The title of this dissertation emerged from an undergraduate Honours paper that investigated modern scholarly views concerning the authenticity of the Pythia’s possession. An attempt to answer one particular subquestion (Was the Pythia the priesthood’s puppet?) elicited significantly more divergent modern opinions than the discussions concerning the other possible causations of the Pythian prophecies (divine inspiration, clairvoyance, intoxication, and/or charlatanry) that the paper examined. The mere suggestion of the possibility that the Pythia may have enjoyed some degree of autonomy while performing her role in the consultative procedure stirred considerable controversy among modern scholars. This reaction identified a need for further reexamination of the Pythia’s role in the Delphic Oracle as depicted in both ancient literature and the commentaries of modern scholars. However, this dissertation is concerned more with what ancient and modern sources claim the Pythia actually did (i.e. the role she performed) during a mantic consultation than with how the Pythia managed to produce the oracles she uttered (i.e. the underlying causation of her ability to produce prophecies). Ancient sources, in particular Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, and Pausanias, depict and apparently accept the Pythia as the speaker of the oracles, for, after all, the Pythia functioned as Apollo’s mouthpiece “and as such she counted for little.”1 Most early 20th century modern scholars, all with access to the same ancient sources, nevertheless contend (perhaps because they do not believe in Apollo) that the Delphic priesthood was (must have been) responsible for at least the composition, or the interpretation, or even the actual delivery to the enquirers, of the oracles. However, some later modern scholars acknowledge, even if they cannot fully comprehend or embrace, the ancient sources’ portrayal of the Pythia as speaking the oracles directly to enquirers. Compton commences an article on the Delphic mantic session with these words: “As one reads through important treatments of the operation of the Delphic oracle, disparities in interpretation are striking.”2 The discrepancies between both ancient authors and modern scholars and between early 20th century and some later modern scholars warrant a reexamination of how all sources depict the Pythia’s role in the Delphic Oracle. Modern (20th and 21st century for the purpose of this dissertation) scholars all have access to the same ancient sources. However, an examination of modern commentaries on the role of the Pythia in the Delphic mantic (divinatory, oracular) consultation (session) appears to indicate a watershed year for a shift in modern perspective: 1978. Pre-1978 modern scholars depart from the ancient authors and depict the Delphic priesthood as the major player in the mantic procedure whereas several later modern scholars, in and after 1978, return to the ancient depiction of the Pythia as the one who delivers the Delphic oracles directly to the enquirers. A search for an explanation for this shift in modern interpretations of ancient literature underlies this dissertation, which seeks to answer not only how and also why modern classical scholarship on the topic of the Pythia evolved as it did. An investigation of this evolving view of the Pythia’s role includes examination of ancient literature and the commentaries on these ancient sources by modern scholars as found in English literature (including English translations and/or secondary quotations of Danish, French and German scholars) for information both about the person and role of the Pythia and about the composition and role of other Delphic temple personnel, referred to as the Delphic priesthood in this dissertation. Ancient and modern depictions of every step of the consultative process that culminated in the enquirers receiving the oracles that they accepted as Apollo’s answers to their enquiries—in effect, the entire process of oracular consultation, including its physical location, and the process of transfer of communications at Delphi—are also relevant. This dissertation uses the term “chain of communication” to indicate the elements in the communicative process whereby the Pythia learned the content of enquirers’ questions, and, in turn, enquirers learned the content of Apollo’s replies to their questions. Answers to specific questions such as those that follow must, therefore, be sought first in ancient literature before divergent modern scholarly contentions can be evaluated. Who was the Pythia, and what was her role? Who comprised the Delphic priesthood, and what was its role? Who put the enquirer’s question to the Pythia? Who heard the Pythia’s reply? Who spoke the response to the enquirer? Was the response oral or written, in prose or verse form? Who wrote the response down and/or composed the verse? These are some of the questions that indicate a direction for investigation in order to evaluate the division of roles within the Delphic Oracle’s administration. The findings in Chapters 3-6 of this dissertation are, therefore, consistently arranged under the headings of the Pythia (her person and role), the Delphic priesthood (its structure and overall function in the Delphic Oracle), the chain of communication (who did and said what, and how, and to whom, during a Delphic mantic session), and the location in which this mantic consultation took place. Because the first three headings all address aspects of the respective roles played by the Pythia and priesthood during an oracular consultation, some overlap of content is inevitable. Chapters 1 and 2 outline and review ancient Greek divinatory methods, seers, and oracles. Chapter 3 explores relevant ancient references to the Delphic Oracle as found in 8th-4th century BCE sources, including Homer, 5th century BCE tragic poets, and the historian Herodotus. Chapter 4 investigates post-4th century BCE ancient sources, including the works of historian Diodorus Siculus, Delphic priest, historian, and prose commentator Plutarch, and geographer Pausanias. Chapters 5 and 6 cover relevant modern scholarly views. Parke’s 1939 and Parke and Wormell’s 1956 authoritative works on the Delphic Oracle dominate the early 20th century (pre-1978) period, and Fontenrose’s innovative 1978 work on the same subject introduces the later period of modern scholarship on the Delphic Oracle. The conclusion attempts an explanation for and reconciliation of the various ancient and modern views. This dissertation essentially seeks to answer two questions: how do ancient and modern scholars view the role of the Pythia in the mantic procedure at Delphi, and can the variety of interpretations be explained and reconciled? / Classics & Modern European Languages / M.A. (Classical Studies)

Second sight, a special psychic ability of having prophetic visions, is traditionally believed to be a natural inborn faculty of mind running in certain families in Scotland and other countries. Detailed written accounts of second sight from the 17th century onwards are consistent with modern-day accounts collected by folklorists and ethnologists. The visions could take the form either of direct representations of someone's fate such as seeing a funeral procession, or symbolic representations, such as seeing a death shroud on someone. The current study using questionnaire and interview methods examined the prevalence of second sight, the nature of the experiences, and whether there is any evidence to support the belief that it is hereditary. A large-scale mail survey, using random sampling methods, showed that the frequency of second sight was 10% in the Western Isles, 16% in the Highlands and Lowlands, and 33% in the Grampian region. Generally, neither highland descent nor gender seemed to be significantly related to people reporting second sight. In all the areas, people who reported having second sight were significantly more likely to report second sight in blood-related family members. A phenomenological and ethnological approach was applied to the design of the questionnaire and interview schedule, the style of the interviews and their analysis. The 65 item questionnaire covering the different types of second sight experiences found in the historical accounts and biographical and family history information, was sent to people who expressed an interest in the study. A total of 208 questionnaires were received, primarily from Scotland but also from other countries. The responses indicated that second sight is experienced by people of diverse ages, occupations, religious and cultural traditions. Women tended to report more experiences than men and an important factor related to having second sight was having had a religious experience. Fieldwork was conducted in different parts of Scotland. Seventy people were interviewed and over 500 accounts were collected. A phenomenoiogical approach was applied to looking at patterns in the accounts. A consistent feature is that the imagery, whether visual, auditory, kinaesthetic or olfactory, was described as real and not originating purely in the mind of the observer. This was true whether the emotional content was positive or negative. Some of the visions were seen as quick 'film-like' images through the mind, others appeared as projected three-dimensional images which became the central focus of perception. It was proposed that people with second sight could have an eidetic-like imagery. Two of the most common types of second sight experiences are awake visions of future deaths of people well-known to the percipient or of unfamiliar persons. Accounts of seeing funeral processions and death shrouds are rarely reported today. A total of 130 pedigrees from people with a history of second sight were constructed. The results of pedigree and segregation analyses demonstrate that second sight seems consistent with an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern, especially for small family sizes. Though certain aspects of the data favoured a social and cultural model, it was argued that they were still consistent with second sight having an underlying genetic component. The importance of other studies examining the pedigrees of second sight in different cultures was stressed. If similar inheritance patterns were observed in disparate cultures, this would provide further scientific support for the view that second sight is hereditary. It was speculated that second sight may be part of a creative mental process and what may be hereditary is the way information is received and processed by the brain and expressed in different sensory modalities.

The title of this dissertation emerged from an undergraduate Honours paper that investigated modern scholarly views concerning the authenticity of the Pythia’s possession. An attempt to answer one particular subquestion (Was the Pythia the priesthood’s puppet?) elicited significantly more divergent modern opinions than the discussions concerning the other possible causations of the Pythian prophecies (divine inspiration, clairvoyance, intoxication, and/or charlatanry) that the paper examined. The mere suggestion of the possibility that the Pythia may have enjoyed some degree of autonomy while performing her role in the consultative procedure stirred considerable controversy among modern scholars. This reaction identified a need for further reexamination of the Pythia’s role in the Delphic Oracle as depicted in both ancient literature and the commentaries of modern scholars. However, this dissertation is concerned more with what ancient and modern sources claim the Pythia actually did (i.e. the role she performed) during a mantic consultation than with how the Pythia managed to produce the oracles she uttered (i.e. the underlying causation of her ability to produce prophecies). Ancient sources, in particular Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, and Pausanias, depict and apparently accept the Pythia as the speaker of the oracles, for, after all, the Pythia functioned as Apollo’s mouthpiece “and as such she counted for little.”1 Most early 20th century modern scholars, all with access to the same ancient sources, nevertheless contend (perhaps because they do not believe in Apollo) that the Delphic priesthood was (must have been) responsible for at least the composition, or the interpretation, or even the actual delivery to the enquirers, of the oracles. However, some later modern scholars acknowledge, even if they cannot fully comprehend or embrace, the ancient sources’ portrayal of the Pythia as speaking the oracles directly to enquirers. Compton commences an article on the Delphic mantic session with these words: “As one reads through important treatments of the operation of the Delphic oracle, disparities in interpretation are striking.”2 The discrepancies between both ancient authors and modern scholars and between early 20th century and some later modern scholars warrant a reexamination of how all sources depict the Pythia’s role in the Delphic Oracle. Modern (20th and 21st century for the purpose of this dissertation) scholars all have access to the same ancient sources. However, an examination of modern commentaries on the role of the Pythia in the Delphic mantic (divinatory, oracular) consultation (session) appears to indicate a watershed year for a shift in modern perspective: 1978. Pre-1978 modern scholars depart from the ancient authors and depict the Delphic priesthood as the major player in the mantic procedure whereas several later modern scholars, in and after 1978, return to the ancient depiction of the Pythia as the one who delivers the Delphic oracles directly to the enquirers. A search for an explanation for this shift in modern interpretations of ancient literature underlies this dissertation, which seeks to answer not only how and also why modern classical scholarship on the topic of the Pythia evolved as it did. An investigation of this evolving view of the Pythia’s role includes examination of ancient literature and the commentaries on these ancient sources by modern scholars as found in English literature (including English translations and/or secondary quotations of Danish, French and German scholars) for information both about the person and role of the Pythia and about the composition and role of other Delphic temple personnel, referred to as the Delphic priesthood in this dissertation. Ancient and modern depictions of every step of the consultative process that culminated in the enquirers receiving the oracles that they accepted as Apollo’s answers to their enquiries—in effect, the entire process of oracular consultation, including its physical location, and the process of transfer of communications at Delphi—are also relevant. This dissertation uses the term “chain of communication” to indicate the elements in the communicative process whereby the Pythia learned the content of enquirers’ questions, and, in turn, enquirers learned the content of Apollo’s replies to their questions. Answers to specific questions such as those that follow must, therefore, be sought first in ancient literature before divergent modern scholarly contentions can be evaluated. Who was the Pythia, and what was her role? Who comprised the Delphic priesthood, and what was its role? Who put the enquirer’s question to the Pythia? Who heard the Pythia’s reply? Who spoke the response to the enquirer? Was the response oral or written, in prose or verse form? Who wrote the response down and/or composed the verse? These are some of the questions that indicate a direction for investigation in order to evaluate the division of roles within the Delphic Oracle’s administration. The findings in Chapters 3-6 of this dissertation are, therefore, consistently arranged under the headings of the Pythia (her person and role), the Delphic priesthood (its structure and overall function in the Delphic Oracle), the chain of communication (who did and said what, and how, and to whom, during a Delphic mantic session), and the location in which this mantic consultation took place. Because the first three headings all address aspects of the respective roles played by the Pythia and priesthood during an oracular consultation, some overlap of content is inevitable. Chapters 1 and 2 outline and review ancient Greek divinatory methods, seers, and oracles. Chapter 3 explores relevant ancient references to the Delphic Oracle as found in 8th-4th century BCE sources, including Homer, 5th century BCE tragic poets, and the historian Herodotus. Chapter 4 investigates post-4th century BCE ancient sources, including the works of historian Diodorus Siculus, Delphic priest, historian, and prose commentator Plutarch, and geographer Pausanias. Chapters 5 and 6 cover relevant modern scholarly views. Parke’s 1939 and Parke and Wormell’s 1956 authoritative works on the Delphic Oracle dominate the early 20th century (pre-1978) period, and Fontenrose’s innovative 1978 work on the same subject introduces the later period of modern scholarship on the Delphic Oracle. The conclusion attempts an explanation for and reconciliation of the various ancient and modern views. This dissertation essentially seeks to answer two questions: how do ancient and modern scholars view the role of the Pythia in the mantic procedure at Delphi, and can the variety of interpretations be explained and reconciled? / Classics and Modern European Languages / M.A. (Classical Studies)