UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The concept of sacred war in Ancient Greece Skoczylas, Frances Anne 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 S58.pdf [ 6.48MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097277.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097277-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097277-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097277-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097277-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097277-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097277-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097277-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097277.ris

Full Text

THE CONCEPT OF SACRED WAR IN ANCIENT GREECE By FRANCES ANNE SKOCZYLAS B.A., McGill University, 1985 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Classics)  We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1987 ® Frances Anne Skoczylas, 1987  In presenting  this thesis in partial fulfilment of the  degree at the  and  study. I further agree that permission for extensive  copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may or  by  his or  her  representatives.  be  permission.  Department of  CLASSICS  The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 r  1Q87  granted by the head of  It is understood  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be  Date AUtt-UST 5  advanced  University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it  freely available for reference  department  requirements for an  that  copying  allowed without my  my or  written  ii  ABSTRACT  This term  thesis w i l l  "Sacred  War"  trace  the o r i g i n  i n the corpus  and development of the  of extant  Greek  literature.  T h i s term has been commonly a p p l i e d by modern s c h o l a r s t o f o u r wars which took p l a c e i n a n c i e n t Greece between- the s i x t h and fourth  c e n t u r i e s B.  "Sacred War"  to refer  two q u e s t i o n s . four  C.  t o these  First,  In  necessary  t o examine i n what to these wars.  is  that  called  this  Second  title  Second  of these  terms  As a r e s u l t  and T h i r d  i n antiquity.  and T h i r d  questions, i t i s  of t h i s  Sacred. W a r s ) ,  historians  examination, i t of "Sacred  Wars) were  The other  what  conflicts?  the a n c i e n t  Sacred  raises  give a l l  And second,  only for c e r t a i n  o n l y two of the modern s e r i e s  so-called  given  "Sacred War?"  to r e s o l v e the f i r s t  referred clear  four wars i n p a r t i c u l a r  the use of t h i s t i t l e  order  u s e o f "the a t t r i b u t e  d i d the a n c i e n t h i s t o r i a n s  o f these wars the t i t l e  justified  (the  The modern  actually  two wars  although  Wars"  (the s o -  they  were  e v i d e n t l y a s s o c i a t e d by the a n c i e n t s with the "Sacred Wars," were not g i v e n t h i s  attribution.  Consequently,  the h a b i t o f  grouping a l l four wars together as "Sacred Wars" i s modern. Nevertheless,  the f a c t  that  the a n c i e n t s  d i d s e e some-  iii connection  between  these  wars does  justify  this  modern  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n to some degree. Once t h i s conclusion had been reached, i t became possible to proceed thesis, title  to the second  of the problems presented i n t h i s  namely the j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the a p p l i c a t i o n  "Sacred War"  achieve t h i s aim,  to two  those c o n f l i c t s l a b e l l e d  the ancient historians cases:  specific conflicts.  of the  In order to  "Sacred Wars" by  were compared to two categories of test  the other two c o n f l i c t s c l a s s i f i e d as "Sacred Wars" by  modern scholars and c o n f l i c t s which share elements  i n common  with "Sacred Wars" but which are not given t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n by ancient or modern a u t h o r i t i e s . In  the  little  course  of  differentiated  non-"Sacred  this  comparison,  the s o - c a l l e d  Wars" and  that  I d i s c o v e r e d that  "Sacred Wars" from  a l l of these l a t t e r  the  conflicts  appear equally worthy of the t i t l e as those which were in fact given  this  attribution.  The  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of a c e r t a i n result,  deciding  in  c o n f l i c t as a "Sacred War,"  lies  not  i n the  specific  constitution  but  rather  i n the  surrounding i t .  factor  elements political  making  the as a  up i t s  circumstances  The two c o n f l i c t s l a b e l l e d by'-ithe ancients as  "Sacred Wars" were given t h i s t i t l e by contemporary  powers i n  order  political  to  affairs  justify military of other  considered  states  unnecessary.  interference  which might  i n the  otherwise  Thus, the term  have  "Sacred War"  been arose  o r i g i n a l l y as the r e s u l t of an e f f e c t i v e propaganda campaign.  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Introduction  1  Chapter One:  The Ancient Concept of Sacred War  3  Chapter Two:  The Modern Concept of Sacred War  29  Chapter Three:  Other Religious Disputes  55  Conclusion  71  Notes  76  Bibliography  117  Appendix  128  V  LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS  ATL-Benjamin Dean M e r i t t , H. T. Wade-Gery, Malcolm Francis McGregor, The Athenian Tribute L i s t s , volume 3 (Princeton: 1950). BCH-Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique F Gr H i s t - F e l i x Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen H i s t o r i k e r , 15 volumes (Leiden, E. J . B r i l l , 1954-64). FD-Emile Bourguet, F o u i l l e s de Delphes Tome III Epigraphie Fascicule V Comptes du IV Siecle (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1932). e  GG-Karl J u l i u s Beloch, Griechische Geschicte 4 volumes (Berlin and L e i p z i g : Walter de Gruyter and Company, 1926-27). IG-Inscriptiones Graecae, e d i t i o minor JHS-Journal of H e l l e n i c Studies REG-Revue des Etudes Greques SEG-Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum SIG-W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, e d i t i o n , volume 1 (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1960). Tod-Marcus N. Tod, Greek H i s t o r i c a l Inscriptions (Chicago: Ares Publishers Inc., 1985).  4th  vi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  I E.  wish  Harding,  guidance, thank at  t o extend  the d i r e c t o r  encouragement,  Professor  thesis. McGill  deepest of this  of  University  gratitude  to Professor  thesis,  I would  Columbia  throughout  also  like to  of Classics  for additional  the writing  i s d u e Mr. A n d r e  f o r the idea  Phillip  f o r h i s invaluable  and t h e Department  British  and s u g g e s t i o n s Further  thanks  and c r i t i c i s m .  A. J . P o d l e c k i  the University  assistance  my  of  Gerolymatos  and e n s u i n g i n s p i r a t i o n .  this of  1  INTRODUCTION  From t h e only  four  "Sacred  that  the  of  Third  modern  B.  C ) ,  or  Scholarship  of  in  has  rather  "Sacred  as  namely, B.  and  first  these the  so-called  case,  Third, that of  time  and  they  then  a  mainly than  if,  perhaps  not  there  are  scholars  as  so-called Second  (340/39  makes  Wars"  Greece,  been  upon  unit.  "Sacred  create  conflicts  historians.  and  Fourth  the  Fourth  "Sacred  ancient  modern  C ) ,  B.  448  C ) .  To  appear  to  exclusive whether  First  (circa  them  focused  this  Little  of  every  motivated  in  fact,  Wars" the  attached  an  to  this  was  has  been  labels wars  category  of  If of are  to  this  First,  each was  by  by  Wars"  the  war of to for of not  Second,  misleading  "Sacred  classification  made  ) arose  applied  antiquity.  these  each  category  ( t e p o s ndXeyos  it  modern  artificial  given  in  upon  apparent  effort  d e t e r m i n e when t h e t e r m " S a c r e d War" the  by  history  not.  individually, Wars"  Greek  attribution  category  ideals  in  labelled  century  this  conflict  wars  are,  sixth  ( 356-46  a  known  religious  the  of  been  These  mind,  constitute other  number  have  Wars."  (beginning B.C.),  great  in out  ancient  2  Therefore, "sacred date  war"  i n ancient  at which  Next, fact  we  shall  labelled  compare  with  attribution  have as  Greece,  we  two by  must  uepos itdAeuos  to c l a r i f y  "sacred"  series  modern  fully  first came  which  of  in antiquity.  of  test  scholars  wars  ascertain  into  historians.  establish  what  the  were i n  F i n a l l y , we  shall  by t h e a n c i e n t  wars similar  given  " s a c r e d war" i n a n t i q u i t y  justified  exclusively  this  to the soancient  By t h e l i g h t o f t h i s c o m p a r i s o n , we elements  of  existence.  t h e s e wars  "sacred"  cases:  and  the concept  " s a c r e d w a r s " w h i c h a r e n o t l a b e l l e d a s s u c h by  o r modern perhaps  the term  to examine  those c o n f l i c t s c l a s s i f i e d as  sources  called  i n order  can  the use of the term  for certain conflicts.  3  THE A N C I E N T  The "sacred arose  first  step  towards  war" i n a n t i q u i t y for  the  f i r s t  This  term  i n so eminent  appears  course  of  his  Thucydides  is  War a t  O F S A C R E D WAR  an  analysis  to  t r y to  i n  the  briefly  a  task,  narrative  the  discover  historian  the  of  corpus  not a d i f f i c u l t  condensed  relates  is  time  literature.  Sacred  CONCEPT  events  the  extant  the  of term  Greek  since  Thucydides. the  of  when  however,  as of  of  concept  In  the the  Pentecontaetia, so-called  Second  1.112.5:  Aoo<£6ai ydvLOb be ysxd. TaiJia xov Lepov xaAouuevov ndAeyov Eaxpdxsuaav, xau xpaTnoavxes T O U E V AeAcpoUs tepou TtapeSoaav AeAcpotg* x a i ai5$LS yaxspov AdnvatoL aitoxwpno'avxajv auxwv axpaxsuaavxes x a t H p a x n a a v x s s Tcape;6oaav $a)XE0aLV. Yet T h u c y d i d e s was p r o b a b l y n o t t h e f i r s t t o c o i n t h e J  phrase,  since  TtdAsyos .  The  Thucydides, the  that  world,  difficult The  to  that  i n his Birds of  a  this  was e v i d e n t l y  Greek is  fact  prosecuting  indicates war  he r e f e r s  the to  scholia  the c o n f l i c t Aristophanes, of  t e r m was c u r r e n t  identity  a  against at  tepos xaAouyEvos contemporary  Zeus  the time.  6 iepog udXeyos of  a  414 B . C . , s a t i r i c a l l y  iephg ndAeuos  known a s  as  by t h e  the o r i g i n a l  source  1  of  suggests  (line  556)  Since  this  contemporary of  this  name  in  this  ascertain. to  Birds  556 a r e  not  very  helpful  4 regard.  One s c h o l i a s t names Philochorus (F Gr Hist 328 F 34a)  as a source for t h i s war: 6 ' i c p o s n d A e y o g e y e v e x o ""'A^nvatOLS u p o g B O L O J T O U S 3ouAoyevous acpeAeadab $u)Meu)V x6 y a v x e u o v . v t x n a a v x e s 62 $a)xeDau TCCXALV aite6o3xav, Ac $ u A d x o p o s e v xrj 6. 6uo 6e u e p o i i t d A e y o t y E y d v a o x v , oSxds x e x a l 6%6te ^ w x e f t a t v eTteSevxo A a x e 6 a u y d v u o u .  Another scholiast on t h i s l i n e adds: tv e v L o u g T C V u n o y v n y d x o j v A e y e x a b * tepov ndAeyov Aeyeu, xa-db i i p o s $£ous E O O L X O , a y a 6e x o u ' i e p o D TtoAeyou y v n y o v e u e L xoD yevoyc'vou ' ASnvcxLOts i p d s $ u x e a s uitep X O \ J hv AcAipoLS oepoO. £ox£buaa-&au 6e UTt'auxuJv* o u y a p np&s $u)X£ac unep x o u x o u E T i o A d y a a a v , a A A ' u i t e p Sajxcuv 6 t & xb u p b c A a x e b a u y o v u o u s *x§os. y e y d v a a u 6e 6i5o u d A e y o i , t e p o t * u p o x e p o g \i£v A a x E b a t y o v u o b c itpoc M X E C S uitep AeAcpffiv" Mat x p a x r t a a v x E c xoi3 UEpou A a x e b a t y d v t o u xfiv u p o y a v x e u a v u a p d AeXcpSv e A a g o v * u a x s p o v 61 x p u x u t E X E L xo\3 TtoAcyou ' A d n v a J o L S Tipos A a x e b a o y o v d o L S unep $ U ) X E O ) V . x a C xd Lepbv ocuebuxav $ojx£i5cri,, x a ^ d n e p $LA6*xopos E V x r i t 6 A e y e t . x a A E t x a i ^ S e ' l e p d s , O"XL n c p l xoft tv AeAtpots uepot) eyevexo.  Most  of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n  contained  i n these  appears to derive from the A t t h i s of Philochorus. the ultimate source of Philochorus?  scholia  But who was  It cannot be Thucydides,  as the account of the s c h o l i a s t contains d e t a i l s not mentioned in the text of Thucydides. details  from  Philochorus may have derived these  Theopompus,  but t h i s  question of h i s ultimate source. which  the s c h o l i a s t  Thucydides,  briefly  Eratosthenes  does  not r e s o l v e the  Moreover, the offhand way i n  a l l u d e s to the testimonies of  ( t h i r d century B. C.) and Theopompus  would not lead one to conclude  that h i s account was based on  the work of any of these h i s t o r i a n s .  Therefore,  the d e t a i l s  of the s o - c a l l e d Second Sacred War which the s c h o l i a s t  claims  5  to  have d e r i v e d  supplied  by  survived. to  from Philochorus must o r i g i n a l l y  another  fifth-century  account  have  which  been  has  not  Evidently, however, the use of the term tspbs ito'Asyos  refer  to  this  war  was  well-rooted  by  the  time  of  Philochorus. Our  last  Sacred War  (and l a t e s t ) reference to the s o - c a l l e d  as a i-epos  occurs i n Plutarch  T C O ' A E U O S  Second  Pericles  XXI.1-1: .. ,\i£ya epyov -nyo^yEVOs (IlEpLxAfis) •nal oAcog UTtevavTLOuyevos E X E L V O L S , <!)S  O  I  V  E  L  P  Y  E  L  <5AAOLS  Aaxe&auuovuous  V  T  T I O A A O L S  E  e"6£L££ ydAoata LEpov npax$ ^cJL udAEyov. ydp ot AaxsSaLyovLOL OTpaTEuaavTEs AsAcpous pdv AsAtpoLS ane'6a)xav, oncaAAayEVTuiv 6 IlEpbxATis EHLOTpaTEi5aas udAtv ELariyays tae'as. xat AaxsdaLyovLwv riv E6wxav auxoLS AeAcpot TipoyavTELav ysTamov lyxoAa^avxaiv xoD x ^ o^ Auxou, AaBulv xal auxds upoyavTEuav 'A-&nvaLOLS aUTov A\5xov xaxd Triv TtAsupciv EVExdpa^EV. £  X C X L  T  O  L  S  T I E P L  T  O  V  E T I E L  E  E X O V T O J V  T O  L  E U - S L J S  E  T  $ W X E C O V  L  S  E  X  E  O  U  S  L  V  W  V  T W V  E  a  T  O  L  S  L  S  T O  K  E  L  S  T  O  V  6E£LCK>  The f i r s t  half of Plutarch's n a r r a t i v e , that dealing with the  campaign of the Lacedaimonians and the counter campaign Athenians, appears to be derived from Thucydides the  references to P e r i c l e s ) .  narrative,  on  (except for  In the second half of Plutarch's  the c o n t r a r y ,  obvious f a m i l i a r i t y  of the  he must be  speaking from h i s  with the sanctuary of A p o l l o at Delphi.  In f a c t , t h i s bronze wolf i s almost c e r t a i n l y the same as that which Pausanias mentions clearly  derived  the t i t l e  account  offers  no  borrowed  (X.14.7).  further  3  Because  of t h i s war clues  Plutarch has so  from Thucydides, h i s  as to whether  the expression from another h i s t o r i a n  was simply current i n contemporary  usage.  Thucydides or t h i s  term  6 Our next task i s to examine t h i s so-called Second Sacred War  in further  detail  i n order  to attempt  to detach  elements which led to the a t t r i b u t i o n of the t i t l e The  chronology of the war  itself  three of  Sparta,  i n 458/7,  Phocians, Dorians.  and  After the Phocians had  the towns of Doris, the  4  forced  Spartans  the  ynTpduoALs  of  i n t e r v e n e d , defeated the  them to r e s t o r e  those c i t i e s  to the  On the route home, the Spartans were attacked by the  Athenians at Tanagra i n Boeotia.  The Spartans were v i c t o r i o u s  and  withdrew to the Peloponnese  without  Two  months  the  Myronides  later,  invaded  Oenophyta, and point  tepo's udAeyos.  i s disputed but i t i s clear  that i t s antecedents l i e i n the 450's. captured  the  was  i n 457/6,  6  Athenian  incident.  army  5  under  B o e o t i a , d e f e a t e d the Boeotian army at  became master  the high water  C e n t r a l Greece.  7  further  of Boeotia and  mark of Athens'  As a r e s u l t ,  i t was  Phocis.  This  dominance  over  probably following  the  Battle of Oenophyta that Athens concluded an a l l i a n c e with the Amphictyonic League. The  record  fragmentary thought  that  of  this  inscription. this  Athenian a l l i a n c e  alliance 8  Previously,  inscription with  B.  D.  only  i t was  the Phocians, although no  Meritt  proposed  on the stone! a  new  9  of  10  Meritt  the  explicit In  1948,  reconstruction,  s u b s t i t u t i n g the Amphictyonic League (who are mentioned stone) f o r the P h o c i a n s .  in a  generally  recorded a renewal  reference to the Phocians appears however,  survives  s t a t e s , on  on the  epigraphical  7  grounds, that t h i s i n s c r i p t i o n must be dated before the middle of  the f i f t h century.  11  Moreover, the treaty must have been  in e f f e c t by 454/3, when the Athenians took the f i e l d against Pharsalus i n Thessaly, for the Boeotians are already a l l i e s of the Athenians best  date  (Thucydides.I.Ill.1).  f o r an Athenian  12  alliance  As Meritt argues, the with the Amphictyonic  League would be following the Battle of Oenophyta. point,  Athens  commanded  was master  of C e n t r a l  Greece  a m a j o r i t y i n the Amphictyonic  At t h i s  13  and p r o b a b l y  League.  She  14  thereby must have gained considerable influence at Delphi, a fact perhaps i l l u s t r a t e d by favorable oracles issued to Athens during Greece  this  period.  1 5  The Athenian  and the Amphictyonic  influence  i n Central  League may also have resulted i n  the Phocian control of D e l p h i .  16  After the Five Year Truce had been concluded with Athens in 451 (Thucydides 1.112.1), Sparta f e l t the time was right to challenge Athens' and  imperialistic  to r e g a i n i n f l u e n c e  military  action  ambitions  at D e l p h i .  of t h i s p e r i o d ,  Greece  In the only recorded  the Spartans' conducted an  expedition to Delphi i n which they wrested of  i n Central  i t from the hands  the Phocians and returned i t to the Delphians.  Thereupon  the Athenians marched out under P e r i c l e s and d e l i v e r e d the sanctuary back to the Phocians. which presumably  17  Phocian control of Delphi,  was pro-Athenian, d i d not l a s t long.  eyyevoyevou y e r a xauxa  " (the "Sacred War"),  18  " pdvou X  the Athenians  were forced to evacuate Boeotia after their defeat at Coronea  8 and thereby l o s t their influence over Central Greece.  Without  the risk of further Athenian intervention, the Delphians were now  free  to r e c l a i m  recorded  at • what p o i n t  recovered  their  Peloponnesian  past  War,  Spartan sympathies was  subsequently  Nicias  control  of the Third Sacred  they d i d so, but  influence  as by  now  by  and  the  their  clearly  they  showed f i r m  had the  pro-  Delphian autonomy  confirmed by an a r t i c l e V.118.2),  I t i s not  b e g i n n i n g of  the o r a c l e  i n the Peace of  situation  of  the  e s s e n t i a l l y unchanged u n t i l the beginning War.  Scholars have divided themselves in  the  (Thucydides 1.118.3).  (Thucydides  sanctuary remained  of the sanctuary.  into two opposing camps  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the chronology of t h i s expedition  of the Spartans and counter expedition of the Athenians.  The  object of dispute i s the " iSaxepov 6i TPLTOJU ETEU TOD upoorou icoAeuou" in the fragment  of Philochorus preserved by the s c h o l i a s t  Aristophanes (F Gr Hist 328 F 34).  This appears  on  inconsistent  with the sense of immediacy of the counter expedition implied in the accounts of Thucydides and P l u t a r c h .  19  The f i r s t camp,  led' by Beloch and supported by the authors of ATL, accept the chronology of Philochorus and attempt to show that there i s no c o n f l i c t between h i s account and that of Thucydides, as the '"dSdus Saxepov  "  of  Thucydides  interpretation.  2 0  allows  Consequently,  some  they  leeway  believe  in i t s  that  expedition and  counter e x p e d i t i o n took place i n 449 and  respectively.  The  opposite camp, l e d by Gomme and  the 447  Jacoby,  9 dismiss  the  implication reprisal  chronology in  Thucydides  date  chronologies,  these  a  s  other  to  fact  448.  Of  22  the  the  these  scholiast's  Philochorus),  discrepancies.  •  T  241 F 38)  n  on,  he  provides  goes on  derives  from  versa.  The second  this  the f i r s t  is  title the have  was  led  coiner  to  of  clearly clues  the  to  title  Athenian  two  say:  fifth  "  •"  fairly  as  possible  reason,  j.  n  this  minor  that  century.  of  is  was  556  First  and  obviously not  the  the mere f a c t  at  Delphi  original of  viewpoint  of  A little  vice  more i n t e r e s t i n g .  As the that  could  not  fifth-century  the s c h o l i a s t  are  and add no f u r t h e r  source of  fourth century,  the Greek world had changed  Birds  reason itself  the s a n c t u a r y  the o r i g i n a l the  latter  time which has been g i v e n  by  be  OTU nept  P  first  The s u g g e s t i o n s  By  6e U 6g,  rcdAeyos  from a l a t e r  the motives  can  survive  •"  the a n c i e n t s o u r c e s ,  the p h r a s e .  that  incident  two reasons.  ^aXeZxaL  however,  attribution  the  on A r i s t o p h a n e s  The  tepds  conducted over  inferences  to  They  2 1  excerpt  especially  us with  war up to t h i s  L,epos itdXeyos  war  the  2 3  scholiast  e  TOO ev AeAcpoUs UpoTJ eye'veTo  of  that  " uep<5v no'Xeyov Agfysu, na%b itpds %eo\)s IOOLTO  further  the  accept  to be c l a s s i f i e d by the a n c i e n t sources  (F Gr H i s t all,  Plutarch  i n q u i r e why t h i s  oepos TidAeuos  a  in to  One may w e l l first  events  (if  attributed  also contains  the  and  and  that of Thucydides seems more c r e d i b l e than  Philochorus  wholly  Philochorus  f o l l o w e d c l o s e l y upon the Spartan e x p e d i t i o n .  therefore  of  of  this  however,  e n t i r e l y and the term  title the  in  face  "sacred  10 war"  took on a new  importance.  Once again, c o n f l i c t  over  the  sanctuary of A p o l l o at  Delphi had been d i g n i f i e d with the t i t l e This was  of  the so-called Third Sacred War,  a prolonged struggle  between the Phocians and the Amphictyonic from  356  to 346  known to the Phocian War  B. C.  It appears  24  contemporary  that  of  the  war  and  repercussions,  was  to  refer  B. C.,  alludes  (V.74).  to i t by  conflict a t i t l e , allies  t r a d i t i o n among  i t by  the  This was of  name of i t s  Aeschines, 6  $  " a nept T  where W  X  L  X  O  i t would perhaps  S  fcuweus  "  give  the  they  no'Aeyos  •"  O  along  '  I  E  P  O  noAE'you  U  with  providing first  As  this  •" "  departure  writers  Callisthenes of Olynthus, " va^nTns 26  wrotei'a monograph e n t i t l e d "nepL  ( I _ G r _ H i s t 124  his Hellenica,  Callisthenes'  25  have constituted a  not the case, however, for contemporary  'ApuaxoTe'Aous xat ave^uaSous O  346  war."  the P e r i p a t e t i c school.  T  the  in i t s  c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t for the Athenian orators to c l a s s i f y struggle as a "sacred  the  Isocrates, i n h i s P h i l i p of  refer to i t as "  of the Phocians,  names:  involved  the p e r i p h r a s i s  Demosthenes and  was  followed c l o s e l y  deeply to  conflict  two  The apparent  were  protagonists, the Phocians.  this by  the Athenian orators of the period, who events  League which lasted  Greek world  and the Sacred War.  ospos ndAsyog  F 1).  This work,  must have been composed for Asia  us with a terminus  with  before  Alexander,  ante quern of 334  thus  B. C. for the  recorded instance of the term i n reference to t h i s  war.  11  Aristotle,  presumably following  refers to t h i s war which was  left  as  example of his protege, i n his P o l i t i c s  6 uepos Tto'AEyos  unfinished  p u p i l of A r i s t o t l e ,  the  at his death i n 322  (1304a),  B. C.  Another  Leon of Byzantium, perhaps also  following  the example of Callisthenes, composed a monograph e n t i t l e d "6 'Iep6s ndAeyos "(F Gr  Hist 132  T 1 and  2).  Yet  century monograph on the Third Sacred War, was  fourth-  " n e p l xou ' l e p o u TloAdyou,"  written by a c e r t a i n Cephisodorus of Thebes or Athens  (F Gr Hist 112 carried  a third  on  F 1).  This apparent P e r i p a t e t i c t r a d i t i o n , was  a generation l a t e r by Duris of Samos, a p u p i l of  Theophrastus,  27  A r i s t o t l e ' s successor.  of his 'ioToptat  In the  28  , he refers to the war  as  "6  second book  uepos ndAeyos  "  Gr Hist 76 F 2). Callisthenes probably not a  the only  i e p o s itdAeyos  Siculus and  and  31  .  term  ultimately  Pausanias gives uses the  term  state  no  section. 34  of both  this  and  3 0  6  this  r  TtdAeyos  $WXLX6S  war.  i - these authors presumably n  but  the question of  i s more  from what  source  Diodorus Siculus  the  problematical..  of Ephorus throughout Book IX,  33  wa  Diodorus  c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n of his sources.  specifically  this regard.  Strabo,  29  L-epog TtdAeyos  0  however, were  writers to c a l l  from the orators,  authority  particular in  Pausanias,  6 $ajKuxds TtdAeyos  source(s) of the  not  fourth-century  to describe  t e  derives  P e r i p a t e t i c school,  are f a m i l i a r with the use  ° P ° s ndXeyos The  the  he  32  but  derives  Strabo does this  i s much more h e l p f u l  In XVI.14.3-5, under the  year  357/6,  he  12 mentions three fourth-century writers who have dealt with the events of the s o - c a l l e d Third Sacred War: Twv 6e auYYpacpewv AriydcpuXos yev 6 'Ecpdpou xot3 LaxopLoypdcpou ULOS xov TtapaXeLcp^e'vxa TtdXeyov vud xoO" Tcaxpos, ovoyaaSevxa 6 E ucpdv, aovxExayyEvos E V X E O ^ E V ?ipxxaL onto xfis xaxaXn^eaJS xoO E V AeXcpous uepoO naX xfjg auXriaews xoD yavxetou und $LXoynXou xoO $a)xea)s" Eycvexo 6*6 ndXeyos oSxos E X T I E V 6 E H C X ews xris <p§opas xtov 6 b a v E u y a y E v w v xPnyaxa. KaXXuo^EvriS 6 E xnv X U J V ' E X X T I V L X U J V Ttpayydxwv ilaxoptav yeypacpEv 3 U * B X O L S 6EXCH xat xaxeaxpocpev E L S xnv xaxaXnipLv xoi5 UEpoO xat itapavoyuav 4>uXoynXou xoO Owxews. A L U X X O S 6*6 'ASrivaCos ?ipxxaL xriv uaxopdav onto xris L-EpoauXnasus xat yeypacpE 3u3Xous E L X O Q L xat auyuEpLXaB&v itaaas x&s E V X O L S X P ^ V O L S X O U X O L S yevoys'vas i t p d ^ E L S nepL xe xnv *EXXa6a xat xnv I L X E X L O V . e  Under  the year  v  341/0, i n XVI.76.5-6, we f i n d  an  apparent  continuation to XVI.14.3-5: Tuv 6 E ouyypatpECuV *Ecpopos y £ v o Kuyafos x'nv uaxopuav svddSe xaxsaxpocpsv E L S xry\> Ilepuvdou TtoXuopx-Lav* TtepLELXncps 6 E xfj ypacpfj n p d £ £ L S xds X E X S V 'EXXnvujv xat 3ap3dpuv onto xfis xuiv 'HpaxXEL,6a3V xa$d6ou* P° i t E p t E X O I 3 E EXU5V o"xe6ov ETtxaxoaLtov xat TtEVxrixovxa xat, BtfSXous y^ypacps xpudxovxa, npoouyoov exdaxn TtpodEds. ALUXXOS 6'6 'A^nvaUos xns Ssuxspas auvxd^sojs apxnv TtETtouriTaL xns 'Ecpdpou LaxopLas xrjv X E X E U X T I V xat xds e£ris Ttpd£jELS auvELpeL xds X E xG5v 'EXXnvujv xat" xuiv gapgdpwv yexPL xfis ^ L X L T I T I O U XEXeuxfis. V 0 V  0  E  X  Diodorus mentions another possible source for h i s narrative of the Sacred War i n XVI.3.8, under the year 360/59: Tuv 6e auYYpacpdtov 6£OTtoyTtos 6 X L O S T T I V ap n"v xwv itepL . 4>L*XLTtTtov LaxopLajv evxeOdev TioLriodyEVos yeypatpEV 3u3Xous O X X O J npd's xatis Ttsvxnxovxa, eE, 5V T C E V X E 6Lacpajvo0aLV. X  Hammond b e l i e v e s that the f i r s t  of these  historians,  Demophilus, i s the main source used by Diodorus i n h i s account of  the Sacred War.  35  wrote the t h i r t i e t h is  c o n s i s t e n t with  I t i s generally agreed  that Demophilus  and f i n a l book of Ephorus, the testimony  36  of Diodorus  a view which (XVI.14.3 and  13 XVI.76.5) and the fragments Hist  70 F 93-95).  surviving  from Book Thirty  I f , as i t appears,  (F Gr  the monograph of  Demophilus on the Sacred War was joined as an appendix  to h i s  f a t h e r ' s work, the reputation of Ephorus must have made i t quite  accessible  to l a t e r  historians  Therefore, Hammond i s probably r i g h t main source of Diodorus fact for  like  i n considering him the  for this c o n f l i c t .  that Diodorus mentions him f i r s t  Furthermore, the  i n his l i s t  the Sacred War must have some s i g n i f i c a n c e . The  sources  next  writer  whom Diodorus  Diodorus.  of sources  37  mentions i n h i s l i s t of  f o r the Sacred War i s C a l l i s t h e n e s who, as we have  seen, composed a monograph e n t i t l e d " nep'L xoO 'lepoD noAeyou The account  third  and f i n a l  source given by Diodorus  of the Sacred War i s D i y l l u s  of Athens.  ."  for his Hammond  b e l i e v e s that Diodorus used D i y l l u s to "supplement" his main source, Demophilus, i n h i s n a r r a t i v e of the Sacred War. While  we may agree  with Hammond i n that Diodorus obviously  made use of the 'io-ropuaL did  38  0  f D i y l l u s , the extent to which he  so i s impossible for us to gauge, as so l i t t l e of D i y l l u s '  work  remains. While  Diyllus  39  Diodorus  as sources  cites  Demophilus,  C a l l i s t h e n e s , and  i n the p r e f a c e t o h i s n a r r a t i v e of  Sacred War (XVI.14.3-5),  the  he a l s o mentions Theopompus i n h i s  description of the early a c t i v i t i e s of P h i l i p (XVI.3.8), as we saw above. in  his l i s t  The fact that Diodorus does not include Theopompus of sources i n t h i s preface, however, should not  14 exclude him from being a possible source for the Third Sacred War because the year quern or ante  357/6 serves either as a terminus  quern f o r the other three w r i t e r s .  post  Moreover,  40  Theopompus e v i d e n t l y made a connection between the so-called Second and Third Philippica,  Sacred Wars, as the twentieth book of h i s  which dealt mainly with the events of the year  348/7, contained a digression on the f i f t h - c e n t u r y incident (F Gr Hist 115 F 156).  One can perhaps  infer from t h i s evidence  that he also referred to both events as "Sacred Wars." Although it  we cannot  be sure whether or not Diodorus  used  as a source, we do know that Theopompus wrote a t r e a t i s e  entitled "  ilepu  x&v  kn AeXcpuv  xpnudTwv  ."  This subject proved  to  be a popular one, with the tale obviously becoming  as  the year passed.  Ephorus-Demophilus  We  find  (F Gr H i s t  Hist 81 F 70), and in Strabo (XVI.56.5-8 and XVI.64). their  details,  exaggerated)  a v e r s i o n i n Book T h i r t y of 70 F 95), i n Phylarchus  (F Gr  (9.3.8), as well as i n Diodorus  As a l l of these versions vary i n  i t is likely  anecdotes  taller  that  floating  there were many  around  (clearly  fourth-century Greece  concerning the plundering of the temple and i t s treasures. As a r e s u l t , i t i s impossible to assign l a t e r descriptions to any one fourth-century .source. Let  us now sum up our conclusions concerning the fourth-  century nomenclature  of the s o - c a l l e d Third Sacred War.  We  have seen that t h i s war was known to i t s contemporaries by two names:  6  ^WKUKOC  ndAeuog  and  6  lepog  noXc^oz  .  The term  15  "Phocian War"  appears from our  used extensively the  use  This  of  the  title  was  Peripatetics period:  by  the Athenian orators and  term "Sacred War" preferred  and  Demophilus (and  as  by  Callisthenes by  the  his  fellow  h i s t o r i a n s of  the  Consequently, i t seems that to refer to t h i s  a "sacred  eventually  and  Ephorus), Theopompus, D i y l l u s , and  war"  was  not  peculiar  to the  school, although the t r a d i t i o n apparently but  c l e a r l y predates  to refer to t h i s c o n f l i c t .  presumably a l s o  Duris of Samos. war  extant evidence to have been  became a feature  Peripatetic  originated with i t ,  of the h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c genre  as a whole. We  must now  turn to an examination of the events of  so-called Third Sacred War,  i n the hope that  us with some clue as to why the  title  casual and  of  the  few  .  to the war  scattered  this c o n f l i c t .  Book XVI  Book  Justin's  of  As we  i n the  fragments  h i s t o r i a n s which s u r v i v e ,  Eight  t h i s c o n f l i c t was  uepos itdAeyos  references  we  have no  narratives that  d i g n i f i e d with  speeches of the of  the  of  after the the  controversy  d e t a i l s of t h i s  orators  contemporary record  of  of Diodorus Siculus, supplemented by brief  Epitome  of  the  shrouds  the  chronology  Historiae  basis for most of  incident, these are  events of t h i s c o n f l i c t .  war.  from  fourth-century  knowledge of the so-called Third Sacred War.  from centuries  provide  have seen, aside  P h i l i p p i c a e of Pompeius Trogus, forms the our  i t will  the  Both dating  the only  extant  It i s no wonder and  many of  the  16 The spring  bare  of  Amphictyonic  threatened discharge levied  with at  punishment Thebans since  them.  that  the  had  the  large  42  From  fine  Battle  of  had  new  showed  status  their  coalition  a  grudge After  forced  of  to The  point  accused  Spartans  League also  the of  having  brought  XVI.28.2)  %oXXa  nor  the  period  time  and  paid  but  to  and  reasons. the  The  Phocians  of  the  Leuctra, alliance  Thebans  join  the  of  the  and  Theban  fined  Phocians  the  off this matter  was  of  of  the time  were  the  rather  At the  some  Thebans  Amphictyonic of  peace  the P h o c i a n s .  five  penalty  aims.  Leuctra,  in a  against  collapse  to p o l i t i c a l  Council  Cadmeia  charge  the  the  their  (Diodorus XVI.22.3).  Phocians of  the  subsequently  xdXavxa  been  inflict  Theban  ) of  to resort  Battle  before  some a l l e g e d  (Diodorus  to  Battle  the  refusing  achieve  the  occupied  were  of  to  after  Spartans  not  P h o c i a n s , however r e s e n t e d  ( uTirfaoou  by  did  sources, i t  against  join  were  previously  pretext  the  Epaminondas  means  unspecified  a  the  (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a V I I . 5 . 4 ) .  death  military  they  c o n f u s i o n i n our  T h e b a n hegemony, t h e T h e b a n s had than  i f  had  In  Phocians  f o r more d e e p - s e a t e d  displeasure  the  the  4 1  which  merely  subjects  at Mantinea  After  the  VI.5.23).  as  i s clear.  reprisal,  Mantinea.  been  least,  356 ,  fine  harbouring  (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a their  at  of  was  Phocians  been  Phocians  meeting  a  this  on  events,  Amphictyonic  once  against  appears  the  outline  and The  4 3  hundred  talents  assessed a  penalty  N e i t h e r the within  the  ignored u n t i l  Spartans  prescribed  357/6 .  4 4  At  17 this  time, already provoked  Mantinea  and  Euboea,  the Thebans  45  further  irritated judged  a c t i o n , taking advantage in the Social War  46  by  the  the time  of the fact  of the Battle of recent a f f a i r  was  right  their  in  to take  that Athens was  engaged  and would not be able to i n t e r f e r e .  again, the Thebans used League  by the r e s u l t s  Once  i n f l u e n c e on the Amphictyonic  to r e t a l i a t e against the Spartans and the Phocians.  41  In order to gain the support of the majority of the voting members, Thebes had only to approach Thessaly, an easy target due to her longstanding hatred of P h o c i s . League thus p l a n t e d i t s e l f  firmly  48  behind  The  Amphictyonic  the Thebans  and  ordered the Phocians to discharge their f i n e under the threat of  having a curse l a i d  upon t h e i r  land.  The  Spartans a l s o  were threatened, should they not pay o f f their f i n e (which was now  raised to one thousand At  talents).  49  t h i s news, the Phocians were thrown into a  quandary,  as t h e i r s was a small state without many resources.  They had  no hope whatsoever extreme magnitude. place t h e i r deprived  50  Yet, i f the Amphictyons  t e r r i t o r y under  of t h e i r  Theotimus,  of paying o f f the f i n e , because  of i t s  proceeded  to  a curse, they would then a l l be  livelihood.  5 1  Then Philomelus, son of  a high-ranking Phocian, came forward and urged his  fellow-countrymen on to a c t i o n .  He argued that the judgments  of the Amphictyonic League were completely unfair and advised them to s e i z e grounds  that  the s a n c t u a r y of A p o l l o i t was  theirs  by a n c e s t r a l  at D e l p h i , right,  on  the  since  the  18 Homeric Catalogue  of Ships l i s t e d  towns ( I l i a d 11.519).  Delphi among the Phocian  With the resources therein, they would  be able to defend themselves and other Amphictyons.  i f necessary against the Thebans  Thereupon the Phocians, not knowing  52  where else to turn, elected him "strategos a u t o k r a t o r proceeded  to challenge the Amphictyonic  Philomelus cause.  then  s e t about  judgement.  1,53  and  54  g a t h e r i n g support  for his  He received f i f t e e n talents i n secret and a promise of  f u t u r e a i d from similar  the Spartan  position  king, Archidamus, who was i n a  h i m s e l f with  regard to the Amphictyonic  League. With this money added to h i s own personal resources, Philomelus was able to h i r e mercenaries (Diodorus XVI.27.3). insisting  to seize the oracle  He then sent envoys to the Greek states  on the ancient Phocian  right  to the administration  of the sanctuary and guaranteeing the safety of i t s treasures (Diodorus XVI.27.3-4). the  Spartans,  Phocians.  55  At these assurances,  and o t h e r s  allied  the Athenians,  themselves  w i t h the  The Boeotians, the Locrians, and their supporters  remained h o s t i l e however. After appealed sent  further  Phocian m i l i t a r y  successes, the Locrians  to the Boeotians f o r a i d .  The Boeotians, i n turn,  envoys to the T h e s s a l i a n s and the other  Amphictyonic  members, asking them to declare war against the Phocians. motion was passed TidXeyov 4).  )  a n  ( (JjricpLaaye'vwv  6k  xwv 'AycpL>(Tu6*vu)v  TO*V  The  upds $coxeus  d the war began i n earnest (Diodorus XVI. 28.2-  Philomelus  now  recruited  a still  larger  army of  19. mercenaries and with t h i s force he began a successful campaign against  the L o c r i a n s , the Boeotians  (Diodorus XVI.30). discontinue t h e i r  and the T h e s s a l i a n s  Philomelus also forced  the Boeotians to  b r u t a l p o l i c y of executing a l l mercenaries  captured from the Phocian forces as temple-robbers  by meting  out  (Diodorus  the same f a t e  XVI.31.1-2). destined  t o some B o e o t i a n  Philomelus'  prisoners  wave of good  to be of long d u r a t i o n .  f o r t u n e was not  Shortly  after  t h i s , the  Boeotians by sheer force of numbers defeated the Phocians at Neon.  Philomelus, s t i l l f i g h t i n g bravely, was cornered by the  enemy and threw h i m s e l f o f f a p r e c i p i c e . retreated back to Phocis under Onomarchus, " axpaxriYOS  H i s army 0  °*  e  ouvdpxwv  then aux$  . "56  At an emergency meeting  of the common assembly of the  Phocians, Onomarchus came forward and urged h i s compatriots to continue  the war.  autokrator," mercenaries  When he had been e l e c t e d  Onomarchus  to f i l l  proceeded  "strategos  to r e c r u i t  further  the ranks of h i s army (Diodorus XVI.32).  In need of further funds, Onomarchus unscrupulously "borrowed" from the sanctuary of Apollo, forging the bronze and iron into weapons and s t r i k i n g  coinage from the s i l v e r  and gold.  With  these extra resources, he was able to bribe the Thessalians (among others) to remain make  inroads  n e u t r a l , leaving  on the t e r r i t o r y  h i s hands free to  of the L o c r i a n s and the  Boeotians (Diodorus XVI.33). At t h i s p o i n t , P h i l i p of Macedon played a part f o r the  20 first  time  i n the events  of the war when the T h e s s a l i a n s  appealed to him for m i l i t a r y a i d against Lycophron, of Pherae. powerful  57  the tyrant  Lycrophron, i n turn, obtained the support of the  Phocian  army.  At f i r s t ,  Onomarchus dispatched h i s  brother Phayllus to Thessaly with seven  thousand  men.  After  t h i s preliminary force was defeated, Onomarchus came i n person with the entire Phocian army and defeated the combined troops of  Philip  and the Thessalians i n two engagements.  outnumbered  but not d i s c o u r a g e d ,  withdrew  Philip,  to Macedon.  Onomarchus, on the other hand, encouraged by t h i s  success,  made an incursion into Boeotia and took the c i t y of Coronea. At the beginning of the next campaigning season 352),  Philip  allies,  requested  the Phocians.  military  a i d from  A decisive  battle  was fought,  between Halus derives  most probably  of the combined  on the C r o c i o n  and P h t h i o t i c Thebes, from which t h i s  i t s modern name  ("Battle of the Crocus  Onomarchus and h i s men were routed and f l e d  thousand  captives Philip  Phocian  in this  triremes.  battle  Field").  6 0  Onomarchus was  In total,there were over  c a s u a l t i e s and three thousand  ill-fated  capitalized  Plain  s o l d i e r s who drowned i n an attempt to  swim out to the Athenian six  and the  to the sea where  Chares "happened" ( TUXLX&S ) to be s a i l i n g by. among the many Phocian  Once  h i s powerful  forces of the Thessalians and P h i l i p against Lycophron Phocians  59  (spring  returned to Thessaly with a larger army.  again, Lycophron  58  battle  on the f a c t  (Diodorus  that t h i s  Phocian  XVI.35.4-6).  was nominally a  21 "sacred war"  by ordering h i s s o l d i e r s to don  before the b a t t l e as avengers of A p o l l o . his self-proclaimed  laurel  wreaths  In keeping with  61  role of Delphic avenger, P h i l i p hung the  dead body of Onomarchus " and threw the rest  (  into  been g u i l t y  62  the sea on  sacrilege.  to the post of  funds  "strategos a u t o k r a t o r .  1,64  From  "borrowed" from the sanctuary at D e l p h i ,  rate  by h i r i n g of pay  still  he  more mercenaries at double the  ( D i o d o r u s XVI.36.1)  With  increased by reinforcements from his a l l i e s  his  surrendered the c i t y Boeotians  of Pherae  in several  to P h i l i p ) ,  forces  (Sparta, Athens,  and Achaea) and also by the mercenaries of Lycophron  the  of  to recoup the Phocian losses i n the Battle of the  Crocus F i e l d usual  they had  )  the death of Onomarchus, h i s brother, Phayllus,  succeeded  attempted  that  aXAous  53  After  further  the grounds  TOUS  (who  had  Phayllus engaged  unsuccessful battles  (Diodorus  XVI.37.3-6). Meanwhile, encouraged  by his success i n Thessaly, P h i l i p  prepared to extend his influence further south. organized  a defense at Thermopylae with the support of the  Athenians and  successfully  through the pass. war u n t i l The  The Phocians  65  prevented P h i l i p  from  advancing  This was the l a s t decisive action i n the  346. conflict  attrition,  now  disintegrated  i n t o a tedious war  of  i n which the resources of both the Thebans and the  Phocians were gradually drained.  Soon Phayllus died of a  ^v^ris  22 vdaos  and passed on the o f f i c e of strategos to the young  Phalaecus.  After  6 6  Phalaecus was for  h i s own  several  more y e a r s  of  skirmishing,  accused in 347 of s t e a l i n g the sacred treasures private use  ( u6ua) and was  subsequently  deposed  and a board of three generals was chosen to replace him. By almost  this  point,  exhausted  falling  solely  mercenaries.  the f i n a n c i a l and  68  her  upon her  losses  citizens  the  resources of Thebes were i n the Sacred War rather  than upon  were  foreign  F i n a l l y , in 346, the Boeotians sent an embassy  59  to P h i l i p requesting an a l l i a n c e seized  67  o p p o r t u n i t y and  (Diodorus XVI.59.2). advanced  Meanwhile, the Phocians, f e a r i n g  to  Philip  Thermopylae.  the outcome, should  Philip  take the f i e l d against them, had appealed to Athens and Sparta for  help.  triremes  7 0  Athens  to  dispatched  the one  sent a f o r c e under Proxenus and  defense thousand  of  Thermopylae,  hoplites  under  while  fifty Sparta  Archidamus.  71  Phalaecus, however, had somehow regained his post of general and he proceeded from  to send away the Athenian and Spartan forces  Thermopylae.  72  When P h i l i p  arrived  at Thermopylae,  Phalaecus capitulated on condition of safe conduct for himself and  his  army  Peloponnese . their  7 3  of  eight  thousand  mercenaries  to  the  Upon hearing the news of the d e f e c t i o n of  commander and most of the army, a l l the Phocian towns  surrendered u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y .  74  P h i l i p , having put a decisive end to the war  "  5VEU  ydxns,"  continued his role as devout defender of Apollo by c a l l i n g an  23 assembly  of the Amphictyonic  League to decide the fate of  Phocis, instead of taking matters into his own hands (Diodorus XVI.59.4).  One t r i b e  actually  proposed  punishment f o r temple-robbers, that off a c l i f f  (Aeschines 2.142).  the t r a d i t i o n a l  the offenders be thrown  Nevertheless, due to P h i l i p ' s  influence, a more merciful p o l i c y prevailed. towns were thereafter  t o be d e s t r o y e d and t h e i r to dwell i n s c a t t e r e d  f i f t y houses.  A l l the Phocian  inhabitants  villages  were  of no more than  A l l t h e i r horses were to be sold and a l l their  arms destroyed.  An annual payment of s i x t y talents to replace  the treasures of the sanctuary was imposed.  75  In addition,  Phocis was deprived of her share i n the Amphictyonic and her two votes were given to P h i l i p .  7 6  League  P h i l i p was now the  leading power i n the Amphictyonic League and could control the voting  by v i r t u e  of h i s own two votes and h i s sway over  Thessaly and her p e r i o i k o i .  P h i l i p presided over the Pythian  Games of 346 B. C. and then returned home to Macedon (Diodorus XVI.60.2-4). Thus ended the so-called Third Sacred War, with P h i l i p ' s use of the machinery  of the Amphictyonic League to l e g i t i m i z e  his p o s i t i o n i n Greece.  Although, as we have seen above, the  bare f a c t s of the c o n f l i c t  are c l e a r  from the n a r r a t i v e of  Diodorus, the chronology i s hotly disputed. find  modern h i s t o r i a n s  believe doublet,  that 77  divided  the account  into  of Diodorus  Once again, we  two camps:  those who  contains a narrative  and their opponents, who argue that such a doublet  24 does not e x i s t stand.  and t h e r e f o r e Diodorus'  chronology  The question rests upon Diodorus' account  78  crucial f i r s t  years of the war.  into his narrative  of the  Did he insert an extra year  ( the c o n t r o v e r s i a l "doublet") between the  Phocian seizure of Delphi and the Amphictyonic Sacred War?  should  declaration of  Although the narrative of Diodorus does contain  various contradictions and apparent r e p e t i t i o n s , can we r e a l l y impute to our main source for t h i s period such carelessness as to  record unknowingly  the events of the same year twice?  It  seems a contradiction i n terms to derive most (indeed, almost all) at  of our facts concerning t h i s c o n f l i c t  the same time  Moreover, Hammond internal  evidence  evidence  from  to disregard  h i s chronology  has shown, q u i t e i n Diodorus  independent  from Diodorus but: altogether.  convincingly,  squares  sources.  79  with  that the  the e x t e r n a l  Thus, he dates the  seizure of the sanctuary to 357/6 and the declaration of war by the Amphictyonic won wide acceptance. One the  upheaval  Delphi.  of the Greek  squabble  similarity,  world  had i n common with the  of the p r e v i o u s century.  of course, i s that  The obvious  both wars were fought  over  Delphi, by t h i s time, was t r u l y a panhellenic centre.  infallible  oracle  80  may well wonder what t h i s lengthy war concluding i n  bloodless  Its  League to 355/54, and h i s chronology has  (at least according to Book One of Herodotus)  had e x i s t e d  achieved  true  since  the Dark Ages and had f i n a l l y  panhellenic stature  during  the e r a of  25 colonization.  Few c o l o n i e s were e s t a b l i s h e d without  divine  assent from Apollo and often others l a t e r invented oracles to atone  for t h i s oversight.  In a d d i t i o n  to the reputation of  i t s oracle, Delphi also hosted the Pythian Games, which along with the Olympic, panhellenic  Nemean, and Isthmian Games formed  festivals.  This group  the only  of p a n h e l l e n i c f e s t i v a l s  fostered a sense of national unity and a t t r a c t e d v i s i t o r s and competitors from a l l over Greece.  Delphi, therefore, had very  quickly a t t r a c t e d an enormous amount of wealth and prestige and, consequently, i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that numerous attempts were made to control the sanctuary.  The f i r s t  attempt  to do  so with m i l i t a r y force i n the c l a s s i c a l period was aptly named a "Sacred War," remarks.  to Aristophanes' Birds 556  81  A second less  as the s c h o l i a s t  s i m i l a r i t y between the two incidents l i e s on a  superficial  conflicts  level.  was e s s e n t i a l l y  The m o t i v a t i o n behind the same.  Although  both  the two "Sacred  Wars" were nominally on behalf of Apollo, i n r e a l i t y both were fought  for s t r i c t l y  political  motives.  In other words,  r e l i g i o n was merely an excuse to provoke a war i n both cases. The striking.  differences  between the two wars appear  Nevertheless, we must remember  that  f a r more  the ancient  accounts of the fourth-century war are extremely copious and emotional i n comparison with the terse Thucydidean of  the f i f t h - c e n t u r y incident.  Consequently,  to  a s c e r t a i n whether or not p u b l i c  reaction  description  i t is difficult to the f i f t h -  26 century  affair  provoked  by  In this  the  spite  was  any  crime  the  Phocians  reflected Greek into  action  was  Athenian,  by  sympathetic saved  them  their  We from  saw  Delphi  popular taller  level  began  to  as  that  likely  that  that  nominally  of  temple  by  ally  that  the  catalogues  successive topic.  writers  took  retribution  which  they  sacrilegious  Phocians  and  8 4  the  armed  claims  in  to  which  is  contemporary  had  and  as  in itself  been  forced  Phocians,  Aeschines  Phocis  who,  for more  to  pay  as  an  shows  himself  2.142  to  temple-robbers),  have  censures  (2.132). the  time  treasures  the  recounting justly  allies.  8 5  plundered  commanders  passed,  in  considered their  the  l e a d e r s more and  Phocian  pleasure  the  committed  Phocians  f o r the  of  As  in  treasures i n order  sacred treasures  the  "sacrilegious"  since  (he as  having  Phocians  of  Phocians  and  Delphi  sufficient  Even  8 3  as  the  the  execution  the  above  an  the  not  when t h e i r  the  of  Therefore,  Sympathy  mercenaries.  a l l from  later.  especially  8 2  Spartans  as  them  against  fade  plundered  the  take-overs  probably  aware  i t seems  both  brand  century  Thebans.  contemporary and  evidence,  to  sources,  towards  seizure  emotional  i s recorded  outrage  the  of  was  side  a  quite  part,  army  of  enough  pious  unscrupulously their  same  Although  D e l p h i was  i n our  world  t h e most  neither  were  of  the  lack  case.  heinous  occupation  the  o r c h e s t r a t e d armed  fifth-century,  incite  our  the  had  on  fourth-century c r i s i s .  of  not  Athenians  was  tale the  incurred  Although  were  a  grew divine  by  the use  the of  27  temple monies to finance a war Phocians had t a l e n t s and back use.  was  not unprecedented,  had melted down i r r e p l a c e a b l e  The  Phocian  the  "borrowed" the enormous sum of over ten thousand  to the g e n e r o s i t y of Croesus, 87  8 6  widespread  spoliation  feeling  of  the  fourth-century c o n f l i c t  treasures, dating  for their  own  profane  of outrage generated  sanctuary  not found  by  the  i s a f e a t u r e of  i n our accounts  the  (terse as  they are) of the f i f t h - c e n t u r y incident. The  other major differences • between the two wars l i e i n  the d i s t i n c t protracted  f e a t u r e s of the fourth-century c o n f l i c t .  ten-year struggle imposed a l a s t i n g  the Greek world. warfare.  The novel use of mercenaries  impression on revolutionized  The Thebans proved that the use of the machinery of  the Amphictyonic effective.  8 8  League to s e t t l e a p r i v a t e grudge was  most  The ultimate intervention by P h i l i p of Macedon  (also using the machinery  of the Amphictyonic  the face of the Greek world. war  The  had consequences  League) changed  Therefore, the fourth-century  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more far-reaching than the  fifth-century c o n f l i c t . It  i s perhaps  for this  reason  that  the  contemporary  h i s t o r i a n s , unlike modern scholars, did not give i t a number— i t was simply known as " all  in i t s t i t l e  another fact fifth  tepos TtoAeyos  to i n d i c a t e  "Sacred War"  that  0  that  ."  There i s nothing at  i t had  been preceded  i n the previous century.  i t e v i d e n t l y superseded  century i n importance  caused  Perhaps  by the  the minor squabble of the i t to become "the Sacred  28  War" par excellence. After a l l , very few c o n f l i c t s i n ancient Greece took on such dimensions as t h i s exhaustive struggle. Nevertheless, i t i s important to remember that the f i f t h century  incident  i s the o r i g i n a l  "Sacred War" and that the  fourth-century c o n f l i c t apparently began as a "Phocian War." This was the term c o n s i s t e n t l y used by the Athenian orators during the course of the war although, as a l l i e s of Phocis and enemies of P h i l i p , they may have been reluctant to acknowledge it  as  a  "Sacred  historiographic  War."  tradition,  Before  long,  influenced  however,  perhaps  by  the  Philip's  propaganda, saw the connection between the f i f t h - c e n t u r y and fourth-century c o n f l i c t s and borrowed the term from  Thucydides'  narrative.  In t h i s  became a "Sacred War" f o r p o s t e r i t y .  "Sacred War"  way, a "Phocian  War"  29  THE MODERN CONCEPT OF SACRED WAR  In  the previous  chapter,  we e s t a b l i s h e d that the so-  c a l l e d Second and Third Sacred Wars were l a b e l l e d as such (uepbs TidAeyos  ) i  except  n  antiquity.  These wars had l i t t l e  that both were fought over  Delphi.  i n common  the sanctuary of Apollo at  In order to a r r i v e at a working hypothesis to explain  why the term  tep6s TtdAeuos  w  a  s  exclusively applied to these  c o n f l i c t s , we must contrast them with two categories of test cases:  wars which modern scholars have l a b e l l e d as "sacred"  and wars which share elements i n common with tepol ndAeyoL are  not g i v e n  this  attribution  by a n c i e n t  D  U  t  or modern  authorities. The  first  category, wars which have been c l a s s i f i e d as  "sacred wars" by modern s c h o l a r s , fought at Delphi.  consists of two other wars  These are, namely, the F i r s t Sacred War and  the Fourth Sacred War. the t i t l e  89  Yet, neither of these wars was given  uepds ndAeyos i n a n t i q u i t y .  This raises the question  once again of which elements j u s t i f y the use of t h i s term. order  to address  this  In  q u e s t i o n , we must examine these so-  c a l l e d "sacred wars" i n d e t a i l .  30  The  nomenclature  consistent.  The  discussion  quotes  the  earliest  name i s C a l l i s t h e n e s our  of  of  extant  source  of Olynthus,  the  Callisthenes  Deipnosophistae  so-called  so-called  (F Gr  Hist  (XIII.560  First  124  is  1)  by  h a v e a l r e a d y met  Sacred  F  War  t o m e n t i o n t h i s war  whom we Third  Sacred  War.  in a  in  Athenaeus  passage  of  his  B-C):  xai, 6 Kptaauxog TtdXeyos 6voya£d"yevos, u>s cpncu KaXXLcrSevns ev TCJU IlepL TOO ' l e p o i j IToXeyou, oxe KLppaUou npds $wxeUs eTtoXeyricav, 6exaexri£ ?iv. apitaadvTwv KLppatuiv TT\\> JleXdyovLOS xo\3 ^WXEWS duyaxepa Meytaxci x a l xds 'Apyeuoav duyaxepas eiavLOuaas ex xoO nudLxoO tepou. 6exdxuJb 6e exet edAaj xaL ri Ki^ppa.  T h i s b r i e f passage i n Athenaeus does, however, l e a v e w h i c h war  i s discussed i n Callisthenes'  'lepoO noXeyou so-called  ."  First  Does  Sacred  the  War  6 Kpuaauxos ito'Xeyos s i m p l y  monograph as or  a  digression  of  the t i t l e  " Ilept xoO 'iepoti IloXeyou  First  Sacred  Callisthenes on  inference,  i s not  War,  Third  however, not modern  l a b e l l e d as  Sacred  o n l y from  title a  This  9 0  "ITepu xou  whole  concern  treatment  contained War?  the  At  of  in  first  his  sight,  " appears to r e f e r to the  because that  is describing.  the m i s l e a d i n g war  so-called  a  i s Callisthenes'  narrative  called  the  monograph  ambiguous  of  the  i s c l e a r l y t h e war  first  impression  the c o n t e x t First  tepbs ndXeyos  but  which  i s based also  from  as  this  Sacred  War,  any  extant  by  so-  ancient  source. In order 6 L e p d s itdXeyos  scope  of  to a s c e r t a i n ,  i t i s necessary  Callisthenes'  (XIV.117.8)  w h i c h war  that  to  work.  Callisthenes  Callisthenes examine We  began  more  know his  refers  to  closely  from  history  as the  Diodorus with  the  31 events of the year 387/6: KaAAua^Evris 6*6 uaTopLoypdcpoc an6 xfis Haxa xouxov yevoyevris ELpnvns *EAAnau Ttpds Apxa^EpCnv xbv xffiv IlepaaJv 3aaLAea xr]v taxopuav rjpxxau ypacpELV. 6 U E A § C 5 V 6"fe xpuaxovxaexfi \povov sypacpE ysv 3u*3Aous 6exa, xnv 6e xeAeuxatav xaxenauae xfis auvxd^eus tnv uno xoD $LAoynAou xoO xaxdAn^tv xoO EV AsAcpoUs L.Epou. T  evuauTov  T  E  In h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n Diodorus included have seen.  91  L  O  L  O  V  S  $ U M E L J S  S  to the Sacred War under the year 357/6,  Callisthenes  in his l i s t  of sources, as we  Therefore, Callisthenes' Hellenica  years 387/6-357/6 and could  spanned the  not have contained an account of  the Crisaean War, which took place i n the early s i x t h century, except as a digression.  Nevertheless, i t i s not C a l l i s t h e n e s  Hellenica which includes  a digression on the Crisaean War but  rather a separate work, e n t i t l e d " IlepL xou There i s another reference in Cicero  ' I E P O T J  TIoAdyou ."  to t h i s work on the Sacred War  (Epistulae ad Familiares V.12.2):  ...an, ut multi Graeci fecerunt, Callisthenes Phocicum bellum, Timaeus P y r r h i , Polybius Numantium (qui omnes a perpetuis suis h i s t o r i i s ea, quae d i x i , b e l l a separaverunt)... From  1  this  reference  i n Cicero,  i t becomes  clear  92  that  C a l l i s t h e n e s ' monograph on the "Sacred War" i s an account of the fourth-century  c o n f l i c t , and not the Crisaean War and that  i t was composed as a separate appendix to the main body of h i s h i s t o r y , i n t h i s case the Hellenica. of  Callisthenes'  Hellenica  hostilities  over D e l p h i ,  constituted  a sequel  marked  Because the c l o s i n g date the b e g i n n i n g  i t is likely  that  to the H e l l e n i c a .  of the  t h i s monograph 9 3  Therefore,  32 Callisthenes' discussion of the Crisaean War must have been a digression on an e a r l i e r c o n f l i c t over Delphi contained i n the larger  context  clearly  of h i s monograph on the "Sacred War."  the f o u r t h - c e n t u r y 6 tepos ndAeyos  attribution  conflict  which  It i s  i s g i v e n the  and not the Crisaean War.  Another reference by name to the Crisaean War i s found i n the Hypothesis  to Pindar's Nemean IX. The s c h o l i a s t says:  n e p l TSV iv ELXUWVL, nufcdoiv 6 'AALxapvaasOs OUTCO YPacpet* cpncfL 6e iv lip TtoAeytj) TWV KpLaadwv xaxi %dXaaaav pa6du)S Ta entTTl6eLa TtopuCoydvwv xaL 6ud TOUTO yaxpas Y^vovevnc rfjc itoAuopxdas» KAeLaSevnv TOV ELXULSVLOV vauTtxdv t 6 d a TtapaaxeudaavTa xwAOaau Tnv aiToioyudav auTuiv, x a t 6ua Tau*Tnv Trfv euEpYeadav TS TPUTOV TWV Aacpdpcov E*6oaav Tip KAEuadsvEU xau ELXUUJVLOLS . acp'oS xau ELxucovuou T& Ilu'Soa up&TOV itap'saUTOus E^Eaav. -  The s c h o l i a s t does not state e x p l i c i t l y the i d e n t i t y of 6 'AAuxapvaaeus  scholiast probably  .  Drachmann  refers correct,  (ad l o c )  suggests  9 4  to Herodotus V.67.  This  since i n t h i s  Herodotus discusses  chapter  Cleisthenes and h i s o p p o s i t i o n to the SuadaL Sicyon  i n honour  Herodotus  that the  of Adrastus.  i s cited  a little  Moreover,  further  Nemean IX 30a, where i t should  suggestion i s  and opxad this  at  passage of  on i n the scholium to  be noted  mentioned by name and not by b i r t h p l a c e .  that Herodotus i s Herodotus, however,  makes no reference whatsoever to Cleisthenes' role i n the Crisaean War or h i s i n s t i t u t i o n of Pythian Games at Sicyon out of the s p o i l s .  And, i n Herodotus' H i s t o r y , the o r a c l e at  Delphi i s generally portrayed as unsympathetic Therefore, cannot  the cpnad  f o l l o w i n g the lacuna  refer to Herodotus.  to Cleisthenes. i n the scholium  33  The c r u c i a l point to consider regarding the authorship of the section of the scholium following cpnau the  lacuna  contained  Unfortunately, determine. originally  t h e name  of another  the l e n g t h of the lacuna  I f the l a c u n a  was a s h o r t  c o n t a i n the name of any other  Halicarnassian mentioned cannot  i s whether or not source.  i s i m p o s s i b l e to one and d i d source,  not  then the  be Herodotus, because he does  not mention Cleisthenes i n this connection at a l l .  Moreover,  there i s no written reference to Herodotus as 6 'AAtxapvaaeus before the second (Rhetoric  century B. C.  III.9.1)  until  later  From the time of A r i s t o t l e Alexandrine s c h o l a r s h i p ,  Herodotus was referred to as Soupdou ,  9 5  Nevertheless, i f the  scholiast dates from the l a t e r H e l l e n i s t i c period, i t i s much more  likely  that  he i s r e f e r r i n g  to Herodotus  as t h e  Halicarnassian par excellence. Noel  Robertson,  identification Halicarnassus.  96  of  f o l l o w i n g Wilamowit2, 6 'AALxapvaaeu's  He suggests  97  as D i o n y s i u s  that Dionysius "might well"  the foundation of Pythian Games i n his work n e p t Hist 251  F 1), which does not survive.  on chronology positively not  likely  festival  XP°"VO)V  of  treat (F Gr  Since Dionysius' book  i s not extant, Robertson's suggestion cannot be  proved  or disproved.  Nevertheless, Dionysius i s  to have d i s c u s s e d C l e i s t h e n e s or the S i c y o n i a n  in detail.  Furthermore,  scholium and the p a r t i c l e The  proposes the  thesis  that  °£  the change of verbs  i n the  do indicate a change of source.  the lacuna  does c o n t a i n the name of  34 another source  was f i r s t  put forward  by Drachmann (ad loc) .  He proposes that the section on Cleisthenes' involvement can be a t t r i b u t e d to Menaechmus of Sicyon, in  the scholium  conclusion  to Nemean  IX 30a.  since i t i s l i k e l y  This  is a  reasonable  that Menaechmus l i v e d  l a t t e r half of the fourth century over Delphi.  who i s also mentioned  98  99  i n the  i n the wake of the furor  Furthermore, Menaechmus i s a natural  candidate  to t i e Cleisthenes i n with Delphi, as he wrote both a (F Gr H i s t 131 F 1) and a nuSuxo's Nevertheless,  (F Gr H i s t 131 F 2).  too l i t t l e of Menaechmus' work remains f o r us to  v e r i f y t h i s conclusion with any degree of c e r t a i n t y . likely,  however, that  motivation  Menaechmus would have had f a r more  than Dionysius  the s o u r c e  from  whom  Pausanias i s another ancient name.  Like the s c h o l i a s t  of H a l i c a r n a s s u s .  the s c h o l i a s t  information refers t o this war as  by  I t seems  to discuss Cleisthenes and the foundation  P y t h i a at Sicyon rate,  luxuwvLxd  6 ito'Aeyos source  TWV  of the At any  derives his  KptaaiTuv.  to mention t h i s war  i n the Hypothesis to Pindar's  Nemean IX, Pausanias l i n k s Cleisthenes  to the Crisaean  In h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of the monuments at Sicyon,  War.  Pausanias  (II.9.6) mentions the stoa of Cleisthenes and remarks: (J)xo6dynoe 6e onto Aacpupwv 6 KAeuoftevns aOinv xdv npdg Ktppqi TtoAeyov auyitoAeyfjaas 'AycpuxTi5oao.  Pausanias has c l e a r l y Sicyonian  tradition  derived h i s information  (perhaps Menaechmus)  100  from a l o c a l  concerning  this  35 s t o a and  i t s namesake.  Strabo, another  on  source,  Eurylochus  of  the 1 0 1  one  other who  hand, wishes  Thessaly  in  appears  to  be  t o emphasize  the  Crisaean  using  the  War.  yet  role  His  of  first  r e f e r e n c e by name to the war o c c u r s i n IX.3.4: n 6e nat Kdppa x a t r\ KpCaa xaTEaTcda^naav, r\ ye"v ["TCPO'TSPOV und Kpuaauwv, auxin 6*ri KpCaq} uaxspov uit'EupuAo'xou T O O OetxaAoO T O V Kpl'aaCov ncJAeyov.  In IX.3.10, he a l l u d e s to the war  xaxa*  once a g a i n :  y e t a 6e xd\> Kpl'aaCov itd*Aeyov OL. 'AycpLxxu*ov£S LTtTCLXo^v xaC yuyvuxov Eit'EupuAo'xou 6 L E T a £ j L V aTecpavuxriv xaX I l u ^ b a exdAeaav.  6 KpuaaCos ito'AEyos  i s the  term  used  by  Strabo  to denote  this  conflict. Thus, our TG5V  the  surviving  so-called sources  the  Sacred  War  was  referred  to i n  6 K p t a a t x o s Tco'Aeyos, 6 no'AEyos  following:  Kpuaadujv, 6 npos Kuppa Tto'Aeyos, and 6 KpuaaCos Tto'AeyoSo  These  different  names:  the of  fourth  century  these  and Ephorus). called a  formulations  " C r i s a e a n War"  origin  is  as  First  names can  As a r e s u l t ,  i n view  interest  furor  i n past  Amphictyonic Crisaean  over  War  before  cases  v a r i a n t s on  Against  Cirrha."  t r a c e d back  (Callisthenes,  i t is likely  of  the  to  two The the  Menaechmus,  that t h i s war  was  not  Delphi  Not  i n c r e a s e d concern  over  Delphi  War.  conflicts  League.  "War  be  by a s i n g l e f o u r t h - c e n t u r y source, which  o c c a s i o n e d by the Phocian The  the  to  p o s s i b l e be  i n a l l these  ^epos Tto'AEyos  peculiar  or  appear  d i d , however, involving  time  to  that sanctuary  much a t t e n t i o n  this  lead  had  (it is  renewed and  the  been p a i d to  the  not  mentioned  by  36  Herodotus  or  however,  Thucydides).  contemporary  Crisaean  War  and  fourth-century  not  call  War,"  Despite they  s e v e r a l times  at  the c o n c l u s i o n of the Phocian The  first  Speusippus' authority 2):  datable  Letter  to  this  the C r i s a e a n War  quern by  of  between  fact  occasion i n the  reference  time,  of  that  Callisthenes  1 0 3  3 3 0 ' s b e f o r e he  s e t out  (or  the  in  TICVCIE,  reasonably but  the  to i n f e r  testimony  also contained It War  has  to  the  Macedon  found  in  the  to  war of  102  is  found  342,  on  (F Gr  Hist  1  War.  the  in the 69  Although  to C a l l i s t h e n e s ' monograph post  quern i s p r o v i d e d  i n 346  War  departure  and  with  which  was  the  for A s i a .  1 0 4  The  inscription)  F  (Solon  suggested  that  Hypotheses  to  the  we  "Ilepu the ante 344.  mid  of t h i s avaypacpn would  XI.1)  on  nuSoovuxwv  i n the  t h a t i t c o n s i s t e d of a bare l i s t Plutarch  in  n xc5v  begun  title  by  terminus  Alexander  probably  historical narrative.  been  did  C a l l i s t h e n e s included a section  laudatory  of  i t and  decade f o l l o w i n g  C a l l i s t h e n e s a l s o c o l l a b o r a t e d with A r i s t o t l e on ,  the  they  to r e f e r  of Magnesia  terminus  Phocian  avaypacpri  War,  'AucpuMxdovajv avnupednaav."  ," the the  Phocian  interested in  i n h i s work on the Phocian  TOU" 'lepoO noAeyou  the  War.  cannot a s s i g n a d e f i n i t e d a t e  conclusion  saw  Antipater  " KpuaaUou 6e into" xwv  about  of  the  least  Philip  of a c e r t a i n  Probably  result  drew some c o n n e c t i o n  conflict.  i t a "Sacred War  a  h i s t o r i a n s became  clearly  the  Crisaean  As  lead  one  of names,  reveals  that i t  1 0 5  details  Pindar's  of  the  Pythian  Crisaean Odes  are  37  derived  from  because  the dates are given according to both Athenian and  Delpnian  the avaypacpn.  archonships.  however, that  of A r i s t o t l e  I t i s important  1 0 6  the i n s c r i p t i o n  merely  Callisthenes for composing a itCva£ (presumably  and C a l l i s t h e n e s  to remember,  honours A r i s t o t l e and  of v i c t o r s and organizers  the agonothetai) and gives no i n d i c a t i o n of the  dating system  originally  used by A r i s t o t l e and C a l l i s t h e n e s .  The Delphians may have used t h e i r own dating system when they transcribed  the m a t e r i a l  from  the ia'va£;  onto  the marble.  Nevertheless, A r i s t o t l e and C a l l i s t h e n e s may have composed the work using the Delphian system of chronology as a gesture of respect for the eventual p r o p r i e t o r s . The chronology of the scholium, at l e a s t , must ultimately have come from Delphi, perhaps from the avaypacprt  of A r i s t o t l e  and C a l l i s t h e n e s , which was inscribed on stone for everyone to see.  The s c h o l i a s t may have obtained the d e t a i l s , however,  from some other source.  The s c h o l i a s t d i d use Euphorion, the  third-century poet, as a source,  1 0 7  although he was c l e a r l y  not the only authority from whom he derived h i s information (  uapxupeC x a l Eucpopduv  defeat  since most of the c r e d i t  }#  of the C r i s a e a n s  i s given  to E u r y l o c h u s  for the and the  Thessalians, i t has been suggested that the s c h o l i a s t followed a Thessalian source.  108  the Hypotheses Pythiorum,  Because of t h i s Thessalian bias i n i t i s not l i k e l y  that the  avaypacpn  of A r i s t o t l e and C a l l i s t h e n e s was the sole or even the main source of the s c h o l i a s t , as the testimony of Plutarch (Solon  38 XI.1)  implies that i t emphasized the Athenian role i n the war. The extant fragments of Antipater and C a l l i s t h e n e s , as we  have seen,  c o n t a i n no more than p a s s i n g  Crisaean War. found  The f i r s t surviving narrative of i t s events i s  i n Aeschines  330 B. C.  r e f e r e n c e s to the  1  speech Against Ctesiphon  (III.107-112) of  This i s by no means an unbiased account,  however.  Aeschines i s using the events of the Crisaean War i n order to j u s t i f y h i s actions that l e d to the war over Amphissa, often c a l l e d the Fourth Sacred War. The only other narrative of the Crisaean War i s found i n a speech  attributed  included  i n the H i p p o c r a t i c Corpus  but  to Thessalus, son of Hippocrates.  i t sauthenticity  scholars  1 0 9  accept  and d a t e  (Littre  composition, while o t h e r s  Some  as a f o u r t h - c e n t u r y  reject i t as spurious and assign  110  to i t a l a t e H e l l e n i s t i c  IX, p. 404-428),  are questioned.  i t at face value  It i s  date.  This account,  Aeschines,  i s not an unbiased  emphasize  ( i n v e n t ? ) the p a r t which  like  one, as i t s author  that of  wishes to  the A s c l e p i a d s of Cos  played i n the Crisaean War. All  the other  literary  references to the Crisaean War  focus only upon c e r t a i n aspects of the c o n f l i c t them date from H e l l e n i s t i c  times  (or l a t e r ) ,  1 1 1  and many of  although, as  we have seen, they often derive their information from fourthcentury sources. It i s necessary now to examine the events of the Crisaean War i n order  to determine  the s i m i l a r i t i e s  and d i f f e r e n c e s  39  between i t and  the s o - c a l l e d  (which were e n t i t l e d  Second and  Wars  by the ancient sources).  udAeyou  lepoi  T h i r d Sacred  As  the e a r l i e s t accounts of the war date from the fourth century, many of  the  disputed)  details  through  the passage of t i m e .  ancient and modern, protagonist  The  sources.  common cause  (probably  as  a result  sanctuary  tradition  of of  115  Delphi  the  war  i t s very  and  the roads going  or, as brigands,  to the temple.  116  called  are p a r t i c u l a r l y given  both  i n our  sources  ( aaegeUv, u£pucee.v  its offerings. their  Another  1 1 4  c o n t r o l of  the  into Delphi either by severely  robbing and  even k i l l i n g  visitors  C a l l i s t h e n e s (F Gr Hist 124 F 1) a t t r i b u t e s  suspect,  the  as w e l l as  ten year  406 ),  on  the other  this i s  length of the war,  attempt to force a p a r a l l e l with the Trojan War. p.  the  ) against  to the seizure of a woman, but  IX,  Crisa  controversial.  the cause of the war  (Littre  both  vagueness) i s that  shows the Crisaeans abusing  c o a s t l i n e and taxing  at  Scholars,  112  the c i t y  Crisaeans had committed s a c r i l e g e the  therefore  113  causes of the war  most  (and  cannot even agree upon the name of the  i n the Crisaean War,  and Cirrha i n our The  have become confused  as  [Thessalus]  hand, does not  himself to a single cause but provides us with a long  confine list:  6e oi Kpuaatou xdxe T I O A A O L K C I L i a x u p o t x a t T I A O U O L O U , xodxous xoCs orya^oLS E I L xaxiji e x P l * e^uftpuaavxes yap TtoAAd 6euva xaC itapdvoua Ebpydaavxo, es xdv %£ov aaegoOvxes, AeAcpobs xaxabouAouyevou, upoaodxous AntCoyevou, §eu>pous auAeovxes, yuvduxds r e xca TiaC6as a y t v e o v x e S j x a l eus x& auyaxa e^uftpd^ovxes. OSTOL  T  C T C t V T 0  an  40 The  testimony  blatantly  of  [Thessalus] a l s o  attempting  i s suspect, because he i s  to forge together a l l the  t r a d i t i o n s concerning the cause of the Crisaean Despite  a l l this  confusion,  conflicting  War.  i t i s evident  that  the  enviable p o s i t i o n of the Crisaeans c o n t r o l l i n g the routes into Delphi both by sea and  by land had  among t h e i r  or had  their  neighbours  c o n t r o l over  whatever against Delphi. earnest  reason,  either provoked  jealousy  led to abuse on their part of  the o r a c l e and  those consulting i t .  For  the Amphictyonic  League resolved upon  war  the Crisaeans and obtained a favourable oracle from Thereupon the war  117  and  against the Crisaeans began i n  the Amphictyonic  f o r c e s were strengthened  by  a l l i e d reinforcements. The connection of the Amphictyonic this  time  is difficult  League with Delphi at  to determine.  Most of our ancient  sources appear to imply that the Amphictyonic already  at Delphi before the war  same sources  state e x p l i c i t l y  began.  the Amphictyonic  Nevertheless,  League and  i s that  the  in  It seems u n l i k e l y that  the powerful  would peacefully have co-existed at Delphi. hypothesis  the  that the c i t y of C r i s a was  control of the sanctuary at t h i s time. both  League existed  Amphictyonic  c i t y of C r i s a  A more p l a u s i b l e  League,  with  its  Thessalian majority, saw the s i t u a t i o n at the beginning of the s i x t h century as an opportunity to extend Anthela to Delphi. sacrilegious  By  i t s influence from  "defending" Delphi from the a l l e g e d l y  Crisaeans,  the Amphictyonic  League was  able  41 legitimately  to gain c o n t r o l  the r e s o u r c e s This refers  is  to  the  Amphictyonic  be  the  (III.109-112) the  venerated  reinforced  (11.115) to an oath and  appear  this  sanctuary  and  therein.  interpretation  au*vo.6os o f  upon  of  same  as having  those  the  This  which  been sworn by  c o n c l u s i o n of  Aeschines,  a c u r s e sworn a t League.  as  by  n it p arm  oath  and  curse  Aeschines  quotes  the Amphictyonic  C r i s a e a n War.  ( I I I . 1 1 3 ) t h a t the r e c o r d of t h i s oath and  who  League  Aeschines  adds  curse e x i s t e d  still  at D e l p h i i n h i s day. The propaganda used by the Amphictyonic  League to  i t s cause must have been enormously e f f e c t i v e two  and  tried  a half  to  centuries l a t e r ) ,  glorify  t r a d i t i o n s about conflict. in was  the  their  tradition  Sicyon.  as o t h e r s t a t e s  i n the  i n the  of 1 1 9  with  Amphictyonic  The  third  forces  tradition  war  and  Modern  scholars,  for  no g r e a t m i l i t a r y  are  as  to whether  the  most  to  The  in this involved Alcmaeon  Sicyonian the  Cleisthenes  role  of  Thessalian  of  Amphictyonic  1 2 0  part,  agree  that  i n the C r i s a e a n War,  S i c y o n or  three  attributes  emphasizes  a s s i g n s the  role  1 1 8  Menaechmus?)  the  i n the  contingent.  commander to E u r y l o c h u s of T h e s s a l y .  divided  There  c a p a c i t y o f a d v i s o r and  the A t h e n i a n  (originating  involvement  played  war.  to be  subsequently  The A t h e n i a n v e r s i o n s t a t e s t h a t Solon was  l e a d e r of  command  (as i t was  the r o l e p l a y e d by each of the a l l i e s  C r i s a e a n War  the  share  justify  T h e s s a l y was  the  121  Athens  but  are  predominant  42  power.  Parke  would be  argues that a Thessalian  122  logical  League of  the  due  to the m a j o r i t y  Thessalian  bloc.  commander-in-chief i n the  S o r d i , on  Amphictyonic  the other  hand,  believes that the Thessalians did not gain control over t h e i r p e r i o i k o i u n t i l long a f t e r the conclusion of the Crisaean around 560 B. C. agricultural destroying  Moreover, the distant Thessalians with  economy would  not  have a n y t h i n g  the powerful port of C r i s a .  by  the  d e s t r u c t i o n of  western trade r o u t e .  by  Sicyon, however, a  1 2 3  C r i s a and  her  everything  hold  on  the  This argument i s hampered by the fact  124  that the Amphictyonic League was religious  their  to g a i n  powerful r i v a l of C r i s a on the Gulf of Corinth, had to gain  War,  organization  clearly  in o r i g i n  desired control over the -sanctuary  and,  a local  as  Thessalian  such, would have  at Delphi  by means of  the  destruction of the c i t y of C r i s a . Nevertheless, Thessaly  may  the opposing t r a d i t i o n s can be reconciled.  have used a c o n f l i c t  nominally  on  behalf  of  Apollo (as P h i l i p was  to do two centuries l a t e r ) to extend her  influence southward.  Thus, Eurylochus presumably put his army  and cavalry at the disposal of the Amphictyonic League and subsequently  appointed  commander  Moreover, i t seems improbable  of  the  that anyone but  land a  was  forces.  Thessalian  could have been leader of an Amphictyonic force at t h i s time, when the Sicyon, on of the  organization the other  fleet.  1 2 5  was  still  a  local  Thessalian  hand, as a sea power, was  In t h i s way,  the war  was  one.  given c o n t r o l  waged by a  co-  43  operative force of a l l i e s . Our  sources provide us with very l i t t l e d e t a i l about the  course of the war. During of  the f i r s t  It was  stage of the war,  Cleisthenes' fleet  siege,  126  and  apparently composed of two the blockading  stages.  operations  i n the Gulf of C o r i n t h ended a long  the c i t y of C r i s a was  razed to the ground.  127  The defeat and destruction of Crisa occurred i n the archonship ayhv xpnyaTuxns  of Gylidas at Delphi and an of  the . s p o i l s .  was  celebrated out  128  After the downfall of their c i t y , the surviving Crisaeans took refuge on Mount C i r p h i s , separated by the P l e i s t u s River from Mount Parnassus, Two  stratagems  stage  of  the  condition.  130  129  are mentioned i n our sources pertaining to t h i s war.  The  Amphictyons poisoned h e l l e b o r e and  and continued resistance from t h e r e .  first  is a  tradition  that  the water supply of the Crisaeans  the with  were able to overcome them i n t h e i r weakened The  second stratagem  an oracle given to the Amphictyonic  came about as a result of forces:  ou Ttptv Tna6e ndAnos E P E L C ^ E X E irupyov E A E V X E S , np£v x E V EuiJ) T E U E V E U xuavwii u 60 s 'Aycpoxpuxn x£3ya iroxLxAO'cri xEXaSoOv e n t oCvoira T C O V X O V .  In order  to circumvent  the geographical  impossibility,  the  Amphictyons dedicated to Apollo the Crisaean Plain,which lay between Delphi and as  later  the s e a .  romanticized  obviously continued  132  These stratagems  i n v e n t i o n s , but  guerilla  from Mount C i r p h i s a f t e r  are  suspect  operations  C r i s a had been  44 destroyed.  Six years  later,  r e s i s t a n c e were overcome. was  the l a s t Finally,  133  remnants of Crisaean i n 582/1, the v i c t o r y  celebrated by the i n s t i t u t i o n of the ayiov axecpavtxns  f i r s t i n a series of o f f i c i a l Pythian  festivals.  , the  1 3 4  Most of our sources agree that the Amphictyonic League was  fighting  Forrest,  1 3 5  against  C r i s a on b e h a l f  however, has challenged  of D e l p h i .  George  this t r a d i t i o n a l view of  the Crisaean War i n a r e - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo.  The c r u c i a l l i n e s (540-43) are at the end of Apollo's  speech to the Cretan s a i l o r s , where he warns them: fie X L xn.u'aLov eitos eaaexau ne T L e p Y j u3pug %' , n §euus eaxu xaxa^vnttov av^pcSnajv, aXXot eneu^'uyuv anuctvxopes avSpeg e a a o v x a t , xuv v%'avayxaurj 6e6yn aea^'nyaxa itdvxa. o v  ,  The general modern consensus i s that these l i n e s refer to the Crisaean  War, although scholars remain undecided whether  they date from before other  hand, argues  or a f t e r the war.  that  these  l i b e r a t i o n of the sanctuary  lines  136  Forrest, on the  cannot a l l u d e  from an outside threat (Crisa) but  rather to a change i n the organization of Delphi anydvxopes  can  only  )  1 3 7  Forrest concludes that these  be the Amphictyons,  " l i b e r a t i o n " of the sanctuary the winning s i d e . Forrest  to the  138  (  S.\\OL  "new masters"  and the t r a d i t i o n  of the  arose out of later propaganda by  1 3 9  has r a i s e d  an i n t e r e s t i n g problem  and  his  c r i t i c i s m of the usual i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these l i n e s i s v a l i d . Nevertheless,  h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n rests upon the assumption  that these l i n e s i n fact  refer to the Crisaean War and, more  45  p r e c i s e l y , that they date from after i t s conclusion. no c o n c l u s i v e evidence  i n the Homeric Hymn i t s e l f  these l i n e s with the Crisaean War. generally accepted,  There i s  connecting  This suggestion, although  i s a modern inference based  on the fact  that there were no other known c o n f l i c t s at Delphi during the archaic  period.  Inference  conclusion squares expansion has  with our meagre i n f l u e n c e concerning the  of the Amphictyonic  the v i r t u e  or n o t , however, F o r r e s t ' s  League to Delphi and at least  o f not b e i n g  misled  by l a t e r  propaganda  disseminated by that organization. The  war which modern h i s t o r i a n s  refer  to as the Fourth  Sacred War took place i n the period of increased concern Delphi and the Amphictyonic conclusion  League i n the years following the  of the P h o c i a n  War.  The main  facts  c o n f l i c t emerge from the r i v a l versions of Aeschines 129)  over  and Demosthenes. (XVI11.139-159) , both  of t h i s (III.113-  of whom were  involved with i t p e r s o n a l l y . The  war was apparently known as "the Amphissan War" by  i t s contemporaries. TcoAeyos" (XVIII.143  Demosthenes refers to i t as " 6 ev 'Aycptaari and 163).  equivalent periphrasis 237 )  1 4 0  .  alludes to i t by the  " Tuepl -rotfs 'Aycpuaae'as  " ( I I I . 221 and  P l u t a r c h speaks of the war i n the same  Nowhere i n a n t i q u i t y although  Aeschines  Demosthenes  Amphictyonic was f i n a l l y  i s this  war l a b e l l e d  (XVIII.143) does  141  a "sacred war,"  refer  War ( ndXeyoS 'AycptXTuovuxo's ) .  terms.  to i t as an  In modern times i t  c l a s s i f i e d as a "sacred war" f o r the f i r s t  time,  46 the fourth i n a s e r i e s . The causes of t h i s war Amphissa, a c i t y IX.4.8), had again,  on  the  edge of  apparently  e x i s t e d that  1  land  this  result of the Crisaean War, been an  aetiological  the  The Locrians of  Crisaean  Plain  begun to c u l t i v a t e the  although t h i s was  tradition  are f a i r l y c l e a r .  consecrated  land had  1 4 3  land surrounding the sanctuary.  to account  simply  for the  A  1 4 2  been consecrated  as a have sacred  What i s important, however,  i s that t h i s t r a d i t i o n of the consecrated long before the Phocian War  p l a i n once  to A p o l l o .  although t h i s may  explanation  (Strabo  land c l e a r l y existed  placed Delphi and  i t s sanctuary i n  the l i m e l i g h t . An lines  Amphictyonic  law  15-26) f i x e s the  of  380/79  punishment  encroaching upon the sacred  land and  (IG to be  II  2  1126,  SIG  145,  imposed upon those  limits  the uses of  this  land: ETf£po6os y^S t a p a s * a t x t s x a v ytT.v e n s u e ) y(xc, [p) t x Co"] av 'AycpuxxuovES t d p o j a a v , ETCEU x (a] a n d p o S o s yuvnTau, an ox [JEU a ax to xcou t a p S t . ?; . }.. 3 a x a x r i p a s A f y t v a t o s x a x ' x j j i ) T I E A E ^ P O V 'Exaaxov* x o u 6e U£poyvdi{oves i t s p t t o v x a i v ast xav uepav Y^V^J xau up [aoOadvxcjv xdv situ CE^ pya£;dy£vov' a t 6£ yn l E p t t e t E V n yn u p [ a a a o t E V , a i t o x E t a d x t o o yn i t £ p t t w v 3 y n o ' s ^ x nfjpdaacuv x p t d x o v x a a x a x f i p a s * a t 6e x a yr) omoTU-vn^ 6 CocpeuAwv, a i c d X t s , e£ a s x'e£ 6 UEpoyvdyunT), £uA£af3>af3 xoO" t a p o u x a t axpaxEudvxuv e n ' a u x o s ' A y c p t x x d o v e s O ^ t d x a ou u s p o y v d y o v E s £uaYY '^i Awvx (u. E X j x a s u e p a s Y&S x d u p o v yn ayev y n o E y u a v . O t x n o t o s " e n t . . . c. 37.... E V F t S t a Q Q e n ^ ^ a A d a a a u , x a s 6 e u a a x d S a s xouv&s e S y e v Ttdvxeaat { j o t s u e p o y v a y d v e a a u ? . .c. . 8 . . . y t j a%ov y f j l d ) e v a cpe'pev y n o E v d , y n S ' l v o u x S v x d v a u x o v TCAEOV x p t d x o v x a ayspav..c,.9. yn6e Y C x a ^ 3 E V O U X E ( V y j n o s y u a v , \ir\6\ ydAav E V E C y s v vndi. o A y o v * a t 6s x t s T (Q"S v d y o u s x o u x o u s T t a p g a t v o t , x o t O a p o y ^ d i J J p v E s C a y u o v x w v o x u v u x a Stxat'ojt acptv 6oxnu eZ\iev eict [ ? a y t u t . . c.. 7... . 6E xou" § E A O V X E S _ 3 x a ^ a Y C j e J AAdvxuw itot xds tapoyvdyovss. 1  e  x  u v a  0  Isocrates,  i n h i s P l a t a i c u s of c. 373  B. C ,  refers to  47 this consecrated  land i n the course of a polemic against the  Thebans (31): ou 6uaxuxno'dvTU)V uyffiv ydvou TCV auyydxuv As  xP^l  T 1  1  v  ynXoBoxov  T  KO\LV  e  Aan£p TO  e^avbpontoSuaaadaL Kpuaauov  xnv 4>fitpov,  edevTO  xat  Trfv  x^pav  avefvao  TIE&COV.  The s a l i e n t point i n this passage i s that Isocrates i s c l e a r l y using the Crisaean P l a i n as an example of punishment following defeat  i n war.  Crisaean war  This, then, i s our e a r l i e s t reference to the  War and indicates that an e a r l i e r t r a d i t i o n  predated  aftermath  the  increased  concern  over  of t h i s  Delphi  i n the  of the Phocian War.  The Amphictyonic law and the testimony of Isocrates show that t h i s consecration  was s t i l l  in effect  at t h i s time and,  therefore, the encroachment by the Amphissans was l e g a l l y an offense.  It i s not s p e c i f i c a l l y stated when the Amphissans  began encroaching  upon the consecrated  been at some point a f t e r Since  Aeschines  League  the Amphictyonic decree of 380/79.  (III.119) p o i n t s  the f o r b i d d e n  land, but i t must have  buildings  out to the Amphictyonic  erected  upon  the  Crisaean  P l a i n , the encroachment of the Amphissans must have been going on for some time but t h i s  offense  was  ignored  u n t i l i t was  p o l i t i c a l l y expedient to bring i t up. The occasion arose at the autumn meeting (Pylaea) Amphictyonic official  League  of 340  B.  C.  145  Diognetus  was  representative of Athens to the Amphictyonic  (hieromnemon) for that y e a r  145  of the the  Council  and Aeschines had been elected  by the Athenians as one of three  delegates  (pylagorai) .  1 4 7  48 Upon t h e i r a r r i v a l a t D e l p h i , the A t h e n i a n d e l e g a t i o n r e c e i v e d a  secret  report  persuasion resolution against  that  the L o c r i a n s of Amphissa  of the Thebans) ( Sdyya ) t h a t  the A t h e n i a n s  the new temple  consecrated.  148  a fine  going  of f i f t y  f o r having  at Delphi  d e s t r o y e d by f i r e  were  (at the  to bring talents  dedicated gilded  (the o l d Alcmaeonid  about be  a  levied  shields i n  temple  i n 373 B. C.) b e f o r e i t had been  had been officially  T h i s l a c k o f p r o t o c o l , however, d i d not cause  o f f e n s e so much as the i n s c r i p t i o n on these  shields:  'A^nvaCou onto Mrt6wv nat SnftauDV, OTE xavavxda xoug "EAAnauv eydxovxo.  (Aeschines As  Diognetus,  pylagorai reply  t h e hieromnemon,  and one o f t h e o t h e r  had come down with a f e v e r , A e s c h i n e s  to this  beginning  charge  on b e h a l f  o f h i s speech,  was i n t e r r u p t e d for  III.116)  Aeschines  was asked to  of the c i t y . alleges  At the  1 4 9  (III.117)  that he  by a c e r t a i n Amphissan, who reproached  her a l l i a n c e  with Phocis  offenses.  In r e t u r n ,  Cirrhaean)  Plain,  Athens  i n the Phocian War, among other  Aeschines  p o i n t e d t o the C r i s a e a n (or  which was c l e a r l y  visible  from  the l o f t y  seat o f D e l p h i on Mount Parnassus, as t a n g i b l e evidence o f the o f f e n s e s of the Amphissans As matter  a result  ( I I I . 118-119).  of Aeschines'  of the s h i e l d s  hieromnemones voted  was  persuasive o r a t o r y ,  forgotten  to make an o f f i c i a l  the c o n s e c r a t e d l a n d .  1 5 1  All  immediately survey  the D e l p h i a n s  (  1 5 0  the  and t h e  i t e p t o d o s  ) of  of m i l i t a r y age  and a l l the hieromnemones and p y l a g o r a i were t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n  49 t h i s expedition. after  the  On  the  inspection  f o l l o w i n g day and  a  fair  (Aeschines  bit  of  III.123),  Amphictyonic  destruction were c a r r i e d out, the Amphictyons were attacked  by  the  to  Locrians  of Amphissa  Delphi with their An  b a r e l y managed to escape  1 5 2  emergency assembly was  next day  and  i t was  Amphictyonic order  lives.  and  voted  League before  to decide  the  Demosthenes had  convened at Delphi  the  next Pylaea  the Athenians not  but  present.  this  1 5 3  president  At of  the  a l l the other  was  at  to her  156  the  was  elected  an  been on campaign i n Scythia) was  general  Philip  (who  expedition  levied  The Amphissans, however, refused to pay (autumn 339)  as  154  155  next campaigning season (spring 339),  next Pylaea  instigation  Pharsalus,  made against the Amphissans and a fine was  them.  this  Amphictyonic members were  (strategos) of the Amphictyonic f o r c e s . The  III.124).  to attend  meeting, Cottyphus of  Amphictyons,  in  to abstain (this c i t y  presumably in an awkward p o s i t i o n due  of the c r i s i s ) ,  the  (spring 339)  (Aeschines  meeting and the Thebans had also decided was  very  to hold a s p e c i a l meeting of  f a t e of Amphissa  persuaded  the  against  the f i n e  had  and  previously  elected commander.  157  At  the  head of the second expedition, P h i l i p made as i f to march to Cirrha Thebes,  but,  to the  seized  shock and  Cytinium  and  s u r p r i s e of Elateia  both Athens  instead.  1 5 8  and  This  unexpected development resulted in the a l l i a n c e of Athens  and  Thebes and f i n a l l y in the infamous b a t t l e of Chaeronea i n  338.  50  Thus,  like  the  Phocian  War,  the Amphissan  War  served  to  l e g i t i m i z e P h i l i p ' s a r r i v a l i n Greece. The  question  remains, however, why  the  Crisaean  Amphissan Wars were not l a b e l l e d by the ancients as The  modern c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  of  "sacred war"  tepol  which has  and ndAeuou.  been  attached to these c o n f l i c t s appears the natural term to use, as both the Crisaean and Amphissan Wars are c l o s e l y linked to the Phocian War  in particular.  The s i m i l a r i t i e s between these c o n f l i c t s are so great, i n fact,  that the  tradition  between them has  become  confused.  A l l three of these wars were fought nominally on behalf of the sanctuary  of A p o l l o at Delphi by  the Amphictyonic  Leaglue  against an offender who  had exhibited some form of uBpts .  The  real  wars,  the  issue  i n these  however, was  control  of  sanctuary and alleged encroachment of sacred land often served as a c a t a l y s t i n these struggles. the separate the  strands of evidence,  Crisaean  War,  contemporary evidence, end  It i s d i f f i c u l t to entangle  the  only  except  especially  one  i n the case of  f o r which  for the enigmatic  we  have  l i n e s at the  of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo which, i f they do  refer to the Crisaean War, The  Crisaean War  may  in fact  be near contemporary.  possesses  very few  elements which are  not a l l e g e d l y present in the Phocian and Amphissan Wars. the  Even  name of i t s protagonist i n the majority of the ancient  sources, C i r r h a , War.  no  The  ten  reappears year  i n connection with  duration  of  the  war,  the Amphissan as  given  by  51 Callisthenes  (F Gr Hist 124 F 1), i s apparently an attempt to  draw an a r t i f i c i a l p a r a l l e l between i t and the Trojan War, as w e l l as the Phocian War.  Ten, however, was a t r a d i t i o n a l  number and a l l three of these wars might have been remembered i n later accounts as ten year wars just for that reason.  One  scholar even considers the t r a d i t i o n of the two stages i n the fighting War.  to be a r e f l e c t i o n  of the events  of the Phocian  159  The b i g g e s t area of c o n f u s i o n i s to be found causes of the war. that  Callisthenes  (F Gr Hist 124 F 1) alleges  the seizure of a c e r t a i n Phocian woman was the reason  behind  the outbreak  of the war.  T h i s romantic  suspect, however, as an obvious attempt War.  i n the  detail is  to mirror the Trojan  Interestingly enough, Duris of Samos (F Gr Hist 76 F 2)  makes an almost  identical  allegation  with  Phocian War, probably f o r the same r e a s o n . tradition  of s a c r i l e g e against the g o d  more e x p l i c i t  detail  151  respect to the 150  The common  i s found  i n much  i n ancient accounts of the Phocian War.  The cause of the war given by Pausanias Crisaeans were encroaching upon land  (X.57.6),  that the  sacred to A p o l l o , i s  r e f l e c t e d i n ancient accounts not only of the Phocian War, but also of the Amphissan War. taxes,  154  or worse,  155  153  F i n a l l y , the imposition of  upon v i s i t o r s to the sanctuary i s also  a recurrent theme i n accounts of the Amphissan War. Modern  scholars  i n t r u s i o n of d e t a i l s  152  agree,  f o r the most  part,  155  that the  i n t o the Crisaean War from the Phocian  52 and A m p h i s s a n Wars r e s u l t e d outbreak written had  record  forgotten  similar to  of i t . the r e a l  events.  Robertson,  evidence  and t h e  first  historians  and s i m p l y m o d e l l e d  i t upon  Nevertheless, i t i s necessary  1 6 7  such  an argument  information  however,  article,  argues  1 6 8  does  at face  value,  early  history  about  of this that  the lack  constitutes believes  proof  that  especially following  turbulence  Although  Ro.bertson,  1 7 4  t h e 340's  existed.  and Thucydides i s claims  and A n t i p a t e r  t o be 1 7 2  yudos , i n v e n t e d  purposes  interpretation ex silentio,  t o re-examine  three  wars  i s mainly i t i s useful  Some o f t h e c r i t i c i s m s  by  in  by t h e  i n the p o l i t i c a l  t h e C r i s a e a n War  labelled  He  1 6 9  the settlement of the Phocian War.  f r o m an argumentum  the other  of the  Robertson  war u n t i l  then,  1 7 1  as a  most  elsewhere,  of Herodotus  of Demosthenes  Robertson's  a need  the fact  for this  f o r propaganda  following  provokes  that  t h e C r i s a e a n War  of Philip  a l l the ancient  with  t h e C r i s a e a n War n e v e r  1 7 0  view.  by r e l e g a t i n g i t  are doubled  the silence  t h e example  partisans  "sacred."  that  t h e common  and c o n c l u d e s  of evidence  damning.  classifying  inference  Coupled  conflict  not share  he r e - i n t e r p r e t s  f o r t h e C r i s a e a n War  the realm o f saga.  details  to  casus b e l l i  o f our a v a i l a b l e  I n an i n t e r e s t i n g  it  century  between t h e  t h i s gap. Noel  to  sixth  interval  By t h e m i d - f o u r t h c e n t u r y ,  be c a u t i o u s i n a c c e p t i n g most  the long  i n the early  contemporary  because has  o f war  from  modern  173  based  on  i n that  i n relation scholars  he makes a r e v a l i d  as  b u t he  53 has overlooked some s i g n i f i c a n t  facts.  F i r s t of a l l , when Aeschines having fact  cultivated  that  this  Demosthenes'  denounces the Amphissans for  the Crisaean P l a i n ,  land  was indeed  no-one questions the  sacred  to A p o l l o ,  a l l e g a t i o n s to the c o n t r a r y .  Since  information was apparently common knowledge, Aeschines have invented pieces  the consecration of the p l a i n .  of evidence,  Isocrates'  despite this cannot  Secondly,  Plataicus  two  31 and t h e  Amphictyonic law of 380/79 (IG I I 1126, SIG 145) prove that 2  this plain  was i n fact  been so for a long time. other  sacred  to Apollo and had apparently  Therefore, neither Aeschines  nor any  of Robertson's "partisans of P h i l i p " can have invented  the consecration of the Crisaean P l a i n .  The t r a d i t i o n that  the consecration of the "land came about as a r e s u l t  of the  Crisaean  state,  War, as our a n c i e n t  c l e a r l y predates  sources  the 340's and, probably,  unanimously  the fourth century  altogether. The by  fact that the Crisaean War i s not e x p l i c i t l y treated  any h i s t o r i a n  until  the m i d - f o u r t h  conclusive proof of i t s non-existence  century  either.  the contrary, that t h i s c o n f l i c t was largely for  i s not a  It appears, on ignored  (except  the passage i n Isocrates and the Amphictyonic decree of  380/79, which i s less s p e c i f i c ) u n t i l the mid-fourth when  i t was  r e s u s c i t a t e d as propaganda  p o l i t i c a l unrest surrounding  Delphi.  descent  the d e t a i l s  into near o b l i v i o n ,  century,  i n the wake of  As a result of i t s long of the Crisaean War  54 became  confused  contemporary and  conflict  after  the Phocian  so the  until  D e l p h i , that i n common  attribute  on t h i s  category  of  sanctuaries, antiquity.  for their  to mention  i t was  amplified  however, i n t h i s  circulated  own  ends.  which  Herodotus  what was e s s e n t i a l l y for political  test  period  a  reasons  of intense concern  t h e C r i s a e a n and Amphissan with  the Phocian  oepos udAeyos  conclusion  versions  War.  i s curious,  much  used  d i d not deign  minor  over  different  politicians  Thucydides  It  and  .  War,  i n order  were  and d e t e r m i n e  religious i n what  terms  which had  not a l s o  to reach  subject, i t i s necessary cases,  Wars,  any k i n d  to turn  disputes  given of  t o another  over  other  they a r e spoken o f i n  55  OTHER RELIGIOUS DISPUTES  The  second category of test cases to be contrasted with  the wars e n t i t l e d  j_ antiquity  Ttd*AeyoL  tepol  c o n s i s t s of  n  examples of other c o n f l i c t s which apparently share elements i n common with them but are not l a b e l l e d as such by ancient or modern a u t h o r i t i e s .  The s e l e c t i o n  of the test  cases to be  examined out of the numerous disputes with r e l i g i o u s overtones which took p l a c e throughout purely a r b i t r a r y .  a n c i e n t Greek h i s t o r y  Each test case possesses a s p e c i f i c element  in common with the c o n f l i c t s referred With t h i s purpose represent  Olympia  The f i r s t  This w i l l  350/49 over the Sacred Orgas,  of  consecrated land  by  to be l e f t  the t i t l e .  to be discussed i s the  illustrate  the element of  raises  the issue  untilled.  once again  By comparing and  these c o n f l i c t s with those l a b e l l e d "sacred wars"  a n c i e n t and modern  determine  ,  The second, the dispute between Athens and Megara  of  contrasting  udAeuoL  by the A r c a d i a n League of the o f f e r i n g s a t  i n 364 B. C.  sacrilege.  to as iepol  i n mind, two test cases were chosen to  t h i s category.  confiscation  was not  sources,  i t will  be p o s s i b l e  to  more c l e a r l y the motives behind the a t t r i b u t i o n of  56 Let  us  now  proceed  to the  first  of  these  test  cases,  namely the c o n f i s c a t i o n by the Arcadian League of the o f f e r i n g s at Olympia.  sacred  This apparent act of s a c r i l e g e forms a  l i n k i n the larger chain of events which eventually culminated in the B a t t l e of Mantinea i n 362 p a r t i c u l a r c r i s i s was  B. C.  The  c a t a l y s t of t h i s  the Elean seizure of the town of Lasion  in the summer of 365.  175  This c o n f l i c t had been brewing since the aftermath of the Battle  of L e u c t r a .  Leuctra,  the Eleans  some of seized  A f t e r the  their and  defeat  at  obviously harboured hopes of regaining  former p o s s e s s i o n s ,  declared  C o r i n t h i a n War  d e c i s i v e Spartan  which the  independent  in  the  (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a III.23  Spartans  course and  had  of  30).  the These  former Elean possessions -included the t e r r i t o r y of T r i p h y l i a , located south of E l i s on the western coast of the Peloponnese, and  the  town of Lasion, a l i t t l e  f u r t h e r north.  consternation, the Eleans were f r u s t r a t e d all  sides.  (including  Not  only were a l l c i t i e s ,  specifically  To  their  i n t h i s desire on  both  the disputed d i s t r i c t  great and  small  of T r i p h y l i a ) ,  declared autonomous by the common peace treaty of 371 ,  but  1 7 6  the people  of T r i p h y l i a  (presumably Arcadians  Lasion  was  and  the other  among t h i s  i n complete and  total  (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.1.26). hand, were overjoyed Lasion  at  least  at t h i s  dating  former Elean  number) c l a i m e d  to  be  r e j e c t i o n of Elean demands The  Arcadians,  on the  news (they also had  back  cities  to  the  other  claims  beginning  of  on the  57 century)  and welcomed these towns with open arms into the  177  Arcadian  League.  178  Resentment  built  up among the Eleans,  e s p e c i a l l y a f t e r the Arcadians had rejected the proposed peace treaty of 367 i n which the King of Persia had re-assigned the disputed t e r r i t o r i e s to E l i s ,  and was f i n a l l y manifested by  1 7 9  the seizure of Lasion. This response again,  hostile  a c t i o n provoked an  and l e d to renewed  war  the face of the complex  immediate  Arcadian  i n the Peloponnese. system of a l l i a n c e s  Peloponnese underwent a transformation.  180  Once i n the  At the beginning  of the decade, the diplomatic s i t u a t i o n was represented by two major  systems  Spartan.  182  of a l l i a n c e s :  the B o e o t i a n  Arcadia  and  Elis  Hellenica VII.1.26); Spartan  and  the  By the eve of the Elean-Arcadian War, the network  of a l l i a n c e s had changed, somewhat. and  1 8 1  Relations between Thebes  and A r c a d i a  had  cooled  Achaea, formerly neutral, had joined the  s i d e (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.1.43);  instigation  of Euphron) had switched  Arcadian-Argive  (Xenophon,  coalition  Sicyon  i t s a l l e g i a n c e to the  (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a  Athens had joined Arcadia i n a defensive a l l i a n c e Hellenica VII.4.2 and 6);  (at the  VII.1.45); (Xenophon  Corinth and i t s a l l i e s had become  neutral as a r e s u l t of a pact with Thebes (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.4.6-11). situation. the Spartans  The outbreak The Achaeans  of war  f u r t h e r complicated  the  (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.4.17) and  (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.4.20) fought together on  the Elean side against the Arcadians, Argives, Thebans, and  58  Messenians (Xenophon, Hellenica The  Arcadians, provoked  were completely  VII.4.27).  by the Elean seizure of Lasion,  s u c c e s s f u l i n their counterattack and gained  c o n t r o l of much Elean t e r r i t o r y ,  i n c l u d i n g the sanctuary of  Olympia (Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.14).  The next summer (364)  was the occasion of the one hundred and fourth Olympiad and the Arcadians accordingly made preparations to hold the games as usual.  Perhaps i n order to l e g i t i m i z e t h e i r p o s i t i o n , the  Arcadians  recognized  the claims of the P i s a t a n s , i n whose  t e r r i t o r y the sanctuary was located (Strabo VIII.3.30), to be the o r i g i n a l hosts of the Olympic Games and "reinstated" them to their alleged ancient s t a t u s . the  rival  Eleans  a nominal  Free of i t s subjection to  and once more an independent  P i s a t i s was q u i t e w i l l i n g only  183  to j o i n  state,  1 8 4  the Arcadians, even i f i n  capacity, in presiding  over  the Olympic  festival. The one hundred and fourth Olympic Games apparently began as i f nothing out of the ordinary had occurred. from  throughout  event,  Greece and abroad  the horse-race  assembled  185  Competitors  and the f i r s t  began (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a  VII.4.29).  This a i r of n o r m a l i t y was not, however, of long d u r a t i o n . Midway through  the next  event,  the p e n t a t h l o n ,  the Eleans  stormed the sanctuary and penetrated as far as the innermost sacred p r e c i n c t ,  named the A l t i s .  their forces, supported by a l l i e d "defense" of the sanctuary.  1 8 6  The Arcadians  troops,  187  rallied  and leapt to the  A great b a t t l e took place within  59 the  sanctuary  story)  adds  itself  and  Diodorus  (who  loves  a  colourful  (XV.78.3):  TrW yctxnv T S V TiapdvTwv ixL xr\v TavTyyuptv 'EAArivcov eaTEtpavajyevajv Mat yed'ftauxdas axuvddvcoc. eTttanyatvoyevwv t a g exarepcj-Sev av6paYa$uag.  §e(jdu.£VU)V  The  Eleans,  who  apparently  were  held  in  little  regard  in  i  matters were for  of  warfare  successful the  night  Arcadians, hastily  at  after  fearing  show o f  After  this  although  the E l e a n s  Olympiad  as  Battle  territory, so  League.  to  refused  speak,  carefully  to to  and  now  a  in  the  for  the  at  this  court  1 8 8  defeat  the  in  loss  profile.  of  were  particular  recent  low  this  conclusion,  considerable a  the  Games  peaceful  kept  of  altogether. Olympic  the  Eleans,  out  Alarmed  their  their  retired  the  erected  recognize  by  henceforth  was  of  sanctuary  the  first  Meanwhile,  valour the  at  eventually  withdrew  Crushed  Altis  Eleans  but  VII.4.32).  brought  1 8 9  VII.4.30),  reverse.  interlude,  later  the  the  1 9 0  been  the Eleans  legitimate. of  a  around  Hellenica  presumably  of The  Arcadian  1 9 1  was  not  Olympia  provoked  dispute  arose  been  with  had  military  and  enemy  unexpected  which  force,  resumed  the  this  (Xenophon,  Arcadian  It  the  meeting  buildings  festival  ball,  routing  Hellenica  constructed a stockade  temporary  the  (Xenophon,  Arcadian  long  before  further  within League  appropriating  the (  the  the  Aracadian  antagonism. League  administration  This  itself.  time, The  O L , IV 'Apxdaiv apxo'v-res sacred  money  from  however,  magistrates ) had  Olympia  in  of the of  apparently order  to  60 pay  the  federal  Mantineans, money  as  standing  however,  they  protested  were  eager  Mantineans proceeded do  with  the  blow  to  countered of  the  by  to pass  money  the  against have  Eparitoi.  this  peace  a vote  use  with  t o have  of  1  9  The  2  the  Elis.  nothing  the  federal  Mantineans  failed  absentia.  The  before  to  appear  the  the  League  magistrates,  Eparitoi  within  of  the for  were  walls  Ten  to  The  further TOUS  immediately  summoned  the  leaders  When  they  were  condemned  arrest  them  but  Mantinea  to  . "194  Thousand.  trial,  sent of  who  was  sacred  1 9 3  x a t auToC TO YLyvo'yevov yepog e t g  "  finances  Mantineans  admitted  to  the  xfis ito'AetuS exTtoptaavxes cnteitey^av xo€s a p x o u a u v  ex  e u a p L T o u s  This  sacred  army,  (Xenophon,  were  the in not  Hellenica  VII.4.33) . Meanwhile, seized Ten  upon M a n t i n e a ' s  Thousand  longer. support their  As  not a  to  members  places  use  result,  were  grasped  the  pay by  the  and  sacred  those  taken  this  of  suggestion  themselves without  eagerly army  other  remained  free  dropped  those  funds  out  who of  Arcadians  opportunity  during  a vote  soldiers  for  (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a V I I . 4 . 3 4 ) .  however,  Arcadian  this  control The  period  was  passed  from  the with of  had  by  the  Olympia  any  were  federal to  League  unable  to  Eparitoi  and  means,  who  the  standing  magistrates,  pursue  their  own  policies. These into  two  and  the  actions  camps:  effectively  one,  Eparitoi),  oligarchic headed  by  divided  the  Arcadian  (comprising  the  Mantinea  and  Ten the  League Thousand other,  61 democratic  (composed  supporters),  of the f e d e r a l m a g i s t r a t e s and t h e i r  headed by Tegea.  The f i n a l  195  split  occurred  when the Mantinean party concluded a peace treaty with E l i s , renouncing a l l claims to Olympia and i t s sanctuary, over the objections  of the Tegean  party  and i t s Theban  (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.4.35 f f ) . came t o a head  This growing antagonism  i n the summer of 362 , when the Mantinean  section  of the A r c a d i a n  Sparta,  Elis,  supporters  supporters  League  and Achaea)  and i t s a l l i e s  faced  the Tegean  (including  party  and  its  (among these numbered Thebes, Argos, and Messene)  on the b a t t l e f i e l d . by the c l o s i n g  The Battle of Mantinea, made notorious  1 9 6  words of Xenophon's H e l l e n i c a ,  sounded the  death-knell for the Theban hegemony i n Greece and the Arcadian League's bid for supremacy i n the Peloponnese. T h i s d i s p u t e over the sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia i s reminiscent of the Phocian War i n several ways. the  conflict  sanctuary.  i n both cases occurred  F i r s t of a l l ,  over a p a n h e l l e n i c  Strabo (VIII.3.30) describes the o r a c l e , games,  glory, and wealth of the temple at Olympia i n almost the same terms as Delphi: rriv  6'ETIL  cpdvEuav  Aud"s*  'OXuyituou H  So'^ci TOO" LEpoO  TiavfryupLV  xat  voyua^EVTa  ansp  E X  Pausanias narrative the  TCV  ndans  also  E£  eaxev EXELVOU  • xaC  T O V ay&va iidvTuv. avaTt^Exo  apxris  6ua  yev  6' E X A E L C D ^ E ' V T O S ,  TT\\> avE,r\OLV,  6'an.v  T O V ' OAuyrcuaxo'v, EHoaynSn Tfjs  S ' E M ^ O . U  TO  yavTECov T O U  ou6ev "ay£V,  auveystvev  ?JTTOV  eAot3e 6ud  aTEcpavuTnv TtAn^ous  T E Trtv  T E x a L usp'Ov  TUV  avaSnyctTcuv,  'EAAaSog.  d e v o t e s an e q u a l l y  large  to the temple of Zeus at Olympia  section  of h i s  (Books V-VI) and  o f f e r i n g s therein as to that of Apollo at Delphi (Book X).  62 C l e a r l y , then, the sanctuary  at Olympia was  considered no less  "sacred" i n the eyes of the Greeks than Delphi. The  resemblance of t h i s c o n f l i c t to the Phocian War  not, however, end here. sanctuary  The armed take-over  of a panhellenic  on the grounds of an alleged a b o r i g i n a l claim,  c o n f i s c a t i o n of sacred o f f e r i n g s to pay one's army, eventual  reparations exacted.from those  and  198  Phocian War,  the  i n the  forming a curious sort of deja vu.  Nevertheless,  despite the armed b a t t l e within the  p r e c i n c t of the sanctuary offerings, this conflict ancient source.  and  the c o n f i s c a t i o n of the  sacred  i s not c a l l e d a uepog no'Aeyos  as  one- i n a  s e r i e s of  in the Battle of Mantinea.  the sanctuary  sacred  by  any  In f a c t , i t i s not given a name at a l l but i s  treated  culminated  the  g u i l t y of s a c r i l e g e  are a l l elements which recur nearly twenty years l a t e r  merely  does  itself  has  conflicts  The  which  armed c o n f l i c t  been named the Battle of the  in  Altis  only i n modern times. We  may  perhaps f i n d a clue as  not given the a t t r i b u t i o n ancient  historians.  this c o n f l i c t  no  enough, we  find  the same offenses.  the  of  righteousness  presumably has  so  sacrilegious  Phocians,  82.1-3) and  shows  Ephorus),  much to say simply  little  in  their  trace of the infamy heaped upon  the Phocians for v i r t u a l l y authority  was  uepos ito'Aeyos in the a t t i t u d e s of the  Curiously  accounts of t h i s dispute  to why  on  the  states the  trace  of  who  bias  Diodorus in his  subject  (on  selfof  the  f a c t s (XV.78.1-4, on  either side.  63 Diodorus  account,  1  however, i s inaccurate i n s e v e r a l major  respects and may be put aside f o r the most part i n favour of that of Xenophon. Xenophon, on the other hand, betrays a sympathy for the Eleans (VII.4.30 35)  upon  and VII.4.32) and remarks twice (VII.4.34 and  the i m p i e t y  of the s a c r i l e g e  Arcadian m a g i s t r a t e s .  committed  In s p i t e of t h i s apparent  by the  pro-Elean  bias, nowhere are any invectives heaped against the Arcadians for  their  seizure  of the s a n c t u a r y  and  subsequent  •misappropriation of the sacred o f f e r i n g s and nowhere i s the conflict peculiar  referred to as a iepos ndAeyoc in light  Thucydidean  of the f a c t  approach  to h i s t o r y  .  This i s e s p e c i a l l y  that Xenophon f o l l o w e d the that he d i d not make any  connection between t h i s dispute and the f i f t h - c e n t u r y c o n f l i c t over Delphi, which was a much more minor a f f a i r . For some reason sacrilegious  the Arcadian League was not branded as  i n the same way that the Phocians  years l a t e r , although  their offense was s i m i l a r .  were twenty Perhaps i t  i s due to the fact that the c o n f l i c t was not over Delphi that no h i s t o r i a n made the connection between s a c r i l e g e and the use of the term  tepds itdAeyos  u n t i l the renewed i n t e r e s t  i n the  sanctuary of Delphi i n the decade following the conclusion of the Phocian War. Let us keep t h i s hypothesis i n mind as we proceed second opyas  test case:  the dispute over the Sacred Orgas.  to our The  t-epb  was a s t r i p of land between Athens and Megara, sacred to  64  the  Eleusinian  was  "a  goddesses.  well-watered,  always  referred  authorities. This  The o r i g i n a l  fertile  to  as  land,"  of but  2 0 0  by  the  the  of  C ,  a  The more  it  is  ancient  land  had l o n g  the  been a bone of  fertility.  Athenians  contention,  At the end of the  were  causing  the  result  famous  of  his  devastation  disputes  over  this  of  the Sacred  land,  sixth  rumour  c i r c u l a t e that the Spartan king Cleomenes had met h i s death as  term  2 0 1  strip  B.  of  uncultivated  p r o b a b l y on account of i t s century  spot  meaning  to  horrible Orgas.  however,  2 0 2  occurred  between Athens and Megara. The  first  century, of  recorded  among  the antecedents  the a l l e g e d  grounds  the  encroachment  This  religious  Athenian pretext the  Megarian  Athenian  by  penalties  for  but  interesting  in  our  place  the n o t o r i o u s  is  in  upon  usually  the seemingly  Megarian the  regarded  harsh  as  was  not  a political  excuse  indeed. it  of aaegeua  discussion  of  is  2 0 5  that to  aaeBeta  ,  Although  this  important  to  so-called  the  provoke  for  which is  remember  were common enough the  2 0 3  of  argues  be  Orgas.  economic measures  scholar  of  was  an  one  charge  One  merely  but  suggestion,  fifth  Decree  Sacred  2 0 4  severe  the  to the Peloponnesian War.  a genuine  trumped-up charges seen  took  the M e g a r i a n s  Decree,  could  for  offense  accusation  hostilities  instance  "sacred  (as  an that  we have  wars",  for  example). The Sacred Orgas r e t u r n e d to the l i m e l i g h t  i n the middle  65 of  the  fourth  recorded dated  in a  to  decree  century. l o n g and  the  makes  The  antecedents  interesting  archonship  of  provisions  first  of (  this  inscription  Aristodemus  b o u n d a r i e s of the Sacred Orgas has b e e n r e s t o r e d ) o n c e a n d  of  dispute are  from  ( 352/1 ).  a l l to  Eleusis, This  2 0 6  f i x the d i s p u t e d  xwv o'ptuv dycptagnxouyevwv  for a l l .  Then t h e d e c r e e s e t s  a complex  p r o c e d u r e by w h i c h  determine  " £t Affitov x a t a^et[voJv eaxt xc5t 6ny[u)L tut  out  the o r a c l e at D e l p h i i s to 'A$rjvauov  QT]va jrfis tepas opyaSos xa e v j x o s  y t a ] §o0v xdy $aatAe*a xa v  eLpyaay  xaiv opcov ELS oi £x^o6oytav xoO  npo^crxwtou xat  enuaxeunv x^)o0 tepoO  x o t v $eol"v" or " e t AStov x a t ayetjvo'v e a x t xait 6rtya)t xwt  'A^rivattov  xa  v [ 0 v evxos  xaTjv 6 [pujv e j v e t p y t c f l a y e v a xfis tepag 6pyd6os eav avexa (jrotv  s3eoCv."  While awaiting  the to  /  b o u n d a r i e s and be  made  the response of the o r a c l e ,  f o r the xo  Philocrates  the d e c i s i o n of the committee  inscription  of  nept xG3v tepwv  ,  this for  elected  officials,  and  f o r the proper  boundary  markers.  The  decree  of  those e l e c t e d Although  this  decree  does  a  not  once  Organization,  2 0 7  again.  of  of  the  the  new  list  of  any  from Demosthenes i n f o r m s  Demosthenes,  in  and Megara his  speech  says (32):  et x t s dvayvotn. xa cpricptayad'uyQv xa\, xas npd^ets ecpe^fis 6teA\rot, oufi'dv eZz n t a x e u a a t xSv auxalv xaOxa x d x e t v a . olov a itpos xoOg xaxapdxous Meyapeag ecpncptaaa^'ditoTeyvoyevous xriv 6 p y d 6 a e ^ t e v a t , xcoAuetv, yn efttxpeiietv. ..anavxa xaAd, 5 5  names  s p e c i f i c a l l y mention  us t h a t t h e l o n g s t a n d i n g d i s p u t e b e t w e e n A t h e n s up  that  expenses  of  are  offices.  t r o u b l e w i t h the Megarians, a passage  flared  and  preparation  concluded with  to the v a r i o u s  provisions  decree the  to f i x  had On  66 dvSpes ' AdnvaCot, xaOxa xau 6uxaLa xat, xfis Tto'Aecos a £ u a * epya 6e x a and xouxwv oufiayoO.  It against The  is  application Megarians  30),  of  352/1 or this  but  was  date  to  by is  apparently  arose  Since  2 0 8  more  of  an  it  as  the  never  and  a a  took  place.  consequence r e s u l t  as  not  take  Athenian  of  the the the  quoting  (F Gr H i s t expedition  350/49 : yvnyoveueu (Demosthenes 13.32) xaiv Tupax^e'vxcov uept xfis t e p a s '0pyd6os. yeyove 6e xaOxa x a x ' 'ATr.oXAd*6copov a p x o v x a , x a d d i t e p uaxopeL $LAd* opos ouxcoaCypdcpuv* "'A^nvaUou 6e upas Meyapeas 6uevex§evxes uiz'tp xoT3 optayoO xfis t e p a s 'OpydSos e i a f i A ^ o v eCs Meyapa yex''EcpudAxou axpaxriyoOvxos eitt xriV Xcopav, x a t copLaavxo xnV '0pyd6a xnv ilepdv' opcaxaC 6'eyevovxo, auyxwpnadvxwv Meyapeuiv, AaxpaxeC*6ns o iepocpdvxris xau 6 6au6o0xos ' IepoxAeu6riS. x a t xa s e a x a x t d s xds Ttept xffv '0pyd6a xadudpioaav, xoO $eo0 xpnoavxos ' A C L O V x a t d y e u v o v dvefai, x a i . yfj e p y a C j o y e v o u s , x a t dcpupoaav XCXACJU axfiAaus x a x d cpficptaya $LAoxpdxous. OIL  'A$nvaC*OLS itpos Meyapeas X  N  11  S t e u A e x x a t 6e rcepu xa\5xris xfis 6pyd6os x a t ' Av c@o x P~]u)v ev xfjt X xuv 'AxduSwv, ypdcpwv ouxcos* "(Lptaavxo 6t x a t 'A^nvaCou itpos Meyapeas xrjv 6pyd6a xoCv SeoCv OTUOJS SouAouvxo" auvex^priaav yap oi Meyapets o p t a x ^ s y e v e a S a t xdv L.epocpdvxnv Aaxpaxeu6riv x a t TOV 6at6o0xov ' IepoxAeb6riv. x a t d>s ou"xou wpuaav, eve^yetvav* x a t xds e a x a x t d s , oaau ?iaav Ttpos xfju 6pyd6u, xa^uepwaav S t a y a v x e u a d y e v o t x a t dveAo'vxos xou -deoO ACOLOV xat dyeuvov eZvat yf) epyaCoyevous. xau axrfAaus ojpLa§ri xdxAcuu A t ^ t v a u s $bAoxpdxous etnd'vxos."  (J^udiXi  of  place,  Didymus,  Androtion  actual  expedition  campaign against  did  probable  F 155)  proposed  either  Demosthenes  328  account  this  presumably  decree.  (F Gr H i s t an  what  h o s t i l i t i e s  referred  gives  at  voted,  alternative  Philochorus F  of  trouble  latter  certain  M e g a r a was  decree  this  not  xa  324 of  67  The  actions  parallel The  recorded  exactly  by  P h i l o c h o r u s and  Androtion  the two measures contained i n the decree.  altercation  o b v i o u s l y arose  as  a  result  of  the  r e d e f i n i t i o n of the boundaries by the committee determined the decree.  by  These passages of Philochorus and Androtion also  record the response of the o r a c l e at Delphi to the question proposed  i n the second measure o f the decree.  apparently determined that i t was c u l t i v a t e the xfis L E p a s  haxat^ci,£ ( x a  6pYa'6os ).  " ASiov  v£pv evx"bs xSfjv ojjscov  Cawkwe 11 ,  2 0 9  argues  that the dispute of 350/49 concerned equates with the than  the  Sacred  P h i l o c h o r u s and conflict xou  aopdaxos  Orgas  " not to  ayeuvov e]  from  the  veLp[yaq)  these  yeva  passages (which he  eaxaxLau  of Thucydides 1.139.2) alone, rather as  a whole,  Androtion s t a t e , on  occurred over the marking 6pyd6os  opuoyoC xfis t e p a s  xau  The oracle had  ).  2 1 0  but  the  accounts  the contrary, that  out of the boundaries At any  rate,  of the (unep  the Athenian  intervention must have resolved the problem once and for a l l , as we hear of no further disputes involving the Sacred Orgas. This c o n f l i c t scholars u n t i l by W.  of 350/49 was  211  by  decree subsequent  the h e r a l d  article  Connor argues for a redating of  the d e n u n c i a t i o n of the Megarians land  ignored by modern  the p u b l i c a t i o n of a thought-provoking  R. Connor in 1962 .  sacred  largely  for encroaching upon the  Anthemocritus  and  the  to his death, that i s mentioned  Charinus  by Plutarch  (Pericles XXX.2-3) among the antecedents to the Peloponnesian War,  from  the f i f t h  century to the dispute over  the Sacred  68 Orgas in the middle of the Fourth. is  interesting  and  Although Connor's proposal  there are problems involved with placing  Anthemocritus and the Charinus decree in 431, there i s r e a l l y not s u f f i c i e n t  evidence to remove them to a fourth-century  context,  Connor  2 1 2  regardless  as of  himself admits.  2 1 3  Nevertheless,  the q u e s t i o n to which century the  Charinus  a f f a i r belongs, i t indeed shows d r a s t i c measures taken by both the Athenians and the Megarians over the Sacred Orgas. Despite the severe p r o v i s i o n s of the Charinus nowhere i s either of the c o n f l i c t s between Athens over the Sacred Orgas termed a war,  the  alleged  Amphissan Wars.  214  causes The verb  of  the  avu'nyu  and Megara  l e t alone a "Sacred  Yet the motif of encroachment upon sacred land among  decree,  was  War." listed  C r i s a e a n , Phocian,  and  found i n the E l e u s i n i a n  decree i s even used by Isocrates (Plataicus 31) to refer to the Crisaean P l a i n .  In 350/49, however, a s i m i l a r offense  provoked only a campaign to force the Megarians to co-operate. Why  should t h i s offense in one case cause a "Sacred War"  in another merely minor  a campaign to s e t t l e  fifth-century  incident  Philochorus as a "Sacred War,"  at  the issue.  Delphi  Even the  i s d e s c r i b e d by  while the d i s p u t e over  Sacred Orgas, equally worthy of the t i t l e ,  and  the  i s apparently l e f t  unnamed by him. Was  the sanctuary of the Two Goddesses at E l e u s i s perhaps  less sacred i n the eyes of the Greeks Apollo at Delphi?  than the sanctuary of  Yet Pausanias (III.4.6) says:  " M e y a p e u o t v ou  69 note  Sefov  TWV  ev  'EAEUOUVL  e^eyeveTO uAdaaadai,  OVTWV  " and i n V.10.1 he adds:  xriv ilepav  xat aySvi, T $ I V 'OAuyitta  yeTeOTtv  TO  yrivuya yriv eirepyaaayevoLS  " ydALOTa 6e TOC'S ev 'EAeuaCvL 6pwyevoos  S M T O O §EO0  cppovTu'6os."  Therefore, l i k e the Olympic Games and the oracle of Apollo at Delphi,  the E l e u s i n i a n  panhellenic  importance.  Mysteries  were an i n s t i t u t i o n of  Nevertheless, s a c r i l e g e against the  Two Goddesses d i d not on any occasion kindle a tepos ito'Aeyos One must, however, consider the date of the dispute over the Sacred Orgas of 350/49. the Phocian  I t occurred during a period when  War was i n f u l l  swing.  C u r i o u s l y enough, the  embassy sent to enquire about the c u l t i v a t i o n of the is  eaxctTtat  the only recorded instance of a consultation at Delphi i n  the course of that war. was enough.  215  Perhaps one "Sacred War" at a time  S t i l l , t h i s explanation would not account f o r the  fact that the s a c r i l e g e committed by the Arcadian League at Olympia i n 364 also f a i l e d to provoke a From the d i s c u s s i o n above,  tepoc Tco'Aeyos  i t i s clear  .  that n e i t h e r  category of test cases contains a war given the t i t l e ndAeyos  in antiquity.  Two  other  wars  fought  of £epos  over  the  sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi were l a b e l l e d as "sacred wars" by  modern s c h o l a r s , p r o b a b l y  as a r e s u l t  s i m i l a r i t y to the so-called Third Sacred War.  of t h e i r  close  C o n f l i c t s over  other sanctuaries, on the other hand, even those with elements common to the s o - c a l l e d  "Sacred Wars," d i d not lead  a t t r i b u t i o n of the term  tepds Tto'Aeyos  disputes  which we have examined  took  i n any case. place  to the A l l the  i n the f o u r t h  70  century B. C , Third  Sacred War, so one cannot  sensibilities that  one even at the same time as the s o - c a l l e d  after  have undergone a change.  that Greek  religious  It appears, however,  the Phocian War Greek a t t i t u d e s  i t s e l f underwent a change. protracted  argue  towards Delphi  The exhaustive length of the war,  by the n o v e l use of m e r c e n a r i e s ,  f o c u s e d the  attention of the Greek world upon the sanctuary at Delphi for ten  long  years.  Naturally  enough,  interest  i n former  c o n f l i c t s over Delphi was reawakened after t h i s and the term i e p o s TtdXeyos  was r e d i s c o v e r e d i n the t e x t  of Thucydides.  Subsequently, of course, i t was unthinkable to apply the term to a c o n f l i c t  which d i d not concern Delphi and thus neither  the sacrilege of the Arcadian League nor the dispute over the Sacred Orgas was ever known by t h i s  title.  71  CONCLUSION  In  the preceding chapters, i t has been established that  the term  "Sacred  War"  was  first  used  by  Thucydides  i n the  f i f t h century B. C. to refer to an e s s e n t i a l l y minor c o n f l i c t over Delphi.  The  term  then disappeared  for over a century,  although both the Arcadian seizure of Olympia and the dispute over the Sacred Orgas were equally ( i f not more) worthy of the t i t l e as the f i f t h - c e n t u r y c o n f l i c t .  It f i n a l l y resurfaced i n  the fourth century B. C. -in reference to the so-called Sacred War,  when i t was  Callisthenes  and  Third  apparently applied e x c l u s i v e l y  the other w r i t e r s of the  by  historiographic  genre. Two why  questions now  does Thucydides  dignified  title  remain to be answered.  this  of  term  of a l l ,  give an e s s e n t i a l l y minor i n c i d e n t "Sacred  War?"  C a l l i s t h e n e s apparently the f i r s t derive  First  from  And  secondly,  historian  Thucydides  and  the  why  in antiquity apply  i t to  is to a  contemporary c o n f l i c t ? In  order to address  the f i r s t  of these questions, i t i s  necessary to r e c a l l the exact words of Thucydides description  of  the  events  of  the  in his b r i e f  fifth-century  incident  72 (1.112.5): reference  " o tepbs xaAotfyevos no'Xeyos to the c o n f l i c t  ."  This Thucydidean  as " s o - c a l l e d " and the f a c t  Aristophanes alludes to i t as a  i n Birds 556  tepbs no*Xeyos  suggest that t h i s was the term current i n contemporary As we have seen, wars i n ancient Greece  that  usage.  were u s u a l l y given i  i •  names by t h e i r and  contemporaries  this particular  War"  to f a c i l i t a t e  future reference  war was apparently known as the "Sacred  i n extant l i t e r a t u r e from Thucydides onwards. Thucydides' reference to the "Sacred War" as " s o - c a l l e d , "  however, deserves further a t t e n t i o n .  Not only does i t reveal  that Thucydides himself was not the originator of the term but i t also implies a c e r t a i n hint of disagreement application  of such  a title  to t h i s  concerning the  particular  conflict.  Consequently, i t seems l i k e l y that Thucydides derived the term from  the Spartan v e r s i o n  remarks  (A H i s t o r y  of the i n c i d e n t .  of the Greek  Raphael  City-States  Sealey  [Berkeley:  University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1976], p. 291) i n his account of  the i n c i d e n t :  it,"  "evidently  that was the Spartan name f o r  but unfortunately he does not shed any further  l i g h t on  the subject. Sealey*s respects.  thesis,  First  however, i s a l o g i c a l  of a l l ,  the i n s t i g a t o r s  one i n s e v e r a l  ( i n this case, the  Spartans) of a war would benefit the most from a cloak spread over their actions such as t h i s t i t l e , which seemingly bestows divine approval (another case i n point would be the Crusades). Secondly,  the Spartans were famous f o r using propaganda to  73 j u s t i f y their campaigns. the s i x t h century was of  Greece  from  Peloponnesian Spartans was Delphi  nominally j u s t i f i e d as the  tyranny,"  War.  as  was  Thus, use  her  later  of such  not unprecedented.  itself  Herodotus  Sparta's expulsion of the tyrants i n  for propagandic  "liberation  role  in  the  propaganda  by  the  Moreover, Spartan use of purposes  is attested  by  (for example, 1.67-68).  Therefore, i t i s probable that Thucydides used the term "Sacred War" that was  to refer  to the f i f t h - c e n t u r y  conflict  because  the Spartan name for i t . After the use of t h i s term  by Thucydides not used  and Aristophanes i n the f i f t h  again u n t i l  Callisthenes  middle of the fourth century. the f i r s t  to give the t i t l e  century, i t was  r e - i n t r o d u c e d i t i n the  This h i s t o r i a n was apparently of "Sacred War"  to a c o n f l i c t  which had hitherto been referred to by the Athenian orators as the "Phocian Although this  War." the a t t r i b u t i o n  conflict  seems  to  of the t i t l e  have  been  a  "Sacred War" feature  of  the  h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c genre, i t i s l i k e l y that Callisthenes was first  to do so.  to  the  F i r s t of a l l , as the writer of a H e l l e n i c a ,  Callisthenes was c l e a r l y following the Thucydidean approach to h i s t o r y and probably derived the t i t l e Secondly,  he  o b v i o u s l y had  a keen  "Sacred War" interest  from  i n the  him. early  history of Delphi, as his c o l l a b o r a t i o n with A r i s t o t l e shows, as well as i n the so-called "Sacred War," e n t i r e monograph to t h i s  subject.  since he devoted an  Thirdly,  as nephew and  74  protege of A r i s t o t l e , Callisthenes would n a t u r a l l y have been inclined  to favour  the Macedonian v e r s i o n of the  conflict.  Since P h i l i p purported to be the champion of Apollo bestowing divine  j u s t i c e upon the s a c r i l e g i o u s Phocians,  clearly  condoned  this  Macedonian propaganda by g i v i n g  c o n f l i c t the t i t l e of "Sacred War." the other Philip  hand, as a l l i e s  sworn enemies of  ( e s p e c i a l l y Demosthenes), would be p r o h i b i t e d  "Sacred War."  He,  he  treated  and  to force an  the Crisaean War,  i n h i s monograph  two it a  deeply interested i n  t h e r e f o r e , attempted  between the Trojan War  on  example i n c a l l i n g  1  F i n a l l y , Callisthenes was  Homeric saga.  the  The Athenian orators, on  of Phocis and  counts from f o l l o w i n g C a l l i s t h e n e s  which  Callisthenes  "On  analogy  the l a t t e r  the  Sacred  of  War."  Tradition has i t that a l l three of these wars were ten years in duration, and t h i s may  have been the basis of C a l l i s t h e n e s '  analogy.  Nevertheless,  similarity  between  Callisthenes  the C r i s a e a n War  evidently  and  the Phocian  thereby  justifying  the habit of modern scholars of  to  former  the  the  although  other  as  First  writers  such  followed in the Thucydidean  Sacred as  War.  Xenophon  saw  a  War,  referring  In c o n c l u s i o n , and  t r a d i t i o n , the t i t l e  Theopompus "Sacred  War"  was  apparently overlooked by them u n t i l C a l l i s t h e n e s had h i s  own  reasons to reapply i t . It  seems, then, that  the term  "Sacred War"  was  not  so  much a concept in ancient Greece as o r i g i n a l l y a f i f t h - c e n t u r y j u s t i f i c a t i o n , which was  picked up again as propaganda i n the  75  fourth century by P h i l i p cause.  II and p a r t i s a n s of h i s Macedonian  The ultimate triumph of P h i l i p  end of an era i n Greek no longer needed  of Macedon marked the  history and henceforth propaganda  to the same extent.  was  Therefore, the t i t l e  "Sacred War" was never used again i n reference to any c o n f l i c t in  ancient  Greece  and modern  scholars  inferred  from  Callisthenes' analogy that the term was used e x c l u s i v e l y when the c o n f l i c t concerned Delphi.  76  NOTES  1  As at the present state of our knowledge we are not yet  able to determine the exact date of Thucydides' composition of his  History,  i t i s impossible to s t a t e with any  certainty  whether h i s reference to the Sacred War antedates or postdates that of Aristophanes.  Even i f the main bulk of Book One  written before 414 B. C ,  he may  TidAeyos  upon r e v i s i o n .  TidAeyos  i n Aristophanes may  in  the  corpus  of  have added the term  tepos  Therefore, the reference to a  extant  was  uepbs  be the f i r s t instance of t h i s term Greek  literature.  But  since  Thucydides describes (albeit b r i e f l y ) the actual events of the c o n f l i c t , I have chosen to give him 2  Although  Jacoby  quotes  precedence.  most of t h i s  passage  in his  section on Philochorus (F Gr Hist 328 F 34b), I have taken i t from his section on Eratosthenes (F Gr Hist 241 F 38) where he quotes i t in f u l l . The scholiast adds the following to the end of the note: L a x o p e C Tiepu auxoO xal* 6ouxu6t6ns x a t ' E p a x o a $ e v n s ev 8edicoyn:os ev xSv, x e . 3  c f . SIG  4  Thucydides 1.107, Diodorus XI.79-80.  5  4  XWL  § xat  I 59.  Thucydides  1.108.1-2.  Diodorus,  however,  states  77 (XI.80.6) that the issue of the b a t t l e was  i n doubt  (  oiu<pu6o£os)  since both sides l a i d claim to the v i c t o r y . 5  Thucydides 1.108.2.  7  Diodorus XI.81-83.  3  IG I  Charles  26, Tod  2  W.  Fornara,  Peloponnesian War 1977)  39.  For an E n g l i s h  A r c h a i c Times  (Baltimore:  translation,  to  the  End  of  see the  John Hopkins University Press,  #82. 9  IG I  2  26 , Tod 39, AW.  on Thucydides (Oxford: 1 0  Benjamin  D.  League," American  Gomme, A H i s t o r i c a l Commentary  Clarendon Press, 1945) v o l . 1:  Meritt,  "Athens  and  Journal of P h i l o l o g y  69  the  337.  Amphictyonic  (1948):  312-314.  Meritt followed t h i s a r t i c l e with another of the same t i t l e i n AJP  75  (1954):  369-73- w i t h  further  revisions  from  the  suggestions of Adolf Wilhelm. Meritt's  r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s have won  Russell Meiggs, The Athenian Empire 1972)  418-20 and  (Oxford:  J . A.  O.  general acceptance:  (Oxford: Clarendon Press,  L a r s e n , Greek  Federal States  Clarendon Press, 1968) 125-26.  11  Meritt, AJP 69 (1948):  312 and  314.  1 2  Meritt, AJP 75 (1954):  373.  1 3  The authors of ATL date both the Battle of Tanagra and  the Battle of Oenophyta to 458 (171 f f ) , contrary to the usual dating  scheme from  XI.83.1). 14  Larsen 216.  Diodorus  (Tanagra-XI.80  and  Oenophyta-  78 15  H. W. Parke and D. E. W. Wormell, The Delphic Oracle  (Oxford: 1 6  B a s i l Blackwell, 1956) v o l . 1: 185.  Meritt, AJP 69 (1948):  314, Gomme 337,  Parke-Wormell  184-85> Meiggs 299, and Marta Sordi, "La Fondation du College des Naopes et l e Renouveau P o l i t i q u e de 1'Amphictionie au IV  e  S i e c l e , " BCH 81 (1957): 63. This  i s the g e n e r a l l y  a c c e p t e d date  f o r the Phocian  possession of Delphi, although we have no e x p l i c i t evidence of a Phocian take-over from the Delphians. Phocians  had s e i z e d  control  Nevertheless, i f the  o f the s a n c t u a r y  from t h e  Delphians before the period of Athenian influence i n Central Greece, presumably  the Spartans would have i n t e r f e r e d , as they  did i n the case of Doris. 1 7  Thucydides  Philochorus  1.112.-5, P l u t a r c h  Pericles  XXI.1-2, and  (F Gr Hist 328 F 34) as we have seen above.  To  this l i s t may be added Strabo IX.3.15. 1 8  Thucydides 1.113.1.  1 9  Thucydides 1.112.5 and Plutarch P e r i c l e s XXI.2.  2 0  GG I I :  Attica  2  213, Lionel Pearson, The Local Historians of  (Philadelphia:  The American  Philological  Association,  1942) 122-23, and ATL 178-79. 2 1  Gomme  337 and 409 , P a u l  Cloche,  "La' P o l i t i q u e  E x t e r i e u r e d'Athenes de 454-453 a 446-5 avant Etudes Classiques 14 (1946):  J . - C , " Les  23-25, Jacoby I l l b Supplement I  320, Meiggs 410, G. E. M. de Ste Croix, The O r i g i n s of the Peloponnesian War (London:  G e r a l d Duckworth and Company,  1972) 189 n. 72. Jacoby comments: "Consequently TPUTWO ETGL i n the careless excerpt (which must not i n i t s whole contents be ascribed to Philochorus) i s i n c r e d i b l e , whether ETGL be a m i s t a k e f o r pnvu or whether i t i s taken from Thucydides 1.112.1" 2 2  j  Gomme 409,  possible  that  Cloche 24.  Jacoby  ( l o c c i t ) thinks i t  the Athenian r e p r i s a l may  following A t t i c year.  have f a l l e n  i n the  Thus the Spartan expedition would take  place i n 449/8 and the Athenian i n 448/7. 2 3  Meiggs 423 remarks:  "one may well doubt whether he  (Philochorus) thought the Athenians fought the Spartans i n the second war."  Furthermore, Jacoby  ( l o c c i t ) points out that  the r e f e r e n c e  to the Boeotians i n F Gr H i s t  result from a confusion of Thucydides 1.112  328  F 34a  may  with chapters 111  and 113. 2 4  The chronology of t h i s war  be d i s c u s s e d  (briefly)  in a later  i s disputed also and  will  s e c t i o n dealing with the  events of the war. 2 5  Demosthenes II.7 (349 B. C ) , XIX.83 (343 B. C ) , and  XVIII.18  (330 B. C ) , Aeschines III.148 (330 B. C ) .  So also  Plutarch i n his P e r i c l e s X I I . l , i n a section derived word for word from Demosthenes XVIII. 18:  "  TOO $UWLXOU TCOXE\IOU  auvEaxaJTOs . " 2 6  grouped  F Gr H i s t  124  T 1 and  following,  where Jacoby  together most thoroughly the ancient  the l i f e of C a l l i s t h e n e s .  has  testimonies to  A t r a n s l a t i o n of these testimonies  can be found i n Charles Alexander Robinson J r . , A History of  80  Alexander 1953)  the Great  v o l 1:  (Providence:  Press,  45 f f .  2 7  F Gr Hist 76 T 1.  2 8  Diogenes Laertius V.36.  29  Brown U n i v e r s i t y  * uepos  E S T O V TtdAeyov  TtdAeyos:  xaTEOTrioav  dvddnycx  EO"TL  TOV $OJXLXOS  Both:  LEpdv  E V Tip  TtdAsyos:  O T E $toX£uaLV  8n3ado)v,  TtdAEyov  ol  VIII.27.10) EitoAEynoav  (X.13.6)  TtoAEyui Tip $cuxtxip (X.35.3)  'EAAnvwv i s p d v ,  eite'drixEV o $ L A U H T C O S xAn^EVTL  6vouaa§EVTa  (Pausanias  xaAou*yevov  6E x a t T O V $ C O X L X O V  uoTspov und  T O V tepbv  0ri$auoL  TudAsyov,  auv£ c5s X  ovoya^dyEVov  6sxa e r e a u v  6e  ETtoAeynoav  T c s p a s Tip TtoAdyij) $a)XLxip T E x a t  (IX.6.4) iEpip  Tip auTip (X.3.1)  30  6 $ O ) X L X O S xaC leads x a A o u y s v o s . . . u d A e y o s (Strabo E V Tip $aixLxip TtoAdyip (IX.4.11) 31  , , > o OEpos n o A E y o s : 64.3. 6  $O)XLX6S  TtdAsyos  TtdAsyos:Diodorus  XVI.34.2 and  (twice), 38.6,  59.1  TIEpt  3.11  ("Ecpopos  6',  $  TO TUAELOTOV  TaOTCt E T t t y E A E L O I V . . . ) and  sanctuary. particular  and  Ttpds $o)xeus  The p o s s i b l e will  sources  be d i s c u s s e d  Ttpoo"xpwy£$a  Sua  IX.4.7.  This i s a section on the plundering  3 3  (6  59.4,  i n XVI.40.1)  IX.2.2, 2.4, TT*|V  Diodorus XVI.14.3, 23.1  IX.3.8)  later  (  auAnats  for this i n my  ) of the  subject i n  t r e a t m e n t of  Diodorus. 3 4  on  N. G. L. Hammond has written a very perceptive  this  subject:  C l a s s i c a l Quarterly  article  "The Sources of Diodorus S i c u l u s XVI," 31 (1937):  79-91.  "The most obvious and I think the only candidate for Source 2, a monograph on the Sacred War with the  3 5  81 Phocian commanders as central theme, i s Demophilus: f o r the other known monographers, Cephisodorus and Leon, are not mentioned i n Diodorus and the complete lack of fragments suggests that they were not used by l a t e r authors." Hammond, CQ 31 (1937): 84. 36 Hammond, CQ 31 (1937): III :  84-85, Jacoby  25, G. L. Barber, The H i s t o r i a n  2  Cambridge  University  (ad l o c ) , GG  Ephorus  (Cambridge:  P r e s s , 1935) 41, and Robert  Drews,  "Diodorus and His Sources," AJP 83 (1962): 389. I t should be noted, i n c i d e n t a l l y ,  3 7  was  that  Callisthenes  one of the main sources of Ephorus, and thus  Demophilus,  for this period (F Gr Hist 124 T 33-35 and Barber 131-34). Hammond, CQ 31 (1937):  3 8  90.  F Gr Hist 73 F 1-4—none of which deal d i r e c t l y  3 9  with  any of the events of the Sacred War. Hammond (CQ 31 [19-37]:  4 0  84) remarks apropos of the use  of Theopompus as a source: "Theopompus can be excluded for Graeco-Macedonian a f f a i r s because his work i n f i f t y - e i g h t books presented too heavy a task to a compiler such as Diodorus and because the numerous fragments we possess f i n d no echo i n Diodorus." First  of a l l , t h i s  Diodorus.  Hammond b e l i e v e s ,  source of P h i l i p ' s spanned  thirty  through  thirty  Theopompus?  argument appears  to do an i n j u s t i c e to  rightly  enough, that  early career was Ephorus,  books.  I f Diodorus  books of Ephorus,  Moreover,  the main  whose h i s t o r y  i s capable of labouring why not f i f t y - e i g h t of  why would he mention Theopompus at a l l  i f he derived none of his information from him?  Secondly, the  fact that the extant fragments of Theopompus are not r e f l e c t e d in Diodorus  i s not a conclusive proof of h i s exclusion as a  82 source as t h i s argument would apply to a l l the other sources mentioned  by Diodorus.  Ephorus  i s generally agreed to be the  main source of Diodorus for Greek a f f a i r s i n Books XI-XVI, but this  should not exclude the p o s s i b i l i t y  that Diodorus  also  referred to other h i s t o r i a n s such as Theopompus. Hammond's d a t e s .  4 1  Chronology  will  be d i s c u s s e d  following the narrative of the war. Diodorus  4 2  fine was  (XVI.23.3) states  the reason for the  the c u l t i v a t i o n of land sacred to Apollo.  (X.15.2) a l s o mentions states  that  elsewhere  Phocians had  the c u l t i v a t i o n  (X.2.1) that  committed  a crime  he  Pausanias  of sacred land, but  i s not  sure whether  (the c u l t i v a t i o n  the  of sacred  land?) or whether the Thessalians had been at the root of the fine  through  Justin  their  l o n g s t a n d i n g h a t r e d of  the  Phocians.  (VIII.1.6) says that the Thebans accused the Phocians  of having l a i d waste to Boeotia (perhaps J u s t i n i s confusing t h i s with the l a t e r  raids made by the Phocians upon Boeotia  during the war).  Aristotle  cause of the war  to s t a s i s a r i s i n g  hand of an heiress. that  the war  was  ( P o l i t i c s V.1304a) a t t r i b u t e s the from a dispute over the  Duris of Samos (F Gr Hist 76 F 2) says  incited  as a r e s u l t  of the s e i z u r e  of a  Theban woman by a Phocian. 4 3  Diodorus XVI.23.2-4 and 28.2-4, and J u s t i n VIII.1.4-6.  From the juxtaposition of the Spartans and the Phocians i n the accounts of Diodorus and J u s t i n , i t appears that both charges were brought forward at the same time.  83 4 4  War,  The  arguments of N e i l J . Hackett  d i s s . , U n i v e r s i t y of C i n c i n n a t i ,  threat of Theban r e p r i s a l s was  (The T h i r d  1970,  Sacred  12-15) that the  l e v e l l e d against the Phocians  soon after the Battle of Leuctra are convincing.  He concludes  that the Phocian fine was  fixed not long a f t e r the b a t t l e and,  after  for payment had elapsed, threats of  the period a l l o t e d  punishment by the Amphictyonic League began i n the mid 350's. 4 5  Diodorus  XVI.7.2-3,  Demosthenes VIII.74,  Aeschines  III.85, Tod 153 and 154, P h i l l i p Harding, From the End of the Peloponnesian War  to the B a t t l e of Ipsus  (Cambridge:  1985)  #65 and 66. 4 6  Diodorus XVI.7.3-5, Demosthenes XV.3,  and Dionysius of  Halicarnassus, Lysias 12. 4 7  The  Amphictyonic- League was  organization  c e n t r e d around  Anthela, near Thermopylae. Delphi a l s o came under League was  the  originally  a  religious  s a n c t u a r y of Demeter at  Later, the sanctuary of Apollo at  i t s jurisdiction.  The  Amphictyonic  composed of twelve t r i b e s of northern and  central  Greece, each casting two equal votes at the biannual meetings convened  at Thermopylae  and  concluded  at D e l p h i  (Strabo  IX.3.7, Aeschines 11.115, Hypereides VI.118, and Harpocration s.  v.  nuAaL  The not  ) .  original  certain  composition of the Amphictyonic  (incomplete  membership  Aeschines 11.116, Pausanias X.8.2, and F Gr Hist  115  F 63).  The  earliest  lists  are  League i s found  in  Theopompus-Harpocration complete  list  surviving  • 84 dates from 343 B. C. 14).  (SIG 230, Tod 172 A, Harding 88, and  It records as members of the Amphictyonic  Thessalians, those from P h i l i p two  votes p r e v i o u s l y  League the  (that king having received the  belonging to the  Phocians--Pausanias  X.3.3, Diodorus XVI.60.1, and Antipater of Magnesia, 69 F 2), the Delphians 346,  (who  FD  F Gr Hist  probably received their votes i n  obtaining one vote apiece from the Perrhaebians and  the  Dolopians—Tod 172 A and J . R. E l l i s , P h i l i p II and Macedonian Imperialism Dorians,  [London:  the  Thames and  Ionians,  Boeotians, the L o c r i a n s , Aenianians,  and  the  membership l i s t s , p.  314-15  and  the  Hudson, 1976]  121),  the  Perrhaebians-Dolopians,  the  the Achaeans, the Magnesians, the  M a l i a n s . For  further  detail  see also the tables in E l l i s the  insightful  article  by  on  the  132-33 and  SIG  Georges  Daux,  "Remarques sur l a Composition du Conseil Amphictionique," 81 (1957): At  95-120.  the time of the beginning of the Sacred War,  along with her p e r i o i k o i twenty-four  BCH  Thessaly  c o n t r o l l e d a c l e a r majority of the  votes on the Amphictyonic  Council.  Thebes, with  her a l l i e s the Locrians (who had a longstanding border dispute with the Phocians—Xenophon, Hellenica III.5.3) governed 4 8  Herodotus  VII 176  and VIII.27-31,  four.  Pausanias X . l , and  Aeschines 11.140. 4 9  5 0  Diodorus XVI.23.2-4 and Diodorus  29.4.  XVI.23.4, J u s t i n  VIII.1.8  and  Pausanias  85 5 1  5 2  Diodorus XVI. 23. 4:  Diodorus  iteptopav &'i xa^tepouuevnv xnv x^pav udvov avav6pov uitdpxetv, aXXa xat xdv6uvov lirLtpepexv xfj xffiv andvxwv xoO 3dou avaxpoitrj o  XVI.23.4-6, Pausanias  u  X.2.2-3, and J u s t i n  VIII.1.8-9. 5 3  Diodorus  convincingly  XVI.23.6.  from  strategoi formed  Hackett  (3-4 and 18-19) argues  the a n c i e n t e v i d e n c e  that  a board of  the basis of the Phocian federal government.  When an emergency arose, one of the s t r a t e g o i might dictatorial  powers (strategos autokrator) for as long as the  need was present. Philomelus  be given  was  autokrator.  This was apparently the case i n 356, when appointed  t o the p o s i t i o n  His status,  constitutional  therefore,  and there i s no i n d i c a t i o n  of s t r a t e g o s was  entirely  that he arose to  power t y r a n n i c a l l y . 5 4  Hackett  (13) summarizes the long range factors of the  Phocian d e c i s i o n as f o l l o w s : "a deep-seated hatred f o r the Thessalians, a long standing claim to Delphi and the preeminence i n the Amphictyonic Council, an ever growing opposition to Theban supremacy i n c e n t r a l Greece, and the continuous pressure of Theban threats of vengeance a f t e r Mantinea." The  immediate causes are, of course, the fine  Amphictyonic  threat of r e p r i s a l ,  itself  and the  should the fine not be paid  off. 5 5  Diodorus  XVI.27.5, Pausanias  III.10.3, and J u s t i n  VIII.1.8-9. 5 6  Diodorus  XVI.31.3-5, Pausanias  X.2.4-5, and J u s t i n  VIII.1.13-14. 5 7  Diodorus XVI.14.2 and 35.1, and Polyaenus IV.2.19.  86 Diodorus  5 8  XVI.35.1-3.  Polyaenus  (II.38.2) says:  ev T O i U T T i T f j cpuyfj TOV $aoL\ea TWV Maxe6dva)V $L\LKKOV cpaauv euTteCv oux ecpuyov, aXX'dvexwpnoa uaTe OL MPLOY, uv'aSdLS itoLfiawyai, atppo6oTepav  Diodorus  5 9  III.viii.9) 94) of  (in N.  XVI.35.3.  battle  the cowardice  Aristotle  (Nicomachean  on t h i s passage  as opposed  Ethics  ( F Gr H i s t  a t t h e Hermaion o f Coronea  of mercenaries  115 F  as an example  t o t h e courage o f  soldiers. On t h e s i t e  5 0  eyBoAnv.'  and t h es c h o l i a s t  use t h i s  citizen  TTIV  this  of this  battle,  see E l l i s  n o t e , S t r a b o 9 C443 i s a m i s p r i n t  G. L . Hammond, A H i s t o r y  o f Greece  82 a n d 290 n. 96  f o r Strabo 9 C433),  t o 322 B. C. ( O x f o r d :  Clarendon  P r e s s , 1 9 6 7 ) 5 4 3 , a n d N. G. L. Hammond a n d G. T.  Griffith,  A History  1979)  o f Macedonia  (Oxford:  Clarendon  Press,  v o l 2: 2 7 4 . Justin  6 1  "Phocenses territi  VIII.2.3.  insignibus  abiectis  Justin  then  adds  (VIII.2.4):  d e iconspectis conscientia delictorum  armis  fugam  capessunt."  This  i s most  u n l i k e l y a s Onomarchus a n d h i s f o r c e o f h a r d b o i l e d m e r c e n a r i e s would  certainly  patent  religious  probably  question  o f t o whom t h i s that  Consequently,  274-5)  religious  i ti s "highly  sensibility  i n so extreme  as a scare t a c t i c  (Hammond-Griffith  remarks  religious  propaganda.  not designed  Griffith  He  n o t be a f f e c t e d  a manner by s u c h this  c h a r a d e was  against the Phocians.  raises  the interesting  propaganda  improbable"  was a d d r e s s e d .  that  was o n b e h a l f o f t h e G r e e k s  this  p l a y on  because:  " a n e u t r a l , u n p o l i t i c a l opinion o f ordinary people who w e r e g e n u i n e l y s h o c k e d by t h e ' i m p i e t y ' o f t h e  87 Phocians probably did not e x i s t . This i s shown by the ease with which the Phocian generals could raise army after army of mercenaries, while their sacred money l a s t e d . " Griffith was  thinks i t much more l i k e l y  that  t h i s whole  on behalf of the Macedonian s o l d i e r s , who  aware of after  che  their  true f a c t s  of the war  and  charade  were much less  needed  reassurance  previous d e f e a t s at the hands of the  Phocians  (Diodorus XVI.35.2). 6 2  Diodorus XVI.35.6.  Onomarchus was  In XVI.61.2, Diodorus states that  s l a i n in b a t t l e and then c r u c i f i e d .  Pausanias  (X.2.5) says that Onomarchus was cut down while f l e e i n g to the sea by his own  men,  rate, i t seems c l e a r hung  who  blamed him for their defeat.  that Onomarchus was  At any  dead before P h i l i p  (or c r u c i f i e d ) him as commander of the  "sacrilegious"  Phocian troops. 6 3  The question here, as G r i f f i t h  77) r i g h t l y points out, i s whether  T 0  "s  (Hammond-Griffith aAAous  276-  refers to the  six thousand corpses or the three thousand captives.  Griffith  comes to the l o g i c a l conclusion that i t i s the corpses which are being thrown into the sea. be  Not only would a mass drowning  highly  impractical  but  no other examples are recorded  anywhere.  Moreover,  the  denial  of b u r i a l  rites  to  the  s a c r i l e g i o u s was much more e f f e c t i v e propaganda. 6 4  Diodorus XVI.36.1 and Pausanias X.2.6.  6 5  Diodorus XVI.38.1-2, J u s t i n VIII.2.8, and Demosthenes  IV.17, XVIII.32, and XIX.84 and 6 6  319.  Diodorus XVI.38.6 says that Phalaecus was  the son of  88 Onomarchus but Pausanias X.2.7, on the contrary, declares that he was the son of Phayllus. 5 7  Diodorus XVI.56.3 and Pausanias X.2.7.  5 8  Although Thebes had previously received  for the war  contributions  from various supporters (Tod 160 and Harding  76)  between 354/3 and 352/1, the small sums from t h i s source could not compete with the vast resources of the Phocians  "borrowed"  from the temple at Delphi.  forced to  Therefore, Thebes was  appeal i n 351 to Persia for further f i n a n c i a l help (Diodorus XVI.60.1).  By 347,  Thebes had probably exhausted a l l help  from t h i s quarter and her growing desperation i s shown by her request  to P h i l i p  to send m i l i t a r y a i d (Demosthenes XVIII.19  and Diodorus XVI.58.2). 6 9  Isocrates V.55.  7 0  Aeschines (11.132) states that the Phocian government  promised to hand over to Athens Alponus, Thronion and Nicaea, garrisons which c o n t r o l l e d the pass of Thermopylae,  i n return  for m i l i t a r y a i d . 71  7 2  Aeschines 11.133 and Diodorus XVI.59. G.  L.  Cawkwell  P h i l o c r a t e s , " REG thesis  that  hostility  73  [I960]:  Phalaecus  to Athens  ("Aeschines  1  the  413-438) proposes  return  caused  and  the  to power  Peace  of  the l o g i c a l  and  b e g i n n i n g of  subsequent Athenian  negotiations with P h i l i p for peace. 7 3  It seems l i k e l y that Phalaecus had previously reached  an agreement with P h i l i p i n secret, as his apparently arrogant  89 refusal  of A t h e n i a n and  explain.  As G r i f f i t h  out, Phalaecus  His army by t h i s (cf G.  (Hammond-Griffith  action  1  Spartan a i d i s otherwise hard  i s e x p l i c a b l e by  time was  presumably  L.. Cawkwell, P h i l i p  Faber, 1978]  bargaining  running short of funds  of Macedon  power.  Faber  and  Philip.  Sealey  ("Proxenus [1955]:  and 147)  the  Peace  and E l l i s  of (106  n. 67) a l s o b e l i e v e that Phalaecus had entered into  negotiations  with P h i l i p  Phocian government.  before regaining  Hackett  (123  n. 34)  ("The Strategy of P h i l i p i n 346 B. C.,"  was  [London:  to regain c o n t r o l of the pass for  P h i l o c r a t e s , " Wiener Studien 68  S. 24  points  self-preservation.  already contemplating settlement with  Therefore, Phalaecus had  266  rightly  96) and, unable to procure a d d i t i o n a l resources,  Phalaecus was  and  334)  to  [1974]:  control  and M.  M.  of  the  Markle  C l a s s i c a l Quarterly N.  265), on the other hand, contend that  Philip  "forced" to come to terms with Phalaecus only a f t e r his  a r r i v a l at 7 4  Thermopylae.  Diodorus  XVI.59,  Aeschines  11.132-35.  Justin  VIII.5.1-5 must be taken with a grain of s a l t . 7 5  total  Diodorus XVI.60.2. sum  Parke  of the p i l l a g e d  (Parke-Wormell  In 56.6,  Diodorus estimates the  treasures at over 10,000 t a l e n t s .  230),  supported by Hackett  suggests that Diodorus derives t h i s  figure  (114-15),  from an estimate  taken by the Amphictyonic League. A series of i n s c r i p t i o n s recording the Phocian f i n e have been found at Delphi and at Elatea  (SIG 230-35).  From t h i s  90 i n s c r i p t i o n a l evidence, i t i s clear that no payments were made u n t i l 343 B. C.  By the eleventh payment, i n the archonship of  Demochares, the amount had been reduced to ten talents a year. The payments appear which  point  less  to have ceased altogether around  than f i v e hundred  t a l e n t s had been  322,  by  repaid  ( E l l i s 123, Tod 172, FD p. 63-64, Harding 88). Diodorus XVI.60, Pausanias X.2.2-3, and Antipater of  7 6  Magnesia F Gr Hist 69 F 2. Paul Cloche, Etude  7 7  Guerre Sacree (Paris: Cloche  Chronologique  sur l a T r o i s i e m e  Ernest Leroux, 1915).  has i n c l u d e d  a handy  table  Facing page 106,  of the  "systemes  if  chronologiques of his predecessors i n contrast with his own. GG  III : 2  262-277, P a u l  Cloche,  "La C h r o n o l o g i e de l a  Troisieme Guerre Sacree Jusqu en 352 avant J . - C , " 1  Classiques 8 (1939): Sources," American  161-204, Robert Drews, "Diodorus and h i s  Journal of Philology  391 n. 27, and Raphael States (Berkeley:  Les Etudes  (1961):  390 n.25 and  Sealey, A H i s t o r y of the Greek  University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1976)  City 463-  468. 7 8  War  N. G. L. Hammond, "Diodorus' Narrative of the Sacred  and the Chronological Problems  (1937):  44-78, E l l i s  227-29.  Hackett  evidence  73-75, and G r i f f i t h  (127) does not b e l i e v e  to r e s o l v e  the problem,  Hammond's chronology. Hammond, JHS 57 (1937): 7 9  of 357-352 B. C , " JHS 57 (Hammond-Griffith) there i s s u f f i c i e n t  although he does favour  44-78.  91 G r i f f i t h (Hammond-Griffith, 227) remarks: "The delay of eighteen months between the seizure of Delphi by the Phocians (spring 356) and the Amphictyonic declaration of a Sacred War against them i s d i f f i c u l t to explain s a t i s f a c t o r i l y except on the l i n e s that during that i n t e r v a l i t was not possible to muster a m a j o r i t y . i n f a v o u r of d e c l a r i n g war, because the Thessalian voting power was not united."  8 0  Hackett  (33  n.  36)  accounts for the delay by  suggesting  that  the Phocians "were not believed to be a serious or permanent menace i n Delphi u n t i l the two Locrian attacks (24.4;28.3) had f a i l e d , and Philomelus had further strengthened his hold on Delphi by r e c r u i t i n g a d d i t i o n a l troops (25.1;28.1) . " The  8 1  clearly not  two  the  "Sacred Wars" mentioned by  two  campaigns of the  the s o - c a l l e d Second and  s c h o l i a s t does not  the  scholiast  fifth-century conflict,  Third Sacred Wars.  are and  In f a c t , the  seem to be aware of the fourth-century  war  at a l l , although Theopompus' discussion  of  i t i n Book Twenty  of h i s H e l l e n i c a  on  the  contained a digression  fifth-century  incident. 8 2  Poroi  Isocrates 5.9  hints  V.54-55 and that  seize c o n t r o l of  the  J u s t i n VIII.1.10.  Xenophon  the Thebans themselves were prepared sanctuary, should the  to  Phocians abandon  it. 8 3  cf G. L. Cawkwell, P h i l i p of Macedon 64-66.  8 4  Theopompus (F Gr Hist 115  (F Gr  Hist  70  F 95)  and  F 247-9), Ephorus-Demophilus  Phylarchus  (derived  from Duris  of  Samos?) (F Gr Hist 81 F 70). 8 5  Pausanias III.10.5 and  58.5-6 and 8 6  X.2.4-7 and  Diodorus XVI.56.8,  61-64.  Athens had  borrowed over 4800 talents from Athena  and  92 the  Other  Gods between  slightly Meiggs  over  and  and  David  Inscriptions 45,  one  Lewis,  426  A  at a  rate  p e r c e n t per  Selection  of  of  432-436  substantial  and  vol  3:  r e s o u r c e s and  interest  annum  Greek  Clarendon P r e s s , 1969]:  Gomme v o l . 2:  paying a l l i e s  and  one-fifth  [Oxford:  however, had  433  at  (Russell  Historical  #72,  ATL  687-89 ).  326-  Athens,  a network of  tribute-  to p r o v i d e the means o f p a y i n g o f f these l o a n s .  P h o c i s , on the o t h e r hand, w i t h i t s l i m i t e d hope of p a y i n g o f f the sum  r e s o u r c e s , had  of over 10,000 t a l e n t s which  no  i t had  "borrowed" from the temple a t D e l p h i . 8 7  8 8  Diodorus XVI. 56 I t i s not  (cf, Herodotus  stated  Amphictyonic League was It  may,  however,  i n Thucydides  involved  because  of  c l o s e d i t s eyes to the whole 8 9  Noel  Classical scholar  Quarterly (whom  "numbered the  9 0  of  28  uepos  N.  or  not  i n the f i f t h - c e n t u r y  S.  read)  dispute.  with Athens,  Myth of  the F i r s t  [1978]:  38  to p o i n t  out  n. the  Sacred  3)  have  was  applied  only  War,"  i s the o n l y  fact  that  o f S a c r e d Wars" a r e modern l a b e l s TtdAsyos  the  affair.  and  to the  the that  so-called  and T h i r d Sacred Wars by the a n c i e n t s o u r c e s . This  i s the o p i n i o n  of C h a r l e s Burton G u l i c k  the Loeb e d i t i o n of Athenaeus, 9 1  whether  i t s alliance  ( "The  I have  series  term  Second  Robertson  1.50-51).  (editor  ad l o c ) .  KaAAta^EvriS be T T } V T W V 'EAAnvLxaJv itporfydxiov u a x o p d a v YsypacpEV ev 6sxa x a l xaxsaxpocpsv s u s TT\V xaxdAn.<Rv xou uEpoO x a t u a p a v o y d a v <JtAoyriAou xou $ O J K E U ) S ^ ^ ^ . B  U  B  A  O  L  S  ^  ^  93 9 2  Cicero  obviously  bellum" from the "  0  derives  the  ^ H ^ O S ndXeyos  title  of  "Phocicum  " °f Demosthenes and  the  Athenian orators. 9 3  (ad  This i s the opinion of Beloch  l o c ) and  Diodorus,  C.  ad  L.  Sherman  l o c ) , and  A.  A.  B.  (Amsterdam: 9 5  B.  W.  How  attempting  and  the  Bosworth,  Clarendon Press, 1964]  vol 3:  Plutarch  "Aristotle  and  53].  149.  (Moralia 604  A Commentary on vol 1:  Loeb volume of  i n P i n d a r i Carmina  to reconcile the two  J . Wells,  Jacoby  f  409.  Adolf M. Hakkert, 1964) (XIV.2.16) and  25-26  2  Drachmann, S c h o l i a Vetera  Strabo  apparently  III :  ( e d i t o r of  Callisthenes," H i s t o r i a 19 (1970): 9 4  GG  F)  are  t r a d i t i o n s (cf  Herodotus  W.  [Oxford:  Many thanks to Dr. J . A.  S. Evans also for an i n t e r e s t i n g discussion on t h i s point. 9 6  9 7  C l a s s i c a l Quarterly 28 N. S. (1978): Ulrich  Athen ( B e r l i n :  von  54 n. 2.  Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, A r i s t o t e l e s und  Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1893)  vol 1:  18 n.  27. 9 8  Sordi,  Drachmann i s supported "La  i n t h i s conclusion  Prima Guerra  Sacra,"  C l a s s i c a 31  (1953):  Instruzione Wormell 105)  who  Rivista and  Jacoby (ad l o c ) .  1  Marta  di Filologia by  Parke  b e l i e v e s that Menaechmus was  patriotism to exaggerate Cleisthenes 9 9  338  by  role i n the  e di  (Parke-  motivated  by  war.  This conclusion i s probably  correct  as Menaechmus i s known to have written a h i s t o r y of Alexander (F Gr Hist 131 T 1).  The only evidence to the contrary i s the  94 entry  i n Hesychius  (F Gr H i s t  131 T 3) which implies that  Menaechmus i s e a r l i e r than A r i s t o t l e : EV $ Me'vau yov Evu'xnoev X  n.3  " nuduovrTxas Bu$Au'ov  ... Robertson  dismisses i t as "merely  a,  CQ 28 N. S. ( 1978):  56  the inference of some Alexandrian  scholar faced with two concurrent works.  A l t e r n a t i v e l y we may  postulate two Menaechmi (!) or even several." 1 0 0  1 0 1  This suggestion i s made by Sordi, RFIC (1953): Ephorus?  Strabo  o b v i o u s l y p l a c e s great  339.  faith in  Ephorus (esp. IX.3.11) and uses him as an authority throughout t h i s chapter. 1 0 2  This point i s made by Robertson  CQ 28 N. S. (1978):  1 0 3  A r i s t o t l e alone i s named as author  51.  by  Plutarch  Hesychius  (Solon XI.1),  (F Gr H i s t  Diogenes  131 T 3).  of t h i s  register  L a e r t i u s (V.26), and  An i n s c r i p t i o n  at D e l p h i ,  however, honours A r i s t o t l e and Callisthenes as j o i n t of a v i c t o r ' s l i s t Robertson l o c ) suggests  authors  (SIG 275, Tod 187, Harding 104).  (CQ 28 N. S. [1978]:  55) following Jacoby (ad  that the i n s c r i p t i o n  outweighs the l i t e r a r y  evidence, "for i t i s natural that i n later memory the greater name should  have ousted  the l e s s e r .  And, indeed,  if  the  younger and obscurer man o r i g i n a l l y received equal c r e d i t , we must suspect that the labour was c h i e f l y h i s . " A. B. Bosworth (Historia 19 [1970]:  409) remarks, on the  other hand, that the text of the avaypacpn have been completed  before C a l l i s t h e n e s  could not possibly departed  to j o i n  95 Alexander  on campaign  i n Asia.  T h e r e f o r e , he suggests  C a l l i s t h e n e s was o r i g i n a l l y commissioned but  was f o r c e d  to leave A r i s t o t l e  he was absent.  had been  a r c h o n s h i p o f Caphis  year  327/6  at Delphi  (SIG 252 and FD 58, l i n e  by  P.  de  du I V  e  by t h e  42), which was  that  Aristotle  la Coste-Messeliere,  Siecle,"  of the i n s c r i p t i o n  theory  inscribed  dated to the year 331/0 but has been r e d a t e d to the  Amphictioniques date  the work w h i l e  name i n the l i t e r a r y r e c o r d .  The t a b l e  originally  t o complete  avaypacpn  T h i s theory would a l s o e x p l a i n the absence of  Callisthenes' 1 0 4  to compose the  that  BCH 73 (1949):  adds  further  was l e f t  229 f .  weight  t o complete  "Listes The  to Boswell's the  commission  a f t e r C a l l i s t h e n e s d e p a r t u r e f o r A s i a i n 334. Plutarch  1 0 5  (Solon XI. 1) says:  Tteua^e'vTes OL iv  Robertson,  1 0 6  S.  (1978): 107  T  h  e  yap  uic'exeLvou  TtdAeyov  S C  holiast  t o Hypothesis  b quotes  x"Ax^f\oz  oitAoxepou -<KpCaav>  uito  CQ 28 N.  EucpopLajv*  oTtAoxe'pou  'inl'ov  iropSnaavxL,  x''AxLAfjos axouoyev  1 0 8  S o r d i , RFIC 31 (1953).  1 0 9  For b i b l i o g r a p h y , See a l s o  Guillon,  EUPUAO'XOLO,  avxLftdnaav  AuxojpEos  OLxda  endpdnae,  $OL3OU.  yapxupeL  xat,  EupuAdxoLO.  see Robertson,  Pierre  t h r e e hexameter  axodoyev  xaAbv  s c h o l i a s t to Hypothesis d says: xou, O X L E u p u A o x o g 6 0eaaaAoc. x o u g KLppaiToug  n. 1.  (Lpyn^naav  55 n.5.  AeAcpLbes $  68  x6v  f o l l o w i n g Wilamowitz and Jacoby,  l i n e s from Euphorion:  The  itpos  'AucpLXTUoves, As a A A o L xe u a p x u p o C a L x a t - ' A p L a x o x e A n s xfj x u i v IIudLOVLxQv a v a y p a t p f i EdAwvL xr\v yvwynv avaxLdeLc.  CQ 28 N. S.  Le B o u c l i e r  (1978):  d'Heracles  96 (Aix-en-Provence: Lettres, 1963) 1 1 0  Publication des Annales de l a Faculte des  56 n. 68.  H. w. Parke  (and John Boardman), "The  the Tripod and the F i r s t Sacred War," and  Robertson  CQ  28  N.  S.  Struggle for  JHS 77 (1957):  (1978 ):  68  n.  1  277 n. 4  (following  Wilamowitz). Strabo  1 1 1  IX.3.4,  Pausanias  II.9.6  and  X.37.5-8,  Frontinus III.7.6, Polyaenus III.6 and VI.13, Diodorus IX.16, Plutarch,  Solon XI, and  the s c h o l i a on Pindar:  Hypotheses  Pythiorum a, b, and d, Nemean IX, and Hypothesis Olympiorum. 1 1 2  Parke (Parke-Wormell  99) remarks that "these accounts  are i n c l i n e d to be d i s t o r t e d either by an e f f o r t to force the F i r s t Sacred War name, or  into p a r a l l e l i s m with later wars of the same  to g l o r i f y  particular  states  exaggerating their share i n championing 1 1 3  This  names a r e testimonies.  or  individuals  Apollo."  i s apparently an i n s o l u b l e problem as the  used  almost  by  indiscriminately  two  i n the a n c i e n t  This has led to mass confusion i n scholars from  the H e l l e n i s t i c  period  modern  c o n c e r n i n g the nomenclature  theories  onwards.  There  are three c u r r e n t of  the  city  involved i n the Crisaean War. One  school of thought, following  the example of Strabo  (IX.3.1), d i s t i n g u i s h e s between the two c i t i e s  of C r i s a  Cirrha  York:  (George  Grote, H i s t o r y  Fenelon C o l l i e r ,  1899)  v o l 4:  of Greece  [New  60 n. 1, and Parke  Wormell 99-100 and Parke-Boardman 276]).  and  Peter [Parke-  According to t h i s  97 interpretation,  the  city  of  C r i s a was  located  on  Mount  Parnassus near Delphi and had extended i t s influence over  the  plain  in  our  sources down to the C o r i n t h i a n Gulf, which at that time  was  called  both  named a f t e r  that  the  Crisaean  city  as  a  and  the  testament  Cirrhaean  to  i t s importance  (Thucydides s t i l l c a l l s the Corinthian Gulf the Crisaean 1.107.3,11.69.1,83.1,86.3, 92.6, the c i t y destroyed War. was  93.1,  eventually destroyed  this  i n the War  second modern theory  city  follows  the  Dor,  Effenterre, (Paris:  Jean  Kirrha:  E. de  Crisaean  over Amphissa.  concerning  the nomenclature of  French excavation  Jan-no r a y ,  was  the port of Delphi which  of  the area.  l a t e s t in a s e r i e s of reports on the excavations Leopold  This  by the Amphictyonic League in the  C i r r h a , on the other hand, was  The  and IV.76.3).  Gulf-  Henri  and  The  i s a book by  Micheline  van  Etude de  l a P r e h i s t o i r e Phocidienne  Boccard, 1960).  Jean Defradas, Themes de l a  Propagande Delphique  (Paris:  L i b r a r i e C. Klincksieck,  1954)  21 n. 1 contains a complete bibliography of e a r l i e r  articles.  Although these excavations  Parnassus  originally  thought  to be  proved that the s i t e on that of  the  sixth-century  city  of  Crisa had  not been inhabited since the Mycenaean period, they  were not  successful  city.  i n f i n d i n g the  remains of  the  archaic  From these r e s u l t s arose a d i s t i n c t i o n between C r i s a ,  the Mycenaean c i t y on the slopes of Mount Parnassus mentioned by Homer ( I l i a d coast which was  11.520) and destroyed  C i r r h a , the archaic c i t y on  the  by the Amphictyonic League a f t e r the  98 Crisaean War. Sordi  (RFIC  Forrest  This archaeological theory has been accepted by 31 [1953]:  320), Defradas  ( 2 1 ) , and George  ( "The F i r s t Sacred War," BCH 80 [1956]:  330). This  theory i s hampered, however, by the lack of success i n f i n d i n g the " r e a l " s i t e of the archaic c i t y . j I  The  third  modern theory  i s that  the names C r i s a and  Cirrha are both used to refer to the same place (H. T. WadeGery,  "Kynaithos," Essays  Blackwell, [1978]: of  i n Greek History  1958) 23 n. 1 and Noel  41-48).  [Oxford:  Robertson  Basil  CQ 28 N. S.  According to t h i s theory, Crisa was the name  the a r c h a i c harbour  city,  but when i t was r e b u i l t , i t  became known as Cirrha (on the analogy of §pdaos/ Sdpaos/Sdppos ) . Confusion arose later when the o r i g i n a l name of C r i s a had been forgotten and only the contemporary  town of Cirrha  remained.  This theory, although also based on conjecture, at least has the merit of explaining the prevalence of the name Cirrha i n our sources and of i d e n t i f y i n g the source of the d i f f i c u l t y as later attempts  to d i s t i n g u i s h between Crisa and Cirrha as two  separate c i t i e s . For  convenience,  I will  refer  to the a r c h a i c  city  involved i n the Crisaean War as Crisa and the harbour town i n the War over Amphissa as C i r r h a . 1 1 4  IX.16.  Aeschines I I I . 1.07, Plutarch Solon XI. 1, and Diodorus Pausanias X.37.5 adds that i n addition to their other  acts of aoiQeta. , they even went so far as to appropriate (dnoxeyvw) some of the god's land.  Pausanias  i s probably confusing the  99  cause of the Crisaean War with that of the War over Amphissa. 1 1 5  Strabo IX.3.4.  1 1 6  Hypotheses Giympiorum, Hypotheses Pythiorum a, b, and  117  Aeschines  d. III. 108 paraphrases this o r a c l e :  a u t o e s aveupeU f| Iludua itoAeyeiv Kuppatous KpayaAuSai'S ndvx' fiyara nat Tidaas vu*xxac, xai xrtv x ^ P ctuxwv e x n o p S n a a v T E S xat auxouc. av6paito6baaye'vouc. avaSeUvaL xfj) 'AitdAAojvi- xtp Iludtw x a t xfj 'Apxeyo6u xau xfj ArixoC xat ' A%r\vcj. Ilpovaua e n t itdarj aepyua, x a t xauxnv xr>v Xcljpav ynx'auxouc. epydr;ea%ai yrtx'aAAbv lav. xat  xat  a v  Aeschines  i s apparently  familiar  with  the record of t h i s  oracle kept at Delphi i n his own day. Plutarch (Moralia 76e) mentions the f i r s t derived either  l i n e s of t h i s oracle, which he presumably  from the record at Delphi or from the text of  Aeschines. 1 1 8  Plutarch (Solon XI. 1 — u s i n g  the avaypacpn  and Callisthenes as hi's source) and Aeschines that Solon (  of A r i s t o t l e (III. 108)  state  advised the Amphictyonic League to make war  eTiuaxpaxedeuv  )  against the offenders.  Pausanias (X.37.6)  says that the Amphictyonic League " Eo'Awva  'ASnvSv  eitnydyaxo  auygouAeuebv."  Plutarch  (Solon XI.2) c r i t i c i z e s  later  tradition  exaggerating  the role of Solon: ou yevxou axpaxriyog eTCt xoDxov aireSeux^n TOV ndAeyov, A s XeyeLv cpnatv "Epybitnos Euav§n xov E d y L o v " ouxe ydp Auax^vriS 6 pnxwp xoOx' e t p r i x e v , ev xe xoCs . AeAcpwv uitoyvriyaauv 'AAxyauwv, ou ZdAwv, 'A^nvatwv axpaxnyoc. avayeypanxau.  Nevertheless,  the f a c t  remains that the Alcmaeonidae were  100 almost c e r t a i n l y 80  [1956]:  in exile  at this  50-51) circumvents  Alcmaeon with A l c i b i a d e s ,  time. this  George Forrest problem  by  (BCH  comparing  "another great Athenian who  became  commander of his country's forces while s t i l l  i n e x i l e and  his  P. J . Rhodes (A  recall  by h i s successes i n command."  Commentary on  the A r i s t o t e l i a n  Athenaion  Politeia  won  [Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1981] 81) agrees that "Alcmaeon's command may have preceded  the  return  of  the Alcmaeonids  to  Athens."  Despite the curse and e x i l e , we must keep i n mind that tradition  that  Alcmaeon  contingent  originates  was  from  Delphi,  favourable to the Alcmaeonidae, 1 1 9  (  commander  of  which  the  was  this  Athenian  notoriously  and not Athens.  Scholiast to Pindar's Nemean IX, Pausanias II.9.6  auuTtoAeurTaas 'AycpLXT\5oau  - ) and X.37.6 (  riyey^v  )r  Frontinus  III.7.6, and Polyaenus III.5. 120 [Thessalus] ( L i t t r e IX, 412), Hypothesis Olympiorum, Hypotheses 1 2 1  (1978):  Pythiorum b and d, Strabo IX.3.4 and  Parke 67.  (Parke-Wormell  105)  3.10.  and Robertson CQ  28 N. S  Sordi (323) a t t r i b u t e s the t r a d i t i o n of Alcmaeon  as general of the Athenian contingent to the influence of the Alcmaeonidae  at D e l p h i at  (Herodotus V.62-63). the  the  end  60  (1940):  80 (1956): 41-2 and 49-50 accept this Parke (Parke-Wormell  Sordi  342.  sixth  century  105).  82 and Forrest  BCH  tradition.  He adds that this version  "appears to have no motive i n l o c a l bias." 1 2 3  the  N. G. L. Hammond, "The Seisachtheia and  Nomothesia of Solon," JHS  1 2 2  of  101 1 2 4  P. N. Ure, The O r i g i n of Tyranny  and R u s s e l l , of  1922)  259-60, Malcolm  S i c y o n , " T r a n s a c t i o n s and  York:  Russell  F. McGregor, "Cleisthenes  Proceedings of the  P h i l o l o g i c a l Association 72 (1941): 1 2 5  (New  283, and Sordi  American 341.  The s c h o l i a s t to Nemean IX t e l l s us that Cleisthenes  and his f l e e t blockaded the Crisaeans i n the Corinthian Gulf. 1 2 6  Scholiast to Nemean IX.  1 2 7  Aeschines III.109, [Thessalus] ( L i t t r e IX 406). P a r i a n Marble  1 2 8  Pythiorum  b and  d.  (F Gr  For  the most  chronology, see the a r t i c l e archons from Creon  Hist  239  A  36),  thorough  account  by T. J . Cadoux, "The  to Hypsichides," JHS  68  B. C.  Pausanias  Athenian 99-101,  conclusively to  (X.7.4) i s the only evidence to the  contrary, as he dates the 1 2 9  of the  (1948):  where the archonship of Simon i s dated f a i r l y 591/0  Hypotheses  [Thessalus] ( L i t t r e  dyw xpnuonri/ms v  t o  5 8 6  IX 408), Hypotheses  B <  c >  Pythiorum b  and d. 1 3 0  Pausanias X.37.6 a t t r i b u t e s t h i s stratagem to Solon,  Polyaenus  VI.13  C l e i s t h e n e s , and  to  Eurylochus,  Frontinus III.7.6  [Thessalus] ( L i t t r e  IX 412)  to Nebrus,  to an  Asclepiad from Cos. 1 3 1  Pausanias  version  X.37.6 and  Diodorus  IX.16.  of t h i s o r a c l e has a l s o been i n s e r t e d  A spurious i n Aeschines  (III.112) . 1 3 2  Pausanias (X.37.6) a t t r i b u t e s t h i s t r i c k to Solon and  Polyaenus  (III. 5)  to Cleisthenes.  102 1 3 3  1 3 4  Hypotheses Pythiorum b and d. P a r i a n Marble  (F Gr H i s t  Pythiorum  b and d, Strabo  Pausanias  (X.7.6) says that  winner  239 A 38), Hypotheses  IX.3.10, and Pausanias  X.7.5.  C l e i s t h e n e s of Sicyon was the  of the c h a r i o t - r a c e , which was added i n t h i s year to  the o f f i c i a l programme of the games. 1 3 5  (1956): 1 3 6  George  Forrest,  "The F i r s t  Sacred War," BCH 80  33-52. Noel Robertson  ( CQ 28 N. S. [1978]:  49 n. 2 and 3)  gives a complete bibliography. 1 3 7  Forrest 35.  1 3 8  Forrest 44.  1 3 9  Forrest 45.  1 4 0  In both these contexts, Aeschines mentions the c r i s i s  at Euboea of 348 B. C. i n the same breath and i n the same terms:  1 4 1  I I I . 221:  Ta ue\ y°P Ttept xous 'Aycpuaaeas nae3nyeya aot xaL xa HE pi, xr^v Eugotav 6wpo6oxn§evxa,...  I I I . 237:  Tac yev yap TtepC xous ' Aycpuaaeas xat xous Eu3oeas 6a)po6oxLas icapaAeunoj*  Demosthenes XVIII. 1:  P l u t a r c h may have d e r i v e d (although  not the exact  Ou yrfv aXA'sirst "JdAuinros und xfis nepu xflv "Aycptaaav euxuxdas ercaupdyevos ziz xflv 'EAdxeuav e^atcprivs eveiteae xat, xrlv $uxd6a xaxeaxev.  the g e n e r a l method of r e f e r e n c e words)  to the c o n f l i c t  from  Demosthenes and Aeschines or else from Marsyas (F Gr Hist 13536 F 20) or Theopompus (F Gr Hist 115 F 328), both of whom he  103 mentions l a t e r i n this section (Demosthenes XVIII.2-3). Demosthenes XVIII.150 and Strabo IX.3.4.  1 4 2  Aeschines  (III.113 and 119) also alleges that the Amphissans had the a n c i e n t port of C r i s a  (now  C i r r h a ) and  were  rebuilt  collecting  harbour dues (xeAn ) from v i s i t o r s . Aeschines  1 4 3  III.108,  [Thessalus]  (Littre  IX  412),  Polyaenus III.4-5, and Pausanias X.37.6. The fact that Isocrates refers to t h i s land as TO KpuaaCov  1 4 4  adds further support to the theory (propounded  ite*6uov  i n note  113) that a previous t r a d i t i o n of a c i t y c a l l e d C r i s a existed, which was confused i n the fourth century with the  contemporary  s i t e of C i r r h a . The  1 4 5  chronology  subject of dispute.  of t h i s  conflict  the  of 339  B. C.  (Hammond-Griffith  the autumn of 340  B. C.  the spring of 339  B. C.  to  (340/39) so i t follows that the  Pylaea i n question took place either  Griffith  a l s o been  Aeschines (III.115) dates t h i s meeting  the archonship of Theophrastus  C. or the s p r i n g  has  i n the autumn of 340  I follow  B.  the chronology  of  717-719) in dating t h i s meeting  to  A case has been made, however, for (Ellis  290  n. 31 for b i b l i o g r a p h i c a l  references). 1 4 6  Aeschines III.115 and SIG 243  1 4 7  Aeschines I I I . 115 and Demosthenes XVIII. 149. Aeschines  1 4 8  denies  III.116  and  the e x i s t e n c e of any  Athens).  D.  Demosthenes XVIII.150  such  suit  contemplated  (who  against  104 1 4 9  Aeschines I I I . 115-116 and Demosthenes XVIII. 149.  1 5 0  Demosthenes (XVIII.149) describes his audience as  " dvSpojTtous omeupous Adyarv x a l  Aeschines  1 5 1  xb u e A A o v ou Tcpoopuiyevoug."  III..122 and Demosthenes XVIII.150.  o f f i c i a l survey •( itepuoSos ) mentioned  by Demosthenes  and  the Amphictyonic  151) i s presumably  380/79  (IG I I  2  1126, SIG 145 l i n e s  hieromnemones to c a r r y Amphictyons 1 5 2  that which  15-21)  The  (XVIII.150 law of  i n s t r u c t s the  out i f anyone i s d i s c o v e r e d by the  to be c u l t i v a t i n g the sacred land.  Aeschines III.123 and Demosthenes XVIII.151. Aeschines III.125-28  1 5 3  and the scholium to Aeschines  III.128. Cottyphus  1 5 4  hieromnemones  and h i s compatriot Colosimmus served as  f o r an u n u s u a l l y long p e r i o d  of time,  from  autumn 346 (SIG 244) u n t i l autumn 339 (SIG 249) or autumn 337 (P. de l a Coste-Messeliere, BCH 73 [1949]: 201-247). 1 5 5  Aeschines III.128 and Demosthenes XVIII.151.  1 5 6  Aeschines III.129 and Demosthenes XVIII.151.  157  Aeschines I I I . 129 and Demosthenes XVIII.152.  158 Aeschines III.140, Demosthenes XVIII.153, Philochorus (F Gr H i s t Diodorus Athens  328 F 56), P l u t a r c h  XVI.84.2. to t h i s  Demosthenes XVIII.1), and  Demosthenes d e s c r i b e s the r e a c t i o n i n  news  in a j u s t i f i a b l y  famous  passage  (XVIII.169-178). 1 5 9  Noel Robertson CQ 28 N. S. (1978):  65 remarks:  The f i r s t stage of f i g h t i n g ended after four years with the Cirrhaeans defeated: thus were the Phocians defeated  105 a f t e r four y e a r s of war i n the B a t t l e of the Crocus F i e l d , and the T h i r d Sacred War would have ended then had P h i l i p not been checked at Thermopylae. For s i x y e a r s more the C i r r h a e a n s kept up a g u e r i l l a r e s i s t a n c e on Mount C i r p h i s : thus d i d the P h o c i a n s , f a l l i n g back on t h e i r mountains, p r o l o n g the T h i r d Sacred War f o r s i x years more. T h i s analogy, however, seems an extremely l a b o r i o u s attempt  to  draw a p a r a l l e l ! 160 r p ^ g fragments in  an  extremely  chauvinistic  i n which he attempts 6t&  yuvaCxas 1 6 1  of C a l l i s t h e n e s passage  and  D u r i s both  of Athenaeus  " STL xal OL,  t o demonstrate  appear  (XIII  yeyLOTOL.  560)  ito'AeyoL  EysvETO."  Aeschines  I I I . 107,  Plutarch  Solon XI.1,  and  Diodorus  IX.16. 1 6 2  Diodorus XVI. 23.3  and Pausanias X.15.2.  1 6 3  Aeschines III.113 and 119,  Demosthenes XVIII.150,  and  Strabo IX.3.4. 1 6 4  Strabo IX. 3. 4.  1 6 5  H y p o t h e s i s Qlympiorum, Hypotheses  1 6 6  A e s c h i n e s III.113 and 119,  1 6 7  Forrest  Pythiorum a, b, and  d.  1 6 8  CQ  Noel  28 N. S. 1 6 9  44 and Parke  Robertson, (1978):  Robertson,  Strabo IX.3.4.  (Parke-Wormell  "The  103).  Myth of the F i r s t  Sacred  War,"  38-73. however, o v e r l o o k s the c r u c i a l  Isocrates' Plataicus,  which  indicates  a tradition  passage  in  of t h i s  war  p r e c e d i n g the f o u r t h c e n t u r y . 1 7 0  Robertson  (51) c o n s i d e r s the s i l e n c e of Thucydides i n  106 particular  as c o n c l u s i v e :  and i t s modern exponents Nevertheless, Herodotus  this  "The t r a d i t i o n of the Sacred War  makes Thucydides a l i a r  i s not a v a l i d  and Thucydides  because  leave out many d e t a i l s  consider i r r e l e v a n t to their 1 7 1  argument  or a f o o l . "  which  both they  topics.  Demosthenes (XVIII.149) accuses Aeschines of" xat Adyous  eunpoaiikous xau y u d o u s , odev f| Ktppada x^pa x a § L e p a j § n , a u v ^ e l g x a t 6LC£;EA$WV  of  #  "  w must take Demosthenes' c r i t i c i s m with a grain e  s a l t , however, as he i s anxious to d i s c r e d i t Aeschines at  any cost. F Gr Hist 69 T 2: eiteu6rf 6e x a t itepi, xcov  'AycpLxxuovLxSv tppdaaL y u $ o v Ttapd* ' AvxLirdxpo'Uj x d v a xpdrcov icpffixov OL ' AycpLxxuovec a u v d a x n a a v , xaC Tiuis ovxes 'AycpLxxuoves $AeyuaL yev u i t b 'ATIOAAWVOS, A p d o v x e s 6e u i t o 'HpaxAeoug, K p L a a L O L 6e uito xffiv 'AycpLXxudvuv avrtLpdSnaav. OSXOL yap i t d v x e s ' A y c p L x x u o v e c y e v d y e v o L xffiv (Jjdcpwv acpnLpe^naav, e x e p o L 6e xas xodxuv (J^ncpous AaBdvxes xfis xaiv -AycpLxxudvwv auvxeAedas y e x e a x o v , 5v IVLOLS ae cpnaL yeyLyfja-SaL x a L AaBe~v 5\>Aov IIU^LOLS xfis et,s AeAcpous a x p a x e d a s T t a p a xtov 'AytpLxxudvwv xas 6uo $wxewv c^ncpous. Ttpayyaxaiv  SfjAos zZ aitoudd^oav, eBouArv&nv  1 7 3  Robertson 39 and 73.  1 7 4  Gustav Adolf Lehmann ("Der Erste H e i l i g e K r i e g — E i n e  Fiktion?" H i s t o r i a 29 [1980]: to Robertson's a r t i c l e .  242-46) provides a b r i e f  reply  Lehmann points out that (1) Robertson  is arguing from a strained argumentum has overlooked the c r i t i c a l 31),  a o i  passage  ex  silentio  i n Isocrates  and (2) he (Plataicus  which speaks of the Crisaean War i n terms of a concrete  example. 1 7 5  the  Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.12 and Diodorus XV.77. For  chronology, see S. Dusanic, The Arcadian League of the  Fourth Century (Belgrade:  1970) 302 n. 100.  107 Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VI.5.1-3.  1 7 6  Kione Eirene (London: and Appendix IV.  See T. T. B. Ryder,  Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1965) 71-73  As a r e s u l t  of this disagreement  over the  autonomy clause, E l i s was the only c i t y present to refuse to sign the treaty (Xenophon, Hellenica VI.5.3). 1 7 7  Xenophon, Hellenica I I I . 2. 30.  1 7 8  Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.1.26:  " xous 6e TputpuU'ous HOU xous  dXXovz xous *no acptov (the Eleans) aitoaxdvxas nepu icavxos itotouvievous."  James Roy ("Arcadia and Boeotia i n Peloponnesian Historia  20 [1971]:  Affairs,"  583) suggests that T r i p h y l i a had joined  the League before the Theban embassy to Persia of 367, as the Arcadian VII.1.33,  ambassador was a T r i p h y l i a n Pausanias  VI.3.9).  (Xenophon,  Lasion was a l s o  Hellenica  certainly a  member of the Arcadian League when i t was seized by the Eleans in 365, as we know from the testimony of Xenophon VII.4.12) and Diodorus  (XV.77.1-2).  Diodorus,  confuses Lasion and T r i p h y l i a throughout this 1 7 9  (Hellenica however,  passage.  Xenophon, Hellenica VII.1.39 (for Persian endorsement  of Elean claims).  Plutarch  (Pelopidas, XXX.1 says only that  Artaxerxes made a l l Greek c i t i e s autonomous. The  Arcadians  (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a  other u n s a t i s f i e d Greek c i t i e s rejected  VII.1.39) and the  (Xenophon, Hellenica VII.1.40)  the Persian proposal outright at the peace congress  at Thebes (contra Diodorus XV.76.3 who appears to imply that a common peace was s u c c e s s f u l l y concluded at t h i s p o i n t ) . support  of Xenophon s account 1  are Ryder  137-39  In  and John  108 Buckler, The Press, 1980) 180  F  o  situation the  181  and  f  ther  u r  information  about  i n the Peloponnese during and  concise  accounts  diplomatic  the troubled 360's, see  of James Roy,  Historia  This  group' was  apparently  (Xenophon, Hellenica VI.19  joined the Arcadia-Argos-Elis c o a l i t i o n after  the  refusal  of Athens  on  and  23)  good  terms  and  Thebes  i n a formal  alliance  (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a  VII.1.18, Diodorus XV.62.3, and Demosthenes XVI.12 and 1 8 2  The  Spartan  contingent  included Athens,  most of the northern Peloponnesian VI.5.29 and 1 8 3  The  20  The Boeotian contingent included the Eleans, Argives,  Arcadians.  369  the  Appendix II 594-99 and Dusanic 300-301.  already by 370  in  Harvard U n i v e r s i t y  151-60.  r  clear  (1971):  Theban Hegemony (Cambridge:  19).  Corinth,and  states (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a  VII.1.1).  Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.4.28 and  fourth-century  Pisatan  claims  are  Diodorus XV.78.3. also  reflected  in  Xenophon, Hellenica III.2. 30. Apparently, hosts Strabo  of  the Eleans  were the  founders  the Olympic Games (Pausanias  VIII.3.30),  having  gained  and  original  V.4.5-6 and  control of the t e r r i t o r y  their neighbours the Pisatans (a r u r a l people).  with  the  help  of  Eleans  of Pheidon of Argos, managed to s e i z e  c o n t r o l of the sanctuary Pausanias VI.22.2).  and  The Pisatans,  however, resented their subjection to the more powerful and,  9.4  i n 668  B. C.  Varying accounts  (Herodotus VI.127 and of other  interludes of  109 Pisatan control are given by later sources (Pausanias VI.22.23, Strabo VIII.3.30,  and  Eusebius  1.198), but Elean  might  always prevailed in the end. This brief period of Pisatan independence  1 8 4  not only from i t s coinage [Chicago:  Argonaut  i s evident  (Barclay V. Head, H i s t o r i a Numorum  Inc., 1967]  426) and a Pisatan proxeny  decree (SIG 170) but also from a formal a l l i a n c e with Arcadia (Diodorus XV.78.2, SEG  XXII. 339a).  Moreover, Dus'anic's re-  interpretation  ("Arkadika,"  M i t t e i l u n g e n des  Deutschen  Archaologischen  I n s t i t u t s Athenische Abteilung 94  [1979]:  117-118) of SEG XXII.339 has shown, quite convincingly, that the two fragments  belong to two d i f f e r e n t s t e l a i :  a Pisatan  a l l i a n c e with Argos and a separate a l l i a n c e with Messenia  and  Sicyon. Pausanias  1 8 5  (VI.4.2) mentions Sostratus of Sicyon as  victorious for the f i r s t time at this f e s t i v a l in the (cf J . G. Frazer, Pausanias' Description of Greece Biblio  and  (VI.8.3)  Tannen, 1965]  a c e r t a i n Eubotas  chariot-race  10).  Pausanias  of Cyrene  i n the same f e s t i v a l .  TtayHpaTuov  [New  also  mentions  as v i c t o r i o u s Diodorus  York:  i n the  (XV.78.1) and  Eusebius (1.206) name Phocides, an Athenian, as winner of the stadion. 1 8 6  Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.4.29,  Diodorus  XV.78.2-3  (Diodorus reverses the roles of the Arcadians and the Eleans). Pausanias  (V.10.1) d e r i v e s the name ( A l t i s ) given to the  sacred precinct from  aXaos,  on the authority of Pindar (X.45).  110 1 8 7  According  thousand  Argive  to Xenophon  (Hellenica  h o p l i t e s and,  hundred Athenian  VI1.4.29),  surprisingly  horsemen were present  two  enough,  i n support  four  of  the  Arcadians. 1 8 8  Xenophon (Hellenica VII. 4.32)  remarks:  xouoOxou yevdyevou ououg xfyv dpexriv deds yev dv eyTtveuoas 6dvauxo xau ev nyepa duoSeCCai,, dv-dpamou 6e ou6'd\) ev uoXXiJJ Xpdva) TOOS ur) dvxag aAxdyous itouriaeLav.  Diodorus XV. 78.3: " K a u TTTV oAuyitudSa xauxnv oaxepov oux dveypacpav 'HACUOL Sua TO 6oxeuv 3da xau d6uxus SuaxeSfivaL,." 1 8 9  Pausanias VI. 4.2, 1 9 0  Pausanias  p h y l a i was fourth  8.3  (V.9.5) records  reduced  Olympiad  ( *CB6nAos ) and 22.3  from twelve  as  a result  (  dvoAuynuds  j .  that the number of Elean  to eight i n the hundred  of  the  territory  lost  to  and the  Arcadians. 1 9 1  1 9 2  J . Roy,  H i s t o r i a 20 (1971):  384.  Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.4.33.  a minor doublet  Diodorus  XV.82 (after  c o n s i s t i n g of a r e c a p i t u l a t i o n of the  joint  Arcadian-Pisatan management of the Olympic Games) places t h i s episode  i n the year  states  specifically  appropriating  funds,  363/2. how but  going on for some time.  Neither  long  Xenophon nor  the Arcadians  they both  imply  had  Diodorus been mis-  that t h i s had  been  Moreover, gold coins bearing the name  of P i s a were struck from the plundered  treasures (Head  420)  and the record of reparations due from the Arcadian League (IG IV  616)  of which  the  total  has  been e s t i m a t e d  Aeginetan staters (Fraenkel apud Dusanic  at  20,000  334 n. 32) contribute  Ill to the impression  that the s a c r i l e g e was no small one.  Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.4.3 and Diodorus XV.82.1-2  1 9 3  (Diodorus completely  reverses  the r o l e of Mantinea  in this  dispute). Most  1 9 4  scholars  interpret this  statement of Xenophon  (Hellenica VII.4.33) to mean that the Mantineans raised their own  c o n t r i b u t i o n towards the pay of the E p a r i t o i  188, Roy  Historia  20  [1971]:  585, and Buckler  (cf Larsen 204).  This  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n has recently been challenged by Dusanic (303 n. 114) who  argues rather  that  the Mantineans gave back to the  League the amount given to the Mantinean E p a r i t o i . points out, t h i s l a t t e r excessive  As Dulanic  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n explains the seemingly  burden placed on Stymphalus  IV 616) as due to the f a c t  i n the reparations  that Mantinea had already  (IG  repaid  i t s share of the funds from Olympia. 195  T  h  e  oligarchic-democratic  Arcadian  League  [1971]:  585-88) and supplemented by Buckler  the  objections  blame  and  i s well  conflict  of Larsen  even  within  demonstrated by Roy  (189:  to know which  the  (Historia  (204-5)  20  against  " i t is difficult  to assign  of  the more  the  two  was  o l i g a r c h i c and which the more democratic") and Dusanic, who a t t r i b u t e s the e x i s t i n g antagonism between Mantinea and Tegea to economic rather than p o l i t i c a l differences 1 9 6  of  Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.5.1-5.  362/1  between Athens, A r c a d i a  supporters),  Achaea, E l i s ,  (306).  The formal  ( i . e . Mantinea  and P h l i u s  (IG I I  2  alliance and i t s  112, SIG  181,  112 Tod  144,  and  Mantinea  Harding  56)  dates  (the arguments of Tod  acceptance).  For  from  after  the B a t t l e  [ad l o c ] have won  the date of the B a t t l e  of  general  of Mantinea,  see  Buckler 260-61. Compare t h i s  1 9 7  description  of Olympia  with Strabo's  d e s c r i p t i o n of Delphi (IX.3.2-10). 198  Arcadians, however, did not use the sacred money  T n e  to h i r e mercenaries, as did the Phocians. As I observed i n note 192,  1 9 9  the t o t a l of reparations  due from the Arcadian League has been estimated at ca. 20,000 Aeginetan  staters.  This,  amount a l r e a d y repaid  by Mantinea,  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of IG IV 616 (c.f.  note  194).  of course, does not i f we  include  accept  the  Dusanic's  and Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.33  T h i s amount, which was  presumably  to be  spread out among the northern members of the Arcadian League, is considerably less than the s i x t y talents a year to be paid by  the Phocians  utterly  without  reimbursed they had  (an enormous amount for a small state r e s o u r c e s at  i t s defeat) u n t i l  had  the sanctuary at Delphi the 10,000 talents which "borrowed"  (c,f, note 75).  Naturally,  fine would be far less than the Phocian because funds  they  left  from Olympia  only to pay  the Arcadian they used the  the standing army and not to  hire thousands of mercenaries and their "borrowing" did not go on incessantly for a number of years. Another reparations  point i s that  to be made about  the record of Arcadian  the Arcadians apparently (according to  113 Fraenkel, editor of IG IV 616) decided of their own accord to submit the matter of reparation to a r b i t r a t i o n . Cleonae  was  magistrates  then  chosen  governing  by the A r c a d i a n  the temple  The c i t y of  League and the  a t Olympia  to a c t as  arbitrator. 2 0 0  Liddell  and Scott, Greek-English  Franciszek Sokolowski,  Lexicon  (ad loc) ,  Lois Sacrees des C i t e s Grecques (Paris:  Editions de Boccard, 1969) #32 n. 1, and Harding 78 n . l . 2 0 1  The references have been c o l l e c t e d  by Dittenberger  SIG 204 n. 2. 2 0 2  | osa  6 KAeoyevris aAAa xe l6rjW xfis vxa xwpas nal, xfis xaAouyEvns 'OpydSos §et5v xe xo5v I v 'EAeuaCvL cepas.  Herodotus VI. 7 5.3:  Pausanias  III. 4.2:  is  6 E AftrivaCoL jyoOvoiT] AsyouaL, 6 L O X L lagaAwv x6 xeysvog §eOv,... 'AdnvaCoL 5e I S T J U K J E xrlv 'Opydfia. E  and III. 4.3.... 203  Thucydides  Plutarch, scholiast 328  2 0 4  1.139.2:  Per i c l e s  L  P  E  Is  'EAeuauva  X O J V  I  L  6E 'A^nvaLOL... InspyaaLav MeyapeOaL xfis y n s L E p a s n a t xfis aopCaxou. I T C L X O I A O U V X E S  O L .  XXX.2, Pausanias  to Aristophanes'  1.36.3 and I I I . 4 . 6 ,  Peace 605 (Philochorus F Gr Hist  115 A ) , s c h o l i a s t  to  Aristophanes'  532 (Fornara 123 B) and Harpocration s. v. 'AvSsydxpLxos.  c . f . Gomme (ad l o c ) , Donald Kagan, The Outbreak of  the Peloponnesian 1969)  E  O  F 121=Fornara  Acharnians  X  War  245, and Ronald  (Ithaca:  Cornell  P. Legon, Megara  U n i v e r s i t y Press, (Ithaca:  Cornell  University Press, 1981) 203. 2 0 5  G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, Origins of the Peloponnesian  War (London:  Duckworth, 1972) 254-56.  114 2 0 6  IG I I 204, SIG 204, Sokolowski 32 and Harding 78.  2 0 7  This speech was  2  generally considered spurious i n the  nineteenth century, but now  i t i s almost u n i v e r s a l l y accepted  as a work of Demosthenes.  W.  Jaeger  U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a  Press, 1938]  thoroughly  of  the  change  authorship of t h i s  speech  (Demosthenes [Berkeley: 243  opinion.  n. 24)  chronicles  N e v e r t h e l e s s , the  does not a f f e c t  the i n f o r m a t i o n  contained within. 2 0 8  The answer to t h i s question hinges upon the date of  the speech, as Demosthenes i s c l e a r l y events.  These  referring  r e f e r e n c e s make i t c l e a r  that  to recent the  speech  belongs to the period 352/49 but i t i s not c e r t a i n whether i t precedes  or  contained  follows  implementation  i n the i n s c r i p t i o n .  13.40=Harding although,  the  as  78B)  does  Jacoby  Didymus  date  (F G r  On  Hist  of  the  measures  (Demosthenesl c o l .  O r g a n i z a t i o n to I I I B Supplement  349/8, II 424 )  remarks, his inference i s "crude and probably mistaken." latest  trend of opinion dates the speech  to 352  Cawkwell, "Anthemocritus and the Megarians Charinus,"  REG  82  [1969]:  329,  and  supported  The  (cf George  the Decree of by  Legon  Although Cawkwell makes a good case, the date of t h i s  286. speech  cannot yet be considered f i x e d . Demosthenes refers to the Megarians as  w a T a p d x o t  i n 352  B. C. (XXIII.2.2) but makes no further reference to a campaign against safest  them u n t i l  349/8 ( I I I . 2 0 ) .  to assume with Jacoby  As a r e s u l t ,  (F Gr Hist  i t seems  IIIB, Supplement I  115 531),  W. R. Connor  ("Charinus' Megarean Decree,"  Journal of P h i l o l o g y  83 [1962]:  American  237), and Legon (288) that  after the threat of a campaign i n 352/1 actual m i l i t a r y action against  the Megarians  d i d not occur u n t i l  the implementation  of the measures of the decree aroused Megarian  resentment and  unco-operation. 2 0 9  2 1 0  388  REG 82 (1969):  300-301.  This i s a l s o the opinion of G. E. M. de Ste. Croix  n. 1 and Kevin C l i n t o n ,  Eleusinian  "The Sacred O f f i c i a l s  M y s t e r i e s , " T r a n s a c t i o n s of the  Philosophical Society 64.3 (1962): 2 1 1  2 1 2  American  18 n. 1.  W. R. Connor, "Charinus' Megarean Decree,"  Journal of Philology 83 (1962):  of the  American  225-46.  For more exhaustive c r i t i c i s m of Connor's t h e s i s , see  K. J . Dover,  "Anthemocritus  and the Megarians,"  Journal of Philology 87 (1966): "Anthemocritus Byzantine  and the  203-209, Lawrence J . Bliquez, Disputes," Greek,  opyds  S t u d i e s 10 (1969):  "Anthemocritus  and the Decree  327-35, G. E. M. de Ste. Croix  American  Roman, and  157-64, G. L. Cawkwell,  of Charinus," REG 82 (1969): 246-51 and 386-88, and Legon  286 n. 103. 2 1 3  W. R. Connor, "Charinus' Megarean Decree Again," REG  83 (1970): 2 1 4  308.  P. Foucart, i n the o r i g i n a l p u b l i c a t i o n of the decree  of 352/1 i n BCH 13 (1889), i s the only modern scholar to draw a parallel  (437) between the Sacred Orgas and the Cirrhaean  116 Plain. 2 1 5  Athens,  T h i s p o i n t i s made by Parke of  course,  was  an  ally  of  (Parke-Wormell Phocis  and  227).  this  presumably a factor i n the oracle's eventual decision.  was  117  BIBLIOGRAPHY  ANCIENT SOURCES Aeschines. Boston:  Against Ctesiphon. Ed. Rufus S. Ginn and Company, 1889.  Richardson.  The Speeches of Aeschines. Trans. Charles Darwin Adams. Loeb C l a s s i c a l Library, 1968. Aristophanes. Trans. Benjamin Bickley Rogers. C l a s s i c a l Library, 1960-63.  3 vols.  Athenaeus. The Deipnosophists• Trans. Charles Burton 7 vols. Loeb C l a s s i c a l Library, 1961.  Loeb  Gulick.  Demosthenes. De Falsa Legatione. Ed. G. H. Heslop. London: Rivington's, 1872 On the Crown. Ed. William Watson Goodwin. Cambridge University Press, 1970.  Cambridge:  On the Peace, Second P h i l i p p i c , On the Chersonese and Third P h i l i p p i c . Ed. John Edwin Sandys. New York: Arno Press, 1979. Trans. J . H. Vince (vols 1 and 3) and J . H. Vince and C. A. Vince (vol 2). 3 v o l s . Loeb C l a s s i c a l Library, 195362. Dinarchus. Orationes Cum Fragmentis. L e i p z i g : Teubner, 1975.  Ed. Nicos C. Conomis.  Diodorus S i c u l u s . L i b r a r y of H i s t o r y . T r a n s . C. H. O l d f a t h e r , C. L. Sherman, Bradford Welles, R u s s e l l M. Geer, and F. R. Walton. 12 v o l s . Loeb C l a s s i c a l Library, 1960-67. Eusebius. Chronica. Weidmann, 1967.  Ed. A l f r e d Schoene.  2 vols.  Zurich:  118 Frontinus. The Stratagems and the Aqueducts of Rome. Trans. C h a r l e s E. B e n n e t t . Ed. Mary B. McElwain. Loeb C l a s s i c a l Library, 1925. Harpocration. Lexicon i n Decern Oratores A t t i c o s . Ed. W. Dindorf. 2 vols. Gronigen: Bouma's Boekhius N. V. Publishers, 1969. Herodotus. H i s t o r i a e • Ed. Carolus Hude. Clarendon Press, 1962.  2 vols.  Oxford:  Hippocrates. Oeuvres Completes d'Hippocrate. Ed. E. L i t t r e . vol 9. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1962. Homer. "Hymn to Apollo." Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns and Homerica• Loeb C l a s s i c a l Library, 1964. Opera. Ed. David B. Munro and Thomas W. A l l e n . vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962-78. Hypereides. 1963.  Orationes.  Ed. C. Jensen.  Stuttgart:  5 Teubner,  Isocrates. Trans. George Norlin (vols 1 and 2) and Larue Van Hook (vol 3). Loeb C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y , 1961-66. J u s t i n . Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum Pompeii Trogi. Ed. Otto Seel. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1972. Pausanias. vols.  D e s c r i p t i o n of Greece. Trans. W. H. Jones. Loeb C l a s s i c a l Library, 1954.  Pindar. Odes. Trans. S i r John Sandys. Library, 1961.  Loeb C l a s s i c a l  Plutarch. Plutarch's Lives. Trans. Bernadotte P e r r i n . vols. Loeb C l a s s i c a l Library, 1959. Plutarch's Moralia. Ed. F. C. Babbitt et a l . Loeb C l a s s i c a l Library, 1969. Polyaenus. Strategemata. Teubner: 1970.  Ed. J . Melber.  Strabo. The Geography of Strabo. Jones. 8 vols. 1960.  Trans.  5  11  16 vols.  Stuttgart: Horace Leonard  Thucydides. H i s t o r i a e . Ed. Henry Stuart Jones. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960.  2 vols.  History of the Peloponnesian War. Trans. Charles Forster Smith. 4 vols. Loeb C l a s s i c a l Library, 1962.  119 Xenophon. H e l l e n i c a . Trans. Carleton L. Brownson. Loeb C l a s s i c a l Library, 1950.  2 vols.  MODERN SOURCES Amandry, P i e r r e . La Mantique Apollinienne a Delphes. E. de Boccard, 1950. Andrewes, A.  The Greek Tyrants.  Badien, E. "The Eunuch Bagoas." (1958): 144-157.  New York:  Paris:  Harper and Row,  C l a s s i c a l Quarterly 8 N. S.  Barber, G. L. The H i s t o r i a n Ephorus. University Press, 1935.  Cambridge:  Cambridge  Beloch, Karl J u l i u s . Griechische Geschicte. 4 vols. Berlin and L e i p z i g : Walter de Gruyter and Company, 1913-27. Bliquez, Lawrence J . "Anthemocritus and the opyots Disputes." Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 10 (1969): 157-161. Bonner, Robert J . and Gertrude Smith. "Administration of Justice i n the Delphic Amphictyony." Classical Philology 38 (1943): 1-12. Bonner, Robert J . "The Megarian Decrees." Philology 16 (1921): 238-245.  Classical  Bosworth, A. B. " A r i s t o t l e and C a l l i s t h e n e s . " (1970): 407-13.  H i s t o r i a 19  Bourguet, Emile. F o u i l l e s de Delphes Tome III Epigraphie Fasicule V Les Comptes du IV S i e c l e . P a r i s : E. de Boccard, 193T^ e  L'Administration Financiere du Sanctuaire Pythique au IV S i e c l e . Paris: L i b r a i r i e des Ecoles Francaises d'Athenes et de Rome, 1905. e  "Les Comptes de l'Archontat de Demochares." (1897): 477-496. "Les Versements de 1'Amende des Phocidiens." (1897): 321-344.  BCH 21 BCH 21  Bousquet, Jean. "Le Compte d'Automne 325 a Delphes." Melanges Helleniques O f f e r t s a Georges Daux. P a r i s : de Boccard, 1974: 21-32.  E.  120 Brown, Truesdell S. "Callisthenes and Alexander." Journal of Philology 70 (1949): 225-248.  American  Brunt, P. A. "The Megarian Decree." Philology 72 (1951): 269-282.  American Journal of  Buckler, John. The Theban Hegemony. University Press, 1980.  Cambridge:  Burn, A. R. The Pelican History of Greece. Ltd., 19165.  Harvard  Penguin Books  Bury, J . B., S. A. Cook, and F. E. Adcock ( e d i t o r s ) . The Cambridge Ancient History. Vols. 3-6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1925-27. Bury, J . B. and Russell Meiggs. A History of Greece. Macmillan Press Ltd., 1975. C a d o u x , T. J . "The A t h e n i a n A r c h o n s Hypsichides." JHS 68 (1948): 70-123. C a r g i l l , Jack. The Second Athenian League. University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1987.  from  London:  Kreon  Berkeley:  Cawkwell, G. L. "Aeschines and the Peace of P h i l o c r a t e s . " REG 73 (1960): 416-438. "Aeschines and the Ruin of Phocis." 453-459.  REG 75 (1962):  "Anthemocritus and the Megarians and the Decree of Charinus." REG 82 (1969): 327-335. "Demosthenes' P o l i c y After the Peace of P h i l o c r a t e s . " C l a s s i c a l Quarterly 13 N. S. (1963): 120-138 and 200-213. "The Peace of Philocrates Again." 28 N. S. (1978): 93-104. P h i l i p of Macedon.  London:  C l a s s i c a l Quarterly  Faber and Faber,  1978.  Clinton, Kevin. "The Sacred O f f i c i a l s of the Eleusinian Mysteries." Transactions of the American P h i l o s o p h i c a l Society 64.3 (1974) . Cloche, Paul. "La Chronologie de l a Troisieme Guerre Sacree Jusqu'en 352 avant J.-C." Les Etudes Classiques 8 (1939): 161-204. Etude Chronologique sur l a Troisieme Guerre Sacree.  to  121 Paris:  Ernest Leroux,  1915.  "La Grece de 346 a 339 av. J.-C." 108-159.  BCH 44 (1920):  "Les Naopes de Delphes et l a Creation du College des Tamiai." BCH 44 (1920): 312-327. "Les Naopes de Delphes et l a P o l i t i q u e Hellenique de 356 a 327 av. J.-C." BCH 40 (1966): 78-142. "La P o l i t i q u e Exterieure d"Athenes de 454-3 a 446-5 avant J.-C." Les Etudes Classiques 14 (1946): 3-32 and 195 221. Connor, W. R. "Charinus' Megarean Decree." of Philology 83 (1962): 225-246. "Charinus' Megarean Decree Again." SOS.  American Journal  REG 83 (1970):  SOS-  Daux, Georges. "Note sur 1 Inscription Amphictionique IG I I 1126." American Journal of Philology 70 (1949): T8~9 191. 1  "Remarques Amphictionique." Davies, 0. "Two 89-95.  sur l a C o m p o s i t i o n BCH 81 (1957): 90-120.  North Greek Mining Towns."  du  2  Conseil  JHS 49 (1929):  Defradas, Jean. Les Themes de l a Propagande Paris: L i b r a i r i e C. Klincksieck, 1954.  Delphique.  De l a Coste-Messeliere, P i e r r e . "Listes Amphictioniques du IV S i e c l e . " BCH 73 (1949): 201-247. e  "Les Naopes a Delphes au IV S i e c l e . " Melanges O f f e r t s a Georges Daux. P a r i s : E. de Boccard, 1974: 199-211. e  Demangel, R. " F o u i l l e s et Recherches Sous-Marins en Grece." BCH 74 (1950) : 271-273. De Ste. Croix, G. E. M. The Origins of the Peloponnesian London: Gerald Duckworth and Company, 1972.  War.  Dindorf, W. (ed). Scholia Graeca in Aeschinem et Isocratem. Hildesheim: Verlag Dr. H. A. Gerstenberg. Scholia to Aristophanes. 3 vols. University Press, 1838.  Oxford:  Oxford  122 Dittenberger, W. (ed). Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. 1. Hildesheim: Georg 01ms, 1960. Dor,  Vol.  L e o p o l d , J e a n J a n n o r a y , H e n r i et M i c h e l i n e van Effenterre. Kirrha: E t u d e de l a P r e h i s t o i r e Phocidienne. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1960.  Dover, K. J . "Anthemocritus and the Megarians." Journal of Philology 87 (1966): 203-209.  American  Drachmann, A. B (ed). Scholia Vetera i n Pindari Carmina. 3 v o l s . Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1969. Drews, Robert. "Diodorus and his Sources." of Philology 83 (1962): 383-393.  American Journal  Dusanic, Slobodan. The Arcadian League of the Fourth Belgrade: 1970.  Century.  "Arkadika." Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen I n s t i t u t s 94 (1979): 117-135. Ehrhardt, Christopher. "Two Notes on P h i l i p of Macedon's F i r s t Interventions i n Thessaly." C l a s s i c a l Quarterly 17 N. S. (1967): 296-301. E l l i s , J . R. P h i l i p II and Macedonian Imperialism. Thames and Hudson, 1976.  London:  F a r n e l l , Lewis Richard. The Cults of the Greek States. v o l s . New York: Caratzas Brothers, 1977.  5  F i n l e y , M. I. Early Greece: The Bronze and Archaic Ages. London: W. W. Norton and Company, 1981. F o r n a r a , C h a r l e s W. Peloponnesian War. Press, 1977.  A r c h a i c Times to the End of the Baltimore: John Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y  "Plutarch and the Megarian Decree." Studies 24 (1957): 213-228. Forrest, George. 33-52.  "The F i r s t Sacred War."  Yale C l a s s i c a l BCH  80  (1956):  Forrest, W. G. "Colonisation and the Rise of Delphi." H i s t o r i a 6 (1957): 160-175. Foucart, P. "Decret Athenien de l'Annee 352 Trouve a E l e u s i s . " BCH 13 (1889): 433-467. Frazer, J . G.  Pausanias' Description of Greece. 5 v o l s .  123 New York:  B i b l i o and Tannen, 1965.  Friedlaender, J u l i u s . "A Coin of Helike." Chronicle 1 N. S. (1861): 216-217.  Numismatic  Glotz, Gustave and Robert Cohen. H i s t o i r e Grecque. 2 v o l s . P a r i s : Presses U n i v e r s i t a i r e s de France, 1926. Gomme, A. W. Oxford:  A H i s t o r i c a l Commentary on Thucydides. Clarendon Press, 1945.  3 vols.  G r i f f i t h , G. T. " P h i l i p of Macedon's Early Interventions i n Thessaly (358-352 B. C.)." C l a s s i c a l Quarterly 20 N. S. (1970): 67-80. "The S o - c a l l e d (1939): 71-79.  Koine  E i r e n e of 346 B. C."  Grote, George. History of Greece. 12 vols. New York: Fenelon C o l l i e r , 1899.  JHS 59 Peter  G u i l l o n , P i e r r e . Etudes Boeotiennes: Le Bouclier d'Heracles. Aix-en-Provence: Editions Orphrys, 1963. Hackett, N e i l J . The Third Sacred War. C i n c i n n a t i , 1970.  Diss.  U n i v e r s i t y of  Hammond, N. G. L. "Diodorus" Narrative of the Sacred War." JHS 57 (1937): 44-78. A History of Greece to 322 B. C. Press, 1967.  Oxford:  Clarendon  "The Seisachtheia and the Nomothesia of Solon." 60 (1940): 71-83. "The Sources of Diodorus XVI." (1937): 79-91.  JHS  C l a s s i c a l Quarterly 31  Hammond, N. G. L. and G. T. G r i f f i t h . A History of Macedonia. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. Harding, P h i l l i p . From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1985. Head, Barclay V. 1967.  H i s t o r i a Numorum.  Chicago:  Argonaut Inc.,  Homolle, Th. "Remarques Epigraphiques sur 1'Administration Financiere et l a Chronologie de l a V i l l e de Delphes au IV S i e c l e . " BCH 22 (1898): 602-633. e  124 How,  W. W. and J . Wells. A Commentary on Herodotus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964.  Jacoby, F e l i x Historiker.  2 vols.  (ed). Die Fragmente der G r i e c h i s c h e n 15 v o l s . Leiden: E. J . B r i l l , 1954-64.  Jaeger, Werner. Demosthenes. C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1938.  Berkeley:  University of  Jannoray, J . and H. van Effenterre. " F o u i l l e s de K r i s a . " BCH 61 (1937): 299-326 and BCH 62 (1938): 110-148. Jannoray, J . "Krisa, Kirrha, et l a Premiere Guerre Sacree." BCH 61 (1937): 33-43. Jeffrey, L. H. Archaic Greece: The City States c. 700-500 B. C. London: Ernest Bonn Ltd., 1976. Kagan, Donald. The Outbreak of the P e l o p o n n e s i a n Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1969.  War.  Laistner, M. L. W. A History of the Greek World From 479 to 323 B. C. London: Methuen and Company, 1957. Larsen, J . A. 0. "Federation for Peace i n Ancient Greece." C l a s s i c a l Philology 38 (1943): 1-12. Greek Federal States.  Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1968.  Legon, Ronald P. Megara: The P o l i t i c a l History of a Greek City State to 336 B. C. Ithaca and London: C o r n e l l University Press, 1981. Lehmann, Gustav A d o l f . "Der E r s t e H e i l i g e K r i e g - - E i n e Fiktion?" H i s t o r i a 29 (1980): 242-246. Lerat, L. "Krisa." Revue Archeologique: Melanges Picard. II Series 6 V o l . 31 (1948): 621-632. Marchetti, Pierre. "Le Temple de Delphes et l a Date d'Aristonymos." BCH 103 (1979): 151-163. M a r i n a t o s , S p y r i d o n N. "Helice: A Submerged Town of C l a s s i c a l Greece." Archaeology 13 (1960): 186193. M a r k l e , M. M. "The S t r a t e g y of P h i l i p i n 346 C l a s s i c a l Quarterly 24 N. S. (1974): 53-68.  B.  C."  McGregor, Malcolm F. "Cleisthenes of Sicyon and the Panhellenic F e s t i v a l s . " Transactions of the American P h i l o l o g i c a l Association 72 (1941): 266-287.  125 Meiggs, R u s s e l l . The Athenian Empire. Press, 1972.  Oxford:  Clarendon  Meiggs, Russell and David Lewis (eds). A Selection of Greek H i s t o r i c a l I n s c r i p t i o n s . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969. M e r i t t , Benjamin Dean. "Athens and the Amphictyonic League." American Journal of Philology 69 (1948): 312-314. "Athens and the Amphictyonic League." of Philology 75 (1954): 369-373.  American Journal  M e r i t t , Benjamin Dean, H. T. Wade-Gery, and Malcolm Francis McGregor. The Athenian Tribute L i s t s . V o l . 3. American School of C l a s s i c a l Studies at Athens and Princeton, 1950. Morford, Mark P. 0. and Robert J . Lenardon. Mythology. New York: Longman, 1971.  Classical  Parke, H. W. "The Pythais of 355 B. C. and the Third Sacred War." JHS 59 (1939): 180-183. Parke, H. W. and John Boardman. and the F i r s t Sacred War."  "The Struggle for the Tripod JHS 77 (1957): 276-282.  Parke, H. W. and D. E. W. Wormell. v o l s . Oxford: B a s i l Blackwell, Pearson, L i o n e l . Philadelphia: 1942.  The L o c a l The American  The Delphic Oracle. 1956.  Historians Philological  of A t t i c a . Association,  The Lost H i s t o r i e s of Alexander the Great. Philadelphia: The American P h i l o l o g i c a l Association, 1960. Perlman, S. "The Coins of P h i l i p II and Alexander the Great and their Pan-Hellenic Propaganda." Numismatic Chronicle Series 7 V o l . 5 (1965): 57-67. . Picard-Cambridge, A. W. Greek Freedom. New  2  Demosthenes and the Last Days of York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1914.  Pouilloux, J . "La Reconstruction du Temple au IV Siecle et les I n s t i t u t i o n s Delphiques." Revue des Etudes Anciennes 64 (1962): 300-313. e  Raven, E. J . P. "The Amphictyonic Coinage of Delphi." Numismatic Chronicle Series 6 V o l . 10 (1950): 1-22.  126 Reinach, Theodore. "Une I n s c r i p t i o n Historique de Delphes." Revue Archeologique Series 5 V o l . 28 (1928): 34-46. Rhodes, P. J . A Commentary on the A r i s t o t e l i a n Politeia. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.  Athenaion  Robertson, Noel. "The Myth of the F i r s t Sacred War." C l a s s i c a l Quarterly 28 N. S. (1978): 38-73. Robinson, Charles Alexander J r . The History of Alexander the Great. 2 vols. Providence R. I.: Brown University, 1953. Roux, Georges. "Les Comptes du IV Siecle et l a Reconstruction du Temple d'Apollon a Delphes." Archeologique 1 (1966): 245-296. e  Revue  "Note sur l a Construction du Temple de Delphes." 103 (1979): 501-505.  BCH  Roy, James. "Arcadia and Boeotia i n Peloponnesian A f f a i r s 370-362 B. C." H i s t o r i a 20 (1971): 569-99. " P o s t s c r i p t on (1974): 505-507.  the A r c a d i a n League."  Ryder, T. T. B. Koine Eirene. Press, 1965.  London:  H i s t o r i a '23  Oxford University  Saunders, A. N. W. (trans). Demosthenes and Aeschines. Penguin Books Ltd., 1975. Greek P o l i t i c a l Oratory.  Penguin Books Ltd., 1970.  Schwartz, Maurice L. and Christos Tziavos. "Geology i n the Search for Ancient H e l i c e . " J o u r n a l of F i e l d Archaeology 6 (1979): 243-252. Sealey, Raphael. "Athens After the Social War." (1955): 74-81.  JHS 75  A History of the Greek City States ca. 700-338 B. C. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1976. "Proxenus and the Peace of Philocrates." Studien 68 (1955): 145-152.  Wiener  "Thucydides, Herodotus,and the Causes C l a s s i c a l Quarterly 7 N. S. (1957): 1-12. Sokolowski, F. Lois Sacrees des Cites Grecques. de Boccard, 1969.  of  Paris:  War." E.  127 Sordi, Marta. "La Fondation du College des Naopes et l e Renouveau P o l i t i q u e de l"Amphictionie au IV S i e c l e . " BCH 81 (1957) : 38-75. e  "La Prima Guerra Sacra." R i v i s t a d i F i l o l o g i a e d i Instruzione Classica 31 N. S. (1953): 320-346. Tod, Marcus N. Greek H i s t o r i c a l I n s c r i p t i o n s. Publishers, 1985. Ure, P. A. The Origin of Tyranny. R u s s e l l , 1962.  New York:  Chicago: Ares Russell and  Wade-Gery, H. T. "Kynaithos." Essays i n Greek History. Oxford: B a s i l Blackwell, 1958: 17-36. West, M. L. "Cynaethus Hymn to Apollo." 25 N. S. (1975) : 161-170. 1  C l a s s i c a l Quarterly  Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U l r i c h von. A r i s t o t e l e s und Athen. 2 v o l s . B e r l i n : Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1893. Wiseman, James. 51 (1969):  "Epaminondas and the Theban Invasions." 177-199.  Klio  128  HELIKE:  ANOTHER CASE OF DIVINE RETRIBUTION  The c o n f l i c t in  between the Ionians and the c i t y of Helice  363 B. C. i s i n t e r e s t i n g i n that  with  the s o - c a l l e d  element of d i v i n e  Third  an analogy  Sacred War i n p a r t i c u l a r i n i t s  retribution falling  souls a l l e g e d l y g u i l t y of s a c r i l e g e . situated  i n furnishes  upon those unfortunate The c i t y of Helice was  i n Achaea, near the Corinthian  Gulf.  T r a d i t i o n has  i t that Helice was one of the o r i g i n a l twelve Ionian established  by the Athenians i n the Peloponnese.  very  history  early  Helice  From i t s  1  became an important  colonies  religious  centre, as i t was the o r i g i n a l home of the c u l t of Heliconian Poseidon, before the Ionians transferred themselves, cult and 2  all,  to A s i a  Minor.  There, Heliconian  Poseidon became the  patron d e i t y of the Pan-Ionia, the f e d e r a l assembly of the Ionians held near Priene on the peninsula however, retained both i t s c u l t most  important  city  4  of Mycale.  3  Helice,  and i t s status, as i t was the  of the region  before d i s a s t e r  struck  (Diodorus XV.48.3). Disaster  a r r i v e d i n the form of an earthquake and t i d a l  wave on a winter night i n the year 373/2.  5  such a severe expression  Probable cause for  of divine displeasure was not hard to  129  find.  A few months e a r l i e r ,  Pan-Ionia  the Ionians, unable to hold the  at i t s t r a d i t i o n a l s i t e of Mycale due to an outbreak  of war, had t r a n s f e r r e d i t to a safe l o c a t i o n near Ephesus. Thereupon they obtained an oracle from Delphi, which advised them to ask for the statue that, a copy  (  (  B P E ' T C X S  ) f Poseidon  or, f a i l i n g  Q  ) f the a n c e s t r a l a l t a r s  acpi^puaus  Q  o r i g i n a l home of Heliconian Poseidon  at H e l i c e .  from the  The c i t i z e n s  5  of Helice, however, paid heed to an ancient prophesy that harm would come to them should the Ionians s a c r i f i c e upon the a l t a r of Poseidon Frustrated  and consequently  refused  the Ionian  by this outright r e f u s a l , the Ionians appealed  the  of the Achaeans and were given  complete t h e i r citizens  sacrifice.  of H e l i c e  representatives  Poseidon  permission  to to  Upon t h e i r attempt to do so, the  seized  the persons  and m i s t r e a t e d  charge of s a c r i l e g e .  them,  of the  thereby  Ionian  incurring a  7  himself struck down the impious c i t y  i n a most a p p r o p r i a t e collapse  request.  fashion.  8  An earthquake caused the  of most of the town and the ensuing  engulfed i t completely,  forthwith  tidal  wave  leaving only the tops•of the trees to  show where a prosperous c i t y  had once stood.  survivors from either Helice or the neighbouring  There were no town of Bura  and even ten Lacedaimonian ships which happened to be anchored nearby were destroyed. Eratosthenes waves,  9  could s t i l l  bronze  cult  One hundred and f i f t y see the c i t y  statue  years  later,  of Helice beneath the  of P o s e i d o n  and a l l ( S t r a b o  130 VIII.7.2). although  By they  Eventually,  Roman times, the had  and the fourth-century  foretold  by  were s t i l l  become somewhat corroded  however, the sea  According  ruins  swallowed up Helice  c i t y has not yet been  to l a t e r  by  visible,  the  sea.  altogether,  rediscovered.  t r a d i t i o n , the wrath of Poseidon  ominous p o r t e n t s .  Callisthenes  10  (apud  11  was  Seneca  Naturales Quaestiones VI.26.3) says: Inter multa prodigia quibus denuntiata est duarum urbium, Helices et Buris, eversio, fuere maxime n o t a b i l i a columna i g n i s immensi et Delos a g i t a t a . Seneca them (VII.5.3-4) adds: Talem effigiem i g n i s longi f u i s s e Callisthenes t r a d i t , antequam Burin et Helicen mare absconderet. A r i s t o t e l e s a i t (Meteorologica 343a, 343b, and 344b) non trabem i l l a m sed cometen fuisse...In quo igne multa quidem fuerunt digna quae notarentur, n i h i l tamen magnis quam quod, ut i l l e f u l s i t in caelo, statim supra Burin et Helicen mare f u i t . Ephorus (apud Seneca Naturales Quaestiones VII.15.2=F Gr 70  F 212)  a l s o associates  destruction  of Helice and  the  Hist  r i s i n g of t h i s comet with  Bura.  the  Another i n t e r e s t i n g portent  of the impending disaster i s recorded by Aelian  (XI.19):  npb itevxe ydp nuepSv acpavua^fivai, xr\v 'EAdxnv, oaot uues ev auxfj fjaav x a t yaXaZ x a t ocpets x a t axoAoftev6pat xau acpovSuAau x a t xa AotTta oaa ?iv x o t a O x a , a-Spda internet xfj 069 xfj es Kepuveuav excpepouarj.  Clearly,  the  H e l i c e was  d i s a s t e r which b e f e l l  the  of such magnitude that any  the time were naturally associated with Due considered  to  i t s antecedents,  the  unfortunate c i t y  unusual occurences of it.  1 2  destruction  of H e l i c e  "a perfect example of divine r e t r i b u t i o n .  of the ancient  of  a u t h o r i t i e s a t t r i b u t e the  1,13  was  Most  catastrophe to  the  131 impiety  committed by  the c i t i z e n s  goes so f a r as to c l a i m  of H e l i c e .  (XV.49.6):  " x ' e  T 0 U a  Diodorus  1 4  even  t v oxu TtXnv xaiv  daeBnoavTuv OU6EIS aXXos Tcepue'iteae xfj auycpopqi."  This,  however,  i s not  strictly  justify  t h i s statement,  offense  committed  ten  Spartan  except  by  Helice  Diodorus,  (XV.49.2)  who  to d i v i n e  by  but  15  attributes retribution  theme  of  divine  retribution  g u i l t y of s a c r i l e g e i s echoed  extant  the  g i v e s an  implying Diodorus  account  that  of  they  (XVI.61.1)  commit  divine  the  authority  death  of  their  f o r h i s treatment  for  those  of  the  fates  a l l came reiterates  sacrilege  allegedly  i n both Pausanias' and  accounts of the s o - c a l l e d T h i r d Sacred War.  who  i n the  the crew of  every  to  1 6  This  7)  i n order  the c i t i z e n s of Bura  forgotten  Laertius  commander, P o l l i s , Plato.  implicates  s h i p s are  Diogenes  true.  Diodorus'  Pausanias  (X.2.4-  of  the Phocian  commanders,  a  deservedly  nasty  to  his conviction  a g a i n s t the  gods meet  that  end.  a l l those  eventually  with  retribution:  oXu>s yap ou yo'vov xoCs au-de'vxous xfis L E p o a u X t a s , aXXoT HOU, Tiaau xoCs npoaa^ayevous yo'vov xfis uapavoyuas ontapauxrixos EH xou 6atyovC*ou ETr.rixoXou'^riae  He  then  goes  xuyiDpua.  on  to  demonstrate  description  (XVI.61-64)  participants  in  Diodorus  even  foreshadowing his  the  links  sacrilege the  two  h i s treatment  s e c t i o n on H e l i c e  of  this the  (XV.48.4).  fates  committed  cases of  theory  the  of  in a  graphic  the  various  of by  divine  the  Phocians.  retribution  sacrilegious  Phocians  by in  132 Since the incident between the Ionians and the c i t i z e n s of H e l i c e d i d not develop i n t o a f u l l - s c a l e war, i t cannot furnish  an analogy  f o r the use of the term  t,epos v  TtcfAeyos  •  Nevertheless,  i t does bear a marked resemblance  to the so-  called  S a c r e d War  of d i v i n e  Third  retribution sources.  i s spoken  i n that  the element  of i n the same terms  by the same  This was a theme which had been current  l i t e r a t u r e since Herodotus—those g u i l t y of uBpus or would  e v e n t u a l l y be struck  down by the hand of  examples were easy to f i n d or forge.  i n Greek  daegeua  heaven—and  133  NOTES TO  APPENDIX  i i •  1  Strabo VIII.7.1  and  7.4,  Herodotus  1.145, and  Pausanias  VII.4.1. 2  Pausanias  XV. 49.1. cult  Homer m e n t i o n s  of Poseidon 3  Strabo  4  from  A  5  Julius 1 N.  Diodorus  (11.41) s a y s Eusebius  6  of  and  Diodorus that  (Iliad  1  and  Diodorus  11.575) and i t s  XX.404).  XV.49.1,  Priene  had  Strabo been  XIV.1.20.  colonized  bearing not  the  long  head  before  of  Poseidon  by  the  surrounded  destruction  F r i e d l a e n d e r , "A C o i n o f H e l i k e , "  S.  (1861): XV.48.1,  343b and  before  instead  coin  coined  Meteorologica years  ' EALXTV  e u p e t a  us  VIII.7.2,  Helice.  was  Chronicle  Strabo  VIII.203  informs  bronze  See  "  1.148,  VIII.7.2  waves  town.  (Iliad  Herodotus  settlers  by  VII.24.5,  the that  216-217 and Pausanias  344b.  Battle  Head  of  Leuctra  erroneously  dates  i t to  Numismatic  and  Aristotle  the d i s a s t e r  (VIII.7.2).  the c a t a s t r o p h e o c c u r r e d  the  414.  VII.24.4,  Strabo dates  of  npb  Olympiad  xffiv  to  two  Polybius  A E U T P L X S V .  100.1  (380/79)  101.4.  Strabo  contemporary  of  (VIII.7.2) the  event,  derives a  certain  his  account  H e r a c l e i d e s of  from  a  Pontus.  1  134 Diodorus  (XV.48)  contemporary, Ephorus  on  as  this  i s presumably a  source.  using  Seneca,  subject,  perhaps  Quaestiones VII.16.2=F Gr Hist 70 F  Ephorus,  however,  also  a  criticizes  unjustly  (Naturales  212):  Ephorus non vero est r e l i g i o s i s s i m a e fidae; saepe d e c i p i t u r , saepe d e c i p i t . Sicut hunc cometen, qui omnium mortalium o c u l i s custoditus est, quia ingentia r e i t r a x i t eventum, cum Helicen et Burin ortu suo merserit, a i t ilium d i s c e s s i s s e i n duas S t e l l a s , quod praeter ilium nemo t r a d i t . 7  Strabo  (VIII.7.2) on  Pontus says simply (  unaxoOoat  (XV. 49.3) TE ^eiopous  the  a u t h o r i t y of Heracleides  that the people of Helice did not obey  ) the i n s t r u c t i o n s of the Achaean says:  "  XOLVO'V  6 ' ' E A L X E C S x a xP^yaxa Suappuc^avxES  °l  cruM^picaaav, noe'Bnodv TE  ELS  TO  .  Diodorus  xuiv ' Iwvwv x o u s  $eUov."  Pausanias (VII.24.6) and Aelian (XI.19) assert that the representatives vague  (he  were murdered.  mentions nothing  (  As  about  i d e n t i f i e s the victims merely as i s based on hearsay  x o O x d XOL  Pausanias' account the  Ionian  LME'TOIL d'v6p£s  cpaou xal  Iv  'EALXTJ  Ionian i s so  delegation )  and  and  Aelian's  yev£a%aL),  i t i s l i k e l y that the t a l e grew t a l l e r with the 8  of  telling.  Diodorus (XV.49.4) remarks: TOO 6'EX noa£u6a5vos Y v o v £ v a u Trjv y f i v t v t a C s TUOAEOL cpaauv sycpavsCg aitoSecCebS u n d p x E ^ v 6 t a TO xcft) a e t a y C v not xE3v x a x a x A u a y S v x o O x o v XOV %edv E'XEOV 6LeuA?icp§ai, xr]v E C o u a t a v , x a t 6 t a TO SOXEUV xb TtaAatov x f i v IlEAoiio'vvrioov o u x x r t p L o v y s v o v E v a u rioaeu6a5vos, x a t xnv x^pav x a d x n v <3aitEp L,Epdv TOO I I o a E L S u v o s v o y i ^ E a ^ a L , x a t TO a u v o A o v Tidaas x d s EV Il£AoTi:ovvnau) TCOAELS y d A u a x a x S v d§avdxu>v TOV § £ d v x u y a v x o O x o v . £  9  Diodorus XV.48.1-3, Pausanias VII.24-25, Strabo 1.3.18  and VIII.7.2, Aelian XI.19, C a l l i s t h e n e s (F Gr Hist 124 21)  apud Seneca Naturales  Quaestiones VI.23 and  26 and  F  19-  VII.5,  135 A r i s t o t l e Meteorologica 343b, 344b, and 368b, On the Cosmos 396a.  Philo  verse:  STCEL x a t  (De Aeternitate Mundi 140) quotes the following x a x d n E A o i i d v v n a d v cpaaL rpeus  " A u y e L p a v BoOpdv T E u(|>nArfv T E L X E O L V f| T a x ' * y E A X £ itept Eubadyovas  1 0  rb  ndAaL y s v o y d v a s  'EAuxeuav, $pda yupua  TtoAAfj T O O  cpdaELV,"  TtsAdyous ETCLxAuaftfjvaL  cpopcj.  Ovid, Metamorphoses XV.293-5, P l i n y , Natural History  11.206, and Pausanias VII.24.13. 1 1  For the modern search f o r H e l i c e ,  Marinatos, " H e l i c e :  see Spyridon N.  A Submerged Town of C l a s s i c a l  Archaeology 13 (1960):  Greece,"  186-193 and Maurice L. Schwartz and  Christos Tziavos, "Geology i n the Search for Ancient H e l i c e , " Journal of F i e l d Archaeology 6 (1979):  243-252.  It i s the  hope of archaeologists that the ruins of Helice w i l l prove to be another Pompeii. 1 2  The d e s t r u c t i o n  occurred  of the temple  i n t h e same  year  of A p o l l o  as t h e e a r t h q u a k e  Peloponnese, according to the Parian Marble 71), although  no ancient  at Delphi i n the  (F Gr Hist  239 A  source associates the two events  (c.f. Parke-Wormell 214). 1 3  Parke (Parke-Wormell 214).  14  Diodorus (XV.48.4) makes the following d i s t i n c t i o n : OL  ysv  oux  cpuaLxoi. it £ p L 53v x a u  xaTrivayxaaysvas  upos  TO §ELOV  (L S 6LO~ §EU)V  xas  aixdac  T W V T O L O I 5 T ( J J V rca§c3v  a v a c p e p E L V , aAA'eCs cpuaLxds T u v a s  E L S TO §ELOV  O L 6'EUO-EBUJS  itEpLaTaaELS,  TiL-Savds T L v a s  yfivLV  aLTdas  ysyEvriyevriS  Tfis  6 Lax E dy E V O L  anoSLbouaL auycpopas  xat  TOU auygdvTos,  TOLS  E L S T6  §ELOV  aa£8no"aaL *  Diodorus makes i t quite c l e a r , however, that h i s point of view  136 lies  with the l a t t e r  category, rather  than with  scientists  such as A r i s t o t l e . 15  16  c . f . Parke  (Parke-Wormell 214).  xil. 20'  e  T  ^ y * v  VT0L  IldXAuv Adyos und xe Xappdou n.TTn-dftvau naZ yexa xatixa ev 'EAdxn xaxctTtovxwdfivaL xou SctLyovdou ynvdaavxos 6ud xo v cpiAdaocpov, As x a l $a3wpuvds cpnoxv ev irpoSxtj) xuv 'Aitoyvnuoveuydxcov. v  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097277/manifest

Comment

Related Items