How wartime communities bought Spitfires

SpitfiresWiltshire Moonraker and Sarum & South Wilts – how wartime communities bought Spitfires.

Even in 1940, the Spitfire had celebratory status. Communities and individuals around the British Isles and across the Dominions and Empire were thinking of new ways to collect money and entice their friends to part with their hard-earned savings to buy a Spitfire.

The Spitfire Fund, as a nationwide enterprise was the brainchild of Lord Beaverbrook, Churchill’s friend and political ally in whom the Prime Minister had entrusted the production of military aircraft, especially Spitfires. Churchill realised that producing fighters would be a key part of Britain’s survival.

So enthused were contributors, they funded more than 1500 Spitfires, dubbed ‘Gifts of War’ and donated to the Royal Air Force. The efforts of individuals or community groups were to see a Spitfire painted up with a presentational caption just below the cockpit, telling with the world that the aeroplane had been ‘bought’ by the contributors to the fund.

In six weeks, the Salisbury & Winchester Journal reported that over £6,000 had been collected by the communities of West Wiltshire to buy a Spitfire. Today, £6,000 is the equivalent of about £700,000; a real achievement for a rural community with no large conurbations or industrial enterprises.

The ‘South Wiltshire Spitfire Fund’, based in Salisbury and administered by The Journal, raised over £114 in a single September weekend by displaying a Luftwaffe Dornier Do 17 bomber in the Market Square. Local people were charged thrupence (3d) a time to see it. Part of this bomber is still preserved and displayed in the Museum of Army Flying at Middle Wallop, the wartime base from which Spitfires flew in pursuit of German bombers and probably bought this Dornier down only a few miles from the Hampshire airfield.

Back at Salisbury, little boys spent the weekend trying to find souvenirs. Several will admit today to taking pieces as small as screws despite the watchful eyes of the Home Guard drafted in to protect the bomber.

That weekend more than 9,000 people paid to see the bomber, many coming back several times; perhaps to stand and wonder at their first sight of the enemy or perhaps to rejoice that there was one fewer enemy bomber in British skies.

The result of the fund-raising was an appropriately named Spitfire Mark IA – ‘Sarum & South Wilts’. So on 2 July 1941, serial number P8137 began its operational service with No 234 Squadron just down the road at Middle Wallop.

Sadly, its career was very short even by 1941 standards. The Spitfire and its pilot, Sergeant Ivan Pearce RAFVR were lost just a week later on a sortie over the English Channel to engage German fighters over the Cherbourg peninsula; no trace of aeroplane nor pilot was ever found.

A local Wiltshire Spitfire which lasted slightly longer was the one ‘bought’ by West Wiltshire’s fundraising. More than £8,000, including £3,000 from the people of the market-town of Trowbridge was collected in September 1940. Ironically, Trowbridge was about to become a hub of the dispersed Spitfire production programme after Luftwaffe bombers destroyed the Supermarine works at Southampton.

Moonraker Spitfires‘Wiltshire Moonraker’ was the name selected for the West Wiltshire Spitfire Fund. It was completed as a more powerful Mark VB, given the serial number W3312 handed over by Supermarine to the Royal Air Force on 6 June 1941.

The ‘Moonraker’ served with great distinction with No 92 (East India) Squadron based at RAF Biggin Hill, probably the most famous Battle of Britain fighter station. It became the favoured fighter of the squadron’s boss, Squadron Leader James Rankin.

It was damaged in combat, repaired and returned to Fighter Command, ending up with No 65 Squadron at RAF Eastchurch in Kent. On this unit it flew sorties over Occupied France but on 3 September 1942,  in the hands of Pilot Officer N R MacQueen it suffered engine failure, probably through combat. Its Rolls-Royce Merlin 45 engine stopped and the Spitfire crashed into the Channel on 3 September 1942. MacQueen baled out but downed before a rescue craft could reach him.

The last of 1500 presentational Spitfire was delivered to the Royal Air Force in 1945 and quite appropriately named ‘Winston Churchill’. 


paul-beaver

Paul Beaver is an experienced vintage aeroplane pilot who will be speaking on “Spitfire – people, places, politics, production” at the Chalke Valley History Festival on Sunday, 29th June 2014.

Flying Legend: World Record Holding Test Pilot & War Ace

Recording from CVHF 2013: Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown in conversation with Rowland White, Saturday, 29th June 2013.

Captain Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown is an extraordinary man, whose career stretched from the pre-war days of the biplane to supersonic jets. Captain Brown visited Nazi Germany before the war, flying with General Ernst Udet, flew with the Fleet Air Arm early in the war, had an escort carrier sunk underneath him, then became a pioneering test pilot. He was the first person to land a two-engine Mosquito on an aircraft carrier, flew every single one of the German experimental jets at the end of the war, interrogated Göring, and was a key figure in the post-war Jet Age. No man has ever flown more aircraft types. Charming, amusing, and with a mind as sharp as ever it was, this is a rare opportunity to hear one of Britain’s true flying legends talk about his life and times.

James Holland interviews Geoffrey Wellum DFC

geoffrey-wellumSquadron Leader Geoffrey Wellum DFC (aged 93) is a British Battle of Britain fighter pilot and author. Aged eighteen, he signed up on a short-service commission with the Royal Air Force in August 1939. He saw extensive action during the Battle of Britain and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) in 1941 in recognition of gallantry displayed in flying operations against the enemy. On 11 August 1942, Wellum led eight Spitfires launched from the carrier HMS Furious to reinforce the fighter complement at Luqa airfield on Malta. He wrote a widely acclaimed book about his experiences during World War II, entitled First Light: The Story of the Boy Who Became a Man in the War-Torn Skies Above Britain.

This is a transcript of an interview with Historian and broadcaster, James Holland, 22 February 2001..


…You finished your initial training, elementary, you then went into top drilling things for a fortnight. You then went to flying training school where the discipline started. You didn’t walk anywhere you marched. And there you were split up into two. A limited number — I can’t remember — about ten of us were earmarked for single engineer planes: in other words, potential fighter pilots.

I was delighted. Because we were I think the second course to be trained on quite a vicious little ae. The mark one Harvard. American Harvard. We were the first or second course onto them. And one learned there that one had to repsect an aeroplane. Because if you didn’t respect it, it would turn round and bite you, and that wasn’t a good thing to happen. So we were earmarked from there on as single engine pilots and I think about 3%, let me think. there were five of us at the end of the training ended up in a spitfire or a hurricane. All the rest did other things. So there were just five of us taken out of the whole course. About 40 on the course.

We had our eyes earmarked on what we wanted to fly but at flying training school, two courses for the elementary school joined up. We were joined up with people from I think a place called Anstey. We joined up at flying training school, so there were about 40 of us. And I think five of us ended up on fighters.

James: go back, what made you decide to go to RAF

I always wanted to. I had been model aeroplane mad since I was a little boy. Yes, I had read books about it. Interest in aeroplanes. I lived near North Weald. I can remember in the early days, the 20s and 30s, very gayly decorated fighters with the squadron markings on it, rather like the old mice. The RAF was modelled on the cavalry you see with plumes and knights of old. We had our own squadron markings. If two blokes wanted to fly they flew in the University air squadron that’s what they’d do, they’d go together. They would probably go straight to a flying training school.

In those days it [square bashing] was done at Uxbridge. But we went to Hastings. Uxbridge was a huge station built round an enormous square. [?] policed by sadists who railed and shouted and took us…

We went to Hastings and marched up and down the front as far as I can see. And it was quite a steady indoctrination. It was quite civilised.

James: where were you billeted?

In what used to be local hotels, the front hotels for the holiday-makers. But there was barbed wire going up and there were kids with buckets and spades on the beach. It had a false inclination that there was a war going on. Things were changing a bit.

James: Do you remember your first spitfire flight?

Oh yes. Bloody thing flew me! ha ha. It was a day that you had been waiting for for a long time but it wasn’t until my flight commander briefed me: you better take this aeroplane. I’ll come out and show you the cockpit. I’ll show you round it and if you break it there’ll be hell to pay. And I can remember walking out to it with my helmet on with my oxygen mask flapping in time with my walking and the parachute slung over my shoulder and I looked at this lythe sort of creature sitting there on this little narrow undercarriage. I thought Christ! No instructor in the back. You had to get it right. You sit in this lythe looking creature and the cockpit was very small, great long nose in front full of engine and you thought Oh God! Why can’t I be sweeping out Clapham Common station, something like that, you know. I mean I’d make a bloody good porter!  Yes, that was it and once my flight commander had started explaining it to me you settled down a bit and thought well this is what it’s all about. So many things. If you stay too long taxiing on the ground the engine overheats. Be careful of the brakes because they’re nose-heavy on the ground. They tip on… You think God I don’t want a helmet, I want a shroud in this bloody thing. But anyway then I remember him getting off the rigg and I said “Excuse me Sir”. “You don’t call me Sir, not any more. I’m a flight commander. You can call me Brian”. I said alright, excuse me but how do you start it? And he said, Oh I’m sorry. Eventually we started it and he got off and walked away and the engine started to my amazement the first touch of the button. Great clouds of smoke came back and then I settled down and taxied out, turned it into wind. Made certain everything was strapped up. Open up the taps and off you went. The acceleration was something else, that one had never experienced and in the end you felt you were hanging onto the throttle stick for grim death. And that was a bloody silly thing to say at that particular time. And the next thing I knew it had hurtled itself into the air and I was going up into the wide blue yonder. It was exhilarating but it was a bit fearful because in order to get the undercarriage up you had to pump it up with a big pump and you had to change hands on the stick. You had to take your hand off the throttle, put it on the stick, take the right hand off and pump up like that. But of-course every time you did that, this hand did that so you went up into the wide blue yonder like a kangaroo on heat or something.  But then once you’d settled down, you thought this is a magnificent aeroplane, magnificent. You know your speed was way up, an indicated speed well over the 200, 210, 15, drop the nose and the speed would build up. It was a very clean design. Something like 400. Magnificent. But landing was a little bit… well it landed me, not the… Because you couldn’t see out of the front of the spitfire because of the nose. You had to look outside like that. It got a bit daunting. They were such a beautiful aeroplane that they preferred a sort of gliding approach whereas we had been taught to come in on the motor.  If you came in with lots of power on, the aeroplane used to assume a tail-down set like that which of-course meant that the nose came up. Which meant you couldn’t see. This thing was absolutely stable but sinking at that point. I thought for god’s sake check and cut the power and I did and it just +++ and stuck there. But I didn’t know an awful lot about it.

James: Did you become used to flying it?

You didn’t get in, you strapped it to you. A spitfire could almost think what you wanted to do and it did it. And you didn’t think anything about it. And in the end you could fly them almost like a Tiger Moth. Beautiful aeroplane. You knew exactly what the aeroplane… It could only respond to what you wanted it to. The spitfire did that. It responded to anything you wanted to do. You had to get the landing right, you had to get it right, but once you got used to them you got it right and they were lovely, beautiful aeroplanes, very forgiving.

James: Did you have any flying accidents?

Yes I did. The spitfire was not designed for night flying. It was not easy at night. And we had a thing called a chance light, I don’t know if you’ve heard of it. It was like a lighthouse on wheels that you called and it lit up and lit the flare path so you could see the ground. And I was coming in one night, my first night, very frightening, pitch dark and we only had six little glim lamps which you could only see from below 1500 feet. And because we were flying from an airfield in South Wales and it was a pitch black night, they had [?] the chance light down and I made one attempt and I couldn’t get in at all. I didn’t line up and all and I said look sorry chum but I’ve got to have the chance light. And they said not now now, there’s a German overhead so when he was clear they put the chance light on and I thought well they still haven’t put that bloody light on but they had. And I thought well if it is on I can’t see it. It can only be in one place, it’s in front and I’m afraid it was, and it took the port wing off.

James: But you were alright?

Yes. It took half the port wing off. And this great explosion and the thing went bang. We thought this is it, I’m dying. This is what it’s like. It’s very peaceful. And I sat there and I thought this is lovely! Any time you like mate, I’ll be off then. And then you realised, I thought hold on a minute, the cockpit lights are still on, they were a lovely dull red for night vision and I looked at the ignition switches and they were off and I looked at the fuel and that was off so I thought gosh I must have done that and after I hit this chance light I must have acted like lightening and not realised it. And I came to sitting on this damn thing and then I saw a face at the side of the cockpit and it was the flight commander: “What the bloody hell are you doing in there. Look what you’ve done”. No are you alright. Actually he had a look at me and they took me out and that was alright.

[J: So you felt quite calm?]

Yes, totally accepted it. This is it, I’m going to die. Didn’t have time to think anything. I thought this is it. I haven’t the faintest idea where I am, what I’m doing, sparks were coming back from the exhaust. Couldn’t see a bloody thing. I ended up very luckily in one piece. It was very quick.

I was far more worried when I knew I wasn’t getting it right. I made two approaches to start with to try and get in and it was a bloody awful night mind you. I was far more het up and the last time I thought well I’m going to give in on this approach, I’ve had this. And having hit it there was a “Oh well, you’ve made a balls of that, I’me going to die”. Next thing I knew was, I think I went unconscious, I just think the mind works so quickly because I switched off the ignition and the fuel. I thought this is OK, what’s everyone worrying about, dying, this is peaceful. After all, I’m fairly warm. And then I realised that the lights were still on in the cockpit and that’s what brought me back to reality. That’s about the size of it.

Once you got used to the spitfire which you did fairly quickly you realised how fortunate you were because you were one of tens of thousands who would give their right arm to be where you were.

You were a fighter pilot in the Royal Air Force in perhaps the best aeroplane in the world. How many of the chaps that went through training with you ended up in a Spitfire. One. Me. The other four went to Hurricanes and I went to Spitfire. Once I’d settled down and felt that I’d got the aeroplane where I wanted it to be, I got it as a friend and not as a sort of thoroughbred horse who looks at you and says I’ll play this bastard up until he knows what he’s about. That happened as late as 1941. Because by squadron was at Biggin Hill during the Battle and we stayed on at Biggin Hill. And the squadron in the leading wing to start the 1941 offensive sweeps over France and it was landing after those that you thought you know I’m so luck to be here really. Because by that time you’d survived the Battle, you know your way around in a Spitfire. After three weeks of the Battle itself, if you could survive the first three weeks you knew your way around. And you did things with an aeroplane that was never in any book. It had very few limitations. I’ve heard it said that under the most extreme, brutal conditions,  you could in fact pull the wings off  a Spitfire. I knew of it to happen but later on because we got to improve our roll rate we got metal ailerons. They used to with the air flow ride up and come proud like that, and put tremendous strain on the bolts: six big bolts. They got over that by trimming the [?] down but the [?] was so light you could chuck it around. You could put stress on them but I never had any trouble like that at all. During the Battle I abused that aeroplane. It’s a question of survival.

I got caught by some 109s one day who had just seen me do a bit of a mischief to a [?] and one of them got on to me and we went round in circles for god knows how long and managed to get a quick squirt at him in front and then I had no ammunition left. I had to get out of there but it wouldn’t let me go. A spitfire could turn inside a 109 and I was gaining on him slightly and he pulled up and away and so did to. I decided to hit the hills as it were. He turned off and I turned on my back and went straight down. You did what you called an alien turn. What you did, the ground was right down there, which was not an ideal place for it to be, and if you put the stick over the aeroplane did that. It revolved around an axis going straight down. And I ended up doing 450 knots indicated and the wings flexed.  A rivet popped and I got down and my ground crew reprimanded me because I popped the rivets underneath. But I got away.

James: What distance from ground?

The instrument, the altimeter, there’s always a bit of a lag and I saw 6000 feet pass just like that and I thought its time to do something about this. And I ended up about 500 feet. In fact it sounds terrible I was straight and level going like a bat out of hell at 500 feet. Which is where I wanted to be. From there I went on straight on down to the deck, 50 feet going up over hills and round forests down valleys and up the other side because you’re a difficult target then. That’s the sort of thing that you learn if you survive the first three weeks. You had to think in those terms and think quickly. You never asked questions. If you were in any doubt about anything at all you never asked a question and never fly straight and level for longer than ten seconds. Ten or twenty seconds. Never fly straight and level. And if you saw anything in the sun, they used to come out of the sun. If you had a couple of seconds to look at the sun and there was something there that you thought that’s not quite right, don’t ask questions. Just don’t stay there: a lot of people got the chop like this. Oh let’s have another look. If there’s nothing there, so what, you’re alive to fight another day. And always break into the attack, never away from it. If someone’s coming in here and you turn away, what’s going to happen? He’s on your tail just like that. So what you do, you turn and go under him. Or if not, go for him. Try and ram him. You get out the way. Straight underneath. You go underneath.

James: If he goes above you and you fly underneath, you’re then going in opposite directions?

That’s right.

James: If you’ve got enough time to turn, would you then fly back into him and try and get on his tail?

No he’d never hang around.

James: What stage of Battle did you enter it?

At the start of the Battle of Britain we were at Pembray in South Wales, defending Bristol and the West Midlands like Liverpool and things like that. Because of the intensity of the Battle we transferred to Biggin Hill on I think the 7th September. The battle was absolutely at its height and we were put straight into it. We stayed at Biggin Hill — I can’t remember when the squadron left — but I was sent away on September 1941 so I did bloody nearly, which was as long as most people. And by then I had had it. I’d absolutely had it. Exhausted.

James: asks about tactics

We lost so many fighter pilots through 1914-18 tactics by flying big formations. The Germans, we weren’t trained for war, although we should have been and people will tell you that that was the whole object of having an airforce. But in fact it was an excellent flying club. The best flying club in the world and fighter command was a law unto itself and a club within a club. We were not taught how to conduct ourselves in battle. But the Germans had Spain where it was perfected. Not only did they perfect their tactics, but they perfected their aeroplanes, developed it I mean. By the time the Battle of Britain came, the 109E was fully developed. We weren’t. We didn’t have constant speed air stools, we had a variable pitch thing. The first Spitfire didn’t have armour plate. That sort of thing. So we were behind the whole time and that’s why I hate politicians so much, you can write that down too.

James: did you have a distrust of politicians at that time?

Thinking about it, one didn’t quite realise it or have time to think about that, you know. They’re doing the same thing at the moment. They hurtle blokes into battles all over the place, here and there. Then get them criticised. I just dislike them, having thought about this a lot because I’ve had to answer lots of questions about it. I realise just how bloody stupid they are. They really are. If you are living in utopia then there’s no war, but we’re not. In those days a chap called Hitler had been making a nuisance of himself since 1933. Here were in 1940 still trying to catch up.

James: How much action did you see in Wales?

There was very little in fact. I can’t remember at Pembury ever going off as a squadron. We always went off as sections: two or four to go after a single plot because most of them were reconnaissance. We only did squadron for take-offs and things at Biggin and once of-course you went into them, 150 plus.  A lot of aeroplanes. You split up, it was each man for himself. Having gone in, come out the other side, shook your head and you’re on your tod. Then you have to go back and do it again you see. That took a bit out of you.

James: was there anyone in squadron who questioned tactics?

No. Didn’t have time. That [??] didn’t come in till about 1943/ 1942. We changed our formation from fixed like that, we went into fours in line astern. Even then you were relying on the leader to see everything. If you’re flying in formation very close, you look at the bloke next to you. The only person you watch is the fellow there. If you’re doing that you can’t look around.

James: Asks about squadron and colours in flights

Two flights of six but in fact but in fact the squadron was normally divided up into three fours. It’s very complicated.

James: What happened to the colours….?

Red or blue, one two three four. It varied. A pair was red one, red two, red three, red four. Red blue and yellow. Three fours, twelve. I could have got you a picture taken by a great friend of mine… and he took a picture of four of us having just landed [Alan White]. A section of four that had just landed having just shot down a couple of 109s actually. There are four of us…. being debriefed by a spy, by an intelligence officer in front of a Spitfire.

[talks about meeting Alan and then meeting Prince Charles…]

We were aware of a presence and we turned and there was a very smart Wing Commander. And he said you two gentlemen look like you’ve been around a bit. Have you met the Prince? Come on he said and had a chat with Charles for ten minutes and dear old Charlie boy didn’t want to get away….

[Chat about Charlie]

It’s been in a book, Brian Kingcome’s book. I think you ought to [read it]. It’s called “A willingness to die”. He was I think the finest fighter pilot I ever flew with. I used to fly number two to him. He was just brilliant, a first class pilot, and a leader and cool and calm and collected.

James: Do you think calm leadership was what was needed?

There was a calming effect certainly. He was quietly spoken, could be very dry. He could tell you off in the most delightful manner because you came out feeling small but think well I can get up again. And then you’d buy each other a drink in the evening. Forgotten. Wonderful chap.

James: Did you fly number two to him in the Battle?

Yes. We got split up going through cloud on September 11th. There were two of us going into 150 plus and I was number two to him on that day. And I was flying on his left and we went head on and I was slightly underneath him and I saw him break away and I thought it was time for me to do the same. Actually I had been hit by then.

James: Were you hit badly?

Not badly. Went back and had another go a bit later. That was September 11th and after that attack I shot down a H? over Dungeoness. I felt a bit angry. I thought you bastard.

James: can you remember what you felt when shooting down plane?

It was a target.

James: Did you ever think about the people in it?

Not normally. It depends how angry you were. If you’d had a little bit of a breathing space you thought what the hell are these, what’s going on here. They came to this country which is basically a peaceful place and there they are bombing the hell out of us. What right have they got to do this? And make no mistake, I’ve met a lot of German fighter pilots and you woulnd’t probably tell the difference between the two of us but the teutonic mind is that if he’s on top he’s a bastard. Make no mistake he is a [?] bastard. And that came to mind. As I say I’ve met some since the war [?] he’s just died. I met him at one or two reunions. I used to go to my old squadron reunions at [G] in Germany. They were flying Phantoms then and he was there. He was the same as I appear. But this strutting Swastika, it was when they were on top they were bastards. Hit him and hit him hard. Don’t stroke him. And he thought hold on a minute, there’s another angle to this. And the first time they had a setback was in the Battle of Britain. And don’t let anybody in the journalistic world tell you that we didn’t win the Battle of Britain because we bloody well did. It was a near run thing but we beat ‘em. And thereafter they started to go back.  I had a friend who survived being in a fighter squadron in France and he would see a 109 shooting up the refugees on a road. And they did, it’s no good saying they didn’t. And he said to me, I remember him coming back.. I think it was just before [?] he was killed shortly afterwards. I met him in London somewhere. We went to Shepherds which was a fighter pilots pub [Shepherds Market]. We’re having a drink. Poor chap. This was very early on, just after I’d joined the squadron. And he was very withdrawn and he said you know they are sods. And I’ve never forgotten the expression on his face. I think he survived and we were obviously involved in another three or five years of pretty total war.

We’d been two years ago a peaceful sort of country and here we were, you know…

James: Did you have a sense of what was going on with the war?

Yes. We realised that we had to win it because the whole country was very aware that we were going to be invaded. Now I have read by some journalist who wasn’t even alive at the time denied that we were ever going to be invaded. But we were. The channel ports were full of [?]. And we were the heroes because people were frightened. But yes we were aware.

James: You knew when you were getting two hours sleep that it had to be done?

Certainly you knew it had to be done. And that’s what you were paid 14 shillings a day for. You knew it was a pretty serious situation. But having said that, it never crossed our minds that we were ever going to lose.

James: Why not?

I don’t know. At the time one didn’t think. Thinking back on it, it was because you knew that you were containing them. I think. The first thing was well where do we start on this lot and then you’d see them, there they were, with bloody great cross on them. You’d think right you bastard, take that. I did anyway.

James: going back to life in Wales…

Rather peaceful. We were fairly well trained as far as we knew what the training entailed. We used to have lots of time off. Not days off, hours. We would go down, if we were released, 30 minutes available, half the squadron would go down and bathe on the beach which was lovely hard sand. We would be able to get down and have a swim, not to leave the camp.

James: Did you ever get leave?

Oh yes, you had leave as and when it was reasonable to do so. In fact fighter command decreed that we should try and have at least, I can’t remember, a day off a week per pilot. It might be a fortnight I don’t know. But it was encouraged to have a break.

James: Where were you living in Wales?

We were stationed, living in the station in the mess. It was a hutted camp. Quite comfortable. Room to ourselves. Oh no, hold on a minute, no. I shared a room with a chap called Wade, Wimpy Wade. Who was a brilliant pilot and later became the chief test pilot of Hawkers. He was killed flying not the prototype Hunter, a [?] wing aeroplane. He was killed then. I shared a room with him.

 James: What did you do in evening?

All the boys together. We used to create merry hell.

James: Asks about hierarchy within squadron, program last year re: sergeant schism

I have heard that and there was a very poor misguided fighter pilot. Frankly it upset me. It is not true. OK the fighter pilots had their own mess. It was the sergeants mess and the officers mess. We drank together, we lived together, we fought together. As for this rubbish. And you can quote this: that I have several times flown number two to a sergeant pilot and been delighted to do so because he was a very experienced charming chap and a very good pilot. But this program… said that officers would do that. Absolute nonsense and if any of those blokes who did that program want to come and confront a bloke they can come and do it to me. I wouldn’t stroke them either. I get so angry with these people.

James: Re: book “The Battle” by Richard Overy

Unfortunately the biggest manipulators are the Bashing of Britain Corporation: BBC. Some of their programs are terrible… A “Piece of Cake” was the same thing where an officer got told off for playing squash with a sergeant. That would never happen. There wasn’t any contention. What these ignorant people don’t understand was that the comradeship in a fighter squadron in 1940 was something that unless you were there you would never ever understand. You were flying your fighter as they were meant to be flown in the defence of the realm and twelve of you were defending the population of London I suppose. And had we not done what we were asked to do… OK if we didn’t do it that’s up to them to tell us. But we didn’t do too badly in that the Germans didn’t [?] us.  There’s a very good, I can recommend you a book on this that goes into this quite deeply. It’s by a chap called Wynn, a New Zealander, called the “Battle of Britain”… I will show you this book and it gives the claims and exactly how many were claimed by what and how the Germans claimed three times as much as we did. It tries to explain how it happened. When it wasn’t a big day with 150 plus coming in and everybody madly war dear chap and that sort of thing, claims were very accurate. In a smaller context. But Churchill got on to Dowding and Dowding said well if our claims are correct, if what we say is not correct, the Germans will be walking up the Mall in three weeks. We weren’t correct. We overclaimed by quite a lot. The Germans claimed 3000 of us shot down. In fact it was eight. That sort of thing. A long way out.

In terms of victories we didn’t shoot down five to one. We shot down about two to one. Two of them and one of us. And that was enough to make them go away. They got very close to it except for the stupidity of their leader. They changed their tactics defending London because we bombed Berlin.

James: Did you know about that at the time?

No. I don’t think anybody did. Except perhaps Dowding and Bomber Command.

James: Did you think that Park was a good guy?

Brilliant. Would have done anything for him. Park was wonderful. Absolutely wonderful. You had great faith in Park. He used to turn up in his Hurricane and have a chat. Never did to me but there we are. I was very upset when he and Dowding were pushed out by that other bastard Liegh Mallory [don’t quote me]. I was there with him. I was up in Malta. There was a nasty, well it’s not much because I had a breakdown in health there but I flew off an aircraft carrier at Malta.

James: Go back to Biggin Hill, 7 September

The Chips were down. It was madly war everywhere. The hangars were flat, bombs all over the place, broken aeroplanes. Yes, I sort of looked around and thought God this is total. But there parked along the side in their bays were brave little Spitfires with our squadron numbers on them. And so you got down to it.

 James: How did you get round the total exhaustion. Falling asleep as landing?

You wouldn’t do that, you’d hurt yourself. You just kept going. We used to be out every night at the White Hart. Many’s a time when you got back at one or two in the morning. Instead of going to bed I’d go straight down to dispersal and been there for dawn runs.

James: Sober?

Probably not. Um, not too bad. It took an awful lot, you got into a groove. I suppose really one could say one drunk fairly heavily in the evenings. You could get into your aeroplane but when you got down to dispersal if you had a heavy night and breathed it wasn’t allowed but you took straight oxygen and the doc, we had a doctor to each squadron and he used to have little pills. Whether it was legal, I don’t know but if he didn’t like the look of you he’d give you some of those.

James: You didn’t know what they were?

No. Then of-course you’d be off into the wide blue yonder and another day would begin.

James: How did you deal with death of colleagues?

Didn’t think about it. Totally resigned. Totally resigned. Accepted it. You mustn’t [think about it], you just dare not let yourself think about it. I mean, if you’re going to describe a sort of day, it started at half past four in the morning when something pushed at your shoulder and it was your batman waking you up. And you get up and think Oh God another dawn and you’d wander over to the mess and you’d think god its going to be a lovely day, no breeze to ruffle the hair, or anything like that, go into the mess and empty tankards, ashtrays full left over from the night before, magazines all over the place because it was early in the morning, the steward hadn’t cleared it. Go into the dining room and cup of tea and toast and then you’d [interrupted]… there you’d be munching this toast and looking around at everybody being quiet. There would be a screech of brakes outside, and then so OK here’s the tumble[?], any more for it, and that would take you down to Dispersal. It was a truck or van. You’d go and look on the order of battle and see where you were flying and sling your parachute over your shoulder and walk across to where your Spitfire was parked. You’d notice little things. Everything was quiet and still. No birds. And dew on your feet, that sort of thing. And then you’d get the silence would be broken by — you’d hear the odd clank of the spanner — and the sound I was referring to was “all right mate, all clear, contact” and an engine would start up to warm it up. Next thing you know there would be twelve Merlins shattering the serenity of the moment I suppose. And another day would begin.

James: Must have got used to battle, confident in Spitfire, but wake up call at Biggin Hill

You knew that, but the intensity of the Battle was incredible. Yes but you weren’t prepared for the intensity. It was very sort of … It was rough going.

James: were you frightened?

Terrified, yes. Until I got into the thing. Once you got airborne you were part and parcel of the aeroplane. At least you saw there were other aeroplanes with you. So you weren’t completely on your own. Oh but the waiting was… There used to be a little telephone orderly sitting at his table. He was the dimmest bloke in the squadron. Poor little fellow. And the telephone would go. And everybody… and it would be something like the naffy van’s going to be late because the battery’s flat or something. And you’d swear like hell. And it would go again and scramble base, [?] twenty, and off you’d go. And the moment you got out that door and ran to the aeroplane and the ground crew helped you into it and strapped you in and fussed over you, you felt better.

James: Was your heart thumping?

I wasn’t aware of that. I was just aware of sort of resignation really. And so it went on.

James: did you have any superstitions?

No, I had a mascot and if I didn’t fly with it I’d feel terrible and it was Eyore from Winnie the Pooh. I suppose she was a girlfriend in those days, I can’t remember. I married her in the end. He was about that high, this little Eyore and I used to sit him in the map case. Because you couldn’t bend down to get your map case, it was too far. You stuck your maps in your flying boot. And he was sitting in the map case and I’d take him out after every trip. Buy him a cup of tea at the Naafi. The Naafi used to come round in a van. Not sandwiches, there wasn’t any butter in those days. The odd chocolate bar. Normally mugs of hot sweet wet liquid that went under tea.

James: what did you do while waiting?

Try and sleep. I once saw a chap reading a book and it was upside down. You had so little sleep that you tended to try and rest. You didn’t sleep exactly but you had your feet up. They had sort of beds, these armchair things that you could lean back on it and your feed went down. We were spoiled actually. We got all these things. One was trying to relax. I think I must have fallen asleep. Occasionally I fell asleep. The telephone would have you going.

James: Did you wear the uniform, tie etc?

Oh no, God no. Preservation came into it. And half the problem was you had to look round. It was always the chap you did not see who shot you down. So you’re twisting round. If you had a collar and tie on it used chain you. So you had mufflers on. You wore a muffler but never a collar and tie.

Flight boots because they were fleece lined and it flew up at 30,000 and particularly during the Autumn, October/November, the bomber formations had stopped and the fighters were coming over, the 109s used to come over very high. Anywhere over [?]. Didn’t matter where.

James: Did you always wear your goggles?

No, I never did because they got in the way. I always wore them in case the hood was shot off and it got a bit breezy.

James: And gloves?

Yes always. You know if you’re at altitude, it got bloody cold up there. Nothing too tight. Gauntlets a bit tight for me. You’d lose the feeling in right hand. I used to use — we had silk inners. I just used to use silk. I used to go to my tailor and get some silk underwear too and then fly not too cumbered up. You had to be moving around the whole  time as much as you could in a cockpit. Because if you constricted your circulation you could be very uncomfortable. I’ve actually screamed coming down through, getting feeling back to my [?]. Oh yes, in 1941 we were the first squadron to get a thing called the Spit Five. Took our planes up to Rolls Royce. All RR did was get a bloody great supercharger and stuck it on the back and said OK you’ve now got a Spit Five because that’s no longer a Merlin 3 its a Merlin 45 and they would take us up to 40,000 feet in Winter and of-course we weren’t equipped for it. Once my glove dropped into the bottom of the cockpit and I couldn’t reach it. And my hand sort of went up to about here. I’ve never been in such agony. We dived away at the end of the patrol and as we got back to circulation, its murder. I thought, well the language was terrible!

James: About being hit. Did you always know you’d been hit?

Yes you heard it! I didn’t see the chap that hit me, the one that did it badly, I didn’t see him. But I did over three weeks then and I knew my way around a bit. Now quite often a chap was hit and he thought what’s that and went on straight and level and that was the end. You never saw him again. But immediately I knew I’d been hit [sound]. Panned away straight away. You didn’t wait. And I got away with it. I got very close to it [bailing out] coming back from [?] but the sea looked a bit rough and it was a hell of a long way down and I ended up at Hawkinge.

James: asks about bailing out

They’re not easy to get out of. You couldn’t open the hood of the Spitfire above 300 knots. Because it had a curve on the top. So you had a little crowbar on the side. No, the only tme when I was shot up badly I thought of it. Jolly lucky I didn’t because a couple of bullets had gone up through my parachute. The matrimonial prospects would have been very seriously jeopardised. And it must have gone under the dashboard  or something and the parachute was in tatters, not in tatters I’m exaggerating but when I got out of the thing the covering over the canopy, over the silk was shot and the silk was dropping out of it so it was just as well I didn’t head for the hills.

[begins to talk about swearing]

You didn’t say “that was a frightfully near miss old boy”, you said two words and the second one was that!

James: Did you go in for jargon?

Oh yes, the RAF was a law unto itself. Had jargon. Gin and all the rest of it. There’s a language. I can’t think of it now. Kite, being an aeroplane, Erk being the ground mechanic. They were the salt of the earth. Your spitfire wasn’t yours at all it was theirs. The fitter looked after the engine, the rigger looked after the fuselage and the rigging of it. You were their pilot. I have seen them looking out down to the south coast when nothing’s turned up. Particularly after the sweeps in 1941. Then they’d get a new aeroplane and a new pilot and they’d adapt.

James: you’re putting an awful lot of trust in them

Oh total. Absolutely total.

James: Did you ever have to turn back because of oil, overheating etc?

Once when the undercarriage didn’t retract. If it didn’t retract in a Spitfire you overheated. I had to take it back. As far as anything, that happened. It was hydraulics. And the flaps worked by air. If they didn’t work well then you landed without flaps which was like a bat out of hell. Generally speaking though, never turned back for an engine failure. Never missed a beat. One had complete faith in the Rolls Royce.  I can’t think of anything else that I can contribute. I suppose people say airborne five or six times a day. I think that is journalistic licence. In reality I would suppose you did three trips a day. Difficult to say. If you went off in a convoy patrol up to and hour and a half. If you went up on an interception which 90% of the time it was, 40 minutes to an hour.

James: Did you manage to get a hot bath?

Yes. We were very lucky because we went back to the fighter stations surrounding London: Biggin, Kenley, [?] were peacetime establishments and afterwards at least we weren’t sitting in a slip trench. We went back when we were released which was about half an hour after dusk, half an hour before dawn sort of time we had hot baths.

James: What was your routine after being released (summer)?

If you were lucky, about half past seven because if it had been a busy day they knew the Germans weren’t geared to coming over again. And if they were then the nightfighters would have a go. Hot bath, quick prayer, very quick, normally two words: “thank you”, a meal in the mess served in a civilized manner with stewards and then off to the White Hart at Brasted[?] (Kent). Or there was a place called Hildon Manor which was a sort of night club where there were hostesses would you believe. Pity I dind’t know what was going on, I was a bit young. There were some lovely ladies there. Not that I got a look in with them because I was a boy. They’d been through all the mature blokes I was with. Dreadful business.


james-hollandJames Holland is one the prime movers behind the Chalke Valley History Festival, and a prolific historian, novelist and broadcaster, with a particular interest in the Second World War. Both his two most recent books – one on the Battle of Britain, the other on the Dam Busters Raid – were made into documentaries for the BBC and were also bestsellers. He is currently making a new series for the BBC about Britain and the Jet Age. He is also the author of the Jack Tanner novels, a series of adventures following the exploits of a British soldier in the Second World War, and of Duty Calls, young adult novels.

You can follow James on twitter @James1940

St. Mildred’s, Isle of Wight

The following article by Bryan Beggs features two places, which are mentioned and illustrated in ENGLAND’S STORY, Bryan’s latest children’s book… to be launched at our festival on 25th June 2014, where Bryan will be speaking about his book during our Year 6 special day.


St Mildred's churchYachtsmen sailing down the River Medina estuary from Newport to Cowes will see this church quite clearly on their starboard side, when they are about three miles downstream. Ramblers, and those enjoying a pint on the foreshore at The Folly Inn, may have to walk a little farther on to notice it… but from whatever vantage-point, they will have to look to the east, where they will see, sharply defined on the skyline and just visible between the surrounding trees, the needle-like point of the steeple of a church. This is St. Mildred’s Whippingham, pricking the sky like a giant medieval lance.

The path from Newport on the east bank of the river turns inland at the inn and soon strikes diagonally upward across the steepening slope towards the church. One wonders if this was the route taken to the churchyard by those who carried the bodies of the eighty-four German soldiers of the State of Hesse, typhoid victims here in 1794 and possibly veterans of the War of American Independence,[soldiers of the British crown]. At this time the Hessians were part of the Island’s defences against the threat of Napoleonic invasion. One hundred and fourteen years later, the Duke of Hesse, grandson of Queen Victoria, erected a tablet to their memory beside the south door of this very special church.

Most visitors take the easier, sign-posted route down the sharply twisting lane from the main road to East Cowes… here is still the sign, now in modern ‘heritage brown’, that so intrigued me as a boy…. St. Mildred’s Royal Church 100 yards.  How often do I remember during those first visits to ‘The Island’, peering from the upper deck of a bus or through the car window to see this church… and failing… just 100 yards and invisible! I have to admit that fifty years came and went before at last… at long last, on one of those gentle days between the end of spring and the beginning of summer, my wife and I slowed the car and took the turning. I found it hard to believe that this was untrodden ground for us both. Of course it became immediately clear that the road-sign merely meant ‘100 yards to the turning to the church, which is another half-a-mile along the lane, down a gentle gradient. Why a Royal church, you may be wondering? The answer lies in more than its close proximity to Osborne House, the home of  Queen Victoria and her family , as I hope will become clear.

As with very many of our English churches, St. Mildred’s has Saxon origins. St. Mildred herself was a Saxon Princess who died about 700 AD, having been Abbess of three different abbeys in Kent. She was the great-grand-daughter of Bertha, the Christian wife of King Ethelbert of Kent, and it was he, who at his wife’s request received the Pope’s envoy, Augustine on his arrival in Kent in 597 AD. Nothing remains of the original Whippingham church except perhaps for a stone relief set into the south wall of the entrance porch; seemingly of two mounted soldiers jousting?

After the Norman Conquest, in 1066 the church and its lands were given by William I to  William FitzOsbern, thus it seems highly likely that this name was perpetuated in the more recent Osborne House and its estate of 1000 acres, which Queen Victoria and Prince Albert bought from Lady Elizabeth Blatchford in 1845. The facts we have, show that the original church on this site was demolished in 1804 and rebuilt by John Nash; famous for his work in the town of Bath. Queen Victoria decided that although the church was the most convenient for Osborne House, it was too small for the needs of her family, visitors and servants. The second rebuilding began with the chancel in 1854 and as with Osborne House itself, Prince Albert had a hand in the church’s design. Specialist architectural advice came from Albert Humbert, who later designed Sandringham House for the then Prince of Wales. The foundation stone for the remainder of the building was laid in 1860 by the Queen and Prince Consort together, and the whole edifice was completed by 1861.

St. Mildred’s is an excellent example of Victorian gothic design with a most effective ‘lantern’ tower, at the centre of which on the inside, is a replica of the Order of the Garter and above which on the outside, stands the fearsome lance-like steeple. This church is unique in that so many members of the Royal Family contributed to its decor and embellished it with their own talents. In particular the Queen’s fourth daughter, Princess Louise, later Duchess of Argyll, designed the font and worked its carpet surround with the help of her sister Beatrice and their ladies-in-waiting. She also made the beautiful four-foot high bronze figure of an angle lifting Christ from his cross, which used to be in the Battenberg Chapel… sadly this item was stolen in April 1966. The Battenberg Chapel which was once the north aisle of the chancel, was originally reserved for the use of the staff of the royal household. However when Prince Henry of Battenberg died in 1896, just eleven years after his marriage to Princess Beatrice in this church, it was the Queen’s wish that this memorial chapel should be created. The Queen herself made a small lace hassock for the chapel. The centre of the chapel is dominated by the marble sarcophagus of Prince Henry. It was not until 1945 that Princess Beatrice died [she was the youngest of Queen Victoria’s nine children] and was laid to rest with her husband. The chapel now commemorates other members of the Battenberg/Mountbatten family, but not Lord Mountbatten of Burma, whose tomb is in Romsey Abbey.

Bryan Beggs - St Mildred'sThe south aisle of the chancel was the place occupied by Queen Victoria and her family and her chair is still in its original position; the other chairs were removed at the behest of King Edward VII and the more formal pews installed. It is to that king and the rest of the Royal Family of the time that St Mildred’s church owes the supremely beautiful gift of the white marble reredos behind the altar. It was privately commissioned by them in memory of Queen Victoria, and depicts The Last Supper.

The church is cruciform in shape and therefore has two transepts; both have contemporary stained glass rose windows high up on their respective north and south walls, which are miniature versions of those to be found in the cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris.

In this ‘gem’ of a church, can be felt the love and pain of an entire Royal Family… the duty, the joy and the grief that is the common experience of us all. It remains as a statement of their faith and presents us today with an inspiration that transcends the commonplace, for all is harmony within these walls… and outside, the slender steeple both guards and guides us.


England's StoryBryan Beggs flew in the RAF for many years before becoming a civilian helicopter instructor. He was a councillor and then Mayor of the Borough of Test Valley.

He has written ten books, seven of them for children, all of which are sold in aid of various local charities. He will be speaking at the Schools Festival about his new book, ‘England’s Story’, which is a history of England for young minds from 55BC to 2013 and will be sold in aid of the Chalke Valley History Trust.

www.englandsstory.co.uk

He Dared the Undarable

A review of the book, Gabriele d’Annunzio: Poet, Seducer, and Preacher of War by Lucy Hughes-Hallett

David Gilmour - Gabriele D’AnnunzioOn a summer afternoon in Tuscany in the years of the belle epoque, a celebrated French courtesan alighted from a carriage to greet her host, the poet Gabriele d’Annunzio, and was astonished to behold “a frightful gnome with red-rimmed eyes and no eyelashes, no hair, greenish teeth, bad breath, [and] the manners of a mountebank.” Wondering how he could have acquired a reputation as a ladies’ man, Liane de Pougy resisted his advances, climbed back into the carriage, and declined a subsequent offer to revisit the poet’s villa.

To be fair to d’Annunzio, the lady’s response was unusual and indeed unfair. He may have been short and unhandsome, but gnomishness and mountebankery were accusations not made by other women. He was certainly a show-off and often a poseur, and he was a shameless self-publicist: as a teenager he had spiced up his reputation as a romantic poet by fooling a Florentine editor into thinking he had been thrown by his horse and died a tragic death. He was also a narcissist of the most fastidious kind.Yet many women were entranced by d’Annunzio’s energy and flamboyance, by his intellectual brilliance, and by his romanticism and amaranthine extravagance: he would arrange adulterous assignations in rooms hung in green damask; he would buy Persian carpets for his horses to lie down upon; he would visit a mistress in Capri and hang flowers made of Murano glass on all the shrubs in her garden. And above all—despite Mlle de Pougy’s reluctance to test it—his reputation as a sexual mesmerist was by all accounts well earned. He was the very opposite of the protagonist in Alberto Moravia’s L’amore coniugale (Conjugal Love) who is too tired to write his novel if he has had sex with his wife the night before. For d’Annunzio, as Lucy Hughes-Hallett observes in her wonderful biography, “sexual experience…fuelled his creative energy.”“Vivere scrivere”—“to live to write”—was one of his many mottoes, and his most intense and persistent experience of living was the adulterous love affair. His story contains a long procession of desperate women trying vainly to hold onto him. One of the most tragic was the great actress Eleonora Duse, who said before meeting him that she would “rather die in a corner than love such a soul as…that infernal d’Annunzio.” The subsequent eight years of their affair were a period of artistic creativity for the infernal and unfaithful one, but for Duse they were in the main a time of torment, a “terrible convulsion of body and soul.” According to a friend, she was so addicted to the sexual pleasure her lover gave her that “she couldn’t do without him…it was lamentable.”D’Annunzio was born in 1863 into the minor nobility of the Abruzzi, that most rugged of regions nicely described by Hughes-Hallett as “bounded by bald mountains, where bears and wolves still live, and in whose foothills walled towns perch on crags fluted like the underside of mushrooms.” It is the setting of many of d’Annunzio’s early tales and much of his poetry. In “I pastori” (“The Shepherds”), one of his most beautiful rural poems, he writes evocatively of the annual transhumance, the migration of the Abruzzi shepherds and their flocks from the mountain pastures of the Apennines down to the shores of the Adriatic:E vanno pel tratturo antico al piano,
quasi per un erbal fiume silente,
su le vestigia degli antichi padri.
O voce di colui che primamente
conosce il tremolar della marina!
They take the path their fathers’ fathers took,
the old drove-road, which bears them to the plain
as if upon a silent current of grass.
And oh the trembling sea, and the young swain
shouting at what he’s never seen before!1D’Annunzio was happy to be considered an abruzzese as long as he was not required to live in his native land. As a schoolboy in Tuscany, where people speak the purest Italian, he quickly discarded his regional accent, and as a renowned writer he rejected the gift of a house in the Abruzzi because, although he was bankrupt at the time, he could not bear to live in so philistine a backwater. He ended “I pastori” with the line “Ah perché non son io co’ miei pastori?” (“Ah, why am I not with my shepherds there?”), but the question is easy to answer. He preferred to be in Florence or Rome, in a place where he could make money and be famous and seduce sophisticated women.D’Annunzio’s influences were many and diverse. Nietzsche and Wagner had palpable effects, as did Thomas Carlyle, who revealed how heroic men could change the course of history. Walter Pater and his aesthetic creed were also prominent, as were the English Romantics. Shelley was venerated for his poetry and Byron for the way he lived his life, though there is little trace of either’s work in their admirer’s verse. The dramatist Romain Rolland might compare d’Annunzio to a pike, a poacher of other people’s ideas, and the philosopher Benedetto Croce might dismiss him as “a dilettante of sensations,” but there was more to him than superficiality and decadence, at least in his poetry.Poems such as “La pioggia nel pineto” (“Rain in the Pine Grove”) display an understanding of the natural world that is both sensuous and observant, conjuring a landscape in which he and his lady “immensi/noi siam nello spirito/silvestre,/d’arborea vita viventi;/e il tuo volto ebro/è molle di pioggia/come una foglia,/e le tue chiome/auliscono come/le chiare ginestre…” (“are huge inside the/sylvan spirit, alive with/tree life; and your drunken/face is softened by the rain/the way a leaf is, and/your hair is fragrant/like the brilliant broom…”).2 And he was a careful poet not merely of color but of specific shades of color. As Hughes-Hallett points out, his heroines don’t just wear gray but “the grey of ashes, of pigeon feathers, of pewter or a pale sky.”

By the age of thirty-one, d’Annunzio had written four fairly successful novels. Although his reputation has since faded—partly as a result of his association with fascism—we are often reminded that in his heyday he was admired by such younger writers as James Joyce and Marcel Proust. Like his French fan, he was seduced by the aristocracy of his capital city, and in his novel Il Piacere (Pleasure) he lamented the dimming of its cultural influence:

Beneath today’s gray democratic flood, which wretchedly submerges so many beautiful and rare things, that special class of ancient Italic nobility in which from generation to generation a certain family tradition of elect culture, elegance, and art was kept alive is also slowly disappearing.3Yet while d’Annunzio’s aristocrats are idle and decadent, intellectually sophisticated and emotionally atrophied, they are not, alas, Proustian: indeed they are very dull and unmemorable compared to the Baron de Charlus or the Duchesse de Guermantes. One female character looks like a portrait by Ghirlandaio, another resembles a high priestess painted by Alma-Tadema, while a third has both the “amber pallor” of a picture by Correggio and eyes that might have been imagined by Leonardo. Almost everything is described secondhand, whether flames that are seen through Shelley, a greyhound that is viewed through Rubens, or a beard that is reminiscent of Van Dyck. As for the Rome they inhabit, it is simply a city of street names. What a subject it might have been, half a generation after unification, with the Piedmontese king in the Quirinal, the pope immured in the Vatican, and a new nation emerging from the civil wars of the Risorgimento.

In his introduction to Pleasure, Alexander Stille quotes Pirandello’s view that one either has to live life or write it before observing that “this was a division d’Annunzio did not accept: he lived writing and wrote living, a dynamic and explosive combination that lasted for about twenty years, until his public life crowded out his writing.” Yet even when he was still writing—and he was a dramatist and librettist as well as a novelist and poet—he was too restless to confine himself to literature. At the end of the nineteenth century he entered parliament, but his time as a deputy was brief and strangely undistinguished. He was more attractive as a conservationist, campaigning for the preservation of his country’s artistic heritage and preventing the demolition of Lucca’s incomparable medieval walls.

D’Annunzio’s life outside literature suits his biographer, who is not a critic and whose primary intention is to depict the character and personality of her extraordinary subject. Her approach to her task is protean and impressionistic, sometimes pointillist, and generally impatient of conventional chronology. The second chapter consists of eighteen “sightings” of d’Annunzio between 1881 and 1937, while Part Two of the book (250 pages long) is divided into the “streams” of his life: decadence, eloquence, virility, and so on. His later public career perforce requires a stricter narrative, but Hughes-Hallett anticipates this with an early chapter on the crucial months in 1915 when d’Annunzio transformed himself from a stagey litterateur to a swaggering warmonger and thence to an improbable war hero.

At the outbreak of World War I d’Annunzio was fifty-one, bored, jaded, and living in France to escape his creditors in Italy. He was not of course the only European writer who needed war to cure his ennui: numerous contemporaries in other countries were in thrall to the “battle-god.” But in Italy the desire for conflict had a long history, rooted in the military failures of the Risorgimento, an era that had concluded with unification only because its enemy Austria had been defeated by the armies of Napoleon III in 1859 and of Bismarck in 1866. In 1914 Italian nationalists still hankered after military glory, “a baptism of blood,” despising their most successful politician, Giovanni Giolitti, because he had abandoned the project of making Italy great in favor of making it prosperous. Among them were the Futurists, a group of painters and intellectuals who worshiped speed and technology and who in 1909 had issued their notorious manifesto glorifying war as “the world’s only hygiene.”4 In 1911 they and their allies managed to bully Giolitti into invading Libya and, despite military failures in North Africa, their bellicosity was undiminished three years later when Europe was engulfed by its most convulsive conflict.

Italy was not directly involved in the diplomatic nightmare that followed the archduke’s assassination in Sarajevo. Since it had no enemies (except those it had chosen to make as a colonial power in Libya and the Red Sea region), it had no need to fight on either side in World War I, neither against its old supporters France and Britain, nor against the newer allies to which it had been tied by treaty for thirty-three years, Austria and Germany. Yet the nationalists could not bear to watch other people fighting without joining in, especially when a war against their Austrian friends might lead to the acquisition of new territories, not just Italian-speaking areas of the Hapsburg empire, but Slav-speaking and even German-speaking places as well.

gilmour_2-030614.jpg
Mary Evans Picture Library/Everett CollectionGabriele d’Annunzio, 1917

If the preservation of Lucca’s walls saw d’Annunzio at his most appealing, his rabble-rousing in the spring of 1915 displayed him at his worst. Of all the voices inciting crowds to demand conflict, his was the most eloquent and irresponsible. Repeatedly he denounced opponents of war as defeatists and traitors and even encouraged his listeners to kill them. Yet only hours after his ranting, he could regarb himself as a poet, “strolling,” in Hughes-Hallett’s words, “pensive and nostalgic…through the jasmine-scented Roman night, his appreciation of Rome’s multi-layered beauty that of a man of deep erudition.”

At the front he redeemed himself in his fashion. Despite his age he saw action with the army, the navy, and the air force, and his extraordinary exploits, which caused the loss of an eye and other injuries, included a dashing raid in a torpedo boat and flights to “bomb” Trento, Trieste, and Vienna with pamphlets written by himself. In moments of leisure he might linger over the zabaglione in Montin’s restaurant in Venice, but he was always ready to get up and make speeches to pilots or sappers or a crowd of mourners.

In 1917 the Italian commander in chief, General Luigi Cadorna, an obtuse man distrustful of clever subordinates, acted bewilderingly out of character by awarding him a squadron of bomber planes. During his offensives, d’Annunzio flew two sorties a day, getting wounded in the process and watching his colleagues being killed one after the other. Yet he was, predictably, in his element. War had brought him, as his biographer points out, manly fame and comradely love as well as adventure, purpose, and “the intoxication of living in constant deadly peril.” No wonder he was apprehensive when first he smelled “the stench of peace.”

Italy gained most of its war aims, including the cities of Trento and Trieste (acquisitions soon commemorated in the street names of almost every Italian city) as well as the German-speaking South Tyrol, which it renamed Alto Adige. But it did not achieve its ambitions in Dalmatia on the eastern shore of the Adriatic, which led d’Annunzio to condemn the postwar settlement as a “mutilated peace,” a phrase that encouraged many people to agree with him about the unfairness of the peace treaties and the perfidy of the wartime allies, whom he accused of trying to belittle Italy. A particular grievance was the fact that the Croatian city of Fiume (now Rijeka), which contained a substantial Italian bourgeoisie, was assigned to the nascent Yugoslavia.

D’Annunzio was no longer just an aesthete rhapsodizing over Fortuny gowns but a man of action who needed a stage on which to strut. One of his mottoes was “to dare the undarable,” and he put this one into practice by daring to capture Fiume for Italy. In September 1919 he placed himself at the head of a band of nationalists and adventurers (who echoed Garibaldi’s slogan “Rome or Death!” with cries of “Fiume or Death!”) and set off for the city. The Italian government ordered its army to prevent his entry, but the officers refused to obey, and the poseur in d’Annunzio delighted in playing the role of Napoleon when confronting his former subordinates after his escape from Elba in 1815: he even imitated the imperial gesture of baring his chest and telling the troops to shoot him. Unopposed, he entered the city, proclaimed from a palace balcony its annexation to Italy, and inaugurated what his opponents called an “operatic dictatorship” that lasted for more than a year.

At that moment d’Annunzio may have been the most popular man in Italy, his charisma and bravado providing a radiant contrast to the weakness of the government in Rome and the irresponsibility of the Socialist Party, which, although the largest grouping in parliament, refused to take part in the administration of the country. Many people saw him as a possible—and even desirable—dictator, and Hughes-Hallett wonders whether he might have gained power as Mussolini did three years later—simply by going to Rome and grabbing it.

Yet d’Annunzio hesitated, apparently waiting for an insurrection that the country was not yet ready for. In any case, although he might have been able to set off a revolution, would he have been capable of controlling it and turning it into a regime? Could a man unable to run his own household have governed such a complicated and disunited country? As even his supporters noted, d’Annunzio was bored by the chore of running Fiume, which he turned into a vulgar and hedonistic Ruritania known as the “Italian Regency of Carnaro.”

In June 1920 Giolitti returned to power for the final time, and ended the farce by sending troops to Fiume and forcing d’Annunzio to surrender. Yet the nationalists could claim a victory of sorts because the city remained a free port and, four years later, it was annexed anyway by Mussolini.

The socialist historian Gaetano Salvemini reflected the view of the left when he described d’Annunzio’s adventure as a source of dishonor and ridicule for Italy. Unfortunately, one observer who found it neither dishonorable nor ridiculous was the former socialist Benito Mussolini, who supported the escapade in the pages of the newspaper he then edited, Il popolo d’Italia. From Milan the journalist noted how the comandante (as d’Annunzio liked to style himself) manipulated crowds with speeches from a balcony, how he made use of gestures and salutes, how he stirred up audiences with oratorical crescendoes culminating in a peculiar cry, “Eia, Eia, Eia, Alalà!,” which he claimed was the battle yell of Achilles. Mussolini studied and absorbed these tactics, and years later he encouraged the writing of a biography of d’Annunzio to be called The John the Baptist of Fascism.

D’Annunzio may have been a precursor of the duce—at any rate in style—but he was not a true fascist: he was too independent, too anti-German, too much the epicurean and aesthete, and ultimately too intelligent. Soon after Mussolini became prime minister, he tactlessly told him that fascism had taken all its ideas from dannunzianesimo and invented nothing by itself. Yet that wasn’t quite accurate. Hughes-Hallett sums up the relationship between the two with the felicitous observation that “though d’Annunzio was not a fascist, fascism was d’Annunzian.”

In August 1921 Italo Balbo, the ablest of the fascist bosses, visited d’Annunzio and invited him to assume leadership of the “national forces” in place of Mussolini. But the aging writer dithered, the moment was lost, and fifteen months later the duce was installed as head of the government in Rome. Fascist friends of d’Annunzio implored him to endorse the new regime, whose “superb prophet” he had been, but he refused. Fascism’s “ideal for the world” may have been similar to his own, but it had already, he said, been “squandered and falsified.”

For her last chapter Hughes-Hallett reverts to her staccato technique, using the historic present as her tense as she picks moments in the progress of fascism and juxtaposes them with scenes from d’Annunzio’s retirement in his villa on the shores of Lake Garda. There are inevitably moments of both pathos and bathos in the years leading up to his death from a brain hemorrhage in 1938. While fascist squads are beating up the city of Genoa, d’Annunzio (newly ennobled as the Prince of Monte Nevoso—“snowy mountain”) is buying cufflinks and tiepins.

Yet his last years are lived in the requisite style, with a pack of huge dogs—Great Danes with d’Annunzian names such as Danski and Danzetta—with the forward half of a battleship in his garden firing salutes for his guests, and with his last mistress Luisa, a pianist “imprisoned by her senses” (like Duse) who is prepared to look after him, run his household, and share him with other women. At night she leaves a rose in the keyhole of her bedroom door when she wants him to visit.

All this is told with an empathy and craftsmanship that d’Annunzio would admire even if he might not appreciate every judgment. Although himself the least empathetic of men, he has attracted a biographer of rare sensibility who has set out not to condemn—“disapproval,” she writes, “is not an interesting response”—but to understand. The result is a magnificent and beautifully written book that makes readers feel they have really come to know d’Annunzio, his many faults, his fewer virtues, and his enormous talent for life.

  1. Translated by Geoffrey Brock in The FSG Book of Twentieth-Century Italian Poetry, edited by Geoffrey Brock (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2012). 
  2. Translated by Jonathan Galassi in The FSG Book of Twentieth-Century Italian Poetry. 
  3. Pleasure, translated by Lara Gochin Raffaelli, with an introduction by Alexander Stille (Penguin, 2013), p. 33. The previous English edition, published in 1898, had removed the sex scenes from a novel that is mainly about sex. 
  4. Even after the “hygiene” had taken 600,000 Italian lives in World War I, the Futurist leader Marinetti was calling for the abolition of pasta on the grounds that it encouraged pacifism. His credibility was, however, punctured when he himself was photographed munching his way through a bowl of spaghetti. 
© 1963-2014 NYREV, Inc. All rights reserved.

This article was first published in The New York Review of Books on 6 March 2014


david-gilmourDavid Gilmour is the author of several books including The Last Leopard, his prize-winning biography of Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, award-winning biographies of Curzon and Rudyard Kipling (The Long Recessional) and The Ruling Caste. His most recent book is The Pursuit of Italy: A History of a Land, its Regions and their Peoples.

Holiday Time Travel

For children as well as adults, a book can be a time machine, opening a door to faraway places and letting you take part in a thousand different adventures. My life was changed forever when, at the age of nineteen, I read Mary Renault’s masterpiece The Last of the Wine. This book sparked my lifelong obsession with history in general and the Classical world in particular.

Because I grew up in the ‘Mediterranean’ climate of California and had seen plenty of sword and sandal movies, I could easily visualise ancient Greece and Rome. But what if a book is set in a time which is simply too remote? Or what if your child has trouble conjuring up the pictures painted by words?

One way to give your child a frame of reference is to take them to a good documentary or historical film, but these aren’t always suitable for children. And a film can’t show you what the world smelled or tasted like. What can satisfy the five senses and more?

Travel.

MarrakeshTake your children to the Djemaa el Fna in Marrakech and you’ll give them a taste of life of a Roman forum: they’ll see metal smiths, snake charmers, acrobats and pavement dentists, just as they might have done in Roman times. Beggars, pushy shopkeepers, unwanted guides, unscrupulous innkeepers and overpriced food are also totally authentic to ancient Rome. If you are brave enough, you might even glimpse the biblical sight of a ram being slaughtered in front of a thorn bush as we did several years ago.

Passing the open door of a hamam (public bath house) in a Fes souk, I saw a boy shovelling sawdust into the furnace just as Roma bath-slaves would have fed a hypocaust. And a visit to the Cağaloğlu Hamam in Istanbul was the closest I’ll ever get to a day at the Roman Baths.

Attend a bullfight in Spain, and you will find all the ingredients of a day at a Roman amphitheatre. You have an opening procession, musicians playing in the stands, people waving of handkerchiefs to show approval, menials raking bloody sand between bouts, celebrity beast-fighters and merchants selling cushions, drinks and nuts. The Spanish bullring is a mini replicas of the ancient Roman amphitheatres, sometimes even down to the garlands they draped from awnings. Yes, it’s barbaric, but it’s a form of time-travel.

Chalke Valley History Festival - Napolionic Battle-59 If these overseas options seem too exotic, expensive or extreme, you can find something just as good right here in Britain. Take your children to a re-enactment event. Encourage them to watch the shows, visit the stalls, handle the artefacts, buy a souvenir, try on gear, test equipment, taste the food. Best of all, encourage your children to chat with these living historians. They know far more than academics about the past because they come the closest to living it. They are almost always enthusiastic, accessible and generous with their knowledge. I have learned so much from re-enactors. Without their devotion my understanding of my history-mystery books would be much thinner and drier.

Many re-enactments are held around the country, but one of the best is the Chalke Valley History Festival. I’m going this summer and I hope to see you and your children there for a few days of holiday time travel.


caroline-lawrenceCaroline Lawrence is the author of The Roman Mysteries, the children’s adventure stories set in Ancient Rome. They combine Caroline’s love of art history, ancient languages and travel and were made into a BBC children’s TV series. In 2009, she won the Classical Association Prize for ‘a significant contribution to the public understanding of Classics’. Caroline will be speaking at CVHF 2014 on Friday, 27th June about The Roman Mysteries.

Churchill: Finest Years, 1940-1945

Recording from Max Hasting’s talk, ‘Churchill: Finest Years. 1940-1945’ for CVHF, Sunday, 30th June 2013.

Max Hastings is one of the foremost chroniclers of the Second World War. Here he talks about Winston Churchill, our greatest war leader. Always forthright, Sir Max looks at the triumphs and the tragedies, the successes and the failures, whether it be the extraordinary rallying cry of 1940 or the impulsiveness that often drove a wedge between him and his generals and even Britain’s allies. He also touches on some of the lesser-known features of Churchill’s war leadership. This is an affectionate and vivid portrait, but also an unsparing one, in which he is willing to challenge some of the myths that surround our view of Britain’s wartime performance.

War Memorial

Recording from Clive Aslet’s talk, ‘War Memorial’ for CVHF, Sunday, 30th June 2013.

Who were the men and women whose names are immortalised on war memorials around the country? Where did they live, and how and why did they die? Such questions usually go unanswered, but in this talk Clive Aslet unravells the story of just one war memorial – that of Lydford, a village on Dartmoor – and tracing the stories of the twenty-two men and one woman who made the ultimate sacrifice. Lydford, of course, speaks for any village in Britain, but in this touching, poignant and moving talk, he shows how one small community produced many tales of endurance and bravery from otherwise ordinary people who, but for the war memorial, would be forgotten.

The Borgias

Recording from Sarah Dunant’s talk, ‘The Borgias’ for CVHF, Saturday, 29th June 2013.

Sarah Dunant is one of our most widely read and acclaimed historical novelists, gave a talk on the subject of her latest work: the Borgias. Possibly the most notorious family ever to have lived, the Borgias not only dominated the Papacy but also the Italian Renaissance world of the late15th and early 16th centuries. In this talk, Sarah Dunant shared her research and insights into this extraordinary family and not least offering new perspectives of that most beautiful but vilified women, Lucrezia Borgia. Rich in human drama, this was a thrilling insight into a world of deceit, murder and incest, recounted by one of our master storytellers.

Delphi – A History of the Centre of the World

Part 1: Some are born great

The oracle neither conceals, nor reveals, but indicates.
—Heraclitus in Plutarch, Moralia 404D

1: ORACLE

The appointed day had come. Having journeyed up the winding mountain paths to the sanctuary hidden within the folds of the Parnassian mountains, individuals from near and far, representatives from cities and states, dynasties and kingdoms across the Mediterranean had gathered in Apollo’s sanctuary. As dawn broke, the word spread that it would soon be known whether the god Apollo was willing to respond to their questions. Sunlight reflected off the temple’s marble frontage, the oracular priestess entered its inner sanctum, and the crowd of consultants moved forward, waiting their turn to know better what the gods had in store. The gods were considered all powerful, all controlling, and all knowing; their deci- sions, time and again, had proven to be final. The consultants had waited perhaps months, traveled perhaps thousands of miles. Now they waited patiently for their turn, each likely entering the home of the god with a great deal of trepidation as to what he might be told. Some left content. Others disappointed. Most thoughtful. With dusk, the god’s priestess fell silent. The crowds dispersed, heading to every corner of the ancient world, bringing with them the prophetic words of the oracle at Delphi.

Figure 1.1. Tondo of an Athenian red-figure cup c. 440–30 BC, found in Vulci, Etruria, showing Aegeus consulting Themis/the Pythia (© Bildarchiv Preussicher Kulturbesitz [Staatliche Museum, Berlin])

Figure 1.1. Tondo of an Athenian red-figure cup c. 440–30 BC, found in Vulci, Etruria, showing Aegeus consulting Themis/the Pythia (© Bildarchiv Preussicher Kulturbesitz [Staatliche Museum, Berlin])

Without doubt, what fascinates us most about Delphi are the stories surrounding its oracle and the women who, for centuries, acted as the priestesses and mouthpieces of the god Apollo at the center of a Delphic oracular consultation (see fig. 1.1). But just how did the oracle at Delphi work, and why did it work for the ancient Greek world for so long?

These are difficult questions to answer for two central reasons. First, because, incredibly for an institution so central to the Greek world for so long, there has survived no straightforward, complete account about exactly how a consultation with the oracle at Delphi took place, or about how the process of bestowing divine inspiration upon the Pythian priestess worked. Of the sources we have, those from the classical period (sixth through fourth centuries BC) treat the process of consultation as common knowledge, to the extent that it does not need explaining, and indeed the consultations at Delphi often act as shorthand for de- scriptions of other oracular sanctuaries (“it happens here just like at Del- phi . . .”). Many of the sources interested in discussing how the oracle worked in any detail are actually from Roman times (first century BC to fourth century AD), and thus at best can tell us only what the people in this later period thought (and often they offer conflicting stories) about a process that, as all of those writers agreed, was by then past its heyday. Also, while the archaeological evidence is of some use both in helping us understand the environment in which the consultation took place and in revealing possible scenarios about the process by which the Pythia was inspired during the classical, Hellenistic, and Roman periods, it comes up short in helping us understand the first centuries of the oracle’s existence (the late eighth and seventh centuries BC), during which the oracle was, according to the literary sources, astoundingly active.

The second difficulty surrounding the oracle is in analyzing the liter- ary evidence for what questions were put to her and the responses she gave.2 This is not only because many of the responses are recorded for us by ancient authors writing long after the response was supposedly ut- tered, and sometimes by those hostile to pagan religious practices, like the Christian writer Eusebius. And it is not only because these writers themselves often were relying on other sources for their information, with the result that even if two or more describe the same oracular con- sultation, their records of it are often different. It is also because these writers tend not to record oracular consultations as “straight” history, but rather employ these stories to perform a particular function within their own narratives.3 As a result, some scholars have sought to label as ahistorical nearly everything the oracle from Delphi is said to have pronounced before the fifth century BC. Others have thought it almost impossible to write a history of the Delphic oracle after the fourth cen- tury BC because of difficulties with the sources. Still others have tried to steer a middle path in a spectrum of more likely to less likely, albeit with the understanding, as the scholars Herbert Parke and Donald Wormell put it in their still-authoritative catalog of Delphic oracular responses in 1956, that “there are thus practically no oracles to which we can point with complete confidence in their authenticity.”

As several scholars have remarked, it is thus one of Delphi’s many iro- nies that the Pythian priestesses—the women central to a process that was supposed to give clarity to difficult decisions in the ancient world— have taken the secret of that process to their graves and left us instead with such an opaque view of this crucial ancient institution. In such a situation, the only option is to produce a fairly static snapshot of what we know was a changing oracular process at Delphi over its more than one thousand–year history; a snapshot that is both a compilation of sources from different times and places (with all the accompanying diffi- culties such an account brings) and one that inevitably takes a particular stance on a number of conflicting and unresolvable issues.

The oracle at Delphi was a priestess, known as the Pythia. We know relatively little about individual Pythias, or about how and why they were chosen.5 Most of our information comes from Plutarch, a Greek writing in the first century AD, who came from a city not far from Del- phi and served as one of the priests in the temple of Apollo (there was an oracular Pythian priestess at the temple of Apollo, but also priests— more on the latter later). The Pythia had to be a Delphian, and Plutarch tells us that in his day the woman was chosen from one of the “soundest and most respected families to be found in Delphi.” Yet this did not mean a noble family; in fact, Plutarch’s Pythia had “always led an ir- reproachable life, although, having been brought up in the homes of poor peasants, when she fulfils her prophetic role she does so quite artlessly and without any special knowledge or talent.”6 Once chosen, the Pythia served Apollo for life and committed herself to strenuous exercise and chastity. At some point in the oracle’s history, possibly by the fourth century BC and certainly by AD 100, she was given a house to live in, which was paid for by the sanctuary. Plutarch laments that while in previous centuries the sanctuary was so busy that they had to use three Pythias at any one time (two regular and one understudy), in his day one Pythia was enough to cope with the dwindling number of consultants.

Diodorus Siculus (Diodorus “of Sicily”), who lived in the first cen- tury BC, tells us that originally the woman picked had also to be a young virgin. But this changed with Echecrates of Thessaly, who, coming to consult the Pythia, fell in love with her, carried her off, and raped her; thus the Delphians decreed that in the future the Pythia should be a woman of fifty years or older, but that she should continue, as Pythia, to wear the dress of a maiden in memory of the original virgin prophetess. Thus, it is thought not uncommon for women to have been married and to have been mothers before being selected as the Pythia, and, as a result, withdrawing from husbands and families to perform their role.8

The Pythia was available for consultation only one day per month, thought to be the seventh day of each month because the seventh day of the month of Bysios—the beginning of spring (our March/April)— was considered Apollo’s birthday. Moreover, she was only available nine months of the year, since during the three winter months Apollo was considered absent from Delphi, and instead living with the Hyper- boreans (a mythical people who lived at the very edges of the world). During this time, Delphi may have been oracle-less but was not god-less; instead the god Dionysus was thought to rule the sanctuary.

Despite this rather narrow window of opportunity for consultation— only nine days per year—there has been much discussion of the availabil- ity (and, indeed, popularity) of alternative forms of divination on offer at Delphi. In particular, scholars have debated the existence of a “lot” oracle: a system whereby a sanctuary official, perhaps the Pythia, would perform a consultation using a set of randomized (“lottery”) objects, which would be “read” to give a response to a particular question.10 Such a system of alternative consultation may also have been supplemented by a “dice” oracle performed at the Corycian cave high above Delphi (see figs. 0.2, 1.2), which from the sixth century BC onward, was an increas- ingly popular cult location for the god Pan and the Muses, and a firmly linked part of the “Delphic” itinerary and landscape.11

On the nine days a year set aside for full oracular consultation, the day seems to have progressed as follows. The Pythia would head at dawn to bathe in the Castalian spring near the sanctuary (see fig. 0.2). Once purified, she would return to the sanctuary, probably accompanied by her retinue, and enter into the temple, where she would burn an offer- ing of laurel leaves and barley meal to Apollo, possibly accompanied by a spoken homage to all the local deities (akin to that dramatized in the opening scene of the ancient Greek tragedy Eumenides by the play- wright Aeschylus).12 Around the same time, however, the priests of the temple were responsible for verifying that even these rare days of con- sultation could go ahead. The procedure was to sprinkle cold water on a goat (which itself had to be pure and without defect), probably at the sacred hearth within the temple. If the goat shuddered, it indicated that Apollo was happy to be consulted. The goat would then be sacrificed on the great altar to Apollo outside the temple as a sign to all that the day was auspicious and the consultation would go ahead.

Screen Shot 2014-03-17 at 21.48.15

Figure 1.2. The Corycian cave from the outside (top) and inside (bottom), high above Delphi on a plateau of the Parnassian mountains (© Michael Scott)

Figure 1.2. The Corycian cave from the outside (top) and inside (bottom), high above Delphi on a plateau of the Parnassian mountains (© Michael Scott)

The consultants, who would have had to arrive probably some days before the appointed consultation day, would now play their part. They first had to purify themselves with water from the springs of Delphi. Next, they had to organize themselves according to the strict rules governing the order of consultation. Local Delphians always had first rights of audience. What followed them was a system of queuing that prioritized first Greeks whose city or tribe was part of Delphi’s supreme governing council (called the Amphictyony), then all other Greeks, and finally non-Greeks. But within each “section” (e.g., Am- phictyonic Greeks), there was also a way to skip to the front, a system known as promanteia. Promanteia, the right “to consult the oracle [manteion] before [pro] others,” could be awarded to individuals or cities by the city of Delphi as an expression of the close relationship between them or as thanks for particular actions. Most famously, the island of Chios was awarded promanteia following its dedication of a new giant altar in the Apollo sanctuary (see fig. 1.3), on which they later inscribed, in a rather public way given that the queue very likely went past their altar, the fact that they had been awarded promanteia. If there were several consultants with promanteia within a particular section, their order was decided by lot, as was the order for everyone else within a particular section.

Figure 1.3. A reconstruction of the temple terrace, the area in front of the temple of Apollo in the Apollo sanctuary of Delphi, with main structures marked (© Michael Scott) 1 Delphi charioteer. 2 Fourth century BC column with omphalos and tripod. 3 Stoa of Attalus. 4 Apollo temple. 5 Athenian palm tree dedication. 6 Statue and columns of Sicilian rulers. 7 Column and statue of Aemilius Paullus. 8 Altar of Chians. 9 Salamis Apollo. 10 Rhodian statue of Helios. 11 Statues of Attalus II and Eumenes II of Pergamon. 12 Direction of approach for those coming from lower half of Apollo sanctuary. 13 Plataean serpent column.

Figure 1.3. A reconstruction of the temple terrace, the area in front of the temple of Apollo in the Apollo sanctuary of Delphi, with main structures marked
(© Michael Scott) 1 Delphi charioteer. 2 Fourth century BC column with omphalos and tripod. 3 Stoa of Attalus. 4 Apollo temple. 5 Athenian palm tree dedication. 6 Statue and columns of Sicilian rulers. 7 Column and statue of Aemilius Paullus. 8 Altar of Chians. 9 Salamis Apollo. 10 Rhodian statue of Helios. 11 Statues of Attalus II and Eumenes II of Pergamon. 12 Direction of approach for those coming from lower half of Apollo sanctuary. 13 Plataean serpent column.

Once the order was decided, the money had to be paid. Each con- sultant had to offer the pelanos, literally a small sacrificial cake that was burned on the altar, but that they had to buy from the Delphians for an additional amount (the “price” of consultation, and the source of a reg- ular and bountiful income for Delphi). We don’t know a lot about the prices charged, except that they varied. One inscription, which has sur- vived to us, recounts an agreement between Delphi and Phaselis, a city in Asia Minor, in 402 BC. The price for a “state” inquiry (i.e., by the city) was seven Aeginetan drachmas and two obols. The price for a “private” inquiry by individual Phaselites was four obols.15 The interesting points here are not only the difference in price for official and personal busi- ness (ten times more for official business), but also that such individual agreements could be made (the thinking being perhaps that the cost was related to city wealth, and richer cities like Athens should pay more). But it’s clear that, even at the cheaper end, the price would ensure that thought was given to the necessity of consultation. The price for an in- dividual Phaselite to consult the oracle was the equivalent of about two days pay for an Athenian juryman in the fifth century BC, so combined with the costs of return travel to Delphi, and loss of income while away, this was a real investment. Another inscription, from 370 BC, between Sciathus, an island in the Aegean, and Delphi, records a lower cost: only two drachma for a state inquiry and one sixth of that for a private one. But we don’t know for sure whether this was a difference in agreement between Delphi and Phaselis and Delphi and Sciathus, or whether Del- phi had dropped its prices in the fourth century BC (as scholars who argue for the decline of the popularity of the oracle in this period like to think).16 As well, some people were awarded the honor of not paying at all. King Croesus of Lydia in Asia Minor was one of these, but so were the Asclepiads (the worshipers of the healing god Asclepius) from the island of Cos in later times.17

All this would take time, and consultants would be obliged to wait for long periods (the surviving inscriptions speak of a chresmographe- ion—a sort of shelter built against the north retaining wall of the tem- ple terrace—as their “waiting area” in the shade). When it was his turn, however, the consultant would enter the temple, where he (no women except the Pythia were allowed into the inner part of the temple) was required to perform another sacrifice on the inner hearth. If not a Del- phian, he had to be accompanied in this process by a Delphian who acted as proxenos, the “local representative.”18 The sacrifice, often of an animal (which the consultant would also pay for), was burned, part of- fered to the gods, part given to the Delphians, and part used “for the knife” (meaning most probably that it was given as a tip to the man actu- ally conducting the sacrifice).19 Once this was completed, the consultant moved forward to where the Pythia was waiting and was encouraged by the priests of the temple to “think pure thoughts and speak well-omened words,” and finally the consultation could begin.

It is at this point that the sources become even more difficult to rec- oncile. The first difficulty is over the arrangement of the inner sanctum of the temple. The Pythia was said to prophesize from the adyton, a spe- cial restricted access area within the temple. Several different sources tell us the adyton was a fairly packed environment, containing the omphalos (the stone representing the center of the world), two statues of Apollo (one in wood and one in gold), Apollo’s lyre and sacred armor, the tomb of Dionysus (although this may have also been the omphalos), as well as the Pythia sitting on her tripod alongside a laurel tree.21 But scholars have bitterly disputed where and how this adyton was situated within the temple, some arguing it was sunk into the floor at the back of the cella (the main part), others that it was a completely underground space, and others that it was simply part of the inner cella.22 The initial excava- tions of the temple found no obvious architectural evidence for such a sunken space, although the latest plan of the (fourth century BC) temple now shows a square room walled off within the cella, which may or may not have been the adyton (see fig. 1.4).

Where did the consultant stand? The issue becomes even more dif- ficult. The famous vase painting of the Pythia on her tripod facing a consultant has traditionally been interpreted as demonstrating that the consultant was in the room, facing the Pythia, delivering his question di- rectly to her and thus hearing her response directly as well (fig. 1.1).24 But Herodotus and Plutarch also indicate that there was some sort of other structure within the cella of the temple in which the inquirers sat at the moment of consultation. This room, named the megaron by Herodotus (7.140) and the oikos by Plutarch (Mor. 437C), has not been identified archaeologically.

Who else was present? Again the sources give us an unclear answer. We know that there were the priests of the temple of Apollo, who had conducted the ceremony involving the goat.25

Figure 1.4. The latest plan of the fourth century BC temple of Apollo in the Apollo sanctuary at Delphi, indicating the possible location of the adyton where consultations took place (© EFA [Amandry and Hansen FD II Temple du IVième siècle fig. 18.19])

Figure 1.4. The latest plan of the fourth century BC temple of Apollo in the Apollo sanctuary at Delphi, indicating the possible location of the adyton where consultations took place (© EFA [Amandry and Hansen FD II Temple du IVième siècle fig. 18.19]

 Yet the sources also mention individuals named prophetes, and, in later sources, individuals called hosioi, as well as a group of women who were in charge of keep- ing the flame burning on the (laurel-wood-only) inner sacred hearth.26 Part of the problem in understanding this collection of people and their roles is that the terms may overlap (e.g., “prophetes” is used in literature but not recorded as an actual title in Delphic inscriptions), and that the numbers as well as groups of people present changed over time.27 If, as Plutarch says, the consultants stayed in a separate room, then the likelihood is their question was given orally, or in writing, to one of the priests of Apollo, who, in later times perhaps along with the hosioi, accompanied the Pythia into the adyton and put the question to her. Did they write down/ interpret/ versify/make up her response? None of the ancient sources give us a clear answer, although it does seem to have been possible for the consultant not only to have (at least partially) heard the Pythia’s response while sitting in a separate room, but also to receive either an oral or written form of the response in turn from the priests.28 But just what role the priests had in forming that response depends on what kind of response we understand the Pythia to have given, which, in turn, depends on just how we understand her to have been “inspired.”

No issue has been more hotly debated than the process by which the Pythia was inspired to give her response. First, the ancient sources. Before the fourth century BC, there is no source that discusses how the Pythia was inspired, but all say that she sat on her tripod, from which she uttered “boai” “cries/songs” (e.g., Eur. Ion 91). From the fourth century BC, some sources mention her shaking a laurel branch, but perhaps as a gesture of purification rather than of inspiration.29 We have to wait until Diodorus Siculus in the first century BC for the first mention of a “chasm” below the Pythia.30 Some subsequent writers agree with this, but others de- scribe it is a space she physically descends into and prophesizes from.31 In Diodorus’s narrative, it was this chasm, and the powerful vapor that emerged from it, that led to the initial discovery and installation of an oracle at Delphi. He recounts the story of how a goatherd noticed that his goats, approaching a particular hole on the mountainside, started to shriek and leap around. Goatherds began to do the same when they ap- proached, and also began to prophesize. The news of the spot spread and many people started leaping into the hole, so “to eliminate the danger, the locals appointed one woman as prophetess for all. They built her an apparatus [the tripod] on which she could be safe during her trances.”32

Plutarch, in the first century AD, mentions the pneuma (translated as “wind,” “air,” “breeze,” “breath,” or “inspiration”), and that occasionally the oikos was filled with a “delightful fragrance” as a result of the pneuma, but he does not describe its exact nature. Instead he relays a long-running argument among his friends about why the oracle is less active now than it was in the past. The arguments include less pneuma; the moral degen- eration of mankind leading to its abandonment by the gods; the depop- ulation of Greece and the departure of the daimones (spirits) responsible for divination. But Plutarch also insists that the Pythia did not at any point rant or rave. Instead, he comments that, after a consultation session, the Pythia “feels calm and peaceful.” In fact, the only time the Pythia is said to have sounded odd was on the occasion when the entire process of consultation had been forced (the goat was deluged in cold water to ensure that it shivered to provide the right signs for the consultation to go ahead). The result was that the Pythia’s voice sounded odd. “It was at once plain from the harshness of her voice that she was not responding properly; she was like a labouring ship and was filled with a mighty and baleful spirit,” which suggests that, in normal circumstances, the Pythia responded in a normal-sounding voice and manner.33

Strabo, a geographer of the ancient world writing in the first century AD, represents the Pythia as sitting on the tripod, receiving the pneuma, speaking oracles in both prose and verse. Another writer, Lucan, how- ever, still in the first century AD, gives a very different impression of the Pythia, in which the her body is taken over by the god through the inha- lation of the vapor, and she raves as a result. In the writings of Pausanias, a Greek travel writer from the second century AD, the Pythia also drinks from the Cassotis spring (the one that runs by and under the temple at Delphi) for inspiration. In the writings of Lucian, a rhetorician from the second century AD, the Pythia chews laurel leaves for inspiration and drinks not from the Cassotis, but from the Castalian spring. In the Chrisitian writers, for example John Crysostom, the picture focuses again on the effects of the pneuma: the Pythia’s “madness” is caused by the “evil” pneuma rising upward from beneath her, entering through her genitals as she sits on the tripod.34

Thus the most well-known modern picture of a Pythia, inspired/sent “mad” by breathing in/being taken over by “vapors” from a chasm below the tripod, and giving as a result raving and insensible answers (which then have to be made sense of by the priests around her) is a compos- ite one, from mostly late Roman and indeed several anti-pagan sources. Scholars have long pointed out that in particular the Roman assump- tion of the Pythia’s madness, and search for an explanation for it (via the chasm and its vapors), could well have emerged from the mistransla- tion of Plato’s description of her divine inspiration as mania (linked in Greek to mantike—“divination”), which became the Latin insania (“in- sanity”). To a Roman audience, used to divination carried out through a series of taught, more scientific “arts” (e.g., the reading of livers from sacrificed animals), understanding her mania, her madness, as a result of intoxication by gas from a subterranean chasm rendered the Delphic oracular process “intelligible and satisfying.”35

Yet despite this understanding of the raving Pythia as a consequence of cultural mistranslation and subsequent elaboration, and despite the fact that no source mentions it before the first century BC, the picture of the Pythia breathing in vapors from a chasm below her tripod has always been the dominant model for understanding how the oracle at Delphi func- tioned. To such an extent that finding the mechanism of the vapors was originally regarded as the litmus test for successful archaeological investi- gation at Delphi. The original excavators of the site were extremely disap- pointed not to find a chasm below the temple—they felt almost cheated by the “deception” of the literary sources.36 The stakes were understand- ably high: at the time of Delphi’s excavation in the 1890s, interest in the oracle, and in psychic research more generally, could not have been stron- ger. In 1891 the burlesque opera Apollo, or The Oracle at Delphi played to great acclaim on Broadway. In the same year, John Collier painted his famous Priestess of Delphi in which a sensual priestess breathes in vapors from her tripod over a chasm (see plate 4), and the Society of Psychical Research was started by Cambridge academics and published its first vol- ume examining the oracle at Delphi. In the wake of the disappointing excavations, thus, there was a feeling that the ancient sources had lied. The scholar A. P. Oppé in 1904 in the Journal of Hellenic Studies argued that the entire practice at Delphi was a farce, a sham, put on by the priests of Apollo, tricking the ancient world.37 Others sought different explanations for the Pythia’s madness: they focused on the laurel leaves, and suggested the Pythia had been high from eating laurel. One German scholar, Profes- sor Oesterreich, even ate laurel leaves to test the theory, remarking disap- pointedly that he felt no different.38 Others opined that the answer relied not in some form of drug, but in psychology. Herbert Parke and Donald Wormell argued in the 1950s that the Pythia, in the heat of the moment after so much preparation on the particular day of consultation, and after so many years perhaps involved with the temple as one of the women guarding the sacred flame, would have found herself in an emotionally intense relationship with the god, and could easily have fallen victim to self-induced hypnosis.39 More recently, scholars have employed a series of anthropological approaches to understand belief in spirit possession, and applied these to how the Pythia may have functioned.40

The chasm idea, however, was hard to forget. The Rev. T. Dempsey in the early twentieth century argued that perhaps, just as Plutarch had sug- gested the oracle worked less in his day thanks to less pneuma, the chasm had, in modern times, completely closed up.41 Others sought even more ingenious explanations for how the vapors had been created without a chasm, including one in which the Pythia herself descended to a room below her tripod to light a fire that produced the smoke (possibly from the hemp plant) she then breathed in, as if it were vapors from the god.42 This explanation, coupled with the analysis of a particular stone block filled with mysterious holes and grooves, thought to be that on which the tripod and omphalos were positioned and through which the vapors arose (still on view at Delphi but now recognized as a stone later recut as an olive press), crystallized the sense that the ancients had “bought” a hoax for more than a thousand years at Delphi.43

More recently, the debate over the presence of inspiring vapors at Delphi has re-emerged, thanks to a reassessment of Delphi’s geology.44 Analysis by the geologist Jelle De Boer and the archaeologist John Hale through the 1980s and 1990s led, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, to their publishing evidence for two major geological fault lines crossing at Delphi (one running east-west, the other north-south) di- rectly underneath the temple of Apollo (see plates 1, 2; figs. 0.1, 0.2). At the same time, they argued that the bedrock beneath the temple was fissured, which would allow for small amounts of gas to rise up through the rock, despite the absence of a chasm. This gas originated from the bituminous (full of hydrocarbons) limestone naturally occurring in this area, which would have been stimulated to release its gas by shifts in the active fault lines beneath. Testing both the travertine (itself a product found only in active fault areas) and the water beneath the temple at Delphi, they found ethane, methane, and ethylene, which had been used as an anaesthesia in the 1920s, thanks to its ability to produce a pleas- ant, disembodied, trancelike state. They postulated that the geology of Delphi could thus have produced enough of these potent gases to, within an enclosed space like the adyton, put the Pythia into a trancelike state.45 The ancients may not have been lying after all.

This research created huge excitement in public and academic circles, but in reality, while fascinating, it still did not really solve the problem. Even if intoxicating gases were produced in the temple at Delphi, and these gases did “inspire” the Pythia (despite that none of the sources before the first century BC point to this as the method of inspiration), how did the answers she gave, even if massaged and shaped by the priests of Apollo, remain suit- able, useful, right enough for the oracle to continue as a valid institution for over one thousand years? Or as Simon Price, a scholar with a reputation for pushing straight to the heart of a problem, put it: “Why was it that the sane, rational Greeks wanted to hear the rantings of an old woman up in the hills of central Greece?”46 To understand this, we must put the process of oracular consultation at Delphi in its wider religious context, and think more carefully about the way in which the oracle was perceived.

Oracles were an essential, and respected, part of the Greek world. They were also everywhere you looked. Scholarship has demonstrated the vast array of oracular sanctuaries on offer, which varied from the Py- thian priestess at Delphi to the consultation of the rustling of leaves of Zeus’s sacred tree at Dodona in northern Greece, to consultation with spirits of the dead, like at Heracleia Pontice on the Black Sea (see map 1).47 Sometimes even the same god could have very different forms of oracular consultation at his different sanctuaries: so while Apollo Pythios (as Apollo was worshiped at Delphi) had the Pythia at Delphi, at the sanctuary of Apollo Pythaios in Argos, his priestess took part in noctur- nal sacrifices and drank the blood of the sacrificial victims as part of her inspiration to prophesize.48 But this form of divination (putting a ques- tion to a god through a priestly representative) was also just one of the forms of divination available in ancient Greece. Another was the read- ing of signs from particular natural events and actions and interpreting them in relation to a particular question. Just about everything could be read: the flight of birds (although not the movement of fish), patterns of words, sneezing, entrails, fire, vegetables, ripples on water, reflections in mirrors, trees, atmospheric phenomena, stars, as well as randomized dice, beans and other forms of “lot” oracle. In addition, there was a host of wandering chresmologoi or manteis (“oracle-tellers” or “seers”) who could be engaged on the street in any major Greek city for consultations, which could be conducted in a variety of ways, from the reading of appropriate oracle responses in books of oracles to connecting with dead spirits.49

Key here is that the Greek world was filled with a “constant hum” of divine communication.50 It was a system used by all levels of Greek soci- ety, and as well, it was a system in which everyone had their “preferred” form of communication, which could alter depending on the type and importance of the question to be asked. The Athenian general Nicias in the fifth century BC had his own personal seer as did many other mil- itary commanders. In the sixth century BC, Peisistratus, the Athenian tyrant, never consulted Delphi, but liked using chresmologoi. Alexan- der the Great in the fourth century BC liked his manteis to come from Asia Minor. Such seers could be incredibly well respected: Lampon was a seer in the fifth century BC but also a friend of the famous general and statesman Pericles and responsible for the foundation of Thurii in South Italy. Nicias’s chief seer, Stilbides, was also one of his top soldiers.

The importance of divination does not mean, however, that the oracu- lar system was never mocked in Greek culture. The consultation of oracles was lampooned in Greek comedy: in Aristophanes’ Knights and Birds, for example, oracle sellers are figures of fun. The strength of their connec- tion with the divine too could be questioned. Euripides, in a fragment of an otherwise lost play (Frag. 973N), wrote “the best seer is the one who guessed right.” Sometimes too their usefulness could be questioned. Xe- nophon, in the fourth century BC, argued that divination became useful only when human capacity ended.51 We shall see in the coming chapters instances wherein even the oracle of Apollo at Delphi was said to have been bribed and to have become biased, or was treated with circumspec- tion by even its most loyal consultants. But all these instances represent an aberration from the norm, an aberration that did not in the long term shake belief in the system as a whole, a system that continued to speak of divination as a useful and real connection to the gods.

It is difficult for us to understand this kind of mindset today. In the 1930s, the anthropologist Sir Edward Evans-Pritchard tried to under- stand the Greeks’ acceptance of oracles by observing the Azande com- munity in Central Africa, who used a form of poison-chicken oracle to resolve disputes and make difficult community, as well as individual, de- cisions. His research showed that within the framework of a particular culture and life in which everyone agreed that the poison-chicken oracle was a proper and respected way to choose a solution, it was as good a means as any to help run a community.52 But where does this leave us with the Pythia? On the one hand, we have to imagine ourselves into a society in which oracular connection with the divine was a commonly accepted cultural activity into a world that was believed to be controlled by the gods. Those gods could be for you or against you, and so it made sense to make every effort not only to appease them with offerings, but to use a variety of methods of divination to find out what they had in mind for the future. At the same time, the gathering of tradition about the power and importance of an oracle like the Pythia at Delphi, cou- pled with the prolonged rituals encountered before the consultation, would have helped to ensure belief in the process and its outcome. This does not mean people had to know exactly how the Pythia connected with the god: even Plutarch, himself (as indicated above) a priest at Delphi in the first century AD, was content to relate the argument and debate among his friends, who each had their own ideas about how the inspiration took place and why it happened less frequently in their time. Key is that—however it happened—there was a belief in a connection between the divine and human world through the Pythia.

At the same time, a number of other factors must be taken into con- sideration to understand how the Pythia retained her reputation for over one thousand years. The first is the kind of information sought from the Pythia. The questioning of the Pythia in the sixth century BC by King Croesus of Lydia in Asia Minor is often thought, because it is so well known, to be typical of how consultants put their questions to the oracle. But one of the things Herodotus, our major source for this encounter, is likely indicating is that Croesus’s encounter with Delphi shows how little this “non-Greek” understood about Greek culture. As we shall see in later chapters, Croesus’s direct question to oracles all around the Mediterranean in order to find out which was the “best” (the “what am I doing at this moment?” question) was, in fact, a very unusual type of question to ask an oracle. Not because it was a test of present knowledge, but because it involved such a direct request for informa- tion. Very rarely, it seems, did consultants ask the oracle direct questions about the future (so Croesus’s second question about whether he would win the war against King Cyrus of Persia was again an odd form of ques- tion).53 Instead, most questions put to the oracle seem to have been in the form of “would it be better and more profitable for me to do X or Y?” or else, “to which god shall I pray before I do X?”54 This is to say, consultants presented problems to the Pythia in the form of options, or rather sought guidance for how their goals might come about, rather than asking directly what would happen in the future.

Such a process, focused around guidance rather than revelation, un- derlines the kind of occasions on which people chose to consult the oracle at Delphi, particularly instances in which individuals, or a com- munity, were having trouble reaching a consensus over which of a par- ticular set of potential actions to take. It is this usefulness of an oracle at moments of community indecision that has been, as we shall explore in the following chapters, thought critical in turning the Delphic oracle into such a well-known and important institution in the Greek world in the late eighth and seventh centuries BC, the period that bore witness to the tectonic forces of community creation that laid the bedrock for the landscape of the classical world.

Second to be considered is the question of the Pythia’s response. Scholars have long remarked on the perfect hexameter verse responses reported in the literary sources as coming straight from the Pythia. There has been substantial doubt cast over her ability to utter directly such po- etry, and instead scholars have pointed the finger at her priests as the ones who constructed the responses. At the same time, scholars have pointed to Delphi as a developing “information center,” since it was one of the few places in the ancient world people were going to from all over on a regular basis, and bringing with them information about their home- lands. As a result, a picture has formed of priests who were “plugged in” to the information “hub” at Delphi and thus able to give better-informed guesses about which options were better and outcomes more likely (and have more ability to put those responses into verse). I have some sympa- thy with elements of this picture: no doubt Delphi was, especially in the sixth through fourth centuries BC, something of an information center. We can only imagine the exchange of information going on during the nine days of the year that consultants from all over the Greek world could turn up (not to mention the days either side they had to wait, or at the Pythian games, or while constructing monuments or while visiting the sanctuary to see it in all its splendor), and the degree to which this infor- mation fed back into the consultation system. But at the same time, this can only at best explain the success of Delphi once it had become a suc- cess. When Delphi’s oracle first began to be consulted, there was precious little more information going to Delphi than elsewhere.

More fundamental in understanding the Pythia’s success from the out- set is the in-built ambiguity of her responses, in part as a direct result of the nature of the questions asked. As we saw above, questions normally came in the form of “is it better and more profitable that I do X or Y” or “which gods should I pray to before I do X.” As a result, if the Pythia replied “do X” or “it is better and more profitable to do X,” and X proved disastrous, people would still never know how bad option Y might have been in comparison. As well, even if the oracle replied telling you to pray to a particular god, this indicated only a prerequisite action to ensure a chance of success; it did not guarantee a good result: praying to a god came with the understanding that there was no guarantee the god would listen in return. The comparative form of the question, and the unequal nature of the relationship between human and divine, ensured that it was impossible for the oracle to be categorically wrong in its response.

Sometimes that ambiguity seems to have been taken a step further in the form of a more complex answer, which in turn demanded a process of further interpretation from the consultant. King Croesus’s inappropri- ate question about waging war, for example, received a very ambiguous Delphic answer: “Croesus, having crossed the river Halys, will destroy a great empire.” The response doesn’t make clear whether it will be Croe- sus’s empire or that of his enemies. In Herodotus’s narrative, Croesus took it to mean his enemies’, but it turned out to be his own (Croesus lost his kingdom as a result of losing the battle). Once again, the oracle, thanks to the ambiguity of the response could not be argued to have been wrong: it was Croesus who had chosen to misinterpret the Pythia’s response.55

Plutarch, in the first century AD, commented on this well-known am- biguity in oracular responses of the past, noting that, in his day, responses tended to be more direct, but that in olden times, ambiguous replies were necessary because they protected the Pythia from the powerful people who came to consult her: “Apollo, though not prepared to conceal the truth, manifests it in roundabout ways: by clothing it in poetic form he rids it of what is harsh or offensive, as one does with brilliant light by re- flecting it and thus splitting it into several rays.”56 Not for nothing was the god Apollo often known as Apollo Loxias, Apollo “the ambiguous one.”

Moreover, and crucially, an ambiguous response demanded further debate and deliberation from the consultant and his city. What often began as an issue the community could not decide on, was referred to the Delphic oracle for further enlightenment, and was thus often sent back to the community for continued deliberation about the problem, but with the fresh information/indication and momentum toward mak- ing a decision in the form of the god’s response. As classicist Sarah I. Johnston puts it, consulting the oracle at Delphi “extends [consultants’] agency; it puts new reins in their hands.”57 Consulting the Pythia thus did not always provide a quick answer to a straightforward question, but rather paved the path for a process of deliberation that allowed the community to come to its own decision.58 Indeed the very process of deciding to consult Delphi, sending representatives to ask the question, waiting for one of the rare consultation days and potentially more than one if it was a very busy time, and then returning with a response that became part of a further debate meant a decision to consult Delphi sub- stantially slowed down the decision process and gave the community much longer to mull over the issue.

All this means that we need to understand the Pythia at Delphi not as providing a “fortune-telling service,” but rather as a “sense-making mechanism” for the individuals, cities, and communities of ancient Greece. Or as Heraclitus said in the quote that opens this chapter, “the oracle neither conceals, nor reveals, but indicates.” Delphi was, as one businessman once remarked to me, something of an ancient manage- ment consultant. It was an adviser, albeit one with powerful authority.59 In a world that never seriously doubted the power and omnipresence of the gods, a complex and widespread system for consultation on what the gods had in store made perfect sense. Within that network of differ- ent levels and types of consultation, the Pythian priestess at Delphi had emerged, by the end of seventh century BC, preeminent, and would con- tinue to be consulted right through until the fourth century AD. What a consultation at Delphi offered was a chance to air a difficult decision in fresh light, receive extra (divine-inspired) information and direction, which, while itself necessitating further discussion, brought with it pow- erful authority and thus a significant push toward consensus in regard to community decisions, and contentment that one was following the will of the gods in individual decisions. At the same time, the processes by which the Pythia was consulted—the form of the questions and the form of her responses—insulated the oracle at Delphi so that even Croe- sus’s exasperated attempts to show the oracle as having lied to him failed to dent its reputation. It gave Delphi a Teflon coating, a resistance to failure that, while challenged on particular occasions, would ensure that the oracle survived for over a millennium.

But, how, when, and why did it all begin? Just how did the city and sanctuary of Delphi, with its oracle at its center, emerge to such preem- inence by the end of the seventh century BC? What can we know about the earliest development of this institution and its surrounding commu- nity that would come to be known as the center of the ancient world, and how did the ancients themselves seek to explain the importance and origins of Delphi and its oracle? These questions are the focus of the next two chapters.


michael-scott.jpgMichael Scott will be speaking at CVHF 2014 on Friday, 27th June on this subject.