Bibliography
Edition here based on Rougemont CID I 3.
Other editions:
Homolle 1899: 611-612;
Keramopoullos 1906;
Jacquemin - Mulliez - Rougemont Choix Delphes 23.
Cf. also: Ziehen LGS II 73;
Sokolowski LSCG 76;
van Effenterre - Ruzé Nomima II 97;
Körner - Hallof 45.
Further bibliography: Herzog apud Wächter 1910: 112-113 n. 1;
Buck 1912;
Fournier 1922;
Daux 1935: 218;
Casabona 1966: 101-102;
Jacquemin 1999;
Decourt - Tziaphalias 2015;
Parker - Scullion 2016: 239-241;
Georgoudi 2017.
Commentary
The inscription is a regulation against the removal of wine, prepared for making libations, from the stadium. Jacquemin et al. (in
Choix Delphes) compare this with the prohibitions against carrying away meat from the site of sacrifice, which are frequent in the present Collection (cp. e.g. the phrase οὐκ ἀποφορά in
[CGRN 59](http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/CGRN_59/), Thera;
[CGRN 85](http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/CGRN_85/), Kos, lines 5, 7;
[CGRN 128](http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/CGRN_128/), Lissa, line 4). This seems plausible, but the text nonetheless remains distinctive and unusual in several regards. The question of the context of the inscription is problematic (see also above on Layout and Provenance). The letterforms of the inscription suggest a mid-5th-century-BC date as would perhaps some of the linguistic particularities (see below), but the stadium at Delphi was not yet built at this date. Accordingly, Jacquemin et al. now suggest that the two best possibilities are: 1) that the stone was reused; 2) that the text was reinscribed in the new stadium using its original lettering. Of these two possibilities, the second strikes us as more likely, also since it might explain the problem with the reading in line 1 (see below). Another source of uncertainty is the rather vague phrasing in line 3, "the god for whom wine is mixed". Does this phrase suggest that a variety of gods could be honoured with libations in the stadium, or does it represent an archaic periphrasis pointing to Apollo? Again, the second option seems perhaps more plausible.
Line 1: The stone clearly reads ΤΟΝΕΟΙΝΟΝ. Homolle interpreted this as a mistake for ΤΟΝϜΟΙΝΟΝ (τὸν ϝοῖνον) and this is now again considered a possibility by Jacquemin et al. in
Choix Delphes who print τὸν (ϝ?)οῖνον (citing the good parallel of
CID I 10, line 22, ΕΙΔΙΑ transcribed for ϜΙΔΙΑ). Perhaps the scribe did not know the grapheme F (the stone being reinscribed when
digamma was no longer in use) and substituted it for what was in his eyes the closest resemblance (E). Jacquemin had earlier (p. 78) argued that a simple spelling mistake was not very likely, given the care with which the stone is engraved. Instead of assuming a mistake, Fournier also suggested: τὸ(ν) νέοινον ‘the new wine’ (*νεϝοϝοινον → νεοινον, analogous to νεϝοϝοικος → νέοικος). Though there are examples of the use of new wine in cultic contexts (cf. Fournier), νέοινος remains a
hapax legomenon and less plausible than an error due to copying. Concerning the length of the stoichedon in this line (23 letters instead of the expected 24), Keramopoullos correctly showed that the empty space between Ο and Υ is an old hollow in the stone, thus obliging the cutter to leave an empty space between o and υ. Cf. Keramopoullos for the interpretation of δρόμος as the ancient name of the stadium. Buck demonstrated that ἐς τοῦ δρόμου should be understood as ἐκ τοῦ δρόμου, since ἐς + gen. is found for ἐκ + gen. in Delphic inscriptions (e.g.
CID I 9, line 45; note that this possibility was already suggested to Wächter by Herzog).
Line 4: Against the notion that the verb μεταθύω is a hapax legomenon—so recently Jacquemin et al.—a variant of the verb was already known and is now highlighted in the present Collection, cf. [CGRN 10](http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/CGRN_10/) (Gortyn), lines 3 and 5. The verb has usually been interpreted to mean "perform the sacrifice anew" (so Homolle, Ziehen). Jacquemin et al. follow this interpretation, translating "qu'on recommence le sacrifice" ("déjà offert, mais qu'une transgression ... a rendu inefficace, impur ou inutile"). The prefix μετα- indeed might suggest the notion of "change", namely that the worshipper should modify his mode of sacrifice (Keramopoullos followed by Sokolowski), or that the new sacrifice is intended to change the attitude of the god and appease him (Fournier; Casabona, suggesting that we should take τὸν θεόν as the implicit object of μεταθυσάτο as well as that of hιλαξάστο). None of these interpretations are particularly objectionable and all appear to capture some potential nuances of the verb, though they may also overinterpret it. We note that in all attested cases of the verb (including the ones in the new regulation from Larissa/Marmarini, cf. now [CGRN 225](http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/CGRN_225/), Face B, lines 2-3 and 14), it typically follows a form of purification (καθαίρω); in our case from Delphi, this is an "appeasement" which may assume a similar ritual. Georgoudi has acutely noted how sacrifice usually takes place as a concluding coda—distinct from but necessary to—the accomplishment and completion of a rite of purification. Accordingly, μεταθύω appears to be an occasional terminus technicus for designating this form of post-purificatory sacrifice. The simplest translation and interpretation would therefore be: "sacrifice afterward" (i.e. after the purification or appeasement); van Effenterre and Ruzé had somewhat similarly suggested reading μετὰ θύσατο, reflecting this temporal sense of the preposition μετά.