^{page 163 note 1} Richards, l.c., merely raises the question as to whether ἄστυ may be a gloss, citing δ⋯μα Καδμεῖον from Soph. O.T. 29. Macan, in his edition, cites van Herwerden's conjecture ἢ ἄστυ μεγακυδ⋯ς but keeps the traditional reading.

^{page 163 note 2} 252B.

^{page 163 note 3} Other examples will be found in Kaibel, G., Epigrammata Graeca (1878)Google Scholar, and particularly in Allen, F. D., ‘On Greek Versification in Inscriptions’ (Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, vol. iv (1888), pp. 35 ff.)Google Scholar.

^{page 163 note 4} Thoricus, early IV cent. B.C. (Kaibel 23, 2).

^{page 163 note 5} Aegina, V (K. 22, 1).

^{page 163 note 6} Athens, undated (K. 60, 2).

^{page 163 note 7} Athens, early IV (K. 26, 8).

^{page 163 note 8} Corinth, VI (K. 463a).

^{page 163 note 9} Corinth, VI (Allen lxxxvi).

^{page 163 note 10} Paros, V (K. 750a, 1).

^{page 163 note 11} Olympia (Epidamnian), late VI (vs. 1 of an inscription cited from Paus. vi. 10. 7, by Preger, , Inscriptions Graecae Metricae ex Scriptoribus praeter Anthologiam Collectae (1891), no. 125)Google Scholar.

^{page 163 note 12} Èpidaurus, VI–V (A. xcvi).

^{page 163 note 13} Olympia (Argive), V (A. xcv. I).

^{page 163 note 14} Attica, V (I.G. ii. 1393b, I).

^{page 163 note 15} Cyprus, undated (A. lxxiii. 3).

^{page 164 note 1} Delphi, IV–III (A. cxix. 4).

^{page 164 note 2} Attica, IV (A. xxvi).

^{page 164 note 3} Plutarch, De Pyth. Orac. 397C, States definitely that it was the priestess: οὐ γ⋯ρ ⋯στι θεο⋯ ⋯ γ⋯ρυς, οὐδ' ⋯ ϕθ⋯γγος, οὐδ' ⋯ λ⋯ξις οὐδ⋯ τ⋯ μ⋯τρον ⋯λλ⋯ τ⋯ς γυναικ⋯ς. He is almost as explicit ib. 405D: τ⋯ν δ⋯ τ⋯ς Πυθ⋯ας ϕων⋯ν κα⋯ δι⋯λεκτον ὥσπερ <χορευτ⋯ν? Bernardakis> ⋯κ θυμ⋯λης οὐκ ⋯ν⋯δυντον οὐδ⋯ λιτ⋯ν, ⋯λλ' ⋯ν μ⋯τρῳ κα⋯ ⋯γκῳ … ϕθεγγομ⋯νην παρ⋯χειν [παρηχεῖν Bern.] ⋯ξιο⋯μεν. And again, ib. 396F: ποι⋯ματα γ⋯ρ γρ⋯ϕεις … ⋯οικ⋯τα τοῖς Ὁμ⋯ρου κα⋯ Ἡσι⋯δου μ⋯λλον ἢ τοῖς ὑπ⋯ τ⋯ς Πυθ⋯ας ⋯κϕερομ⋯νοις. Other references with the same distinct implication occur ib. 397B–C, 406E–F, and 408C–D. In fact, the whole essay, as the title Περ⋯ το⋯ μ⋯ χρ⋯ν ἔμμετρα ν⋯ν τ⋯ν Πυθ⋯αν shows, is based on the assumption that the priestess was also poetess. (The προϕ⋯της at Delphi is mentioned De Def. Orac. 438B, but not as a composer of the oracles' form.) That the belief in the priestess's authorship of the verses went back to the fourth century B.C. is clear from De Pyth. Orac. 403F: ἰσχυρ⋯ς ⋯πιτετ⋯μηκε [sc. Θε⋯πομπος] τοῖς μ⋯ νομ⋯ζουσι κατ⋯ τ⋯ν τ⋯τε χρ⋯νον ἔμμετρα τ⋯ν Πυθ⋯αν θεσ⋯ζειν. The use of hexameters by the priestesses was supposed to go clear back to the first one, Phemonoe, according to Pausanias x. 5.4: μεγ⋯στη δ⋯ κα⋯ παρ⋯ πλε⋯στων ⋯ς Φημον⋯ην δ⋯ξα ⋯στ⋯ν, ὡς πρ⋯μαντις γ⋯νοιτο ⋯ Φημον⋯η το⋯ θεο⋯ πρώτη, κα⋯ πρώτη τ⋯ ⋯ξ⋯μετρον ᾗσεν. But Strabo ix. 3.5 (p. 419) reports the tradition that the priestess uttered some oracles in verse and some in prose, and that the latter were turned into verse by ‘certain poets’ in the service of the shrine: ϕασ⋯ δ' εἶναι τ⋯ μαντεῖον ἄντρον κοῖλον κατ⋯ β⋯θους οὐ μ⋯λα εὐρ⋯στομον, ⋯ναϕ⋯ρεσθαι δ' ⋯ξ αὐτο⋯ πνε⋯μα ⋯νθονσιαστικ⋯ν, ὑπερκεῖσθαι δ⋯ το⋯ στομ⋯ου τρ⋯ποδα ὑψηλ⋯ν ⋯ϕ' ὃν τ⋯ν Πυθ⋯αν ⋯ναβα⋯νουσαν δεχομ⋯νην τ⋯ πνε⋯μα ⋯ποθεσπ⋯ζειν ἕμμετρ⋯ τε κα⋯ ἄμετρα. ⋯ντε⋯νειν δ⋯ κα⋯ τα⋯τα εἰς μ⋯τρον ποιητ⋯ς τινας ὑπουργο⋯ντας τῷ ἱερῷ. et Saglio, Daremberg, s.v. Oraculum (iv, pp. 220a, etc.)Google Scholar and Fairbanks, , Handbook of Greek Religion, p. 60Google Scholar (missing, however, the reference to Strabo), tacitly reject Theopompus, Plutarch, and Pausanias in toto and half of Strabo, and maintain that the προϕ⋯της did all the verse. Pomtow, in Pauly-Wissowa, , s.v. Delphoi (iv. 2536 f.)Google Scholar is not explicit but appears to accept the Plutarchean view.

^{page 164 note 4} If the priestess made the verses, she did so, as is well known, when she was not quite herself; if it was the πρϕ⋯της, he was a man chosen by lot (cf. , Eur.Ion, 413–16Google Scholar).

^{page 164 note 5} De Pyth. Orac. 396C–D.

^{page 164 note 6} Ib. 397D.

^{page 164 note 7} Iup. Trag. 6.