Two Hellenistic Inscriptions from Delphi - article ; n°1 ; vol.78, pg 49-67

23 reading/s
Bulletin de correspondance hellénique - Année 1954 - Volume 78 - Numéro 1 - Pages 49-67
19 pages
Source : Persée ; Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation.

read more fold up

Download the publication

  • Format PDF
Comments Embed Stats & info of the document Back to top
published by


You may also like

Peter M Fraser
Two Hellenistic Inscriptions from Delphi
In: Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 78, 1954. pp. 49-67.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Fraser Peter M. Two Hellenistic Inscriptions from Delphi. In: Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 78, 1954. pp. 49-
Each of the following two inscriptions consiste of two fragments, of
which, in both instances, one is published and the other unpublished.
The attribution of the hitherto unpublished fragments of both was made
by Professor Daux in 1939, and was pointed out to me in Delphi in July
1951 by M. Jean Bousquet, for whose assistance in this and other matters
during my stay I am most grateful. Professor Daux has been kind enough
to allow me to publish thèse pièces and to give me the privilège of
publishing them in the Bulletin (1).
I. a) In the muséum at Delphi, inv. no. 3852. Seen by me in July 1951.
Photograph of squeeze, fîg. 1 a. Published by Pomtow, GGA, 1913, p. 170, no. 2.
It is referred to by A. J.-Reinach, Rev. Epigr. II, 1914, p. 104, and also in the note
at the end of the commentary on Syll. 3 390, and its bearing on the early period
of Aetolian control at Delphi is discussed by R. Flacelière, Les Ailoliens à Delphes,
pp. 87-88.
Measurements : max. ht. 0 m. 21, max. width 0 m. 24, max. thick. 0 m. 16.
Space between lines, 0 m. 007-0 m. 008. Height of letters, 0 m. 007-0 m. 009 ;
omicron, 0 m. 003.
The text of (a) was printed as follows by Pomtow :
., IA
πρέσβεις άποσταλέντε]ς ύπο βασιλέ[ως] [επειδή οι δεινές
[Πτολεμαίου προς το κοινον των Άμφικτυόνων, 'ίνα θεωρούς άποστέλλωσι, κ]αί
[τήν θυσίαν καΐ τον αγώνα, δν τίθησιν ό βασιλεύς τώι πατρί, δε]δόχθαι τοις
(1) Ι am also especially grateful to Professor Daux for his criticisms and suggestions con-
cerning the substance of the article ; and to Dr. M. N. Tod for reading the proofs. 50 PETER M. FRASER
Fig. la. — Delphes. Inv. 3852. Fig. 16. — Delphes. Inv. 6695.
Fig. la. — Delphes. Inv. 4387. Fig. 2 6. — Delphes. Inv. 6721. :

5 [ - - - και εν τοις άλλοις συλλαμβάνεσθαι τώι βασ]ιλεΐ Πτολεμαίωι τους Άμφ[ι]-
[κτύονας και νυν τήν θυσίαν άποδέχεσθαι και τόν γυμνικον αγώνα] έσεσθαι
ίσολύμπιον, καθάπερ
[ό βασιλεύς έπέσταλκεν, και μουσικον και ίππικόν, ψηφίσασθαι] δε και τους
άλλους απαντάς δσοι
[ _ _ _ τ0]ΰ θεού [κ]ατα τα δεδοχμένα τοϊ[ς]
[Άμφικτύοσιν και δούναι τα αυτά] άθλα καίτας τιμάς εκάστους τοΐ[ς]
10 [νικώσι τον αγώνα τών Πτολεμαίων (?) εν Άλεξανδρείαι καθ]άπερ και τοις τα
· 'Ολύμπια νενικ[η]-
[κότοις υπό τών πόλεων δίδοται ' έλέσθαι δε και] θεωρούς εξ αυτών τους
[νας και άποστεΐλαι εις Άλεξάνδρειαν προς τόν βασιλέα Πτο]λεμαΐον, δταν
ποιήι τήν θυσίαν και
: [τόν αγώνα τιθήι γυμνικον ίσολύμπιον, και μουσικον και ίππ]ι[κ]όν, άνε[νεγκ]εΐ[ν
δ]έ το δόγμα τό-
: [δε τους ίερομνήμονας ε'ις τας πόλεις, κ. τ. λ.].
My own reading of this fragment difïers in some important respects
from that of Pomtow :
]σιν 6 βασιλε[ . . ]
Jat άποδέχωνται
·,· ]δόχθαι τοις Άμφικτύοσιν
....·. ]λεΐ Πτολεμαίωι τους Άμφ[. .]-
]δέχεσθαι ίσολύμπιον καθάπερ
',■■-'.. ]δέ και τους άλλους απαντάς δσοι
■■ ]οΰ θεοΰ [κ] ατά τα δεδοχμένα τοις
]άθλα και τάς τιμάς εκάστους τοΐ[ . ]
]άπερ και τοις τα <Ό>λύμπια νενικ[.]- 10
]εωρούς εξ αυτών τους Άμφικτύο-
]λεμαΐον δταν ποιήι τήν θυσίαν και
- ]αιέων άνε. .γκέι. . ε το δόγμα το
b) In the muséum at Delphi, inv. no. 6695. Seen by me in July 1951. Photo-
graph of squeeze, fïg. 1 b. Unpublished.
Measurements : max. ht. 0 m. 12, max. width, 0 m. 17, max. thick., 0 m. 08.
Interlinear space and height of letters as for I (a).
πατρί αύτοΰ
κτύονες της
Πτολεμαίος τώ
αυτόν ίσολυμπ
της τε θυσίας
(a) + (b). The following restoration aims primarily at establishing the
links between the two fragments, and the actual phraseology is uncertain
at many points :
[επειδή πρότερον μέν ό βασιλεύς Πτολεμαίος πρέσβεις άπέστειλεν οϊτινες
άπήγγειλαν (vel
άπέφαινον vel sim.) δτι θυσίαν ποιεί και αγώνα τίθησιν (ό βασιλεύς) τώι]
πατρί αύτοΰ [εν Άλεξανδρείαι ίσολύμπιον και έπέστειλεν ίνα μετέχωσιν ο]ί
κτύονες της [τε θυσίας και του αγώνος, και νυν θυσίαν ποιεί και αγώνα τίθη]σιν ό
Πτολεμαίος τώ[ι πατρί και παρακαλεί £να θεωρούς άποστέλλωσι κ]αί άποδέ-
αυτόν ίσολύμπ[ιον είναι ' τύχηι άγαθήι * δε]δόχθαι τοις Άμφικτύοσιν ·
5 της τε θυσίας [και του αγώνος μετέχειν (?) τώι βασι]λεΐ Πτολεμαίωι τους
τύον[ας και τον αγώνα δν τίθησιν άπο]δέ^εσθαι ισολύμπιον καθάπερ
[και ό βασιλεύς έπέσταλκεν, άποδέχεσθαι (vel sim.)] δέ και τους άλλους απαντάς
[ ]ου θεού, [κ] ατά τα δεδοχμένα τοις
[Άμφικτύοσιν ' δούναι δέ και τά αυτά] άθλα και τάς τιμάς εκάστους τοΐ[ς]
10 [νικώσιν τών Άμφικτυόνων τόν αγώνα καθ]άπερ και τοις τα <Ό >λύμπια
[κόσιν δέδοται ' έλέσθαι δέ και θ]εωρούς εξ αυτών τους Άμφικτύο-
[νας και άποστεΐλαι προς τον βασιλέα Πτο]λεμαΐον, όταν ποιήι τήν θυσίαν και
[τιθήι τον γυμνικον αγώνα τών Πτολεμ]αιέων, άνε[νε]γκεΐ[ν δ]έ τό δόγμα τό-
[δε τους ίερομνήμονας εις τάς πόλεις, κ. τ. λ·]
The inscription is closely parallel to Syll.3 390. It is the reply of the Delphic
Amphictyony to the request ma de by Ptolemy Philadelphus to that body to
recognise the Ptolemaieia ; Syll.3 390 is the reply of the Nesiotic koinon to the same
request. This latter, fairly complète, inscription must therefore, as Pomtow saw,
form the basis of the restoration of the Delphian text.
Pomtow reconstructed the text from fragment (a) so that line 2 constituted
the opening clause of the preamble, following the prescript, and lines 13-14 belonged
to the latter part of the decree containing the instructions to the Amphictyonic
hieromnemones regarding the exposition of the decree. In regard to the close of
the document Pomtow was evidently right, but the discovery of the new fragment
nécessitâtes changes in the earlier part, the restoration of which was unsatisfactory
even before the appearance of the new fragment.
The relation of (a) to (b) seems determined by two factors. (b), line 2, begins
κτύονες, and the preceding line must therefore hâve ended with οί 'Αμφι-. This is
not to be found in toto in (a), but part of it may be seen in the IA of (a) line 1, thus :
ο]ί Ά[μφι]. This gives a correct continuation in line 2. Again in [b), line 6, HELLENISTIC INSCRIPTIONS FROM DELPHI 53 TWO
init. τυον follows on correctly from τους Άμφ[ικ] at the end of (a), line 5, giving
τους Άμφ[ικ]τύογ[ας]. The relative position of the two fragments thus seems
The length of the lines may vary considéra bly according to the restorations.
The gênerai sensé is secured in every line save one (line 8) by the parallel text,
Syll.z 390, but what was omitted and what inserted in the way of formai phra-
seology must remain uncertain. Pomtow's lines are mostly between sixty-five
and seventy-five letters long (1) : my own suggested restorations give for the most
part a line of between fifty and sixty letters, though some are longer. Pomtow's
restoration μουσικόν και ίππικόν in line 7, which nécessitâtes this long line,
seems, if I understand it correctly, misconceived (even with his own incorrect
reading εσεσθαι), since it confuses the nature of the festival and the status for
which récognition is sought. It was evidently not within the power of the decree-
ing party, hère the Amphictyons, to détermine whether a festival should be
gymnastic or musical or both : this depended on the founder. The duty of the
Amphictyons (and of the Nesiotai) was to recognise its status as equal to that of
one of the great festivals (2). The phrase μουσικόν και ίππικόν seems therefore
out of place in this context, and no other line seems to necessitate a restoration
of this length. In any case it is évident, given the nature of the formulae employed,
that a considérable margin must be allowed.
Notes on the Texl.
Line 2 : Pomtow's ς ύπό βασιλέ[ως] is wrong. The stone has ^ INO, the oblique
stroke of the nu being clear. The restoration τίθη]σιν ό βασιλε[ύς] seems inévitable
but it involves a difficulty. (b), line 1, has πατρί αύτοϋ, and the parallel of Syll.3
390, lines 20 f ., shows that the restoration hère is probably something like [βασιλεύς
Πτολεμαίος... αγώνα τίθησι τώι]| πατρί αύτου [Πτολεμαίοι ]. On the other
hand lines 2-3 should evidently be restored [ αγώνα τίθη]σιν δ βασιλε[ύς]| Πτο
λεμαίος τώ[ι πατρί ]. In both passages the formula fits naturally, and is hard to
avoid. One explanation of this seeming répétition is that, as in Syll.3 390, the
first phrase occurs with référence to a previous occasion, while the occasion of the
présent decree is referred to in the words τίθη]σιν ό βασιλε[ύς]. The opening
lines are restored exempli gralia on this assumption. But the difficulty remains.
Line 4 : the addition of τύχηι άγαθήι ' after the preamble is common, but not
(1) In fact Pomtow's line 3, which, as printed, has 71 letters, should hâve had about 80,
since he has omitted the main verb, presumably by accident, from which the ϊνα-clause must
(2) Cf. Syll.*, 629 = FD, iii, 3, 240, lines 9-10 : άποδέξασθαι τους αγώνας [των Νικαφ]ορίων
στεφανίτας, τόμ μέν μουσικόν ίσοπύβιον, τόν δέ γυμνικόν και ίππικόν ίσολύπμιον : ibid. 630 = ibid.
261, lines 26 ff. : άποδεδέ[χθ]αι δέ [κ]α[1] τους άγώ[να]ς [τού]ς στεφανίτας [των Νικηφορίων
ούς συντελεί βασιλεύς Εύμένης, και εϊνα]ι καΐ τ[αϊς τιμαϊς και τοϊς λοιποϊς πασι τοις έν τοϊς
νόμοις γεγραμμένοις τόμ μέν μ]ουσικόν ίσ[οπύθιον, τόν δέ γυμνικό]ν καΐ ίπ(π)ικόν ίσ[ολύμπιον].
Apparently Pomtow did not comprehend the corrélation of thèse adjectives and consequently
restored the présent text in the belief that μουσικόν and e. g. ίσολύμπιον were corrélative. 54 PETER M. FRASER
invariable, in Amphictyonic texts. It seems necessary hère, since the previous
phrase can hardly be expanded.
Line 6 : τυον. The first letters are quite clear, and the nu seems almost certain.
τύογ[ας] therefore is an inévitable restoration. However, the construction of
the sentence is uncertain. τους Άμφ[ικ]|τύον[ας] might be either the subject of
a main infinitive, or the object of a participle agreeing with βασι]λεΐ Πτολεμαίωι,
for example : [ συλλαμβάνεσθαι βασι]λεΐ Πτολεμαίωι τους Άμφ[ικ]|
τύον[ας παρακαλοΰντι]. For this latter construction a parallel exists (1), but it is
harsh, and since the document is a decree of the Amphictyons, it is much more
probable that they are the subject rather than the object of the sentence.
Ibidem Pomtow read Ισεσθαι, but one oblique stroke of the chi in the second
place is visible. Read άποδ]έχεσθαι, which is the normal word in the formula of
which part is hère preserved.
Lines 7-8 : the most serious difficulty in the whole document. Pomtow had
no solution to offer, and though there are several possibilities none is particularly
satisfactory. It seems probable that the words δε και in line 7 were preceded
by an infinitive corresponding to the infinitive in line 6, but what that infinitive
was is uncertain. Consequently it can neither be determined whether the words
τους άλλους απαντάς όσοι refer to persons (scilicet e. g. Έλληνας), or to things
(e. g. αγώνας), nor whether thèse words are to be understood as the object or as the
subject of the preceding infinitive (2). It is certainly much more likely that we
are to supply some such word as "Ελληνας, and it would be possible to restore
thus, for example : παρακαλεΐν] δε και τους άλλους απαντάς όσοι [e. g. οίκείως
ίγρυσι προς τόν βασιλέα τον αγώνα άποδέχεσθαι. . .το]ΰ θεού, but the line is over
long, and το]υ θεοΰ - presumably Apollo (3) - remains a difficulty. The text does
not seem to fall into a set formula, and it is safer to leave the lacuna unfilled.
Lines 8-11 follow in gênerai the normal formulae : see Syll.3 629= FD III, 3,
240, lines 15 ff. ; ibid. 630 = ibid. 261, Unes 26 fî. ; see also Syll. 3 390, Unes 39 fî., and
Syll.3 560, unes 30 fï.
Line 8 : δεδοχμένα is presumably a confusion between δεδογμένα and δοχθέντα.
Cf. Ru5ch, Grammatik der delph. Inschr. I, pp. 195-6. It hardly seems necessary
to print δεδο<γ>μένα.
Line JL1 : αυτών or αυτών? The antécédent is either the persons referred to in
the όσοι -clause or οι Άμφικτύονες. In either case the use of the pronoun seems
to imply a contrast between the Amphictyons and another body.
(1) Syll.3 390, lines 30-31 : [τώι βασιλεΐ Πτο]λεμαίωι παρακαλου[ντι h> τε τοις άλλοις συλλα]-
μβάνεσθαι καΐ νϋγ κατα[τήν αίίρεσιν, κ. τ. λ], where παρακαλουντι is evidently used absolutely.
(2) See e.g. Syll.3 613A, lines 1 1-13 : προέστη δέ καΐ τοϋ αγώνος καΐ των θυσιών μετ' αυτών,
δπως αν άπό παντός τοϋ βέλτιστου συντελεσθώσιν, for άγων as subject of a passive verb in a
similar context.
(3) For the description of Apollo simply as ό θεός, see, for example : Syll.3, 494, line 4 : ύπ6
του θεοΰ και τών Άμφικτυόνων : ibid. 489 = SE G, II, 339 11. 9-10 : τδ κοιν]6ν τ[ώ]ν τεχνιτών
έπέδωκε τώ[ι θεώι κ]αΙ τοις Άμφικτύοσιν εις τα Σω[τήρια]. TWO HELLENISTIC INSCRIPTIONS FROM DELPHI 55
Line 13 : Pomtow read ιππ]ι[κ]όν, but AIE-O-N is clear on the stone, and
makes Πτολεμ]οαέων certain.
Fortunately, although the exact wording of much of the text is doubtful,
the gênerai content is certain. The stone contains the text of the reply
of the Amphictyons to the request of Ptolemy Philadelphus that they
should recognise the Ptolemaieia recently inaugurated by him in honour
of his father, Ptolemy Soter I. The text is thus exactly parallel to Si///.3
390, the reply of the σύνεδροι of the Nesiotic League to the same request.
Our document contains no internai date, the list of Amphictyons with
which it began being entirely lost. It is therefore necessary to establish
as far as possible the date of Syll.3 390, with which it is doubtless approxi-
mately contemporary. Syll.3 390 is much invoked in the debates concer-
ning the chronology of the décade, or rather more, between the death
of Soter (283-2 B. G.) and that of Arsinoe (270 B. G.), and, in particular,
Gallixenus' description of the Pompe in Alexandria. Never- concerning
theless, the only secure évidence for its date is that contained in the
document itself. It is as follows.
The synedroi of the Nesiotic League had been summoned to meet at
Samos (1). This island had belonged to Lysimachus from 301, and there
is no reason to suppose that it becams Ptolemaic before Lysimachus'
death at Curupedion (2). In the présent state of our knowledge, there
fore, the battle of Curupedion must be regarded as the terminus posi
quem of the inscription. This battle was fought in 281 B. C, probably
in the second half of the year (3). This date is subséquent to the death
(1) Syll.3, 390, Unes 1 iT. : υπέρ ών [Φιλοκλή]ς ό βασιλεύς Σιδονίων καΐ Βακχών ό νη[σίαρχος
2γρα]ψαν προς τας πόλεις, δπως αν άπο[στ]είλωσιν συνέδρους εις Σάμον, κ; τ. λ.
(2) Lysimachus's possession of Samos is indicated by Ο GIS, 13 = I. von Priene, 500 =
Welles, Roy. Cor. 7. This contains a communication by Lysimachus, awarding the Batinetis to
Samos, a part of the ceaseless struggle between the island and Priene. The date is established
on Prienian évidence : the décision is recorded in the Prienian version of the history of boundary-
disputes between Priene and Samos, as having been rendered in the fourteenth year after the
eponymous stephanephorate of Lycus (297/6 : see Lenschau, Leipz. Stud. xii, 1890, pp. 199 ff ;
Hicks, BMI, 403, ad loc), that is to say in c. 282 B. C, see /. von Priene, 37, unes 125-6 : ποτί
τε τον Λυσίμαχον ά[ποστ]εΐλαι ύπέ[ρ τ]οϋ Βατινήτο[υ ίπϊ στε]φανηφόρου τοϋ θεοϋ τοΰ μετά
Νίκανδρον, δς έστι άπό Λύκου πέντε [και] δέκατος. The date given for OGIS, 13, by Liddell-Scott,
s. ν. ύπόγυιος III, * iv. B. C. ', cannot be right.
(3) This, one of the cardinal dates of Hellenistic chronology, is fixed to within the 124th
Olympiad (284-280 B. C.) by Polyb. ii, 41, 1 (Beloch's discussion of the chronological évidence
hère is fundamental, G G2, iv, 2, pp. 107 ff.) : 'Ολυμπιάς μέν ήν εικοστή καΐ τετάρτη προς ταϊς
εκατόν, δτε Πατρεϊς ήρξαντο συμφρονεϊν καΐ Δυμαϊοι, καιροί δέ καθ' οΰς Πτολεμαίος ό Λάγου καΐ
Λυσίμαχος (se. at Curupedion), 'έτι δέ Σέλευκος καΐ Πτολεμαίος ό Κεραυνός μετήλλαξαν τόν βίον.
A more exact date is provided by combinations. Seleucus lived only seven months after the
battle of Curupedion (Justin, xvii, 2, 4 : Quippe post menses admodum septem a Ptolemaeo... occiditur),
and the last Babylonian document dated by him and his co-regent is SE 31, lOth day of Kishru,
i. e. (on the assumption that the Babylonian SE began on April 3 = Nisan 1, 311) Dec. 2, 281
B. C. (see Kiigler, Von Moses bis Paullus, pp. 309 ff.; there is, according to the tables in Parker-
Dubberstein, Babylonian Chron. 1942, p. 19, no new évidence). There is no lower limit in PETER M. FRASER 56
of Ptolemy Soter, which occurred some time between November 283
and November 282 B. C. (1). Late in 281, then, by which time Soter
had been dead about a year, is the earliest possible date for the inscription.
Further, it can be argued (with less certainty) frojn the phrase νυν...
διαδεξάμενος that the accession of Philadelphus was a récent event (2).
If that be correct, any year much after 280 B. G. would be unlikely (3).
This is ail that, and perhaps more than, can be stated with any confi
dence regarding the date of Syll.3 390. After this we enter the realms
of conjecture. Of thèse conjectures the most important is that made
long ago by von Prott, that, since the festival was to be isolympic, it was
probably inaugurated on the penteteric anniversary of some important
event, probably the death of Soter. If that be so, the date of the inaugu
ration of the festival will be between November 279 and November 278 (4).
Babylonian documents since the earliest document of Antiochus I and his co-regent is simply of
year 32, no month or day being preserved (for the alleged document of year 32 dated by Seleu-
cus I, see Olmstead, CP, xxxii, 1937, p. 6, n. 29, correcting Kolbe, Beitràge zur syr. Gesch.). A lower
limit is, however, given by Polyb. loc. cit., since he includes the death of Seleucus in the events
which occurred in Ol. 124, i. e. before July 280. Thus whether we suppose that Seleucus died at
the end of the Julian year 281, or, la ter, in spring or early summer 280, Curupedion still falls in
281, and a date early in the year seems unlikely since in that case the news of the death of Seleucus,
seven months later, would probably hâve reached Babylon before December of that year. A
date in summer therefore seems most probable, with the death of Seleucus early in the Julian
year 280.
(1) The date of the death of Soter is independent of the vexed problem of the method of
dating employed in Egyptian documents of the years 285-282 B. C. The absolute date of his
death is given, to a year, by Porphyry {FGrHist, 260, F2, § 1-3) thus : « Alexander died 323/2, and
one year later, 322/1, Ptolemy was sent as governor to Egypt, and remained governor for 17
years (322/1-306/5), and then became king for 23 years <so that in ail 40 years [of rule] were
reckoned to the end of his rule>: theninhislifetime he gave the rule to his son Ptolemy Phila
delphus. He lived 2 years under his son and so <not 40, but> 38 years were assigned to him
(322/1-285/4). » On the contradictory interpolations v. Jacoby, ad loc. The Canon of the Kings
(text in Wachsmuth, Aile Geschichte, pp. 304-6) is slightly différent (cf. Jacoby, ibid.), in that it
gives 285 as the starting-point of Philadelphus ' rule, and does not note the years of ' co-regency '
or ' abdication '. For the problem of the dating of documents see Skeat, Mizraim,\i, pp. 30 ff.
(where it should be noted that the inscriptions from Medinet Madi there invoked, SE G, viii,
536-7 = SB, 8127/8, are more probably to be assigned to the reign of Soter II — if they belong to
Soter I, they must hâve been reinscribed, see the photograph in Vogliano's original publication,
quoted by Skeat), Glanville, BM, Démolie Pap. I, pp. 15 ff. The date of Soter's death within
the period November 283-282 cannot be determined ; see Skeat, loc. cit.
(2) Lines 16-18.
(3) Beloch, G G2, iv, 2, p. 340, suggests that either Arsinoe or Ptolemy Ceraunus gained
possession of the island after Curupedion and placed it under Ptolemaic protection, and that is
was not formally Ptolemaic until after the marriage of Arsinoe to Philadelphus in or after 279
(for the date seebelow). This is possible, since the Nesiotai would hâve been ableto meet there in
either case, but what is unlikely is that the island became in no way Ptolemaic until after
the marriage, since that would involve an aJmost open clash with the évidence of Syll.3 390.
pp.' 460-476, esp. pp. 461 ff. The upper limit is set (4) Cf. Von Prott, Rh. Mus. lui, 1898,
by the fact that Soter cannot hâve died before Nov. 283, which would give a penteteric anniver
sary in Nov. 279, nor after Nov. 282, with penteteric anniversary in Nov. 278. HELLENISTIC INSCRIPTIONS FROM DELPHI 57 TWO
This view has found wide acceptance and may well be right (1). It has
been further argued that the fact that the festival is for Soter alone, and
not for Soter and Bérénice, indicates that the queen was still living (2).
This, an argument ex silentio, is evidently less certain. Should it happen
to be correct, then the isolympic festival will hâve been inaugurated before
the Pompe described by Callixenus, since in that description both Ptolemy
and Bérénice are represented as θεοί Σωτήρες, that is, as dead. But the
Pompe itself cannot be dated (3).
(1) See e. g. Otto, Priesler und Tempel, i, p. 147 (Otto's gênerai interprétation of thèse
events has long been antiquated) ; Bevan, Pîolemaic Egypt, p. 127 ; Tarn, Ant. Gon. p. 104,
note 29 ; id. CAH, vii, p. 101 ; Otto, Philol. Ixxxvi, 1931, p. 405, note 10 (who accepte 279/8
as the date of the Ptolemaieia, but gives as the occasion of the establishment the Ptolemaic
victories probably to be dated to this year ; this seems nlost improbable in itself, but serves to
indicate that the connection with the penteteric anniversary of Soter's death is wholly conject
ural) ; Wilcken, SB, Berl. Akad. 1938 (28), p. 16.
(2) E. g. von Prott, Rh. Mus. lui, 1898, pp. 462-3; Otto, Priesler und Tempel, i, pp. 147-148.
(3) A discussion of the Callixenus-Pompe falls outside the scope of my argument, but I
may indicate why I regard it as irrelevant for purposes of chronology. The text is in Athenaeus,
196 a-203 b = FHG, iii, pp. 58 ff. The most important modem discussions are noted below.
This pompe is undoubtedly to be dated to the décade 280-270. Within that décade it cannot
be precisely dated. It is normally held that it occurred during the lifetime of Arsinoe, who
died in 270, and whose marriage to Philadelphus after spring 279, at which time she
was still married to Ptolemy Ceraunus although she had fled to Samothrace at the time of his
death (Justin, xxiv, 3, 9-10). The Pithom-Stele (if it can be trusted) shows that she was queen by
Pachons 3, Philadelphus ' year 12 (29 June 273), cf. Naville, The Store-Cily of Pilhom*, 1903,
p. 20, 1. 15 = (text only) Sethe, Hieroglyph. Urk. ii, pp. 81 ff. Nearer approximations are hardly
possible (hypothèses in Beloch, G G2, iv. 2, p. 182 (279 B. C.) ; Tarn, CAH, vii, 703; id. JHS,
xlvî, 1926, p. 161 ; id. ibid. lui, 1933, pp. 59-60 (276/5B. C). The basis of the view that the
pompe fell in the lifetime of Arsinoe is that the constituent pompe, mentioned in Athen. 197d,
ή τοις των βασιλέων γονεϋσι, which is not further described, referred to Ptolemy Soter and
Bérénice, parents of the living king and queen Philadelphus and Arsinoe (bibliography of this
once almost universally accepted view in Otto, Priesler und Tempel, i, p. 147, note 3). This is
denied by Tarn, Ant. Gon. p. 261, note 10; id. Hermès, Ixv, 1930, p. 447, note 2, on the ground
that the image of Philadelphus alone without Arsinoe was crowned in the Pompe (203 b), and
the omission of Arsinoe can only mean that she was not yet queen. Consequently, according
to Tarn, the γονείς τών βασιλέων are the parents both of Soter and of Philadelphus, the two
kings, one past and one présent (cf. Tarn, JHS, lui, 1933, p. 60). Otto, Philol. lxxxviii, 1931,
p. 414, note 27, challenged Tarn's interprétation, but apparently misunderstood it (cf. Tarn,
JHS, loc. cit. p. 59, note 22). I think myself that Tarn's interprétation is forced, and tnat the
βασιλείς are probably Arsinoe and Philadelphus, but this still leaves us with a date any time
after spring. The festival was penteteric (compare the figure Penteteris in 198 b), and it has
been assumed that it was one of the célébrations of the isolympic Ptolemaieia. Within the limits
noted above it could be either the fîrst célébration (that is, that with which Syll.3, 390is concerned),
which, as we hâve seen probably fell in 279/8, or the second célébration in 275/4, or the third in
271/0. The fîrst date is excluded by Otto, Philol. loc. cit., on the ground that Arsinoe was not
then Philadelphus ' wife ; but this, even if the underlying assumption, that the Pompe belongs
to the period of her marriage with Philadelphus, is true, is incorrect, since any date later than
Spring 279 is possible for the marriage (cf. above), though a date before the summer is admittedly
unlikely, and the Pompe was held κατά μέσον χειμώνα (196 d). Tarn, on the other hand,
identifled the Pompe with the agon of Syll.3 390 (cf. CAH, vii, p. 703, note 1 ; id. Hermès, Ixv, 1930,
p. 447, note 2 ; id. JHS, lui, 1933, pp. 59 ff. In Ant. Gon. p. 261, note 10, he identifled it with
the célébration of 275/4). Otto, for his part, Beitràge zur Seleukidengesch. pp. 6 ff., assigned it to

Be the first to leave a comment!!

12/1000 maximum characters.

Lisez à volonté, où que vous soyez
1 mois offert, sans engagement Learn more