may be conveniently treated as a group, and assumed to be a collection
of those ‘Pythian Dialogues’ which the author sent to his friend
Serapion. I and II certainly are so, III has a separate dedication.
Other Dialogues, e. g. that on _Delays in Divine Punishment_, are also
records of conversations which took place at Delphi; but these three are
concerned with questions suggested by the temple and prophetic office of
Apollo, as to which they give much curious information. If they leave us
unsatisfied as to matters of still deeper interest, and tell us nothing
about the policy of Delphi in the Persian wars, the counsel given to
Orestes, which is fiercely controversial matter, or the popular feeling
towards the oracle represented in the _Ion_ of Euripides, this is only
what we learn to put up with in reading Greek books. Indeed it is of a
piece with the purposes imputed to Apollo himself, who sets us problems
but does not supply their solution. ‘The king whose oracle is in Delphi
neither tells nor conceals, but signifies.’
We have few indications of date, or of mutual relations between the
three Dialogues. I is based upon the author’s recollection of a
conversation which took place ‘a long time ago’, about A. D. 66, the
date of Nero’s visit to Greece. A principal speaker is Ammonius the
Peripatetic philosopher of Lamprae, Plutarch’s instructor, who also
speaks, with the same authority, in III. In II, Serapion, the Athenian
poet, to whom the collection is dedicated in I, takes a leading part.
Theon, a literary friend, who appears frequently in the _Symposiacs_ and
in the _Face in the Moon_ comes into I and II. An interesting person is
Demetrius of Tarsus, another literary friend, who, in III, has just
returned from Britain, and who has been probably identified with
‘Demetrius the Scribe’, named on two bronze tablets found at York, and
now in the York Museum (see _Hermes_, vol. 46, p. 156). The year of
Callistratus at Delphi, which marks the date of III, is conjecturally
fixed as A. D. 83-4 (see Pontow in _Philologus_ for 1895, and cp.
_Sympos._ vii. 5). As Agricola’s term of office ended in A. D. 84 or 85,
Demetrius may have served under him. The general tranquillity of the
world depicted in III hardly gives us much to build upon.
In I Plutarch and his brother Lamprias are both speakers. Lamprias
appears in his usual character, a good companion, light-hearted and
reckless; Plutarch speaks gravely and at length, and the debate is
closed by Ammonius. In III Lamprias, Plutarch not being named, speaks
gravely throughout, and, on the suggestion of Ammonius, closes the
debate. In II, neither brother is named, and the last speaker is Theon.
In the Symposiac Dialogues one or other brother is usually present,
sometimes both. In the _Face in the Moon_ Lamprias alone takes part, and
he acts as moderator.
It is not easy to interpret these facts. M. Gréard concludes that
Lamprias died early. If so, was the name, which was borne by the
grandfather and by one of the sons, transferred, for literary purposes,
to Plutarch himself? M. Chenevière, in his pleasant essay on Plutarch’s
friends (a Latin prize dissertation) suggests that, under whatever name,
the leading speaker always conveys Plutarch’s own views.
Certain topics recur in this series of Dialogues. Thus the problem as to
the meaning of the E at Delphi, which is the main subject of I, is
glanced at, with some impatience, by Philippus the historian in III.
The identification of Apollo with the sun, dismissed at the end of I as
a mere beautiful fancy, is questioned again in III and allowed to stand
over as unsettled. It is touched upon in II, c. 12.
The hypothesis of a plurality of worlds, brought forward by Plutarch in
I. c. 11, with special reference to the views of Plato in the _Timaeus_,
reappears, again in connexion with the five regular solids, in III.
It may be noticed that Plutarch was not, at the date of the conversation
narrated in I, a priest of the temple (see c. 16).
Much of the matter of III reappears, with little variety of substance,
in the _Face in the Moon_, the attack on Aristotle’s theory of the
distribution of matter in the one corresponding to that upon the Stoics
in the other, and the accounts of the imprisonment of Cronus by his son
(or Briareus) being almost identical. It is probable that in both
Plutarch has drawn immediately upon Posidonius, and through him from
Xenocrates and others. The question is discussed with great thoroughness
by Dr. Max Adler (_Dissertationes Vindobonenses_, 1910).
The situation of Delphi is one of extraordinary beauty, as well as
interest:
Some few miles north-east of the ancient site of Cirrha the
mountainous range of Parnassus shoots out two little spurs towards
the sea, thus locking on three sides an inclined valley, as the
tiers of an ancient circus embrace the arena below. Upon the fourth
side a small river runs, by name the Pleistus, which has forced its
way between the eastern spur and Mount Cirphius, directly south and
opposite; crosses laterally at the foot of the glen; then, sweeping
round in a shining curve, before many leagues unites its waters to
the bay. The descending slope that forms the amphitheatre is broken
by ridges into three terraces, such as the traveller is wont to see
in hilly countries. On the highest rose the sanctuary; below was the
town and the cultivated hollow which poets called the Vale of
Delphi; above all towered the ridges of Parnassus itself,[50] sheer
walls of rock, rising inland towards the summit of the chain,
desolate, grand, and picturesque. Those who stood above the level of
the temple, and turned their gaze toward the south-west, might
perhaps have looked far over to the smiling gulf of Corinth, an
unbroken prospect of well-watered fields. Upon their left was the
famous plane-tree, and the spring of Castalia, whose stream, leaping
down between two rocks, out of a huge cleft that divided them, lost
itself in a dell below, till it fell finally into the Pleistus; and
mounting the rough ascent, just beyond the little torrent, might be
seen the sacred way, which, issuing from the same gorge as the
Pleistus, rounded the flank of the promontory of rock and climbed up
its warm side. Few are the shadows that pass over the valley;
through the long day the southern sun beats down on it, and the
brilliancy of the sky is immortalized in the name which the
inhabitants conferred upon the hills about, of Phaedriades, or
shining cliffs.
But the property of the temple was not bounded by the extent of the
_view_. Above, on the heights, as far as Ligorea and Tithorea, both
Doric villages—towards the west, beyond the Stadium, and the hill on
which it nestled, to Amphissa and the pasturages along its
stream—all was part of the Ager Apollinis, sacred to the god and to
his priests for ever.
From the Arnold Prize Essay for 1859, by Charles (afterwards Lord)
Bowen.
The topographical and archaeological facts to be gathered from
authorities prior to modern excavations are collected by Dr. J. H.
Middleton in the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ for 1888. The results of
the subsequent work of the French excavators, directed by M. Homolle,
may conveniently be studied in Dr. J. G. Frazer’s Commentary on
Pausanias, Book 10, where the history of the successive temples is
followed out. The dimensions of the temple itself, which stood on a
rocky plateau or terrace, were about 197 feet by 72 feet. The Sacred Way
ran round the temple, and close to it on its northern and western sides,
and was followed by the party described by Plutarch in the second of the
three Dialogues (c. 17) in order to reach the southern steps.
Footnote 50:
8,000 feet above the sea. The Phaedriades rose to about 800 feet.
I
ON THE ‘E’ AT DELPHI
(In the Pronaos of the temple at Delphi the visitor was confronted
by certain inscriptions (γράμματα): ‘Know thyself’—‘Nothing too
much’—‘Go bail and woe is at hand’—all exhortations to wisdom or
prudence (Plato, _Charmides_, 163-4). To these is to be added, on
the sole authority of Plutarch’s Dialogue, the letter E, pronounced
EI.)