We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 June 2020
In March 2005 a rescue excavation uncovered a spectacular new epigraphic find from Thebes. Now on display in the Archaeological Museum of Thebes, a column drum 0.41 m in height has inscribed on it two identical epigrams, one (the older one) written vertically in Boeotian script and a second (later) Ionian copy written horizontally on the other side. Nikolaos Papazarkadas published the editio princeps of the epigram in 2014, using both inscriptions to create a composite text. As Papazarkadas realized, the column drum, which has a chi-shaped orifice at one end meant to hold a stationary object, at one point displayed a ‘shining shield’ (φαεννὰν | [ἀσπ]ίδα, lines 3–4) that Herodotus had seen in the temple of Apollo Ismenius in Thebes. Moreover, this shield was interpreted by Herodotus (relying on the language of the inscription and likely on the commentary of temple staff) as having been dedicated by the Lydian king Croesus to the hero Amphiaraus, when he was ‘testing’ the various oracles in Greece in order to decide on a course of action against his rival Cyrus of Persia.
1 Papazarkadas, N., ‘Two new epigrams from Thebes’, in. Papazarkadas, N. (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia: New Finds, New Prospects (Leiden and Boston, 2014), 223–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For early reactions, see Porciani, L., ‘Creso, Anfiarao e la nuova iscrizione da Tebe’, in S. Struffolino (ed.), Ἡμέτερα γράμματα: Scritti di epigrafia greca offerti a Teresa Alfieri Tonini (Aristonothos: Scritti per il Mediterraneo antico 12) (Milan, 2016), 101–12Google Scholar; Thonemann, P., ‘Croesus and the oracles’, JHS 136 (2016), 152–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar (discussed in depth below); M. Tentori Montalto, ‘Some notes on Croesus’ dedication to Amphiaraos at Thebes (BÉ, 2015, n. 306)’, ZPE 204 (2017), 1–9; id., ‘Erodoto e due epigrammi di recente scoperta (BE 2015, nr. 306; SEG 56, 430): la dedica di Creso ad Amphiaraos e la battaglia di Maratona’, in Camia, F., Del Monaco, L., Nocita, M. (edd.), Munus Laetitiae. Studi miscellanei offerti a M. Letizia Lazzarini (Rome, 2018), 125–54Google Scholar; id., ‘Die Weihgaben des Kroisos für Amphiaraos: Herodot und BÉ 2015, n. 306’, in Beutler, F. and Pantzer, Th. (edd.), Sprachen – Schriftkulturen – Identitäten der Antike. Beiträge des XV. Internationalen Kongresses für Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik (Vienna, 2019), 1–9Google Scholar.
2 1.52. For the Greek text, see below.
3 Amphiaraus’ status is actually ambiguous, as he could be labelled both a god and a hero, as a curious document from the first century b.c.e. shows: Sulla declared the lands of Amphiaraus tax exempt but was opposed by tax collectors, who argued that Amphiaraus was not a god but a hero (Syll. 3 747). Post-classical sources say that after his death he was made immortal (Apollod. Bibl. 3.6.8; Paus. 1.34.4). He thus belongs to a group of limit-cases that includes Asclepius and Heracles. Herodotus does not make clear what he considers Amphiaraus: Harrison, T., Divinity and History: The Religion of Herodotus (Oxford, 2000), 160 n. 8Google Scholar. For the sake of the argument below concerning Adrastus, I wish to draw attention to the fact that Amphiaraus could be called a hero as well as a god.
4 1.46–55.
5 For a single Amphiareion in Oropos, see Schachter, A., ‘Boiotia in the sixth century b.c.’, in Beister, H. and Buckler, J. (edd.), Boiotika. Vorträge vom 5. Internationalen Böotien-Kolloquium zu Ehren von Professor Dr. Siegfried Lauffer (Munich, 1989), 72–86, at 76–7Google Scholar.
6 Papazarkadas (n. 1), 245–6.
7 Line 5: μνᾶμ’ ἀρετ[ᾶς τε πάθας].
8 1.52: τῷ δὲ Ἀμφιάρεῳ, πυθόμενος αὐτοῦ τήν τε ἀρετὴν καὶ τὴν πάθην, ἀνέθηκε σάκος τε χρύσεον πᾶν ὁμοίως καὶ αἰχμὴν στερεὴν πᾶσαν χρυσέην.
9 For the importance of the find for our understanding of Herodotus’ historiographical methods, particularly those of autopsy and the use of documents, see Papazarkadas (n. 1), 247 (who, however, retains some hesitations about identifying the new epigram with the text cited by Herodotus); Porciani (n. 1), 109–10; Thonemann (n. 1), 159; Tentori Montalto (n. 1 [2017]), 7.
10 Thonemann (n. 1).
11 Thonemann (n. 1), 161.
12 Thonemann (n. 1), 158.
13 IG I3 1240 (with accompanying statue of a kouros): ‘Stand beside and pity the tomb of the dead Croesus, whom once raging Ares destroyed while amongst the forefighters.’ Because the eponymous founder of the Alcmaeonid genos once visited Croesus the Lydian king (this was, in fact, the source of his wealth, according to Hdt. 6.125), scholars have assumed that this Croesus belonged to the Alcmaeonids and that he was named for the king. A ‘[Krois]os Alkmeo[ni]des’ has therefore been restored at IG I3 597, line 1.
14 Quotation from Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D.M. (edd.), A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century b.c. Revised Edition (Oxford, 1988), 33Google Scholar.
15 Thonemann (n. 1), 162–3, discussing IG I3 784 = ML 18.
16 Thonemann (n. 1), 164–5.
17 In general, Thonemann's discussion ([n. 1], 159–61, 164–5) of the role of temple staff in influencing ancient historians’ understanding of the meaning of inscriptions is invaluable.
18 Thonemann's thesis has so far not received much support: see the restated arguments of Tentori Montalto (n. 1 [2019]); Renberg, G., Where Dreams May Come: Incubation Sanctuaries in the Greco-Roman World (Leiden, 2017), 676CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pelling, C., Herodotus and the Question Why (Austin, TX, 2019), 269 n. 28Google Scholar (although no argument is provided). J. Ma, ‘Review of N. Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia: New Finds, New Prospects (Leiden and Boston, 2014)’, BMCRev 2016.07.11 calls Thonemann's argument ‘ingenious’, but does not commit himself one way or the other. None of the critics has, to my knowledge, adduced the evidence that follows in order to challenge Thonemann's thesis.
19 Thonemann (n. 1), 161.
20 Hdt. 5.67, with quotation at 5.67.5: οἱ Σικυώνιοι … καὶ δὴ πρὸς τὰ πάθεα αὐτοῦ τραγικοῖσι χοροῖσι ἐγέραιρον. Cf. Hdt. 2.171.1 (in an Egyptian context): ἐν δὲ τῇ λίμνῃ ταύτῃ τὰ δείκηλα τῶν παθέων αὐτοῦ νυκτὸς ποιεῦσι, ‘At this lake they make exhibitions of his [the god Osiris’] sufferings at night.’
21 See recently Forsdyke, S., Slaves Tell Tales, and Other Episodes in the Politics of Popular Culture in Ancient Greece (Princeton, 2012), 90–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reviewing previous interpretations and offering her own.
22 Nagy, G., The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry (Baltimore, 1979), 114Google Scholar with n. 3; id., Pindar's Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past (Baltimore, 1990), 387–8 (both citing the example of Adrastus). Further instances of heroization in Herodotus—and these happening in the spatium historicum, not the mythicum—which point to the heroic honours as a kind of recompense for suffering, without, however, explicitly mentioning pathos, include the cases of Philippus of Croton at Egesta, whose outstanding beauty was considered by the author a great loss and which prompted the locals to propitiate him (5.47.2), and of the Persian Artachaees at Acanthus, also of great physical qualities, who was called on by name by the Acanthians in their rites (7.117).
23 Lines 49–52: ὁ δὲ καμὼν προτέρᾳ πάθᾳ νῦν ἀρείονος ἐνέχεται ὄρνιχος ἀγγελίᾳ Ἄδραστος ἥρως: τὸ δὲ οἴκοθεν ἀντία πράξει.
24 For more on Pindar and heroes, see Currie, B., Pindar and the Cult of Heroes (Oxford, 2005)Google Scholar. Note also Pindar's presentation of the hero-cult established for the Rhodian Tlepolemus: ‘As a sweet recompense for his pitiable misfortune there are established for Tlepolemus the leader of the Tirynthians, as for a god, a procession of beasts rich with the smoke of sacrifice and a contest for prizes’ (Ol. 8.77–80: λύτρον συμφορᾶς οἰκτρᾶς γλυκὺ Τλαπολέμῳ ἵσταται Τιρυνθίων ἀρχαγέτᾳ, ὥσπερ θεῷ, μήλων τε κνισσάεσσα πομπὰ καὶ κρίσις ἀμφ᾽ ἀέθλοις). For other, explicit instances of the pathos of the hero or of a deified mortal, see Lucian, Syr. D. 6 (Adonis); Philostr. Her. 9.2, 12.1 (Protesilaus). Note also the case of Oedipus as described by Lysimachus, FGrHist 382 F 2: he was denied burial in Thebes because he was considered unholy (asebês) owing to his misfortunes (symphorai); this decision, however, was a mistake, since Oedipus would later become a kindly hero to the community of Eteonus.
25 For the relationship between Pindar and his material context, a burgeoning field of scholarship, see Neer, R. and Kurke, L., ‘Pindar fr. 75 SM and the politics of Athenian space’, GRBS 54 (2014), 527–79Google Scholar, with the literature cited at n. 1. Two examples: Pindar shows familiarity with the pediment of the Alcmaeonid temple at Delphi, also described as the Athenian family's project by Herodotus and no doubt seen by him (Athanassaki, L., ‘Song, politics, and cultural memory: Pindar's Pythian 7 and the Alcmaeonid temple of Apollo’, in Athanassaki, L. and Bowie, E. [edd.], Archaic and Classical Choral Song: Performance, Politics, and Dissemination [Berlin and Boston, 2011], 235–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weiss, N., ‘The choral architecture of Pindar's eighth Paean’, TAPhA 146 [2016], 237–55Google Scholar; cf. Hdt. 5.62–63.1); and the poet may have known the mast and three gold stars dedicated at Delphi, mentioned at Hdt. 8.122 (Kurke, L., ‘Choral lyric as “ritualization”: poetic sacrifice and poetic ego in Pindar's sixth Paian’, CA 24 [2005], 81–130, at 116–19Google Scholar).
26 Lines 94–6: οὐ φθίνει Κροίσου φιλόφρων ἀρετά: τὸν δὲ ταύρῳ χαλκέῳ καυτῆρα νηλέα νόον ἐχθρὰ Φάλαριν κατέχει παντᾷ φάτις. For ἀρετά as ‘generosity’, see Kurke, L., Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece (Princeton, 1999), 135Google Scholar.
27 Pyth. 11.4–5 χρυσέων … ἄδυτον τριπόδων θησαυρόν; Hdt. 1.92.1 ἐν μὲν γὰρ Θήβῃσι τῇσι Βοιωτῶν τρίπους χρύσεος, τὸν ἀνέθηκε τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι τῷ Ἰσμηνίῳ.
28 Pyth. 4.230–1 ἄφθιτον στρωμνὰν … κῶας αἰγλᾶεν χρυσέῳ θυσάνῳ. For aphthitos as a descriptor of gold (which is itself connected with the eternal kleos conferred on honorands by poetry), see Hom. Il. 5.725, 13.22, 14.238 with Nagy (n. 22 [1979]), 179–80, Nagy (n. 22 [1990]), 278 with n. 21; C. Segal, Pindar's Mythmaking: The Fourth Pythian Ode (Princeton, 1986), 112–13.
29 There the aretê referred to is of course that of Amphiaraus, but Pindar may still have associated the word with Croesus.
30 For the contrast between gold and bronze, cf. Kurke (n. 26), 135, who associates Pindar's Croesus with gold using Bacchyl. 3.63–6 (see further below); also Fearn, D., Pindar's Eyes: Visual and Material Culture in Epinician Poetry (Oxford, 2017), 225–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Now, however, we see that Pindar may have had a material gold object of Croesus’ in mind.
31 In addition to the Boeotian aspect of Croesus’ generosity, we should consider that the Pythian context is informing Pindar's language. Croesus dedicated many offerings to Delphi (Hdt. 1.50–1), which were subsequently cited by Bacchylides when comparing Croesus’ generosity with that of, again, Hiero (3.58–66, for his Olympic victory of 468).
32 Croesus’ act of generosity on display at the Ismenion would also provide a lordly precedent that Hiero had already followed by 470, since around 474 he dedicated thank-offerings to Zeus and Apollo at Olympia and Delphi, respectively, for his victory over the Etruscans at Cyme: Osborne, R. and Rhodes, P.J. (edd.), Greek Historical Inscriptions: 478–404 b.c. (Oxford, 2017), no. 1Google Scholar with SIG 3 35. Pindar mentions the victory earlier in the ode of 470, at Pyth. 1.71–5. Two years later, in 468, Bacchylides could describe Hiero as having dedicated more gold than any other mortal to Apollo (3.64–7).
33 The relative dating of the Theban epigram to c.500 leaves a lot of space for Pindar never to have seen it.
34 Although we are ill informed on the development of Boeotian letter forms, the relative dating to c.500 makes it unlikely that the column was erected, at the very latest, not in the first third of the fifth century but in the second third.
