examples, see I.Didyma 215B, 232 I, 236C I, 260, 276.
205 I.Didyma 261 (cf. Robert 1960b, 454-6; BE 2002, 368).
206 For instance, I.Didyma 390 BII, 394-396 and 399. Cf. Debord 1982, 91.
207 I.Didyma 395-6.
208 I.Didyma 394 (cf. SEG XLV 2299) uses the following order: the prophet, the hydrophor, ὑποχρήστης, γραμματεῖς, νεωκόροι,
the residents of the sanctuary and the neighbours. Since the last two groups are often found as general categories, all the officials
named before them might be considered to constitute the group περὶ τὸ μαντεῖον πάντες. Fontenrose (1988, 59) notes that in some
cases it was the three functions of ὑποχρήστης, γραμματεῖς and νεωκόροι that were grouped as περὶ τὸ μαντεῖον πάντες. Maybe
the prophet and hydrophor as the leaders of the cults of Apollo and Artemis, respectively, were so self-evidently part of the cultic
administration that to mention them separately did not run the risk of their roles being misinterpreted. That the γραμματεῖς were
counted as cult officials is corroborated by I.Didyma 416, 3-4 ([τοῦ] θεοῦ).
209 Georgoudi 1998, 353-4.
210 Milet I 3, 146A, ll. 50-2; 146B, ll. 74-6; cf. also Fontenrose 1988, 118; Busine 2006, 281.
211 I.Didyma 83, ll. 8-11. Cf. Merkelbach – Stauber 1998, I 19.20.
212 Georgoudi (1998, 353), noting how “les deux personnages sont ainsi nettement séparés”.
es
tra
tto
the position of the Didymaean προφήτης as the head of the cult in favour of a ἱερεύς; Bassos, too, should be
seen either as a Didymaean prophet whose dedicatory inscriptions simply happen to be poetically vague, or as
a ἱρεὺς Φοίβου not belonging to the Didymeion. There is no need to assume that simply because there was a
ἱερεύς at Claros there should be a ἱερεύς at Didyma, too, as Georgoudi does.213
One of the most elusive aspects of the Didymaean establishment is the structure called χρησμογράφιον.
Does it correlate with Herodotus’ report of the Branchidae (6, 19, 3) that the Persians burned “both its temple
and its oracle”? Based on this it could be argued that already during the tenure of the Branchidae there ex-
isted a building separate from the temple itself, which sometimes was taken to be the seat of the oracle itself,
since it was from there that the written answers were delivered to the consultants. Furthermore, matched
with the evidence of the Clarian Menophilos-decree in the matter of nomenclature (above nn. 144-6), a men-
tion by Strabo (14, 1, 5) of a different precinct (σηκός) surrounding the Didymeion and the μαντεῖον could
actually be taken to refer to the Didymaean χρησμογράφιον, as indeed has been done on occasion, although
the sacred spring can just as well be meant. Thus, should we wish to accept a comparison with the Clarian
sanctuary, where a χρησμολόγος was appointed to preside over the μαντεῖον, the Didymaean μαντεῖον
mentioned by Strabo could be regarded as identical with the χρησμογράφιον of the epigraphic record,
mentioned for the first time in the 2nd century BC (if not earlier).214 The most obvious weakness of such an
equation between the Didymaean χρησμογράφιον and the μαντεῖον is the lack of any χρησμολόγοι in the
inscriptions of the sanctuary. The stones of the so-called Prophet’s House that was speculated by the Ger-
man excavation team to be the χρησμογράφιον215 certainly bear an astonishing amount of inscriptions, but
there is no mention of a χρησμολόγος. Moreover, at Delphi the two structures were clearly distinguished,
with μαντεῖον being the place of inspiration of the Pythia216 and the whole business of oracular sentences
apparently being conducted orally.217 All in all, it has to be borne in mind that Strabo is not particularly
well informed on Didyma, having never visited the site in person.218 Anyway, Strabo’s testimony would
pertain not to the pre-Persian, but to the Hellenistic restructured phase, with a separate χρησμογράφιον
fitting the reconstructed course of a consultation rather well, as will be seen later. And as noted earlier, the
χρησμογράφιον was structurally quite separate from the temple building, as well.219
It would seem reasonable to suppose that the office of ὑποχρήστης mentioned in some of the Didy-
maean inscriptions had something to do with the delivery of the oracles on account of his title.220 Apart from
such conjecture, very little can be said of his functions at the sanctuary – only that the office was a relatively
prestigious one, and that it was included in the group of οἱ περὶ τὸ μαντεῖον πάντες.
We have seen that at Didyma the προφήτης seems to have played a somewhat different role among
the faculty than at Claros, although there, too, he was a private citizen elected to the office for one year. Sim-
213 Georgoudi 1998, 352.

214 I.Didyma 31, 5-9; 32, 7-9.
215 Knackfuss 1939.
216 Flacelière 1961, 40-1.
217 Parke 1986, 126-7.
219 See n. 91 above; also cf. Oesterheld 2008, 265 n. 651.
220 Cf. Fontenrose 1988, 78. Unfortunately the ὑποχρήστης has received very little attention in recent interpretations of the
Didymaean functionaries, including the otherwise quite thorough treatment by Oesterheld. The epigraphic record includes several
mentions of a ὑποχρήστης, of whom there seems to have been only one at any given time at the sanctuary. Where he is mentioned,
his title is inserted right after the prophet. Some named examples include Tiberios Klaudios Theodotos (I.Didyma 381) and Flavios
Zosimos (I.Didyma 353). For the title of ὑποχρήστης in Miletus, cf. Milet I 7, 263; VI 3, 1145, 1174 (ὑ. τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος).
es
tra
78 Antti Lampinen
tto
ilarly, too, just as some Clarian prophets are known to have held the post of prytane, there were προφῆται
in Didyma who served during their tenure as στεφανηφόρος, the eponymic official of Miletus, thus combin-
ing the highest civil office of the ruling town to the most prestigious title of the sanctuary. Of the prophet’s
responsibilities at the sanctuary we know vastly more than of his Clarian colleague’s, but on the other hand
everything having to do with his performance at the oracular consultation has to be conjectured. Since his
title in itself would seem to act as an argument for some sort of involvement in the rite, the proposition that
he officiated at the oracular consultation and delivered the versified oracles to the enquirers would seem
quite tenable. It is another matter entirely whether the prophet composed the verses himself after hearing the
inspired utterances of the female προφῆτις. I would adopt a negative stance on the matter, suggesting instead
that it would have well suited the title of the poorly known ὑποχρήστης to be the versifying agent, if not
indeed also the deliverer of the oracles, at least in their written form, to the customers. Such a suggestion is
admittedly only a very tentative one, and much more research is needed to distinguish the functions of the
Didymaean προφήτης and ὑποχρήστης.
Προφῆτις, the female inspired seer at Didyma, is quite thoroughly treated by Iamblichus when it
comes to her role at the oracular session, but many details of her office are completely unknown, such as the
method of choosing her as well as the length of her tenure. It seems that she could be assigned by Apollo
himself – probably through an oracular utterance, though this was by no means usual. From the case of
Platainis and her great-grandmother (above n. 165) we know that at least some of the women employed as
prophetesses came from the high echelons of society, which would be quite understandable as their fathers
and brothers occupied other elevated civic and religious posts.221 The function of the προφῆτις at a consul-
tation is relatively clear – or at any rate, it appears so from the Iamblichan testimony, which will be more
closely examined below. Through elaborate preparations lasting many days and nights, which combined
some vaguely “Delphic” techniques with others known from Claros, she prepared for the consultation,
which in all probability did not involve the consultants in any direct way. On the contrary, the whole struc-
ture of the Didymaean temple seems to have allowed for a very dramatic and distanced mantic session, the
details of which must, however, remain conjectural.
As a historical aside, several points can be advanced concerning the relationship of Claros and
Didyma. The traditional view is one of competition and even rivalry.222 However, this seems to be poor-
ly founded on ancient sources, and some quite intriguing connections are found, such as the Milesian
priestly family of Bacchiadae, whom Hesychius records without elaborating further, but which is also
mentioned by a scholiast on Nicander’s Alexipharmaca, and this time in connection with the Clarian
prophets.223 This is a rather useful piece of information when taken together with the account of Tacitus
concerning the Clarian prophets (above n. 100). Tacitus’ claim of priestly contacts between Miletus and
Claros has sometimes been dismissed as misinformation or simple misapprehension, incongruous in the
setting of intense competitiveness between the two great centres.224 Whether or not Tacitus by his certis
e familiis means the Bacchiadae (and their ‘allied’ families, as Picard suggests),225 for those supporting
221 Günther (2012, 155-6, 160-3) presents an illuminating reconstruction of the possible family connections and forebears of
Platainis, and proceeds to propose a genealogy from Epicrates, who was an amicus Caesaris.
222 Bouché-Leclercq 1879-82, 251.
223 Schol. in Nic. Alex. 11.
224 Cf. Picard (1922, 214), citing Bouché-Leclercq without any explicit reference.
225 Picard 1922, 214.
es
tra
tto
the theory of rival centres it would seem inconceivable that a member of some old Milesian family would
be allowed to assume a priestly position at Claros.226 A second point of objection – namely, whether a
member of a (supposedly) noble Ionian family would have been illiterate – can be separated from the
main point here, the main point being that of an oracular centre hiring its priests from the city in control
of its main competitor. It could, however, be suggested that Colophon assembled its priests from all over
Ionia and not simply from Miletus, the situation in Tacitus’ time simply favouring the latter interpreta-
tion. The decree concerning Menophilos the χρησμολόγος clearly demonstrates that the Clarian prophets
were only required to be of Ionian blood and not necessarily natives of Miletus (above nn. 113-4) – and
indeed Tacitus’ adverb ferme (ferme Mileto accitus sacerdos) should not be overlooked, as it sometimes
has been in the past. It seems that the ancient pedigrees of different families were quite keenly observed at
the Clarian sanctuary, as we have seen in the case of the θεσπιῳδοί and their alleged descent from Ardys
of Lydia (above nn. 132-3).227
In light of such evidence, the notion of intense competition between Colophon and Miletus and their
respective oracles does not seem to be reliably founded on ancient sources. The main reason for postulating
such relations in modern research seems to be the earlier and better-documented parallel of rivalry between
Delphi and Dodona, the great oracular centres of the classical period. It is not necessary to assume that
the situation in Asia Minor in the period covered by this article would mirror exactly the circumstances in
archaic and classical Greece, with both cities being members of the Ionian League and possible classical
period scruples regarding colonization and trade quite left behind. During the Roman period there was a
decidedly livelier exchange of mantic and sacred personnel among the oracular shrines, as evidenced by
numerous inscriptions.228 All in all, this would correspond well with the overall picture of pluralistic and
vigorous oracular activity that has emerged from recent studies of Roman Asia Minor and can hardly be just
a bias of documentation.
Having examined the respective histories and organizational structures at Claros and Didyma as well
as their interrelationship, it remains to use the information acquired to present some hypotheses on the forms
that the oracular session took at the sanctuaries. Though such a venture runs the risk of ending up as just a
collection of speculations, a study of divinatory offices at the two Asian sanctuaries can hardly be complete
without play-acting the roles that the various functionaries performed in communicating the divine will. In
this both the structures of the sanctuaries and the literary descriptions may prove significant, while even the
epigraphic record provides important material. There exist a number of theories on the procedures at Claros
and Didyma that have been advanced foremost by Herbert William Parke and Louis Robert, and it is neces-
sary to pass some judgement on their often conflicting reconstructions.
226 Bouché-Leclercq (1879-82, 251), placing great weight on Tacitus’ testimony of the Milesian ethnicity of the sacerdos,
considers only the dire situation of the extinction of the truly Ionian families of Colophon to have necessitated the Colophoni-
ans’ approach of their rival Miletus in search of suitable candidates: “Les Colophoniens, ne trouvant peut-être pas chez eux de
familles qui ne fussent point de sang mêlé, allèrent chercher dans la métropole de l’Ionie des prophètes qui fussent des Ioniens
authentiques.”
227 The family descent of Clarian officials is teased out of the meager evidence in Busine 2006, 294-7.
228 One such instance is the already examined (n. 106) Clarian προσκύνημα of Laodicea on the Lycus that mentions Μᾶρκος
Ἀντώνιος Φιλοπαππιανὸς Βαλεριανός, a prophet of Apollo Pythius apparently from Laodicea, conducting a hymn of his own
composition, performed by a choir of maidens and boys, to his Clarian colleagues; discussed already by Haussoullier 1898, 269-70,
inscription published as Macridy 1905, no. 5.3. The popularity of hymnody during the Imperial period is noted, e.g., by Chaniotis
2002, 76-7; Chaniotis 2003, 186.
es
tra
80 Antti Lampinen
tto
5. Contacting the gods – the mantic session and operators
5.1. Claros
A central question to any reconstruction of the Clarian divinatory procedure is the amount of credence given
to Tacitus’ description of the ritual (n. 100) vis-à-vis other facts we know of Colophon during the period. As
noted by modern commentators, the passage poses several problems, and was, I think, instrumental in lead-
ing Parke to argue for a great renovation of the Clarian ritual at the time of Hadrian.229 To be sure, Tacitus’
account is somewhat earlier than the greatest flowering of the oracle, and may very well be rooted in even
older sources, although it should be borne in mind that Tacitus acted as a proconsul of Asia Minor in AD
112/3, and hence may have been relatively well informed about the oracle. He even slips into the present
tense while narrating the oracular proceedings involving Germanicus, which, according to Parke, may have
something to do with Tacitus’ recent tenure.230 Alternatively the present tense could conceivably stem from
Tacitus’ use of older sources that might have described the oracular proceeding in the present tense – though
the most probable explanation is that it is a simple stylistic device with no deeper meaning. As the possible
literary sources for Tacitus’ description are conjectural, it is no use pondering whether he knew Nicander’s
work on Clarian oracles, and whether this had any bearing on his account (cf. at nn. 115, 120).
The very structure of the underground corridor with its two entrances and two-part chamber could
be expected to tell us something of the mantic ritual itself, and one feels rather inclined to agree with
Parke’s observation that such a complicated system was designed simply to allow the prophet alone to
reach the sacred wellspring.231 Sarah Iles Johnston agrees with Robert on the matter of consultants being
admitted to the anteroom of the subterranean μαντεῖον, but with the reasonable addition that an initiation
into the mysteries was required first.232 Thus the entrants to the antechamber would have constituted only a
relatively small proportion of all the consultants. The fact that the envoys of certain cities expressly men-
tion their initiation would imply that it was not a standard procedure for all consultants.233 That initiation
was a prerequisite for at least some consultations would have demanded the existence of a τελεστήριον
of sorts – a specially separated building in which to perform the needed ceremonies, as noted already by
Picard.234 Wherever this building was situated, it was in all probability there that ἔν τισι τακταῖς νυξίν235
229 Parke 1985a, 148 and 221-2, though in Parke (1940, 86) it is expressly stated: “The inscriptions at Claros date from Hadrian’s
reign, and so are not more than a score of years later than when Tacitus wrote. One may suppose that there had been no change in
procedure.” Something evidently changed the author’s view on the constancy of the Clarian system of functionaries, but neverthe-
less the evidence for such an abrupt renovation of the oracular procedure as postulated by Parke in 1985 is very scarce. The inscrip-
tions mentioned in Parke 1940 are the official inscriptions of the sanctuary, which mention the names of the functionaries in the
following order: the πρύτανις of Colophon, the προφήτης, the ἱερεύς, the θεσπιῳδός and the γραμματεῖς, as in IGR IV 1587-9 (all
given in Haussoullier 1898 as well, with the exception of IGR IV 1588 = Macridy 1912, 54 no. 26, a προσκύνημα of Caesarea on
the Argaeus, in which the order is the same).
230 Parke 1985a, 137.
231 Parke 1985a, 222; Parke (1988, 83-4) compares the Clarian arrangement with that of the Sibylline Cave at Cumae.
232 Johnston 2008, 78. It seems that consultation was possible without the initiation, but that some of the θεωροὶ chose to involve
themselves in the oracular ritual in this more intensive way, Graf 2003, 246.
233 Parke 1985a, 224. The first mention of the consultants entering the subterranean mantic complex is the προσκύνημα of Amis-
sos, already encountered (n. 132), in which the θεοπρόποι are named as Κρίσπος Τρύφωνος and Π. Πούπιος Καλλικλῆς, οἵτινες
μυηθέντες ἐνεβάτευσαν (ll. 13-15). The verb ἐμβατεύειν is by no means peculiar, but noteworthy in this case as the earliest known
mention at Claros of an initiated participation in a religious session.
234 Picard 1922, 61.
235 Iambl. myst. 3, 11 (see n. 103) These “sacred nights” are also mentioned by Aelius Aristides (25, 312 Dindorf), who while residing
at Lebedos (some 20 km west of Colophon) conceived a desire to consult the Clarian Apollo on his many ailments; ἐνθύμιον γίγνεταί
es
tra
tto
the consultants were ritually prepared for the descent into the subterranean part of the μαντεῖον. Moreover,
if read closely, the Tacitean passage supports the notion that at some consultations the consultants never
entered the oracular “cave” or maze, instead waiting for the divine message to be delivered to them by the
sacerdos in specum degressus. The functionaries may have only noted down the names of the consultants
as well as their number, apparently, although the latter seems redundant when the names would clearly have
revealed the number of enquirers. In such oracular sessions as involved no initiation, the inspired diviner
(and his aides, possibly including the θεσπιῳδός) descended alone to the μαντεῖον. It seems conceivable
that if there existed a separate χρησμογράφιον at Claros (no evidence of such has yet been uncovered), the
non-initiated consultants awaited there for the answer to be delivered to them by the θεσπιῳδός,236 as well
as for the γραμματεῖς to put it into writing. It was probably at the same locale that the initiated consultants
received their copy of the oracular response.237
Even those consultants that were admitted to the subterranean passage did not catch a glimpse of
the inspired seer, which would be in accordance with Tacitus’ sacerdos numerum modo consultantium et
nomina audit (n. 100)238 as well as Iamblichus’ οὐκέθ᾿ ὁρώμενον τοῖς παροῦσι θεωροῖς (above n. 103).
Moreover, a passage in Plutarch recording an unfortunate malfunction of the inspirational technique at
Delphi and involving a fatally possessed Pythia239 corroborates this, if we are prepared to assume that the
Clarian ritual was (at least partly) modelled after the Delphic one;240 in this case, too, the consultants and
the officiating priests waited in a separate space, where they were only able to hear the prophetess’s voice.
As will be seen, the consultants at Didyma, too, were probably unable to behold the προφῆτις themselves.
During the preceding twenty-four hours the prophet had retired to seclusion in preparation for the mantic
session, fasting for a day and a night.241
μοι χρήσασθαι τῷ θεῷ τῷ ἐν Κολοφῶνι καὶ περὶ τῶν παρόντων καὶ περὶ πάσης τῆς ἀσθενείας. ἀπέχει δὲ ἡ Κολοφῶν τῆς Λεβέδου
οὐ πολὺ, καὶ ἡ νὺξ ἐτύγχανεν ἡ ἱερὰ ἐπικειμένη. Perhaps characteristically for Aristides, the orator deemed himself to be in far too
frail a state to brave the short crossing to the mainland, sending his foster-father Zosimos to consult the god instead.
236 Cf. Picard 1922, 113-4. Picard, however, is inclined to deny any possibility of the consultants descending to the oracle-cave in
any circumstances, contesting the suggestion by Haussoullier (1898, 268) that they occasionally did so. In his opinion the initiation
to the mysteries did not entail permission for the initiates to enter the μαντεῖον – an interpretation that was not adopted by Parke and
Robert: Robert 1967, 305; Parke 1985a, 139; Robert 1992, 286. Though Picard’s estimation that the oracle-cave had descended to the
plain from the hills by the time of Germanicus’ consultation is on the right track (if, indeed, the “grotte prophetique de Terre-mère” in
the hills described by him in 1922, 10, 46, 66 was ever the ‘original’ cave), his position on the procedure of a consultation would have
been quite untenable had he known of the layout of the artificial Clarian ‘cave’ that was later revealed in the excavations of 1960-1961.
The existence in the structure of a separate antechamber, and the proposed use thereof, clearly counters his claim (op. cit. 114, cf. also
220) that “en tous cas, pas plus qu’à Delphes ou à Didymes, les consultants à Claros, ne foulaient le sol de l’adyton”.
237 Parke 1985a, 222. The passage in Ovid’s fast. 1, 20 (aut Clario missa legenda deo) is usually taken to mean that questions
could also be submitted to Apollo Clarios in written form; cf. Picard 1922, 114, and above n. 52. The office of a γραμματοφύλαξ
at Claros is known from one inscription, a decree in honour of a certain Polemaios, but this is an isolated case of an individual
named Kallippos; Robert 1989, 61 (col. V, 51, cf. SEG XXXIX 1243). Thus it is difficult to venture a conjecture of his function at
the sanctuary, and whether that function would have had anything to do with supervising the χρησμογράφιον or storing the oracular
documents.
238 Alternatively the wording may refer, of course, to the sacerdos hearing the names and number (or order – the Latin numerus
can denote both) of the consultants in advance of the whole mantic ritual – after all, the following clause begins: tum in specum
degressus, which could imply an action to follow.
239 Plut. de def. or. 51 (438a-b); Flower 2008, 233.
240 Flacelière 1961, 46-7. On the other hand, Graf (2009, 75) notes that during the Imperial period, as the Delphic star waned but
the fame of the Asiatic oracles soared, it may be that their mantic rite started in turn to influence the way things were done in Delphi:
this would, at least, sufficiently explain why references to Pythia drinking the water from an inspiring spring (either of Cassotis or
Castalia) are relatively late, such as in Lucian (Hes. 8, Jupp. trag. 30) and Pausanias (10, 24, 7).
241 Iambl. myst. 3, 11: καὶ πρὸ τοῦ πίνειν δὲ οὕτως ἀσιτεῖ τὴν ἡμέραν ὅλην καὶ νύκτα, καὶ ἐν ἱεροῖς τισιν ἀβάτοις τῷ πλήθει
καθ᾿ ἑαυτὸν ἀνακεχώρηκεν ἀρχόμενος ἐνθουσιᾶν, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀποστάσεως καὶ ἀπαλλαγῆς τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων πραγμάτων
ἄχραντον ἑαυτὸν εἰς ὑποδοχὴν τοῦ θεοῦ παρασκευάζει: Cf. Shaw 1995, 87.
es
tra
82 Antti Lampinen
tto
At this point of the oracular ritual we need to choose whether to follow Parke’s or Robert’s recon-
struction of the Clarian procedure – in effect, whether it was the θεσπιῳδός or the προφήτης who acted
as the inspired seer.242 As the discussion above has identified the προφήτης as the inspired seer at Clarion,
it seems reasonable to follow Parke in his attribution of the prophetic roles, though there are some other
aspects in his view of the Clarian procedure that will be re-examined shortly. Thus, the initiated consultants
were left to wait in the outer chamber, probably accompanied by the γραμματεῖς and possibly also by the
ἱερεύς, who may have acted as an officiant in the ritual. The torches or other necessary sources of light could
have been held by the consultants themselves, the γραμματεῖς or perhaps by persons specifically chosen for
this task. It would seem logical that the θεσπιῳδός joined the προφήτης – at this point in an altered state
of consciousness if we are to believe Iamblichus243 – in the inner chamber, where the latter drank of the
sacred spring and gave the divine response. Some time afterwards the θεσπιῳδός emerged from the inner
chamber and probably gave the response to the consultants in spoken form, the written version of which was
in all probability obtainable from the γραμματεῖς (possibly in the χρησμογράφιον). At Claros, however,
the oracular texts were apparently never engraved in stone at the sanctuary, in contrast with the Didymaean
practice.244
Parke’s view on the historical development of the Clarian rite wishes to reconcile the Tacitean and
Iamblichan reports of the procedure, as well as to take into account the testimony of Oenomaus of Gadara
and the seemingly meagre evidence for officials in the Late Republican and Julio-Claudian periods. To this
end he postulates a great reorganization and invigoration of the sanctuary in the Hadrianic period.245 This
would have entailed the introduction of nightly mysteries involving initiation as well as several new offi-
cials, neither of which are mentioned by Tacitus, the re-introduction of the practice of taking the enquirers
under ground in the manner of the Hellenistic period and a new emphasis on the quality of oracular poetry
derided by Oenomaus246 only a short time before the renovation – all of which developments were meant to
increase the prestige of the sanctuary.
As attractive as Parke’s proposal is, there are several uncertainties involved, especially in its inter-
pretation of the Tacitean testimony. Most importantly, should we really read it to the effect that there were
no other officials at Claros in Germanicus’ day in addition to the sacerdos, when there clearly is much over-
lapping and merging among the offices a little later, and, when we have seen, moreover, that Iamblichus,
too, leaves without mentioning those mantic officials he does not feel necessary to include? If Germanicus
really was catered to only by a single oracular official, does it necessarily mean that there only existed a
single prophetic office at Claros at the time? The contingent fact that there is no mention of the three differ-
242 See above n. 127.

243 Iambl. myst. 3, 11: πάρεστι δ᾿ εὐθὺς καὶ χρῆται ὡς ὀργάνῳ τῷ προφήτῃ οὔτε ἑαυτοῦ ὄντι οὔτε παρακολουθοῦντι οὐδὲν
οἷς λέγει ἢ ὅπου γῆς ἐστιν· ὥστε καὶ μετὰ τὴν χρησμῳδίαν μόγις ποτὲ ἑαυτὸν λαμβάνει: Iamblichus has argued earlier in myst.
3, 4 against Porphyry’s view that inspired diviners are awake and use their senses, though not in the normal way, while prophesying.
Iamblichus himself thought of inspiration as the total possession of the mortal vessel by the god. Cf. Sheppard 1993.
244 Parke 1985a, 65, 70, 214; Busine (2005, 53-4), discussing the interesting possibility of the Clarian oracular responses being
compiled in collections by the staff of the sanctuary themselves. It could well be that works such as Cornelius Labeo’s vanished De
oraculo Apollinis Clarii (Corn. Lab. ap. Macr. Sat. 1, 18) could have been based on such compilations. Cf. also Athanassiadi 1992,
51; Gazzaniga 1974, 147-9.
245 Parke 1985a, 144-9, 222-4. Parke’s proposition has acquired some following, such as Lane Fox (1986, 172-3), who apparently
was acquainted with Parke’s manuscript when writing his Pagans and Christians (ibid. 8). The assumed date for the renovation is
135-8, based on the dedicatory inscription of the oracle temple which mentions Hadrian (ibid. 144). In his campaign reports, Robert
dated the Hadrianic dedication, on the basis of titles, to not earlier than December 135: Robert 1960a, 21. The imperial benefaction
need not, of course, mean any far-reaching changes in the oracular procedures; though, cf. Busine 2006, 276 and then passim.
246 Oenom. ap. Eus. praep. evang. 5, 21, 6 - 23, 4.
es
tra
tto
ent oracular functionaries before the Hadrianic Age does not necessarily mean that they were created at that
time.247 The same may well apply to the matter of initiation at Claros.248 Though it could be expected that
Iamblichus – in contrast to Tacitus – would have mentioned a possible Clarian initiation in De mysteriis, this
is not necessarily the case, for he is much more interested in the inspiration of the mantic persons than the
initiation of the enquirers, which he does not discuss at any length.249 Thus the Iamblichan silence on the
matter of initiation is just as inconclusive as evidence as the Tacitean silence on the same matter when trying
to date the active period of the Clarian mysteries.
It is an often repeated claim that the 2nd century AD experienced some kind of surge in interest
towards mysteries and initiative cults, but this was certainly not the first occasion of such a trend among
the Greeks, and the Clarian mysteries may just as well have been of Hellenistic origin. In any case, it
would have been a short-sighted oracular shrine that denied a visiting dignitary such as Germanicus the
best service available. Thus the proposition that poor times had forced the oracle to conduct its services
with a skeleton staff of officials, often without bothering to write down or even hear the private consult-
ants’ questions,250 seems improbable, especially if at the same time the selfsame oracle received written
enquiries far and wide, and was consulted at the capital in rituals of magic nature (for the case of Lollia
Paulina, see above n. 51).
The alleged introduction of Clarian mysteries is only a part of the general rise in profile of the oracu-
lar establishment as proposed by Parke.251 This is based mostly on the claim that neither Tacitus nor Oenom-
aus happen to mention the mysteries as such. The need for a rising profile at the sanctuary is, however,
uncertain to say the least. It may well be that in Germanicus’ day – a relatively short time after the Cilician
pirates’ raids, and at a time which, according to Strabo, saw rather little activity at Claros – the offices of
prophet, priest and θεσπιῳδός were sometimes managed jointly by one or two persons, just as they were for
very different (if no less economic) reasons at the affluent oracular apex of the 2nd century AD. Certainly
this may have occasionally resulted in reduced quality of the oracular responses, but to use Oenomaus to
reinforce an assumption of such a decline is not very convincing – for the Cynic’s slander, the poetic quality
of the prophecies is just another obvious target – whereas the passage in Dio Chrysostom comparing Apollo
247 Which is, in effect, what Parke (1985a, 220) proposes. Certainly, new oracular procedures and innovations were not unheard of
at that date, as we learn from Lucian’s Alexander the False Prophet, but in the context of such an established and famous sanctuary
as Claros a measure like that seems rather incongruous with the general oracular method of gathering esteem, namely, the unchal-
lengeable respectability of antiquity. On the other hand, mounting competition among the cults and sanctuaries might conceivably
have had the effect of encouraging innovative approaches to ritual activity, thus leading different sanctuaries to create specific cultic
profiles, as suggested in Chaniotis 2002, 71-3. Nevertheless, the competitive situation may have been very different for a prestigious
and already much consulted establishment such as Claros than for a new creation entirely dependent on the promotional drive of one
man – that is, if we choose to give credence to Lucian’s rather unfair testimony (cf. Chaniotis 2002, 68).
248 The matter of initiation and its alleged Hadrianic introduction is complicated slightly by the point that in Tacitus (see n.
100), Germanicus is reported, just before his consultation, to have approached Samothrace in the hopes of getting initiation into
the mysteries of the Μεγάλοι Θεοί, but being prevented from doing this by adverse winds. On the other hand, Germanicus is not
described as visiting Didyma, and it may be asked whether this was because his interest in oracles had been satisfied (or doused,
perhaps?) at Claros, or because the Didymeion could offer no initiation. Maybe Claros was made attractive by the opportunity
it offered of initiated mysteries already in Germanicus’ day? Interestingly, after describing the young prince’s frustrated desire
concerning the Samothracian mysteries, Tacitus begins his sentence with igitur, which could be taken to provide some idea of
Germanicus’ aspirations. The simplest explanation would, of course, be that since Claros was the first important oracular site
when moving southwards from Samothrace, the choosing of it over Didyma was obviously dictated by geography – mysteries
or no mysteries.
249 The orientation of Iamblichus’ interest towards mantic inspiration is noted by Busine (2002, 192, with references to theoretical
studies).
250 Parke 1985a, 22.
251 Parke 1985a, 148.
es
tra
84 Antti Lampinen
tto
and Homer need not be read as an ironic statement, as Parke does.252 The meagre-looking epigraphic evi-
dence of the Clarian officials during the Late Republican and Early Imperial periods can simply be seen to
reflect the overall frequency of documentation at the site – Parke himself notes how the divine answers only
began to be written down in the second half of the 2nd century AD.253 Thus, a cautious interpretation of the
evidence leads to the assumption that there was no sudden and planned revamping of the Clarian oracular
rite in the Hadrianic period – our sources are simply too scant and biased to hazard such a supposition. As
for the mysteries of initiation, there does not seem to be any possibility to propose a definite foundation date
for them, at least with the current epigraphic evidence. It will be more secure to acknowledge that Tacitus
and Iamblichus likely described parts of the same Clarian rite conducted more or less in the same unaltered
way, with the only modification being the differing interests and motives of the respective authors.
5.2. Didyma
As at Claros, so at Didyma the temple building itself has been variously interpreted in relation to the oracu-
lar procedures conducted there, and certainly, the impressive remains of the complex constitute a veritable
invitation to visualize the oracular rite being played out. That some modern scholars have been carried
away in their re-enactment is hardly surprising. The structures of the temple offer us the only comparable
evidence of the mantic rite in addition to the 3rd century account of Iamblichus, who in all probability had
not witnessed the procedure personally, and thus we need to start by making a few notes on the descriptions
of the complex in recent research.
To begin with, Parke is somewhat imprecise in his description of the two Didymaean passages that
descend from the πρόναος to the ἄδυτον: he describes them ending in “a sort of pavilion giving access to
the court”. Based upon an on-site inspection of the structures in question it seems a grandiose name for the
two small antechambers that are only slightly less narrow than the passages themselves.254 Secondly, it must
also be noted that Iles Johnston’s description of the “labyrinth” of Didymeion – that is, the two winding
staircases leading upwards from either side of the “Eastern Chamber” – is slightly misleading in describing
the structure’s relationship with the rest of the layout: they do not, in fact, lead “down into the aduton”.255
Thus, the two sloping side passages were really the only feasible route from the πρόναος to the ἄδυτον,
whereas the only contact between the “Eastern Chamber” and the ἄδυτον was by the twenty or so steps
leading down from the chamber.
At Didyma, we have knowledge of a χρησμογράφιον from the building accounts that mention the
existence of such a structure.256 The possibility of the χρησμογράφιον being identical with the μαντεῖον
mentioned by Strabo has already been discussed above (at n. 214). For all that, the exact location of the
building is unknown as of yet, but the building summaries point to its probable site and function.257 Situated
252 D. Chr. 47, 5: καὶ τῆς Χίου οὐ πολύς ἐστι λόγος οὐδὲ Κολοφῶνος· καίτοι ποιητὴν οὐ χείρονα Ὁμήρου παρέχεται, τὸν
Ἀπόλλωνα. Cf. Parke 1985a, 146.
253 Parke 1985a, 149; Johnston 2008, 78.
254 Parke 1986, 121. While postulating a possible Ptolemaic influence on the structural uniqueness of Didymeion, Parke does not
include any interpretation of the “labyrinth” near the so-called “East Chamber”, which might be useful when dealing with such a
singular element in temple architecture – even though the influence on the two staircases might not be Egyptian. In Parke (1985a,
216-7) a few suggestions as to the original purpose of the “labyrinth” are made.
255 Johnston 2008, 86.
256 I.Didyma 31-2. Fontenrose 1988, 43 n. 25. On the building accounts, see Debord 1982, 187-91.
257 I.Didyma 31, 5-9; 32, 7-9.
es
tra
tto
somewhere in the sacred precinct, possibly northwest of the temple, it likely had something to do with the
spoken presentation of the oracles.258 At the very least, it was the location where the enquirers would have
received their written copies of the oracular utterance that may have already been given to them in the finale
of the mantic session. The consultants were, in all likelihood, excluded from the ἄδυτον, and waited for the
delivery of the divine response at the πρόναος in front of the Eastern Chamber.259
Parke is probably right in suggesting that both the extraordinary design of the temple complex
and the probable existence of a separate χρησμογράφιον were intended to distance the enquirer from the
προφῆτις and her prophesying.260 Since the enquirers were excluded from the ἄδυτον, and since they hardly
could have given the prophet their written questions at the beginning of the session at the πρόναος without
risking ritual pollution,261 they would have left their questions at the χρησμογράφιον, to be put into writing
before their presentation to the prophetess at the session. Such a procedure would suit well the pattern of
close correspondence between the epigraphic questions and answers that is evident in the inscriptions of the
Didymeion.262 The importance of writing as a medium at Didyma may be reinforced by Strabo, who con-
nects Didyma with Delphi in the sense that both use words as a prophetic method.263 Of the exact technique
of inspiration, however, such a comment tells us nothing, for it is probably meant simply to distinguish such
establishments as gave a verbal (either spoken, written, or both) answer to the enquirers, from other (techni-
cal) methods of divination such as drawing lots. Thus it is again Iamblichus that we need to turn to in order
to get even a vague picture of how an oracular consultation at the Didymeion may have proceeded.
That the mantic power was somehow tied to water at Didyma, too, is evident in the description of
Iamblichus. The προφῆτις is described as affected by the vapours of the water from the mantic spring – ἒκ
τοῦ ὕδατος ἀτμιζομένη – though not by drinking it, as at Claros. The mantic spring was imagined as flow-
ing underground from a source in Mount Mykale on the other side of the Latmian Gulf, as attested not only
by Pausanias, but also by a reference in a metric oracular response to the ἐν Διδύμων γυάλοις Μυκαλήιον
ἔνθεον ὕδωρ.264 The inscriptions mentioning a hydrophor of Artemis Pythie having performed the mysteries
probably belong to this context.265 Indeed, as hydophors are attested in Didyma but not in Claros, it seems that
they were needed to bring about the contact of the inspired seer with the mantic water: in Claros, as we have
258 Fontenrose 1988, 43 n. 25; Parke 1986, 126.

259 Günther 1971, 121-2.
260 Parke 1986, 127.
261 As proposed by Fontenrose 1988, 79. All the more oblivious to the danger of an uninitiated enquirer polluting the shrine – in
addition to seeing the inspired prophetess, for which we have no ancient testimonies – is the theory in Haussoullier (1920, 268-77),
which proposes that the consultant proceeded by one of the sloping side passages to the small chamber at the lower end, wherefrom
(s)he could see the mantic procedure, and even pose the question straight to the god in a voice loud enough to be heard by the proph-
etess, who, in turn, delivered the god’s answer through the prophet. Afterwards the message would have been put into writing in the
χρησμογράφιον – which is, indeed, the only viable part of Haussoullier’s proposition.
262 Parke 1985a, 215.
263 Str. 17, 1, 43: ἐν Δελφοῖς καὶ Βραγχίδαις τὰς ἀποθεσπίσεις διὰ λόγων. The complicated relationship between the vocal and
written aspects of oracular responses is explored by Beard 1991, concluding that the written testimony of the divine will was hardly
of secondary importance (49-53). Additionally, it might be noted that Strabo’s statement seems to omit the most “literary” of the
contemporary oracles, namely, Claros with its far-reaching exchange of letters. This may be explained by suggesting that Strabo is
speaking in a very strict technical sense, with Didyma and Delphi representing oracular establishments where the “highest” (i.e.,
closest to the inspired utterance) level of contact between the response and the enquirer – who may not have heard the inspired seer’s
voice in these places, unlike in Claros – was a written one.
264 Paus. 5, 7, 5; the oracular utterance (from Porph. ap. Eus. praep. evang. 5, 16, 1) in Fontenrose 1988, R47, l. 8
265 Graf 2003, 247, with references to I.Didyma 312, 326, 327, 329, 333, 352, 373, 381. This is a potentially remarkable inference,
and would testify to further elaboration of Didymaic ritual life during the Imperial period, possibly in response to the famous mys-
teries at Claros. However, as Graf notes, it is difficult to say whether this refers to an initiation of an individual hydrophor, or some-
thing that she presided in ex officio. Regarding the hydrophor as a female post of high stature, see Connelly 2007, 10, 40, 122.
es
tra
86 Antti Lampinen
tto
seen, the prophet drank from the spring himself.266 Similarly, however, to his male counterpart at Claros (but
differing notably from Delphi), before the mantic session the Didymaean προφῆτις had bathed in preparation,
fasted for three days and spent some time (perhaps the duration of the fast) in seclusion in the ἄδυτον.267 Parke
suggests that the upper level of the temple (accessible by the labyrinthine staircases from the Eastern Chamber)
may have housed the prophetess whilst preparing, but such a hypothesis must remain conjectural.268 At any
rate, such a location would not have exposed her to the eyes of the enquirers. The enquirers, for their part, had
prepared themselves for the session by making the required sacrifices, just like at Delphi and elsewhere.269
The water was, however, only one possible method for the prophetess to receive inspiration.270
Perhaps water was involved every time (explaining the necessity of a hydrophor) but not as the sole ritual
element in the session.271 It seems that in order to “partake of the god” the prophetess could make contact
with the mantic water either by dipping her foot in it or touching it with the hem of her garment – here the
help of a hydophor, possibly holding a basin of some sort, is conceivable. Two other methods do not seem to
be tied to the oracular spring, for they involve sitting upon an ἄξων, an axle, or handling a god-given rod or
staff.272 It seems relatively clear that whatever the actual structure of the ἄξων, it corresponded to the Del-
phic tripod and its role in the Delphic session,273 while tripods at Didyma were evidently of an exclusively
dedicatory nature.274 The latter method involving a staff may have some connection with the Branchidae
of old, at least through the implication of some kind of inherited mantic power not unlike the one enjoyed
by the families of μάντεις in the mythological register. Indeed the literary tradition – already mentioned
(n. 59) – that Branchos received the staff from Apollo himself is almost certainly behind the later ritual
object.275 Quite possibly the staff (ῥάβδος) mentioned by Iamblichus was claimed to have some connec-
266 That the contact with mantic water was less direct at Didyma than at Claros was observed by Graf 2009, 74. Busine (2006,
281, 284) is probably quite right to include the hydrophor among the religious officials of the Didymeion.
267 Iambl. myst. 3, 11: Δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ τῶν θυσιῶν πλῆθος καὶ ὁ θεσμὸς τῆς ὅλης ἁγιστείας καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα δρᾶται πρὸ τῆς
χρησμῳδίας θεοπρεπῶς, τά τε λουτρὰ τῆς προφήτιδος καὶ ἡ τριῶν ὅλων ἡμερῶν ἀσιτία καὶ ἡ ἐν ἀδύτοις αὐτῆς διατριβὴ καὶ
ἐχομένης ἤδη τῷ φωτὶ καὶ τερπομένης ἐν πολλῷ χρόνῳ· καὶ γὰρ αὐτὰ πάντα παράκλησιν τοῦ θεοῦ ὥστε παραγενέσθαι καὶ
παρουσίαν ἔξωθεν ἐπιδείκνυσιν.
268 Parke 1985a, 217. Among conjectures should also be placed the proposition advanced by Montegu 1976, according to which
the προφῆτις climbed the staircases during the oracular ritual, and, emerging “into the light on the floor above”, was sprinkled with
the water from the mantic spring. Though both the vaguely Iamblichan symbolism and the purported parallelism with the Clarian
ritual are attractive, it would seem safer to favour Parke’s ritual reconstruction, which situates the mantic session in the ἄδυτον
and takes all the structures of the complex better into account, including the monumental staircase leading to the Eastern Chamber.
270 Georgoudi 1998, 324.
271 A combination of methods would help to explain the point observed by Graf (2009, 75) that there apparently was no fear that
any locals would be mantically inspired in AD 262/3 as the spring in Didymaion was opened up to the inhabitants of the area who
were besieged in the sanctuary by Goths (for which see, e.g., Fontenrose 1988, 2).
272 Iambl. myst. 3, 11 (see text quoted in n. 103). Parke (1985a, 211) considers it entirely possible that the four methods of inspira-
tion were drawn by Iamblichus or his source from four different sources, and did not need to be employed all at once, which seems
quite reasonable. On the other hand his reconstructive assumption of ἄξων being some kind of movable device able to propel the
prophetess over the mantic spring seems speculative to say the least; op. cit. 212. Fontenrose (1988, 82) proposes on the contrary
that all the four methods of inspiration were used by the prophetess in a single session. In addition to leading to a confusingly
elaborate ritual, this interpretation unfortunately does not account for the word εἴτε that Iamblichus uses to differentiate the various
methods. In any case, the interesting, though regrettably headless, statue of a man holding a sceptre of a sort found in Didyma is
probably related to the tradition on Branchos; Höckmann 1996, passim, pls. 18-19.1.
274 Diog. Laert. 1, 28 recounts the tale of the Seven Sages, who, after passing a honorary tripod for the wisest one amongst them-
selves, dedicated it to the Didymaean Apollo; cf. also Defradas 1954, 218.
275 Varro ap. Lact. Plac. Schol. in Stat. Theb. 8, 198. An interesting line of enquiry is opened up if one adopts Michael Flower’s
view of basically a threefold categorization of the Greek divination, obscured by Plato’s strict bipartition; Flower 2008, 87-8. Then
Branchidae as well as other mantic families could be seen as representing the “innate faculty of divination”, which is a hereditary,
es
tra
tto
tion with the original, mythical specimen. It should be noted that although Iamblichus describes the many
methods and preparations of the προφῆτις as leading up to the divine possession, none of these are actually
the primal cause of the altered state of consciousness – they, just like the prophetess’ period of fasting in
seclusion are simply meant to prepare her mind and body for the invading god; for according to Iamblichus’
definition of higher and lower ecstasy, any ecstasy caused by physical phenomena is of the lower type.276
The true θεοφορία ensues from the divine possession only, as the Neoplatonist iterates in several places, the
prophet being simply an ὄργανον of the divinity.277
The consultation of the prophetess, then, seems to have been facilitated through intermediary of-
ficials, while the consultants waited in the πρόναος. Not everyone, however, is happy with this reconstruc-
tion. Fontenrose, for one, revived the supposition already made by Haussoullier that the consultants actually
did descend to the edge of the ἄδυτον floor, where the sloping passages widen somewhat to form little
chambers.278 He reasons that if the consultants had never descended the passageways, the statue of Apollo
by Canachus, which “must have been meant for worshipers to see”, would never have been seen by the
general populace. Though it is true that the side passages and chambers at their lower end were probably not
ἄδυτα, but only ὅσια, and thus accessible to the properly purified, the rationale behind the whole argument
is not supported by the other known oracular practices of antiquity. Most importantly, it should be reiterated
that neither in Delphi nor at any of the other famous oracular sanctuaries was the inspired seer meant to be
seen by the consultants. Besides, the importance in antiquity of the cult statue being seen by the enquirers at
an oracular context can be challenged.
Thus, following Parke’s reconstruction,279 it may be wiser to keep the consultants waiting at the
ornate πρόναος, while the προφῆτις – prepared as she was to receive the divinity and accompanied at the
very least by the prophet and the γραμματεῖς, and possibly also the ὑποχρήστης – delivers the responses to
the questions posed to Apollo. If the questions had been submitted to χρησμογράφιον earlier, the responses
could have already been given a poetic form – if not, it seems necessary to assume that the prophet, the
γραμματεῖς or some other functionaries gave them some suitable flourish at this point, though this latter op-
tion seems much more unlikely. Next, the officials may have formed some kind of procession, with a choir
possibly accompanying them, which proceeded up the staircase to the Eastern Chamber, from where they
would have given the versified responses to the consultants. If a slightly larger amount of privacy seems de-
sirable in the transmission of the divine answers, it could be argued that the responses were only given to the
enquirers at the χρησμογράφιον, and maybe only in written form, though this would tend to weaken the role
of the prophet to the point that he could scarcely have been called a προφήτης. Finally, it seems reasonable
to assume that after a consultation there would have been some time before another could be arranged – such
ἡμέραι ἀποφράδες, or unlucky days, are known from Delphi, besides which the periods of fasting required
by the prophetess would have imposed a maximum of one session every seven days or so.280
one-time gift from a god, and does not depend on the seer being possessed. The interpretation of cultic myth at the Branchidae could
thus be focused on the original kiss of Apollo granting the prophetic abilities to Branchos, and the staff similarly given by the god
– representing the continuing innate mantic ability of the family.
276 Sheppard 1993, 141-2.
277 Iambl. myst. 3, 4: ὡς ὄχημα ἢ ὄργανον τοῖς ἐπιπνέουσι θεοῖς); 3, 7; 3, 8; 3, 11. Cf. also Pl. Phdr. 256b for the apparent com-
patibility of Iamblichus’ view with the original Platonic view of enthusiastic possession, and its high standing as a form of divina-
tion. Cf. Shaw 1995, 232.
278 Fontenrose 1988, 80-1; cf. Haussoullier 1920, 270-2.
279 For the whole reconstruction of the oracular session, see Parke 1985a, 218-9; among recent discussion, Busine (2005, 52) also
favours Parke’s hypothesis.
es
tra
88 Antti Lampinen
tto
6. Concluding remarks
Though the two sanctuaries of Claros and Didyma shared many common trends and circumstances during
their long histories, certain aspects of their myths, ritual and organization defy simple comparison. Just as
we have seen the neat distinction that Plato constructed between inspired and mediating diviners to be inad-
equate in describing the multitude of forms that divination took among the Greeks, so, too, the most distinct
feature of the Asiatic oracular centres that emerges from their study is a notable pluralism of operators,
techniques and organizing principles at the sanctuaries themselves. Having examined some of the ancient
evidence as well as most of the recent research on the subject, many aspects of oracular functionaries at
the sanctuaries must still remain tentative – a good example of this ambiguity being the actual procedure of
the oracular consultation. This is an inevitable feature of a study based on such disparate evidence as that
concerning Claros and Didyma.
Certain scholars of the 19th and early 20th centuries seem to have entertained a wishfully simplistic
view of the roles and functions of oracular officials. Their wish to utilize the testimonies of both Tacitus and
Iamblichus to their fullest led them to make some poorly founded assumptions and uneasy compromises
in their reconstructions of both the cultic organization and the ritual dimension of the oracular activity.
Without compromising its explanatory power, this literary evidence should be read as reflecting closely the
respective areas of interest of their authors. Thus we should recognize Tacitus as primarily reporting the al-
leged response received by Germanicus at Claros, with little interest in the exact procedure of the revelation
beyond affirming the extraordinary and authoritative nature of the oracular transmission. Iamblichus, on
the contrary, is almost exclusively interested in the inspirational and mystic nature of the oracular revela-
tion, and accordingly provides a detailed account of the inspired actors while omitting the transmitter of the
prophetic answer. The Iamblichan account in particular would greatly benefit from a detailed study of the
relevant passages.
Past simplifications and possible postmodern (over)complications notwithstanding, much has been
uncovered regarding the organization of the staff at both sanctuaries, which is largely due to extensive exca-
vation work carried out for the better part of the 20th century. While several aspects concerning the filling of
the sacral posts and the managing of the sanctuaries are still poorly understood, the Clarian προσκυνήματα
and the Didymaean prophet-inscriptions have provided an important corpus of genuine voices from people
involved in both consulting and administering the oracular centres. Even these sources do not, however,
reveal all the involved actors satisfactorily – the best example of which must be the προφῆτις of Didyma,
whose shadowy, removed existence appears even more so to modern scholars. Other personages, such as
Menophilos the χρησμολόγος or the Didymaean ὑποχρήστης still pose many open questions to be answered
by future research.
View publication stats

Lampinen Studiesin Ancient Oraclesand Divination

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lampinen Studiesin Ancient Oraclesand Divination

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Θεῷ μεμελημένε Φοίβῳ – Oracular Functionaries at Claros and Didyma in the

Chapter · January 2013

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

STUDIES IN ANCIENT ORACLES

FIN – 00014 University of Helsinki

Redazione del vol. 40

© Institutum Romanum Finlandiae

Finito di stampare nel mese di settembre 2013

55 Varro ap. Lact. Plac. Theb. 8, 198.

70 Fontenrose 1988, 9.

82 Fontenrose 1988, 105.

3. Oracular functionaries at Claros

3.1. Inspired seer

94 Parke 1985a, 117.

115 Iambl. myst. 5, 1.

3.2. Mediating official

3.3. Other officials

150 Bowden 2003, 264.

160 See above n. 122.

4. Oracular functionaries at Didyma

4.1. Inspired seer

164 Also noted by Johnston 2008, 85.

172 Milet VI 2, 546.

4.2. Mediating official

4.3. Other officials

213 Georgoudi 1998, 352.

242 See above n. 127.

258 Fontenrose 1988, 43 n. 25; Parke 1986, 126.

View publication stats

You might also like