In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick


Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

Jia Tolentino

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

Apollo’s EthylenePeter Green

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.

  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Delphi: A History of the Centre of the Ancient World 
by Michael Scott.
Princeton, 422 pp., £19.95, February 2014, 978 0 691 15081 9
Show More
Show More

Delphi​ offers one of the most extraordinary, paradoxical and, for many rationalists, embarrassing success stories from ancient Hellas. It was the centre, the omphalos, or navel, of the civilised world and, as tradition had it, enjoyed the special protection of Apollo. It hosted – along with Olympia, Nemea and the Isthmus – one of Greece’s four major athletic festivals. Diplomats found it, like modern Switzerland, a useful place to exchange political information and conduct secret negotiations. Its wealthy religious dedications and treasuries, made by leaders from all over the Mediterranean world, from Cyprus to Marseille, brought celebrities, consultants and visitors by the thousand. Yet what, for almost a millennium, guaranteed Delphi’s status – formed its raison d’être was its unique oracular function, delivered by a priestess, the Pythia, who in a very literal sense behaved as the Vox Dei, uttering what purported to be the words of Apollo.

Among the hundreds of oracles that flourished throughout the Greek world, Delphi carried by far the greatest prestige over the longest period, and was also remarkably free from accusations of fraudulence. There is only one confirmed case in Delphi’s history of the Pythia being bribed, by the Spartan king Kleomenes, and that isolated incident caused a scandal: as late as the second century CE the travel-writer Pausanias could still maintain that ‘as regards the corruption of the oracle, we know of no one whatsoever, except for Kleomenes, who even attempted it.’ Not even the Christians charged Delphi with fraud: they claimed that it was the Vox Diaboli, and worked hard to put it out of business.

For obvious reasons, once popular claims that the gods are deceivers, or that the ‘voices’ are those of false gods or demons, are heard less often these days. On the other hand, the idea of the Delphic Oracle as a clever political scam, run by cynical realists as a financially profitable business, is very much flourishing. The fashionable term for this operation – which Michael Scott in his new study mentions approvingly more than once – is ‘management consultancy’. In other words, the religious element has been, as far as possible, leached out of the concept. Since we in Europe and the United States have been educated to regard Olympian polytheism as amusing nonsense, this process was virtually inevitable. We have got into the habit of treating the Greeks as pioneer logicians par excellence, busily rationalising mythos into logos at every turn, and so we tend to assume (despite the salutary lessons of E.R. Dodds in The Greeks and the Irrational) that our kind of scepticism about such things as oracles must have been generally shared by them too, especially by Athenians. Such an assumption is about as securely based as those evil demons progressive thinking has so blithely trashed.

As Hugh Bowden reminds us in Classical Athens and the Delphic Oracle (2005), democratic Athens was neither individualistic, liberal, nor secularist; it had several similarities to modern fundamentalist societies. The will of the gods was paramount, and largely determined through divination: the few who challenged such views risked serious civic displeasure, and usually camouflaged their opinions (not unlike some oracular pronouncements) in a kind of open-minded ambiguity. As Xenophon has Socrates point out, there was always a percentage of human or natural events that lay beyond the current reach of rational intelligence: plague, drought or the outcome of a war. Such things were seen as falling within the province of the gods, and dealt with by divine action. Since the gods, like fate, were considered highly unpredictable and, worse, given to mean-spirited treatment of mortals, they had to be placated, most often with lavish sacrifices.

Thus any person or institution that could claim some special insight into the way the divine universe operated, or how its gods would behave, or how they wanted humans to act, was in serious demand. Despite the much trumpeted developments of Ionian science and philosophy, the findings of which anyway affected only a small minority all over the Greek world, literally hundreds of local oracles emerged, as well as self-styled experts (chrêsmologoi) in interpreting the ambiguities, obscurities and riddles of what purported to be divine messages. As Heraclitus, cited by Plutarch, remarked: ‘The lord whose shrine is at Delphi neither states nor conceals, but signs (sêmainei)’ – i.e. hints – and that only to those he favours. Convincing evidence of divine authenticity was crucial for success, not least since from the very beginning, inevitably, divination was a business that attracted large numbers of conmen. Forging oracles, or inserting ex post facto fulfilled prophecies into genuine collections, was a popular and, if undetected, highly profitable sport.

That many cases of fraud were reported – enough to become a standing joke in Aristophanic comedy – meant extra prestige for the few shrines that maintained a reputation for incorruptible honesty and genuine divinatory power. Of these, Delphi was by far the most notable: Aristophanes, who crucified the chrêsmologoi, never had a bad word for the Delphic oracle. The wealthy sixth-century Lydian monarch Croesus, after careful inquiries, was ready to invest gold by the hundredweight for guaranteed access to divine intentions: he believed he would be getting something human intelligence was unable to supply.

In writing the history of Delphi Michael Scott needs to explain just how what he regards as a management consultancy so consistently, and for so long, confirmed the religious faith of its clients. He quotes, approvingly, the question posed by Simon Price in 1985, and echoed by many scholars since: ‘Why was it that the sane, rational Greeks wanted to hear the rantings of an old woman up in the hills?’ Scott’s explanation is essentially in line with current sociological thinking. His opening chapter – the only one specifically devoted to the actual business of what the Pythia did, and how she did it – sets out most of the known, or hypothesised, evidence. The Pythia was a Delphian, but not in any way remarkable. Once chosen, she ‘served Apollo for life and committed herself to strenuous exercise and chastity’, which at once places her in the company of similar tranced respondents, ancient or modern, in other countries. She was available one day a month only, for nine months of the year; for the three winter months Apollo was deemed absent, among the Hyperboreans. She gave her responses seated on a high tripod in the inner sanctum (adyton) of Apollo’s shrine. Though the evidence varies, Plutarch, who was himself a Delphic priest for thirty years; Strabo, the Augustan geographer; and Pausanias between them supply further credible details. The Pythia was in some sense inspired, or possessed, by a pneuma (‘breath’, ‘vapour’) of a delightful fragrance, the odour of which occasionally reached those in the waiting room beyond the adyton. She also drank from the Kassotis spring, which ran under the temple. She did not, as was often claimed, rant or rave, though a forced session, under improper conditions, could have a bad physical effect on her. Diodorus Siculus, the first-century BCE historian, adds that the pneuma rose from beneath her, from a vent or chasm, and that it was the odd behaviour of goats near the vent that first alerted locals to its existence.

This evidence suggests that the Pythia gave her responses while in a trancelike state induced by the mysterious pneuma: a procedure well known from other societies, but, surprisingly, in ancient Greece associated only with the Delphic oracle. Early excavators had high hopes of confirming the ancient testimony; but when they found no discernible chasm or vent below the shrine of Apollo, a sceptical reaction set in, fuelled by disappointment, and largely persisted until very recently, when geological exploration by Jelle de Boer and John Hale revealed two major faultlines under the shrine, together with the presence of ethylene gas.

Not only was the bituminous limestone sufficiently fissured to allow the gas to rise to the surface through the Kassotis spring water (which the Pythia drank) but, as Scott reports, ethylene ‘had been used as an anaesthesia in the 1920s, thanks to its ability to produce a pleasant, disembodied, trancelike state’. It also (something he does not mention) has a peculiarly sweet odour, corresponding to the fragrance described by Plutarch, and is lighter than air, so that (as de Boer convincingly argues) it could be piped through a small vent in the floor and into the funnel-shaped axial hole in the small stone omphalos found in the adyton in 1913. Stoppered to allow the gas to accumulate (a possible reason consultation was limited to one day a month), the omphalos would be opened during a mantic session. The Pythia’s position on top of a high tripod, and thus near the ceiling, would let her get the best of the escaping gas. Its fragrance, detectable in the atmosphere in concentrations as low as 700 parts per million, would occasionally percolate through to consultants waiting outside.

It would be reasonable to deduce from the geological evidence that the ancient descriptions of Delphic procedure were substantially accurate, and that the establishment of an oracular shrine on the site where it remained for a millennium may well have been directly linked to the presence there of mildly trance-inducing emissions, which would be regarded as a divine gift, proof of Apollo’s presence, and carefully fostered on that basis. There was, as Scott admits, ‘a belief in a connection between the divine and the human world through the Pythia’. Pneuma was the reason the oracle was where it was, and nowhere else, clinging to a mountainside in the back of beyond; it was the miraculous Apolline blessing that demonstrated the god’s concern for his worshippers. Yet that concern could never be taken for granted. The rare days of consultation suggest that pneuma was far from plentiful. In a highly seismic area its presence could never be taken for granted. Could Apollo’s absence during the winter (as Hale has suggested to me) have been on account of pneuma ceasing to accumulate in the colder months owing to the build-up of groundwater? Ironically enough, it may in the summer sometimes have been responsible, being highly flammable, for the surprising number of unexplained fires in the sanctuary and its surroundings.

Scott is properly suspicious of early poetic accounts of the shrine’s origins (e.g. in the tragedians and in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes): they ‘all seem to have been oriented towards explaining, justifying and mirroring its later, central position in the Greek world’ in strictly mythical terms, which suggests they had no real knowledge of what happened, any more than they did in the matter of Homer. But both Aeschylus and Euripides suggest that an earlier shrine in Delphi belonged, appropriately enough, to Gaia (Earth), and it’s confirmed by the archaeological record, which Scott, again rightly, says is what we should rely on, though he perhaps doesn’t draw all the conclusions he could from it. When it comes to explaining Delphi’s success, he likes the sociological theory, which sees the advantage of the oracle to the Greeks in the way it helped a community to deliberate and make up its own mind; he also repeats the popular notion of Delphi as an international information centre, but has to admit that before the oracle became famous ‘there was precious little more information going to Delphi than elsewhere.’ He is certainly correct in his claim (nowadays generally admitted) that the consultants went to Delphi for advice rather than to receive prophecies, the latter term misleadingly coloured in a Greek context by our familiarity with its authoritarian Biblical sense. But his argument that the ambiguity inherent in the form of Delphic questions and responses ‘gave Delphi a Teflon coating, a resistance to failure’ is dubious. Oracular ambiguity was by no means restricted to Delphi, and elsewhere the Teflon effect was far less noticeable. Finally, Scott decides that it ‘was the cumulative impact and continued opportunities provided by [the] combined package of oracle, management, festivals, games and dedications that ensured Delphi was propelled to such prominence in the ancient world’, which is close to saying that what guaranteed Delphi’s unique success was its unique success.

But​ Scott’s true interest in Delphi, city no less than shrine, is as an evolving social, political and material entity, and the overall study he offers on these terms is of absorbing interest. I doubt whether there’s a single archaeological report or relevant inscription, however obscure, that has escaped his notice, and no other scholar known to me keeps one so constantly conscious of the realities – the seismic shifts, the limestone and travertine rockfalls, the absence of flat ground – that leave him with the nagging question: ‘What motivated the continuation of settlement in this otherwise rather difficult physical habitat clinging to the mountainside?’ In the late Bronze Age it was a remote, poverty-stricken and unremarkable village. So it was again in the long centuries between the outlawing of paganism by Theodosius and the first serious excavations in 1892, as Gell’s sketch in 1805 and early photographs of Kastri (Delphi’s modern name), both printed by Scott, make embarrassingly clear: the houses are little more than hovels, and there’s hardly a classical ruin in sight. Time has either buried or destroyed them all. Centre of the world, despite some stunning scenery, it is not. During the ancient site’s slow rediscovery, Scott says, ‘the physical reality of Delphi has struggled to meet the expectations of its reputation.’

That reputation came into being, suddenly and without obvious cause, during the eighth century BCE, at roughly the same time as the emergence of Homer. Levelled terraces are built. Cult objects including tripods (some from Crete) and monumental votive offerings appear in ever increasing quantities. The political evolution of the city-state (polis), combined with widespread colonising ventures, brings, as the surviving record shows, a rush of oracular consultations, in Scott’s words, ‘on issues as diverse as constitutional reform, war, land allotment, oaths, purification and the avoidance of famine’. It seems clear there was no permanent temple at Delphi until the beginning of the sixth century BCE, which leaves open the question of just how the oracle was consulted during this early period. And anyway, why should it have been Delphi, right from the beginning, that got so far ahead of the pack? Yet not later than 590 the oracle’s popularity was already stimulating attacks on rich visitors arriving by sea from the envious settlers of Krisa, down in the plain. An interstate religious council (Amphictiony) backed Delphi in a lengthy, and finally successful, campaign – the so-called First Sacred War – against this nuisance. Krisa was destroyed and its territory declared non-cultivatable sacred land. The Amphictiony from now on played a large, though not always definable, part in the running of the Delphic community. It was responsible for the establishment, soon after victory, of the Pythian Games, which came to rival those of Olympia; and it seems very probable that it was also behind the creation, at last, of a formal perimeter wall and a temple for Apollo. It was now, at some point in the decade after 560, that King Croesus of Lydia made his extravagant gifts, including a gold lion, to Delphic Apollo.

But what marked the true emergence of Delphi into the bright light of history was a catastrophe. In 548 the shrine once again caught fire: by spontaneous combustion, Herodotus suggests. The conflagration was so intense that it melted Croesus’s gold lion. The Amphictiony took charge of the rebuilding programme, which was vastly ambitious, cost three hundred talents, and took more than forty years to complete. It’s this Delphi, with its temples, monuments and treasuries, its munificent gifts, its political ambiguities, and its advisory prestige, that occupies Scott for most of his survey. Its extensive building activities get particular attention; his final chapters give the fullest and most vivid general account of Delphi’s slow excavation over the past century that I’ve seen (topped off with an invaluable guide to the Delphi museum). Most of this is familiar territory: the oracle’s ambivalent attitude to Persia during Xerxes’ invasion, the fourth-century fall-off of public political consultations, the crippling earthquakes, the occasional battles (including occupation) over its control, Delphi’s imperial resurgence under Rome as a classy tourist attraction, the final flickering out of the sacred flame. Scott’s narrative never falters: every building gets its due (though I’d gladly have swapped one of the jazzy-coloured, and confusing, reconstructions for a good, plain up-to-date ground plan, and the historical context sometimes gets alarmingly slapdash treatment). It becomes too easy, in this very readable account, to forget what the architectural glory and polytheistic bondieuserie rested on: the firm belief that Delphic pneuma carried the inspirational word of Apollo himself. The Christians who treated such utterances as those of evil demons knew very well what they were up against.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.


Vol. 36 No. 16 · 21 August 2014

As Mark Martin rightly says while discussing the rarity of Delphic fraudulence, ‘an absence of punishment is not the same as an absence of crime’ (Letters, 31 July). True, but an accusation isn’t a guarantee of guilt either. Both Athens and Sparta, like their modern equivalents, exchanged such accusations as part of the political game. Similarly, all Delphi’s consultants made lavish offerings in the hope, inter alia, that the god would further their plans; but that hope in no sense constituted a done deal, as Croesus for one learned the hard way. What distinguished Kleomenes’ action from the rest was that it made no claim to be anything other than a bribe and was, uniquely, accepted as such. Hence the degree of scandal. Apollo’s favours were very far from being measurable by the generosity of the favoured (again, take Croesus), and historians are still trying to sort out how much of the anti-Alcmaeonid propaganda had any basis in fact. There was thus no inevitable point at which an offering, on an assumed post hoc, propter hoc basis, became a bung: the god’s response was thought to depend, in the last resort, on divine assessment of its actual worth. How far this was true in any given instance is, of course, another matter.

Peter Green
Iowa City

Vol. 36 No. 15 · 31 July 2014

Peter Green writes that the oracle at Delphi was ‘remarkably free from accusations of fraudulence’, and quotes Pausanias to back up his assertion that there was only ‘one confirmed case’ of bribery in the Pythia’s history (LRB, 3 July). By ‘confirmed’ he means that someone was punished, but an absence of punishment is not the same as an absence of crime. Herodotus records the Athenian claim that the influential Alcmaenid clan bribed the Pythia to tell the Spartans to free Athens of the Peisistratid tyrant Hippias. The Alcmaenids had just splashed out to have the temple at Delphi rebuilt. They were in a good position to ask a favour, and since the Peisistratids lost the war that followed, no one was around to ask awkward questions about the oracle’s probity.

As for Pausanias, his statement that Kleomenes was the only man wicked enough to dare corrupt the Pythia looks like a neat way to round off an account of the Spartan king’s life designed to scandalise readers. To complicate matters, one has to wonder what constituted a bribe in this particular ancient context. It was customary for those visiting the oracle to lavish sumptuous gifts on the temple. These offerings were ostensibly the cost of hearing the voice of Apollo. But if Apollo could be persuaded to provide more information to those who brought him heaps of swag, wouldn’t it be natural to expect him to be stingier with petitioners whose generosity shrank by comparison? At what point did an offering become a bung?

Mark Martin
New York

send letters to

The Editor
London Review of Books
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address and a telephone number

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.