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 this 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 requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of CLASSICS The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date AUtt-UST 5r 1Q87 i i ABSTRACT This thesis w i l l trace the o r i g i n and development of the term "Sacred War" i n the corpus of extant Greek l i t e r a t u r e . This term has been commonly applied by modern scholars to four wars which took place i n ancient Greece between- the s i x t h and f o u r t h c e n t u r i e s B. C. The modern use of "the a t t r i b u t e "Sacred War" to refer to these four wars i n p a r t i c u l a r raises two questions. F i r s t , did the ancient h i s t o r i a n s give a l l four of these wars the t i t l e "Sacred War?" And second, what j u s t i f i e d the use of t h i s t i t l e only for c e r t a i n c o n f l i c t s ? In order to resolve the f i r s t of these questions, i t i s necessary to examine i n what terms the ancient h i s t o r i a n s referred to these wars. As a re s u l t of t h i s examination, i t i s clear that only two of the modern series of "Sacred Wars" (the s o - c a l l e d Second and T h i r d Sacred Wars) were a c t u a l l y given t h i s t i t l e i n a n t i q u i t y . The other two wars (the so-c a l l e d Second and T h i r d Sacred. Wars), although they were evidently associated by the ancients with the "Sacred Wars," were not given t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n . Consequently, the habit of grouping a l l four wars together as "Sacred Wars" i s modern. N e v e r t h e l e s s , the f a c t t h a t the a n c i e n t s d i d see some-i i i connection between these wars does j u s t i f y t h i s modern clas s i f i c a t i o n to some degree. Once this conclusion had been reached, i t became possible to proceed to the second of the problems presented in this thesis, namely the j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the application of the t i t l e "Sacred War" to two specific c o n f l i c t s . In order to achieve this aim, those c o n f l i c t s labelled "Sacred Wars" by the ancient historians were compared to two categories of test cases: the other two conflicts c l a s s i f i e d as "Sacred Wars" by modern scholars and conflicts which share elements in common with "Sacred Wars" but which are not given this attribution by ancient or modern authorities. In the course of th i s comparison, I discovered that l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the so-called "Sacred Wars" from the non-"Sacred Wars" and that a l l of these l a t t e r c o n f l i c t s appear equally worthy of the t i t l e as those which were in fact given t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n . The d e c i d i n g f a c t o r in the cla s s i f i c a t i o n of a certain conflict as a "Sacred War," as a r e s u l t , l i e s not in the s p e c i f i c elements making up i t s c o n s t i t u t i o n but rather in the p o l i t i c a l circumstances surrounding i t . The two conflicts labelled by'-ithe ancients as "Sacred Wars" were given this t i t l e by contemporary powers in order to j u s t i f y m i l i t a r y interference in the p o l i t i c a l a f f a i r s of other states which might otherwise have been considered unnecessary. Thus, the term "Sacred War" arose originally as the result of an effective 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 Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery, Malcolm Francis McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists, volume 3 (Princeton: 1950). BCH-Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique F Gr Hist-Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen  Historiker, 15 volumes (Leiden, E. J. B r i l l , 1954-64). FD-Emile Bourguet, Fouilles de Delphes Tome III Epigraphie Fascicule V Comptes du IVe Siecle (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1932). GG-Karl Julius Beloch, Griechische Geschicte 4 volumes (Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter and Company, 1926-27). IG-Inscriptiones Graecae, editio minor JHS-Journal of Hellenic Studies REG-Revue des Etudes Greques  SEG-Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum SIG-W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 4th edition, volume 1 (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1960). Tod-Marcus N. Tod, Greek Historical Ares Publishers Inc., 1985). Inscriptions (Chicago: v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish t o extend my deepest thanks to P r o f e s s o r P h i l l i p E. H a r d i n g , the d i r e c t o r of t h i s t h e s i s , f o r h i s i n v a l u a b l e guidance, encouragement, and c r i t i c i s m . I would a l s o l i k e to thank P r o f e s s o r A. J . P o d l e c k i and the Department of C l a s s i c s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a f o r a d d i t i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e and s u g g e s t i o n s t h r o u g h o u t the w r i t i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s . F u r t h e r g r a t i t u d e i s due Mr. Andre Gerolymatos o f M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y f o r the idea and ensuing i n s p i r a t i o n . 1 INTRODUCTION From the g rea t number o f wars i n Greek h i s t o r y t h e r e a re o n l y f o u r t h a t have been l a b e l l e d by modern s c h o l a r s as " S a c r e d W a r s . " T h e s e a r e , n a m e l y , t h e s o - c a l l e d F i r s t ( b e g i n n i n g o f the s i x t h c e n t u r y B. C ) , Second ( c i r c a 448 B . C . ) , T h i r d ( 356-46 B. C ) , and F o u r t h (340/39 B. C ) . To t h e m o d e r n m i n d , t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n makes them a p p e a r t o c o n s t i t u t e a c a t e g o r y o f " S a c r e d Wars " e x c l u s i v e o f e v e r y o t h e r known c o n f l i c t i n a n c i e n t G r e e c e , whether m o t i v a t e d by r e l i g i o u s i d e a l s or no t . S c h o l a r s h i p ha s m a i n l y b e e n f o c u s e d upon e a c h war i n d i v i d u a l l y , r a t h e r t h a n upon t h i s a p p a r e n t c a t e g o r y o f " S a c r e d Wars " as a u n i t . L i t t l e e f f o r t has been made t o de te rm ine when the term " S a c r e d War" ( tepos ndXeyos ) a r o se f o r t h e f i r s t t ime and i f , i n f a c t , i t was a p p l i e d t o each o f these s o - c a l l e d " S a c r e d Wars" i n a n t i q u i t y . I f t h i s was not t h e c a s e , t hen pe rhaps the modern l a b e l s o f F i r s t , Second , T h i r d , and F o u r t h a t t a c h e d to t h e s e wars a r e m i s l e a d i n g i n t h a t t hey c r e a t e an a r t i f i c i a l c a t e g o r y of " S a c r e d Wars" out o f c o n f l i c t s not g i v e n t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by t h e a n c i e n t h i s t o r i a n s . 2 T h e r e f o r e , i n o r d e r t o e x a m i n e f u l l y t h e c o n c e p t o f " s a c r e d war" i n a n c i e n t G r e e c e , we must f i r s t a s c e r t a i n the d a t e a t w h i c h t h e t e r m uepos itdAeuos came i n t o e x i s t e n c e . N e x t , we s h a l l have t o c l a r i f y w h i c h o f t h e s e wars were i n f a c t l a b e l l e d as " s a c r e d " i n a n t i q u i t y . F i n a l l y , we s h a l l compare t h o s e c o n f l i c t s c l a s s i f i e d as " s a c r e d " by t h e a n c i e n t s o u r c e s w i t h two s e r i e s o f t e s t c a s e s : w a r s g i v e n t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n by modern s c h o l a r s and wars s i m i l a r t o t h e s o -c a l l e d " s a c r e d wars" which a r e not l a b e l l e d as such by a n c i e n t or modern h i s t o r i a n s . 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 can perhaps e s t a b l i s h what e l e m e n t s j u s t i f i e d t h e use o f t h e term " s a c r e d war" i n a n t i q u i t y e x c l u s i v e l y f o r c e r t a i n c o n f l i c t s . 3 THE A N C I E N T CONCEPT OF SACRED WAR T h e f i r s t s t e p t o w a r d s a n a n a l y s i s o f t h e c o n c e p t o f " s a c r e d w a r " i n a n t i q u i t y i s t o t r y t o d i s c o v e r when t h e t e r m a r o s e f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e i n t h e c o r p u s o f e x t a n t G r e e k l i t e r a t u r e . T h i s i s n o t a d i f f i c u l t t a s k , h o w e v e r , s i n c e t h e t e r m a p p e a r s i n s o e m i n e n t a h i s t o r i a n a s T h u c y d i d e s . I n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s c o n d e n s e d n a r r a t i v e o f t h e P e n t e c o n t a e t i a , T h u c y d i d e s r e l a t e s b r i e f l y t h e e v e n t s o f t h e s o - c a l l e d S e c o n d S a c r e d War a t 1 . 1 1 2 . 5 : Aoo<£6aiJydvLOb be ysxd. TaiJia xov Lepov xaAouuevov ndAeyov Eaxpdxsuaav, xau xpaTnoavxes TOU EV AeAcpoUs tepou TtapeSoaav AeAcpotg* xai ai5$LS yaxspov AdnvatoL aitoxwpno'avxajv auxwv axpaxsuaavxes xat Hpaxnaavxss Tcape;6oaav $a)XE0aLV. Y e t 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 p h r a s e , s i n c e he r e f e r s t o t h e c o n f l i c t a s a tepos xaAouyEvos TtdAsyos . T h e f a c t t h a t A r i s t o p h a n e s , a c o n t e m p o r a r y o f T h u c y d i d e s , i n h i s B i r d s o f 414 B . C . , s a t i r i c a l l y s u g g e s t s t h e p r o s e c u t i n g o f a iephg ndAeuos a g a i n s t Z e u s ( l i n e 5 5 6 ) i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s t e r m was c u r r e n t a t t h e t i m e . 1 S i n c e t h i s war was e v i d e n t l y k n o w n a s 6 iepog udXeyos b y t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y G r e e k w o r l d , t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e o r i g i n a l s o u r c e o f t h i s name i s d i f f i c u l t t o a s c e r t a i n . T h e s c h o l i a t o B i r d s 556 a r e n o t v e r y h e l p f u l i n t h i s 4 regard. One scholiast names Philochorus (F Gr Hist 328 F 34a) as a source for this war: 6 ' i c p o s ndAeyog eyevexo ""'A^nvatOLS upog 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 $uAdxopos ev xrj 6. 6uo 6e ue p o i itdAeyot y E y d v a o x v , oSxds xe x a l 6%6te ^ wxeftatv eTteSevxo Aaxe6auydvuou. Another scholiast on this line adds: tv evLoug T C V unoyvnydxojv Aeyexab* tepov ndAeyov Aeyeu, xa-db iipos $£ous E O O L X O , aya 6e xou 'iepoD TtoAeyou yvnyoveueL xoD yevoyc'vou ' ASnvcxLOts i p d s $uxeas uitep X O \ J hv AcAipoLS oepoO. £ox£buaa-&au 6e UTt'auxuJv* ou yap np&s $u)X£ac unep xouxou ETioAdyaaav, aAA'uitep Sajxcuv 6t& xb upbc Aaxebauyovuous *x§os. yeydvaau 6e 6i5o udAeyoi, t e p o t * upoxepog \i£v AaxEbatyovuobc itpoc M X E C S uitep AeAcpffiv" Mat xpaxrtaavxEc xoi3 UEpou A a x e b a t y d v t o u xfiv upoyavxeuav uapd AeXcpSv eAagov* uaxspov 61 xpuxut E X E L xo\3 TtoAcyou 'AdnvaJoLS Tipos AaxebaoyovdoLS unep $U)XEO)V. xaC xd Lepbv ocuebuxav $ojx£i5cri,, xa^dnep $LA6*xopos E V xrit 6 A e y e t . x a A E t x a i ^ S e ' l e p d s , O"XL n c p l xoft tv AeAtpots uepot) eyevexo. Most of the information contained i n these s c h o l i a appears to derive from the Atthis of Philochorus. But who was the ultimate source of Philochorus? It cannot be Thucydides, as the account of the scholiast contains details not mentioned in the text of Thucydides. Philochorus may have derived these d e t a i l s from Theopompus, but t h i s does not resolve the question of his ultimate source. Moreover, the offhand way in which the scholiast b r i e f l y alludes to the testimonies of Thucydides, Eratosthenes (third century B. C.) and Theopompus would not lead one to conclude that his account was based on the work of any of these historians. Therefore, the details of the so-called Second Sacred War which the scholiast claims 5 to have derived from Philochorus must o r i g i n a l l y have been supplied by another f i f t h - c e n t u r y account which has not survived. Evidently, however, the use of the term tspbs ito'Asyos to r e f e r to t h i s war was well-rooted by the time of Philochorus. Our last (and latest) reference to the so-called Second Sacred War as a i-epos T C O ' A E U O S occurs in Plutarch Pericles XXI.1-1: .. ,\i£ya epyov -nyo^ yEVOs (IlEpLxAfis) O I V E L P Y E L V Aaxe&auuovuous •nal oAcog UTtevavTLOuyevos E X E L V O L S , <!)S < 5 A A O L S T E T I O A A O L S e"6£L££ X C X L ydAoata T O L S T I E P L T O V LEpov npax$£^cJL udAEyov. E T I E L ydp ot AaxsSaLyovLOL OTpaTEuaavTEs E L S AsAcpous $ W X E C O V E X O V T O J V T O L E pdv AsAtpoLS ane'6a)xav, E U - S L J S E X E L V W V oncaAAayEVTuiv 6 IlEpbxATis EHLOTpaTEi5aas udAtv ELariyays T O U S tae'as. xat T W V AaxsdaLyovLwv riv E6wxav auxoLS AeAcpot TipoyavTELav E L S T O ysTamov lyxoAa^ avxaiv xoD x a^Ko^ Auxou, AaBulv xal auxds upoyavTEuav T O L S 'A-&nvaLOLS E L S T O V aUTov A\5xov xaxd Triv 6 E £ L C K > TtAsupciv EVExdpa^ EV. The f i r s t half of Plutarch's narrative, that dealing with the campaign of the Lacedaimonians and the counter campaign of the Athenians, appears to be derived from Thucydides (except for the references to Pericles). In the second half of Plutarch's narrative, on the contrary, he must be speaking from his obvious f a m i l i a r i t y with the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi. In fact, this bronze wolf is almost certainly the same as that which Pausanias mentions (X.14.7).3 Because Plutarch has so c l e a r l y derived the t i t l e of this war from Thucydides, his account o f f e r s no further clues as to whether Thucydides borrowed the expression from another historian or this term was simply current in contemporary usage. 6 Our next task is to examine this so-called Second Sacred War in further d e t a i l in order to attempt to detach the elements which led to the attribution of the t i t l e tepo's udAeyos. The chronology of the war i t s e l f is disputed but i t is clear that i t s antecedents l i e in the 450's. After the Phocians had captured three of the towns of Doris, the ynTpduoALs of Sparta, in 458/7,4 the Spartans intervened, defeated the Phocians, and forced them to restore those c i t i e s to the Dorians. On the route home, the Spartans were attacked by the Athenians at Tanagra in Boeotia. The Spartans were victorious and withdrew to the Peloponnese without further incident. 5 Two months l a t e r , 6 in 457/6, 7 the Athenian army under Myronides invaded Boeotia, defeated the Boeotian army at Oenophyta, and became master of Boeotia and Phocis. This point was the high water mark of Athens' dominance over Central Greece. As a result, i t was probably following the Battle of Oenophyta that Athens concluded an alliance with the Amphictyonic League. The r e c o r d of t h i s a l l i a n c e s u r v i v e s only i n a fragmentary i n s c r i p t i o n . 8 Previously, i t was generally thought that t h i s i n s c r i p t i o n recorded a renewal of the Athenian a l l i a n c e with the Phocians, although no e x p l i c i t reference to the Phocians appears on the stone! 9 In 1948, however, B. D. M e r i t t proposed a new r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , substituting the Amphictyonic League (who are mentioned on the stone) for the Phocians. 1 0 Meritt states, on epigraphical 7 grounds, that this inscription must be dated before the middle of the f i f t h century. 1 1 Moreover, the treaty must have been in effect by 454/3, when the Athenians took the f i e l d against Pharsalus in Thessaly, for the Boeotians are already a l l i e s of the Athenians (Thucydides.I.Ill.1). 1 2 As Meritt argues, the best date for an Athenian a l l i a n c e with the Amphictyonic League would be following the Battle of Oenophyta.13 At this point, Athens was master of Central Greece and probably commanded a majority in the Amphictyonic League. 1 4 She thereby must have gained considerable influence at Delphi, a fact perhaps illustrated by favorable oracles issued to Athens during t h i s p e r i o d . 1 5 The Athenian influence in Central Greece and the Amphictyonic League may also have resulted in the Phocian control of Delphi. 1 6 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' imperialistic ambitions in Central Greece and to regain influence at Delphi. In the only recorded m i l i t a r y action of this period, the Spartans' conducted an expedition to Delphi in which they wrested i t from the hands of the Phocians and returned i t to the Delphians. Thereupon the Athenians marched out under Pericles and delivered the sanctuary back to the Phocians. 1 7 Phocian control of Delphi, which presumably was pro-Athenian, did not last long. " X p d v o u eyyevoyevou y e r a xauxa " (the "Sacred War"), 1 8 the Athenians were forced to evacuate Boeotia after their defeat at Coronea 8 and thereby lost their influence over Central Greece. Without the risk of further Athenian intervention, the Delphians were now free to reclaim control of the sanctuary. It i s not recorded at • what point they did so, but c l e a r l y they had recovered t h e i r past in f l u e n c e by the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, as by now the oracle showed firm pro-Spartan sympathies (Thucydides 1.118.3). Delphian autonomy was subsequently confirmed by an a r t i c l e in the Peace of N i c i a s (Thucydides V.118.2), and the s i t u a t i o n of the sanctuary remained essentially unchanged until the beginning of the Third Sacred War. Scholars have divided themselves into two opposing camps in their interpretation of the chronology of this expedition of the Spartans and counter expedition of the Athenians. The object of dispute is the " iSaxepov 6i TPLTOJU ETEU TOD upoorou icoAeuou" in the fragment of Philochorus preserved by the scholiast on Aristophanes (F Gr Hist 328 F 34). This appears inconsistent with the sense of immediacy of the counter expedition implied in the accounts of Thucydides and Plutarch. 1 9 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 is no conflict between his account and that of Thucydides, as the '"dSdus Saxepov " of T h u c y d i d e s a l l o w s some leeway i n i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . 2 0 Consequently, they believe that the expedition and counter expedition took place in 449 and 447 respectively. The opposite camp, led by Gomme and Jacoby, 9 d i s m i s s the c h r o n o l o g y of P h i l o c h o r u s and a c c e p t the i m p l i c a t i o n i n Thucyd ides and P l u t a r c h that the Athen ian r e p r i s a l fol lowed c l o se l y upon the Spartan e x p e d i t i o n . 2 1 They therefore date these events to 448. 2 2 Of these two poss ib le chronologies, that of Thucydides seems more c red ib le than that of P h i l o c h o r u s ( i f i n f a c t the s c h o l i a s t ' s excerpt can be wholly a t t r i b u t e d to P h i l o c h o r u s ) , e s p e c i a l l y as the l a t t e r a lso contains other d i s c r e p a n c i e s . 2 3 One may wel l inqu i re why th i s f a i r l y minor inc ident was the f i r s t to be c l a s s i f i e d by the ancient sources that surv ive a s a oepos TidAeuos • T n e s cho l i a s t on Aristophanes Birds 556 (F Gr H is t 241 F 38) provides us with two reasons. F i r s t of a l l , " uep<5v no'Xeyov Agfysu, na%b itpds %eo\)s IOOLTO •" A l i t t l e further on, he goes on to say: " ^aXeZxaL 6e UP6g, OTU nept TOO ev AeAcpoUs UpoTJ eye'veTo •" The f i r s t reason o b v i o u s l y der i ves from the t i t l e tepds rcdAeyos i t s e l f and not v i c e versa. The second reason, however, i s more i n t e r e s t i n g . As th i s i s the f i r s t war up to th i s time which has been given the t i t l e L,epos itdXeyos j . n the ancient sources, the mere fact that the war was conducted over the sanctuary at Delphi could not have l ed to t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n by the o r i g i n a l f i f t h - c e n t u r y co iner of the phrase. The suggest ions of the scho l i a s t are c l e a r l y inferences from a l a t e r viewpoint and add no fur ther clues to the motives of the o r i g i n a l source of th i s t i t l e in the f i f t h century. By the fourth century, however, the face of the Greek world had changed e n t i r e l y and the term "sacred 10 war" took on a new importance. Once again, c o n f l i c t over the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi had been dignified with the t i t l e of ospos ndAsyog This was the so-called Third Sacred War, a prolonged struggle between the Phocians and the Amphictyonic League which lasted from 356 to 346 B. C.24 It appears that this c o n f l i c t was known to the contemporary Greek world by two names: the Phocian War and the Sacred War. The apparent tradition among the Athenian orators of the period, who followed closely the events of the war and were deeply i n v o l v e d i n i t s re p e r c u s s i o n s , was to r e f e r to i t by the name of i t s protagonists, the Phocians. Isocrates, in his Philip of 346 B. C., alludes to i t by the periphrasis " Ta nept fcuweus " (V.74). Demosthenes and Aeschines, where they give the conflict a t i t l e , refer to i t as " 6 $ W X L X O S no'Aeyos • " 2 5 As a l l i e s of the Phocians, i t would perhaps have constituted a conflict of interest for the Athenian orators to classify this struggle as a "sacred war." This was not the case, however, for contemporary writers of the Peripatetic school. Callisthenes of Olynthus, " va^nTns 'ApuaxoTe'Aous xat ave^uaSous • " 2 6 wrotei'a monograph entitled "nepL T O O ' I E P O U noAE'you " ( I_Gr_Hist 124 F 1). This work, along with his H e l l e n i c a , must have been composed before C a l l i s t h e n e s ' departure for Asia with Alexander, thus providing us with a terminus ante quern of 334 B. C. for the f i r s t recorded instance of the term in reference to this war. 11 A r i s t o t l e , presumably following the example of his protege, refers to this war as 6 uepos Tto'AEyos in his P o l i t i c s (1304a), which was l e f t unfinished at his death in 322 B. C. Another pupil of Aristotle, Leon of Byzantium, perhaps also following the example of Callisthenes, composed a monograph entitled "6 'Iep6s ndAeyos "(F Gr Hist 132 T 1 and 2). Yet a third fourth-century monograph on the Third Sacred War, "nepl xou ' lepou TloAdyou," was written by a certain Cephisodorus of Thebes or Athens (F Gr Hist 112 F 1). This apparent Peripatetic tradition, was carried on a generation later by Duris of Samos, a pupil of Theophrastus, 2 7 Aristotle's successor. 2 8 In the second book of his 'ioToptat , he refers to the war as "6 uepos ndAeyos " Gr Hist 76 F 2). Callisthenes and the Peripatetic school, however, were probably not the only fourth-century writers to c a l l this war a iepos itdAeyos . Pausanias, 2 9 Strabo, 3 0 and Diodorus Siculus 3 1 are familiar with the use of both 6 $WXLX6S TtdAeyos and ° t eP°s ndXeyos to describe this war. The term 6 $ajKuxds TtdAeyos i - n these authors presumably derives ultimately from the orators, but the question of the source(s) of the term 0 L-epog TtdAeyos is more problematical.. Pausanias gives no clear indication of his sources. Strabo uses the authority of Ephorus throughout Book IX, 3 2 but does not state s p e c i f i c a l l y from what source he derives t h i s particular section. 3 3 Diodorus Siculus is much more helpful in this regard. 3 4 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 so-called Third Sacred War: Twv 6e auYYpacpewv AriydcpuXos yev 6 'Ecpdpou xot3 LaxopLoypdcpou U L O S xov TtapaXeLcp^e'vxa TtdXeyov vud xoO" Tcaxpos, ovoyaaSevxa 6E 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 $a)xea)s" Eycvexo 6*6 ndXeyos oSxos E X T I E V 6 E H C X ews xris <p§opas xtov 6bavEuyayEvwv xPnyaxa. KaXXuo^EvriS 6E xnv XUJV ' E X X T I V L X U J V Ttpayydxwv ilaxoptav yeypacpEv e v 3U * B X O L S 6EXCH xat xaxeaxpocpev E L S xnv xaxaXnipLv xoi5 UEpoO xat itapavoyuav 4>uXoynXou xoO Owxews. A L U X X O S 6*6 'ASrivaCos ?ipxxaL xriv uaxopdav onto xris L-EpoauXnasus xat yeypacpE 3u3Xous E L X O Q L xat auyuEpLXaB&v itaaas x&s E V X O L S X P ^ V O L S X O U X O L S yevoys'vas i t p d ^ E L S nepL xe xnv *EXXa6a xat xnv I L X E X L O V . Under the year 341/0, in XVI.76.5-6, we find an apparent continuation to XVI.14.3-5: Tuv 6E ouyypatpECuV *Ecpopos y £ v o Kuyafos x'nv uaxopuav svddSe xaxsaxpocpsv E L S xry\> Ilepuvdou TtoXuopx-Lav* TtepLELXncps 6E xfj ypacpfj n p d £ £ L S xds X E X S V 'EXXnvujv xat 3ap3dpuv onto xfis xuiv 'HpaxXEL,6a3V xa$d6ou* X P ° V 0 V 0 E 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. A L U X X O S 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. Diodorus mentions another possible source for his narrative of the Sacred War in XVI.3.8, under the year 360/59: Tuv 6e auYYpacpdtov 6£OTtoyTtos 6 X L O S T T I V apXn"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. Hammond believes that the f i r s t of these historians, Demophilus, is the main source used by Diodorus in his account of the Sacred War.35 It is generally agreed that Demophilus wrote the th i r t i e t h and f i n a l book of Ephorus,36 a view which is consistent with the testimony of Diodorus (XVI.14.3 and 13 XVI.76.5) and the fragments surviving from Book Thirty (F Gr  Hist 70 F 93-95). I f , as i t appears, the monograph of Demophilus on the Sacred War was joined as an appendix to his father's work, the reputation of Ephorus must have made i t q u i t e a c c e s s i b l e to l a t e r h i s t o r i a n s l i k e Diodorus. Therefore, Hammond is probably right in considering him the main source of Diodorus for this conflict. Furthermore, the fact that Diodorus mentions him f i r s t in his l i s t of sources for the Sacred War must have some significance. 3 7 The next writer whom Diodorus mentions in his l i s t of sources for the Sacred War is Callisthenes who, as we have seen, composed a monograph entitled " nep'L xoO 'lepoD noAeyou ." The t h i r d and f i n a l source given by Diodorus for his account of the Sacred War is Diyllus of Athens. Hammond believes that Diodorus used Diyllus to "supplement" his main source, Demophilus, in his narrative of the Sacred War.38 While we may agree with Hammond in that Diodorus obviously made use of the 'io-ropuaL 0 f Diyllus, the extent to which he did so is impossible for us to gauge, as so l i t t l e of Diyllus' work remains.39 While Diodorus c i t e s Demophilus, C a l l i s t h e n e s , and Diyllus as sources in the preface to his narrative of the Sacred War (XVI.14.3-5), he also mentions Theopompus in his description of the early a c t i v i t i e s of Philip (XVI.3.8), as we saw above. The fact that Diodorus does not include Theopompus in his l i s t of sources in this preface, however, should not 14 exclude him from being a possible source for the Third Sacred War because the year 357/6 serves either as a terminus post quern or ante quern for the other three writers. 4 0 Moreover, Theopompus evidently made a connection between the so-called Second and Third Sacred Wars, as the twentieth book of his P h i l i p p i c a , which dealt mainly with the events of the year 348/7, contained a digression on the fifth-century incident (F Gr Hist 115 F 156). One can perhaps infer from this evidence that he also referred to both events as "Sacred Wars." Although we cannot be sure whether or not Diodorus used i t as a source, we do know that Theopompus wrote a treatise entitled " ilepu x&v kn AeXcpuv xpnudTwv ." This subject proved to be a popular one, with the tale obviously becoming t a l l e r as the year passed. We fin d a version in Book Thirty of Ephorus-Demophilus (F Gr Hist 70 F 95), in Phylarchus (F Gr  Hist 81 F 70), and in Strabo (9.3.8), as well as in Diodorus (XVI.56.5-8 and XVI.64). As a l l of these versions vary in their d e t a i l s , i t i s l i k e l y that there were many (clearly exaggerated) anecdotes floating around fourth-century Greece concerning the plundering of the temple and i t s treasures. As a result, i t is impossible to assign later descriptions to any one fourth-century .source. Let us now sum up our conclusions concerning the fourth-century nomenclature of the so-called Third Sacred War. We have seen that this 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 extant evidence to have been used extensively by the Athenian orators and clearly predates the use of the term "Sacred War" to refer to this co n f l i c t . This t i t l e was preferred by C a l l i s t h e n e s and his fellow Peripatetics and presumably also by the historians of the period: Demophilus (and Ephorus), Theopompus, Diyllus, and Duris of Samos. Consequently, i t seems that to refer to this war as a "sacred war" was not peculiar to the Peripatetic school, although the tradition apparently originated with i t , but eventually became a feature of the historiographic genre as a whole. We must now turn to an examination of the events of the so-called Third Sacred War, in the hope that i t w i l l provide us with some clue as to why this conflict was dignified with the t i t l e of uepos itdAeyos . As we have seen, aside from casual references to the war in the speeches of the orators and the few s c a t t e r e d fragments of the fourth-century historians which survive, we have no contemporary record of this conflict. Book XVI of Diodorus Siculus, supplemented by Book Eight of J u s t i n ' s b r i e f Epitome of the H i s t o r i a e  Philippicae of Pompeius Trogus, forms the basis for most of our knowledge of the so-called Third Sacred War. Both dating from centuries after the incident, these are the only extant narratives of the events of this co n f l i c t . It is no wonder that controversy shrouds the chronology and many of the details of this war. 16 The bare o u t l i n e of e v e n t s , at l e a s t , i s c l e a r . In the s p r i n g A m p h i c t y o n i c m e e t i n g o f 356 , 4 1 t h e P h o c i a n s were t h r e a t e n e d w i t h A m p h i c t y o n i c r e p r i s a l , i f t h e y d i d not d i s c h a r g e a t once a l a r g e f i n e which had p r e v i o u s l y been l e v i e d a g a i n s t them. 4 2 From the c o n f u s i o n i n our s o u r c e s , i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h i s f i n e was m e r e l y a p r e t e x t t o i n f l i c t punishment on the Phocians f o r more deep-seated reasons. The Thebans had been h a r b o u r i n g a grudge a g a i n s t the P h o c i a n s s i n c e the B a t t l e of M a n t i n e a . A f t e r the B a t t l e of L e u c t r a , t h e P h o c i a n s had been f o r c e d t o j o i n the Theban a l l i a n c e (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VI.5.23). The Phocians, however r e s e n t e d t h e i r new s t a t u s as s u b j e c t s ( uTirfaoou ) of the Thebans and showed t h e i r d i s p l e a s u r e by r e f u s i n g t o j o i n t h e Theban c o a l i t i o n at Mantinea (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a V I I . 5 . 4 ) . A f t e r the death of Epaminondas and the c o l l a p s e of the Theban hegemony, the Thebans had to r e s o r t to p o l i t i c a l r a t h e r t h a n m i l i t a r y means t o a c h i e v e t h e i r a i m s . A t some u n s p e c i f i e d p o i n t a f t e r the B a t t l e of L e u c t r a , the Thebans a c c u s e d the S p a r t a n s b e f o r e the C o u n c i l of the Amphictyonic League of having o c c u p i e d the Cadmeia i n a time of peace and a l s o brought some a l l e g e d charge a g a i n s t the P h o c i a n s . 4 3 The S p a r t a n s were s u b s e q u e n t l y f i n e d f i v e h u n d r e d t a l e n t s ( D i o d o r u s XVI.28.2) and the Phocians were a s s e s s e d a p e n a l t y of %oXXa xdXavxa (Diodorus XVI.22.3). N e i t h e r the Spartans nor the Phocians p a i d o f f t h i s p e n a l t y w i t h i n the p r e s c r i b e d p e r i o d of time but the matter was i g n o r e d u n t i l 3 5 7 / 6 . 4 4 At 17 this time, already provoked by the results of the Battle of Mantinea and further i r r i t a t e d by the recent a f f a i r in Euboea, 4 5 the Thebans judged the time was right to take action, taking advantage of the fact that Athens was engaged in the Social War46 and would not be able to interfere. Once again, the Thebans used their influence on the Amphictyonic League 4 1 to retaliate against the Spartans and the Phocians. 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 Phocis. 4 8 The Amphictyonic League thus planted i t s e l f firmly behind the Thebans and ordered the Phocians to discharge their fine under the threat of having a curse l a i d upon their land. The Spartans also were threatened, should they not pay off their fine (which was now raised to one thousand talents). 4 9 At this news, the Phocians were thrown into a quandary, as theirs was a small state without many resources. They had no hope whatsoever of paying off the f i n e , because of i t s extreme magnitude. 5 0 Yet, i f the Amphictyons proceeded to place their t e r r i t o r y under a curse, they would then a l l be deprived of their l i v e l i h o o d . 5 1 Then Philomelus, son of Theotimus, a high-ranking Phocian, came forward and urged his fellow-countrymen on to action. He argued that the judgments of the Amphictyonic League were completely unfair and advised them to seize the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi, on the grounds that i t was theirs by ancestral right, since the 18 Homeric Catalogue of Ships l i s t e d Delphi among the Phocian towns (Iliad 11.519). With the resources therein, they would be able to defend themselves i f necessary against the Thebans and other Amphictyons.52 Thereupon the Phocians, not knowing where else to turn, elected him "strategos autokrator 1 , 5 3 and proceeded to challenge the Amphictyonic judgement.54 Philomelus then set about gathering support for his cause. He received fifteen talents in secret and a promise of future aid from the Spartan king, Archidamus, who was in a sim i l a r p o s i t i o n himself with regard to the Amphictyonic League. With this money added to his own personal resources, Philomelus was able to hire mercenaries to seize the oracle (Diodorus XVI.27.3). He then sent envoys to the Greek states i n s i s t i n g 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). At these assurances, the Athenians, the Spartans, and others a l l i e d themselves with the Phocians. 5 5 The Boeotians, the Locrians, and their supporters remained hostile however. After further Phocian military successes, the Locrians appealed to the Boeotians for aid. The Boeotians, in turn, sent envoys to the Thessalians and the other Amphictyonic members, asking them to declare war against the Phocians. The motion was passed ( (JjricpLaaye'vwv 6k xwv 'AycpL>(Tu6*vu)v TO*V upds $coxeus TidXeyov ) a n d the war began in earnest (Diodorus XVI. 28.2-4). Philomelus now r e c r u i t e d a s t i l l l a r g e r army of 19. mercenaries and with this force he began a successful campaign against the Locrians, the Boeotians and the Thessalians (Diodorus XVI.30). Philomelus also forced the Boeotians to discontinue their brutal policy of executing a l l mercenaries captured from the Phocian forces as temple-robbers by meting out the same fate to some Boeotian prisoners (Diodorus XVI.31.1-2). Philomelus' wave of good fortune was not destined to be of long duration. Shortly after t h i s , the Boeotians by sheer force of numbers defeated the Phocians at Neon. Philomelus, s t i l l fighting bravely, was cornered by the enemy and threw himself off a p r e c i p i c e . His army then retreated back to Phocis under Onomarchus, " 0 °*e o u v d p x w v a u x $ a x p a x r i Y O S . " 56 At an emergency meeting of the common assembly of the Phocians, Onomarchus came forward and urged his compatriots to continue the war. When he had been elected "strategos a u t o k r a t o r , " Onomarchus proceeded to r e c r u i t f u r t h e r mercenaries to f i l l the ranks of his 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 striking coinage from the silver and gold. With these extra resources, he was able to bribe the Thessalians (among others) to remain neutral, leaving his hands free to make inroads on the t e r r i t o r y of the Locrians and the Boeotians (Diodorus XVI.33). At this point, P h i l i p of Macedon played a part for the 20 f i r s t time in the events of the war when the Thessalians appealed to him for military aid against Lycophron, the tyrant of Pherae. 5 7 Lycrophron, in turn, obtained the support of the powerful Phocian army. At f i r s t , Onomarchus dispatched his brother Phayllus to Thessaly with seven thousand men. After this preliminary force was defeated, Onomarchus came in person with the entire Phocian army and defeated the combined troops of P h i l i p and the Thessalians in two engagements. Ph i l i p , outnumbered but not discouraged, withdrew to Macedon. 5 8 Onomarchus, on the other hand, encouraged by this success, made an incursion into Boeotia and took the city of Coronea.59 At the beginning of the next campaigning season (spring 352), P h i l i p returned to Thessaly with a larger army. Once again, Lycophron requested m i l i t a r y aid from his powerful a l l i e s , the Phocians. A decisive battle of the combined forces of the Thessalians and Philip against Lycophron and the Phocians was fought, most probably on the Crocion Pla i n between Halus and Phthiotic Thebes, from which this battle derives i t s modern name ("Battle of the Crocus F i e l d " ) . 6 0 Onomarchus and his men were routed and fled to the sea where Chares "happened" ( TUXLX&S ) to be sailing by. Onomarchus was among the many Phocian soldiers who drowned in an attempt to swim out to the Athenian triremes. In total,there were over six thousand Phocian casualties and three thousand Phocian captives in t h i s i l l - f a t e d b a t t l e (Diodorus XVI.35.4-6). P h i l i p c a p i t a l i z e d on the fact that this was nominally a 21 "sacred war" by ordering his soldiers to don laurel wreaths before the battle as avengers of Apollo. 6 1 In keeping with his self-proclaimed role of Delphic avenger, Philip hung the dead body of Onomarchus62" and threw the rest ( TOUS aXAous ) into the sea on the grounds that they had been g u i l t y of sacrilege. 5 3 After the death of Onomarchus, his brother, Phayllus, succeeded to the post of "strategos autokrator. 1 , 6 4 From further funds "borrowed" from the sanctuary at Delphi, he attempted to recoup the Phocian losses in the Battle of the Crocus Field by hiring s t i l l more mercenaries at double the usual rate of pay (Diodorus XVI.36.1) With his forces increased by reinforcements from his a l l i e s (Sparta, Athens, and Achaea) and also by the mercenaries of Lycophron (who had surrendered the c i t y of Pherae to P h i l i p ) , Phayllus engaged the Boeotians in several unsuccessful b a t t l e s (Diodorus XVI.37.3-6). Meanwhile, encouraged by his success in Thessaly, Philip prepared to extend his influence further south. The Phocians organized a defense at Thermopylae with the support of the Athenians and successfully prevented P h i l i p from advancing through the pass. 6 5 This was the last decisive action in the war until 346. The c o n f l i c t now disintegrated into a tedious war of a t t r i t i o n , in which the resources of both the Thebans and the Phocians were gradually drained. Soon Phayllus died of a ^ v ^ r i s 22 vdaos and passed on the office of strategos to the young Phalaecus. 6 6 After several more years of skirmishing, Phalaecus was accused in 347 of stealing the sacred treasures for his own private use ( u6ua) and was subsequently deposed and a board of three generals was chosen to replace him.67 By this point, the f i n a n c i a l resources of Thebes were almost exhausted 6 8 and her losses in the Sacred War were f a l l i n g solely upon her c i t i z e n s rather than upon foreign mercenaries. 5 9 Finally, in 346, the Boeotians sent an embassy to Philip requesting an alliance (Diodorus XVI.59.2). Philip s e i z e d the o p p o r t u n i t y and advanced to Thermopylae. Meanwhile, the Phocians, fearing the outcome, should Phil i p take the f i e l d against them, had appealed to Athens and Sparta for help. 7 0 Athens sent a force under Proxenus and f i f t y t r iremes to the defense of Thermopylae, while Sparta d i s p a t c h e d one thousand h o p l i t e s under Archidamus. 7 1 Phalaecus, however, had somehow regained his post of general and he proceeded to send away the Athenian and Spartan forces from Thermopylae. 7 2 When P h i l i p arrived at Thermopylae, Phalaecus capitulated on condition of safe conduct for himself and h i s army of e i g h t thousand m e r c e n a r i e s to the Peloponnese . 7 3 Upon hearing the news of the defection of their commander and most of the army, a l l the Phocian towns surrendered unconditionally. 7 4 Philip, having put a decisive end to the war " 5VEU y d x n s , " continued his role as devout defender of Apollo by calling 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 a c t u a l l y proposed the t r a d i t i o n a l punishment for temple-robbers, that the offenders be thrown off a c l i f f (Aeschines 2.142). Nevertheless, due to Philip's influence, a more merciful policy prevailed. A l l the Phocian towns were to be destroyed and t h e i r i nhabitants were thereafter to dwell in scattered v i l l a g e s of no more than f i f t y houses. A l l their horses were to be sold and a l l their arms destroyed. An annual payment of sixty talents to replace the treasures of the sanctuary was imposed.75 In addition, Phocis was deprived of her share in the Amphictyonic League and her two votes were given to P h i l i p . 7 6 Philip was now the leading power in the Amphictyonic League and could control the voting by vi r t u e of his own two votes and his sway over Thessaly and her perioikoi. Philip 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 Philip's use of the machinery of the Amphictyonic League to legitimize his position in Greece. Although, as we have seen above, the bare facts of the c o n f l i c t are clear from the narrative of Diodorus, the chronology is hotly disputed. Once again, we find modern historians divided into two camps: those who believe that the account of Diodorus contains a narrative doublet, 7 7 and their opponents, who argue that such a doublet 24 does not exist and therefore Diodorus' chronology should stand. 7 8 The question rests upon Diodorus' account of the crucial f i r s t years of the war. Did he insert an extra year into his narrative ( the controversial "doublet") between the Phocian seizure of Delphi and the Amphictyonic declaration of Sacred War? Although the narrative of Diodorus does contain various contradictions and apparent repetitions, can we really impute to our main source for this period such carelessness as to record unknowingly the events of the same year twice? It seems a contradiction in terms to derive most (indeed, almost a l l ) of our facts concerning this conflict from Diodorus but: at the same time to disregard his chronology altogether. Moreover, Hammond has shown, quite convincingly, that the i n t e r n a l evidence in Diodorus squares with the external evidence from independent sources. 7 9 Thus, he dates the seizure of the sanctuary to 357/6 and the declaration of war by the Amphictyonic League to 355/54, and his chronology has won wide acceptance. 8 0 One may well wonder what this lengthy war concluding in the upheaval of the Greek world had in common with the bloodless squabble of the previous century. The obvious s i m i l a r i t y , of course, i s that both wars were fought over Delphi. Delphi, by this time, was truly a panhellenic centre. Its i n f a l l i b l e (at least according to Book One of Herodotus) oracle had e x i s t e d since the Dark Ages and had f i n a l l y achieved t r u e p a n h e l l e n i c s t a t u r e during the era of 25 colonization. Few colonies were established without divine assent from Apollo and often others later invented oracles to atone for this oversight. In addition to the reputation of it s oracle, Delphi also hosted the Pythian Games, which along with the Olympic, Nemean, and Isthmian Games formed the only panhellenic f e s t i v a l s . This group of panhellenic festivals fostered a sense of national unity and attracted visito r s and competitors from a l l over Greece. Delphi, therefore, had very quickly attracted an enormous amount of wealth and prestige and, consequently, i t is not surprising that numerous attempts were made to control the sanctuary. The f i r s t attempt to do so with military force in the class i c a l period was aptly named a "Sacred War," as the scholiast to Aristophanes' Birds 556 remarks.81 A second similarity between the two incidents l i e s on a less s u p e r f i c i a l l e v e l . The motivation behind the two c o n f l i c t s was essentially the same. Although both "Sacred Wars" were nominally on behalf of Apollo, in reality both were fought for s t r i c t l y p o l i t i c a l motives. In other words, religion was merely an excuse to provoke a war in both cases. The differences between the two wars appear far more s t r i k i n g . Nevertheless, we must remember that the ancient accounts of the fourth-century war are extremely copious and emotional in comparison with the terse Thucydidean description of the fifth-century incident. Consequently, i t is d i f f i c u l t to ascertain whether or not public reaction to the f i f t h -26 c e n t u r y a f f a i r was on t h e same e m o t i o n a l l e v e l as t h a t provoked by the f o u r t h - c e n t u r y c r i s i s . In s p i t e of our l a c k of e v i d e n c e , i t seems l i k e l y t h a t t h i s was not the c a s e . A l t h o u g h both the S p a r t a n s and the A t h e n i a n s had o r c h e s t r a t e d armed take-overs of D e l p h i i n the f i f t h - c e n t u r y , n e i t h e r s i d e i s r e c o r d e d as h a v i n g committed any crime h e i n o u s enough to brand them as " s a c r i l e g i o u s " as t h e P h o c i a n s were a c e n t u r y l a t e r . T h e r e f o r e , the armed o c c u p a t i o n of D e l p h i was p r o b a b l y not s u f f i c i e n t i n i t s e l f to i n c i t e t h e p i o u s o u t r a g e a g a i n s t t h e P h o c i a n s w h i c h i s r e f l e c t e d i n our s o u r c e s , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e the contemporary Greek world was q u i t e aware t h a t the Phocians had been f o r c e d i n t o a c t i o n by the Thebans. 8 2 Sympathy f o r the P h o c i a n s , f o r the most p a r t , began to fade when t h e i r l e a d e r s more and more u n s c r u p u l o u s l y plundered the temple t r e a s u r e s i n order to pay t h e i r army o f m e r c e n a r i e s . 8 3 Even A e s c h i n e s who, as an A t h e n i a n , was n o m i n a l l y an a l l y of P h o c i s and shows h i m s e l f s y m p a t h e t i c towards the Phocians (he c l a i m s i n 2.142 to have sa v e d them a l l from e x e c u t i o n as t e m p l e - r o b b e r s ) , c e n s u r e s t h e i r s e i z u r e of the s a c r e d t r e a s u r e s (2.132). We saw above t h a t c a t a l o g u e s of the t r e a s u r e s p l u n d e r e d f r o m D e l p h i by t h e s u c c e s s i v e P h o c i a n commanders were a p o p u l a r contemporary t o p i c . 8 4 As time passed, the t a l e grew t a l l e r and w r i t e r s took p l e a s u r e i n r e c o u n t i n g the d i v i n e r e t r i b u t i o n w h i c h t h e y c o n s i d e r e d j u s t l y i n c u r r e d by the s a c r i l e g i o u s Phocians and t h e i r a l l i e s . 8 5 Although the use of 27 temple monies to finance a war was not unprecedented, 8 6 the Phocians had "borrowed" the enormous sum of over ten thousand talents and had melted down irreplaceable treasures, dating back to the generosity of Croesus, for their own profane use. 8 7 The widespread feeling of outrage generated by the Phocian s p o l i a t i o n of the sanctuary i s a feature of the fourth-century c o n f l i c t not found in our accounts (terse as they are) of the fifth-century incident. The other major differences • between the two wars l i e in the d i s t i n c t features of the fourth-century c o n f l i c t . The protracted ten-year struggle imposed a lasting impression on the Greek world. The novel use of mercenaries revolutionized warfare. The Thebans proved that the use of the machinery of the Amphictyonic League to settle a private grudge was most e f f e c t i v e . 8 8 The ultimate intervention by Philip of Macedon (also using the machinery of the Amphictyonic League) changed the face of the Greek world. Therefore, the fourth-century war had consequences significantly more far-reaching than the fifth-century co n f l i c t . It i s perhaps for th i s reason that the contemporary historians, unlike modern scholars, did not give i t a number— i t was simply known as " 0 tepos TtoAeyos ." There is nothing at a l l in i t s t i t l e to indicate that i t had been preceded by another "Sacred War" in the previous century. Perhaps the fact that i t evidently superseded the minor squabble of the f i f t h century in importance caused i t to become "the Sacred 28 War" par excellence. After a l l , very few conflicts in ancient Greece took on such dimensions as this exhaustive struggle. Nevertheless, i t is important to remember that the f i f t h -century incident is the ori g i n a l "Sacred War" and that the fourth-century conflict apparently began as a "Phocian War." This was the term consistently used by the Athenian orators during the course of the war although, as a l l i e s of Phocis and enemies of Philip, they may have been reluctant to acknowledge i t as a "Sac r e d War." B e f o r e l o n g , however, the historiographic t r a d i t i o n , influenced perhaps by P h i l i p ' s propaganda, saw the connection between the fifth-century and fourth-century c o n f l i c t s and borrowed the term "Sacred War" from Thucydides' narrative. In this way, a "Phocian War" became a "Sacred War" for posterity. 29 THE MODERN CONCEPT OF SACRED WAR In the previous chapter, we established that the so-called Second and Third Sacred Wars were labelled as such (uepbs TidAeyos ) i n a n t i q u i t y . These wars had l i t t l e in common except that both were fought over the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi. In order to arrive 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 labelled as "sacred" and wars which share elements in common with tepol ndAeyoL D U t are not given t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n by anc i e n t or modern authorities. The f i r s t category, wars which have been c l a s s i f i e d as "sacred wars" by modern scholars, 8 9 consists of two other wars fought at Delphi. These are, namely, the First Sacred War and the Fourth Sacred War. Yet, neither of these wars was given the t i t l e uepds ndAeyos in antiquity. This raises the question once again of which elements justify the use of this term. In order to address this question, we must examine these so-called "sacred wars" in detail . 30 The n o m e n c l a t u r e o f t h e s o - c a l l e d F i r s t S a c r e d War i s c o n s i s t e n t . The e a r l i e s t e x t a n t s o u r c e t o m e n t i o n t h i s war by name i s C a l l i s t h e n e s o f O l y n t h u s , whom we have a l r e a d y met i n our d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e s o - c a l l e d T h i r d S a c r e d War. Athenaeus q u o t e s C a l l i s t h e n e s (F Gr H i s t 124 F 1) i n a passage of h i s D e i p n o s o p h i s t a e ( X I I I . 5 6 0 B-C): xai, 6 Kptaauxog TtdXeyos 6voya£d"yevos, u>s cpncu KaXXLcrSevns ev TCJU IlepL TOO 'lepoij 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 ambiguous which war i s d i s c u s s e d i n C a l l i s t h e n e s ' monograph "ITepu xou 'lepoO noXeyou ." Does the monograph as a whole c o n c e r n t h e s o - c a l l e d F i r s t S a c r e d War or i s C a l l i s t h e n e s ' t r e a t m e n t o f 6 Kpuaauxos ito'Xeyos s i m p l y a d i g r e s s i o n c o n t a i n e d i n h i s n a r r a t i v e o f the s o - c a l l e d T h i r d S a c r e d War? At f i r s t s i g h t , the t i t l e " Ilept xoO 'iepoti IloXeyou " a p p e a r s t o r e f e r t o t h e s o -c a l l e d F i r s t S a c r e d War, because t h a t i s c l e a r l y t h e war w h i c h C a l l i s t h e n e s i s d e s c r i b i n g . 9 0 T h i s f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n i s based on i n f e r e n c e , however, not o n l y from the c o n t e x t but a l s o from the m i s l e a d i n g modern t i t l e o f the F i r s t S a c r e d War, as t h i s war i s not l a b e l l e d as a tepbs ndXeyos by any e x t a n t a n c i e n t s o u r c e . I n o r d e r t o a s c e r t a i n which war C a l l i s t h e n e s r e f e r s t o as 6 Lepds itdXeyos , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o e x a m i n e more c l o s e l y t h e s c o p e o f C a l l i s t h e n e s ' w o r k . We know f r o m D i o d o r u s ( X I V . 1 1 7 . 8 ) t h a t C a l l i s t h e n e s began h i s h i s t o r y w i t h t h e 31 events of the year 387/6: KaAAua^ Evris 6*6 uaTopLoypdcpoc an6 xfis Haxa xouxov T O V evuauTov yevoyevris ELpnvns T O L S *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 E L S tnv uno xoD $LAoynAou xoO $ U M E L J S xaxdAn^ tv xoO EV AsAcpoUs L.Epou. In his introduction to the Sacred War under the year 357/6, Diodorus included Callisthenes in his l i s t of sources, as we have seen. 9 1 Therefore, Callisthenes' Hellenica spanned the years 387/6-357/6 and could not have contained an account of the Crisaean War, which took place in the early sixth century, except as a digression. Nevertheless, i t is not Callisthenes 1 Hellenica which includes a digression on the Crisaean War but rather a separate work, entitled " IlepL xou ' I E P O T J TIoAdyou ." There is another reference to this work on the Sacred War in Cicero (Epistulae ad Familiares V.12.2): ...an, ut multi Graeci fecerunt, Callisthenes Phocicum92 bellum, Timaeus Pyrrhi, Polybius Numantium (qui omnes a perpetuis suis h i s t o r i i s ea, quae d i x i , bella separaverunt)... From t h i s reference i n C i c e r o , i t becomes c l e a r that Callisthenes' monograph on the "Sacred War" is an account of the fourth-century conflict, and not the Crisaean War and that i t was composed as a separate appendix to the main body of his history, in this case the Hellenica. Because the closing date of C a l l i s t h e n e s ' H e l l e n i c a marked the beginning of the h o s t i l i t i e s over Delphi, i t is l i k e l y that this monograph c o n s t i t u t e d a sequel to the H e l l e n i c a . 9 3 Therefore, 32 Callisthenes' discussion of the Crisaean War must have been a digression on an earlier conflict over Delphi contained in the larger context of his monograph on the "Sacred War." It is c l e a r l y the fourth-century c o n f l i c t which i s given the attribution 6 tepos ndAeyos and not the Crisaean War. Another reference by name to the Crisaean War is found in the Hypothesis to Pindar's Nemean IX. The scholiast says: nepl 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 t6da TtapaaxeudaavTa xwAOaau Tnv aiToioyudav auTuiv, xat 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 scholiast does not state e x p l i c i t l y the identity of 6 'AAuxapvaaeus . Drachmann (ad l o c ) 9 4 suggests that the sch o l i a s t refers to Herodotus V.67. This suggestion i s probably correct, since in this chapter Herodotus discusses Cleisthenes and his opposition to the SuadaL and opxad at Sicyon in honour of Adrastus. Moreover, this passage of Herodotus i s cited a l i t t l e further on in the scholium to Nemean IX 30a, where i t should be noted that Herodotus is mentioned by name and not by birthplace. Herodotus, however, makes no reference whatsoever to Cleisthenes' role in the Crisaean War or his institution of Pythian Games at Sicyon out of the s p o i l s . And, in Herodotus' History, the oracle at Delphi is generally portrayed as unsympathetic to Cleisthenes. Therefore, the cpnad following the lacuna in the scholium cannot refer to Herodotus. 33 The crucial point to consider regarding the authorship of the section of the scholium following cpnau is whether or not the l a c u n a c o n t a i n e d the name of anot h e r s o u r c e . Unfortunately, the length of the lacuna i s impossible to determine. If the lacuna was a short one and did not o r i g i n a l l y contain the name of any other source, then the Halicarnassian mentioned cannot be Herodotus, because he does not mention Cleisthenes in this connection at a l l . Moreover, there is no written reference to Herodotus as 6 'AAtxapvaaeus before the second century B. C. From the time of Aristotle (Rhetoric III.9.1) u n t i l l a t e r Alexandrine scholarship, Herodotus was referred to as Soupdou , 9 5 Nevertheless, i f the scholiast dates from the later Hellenistic period, i t is much more l i k e l y that he i s r e f e r r i n g to Herodotus as the Halicarnassian par excellence. Noel Robertson, 9 6 following Wilamowit2, 9 7 proposes the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of 6 'AALxapvaaeu ' s as D i o n y s i u s of Halicarnassus. He suggests that Dionysius "might well" treat the foundation of Pythian Games in his work nept XP°"VO)V (F Gr  Hist 251 F 1), which does not survive. Since Dionysius' book on chronology is not extant, Robertson's suggestion cannot be positively proved or disproved. Nevertheless, Dionysius is not l i k e l y to have discussed Cleisthenes or the Sicyonian festival in detail. Furthermore, the change of verbs in the scholium and the particle °£ do indicate a change of source. The thesis that the lacuna does contain 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 attributed to Menaechmus of Sicyon, 9 8 who is also mentioned in the scholium to Nemean IX 30a. This i s a reasonable conclusion since i t is l i k e l y that Menaechmus lived in the latter half of the fourth century 9 9 in the wake of the furor over Delphi. Furthermore, Menaechmus is a natural candidate to tie Cleisthenes in with Delphi, as he wrote both a luxuwvLxd (F Gr Hist 131 F 1) and a nuSuxo's (F Gr Hist 131 F 2). Nevertheless, too l i t t l e of Menaechmus' work remains for us to verify this conclusion with any degree of certainty. It seems l i k e l y , however, that Menaechmus would have had far more motivation to discuss Cleisthenes and the foundation of the Pythia at Sicyon than Dionysius of Halicarnassus. At any rate, the source from whom the s c h o l i a s t d e r i v e s h i s information refers to this war as 6 ito'Aeyos TWV KptaaiTuv. Pausanias is another ancient source to mention this war by name. Like the scholiast in the Hypothesis to Pindar's Nemean IX, Pausanias links Cleisthenes to the Crisaean War. In his d e s c r i p t i o n of the monuments at Sicyon, 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 clear l y derived his information from a lo c a l Sicyonian tradition (perhaps Menaechmus)100 concerning this 35 stoa and i t s namesake. S t r a b o , on the other hand, appears to be u s i n g yet another s o u r c e , 1 0 1 one who wishes to emphasize the r o l e of E u r y l o c h u s of T h e s s a l y i n the C r i s a e a n War. His f i r s t reference by name to the war occurs i n IX.3.4: n 6e nat Kdppa xat r\ KpCaa xaTEaTcda^naav, r\ ye"v ["TCPO'TSPOV und Kpuaauwv, auxin 6*ri KpCaq} uaxspov uit'EupuAo'xou T O O OetxaAoO x a x a * T O V Kpl'aaCov ncJAeyov. In IX.3.10, he alludes to the war once again: yeta 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 t h i s c o n f l i c t . Thus, the so-called F i r s t Sacred War was referred to i n our surviving sources as the following: 6 Kptaatxos Tco'Aeyos, 6 no'AEyos TG5V Kpuaadujv, 6 npos Kuppa Tto'Aeyos, and 6 KpuaaCos Tto'AeyoSo These d i f f e r e n t formulations appear to be v a r i a n t s on two names: the "Crisaean War" or the "War Against Ci r r h a . " The o r i g i n of these names can p o s s i b l e be traced back to the fourth century i n a l l these cases (Callisthenes, Menaechmus, and Ephorus). As a r e s u l t , i t i s l i k e l y that t h i s war was not c a l l e d a ^epos Tto'AEyos by a single fourth-century source, which i s p e c u l i a r i n view of the i n c r e a s e d concern over Delphi occasioned by the Phocian War. The f u r o r over D e l p h i d i d , however, lead to renewed i n t e r e s t i n past c o n f l i c t s i n v o l v i n g that sanctuary and the Amphictyonic League. Not much attention had been paid to the C r i s a e a n War b e f o r e t h i s time ( i t i s not mentioned by 36 Herodotus or Thucydides). As a r e s u l t of the Phocian War, however, contemporary h i s t o r i a n s became i n t e r e s t e d i n the Crisaean War and c l e a r l y drew some connection between i t and the fourth-century c o n f l i c t . Despite the fact that they did not c a l l i t a "Sacred War," they saw occasion to refer to the Crisaean War s e v e r a l times at l e a s t i n the decade following the conclusion of the Phocian War. The f i r s t d a t a b l e r e f e r e n c e to the war i s found i n Speusippus' L e t t e r to P h i l i p of Macedon 1 0 2 of 3 4 2 , on the authority of a c e r t a i n Antipater of Magnesia (F Gr Hi s t 69 F 2 ) : " KpuaaUou 6e into" xwv 'AucpuMxdovajv avnupednaav." Probably about t h i s time, Callisthenes included a section on the Crisaean War i n his work on the Phocian War. Although we cannot assign a d e f i n i t e date to Callisthenes' monograph "Ilepu TOU" 'lepoO noAeyou ," the terminus post quern i s provided by the conclusion of the Phocian War i n 346 and the terminus ante quern by C a l l i s t h e n e s 1 d e p a r t u r e with Alexander i n 3 4 4 . C a l l i s t h e n e s also collaborated with A r i s t o t l e on n xc5v nuSoovuxwv avaypacpri , 1 0 3 which was probably begun i n the mid 330's before he set out for A s i a . 1 0 4 The t i t l e of t h i s avaypacpn (or TICVCIE, i n the l a u d a t o r y i n s c r i p t i o n ) would l e a d one reasonably to i n f e r that i t consisted of a bare l i s t of names, but the testimony of P l u t a r c h (Solon XI.1) reveals that i t also contained h i s t o r i c a l n a r r a t i v e . 1 0 5 It has been suggested that the d e t a i l s of the Crisaean War found i n the Hypotheses to Pindar's Pythian Odes are 37 derived from the avaypacpn. of A r i s t o t l e and Callisthenes because the dates are given according to both Athenian and Delpnian a r c h o n s h i p s . 1 0 6 It i s important to remember, however, that the in s c r i p t i o n merely honours A r i s t o t l e and Callisthenes for composing a itCva£ of victors and organizers (presumably the agonothetai) and gives no indication of the dating system o r i g i n a l l y used by Aristotle and Callisthenes. The Delphians may have used their own dating system when they transcribed the material from the ia'va£; onto the marble. Nevertheless, Aristotle and Callisthenes may have composed the work using the Delphian system of chronology as a gesture of respect for the eventual proprietors. The chronology of the scholium, at least, must ultimately have come from Delphi, perhaps from the avaypacprt of Aristotle and Callisthenes, which was inscribed on stone for everyone to see. The scholiast may have obtained the details, however, from some other source. The scholiast did use Euphorion, the third-century poet, as a source, 1 0 7 although he was clearly not the only authority from whom he derived his information ( uapxupeC x a l Eucpopduv } # since most of the credit for the defeat of the Crisaeans i s given to Eurylochus and the Thessalians, i t has been suggested that the scholiast followed a Thessalian source. 1 0 8 Because of this Thessalian bias in the Hypotheses Pythiorum, i t is not li k e l y that the avaypacpn of A r i s t o t l e and Callisthenes was the sole or even the main source of the scholiast, as the testimony of Plutarch (Solon 38 XI.1) implies that i t emphasized the Athenian role in the war. The extant fragments of Antipater and Callisthenes, as we have seen, contain no more than passing references to the Crisaean War. The f i r s t surviving narrative of i t s events is found in Aeschines 1 speech Against Ctesiphon (III.107-112) of 330 B. C. This is by no means an unbiased account, however. Aeschines is using the events of the Crisaean War in order to justify his actions that led to the war over Amphissa, often called the Fourth Sacred War. The only other narrative of the Crisaean War is found in a speech attributed to Thessalus, son of Hippocrates. It is included in the Hippocratic Corpus (L i t t r e IX, p. 404-428), but i t s a u t h e n t i c i t y and date are questioned. Some s c h o l a r s 1 0 9 accept i t at face value as a fourth-century composition, while others 1 1 0 reject i t as spurious and assign to i t a late H e l l e n i s t i c date. This account, l i k e that of Aeschines, is not an unbiased one, as i t s author wishes to emphasize (invent?) the part which the Asclepiads of Cos played in the Crisaean War. A l l the other l i t e r a r y references to the Crisaean War focus only upon certain aspects of the conflict and many of them date from Hellenistic times (or l a t e r ) , 1 1 1 although, as we have seen, they often derive their information from fourth-century sources. It is necessary now to examine the events of the Crisaean War in order to determine the s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences 39 between i t and the so-called Second and Third Sacred Wars (which were entitled lepoi udAeyou by the ancient sources). As the earliest accounts of the war date from the fourth century, many of the d e t a i l s have become confused (and therefore disputed) through the passage of time. 1 1 2 Scholars, both ancient and modern, cannot even agree upon the name of the protagonist in the Crisaean War, the c i t y called both Crisa and Cirrha in our sources. 1 1 3 The causes of the war are p a r t i c u l a r l y controversial. The most common cause of the war given i n our sources (probably as a result of i t s very vagueness) i s that the Crisaeans had committed sacrilege ( aaegeUv, u£pucee.v ) against the sanctuary at Delphi and i t s o f f e r i n g s . 1 1 4 Another tra d i t i o n shows the Crisaeans abusing their control of the coastline and the roads going into Delphi either by severely taxing 1 1 5 or, as brigands, robbing and even k i l l i n g visitors to the temple. 1 1 6 Callisthenes (F Gr Hist 124 F 1) attributes the cause of the war to the seizure of a woman, but this is suspect, as well as the ten year length of the war, as an attempt to force a parallel with the Trojan War. [Thessalus] ( L i t t r e IX, p. 406 ), on the other hand, does not confine himself to a single cause but provides us with a long l i s t : O S T O L 6e oi Kpuaatou xdxe T I O A A O L K C I L iaxupot xat T I A O U O L O U , xodxous xoCs orya^oLS E I L xaxiji e x P T l C T C t V T 0 * e^uftpuaavxes yap TtoAAd 6euva xaC itapdvoua Ebpydaavxo, es xdv %£ov aaegoOvxes, AeAcpobs xaxabouAouyevou, upoaodxous AntCoyevou, §eu>pous auAeovxes, yuvduxds re xca TiaC6as aytveovxeSj x a l eus x& auyaxa e^uftpd^ovxes. 40 The testimony of [Thessalus] also is suspect, because he is blatantly attempting to forge together a l l the c o n f l i c t i n g traditions concerning the cause of the Crisaean War. Despite a l l t h i s confusion, i t i s evident that the enviable position of the Crisaeans controlling the routes into Delphi both by sea and by land had either provoked jealousy among their neighbours or had led to abuse on their part of their control over the oracle and those consulting i t . For whatever reason, the Amphictyonic League resolved upon war against the Crisaeans and obtained a favourable oracle from Delphi. 1 1 7 Thereupon the war against the Crisaeans began in earnest and the Amphictyonic forces were strengthened by a l l i e d reinforcements. The connection of the Amphictyonic League with Delphi at this time i s d i f f i c u l t to determine. Most of our ancient sources appear to imply that the Amphictyonic League existed already at Delphi before the war began. Nevertheless, the same sources state e x p l i c i t l y that the city of Crisa was in control of the sanctuary at this time. It seems unlikely that both the Amphictyonic League and the powerful city of Crisa would peacefully have co-existed at Delphi. A more plausible hypothesis i s that the Amphictyonic League, with i t s Thessalian majority, saw the situation at the beginning of the sixth century as an opportunity to extend i t s influence from Anthela to Delphi. By "defending" Delphi from the allegedly s a c r i l e g i o u s Crisaeans, the Amphictyonic League was able 41 l e g i t i m a t e l y to gain control of t h i s venerated sanctuary and the resources therein. T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s r e i n f o r c e d by A e s c h i n e s , who refers (11.115) to an oath and a curse sworn at n it p arm au*vo.6os of the Amphictyonic League. T h i s oath and curse appear to be the same as those which A e s c h i n e s quotes (III.109-112) as having been sworn by the Amphictyonic League upon the c o n c l u s i o n of the C r i s a e a n War. Aeschines adds (III.113) that the record of t h i s oath and curse existed s t i l l at Delphi in his day. The propaganda used by the Amphictyonic League to j u s t i f y i t s cause must have been enormously e f f e c t i v e (as i t was to be two and a half centuries l a t e r ) , as other states subsequently t r i e d to g l o r i f y t h e i r share i n the war. There are three t r a d i t i o n s about the role played by each of the a l l i e s i n t h i s c o n f l i c t . The Athenian version states that Solon was involved in the Crisaean War i n the c a p a c i t y of advisor and Alcmaeon was the leader of the Athenian contingent. 1 1 8 The Sicyonian t r a d i t i o n ( o r i g i n a t i n g with Menaechmus?) a t t r i b u t e s the command of the A m p h i c t y o n i c f o r c e s to C l e i s t h e n e s of S i c y o n . 1 1 9 The t h i r d t r a d i t i o n emphasizes T h e s s a l i a n involvement i n the war and assigns the r o l e of Amphictyonic commander to Eurylochus of Thessaly. 1 2 0 Modern s c h o l a r s , for the most part, agree that Athens played no great m i l i t a r y role in the Crisaean War,121 but are divided as to whether Sicyon or Thessaly was the predominant 42 power. Parke 1 2 2 argues that a Thessalian commander-in-chief would be l o g i c a l due to the majority in the Amphictyonic League of the Thessalian bloc. Sordi, on the other hand, believes that the Thessalians did not gain control over their perioikoi unt i l long after the conclusion of the Crisaean War, around 560 B. C. Moreover, the distant Thessalians with their a g r i c u l t u r a l economy would not have anything to gain by destroying the powerful port of C r i s a . 1 2 3 Sicyon, however, a powerful r i v a l of Crisa on the Gulf of Corinth, had everything to gain by the destruction of C r i s a and her hold on the western trade route. 1 2 4 This argument is hampered by the fact that the Amphictyonic League was clearly a local Thessalian religious organization in o r i g i n and, as such, would have desired control over the -sanctuary at Delphi by means of the destruction of the city of Crisa. Nevertheless, the opposing traditions can be reconciled. Thessaly may have used a c o n f l i c t nominally on behalf of Apollo (as Philip was to do two centuries later) to extend her influence southward. Thus, Eurylochus presumably put his army and cavalry at the disposal of the Amphictyonic League and was subsequently appointed commander of the land f o r c e s . Moreover, i t seems improbable that anyone but a Thessalian could have been leader of an Amphictyonic force at this time, when the organization was s t i l l a l o c a l Thessalian one. Sicyon, on the other hand, as a sea power, was given control of the f l e e t . 1 2 5 In this way, the war was 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 detail about the course of the war. It was apparently composed of two stages. During the f i r s t stage of the war, the blockading operations of Cleisthenes' f l e e t in the Gulf of Corinth ended a long siege, 1 2 6 and the ci t y of Crisa was razed to the ground. 1 2 7 The defeat and destruction of Crisa occurred in the archonship of Gylidas at Delphi and an ayhv xpnyaTuxns was celebrated out of the .spoils. 1 2 8 After the downfall of their city, the surviving Crisaeans took refuge on Mount Cirphis, separated by the Pleistus River from Mount Parnassus, and continued resistance from there. 1 2 9 Two stratagems are mentioned in our sources pertaining to this stage of the war. The f i r s t i s a t r a d i t i o n that the Amphictyons poisoned the water supply of the Crisaeans with hellebore and were able to overcome them in their weakened condition. 1 3 0 The second stratagem came about as a result of an oracle given to the Amphictyonic 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 ent 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 the sea. 1 3 2 These stratagems are suspect as later romanticized inventions, but g u e r i l l a operations obviously continued from Mount Cirphis after Crisa had been 44 destroyed. Six years later, the last remnants of Crisaean resistance were overcome.133 Finally, in 582/1, the victory was celebrated by the institution of the ayiov axecpavtxns , the f i r s t in a series of o f f i c i a l Pythian f e s t i v a l s . 1 3 4 Most of our sources agree that the Amphictyonic League was f i g h t i n g against C r i s a on behalf of Delphi. George Forrest, 1 3 5 however, has challenged this traditional view of the Crisaean War in a re-interpretation of the Homeric Hymn to  Apollo. The crucial lines (540-43) are at the end of Apollo's speech to the Cretan sailors, where he warns them: fie XL xn.u'aLov eitos eaaexau ne TL e p Y o v j u3pug %' , n §euus eaxu xaxa^vnttov av^pcSnajv, aXXot eneu^'uyuv anuctvxopes avSpeg eaaovxat, xuv v%'avayxaurj 6e6yn ,aea^'nyaxa itdvxa. The general modern consensus is that these lines refer to the Crisaean War, although scholars remain undecided whether they date from before or after the war.136 Forrest, on the other hand, argues that these lines cannot allude to the liberation of the sanctuary from an outside threat (Crisa) but rather to a change in the organization of Delphi ( S.\\OL anydvxopes ) 1 3 7 Forrest concludes that these "new masters" can only be the Amphictyons, 1 3 8 and the t r a d i t i o n of the "liberation" of the sanctuary arose out of later propaganda by the winning side. 1 3 9 F o r r e s t has raised an i n t e r e s t i n g problem and his criticism of the usual interpretation of these lines is valid. Nevertheless, his interpretation rests upon the assumption that these lines in fact refer to the Crisaean War and, more 45 precisely, that they date from after i t s conclusion. There is no conclusive evidence in the Homeric Hymn i t s e l f connecting these lines with the Crisaean War. This suggestion, although generally accepted, i s a modern inference based on the fact that there were no other known conflicts at Delphi during the ar c h a i c p e r i o d . Inference or not, however, F o r r e s t ' s conclusion squares with our meagre influence concerning the expansion of the Amphictyonic League to Delphi and at least has the v i r t u e of not being misled by l a t e r propaganda disseminated by that organization. The war which modern historians refer to as the Fourth Sacred War took place in the period of increased concern over Delphi and the Amphictyonic League in the years following the conclusion of the Phocian War. The main facts of th i s conflict emerge from the r i v a l versions of Aeschines (III.113-129) and Demosthenes. (XVI11.139-159) , both of whom were involved with i t personally. The war was apparently known as "the Amphissan War" by it s contemporaries. Demosthenes refers to i t as " 6 ev 'Aycptaari TcoAeyos" (XVIII.143 and 163). Aeschines alludes to i t by the equivalent periphrasis " Tuepl -rotfs 'Aycpuaae'as "(III. 221 and 237 ) 1 4 0 . Plutarch speaks of the war in the same terms. 1 4 1 Nowhere in antiquity i s this war labelled a "sacred war," although Demosthenes (XVIII.143) does refer to i t as an Amphictyonic War ( ndXeyoS 'AycptXTuovuxo's ) . In modern times i t was f i n a l l y c l a s s i f i e d as a "sacred war" for the f i r s t time, 46 the fourth in a series. The causes of this war are f a i r l y clear. The Locrians of Amphissa, a c i t y on the edge of the Crisaean Plain (Strabo IX.4.8), had apparently begun to c u l t i v a t e the p l a i n once again, although this was land consecrated to Apollo. 1 4 2 A t r a d i t i o n existed that 1 this land had been consecrated as a result of the Crisaean War, 1 4 3 although this may simply have been an a e t i o l o g i c a l explanation to account for the sacred land surrounding the sanctuary. What is important, however, is that this tradition of the consecrated land clearly existed long before the Phocian War placed Delphi and i t s sanctuary in the limelight. An Amphictyonic law of 380/79 (IG I I 2 1126, SIG 145, lines 15-26) fixes the punishment to be imposed upon those encroaching upon the sacred land and limits the uses of this land: ETf£po6os y^S t a p a s * a t x t s xav ytT.v ensue) y(xc, [p) t x Co"] av 'AycpuxxuovES tdpojaav, ETCEU x (a] a ndpoSos yuvnTau, an ox [JEU a ax to xcou tapSt. ?; . 1}.. 3 axaxripas A f y t v a t o s xax ' x j j i ) T I E A E ^ P O V 'Exaaxov* xou 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 C E^ pya£;dy£vov' a t 6£ yn l E p t t e t E V n yn u p[aaaotEV, aitoxEtadxto 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£ as x'e£ 6 UEpoyvdyunT), £uA£af3>af3 xoO" tapou x a t axpaxEudvxuv en 'auxos ' Aycptxxdoves O ^ t d xa ou uspoyvdyovEs £uaYY e'^i Awvx (u. E X j x a s uepas Y&S xdupov yn ayev ynoEyuav. O t x n o t o s " e n t . . . c. 37.... E V F t S t a Q Q en^ ^aAdaaau, xas 6xe uaaxdSas xouv&s eSyev Ttdvxeaat { j o t s uepoyvaydveaau?. .c. . 8 .. . y t j a%ov y f j l d)eva cpe'pev ynoEvd, ynS'lvouxSv xdv auxov TCAEOV x p t d x o v x a a y s p a v . . c , . 9 . 0 y n 6 e Y u v a C x a ^ 3 E V O U X E ( V y j n o s y u a v , \ir\6\ ydAav EVECysv vndi. oAyov* a t 6s x t s T (Q"S vdyous xouxous Ttapgatvot, x o t Oapoy^diJJpvEs Cayuovxwv oxuvu xa Stxat'ojt acptv 6oxnu eZ\iev eict [?ay 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 t a p o y v d y o v s s . Isocrates, in his Plataicus of c. 373 B. C , refers to 47 this consecrated land in the course of a polemic against the Thebans (31): ou 6uaxuxno'dvTU)V uyffiv ydvou TCV auyydxuv e d e v T O xnv 4>fitpov, As xP^l T 1 1 v T e KO\LV e ^ a v b p o n t o S u a a a d a L x a t Trfv x^ p a v a v e f v a o ynXoBoxov Aan£p TO K p u a a u o v TIE&COV. The salient point in this passage is that Isocrates is clearly using the Crisaean Plain as an example of punishment following defeat in war. This, then, is our earliest reference to the Crisaean War and indicates that an earlier tradition of this war predated the increased concern over Delphi i n the aftermath of the Phocian War. The Amphictyonic law and the testimony of Isocrates show that this consecration was s t i l l in effect at this time and, therefore, the encroachment by the Amphissans was legally an offense. It is not s p e c i f i c a l l y stated when the Amphissans began encroaching upon the consecrated land, but i t must have been at some point after the Amphictyonic decree of 380/79. Since Aeschines (III.119) points out to the Amphictyonic League the forbidden buildings erected upon the Crisaean Plain, the encroachment of the Amphissans must have been going on for some time but this 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) of the Amphictyonic League of 340 B. C. 1 4 5 Diognetus was the o f f i c i a l representative of Athens to the Amphictyonic Council (hieromnemon) for that year 1 4 5 and Aeschines had been elected by the Athenians as one of three delegates (pylagorai) . 1 4 7 48 Upon the i r a r r i v a l at Delphi, the Athenian delegation received a s e c r e t r e p o r t t h a t the L o c r i a n s of Amphissa (at the p e r s u a s i o n of the Thebans) were going to b r i n g about a r e s o l u t i o n ( Sdyya ) that a f i n e of f i f t y t a l e n t s be l e v i e d against the Athenians for having dedicated gilded shields i n the new temple at Delphi (the old Alcmaeonid temple had been destroyed by f i r e i n 373 B. C.) before i t had been o f f i c i a l l y consecrated. 1 4 8 This lack of protocol, however, did not cause offense so much as the i n s c r i p t i o n on these s h i e l d s : 'A^nvaCou onto Mrt6wv nat SnftauDV, OTE xavavxda xoug "EAAnauv eydxovxo. (Aeschines III.116) As Diognetus, the hieromnemon, and one of the other pylagorai had come down with a fever, Aeschines was asked to r e p l y to t h i s charge on b e h a l f of the c i t y . 1 4 9 At the beginning of his speech, Aeschines alleges (III.117) that he was interrupted by a c e r t a i n Amphissan, who reproached Athens for her a l l i a n c e with Phocis in the Phocian War, among other offenses. In return, Aeschines pointed to the Crisaean (or Cirrhaean) P l a i n , which was c l e a r l y v i s i b l e from the l o f t y seat of Delphi on Mount Parnassus, as tangible evidence of the offenses of the Amphissans (I I I . 118-119). As a r e s u l t of Aeschines' persuasive o r a t o r y , 1 5 0 the matter of the s h i e l d s was f o r g o t t e n immediately and the hieromnemones voted to make an o f f i c i a l survey ( i t e p t o d o s ) of the consecrated l a n d . 1 5 1 A l l the Delphians of m i l i t a r y age and a l l the hieromnemones and pylagorai were to p a r t i c i p a t e i n 49 this expedition. On the following day (Aeschines III.123), a f t e r the i n s p e c t i o n and a f a i r b i t of Amphictyonic destruction were carried out, the Amphictyons were attacked by the Locrians of Amphissa and barely managed to escape to Delphi with their l i v e s . 1 5 2 An emergency assembly was convened at Delphi the very next day and i t was voted to hold a special meeting of the Amphictyonic League before the next Pylaea (spring 339) in order to decide the fate of Amphissa (Aeschines III.124). Demosthenes had persuaded the Athenians not to attend this meeting and the Thebans had also decided to abstain (this c i t y was presumably in an awkward position due to her instigation of the c r i s i s ) , but a l l the other Amphictyonic members were present. 1 5 3 At t h i s meeting, Cottyphus of Pharsalus, 1 5 4 p r e s i d e n t of the Amphictyons, was e l e c t e d as general (strategos) of the Amphictyonic forces. 1 5 5 The next campaigning season (spring 339), an expedition was made against the Amphissans and a fine was levied against them.156 The Amphissans, however, refused to pay the fine and at the next Pylaea (autumn 339) P h i l i p (who had previously been on campaign in Scythia) was elected commander.157 At the head of the second expedition, Philip made as i f to march to Cirrha but, to the shock and surprise of both Athens and Thebes, s e i z e d Cytinium and E l a t e i a i n s t e a d . 1 5 8 This unexpected development resulted in the alliance of Athens and Thebes and f i n a l l y in the infamous battle of Chaeronea in 338. 50 Thus, l i k e the Phocian War, the Amphissan War served to legitimize Philip's a r r i v a l in Greece. The question remains, however, why the Crisaean and Amphissan Wars were not labelled by the ancients as tepol ndAeuou. The modern c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of "sacred war" which has been attached to these conflicts appears the natural term to use, as both the Crisaean and Amphissan Wars are closely linked to the Phocian War in particular. The s i m i l a r i t i e s between these conflicts are so great, in fact, that the t r a d i t i o n between them has become confused. A l l three of these wars were fought nominally on behalf of the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi by the Amphictyonic Leaglue against an offender who had exhibited some form of uBpts . The r e a l issue in these wars, however, was c o n t r o l of the sanctuary and alleged encroachment of sacred land often served as a catalyst in these struggles. It is d i f f i c u l t to entangle the separate strands of evidence, especially in the case of the C r i s a e a n War, the only one for which we have no contemporary evidence, except for the enigmatic lines at the end of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo which, i f they do in fact refer to the Crisaean War, may be near contemporary. The Crisaean War possesses very few elements which are not allegedly present in the Phocian and Amphissan Wars. Even the name of i t s protagonist in the majority of the ancient sources, Cirrha, reappears in connection with the Amphissan War. The ten year d u r a t i o n of the war, as given by 51 Callisthenes (F Gr Hist 124 F 1), is 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 well as the Phocian War. Ten, however, was a trad i t i o n a l number and a l l three of these wars might have been remembered in later accounts as ten year wars just for that reason. One scholar even considers the tradition of the two stages in the f i g h t i n g to be a r e f l e c t i o n of the events of the Phocian War.159 The biggest area of confusion i s to be found in the causes of the war. Callisthenes (F Gr Hist 124 F 1) alleges that the seizure of a certain Phocian woman was the reason behind the outbreak of the war. This romantic d e t a i l i s suspect, however, as an obvious attempt to mirror the Trojan War. Interestingly enough, Duris of Samos (F Gr Hist 76 F 2) makes an almost i d e n t i c a l allegation with respect to the Phocian War, probably for the same reason. 1 5 0 The common tr a d i t i o n of sacrilege against the god 1 5 1 is found in much more exp l i c i t detail in ancient accounts of the Phocian War. The cause of the war given by Pausanias (X.57.6), that the Crisaeans were encroaching upon land sacred to Apollo, is reflected in ancient accounts not only of the Phocian War,152 but also of the Amphissan War.153 Finally, the imposition of taxes, 1 5 4 or worse, 1 5 5 upon visitors to the sanctuary is also a recurrent theme in accounts of the Amphissan War.155 Modern scholars agree, for the most part, that the intrusion of details into the Crisaean War from the Phocian 52 and Amphissan Wars r e s u l t e d from the long i n t e r v a l between the o u t b r e a k o f war i n the e a r l y s i x t h c e n t u r y and t h e f i r s t w r i t t e n r e c o r d of i t . By the m i d - f o u r t h c e n t u r y , h i s t o r i a n s had f o r g o t t e n the r e a l casus b e l l i and simply modelled i t upon s i m i l a r contemporary e v e n t s . 1 6 7 N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t i s ne c e s s a r y to be c a u t i o u s i n a c c e p t i n g such an argument at f a c e v a l u e , because most of our a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n about e a r l y h i s t o r y has t h i s gap. Noel Robertson, however, does not share the common view. In an i n t e r e s t i n g a r t i c l e , 1 6 8 he r e - i n t e r p r e t s a l l the a n c i e n t e v i d e n c e f o r the C r i s a e a n War and concludes by r e l e g a t i n g i t to the realm of saga. Coupled w i t h the f a c t t h a t most of the d e t a i l s o f t h i s c o n f l i c t a r e d o u b l e d e l s e w h e r e , R o b e r t s o n argues t h a t the l a c k of evidence f o r t h i s war u n t i l the 340's c o n s t i t u t e s p roof t h a t the C r i s a e a n War never e x i s t e d . 1 6 9 He b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e s i l e n c e o f H e r o d o t u s and T h u c y d i d e s i s e s p e c i a l l y d a m n i n g . 1 7 0 R o . b e r t s o n , t h e n , c l a i m s t o be f o l l o w i n g the example of Demosthenes 1 7 1 and A n t i p a t e r 1 7 2 i n c l a s s i f y i n g t h e C r i s a e a n War as a yudos , i n v e n t e d by the p a r t i s a n s o f P h i l i p f o r propaganda purposes i n the p o l i t i c a l t u r b u l e n c e f o l l o w i n g the s e t t l e m e n t of the Phocian War. 1 7 3 A l t h o u g h R o b e r t s o n ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s m a i n l y based on i n f e r e n c e from an argumentum ex silentio, i t i s u s e f u l i n th a t i t provokes a need to re-examine the C r i s a e a n War i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e o t h e r t h r e e wars l a b e l l e d by modern s c h o l a r s as " s a c r e d . " 1 7 4 Some of the c r i t i c i s m s he makes are v a l i d but he 53 has overlooked some significant facts. First of a l l , when Aeschines denounces the Amphissans for having cultivated the Crisaean Plain, no-one questions the fact that t h i s land was indeed sacred to Apollo, despite Demosthenes' a l l e g a t i o n s to the contrary. Since t h i s information was apparently common knowledge, Aeschines cannot have invented the consecration of the plain. Secondly, two pieces of evidence, I s o c r a t e s ' P l a t a i c u s 31 and the Amphictyonic law of 380/79 (IG I I 2 1126, SIG 145) prove that this plain was in fact sacred to Apollo and had apparently been so for a long time. Therefore, neither Aeschines nor any other of Robertson's "partisans of Philip" can have invented the consecration of the Crisaean Plain. The tradition that the consecration of the "land came about as a result of the Crisaean War, as our ancient sources unanimously state, clearly predates the 340's and, probably, the fourth century altogether. The fact that the Crisaean War is not e x p l i c i t l y treated by any h i s t o r i a n u n t i l the mid-fourth century i s not a conclusive proof of i t s non-existence either. It appears, on the contrary, that this conflict was largely ignored (except for the passage in Isocrates and the Amphictyonic decree of 380/79, which is less specific) u n t i l the mid-fourth century, when i t was r e s u s c i t a t e d as propaganda in the wake of p o l i t i c a l unrest surrounding Delphi. As a result of i t s long descent into near oblivion, the details of the Crisaean War 54 became c o n f u s e d and d i f f e r e n t v e r s i o n s c i r c u l a t e d w h i c h contemporary p o l i t i c i a n s used f o r t h e i r own ends. Herodotus and Thucydides d i d not deign to mention what was e s s e n t i a l l y a minor c o n f l i c t u n t i l i t was a m p l i f i e d f o r p o l i t i c a l reasons a f t e r the Phocian War. I t i s c u r i o u s , however, i n t h i s p e r i o d of i n t e n s e concern over D e l p h i , that the C r i s a e a n and Amphissan Wars, which had so much i n common w i t h the P h o c i a n War, were not a l s o g i v e n the a t t r i b u t e oepos udAeyos . i n o r d e r to reach any k i n d of c o n c l u s i o n on t h i s s u b j e c t , i t i s necessary to t u r n t o another c a t e g o r y o f t e s t c a s e s , r e l i g i o u s d i s p u t e s o v e r o t h e r s a n c t u a r i e s , and determine i n what terms they are spoken of i n a n t i q u i t y . 55 OTHER RELIGIOUS DISPUTES The second category of test cases to be contrasted with the wars entitled t e p o l Ttd*AeyoL j_ n antiquity consists of examples of other conflicts which apparently share elements in common with them but are not labelled as such by ancient or modern authorities. The selection of the test cases to be examined out of the numerous disputes with religious overtones which took place throughout ancient Greek history was not purely arbitrary. Each test case possesses a specific element in common with the conflicts referred to as iepol udAeuoL , With this purpose in mind, two test cases were chosen to represent this category. The f i r s t to be discussed is the confi s c a t i o n by the Arcadian League of the o f f e r i n g s at Olympia in 364 B. C. This w i l l i l l u s t r a t e the element of sacrilege. The second, the dispute between Athens and Megara of 350/49 over the Sacred Orgas, raises the issue once again of consecrated land to be l e f t u n t i l l e d . By comparing and contrasting these conflicts with those labelled "sacred wars" by ancient and modern sources, i t w i l l be p o s s i b l e to determine more clearly the motives behind the attribution of the t i t l e . 56 Let us now proceed to the f i r s t of these test cases, namely the confiscation by the Arcadian League of the sacred offerings at Olympia. This apparent act of sacrilege forms a link in the larger chain of events which eventually culminated in the Battle of Mantinea in 362 B. C. The catalyst of this particular c r i s i s was the Elean seizure of the town of Lasion in the summer of 365.175 This conflict had been brewing since the aftermath of the Battle of Leuctra. After the decisive Spartan defeat at Leuctra, the Eleans obviously harboured hopes of regaining some of th e i r former possessions, which the Spartans had s e i z e d and d e c l a r e d independent i n the course of the Corinthian War (Xenophon, Hellenica III.23 and 30). These former Elean possessions -included the territory of Triphylia, 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 further north. To their consternation, the Eleans were frustrated in this desire on a l l sides. Not only were a l l c i t i e s , both great and small (including s p e c i f i c a l l y the disputed d i s t r i c t of Triphylia), declared autonomous by the common peace treaty of 371 , 1 7 6 but the people of T r i p h y l i a and the other former Elean c i t i e s (presumably Lasion was among th i s number) claimed to be Arcadians in complete and total rejection of Elean demands (Xenophon, Hellenica VII.1.26). The Arcadians, on the other hand, were overjoyed at this news (they also had claims on L a s i o n at l e a s t d a t i n g back to the beginning of the 57 century) 1 7 7 and welcomed these towns with open arms into the Arcadian League. 1 7 8 Resentment b u i l t up among the Eleans, especially after the Arcadians had rejected the proposed peace treaty of 367 in 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 , 1 7 9 and was f i n a l l y manifested by the seizure of Lasion. This h o s t i l e a c t i o n provoked an immediate Arcadian response and led to renewed war in the Peloponnese. Once again, the face of the complex system of alliances in the Peloponnese underwent a transformation. 1 8 0 At the beginning of the decade, the diplomatic situation was represented by two major systems of a l l i a n c e s : the B o e o t i a n 1 8 1 and the Spartan. 1 8 2 By the eve of the Elean-Arcadian War, the network of alliances had changed, somewhat. Relations between Thebes and Arcadia and E l i s and Arcadia had cooled (Xenophon, Hellenica VII.1.26); Achaea, formerly neutral, had joined the Spartan side (Xenophon, Hellenica VII.1.43); Sicyon (at the i n s t i g a t i o n of Euphron) had switched i t s allegiance to the Arcadian-Argive c o a l i t i o n (Xenophon, Hellenica VII.1.45); Athens had joined Arcadia in a defensive alliance (Xenophon Hellenica VII.4.2 and 6); Corinth and i t s a l l i e s had become neutral as a result of a pact with Thebes (Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.6-11). The outbreak of war further complicated the situation. The Achaeans (Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.17) and the Spartans (Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.20) fought together on the Elean side against the Arcadians, Argives, Thebans, and 58 Messenians (Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.27). The Arcadians, provoked by the Elean seizure of Lasion, were completely successful in their counterattack and gained control of much Elean t e r r i t o r y , including 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 in order to legitimize their position, the Arcadians recognized the claims of the Pisatans, in whose territory the sanctuary was located (Strabo VIII.3.30), to be the original hosts of the Olympic Games and "reinstated" them to their alleged ancient status. 1 8 3 Free of i t s subjection to the r i v a l Eleans and once more an independent s t a t e , 1 8 4 Pisatis was quite wil l i n g to join the Arcadians, even i f in only a nominal capacity, in p r e s i d i n g over the Olympic fes t i v a l . The one hundred and fourth Olympic Games apparently began as i f nothing out of the ordinary had occurred. Competitors from throughout Greece and abroad assembled1 8 5 and the f i r s t event, the horse-race began (Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.29). This a i r of normality was not, however, of long duration. Midway through the next event, the pentathlon, the Eleans stormed the sanctuary and penetrated as far as the innermost sacred precinct, named the A l t i s . 1 8 6 The Arcadians r a l l i e d their forces, supported by a l l i e d troops, 1 8 7 and leapt to the "defense" of the sanctuary. A great battle took place within 59 t h e s a n c t u a r y i t s e l f and D i o d o r u s (who l o v e s a c o l o u r f u l s t o r y ) adds ( X V . 7 8 . 3 ) : §e(jdu.£VU)V TrW yctxnv T S V TiapdvTwv ixL xr\v TavTyyuptv 'EAArivcov eaTEtpavajyevajv Mat yed'ftauxdas axuvddvcoc. eTttanyatvoyevwv t a g exarepcj-Sev av6paYa$uag. The E l e a n s , who a p p a r e n t l y were h e l d i n l i t t l e r e g a r d i n i m a t t e r s o f w a r f a r e (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a V I I . 4 . 3 0 ) , a t f i r s t were s u c c e s s f u l a t r o u t i n g the enemy but e v e n t u a l l y r e t i r e d f o r the n i g h t a f t e r m e e t i n g w i t h a r e v e r s e . Meanwhi le , the A r c a d i a n s , f e a r i n g t h i s u n e x p e c t e d v a l o u r o f the E l e a n s , h a s t i l y c o n s t r u c t e d a s t ockade around the s a n c t u a r y out of the temporary b u i l d i n g s which had been c a r e f u l l y e r e c t e d f o r the f e s t i v a l ( Xenophon , H e l l e n i c a V I I . 4 . 3 2 ) . A l a r m e d a t t h i s A r c a d i a n show of f o r c e , the E l e a n s withdrew a l t o g e t h e r . 1 8 8 A f t e r t h i s m i l i t a r y i n t e r l u d e , the O l y m p i c Games were re sumed and p r e s u m a b l y b r o u g h t t o a p e a c e f u l c o n c l u s i o n , a l t h o u g h the E l e a n s l a t e r r e f u s e d to r e c o g n i z e t h i s p a r t i c u l a r O lympiad as l e g i t i m a t e . 1 8 9 Crushed by t h e i r r e c e n t d e f e a t i n t h e B a t t l e o f t h e A l t i s and t h e i r c o n s i d e r a b l e l o s s o f t e r r i t o r y , 1 9 0 the E l e a n s h e n c e f o r t h kept a low p r o f i l e . The b a l l , so t o s p e a k , was now i n t h e c o u r t o f t h e A r c a d i a n L e a g u e . 1 9 1 I t was not l o n g b e f o r e the A r a c a d i a n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of O lympia provoked f u r t h e r antagon i sm. T h i s t ime , however, the d i s p u t e a r o s e w i t h i n the League i t s e l f . The m a g i s t r a t e s o f the A r c a d i a n League ( OL, IV 'Apxdaiv apxo'v-res ) had a p p a r e n t l y been a p p r o p r i a t i n g the s a c r e d money from Olympia i n o rde r to 60 pay t h e f e d e r a l s t a n d i n g army, t h e E p a r i t o i . 1 9 2 The Mantineans, however, p r o t e s t e d a g a i n s t t h i s use of the s a c r e d money as t h e y were eager t o have peace w i t h E l i s . 1 9 3 The Mantineans proceeded to pass a vote to have n o t h i n g f u r t h e r to do with the s a c r e d money " x a t auToC TO YLyvo'yevov yepog e t g TOUS e u a p L T o u s ex xfis ito'AetuS exTtoptaavxes cnteitey^av xo€s apxouauv . "194 T h i s blow t o t h e f i n a n c e s o f t h e League was i m m e d i a t e l y countered by the f e d e r a l m a g i s t r a t e s , who summoned the l e a d e r s o f t h e M a n t i n e a n s b e f o r e t h e T e n T h o u s a n d . When t h e Mantineans f a i l e d to appear f o r t r i a l , they were condemned i n a b s e n t i a . The E p a r i t o i were sent to a r r e s t them but were not a d m i t t e d w i t h i n the w a l l s of M a n t i n e a (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a V I I . 4 . 3 3 ) . M e a n w h i l e , o t h e r members of t h e A r c a d i a n League had s e i z e d upon Mantinea's s u g g e s t i o n and a vote was passed by the Ten Thousand not t o use the s a c r e d f u n d s from Olympia any l o n g e r . As a r e s u l t , t h o s e s o l d i e r s who were u n a b l e to support themselves without pay dropped out of the E p a r i t o i and t h e i r p l a c e s were taken by those A r c a d i a n s w i t h means, who e a g e r l y g r a s p e d t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y f o r c o n t r o l of the s t a n d i n g army (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a V I I . 4 . 3 4 ) . The f e d e r a l m a g i s t r a t e s , however, remained f r e e d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d to pursue t h e i r own p o l i c i e s . These a c t i o n s e f f e c t i v e l y d i v i d e d the A r c a d i a n League i n t o two camps: one, o l i g a r c h i c ( c o m p r i s i n g the Ten Thousand an d t h e E p a r i t o i ) , h e a d e d by M a n t i n e a and t h e o t h e r , 61 democratic (composed of the federal magistrates and their supporters), headed by Tegea. 1 9 5 The f i n a l s p l i t 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 supporters (Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.35 f f ) . This growing antagonism came to a head in the summer of 362 , when the Mantinean section of the Arcadian League and i t s a l l i e s (including Sparta, E l i s , and Achaea) faced the Tegean party and i t s supporters (among these numbered Thebes, Argos, and Messene) on the b a t t l e f i e l d . 1 9 6 The Battle of Mantinea, made notorious by the closing words of Xenophon's Hellenica, sounded the death-knell for the Theban hegemony in Greece and the Arcadian League's bid for supremacy in the Peloponnese. This dispute over the sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia is reminiscent of the Phocian War in several ways. First of a l l , the c o n f l i c t i n both cases occurred over a panhellenic sanctuary. Strabo (VIII.3.30) describes the oracle, games, glory, and wealth of the temple at Olympia in almost the same terms as Delphi: rriv 6'ETIL cpdvEuav eaxev E£ apxris yev 6ua T O y a v T E C o v T O U 'OXuyituou Aud"s* E X E L V O U 6' E X A E L C D ^ E ' V T O S , ou6ev ? J T T O V a u v e y s t v e v H So'^ci TOO" LEpoO • xaC TT\\> avE,r\OLV, 6'an.v " a y £ V , eAot3e 6ud T E T r t v TiavfryupLV xa t T O V ay&va T O V ' OAuyrcuaxo'v, aTEcpavuTnv T E xaL usp'Ov v o y u a ^ E V T a T C V i i d v T u v . EHoaynSn S ' E M ^ O . U TtAn^ous T U V avaSnyctTcuv, ansp E X ndans a v a T t ^ E x o T f j s 'EAAaSog. Pausanias also devotes an equally large section of his narrative to the temple of Zeus at Olympia (Books V-VI) and the offerings therein as to that of Apollo at Delphi (Book X). 62 Clearly, then, the sanctuary at Olympia was considered no less "sacred" in the eyes of the Greeks than Delphi. The resemblance of this conflict to the Phocian War does not, however, end here. The armed take-over of a panhellenic sanctuary on the grounds of an alleged aboriginal claim, the confiscation of sacred offerings to pay one's army,198 and the eventual reparations exacted.from those guilty of sacrilege are a l l elements which recur nearly twenty years later in the Phocian War, forming a curious sort of deja vu. Nevertheless, despite the armed battle within the sacred precinct of the sanctuary and the confiscation of the sacred offerings, this conflict is not called a uepog no'Aeyos by any ancient source. In fact, i t is not given a name at a l l but is merely t r e a t e d as one- i n a s e r i e s of c o n f l i c t s which culminated in the Battle of Mantinea. The armed conflict in the sanctuary i t s e l f has been named the Battle of the A l t i s only in modern times. We may perhaps find a clue as to why this conflict was not given the attribution uepos ito'Aeyos in the attitudes of the ancient h i s t o r i a n s . Curiously enough, we fi n d in t h e i r accounts of this dispute no trace of the infamy heaped upon the Phocians for v i r t u a l l y the same offenses. Diodorus (on the a u t h o r i t y presumably of Ephorus), who in his s e l f -righteousness has so much to say on the subject of the sacrilegious Phocians, simply states the facts (XV.78.1-4, 82.1-3) and shows l i t t l e trace of bias on either side. 63 Diodorus 1 account, however, is inaccurate in several major respects and may be put aside for the most part in favour of that of Xenophon. Xenophon, on the other hand, betrays a sympathy for the Eleans (VII.4.30 and VII.4.32) and remarks twice (VII.4.34 and 35) upon the impiety of the s a c r i l e g e committed by the Arcadian magistrates. In spite of this apparent pro-Elean bias, nowhere are any invectives heaped against the Arcadians f o r t h e i r s e i z u r e of the s a n c t u a r y and subsequent •misappropriation of the sacred offerings and nowhere is the conflict referred to as a iepos ndAeyoc . This is especially peculiar in l i g h t of the fact that Xenophon followed the Thucydidean approach to history that he did not make any connection between this dispute and the fifth-century conflict over Delphi, which was a much more minor a f f a i r . For some reason the Arcadian League was not branded as sacrilegious in the same way that the Phocians were twenty years later, although their offense was similar. Perhaps i t is due to the fact that the conflict was not over Delphi that no historian made the connection between sacrilege and the use of the term tepds itdAeyos until the renewed interest in the sanctuary of Delphi in the decade following the conclusion of the Phocian War. Let us keep this hypothesis in mind as we proceed to our second test case: the dispute over the Sacred Orgas. The t-epb opyas was a strip of land between Athens and Megara, sacred to 64 the E l e u s i n i a n goddesses. The o r i g i n a l meaning of the term was "a w e l l - w a t e r e d , f e r t i l e spot of l a n d , " 2 0 0 but i t i s a l w a y s r e f e r r e d to as u n c u l t i v a t e d by t h e a n c i e n t a u t h o r i t i e s . 2 0 1 This s t r i p of land had long been a bone of content ion, probably on account of i t s f e r t i l i t y . At the end of the s i x th c e n t u r y B. C , the A then ians were cau s i ng the rumour to c i r c u l a t e that the Spartan king Cleomenes had met h is h o r r i b l e death as a re su l t of h i s devastat ion of the Sacred Orgas . 2 0 2 The more famous d i sputes over t h i s l and , however, occurred between Athens and Megara. The f i r s t r eco rded i n s t a n c e took p l a c e i n the f i f t h century, among the antecedents to the Peloponnesian War. One of the a l leged grounds for the notorious Megarian Decree was the encroachment by the Megarians upon the Sacred Orgas . 2 0 3 T h i s r e l i g i o u s o f f e n s e i s u s u a l l y regarded as mere ly an Athenian pretext for the seemingly harsh economic measures of the Megar ian D e c r e e , 2 0 4 but one s c h o l a r argues that the Athenian a c c u s a t i o n was not a p o l i t i c a l excuse to provoke h o s t i l i t i e s but a genuine charge of aaeBeta , f o r which p e n a l t i e s cou ld be severe i n d e e d . 2 0 5 A l though t h i s i s an i n t e r e s t i n g s u g g e s t i o n , i t i s important to remember that trumped-up charges of aaegeua were common enough (as we have seen i n our d i s cu s s i on of the s o - c a l l e d " sacred wars", for example). The Sacred Orgas returned to the l ime l i gh t in the middle 65 o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y . The a n t e c e d e n t s o f t h i s d i s p u t e a r e r e c o r d e d i n a l o n g and i n t e r e s t i n g i n s c r i p t i o n from E l e u s i s , d a t e d t o t h e a r c h o n s h i p o f A r i s t o d e m u s ( 352/1 ). 2 0 6 T h i s d e c r e e makes p r o v i s i o n s f i r s t o f a l l t o f i x t h e d i s p u t e d b o u n d a r i e s of the S a c r e d Orgas ( xwv o'ptuv dycptagnxouyevwv has been r e s t o r e d ) once and f o r a l l . Then th e d e c r e e s e t s out a complex p r o c e d u r e by w h i c h the o r a c l e a t D e l p h i i s t o d e t e r m i n e " £t Affitov xat a^et[voJv eaxt xc5t 6ny[u)L tut 'A$rjvauov yta] §o0v xdy $aatAe*a xa v eLpyaay QT]va jrfis tepas opyaSos xa evjxos xaiv opcov ELS oi £x^o6oytav xoO npo^crxwtou xat enuaxeunv x^)o0 tepoO xotv $eol"v" or "et AStov xat ayetjvo'v eaxt xait 6rtya)t xwt 'A^rivattov xa v[0v evxos xaTjv 6/[pujv ejvetpytcflayeva xfis tepag 6pyd6os eav avexa (jrotv s3eoCv." W h i l e a w a i t i n g t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e committee t o f i x the b o u n d a r i e s and t h e r e s p o n s e o f the o r a c l e , p r o v i s i o n s a r e t o be made f o r t h e i n s c r i p t i o n o f t h i s d e c r e e and t h a t o f P h i l o c r a t e s xo nept xG3v tepwv , f o r t h e e x p e n s e s o f t h e e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s , and f o r t h e p r o p e r p r e p a r a t i o n o f the new boundary m a r k e r s . The d e c r e e c o n c l u d e d w i t h a l i s t o f names of t h o s e e l e c t e d t o t h e v a r i o u s o f f i c e s . A l t h o u g h t h i s d e c r e e does not s p e c i f i c a l l y m e n t i o n any t r o u b l e w i t h the M e g a r i a n s , a passage from Demosthenes i n f o r m s 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 between Athens and Megara had f l a r e d up o n c e a g a i n . D e m o s t h e n e s , i n h i s s p e e c h On O r g a n i z a t i o n , 2 0 7 says ( 3 2 ) : et x t s dvayvotn. xa cpricptayad'uyQv xa\, xas npd^ets ecpe^fis 6teA\rot, oufi'dv eZz ntaxeuaat xSv auxalv xaOxa xdxetva. olov a itpos xoOg xaxapdxous Meyapeag ecpncptaaa^'ditoTeyvoyevous xriv 6pyd6a 5 e ^ t e v a t , xcoAuetv, yn efttxpeiietv. ..anavxa xaAd, 5 66 dvSpes ' AdnvaCot, xaOxa xau 6uxaLa xat, xfis Tto'Aecos a £ u a * xa epya 6e xa and xouxwv oufiayoO. I t i s n o t c e r t a i n a t w h a t d a t e t h i s p r o p o s e d e x p e d i t i o n a g a i n s t M e g a r a was v o t e d , b u t a p p a r e n t l y i t n e v e r t o o k p l a c e . T h e d e c r e e o f 3 5 2 / 1 was p r e s u m a b l y e i t h e r a c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h i s t r o u b l e o r h o s t i l i t i e s a r o s e a s a r e s u l t o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s d e c r e e . 2 0 8 S i n c e t h e c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t t h e M e g a r i a n s r e f e r r e d t o b y D e m o s t h e n e s d i d n o t t a k e p l a c e , t h e l a t t e r a l t e r n a t i v e i s m o r e p r o b a b l e a s D i d y m u s , q u o t i n g P h i l o c h o r u s ( F G r H i s t 328 F 1 5 5 ) a n d A n d r o t i o n ( F G r H i s t 324 F 3 0 ) , g i v e s a n a c c o u n t o f a n a c t u a l A t h e n i a n e x p e d i t i o n o f 3 5 0 / 4 9 : OIL yvnyoveueu (Demosthenes 13.32) xaiv Tupax^e'vxcov 'A$nvaC*OLS itpos Meyapeas uept xfis tepas '0pyd6os. yeyove 6e xaOxa x a x ' 'ATr.oXAd*6copov apxovxa, xadditep uaxopeL $LAd* Xopos ouxcoaCypdcpuv* "'A^nvaUou 6e upas Meyapeas 6uevex§evxes uiz'tp xoT3 optayoO xfis tepas 'OpydSos eiafiA^ o v eCs Meyapa yex''EcpudAxou axpaxriyoOvxos eitt xriV Xcopav, xa t copLaavxo xnV '0pyd6a xnv ilepdv' opcaxaC 6'eyevovxo, auyxwpnadvxwv Meyapeuiv, AaxpaxeC*6ns o iepocpdvxris xau 6 6au6o0xos ' IepoxAeu6riS. xat xaNs eaxaxtds xds Ttept xffv '0pyd6a xadudpioaav, xoO $eo0 xpnoavxos ' A C L O V xa t dyeuvov dvefai, xai . yfj epyaCjoyevous , xat dcpupoaav XCXACJU axfiAaus xaxd cpficptaya $LAoxpdxous. 1 1 SteuAexxat 6e rcepu xa\5xris xfis 6pyd6os xat ' Av c@o x P~]u)v ev xfjt X xuv 'AxduSwv, ypdcpwv ouxcos* "(Lptaavxo 6t xat 'A^nvaCou itpos Meyapeas xrjv 6pyd6a (J^udiXi xoCv SeoCv OTUOJS SouAouvxo" auvex^priaav yap oi Meyapets optax^s yeveaSat xdv L.epocpdvxnv Aaxpaxeu6riv xat TOV 6at6o0xov ' IepoxAeb6riv. xat d>s ou"xou wpuaav, eve^yetvav* xa t xds eaxaxtds, oaau ?iaav Ttpos xfju 6pyd6u, xa^uepwaav Stayavxeuadyevot xa t dveAo'vxos xou -deoO ACOLOV xat dyeuvov eZvat yf) epyaCoyevous. xau axrfAaus ojpLa§ri xdxAcuu At^tvaus $bAoxpdxous etnd'vxos." 67 The a c t i o n s recorded by Philochorus and Androtion p a r a l l e l exactly the two measures contained in the decree. The a l t e r c a t i o n o b v i o u s l y arose as a r e s u l t of the redefinition of the boundaries by the committee determined by the decree. These passages of Philochorus and Androtion also record the response of the oracle at Delphi to the question proposed in the second measure o f the decree. The oracle had apparently determined that i t was " ASiov xau ayeuvov " not to cultivate the haxat^ci,£ ( x a v£pv evx"bs xSfjv ojjscov e] veLp[yaq) y e v a xfis LEpas 6pYa'6os ). Cawkwe 11 , 2 0 9 argues from these passages that the dispute of 350/49 concerned the eaxaxLau (which he equates with the aopdaxos of Thucydides 1.139.2) alone, rather than the Sacred Orgas as a whole, but the accounts of Philochorus and Androtion state, on the contrary, that the conflict occurred over the marking out of the boundaries ( u n e p xou opuoyoC xfis t e p a s 6pyd6os ) . 2 1 0 At any rate, 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 of 350/49 was largely ignored by modern scholars until the publication of a thought-provoking a r t i c l e by W. R. Connor in 1962 . 2 1 1 Connor argues for a redating of the denunciation of the Megarians for encroaching upon the sacred land by the herald Anthemocritus and the Charinus decree subsequent to his death, that is mentioned 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. Although Connor's proposal is interesting and there are problems involved with placing Anthemocritus and the Charinus decree in 431, there is really not s u f f i c i e n t evidence to remove them to a fourth-century c o n t e x t , 2 1 2 as Connor himself admits. 2 1 3 Nevertheless, regardless of the question to which century the Charinus affair belongs, i t indeed shows drastic measures taken by both the Athenians and the Megarians over the Sacred Orgas. Despite the severe provisions of the Charinus decree, nowhere is either of the conflicts between Athens and Megara over the Sacred Orgas termed a war, let alone a "Sacred War." Yet the motif of encroachment upon sacred land was l i s t e d among the a l l e g e d causes of the Crisaean, Phocian, and Amphissan Wars.214 The verb avu'nyu found in the Eleusinian decree is even used by Isocrates (Plataicus 31) to refer to the Crisaean Plain. In 350/49, however, a similar offense provoked only a campaign to force the Megarians to co-operate. Why should this offense in one case cause a "Sacred War" and in another merely a campaign to settle the issue. Even the minor f i f t h - c e n t u r y incident at Delphi i s described by Philochorus as a "Sacred War," while the dispute over the Sacred Orgas, equally worthy of the t i t l e , is apparently l e f t unnamed by him. Was the sanctuary of the Two Goddesses at Eleusis perhaps less sacred in the eyes of the Greeks than the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi? Yet Pausanias (III.4.6) says: "Meyapeuotv ou 69 n o t e Sefov T W V ev ' E A E U O U V L O V T W V e^eyeveTO uAdaaadai, T O yrivuya yriv eirepyaaayevoLS xriv ilepav " and in V.10.1 he adds: " ydALOTa 6e TOC'S ev 'EAeuaCvL 6pwyevoos xat aySvi, T$ I V 'OAuyitta y e T e O T t v S M T O O § E O 0 cppovTu'6os." Therefore, like the Olympic Games and the oracle of Apollo at Delphi, the Eleusinian Mysteries were an i n s t i t u t i o n of panhellenic importance. Nevertheless, sacrilege against the Two Goddesses did 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. It occurred during a period when the Phocian War was in f u l l swing. Curiously enough, the embassy sent to enquire about the cultivation of the eaxctTtat is the only recorded instance of a consultation at Delphi in the course of that war.215 Perhaps one "Sacred War" at a time was enough. S t i l l , this explanation would not account for the fact that the sacrilege committed by the Arcadian League at Olympia in 364 also failed to provoke a tepoc Tco'Aeyos . From the discussion above, i t i s clear that neither category of test cases contains a war given the t i t l e of £epos ndAeyos i n a n t i q u i t y . Two other wars fought over the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi were labelled as "sacred wars" by modern scholars, probably as a res u l t of their close similarity to the so-called Third Sacred War. Conflicts over other sanctuaries, on the other hand, even those with elements common to the so-called "Sacred Wars," did not lead to the attribution of the term tepds Tto'Aeyos in any case. A l l the disputes which we have examined took place in the fourth 70 century B. C , one even at the same time as the so-called Third Sacred War, so one cannot argue that Greek religious s e n s i b i l i t i e s have undergone a change. It appears, however, that after the Phocian War Greek attitudes towards Delphi i t s e l f underwent a change. The exhaustive length of the war, protracted by the novel use of mercenaries, focused the attention of the Greek world upon the sanctuary at Delphi for ten long years. N a t u r a l l y enough, i n t e r e s t in former conflicts over Delphi was reawakened after this and the term i e p o s TtdXeyos was rediscovered in the text of Thucydides. Subsequently, of course, i t was unthinkable to apply the term to a c o n f l i c t which did not concern Delphi and thus neither the sacrilege of the Arcadian League nor the dispute over the Sacred Orgas was ever known by this t i t l e . 71 CONCLUSION In the preceding chapters, i t has been established that the term "Sacred War" was f i r s t used by Thucydides in the f i f t h century B. C. to refer to an essentially minor conflict 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 fifth-century c o n f l i c t . It f i n a l l y resurfaced in the fourth century B. C. -in reference to the so-called Third Sacred War, when i t was apparently applied exclusively by Callisthenes and the other writers of the historiographic genre. Two questions now remain to be answered. First of a l l , why does Thucydides give an essentially minor incident the d i g n i f i e d t i t l e of "Sacred War?" And secondly, why i s Callisthenes apparently the f i r s t historian in antiquity to d e r i v e t h i s term from Thucydides and apply i t to a contemporary conflict? In order to address the f i r s t of these questions, i t is necessary to recall the exact words of Thucydides in his brief d e s c r i p t i o n of the events of the f i f t h - c e n t u r y incident 72 (1.112.5): " o tepbs xaAotfyevos no'Xeyos . " This Thucydidean reference to the c o n f l i c t as "so-called" and the fact that Aristophanes alludes to i t as a tepbs no*Xeyos in Birds 556 suggest that this was the term current in contemporary usage. As we have seen, wars in ancient Greece were usually given i i • names by their contemporaries to f a c i l i t a t e future reference and this particular war was apparently known as the "Sacred War" in extant literature from Thucydides onwards. Thucydides' reference to the "Sacred War" as "so-called," however, deserves further attention. Not only does i t reveal that Thucydides himself was not the originator of the term but i t also implies a certain hint of disagreement concerning the ap p l i c a t i o n of such a t i t l e to this particular c o n f l i c t . Consequently, i t seems l i k e l y that Thucydides derived the term from the Spartan version of the incident. Raphael Sealey remarks (A History of the Greek C i t y - S t a t e s [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976], p. 291) in his account of the incident: "evidently that was the Spartan name for i t , " but unfortunately he does not shed any further light on the subject. Sealey*s thesis, however, is a lo g i c a l one in several respects. F i r s t of a l l , the instigators (in this case, the Spartans) of a war would benefit the most from a cloak spread over their actions such as this t i t l e , which seemingly bestows divine approval (another case in point would be the Crusades). Secondly, the Spartans were famous for using propaganda to 73 justify their campaigns. Sparta's expulsion of the tyrants in the sixth century was nominally j u s t i f i e d as the "liberation of Greece from tyranny," as was her l a t e r role in the Peloponnesian War. Thus, use of such propaganda by the Spartans was not unprecedented. Moreover, Spartan use of Delphi i t s e l f for propagandic purposes i s a t t e s t e d by Herodotus (for example, 1.67-68). Therefore, i t is probable that Thucydides used the term "Sacred War" to refer to the fifth-century c o n f l i c t because that was the Spartan name for i t . After the use of this term by Thucydides and Aristophanes in the f i f t h century, i t was not used again u n t i l Callisthenes re-introduced i t in the middle of the fourth century. This historian was apparently the f i r s t to give the t i t l e 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 War." Although the a t t r i b u t i o n of the t i t l e "Sacred War" to t h i s c o n f l i c t seems to have been a f e a t u r e of the historiographic genre, i t is l i k e l y that Callisthenes was the f i r s t to do so. First of a l l , as the writer of a Hellenica, Callisthenes was clearly following the Thucydidean approach to history and probably derived the t i t l e "Sacred War" from him. Secondly, he obviously had a keen in t e r e s t in the early history of Delphi, as his collaboration with Aristotle shows, as well as in the so-called "Sacred War," since he devoted an entire monograph to this subject. Thirdly, as nephew and 74 protege of A r i s t o t l e , Callisthenes would naturally have been inclined to favour the Macedonian version of the c o n f l i c t . Since Philip purported to be the champion of Apollo bestowing divine justice upon the sacrilegious Phocians, Callisthenes c l e a r l y condoned this Macedonian propaganda by giving the conflict the t i t l e of "Sacred War." The Athenian orators, on the other hand, as a l l i e s of Phocis and sworn enemies of Ph i l i p (especially Demosthenes), would be prohibited on two counts from following Callisthenes 1 example in c a l l i n g i t a "Sacred War." Finally, Callisthenes was deeply interested in Homeric saga. He, therefore, attempted to force an analogy between the Trojan War and the Crisaean War, the l a t t e r of which he treated i n his monograph "On the Sacred War." Tradition has i t that a l l three of these wars were ten years in duration, and this may have been the basis of Callisthenes' analogy. Nevertheless, C a l l i s t h e n e s e v i d e n t l y saw a s i m i l a r i t y between the Crisaean War and the Phocian War, thereby justifying the habit of modern scholars of referring to the former as the F i r s t Sacred War. In conclusion, although other writ e r s such as Xenophon and Theopompus followed in the Thucydidean tradition, the t i t l e "Sacred War" was apparently overlooked by them until Callisthenes had his own reasons to reapply i t . It seems, then, that the term "Sacred War" was not so much a concept in ancient Greece as originally a fifth-century ju s t i f i c a t i o n , which was picked up again as propaganda in the 75 fourth century by Ph i l i p II and partisans of his Macedonian cause. The ultimate triumph of Philip of Macedon marked the end of an era in Greek history and henceforth propaganda was no longer needed to the same extent. Therefore, the t i t l e "Sacred War" was never used again in reference to any conflict i n a n c i e n t Greece and modern s c h o l a r s i n f e r r e d from Callisthenes' analogy that the term was used exclusively when the conflict 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 is impossible to state with any certainty whether his reference to the Sacred War antedates or postdates that of Aristophanes. Even i f the main bulk of Book One was written before 414 B. C , he may have added the term t e p o s TidAeyos upon revision. Therefore, the reference to a uepbs TidAeyos in Aristophanes may be the f i r s t instance of this term in the corpus of extant Greek l i t e r a t u r e . But s i n c e Thucydides describes (albeit briefly) the actual events of the conflict, I have chosen to give him precedence. 2 Although Jacoby quotes most of this 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: LaxopeC Tiepu auxoO xal* 6ouxu6t6ns x a t 'Epaxoa$evns ev X W L § x a t 8edicoyn:os ev xSv, xe. 3 cf. SIG4 I 59. 4 Thucydides 1.107, Diodorus XI.79-80. 5 Thucydides 1.108.1-2. Diodorus, however, states 77 (XI.80.6) that the issue of the battle was in doubt ( oiu<pu6o£os) since both sides l a i d claim to the victory. 5 Thucydides 1.108.2. 7 Diodorus XI.81-83. 3 IG I 2 26, Tod 39. For an English translation, see C h a r l e s W. Fornara, A r c h a i c Times to the End of the  Peloponnesian War (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1977) #82. 9 IG I 2 26 , Tod 39, AW. Gomme, A Historical Commentary  on Thucydides (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1945) vol. 1: 337. 1 0 Benjamin D. Meritt, "Athens and the Amphictyonic League," American Journal of Philology 69 (1948): 312-314. Meritt followed this a r t i c l e with another of the same t i t l e in AJP 75 (1954): 369-73- with further revisions from the suggestions of Adolf Wilhelm. Meritt's reconstructions have won general acceptance: Russell Meiggs, The Athenian Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972) 418-20 and J. A. O. Larsen, Greek Federal States (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968) 125-26. 1 1 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 Diodorus (Tanagra-XI.80 and Oenophyta-XI.83.1). 1 4 Larsen 216. 78 1 5 H. W. Parke and D. E. W. Wormell, The Delphic Oracle (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1956) vol. 1: 185. 1 6 Meritt, AJP 69 (1948): 314, Gomme 337, Parke-Wormell 184-85> Meiggs 299, and Marta Sordi, "La Fondation du College des Naopes et le Renouveau Politique de 1'Amphictionie au IVe Siecle," BCH 81 (1957): 63. This i s the generally accepted date for the Phocian possession of Delphi, although we have no explicit evidence of a Phocian take-over from the Delphians. Nevertheless, i f the Phocians had seized c o n t r o l of the sanctuary from the Delphians before the period of Athenian influence in Central Greece, presumably the Spartans would have interfered, as they did in the case of Doris. 1 7 Thucydides 1.112.-5, Plutarch Pericles XXI.1-2, and Philochorus (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 Pericles XXI.2. 2 0 GG II 2: 213, Lionel Pearson, The Local Historians of  Attica (Philadelphia: The American Philological Association, 1942) 122-23, and ATL 178-79. 2 1 Gomme 337 and 409 , Paul Cloche, "La' P o l i t i q u e Exterieure d'Athenes de 454-453 a 446-5 avant J.-C," Les  Etudes Classiques 14 (1946): 23-25, Jacoby I l l b Supplement I 320, Meiggs 410, G. E. M. de Ste Croix, The Origins of the  Peloponnesian War (London: Gerald Duckworth and Company, 1972) 189 n. 72. Jacoby comments: "Consequently TPUTWO ETGL in the careless excerpt (which must not in i t s whole contents be ascribed to Philochorus) is incredible, whether ETGL be a mistake for pnvu or whether i t i s taken from Thucydides 1.112.1" 2 2 Gomme 409, Cloche 24. Jacoby (loc c i t ) thinks i t j possible that the Athenian reprisal may have fa l l e n in the following Attic year. Thus the Spartan expedition would take place in 449/8 and the Athenian in 448/7. 2 3 Meiggs 423 remarks: "one may well doubt whether he (Philochorus) thought the Athenians fought the Spartans in the second war." Furthermore, Jacoby (loc c i t ) points out that the reference to the Boeotians in F Gr Hist 328 F 34a may result from a confusion of Thucydides 1.112 with chapters 111 and 113. 2 4 The chronology of this war is disputed also and w i l l be discussed (briefly) in a later section 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 in his Pericles XII.l, in a section derived word for word from Demosthenes XVIII. 18: " TOO $UWLXOU TCOXE\IOU auvEaxaJTOs . " 2 6 F Gr Hist 124 T 1 and following, where Jacoby has grouped together most thoroughly the ancient testimonies to the l i f e of Callisthenes. A translation of these testimonies can be found in Charles Alexander Robinson Jr., A History of 80 Alexander the Great (Providence: Brown University Press, 1953) vol 1: 45 f f . 2 7 F Gr Hist 76 T 1. 2 8 Diogenes Laertius V.36. 29 * uepos TtdAeyos: E S T O V TtdAeyov T O V t epbv 6vouaa§EVTa ol 0ri$auoL xaTEOTrioav (Pausanias VIII.27.10) dvddnycx E O " T L 8n3ado)v, O T E $toX£uaLV EitoAEynoav T O V LEpdv xaAou*yevov TtdAEyov (X . 1 3 . 6 ) $ O J X L X O S TtdAsyos: E V Tip TtoAEyui Tip $cuxtxip (X.35.3) Both: uoTspov 6E xat T O V $ C O X L X O V TudAsyov, ovoya^dyEVov 6e und 'EAAnvwv i s p d v , auv£Xc5s 6sxa e r e a u v ETtoAeynoav (IX.6.4) eite'drixEV o $ L A U H T C O S Tcspas Tip TtoAdyij) $a)XLxip T E xa t iEpip xAn^EVTL 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 IX.3.8) E V Tip $aixLxip TtoAdyip (IX.4.11) 31 , , > o OEpos n o A E y o s : Diodorus XVI.14.3, 23.1 (twice), 38.6, 59.4, and 64.3. 6 $ O ) X L X 6 S TtdAsyos:Diodorus XVI.34.2 and 59.1 (6 Ttpds $o)xeus TtdAsyos in XVI.40.1) IX.2.2, 2.4, 3.11 ("Ecpopos 6', $ T O T U A E L O T O V Ttpoo"xpwy£$a Sua TT*|V T I E p t TaOTCt E T t t y E A E L O I V . . . ) and IX.4.7. 3 3 This is a section on the plundering ( a u A n a t s ) of the sanctuary. The p o s s i b l e sources for t h i s subject i n p a r t i c u l a r w i l l be discussed l a t e r i n my treatment of Diodorus. 3 4 N. G. L. Hammond has written a very perceptive a r t i c l e on t h i s subject: "The Sources of Diodorus Siculus XVI," Classical Quarterly 31 (1937): 79-91. 3 5 "The most obvious and I think the only candidate for Source 2, a monograph on the Sacred War with the 81 Phocian commanders as central theme, is Demophilus: for the other known monographers, Cephisodorus and Leon, are not mentioned in Diodorus and the complete lack of fragments suggests that they were not used by later authors." Hammond, CQ 31 (1937): 84. 36 Hammond, CQ 31 (1937): 84-85, Jacoby (ad loc) , GG I I I 2 : 25, G. L. Barber, The Historian Ephorus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935) 41, and Robert Drews, "Diodorus and His Sources," AJP 83 (1962): 389. 3 7 It should be noted, incidentally, that Callisthenes was one of the main sources of Ephorus, and thus Demophilus, for this period (F Gr Hist 124 T 33-35 and Barber 131-34). 3 8 Hammond, CQ 31 (1937): 90. 3 9 F Gr Hist 73 F 1-4—none of which deal directly with any of the events of the Sacred War. 4 0 Hammond (CQ 31 [19-37]: 84) remarks apropos of the use of Theopompus as a source: "Theopompus can be excluded for Graeco-Macedonian affairs because his work in fifty-eight books presented too heavy a task to a compiler such as Diodorus and because the numerous fragments we possess find no echo in Diodorus." F i r s t of a l l , this argument appears to do an injustice to Diodorus. Hammond believes, rightly enough, that the main source of Phi l i p ' s early career was Ephorus, whose history spanned thirty books. If Diodorus is capable of labouring through t h i r t y books of Ephorus, why not f i f t y - e i g h t of Theopompus? Moreover, 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 reflected in Diodorus is not a conclusive proof of his exclusion as a 82 source as this argument would apply to a l l the other sources mentioned by Diodorus. Ephorus is generally agreed to be the main source of Diodorus for Greek affairs in 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 historians such as Theopompus. 4 1 Hammond's dates. Chronology w i l l be discussed following the narrative of the war. 4 2 Diodorus (XVI.23.3) states that the reason for the fine was the cultivation of land sacred to Apollo. Pausanias (X.15.2) also mentions the c u l t i v a t i o n of sacred land, but states elsewhere (X.2.1) that he i s not sure whether the Phocians had committed a crime (the c u l t i v a t i o n of sacred land?) or whether the Thessalians had been at the root of the f i n e through th e i r longstanding hatred of the Phocians. Justin (VIII.1.6) says that the Thebans accused the Phocians of having l a i d waste to Boeotia (perhaps Justin is confusing this with the later raids made by the Phocians upon Boeotia during the war). Aristotle (Politics V.1304a) attributes the cause of the war to stasis arising from a dispute over the hand of an heiress. Duris of Samos (F Gr Hist 76 F 2) says that the war was in c i t e d as a result of the seizure of a Theban woman by a Phocian. 4 3 Diodorus XVI.23.2-4 and 28.2-4, and Justin VIII.1.4-6. From the juxtaposition of the Spartans and the Phocians in the accounts of Diodorus and Justin, i t appears that both charges were brought forward at the same time. 83 4 4 The arguments of Neil J. Hackett (The Third Sacred  War, diss., University of Cincinnati, 1970, 12-15) that the threat of Theban reprisals was levelled against the Phocians soon after the Battle of Leuctra are convincing. He concludes that the Phocian fine was fixed not long after the battle and, after the period alloted for payment had elapsed, threats of punishment by the Amphictyonic League began in 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 Battle 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 o r i g i n a l l y a religious organization centred around the sanctuary of Demeter at Anthela, near Thermopylae. Later, the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi also came under i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . The Amphictyonic League was composed of twelve tribes of northern and central Greece, each casting two equal votes at the biannual meetings convened at Thermopylae and concluded at Delphi (Strabo IX.3.7, Aeschines 11.115, Hypereides VI.118, and Harpocration s. v. nuAaL ) . The original composition of the Amphictyonic League is not c e r t a i n (incomplete membership l i s t s are found in Aeschines 11.116, Pausanias X.8.2, and Theopompus-Harpocration F Gr Hist 115 F 63). The earlies t complete l i s t surviving • 84 dates from 343 B. C. (SIG 230, Tod 172 A, Harding 88, and FD 14). It records as members of the Amphictyonic League the Thessalians, those from Philip (that king having received the two votes previously belonging to the Phocians--Pausanias X.3.3, Diodorus XVI.60.1, and Antipater of Magnesia, F Gr Hist 69 F 2), the Delphians (who probably received their votes in 346, obtaining one vote apiece from the Perrhaebians and the Dolopians—Tod 172 A and J. R. E l l i s , Philip II and Macedonian  Imperialism [London: Thames and Hudson, 1976] 121), the Dorians, the Ionians, the Perrhaebians-Dolopians, the Boeotians, the Locrians, the Achaeans, the Magnesians, the Aenianians, and the Malians. For further d e t a i l on the membership l i s t s , see also the tables in E l l i s 132-33 and SIG p. 314-15 and the i n s i g h t f u l a r t i c l e by Georges Daux, "Remarques sur la Composition du Conseil Amphictionique," BCH 81 (1957): 95-120. At the time of the beginning of the Sacred War, Thessaly along with her perioikoi controlled a clear majority of the twenty-four 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 four. 4 8 Herodotus VII 176 and VIII.27-31, Pausanias X.l, and Aeschines 11.140. 4 9 Diodorus XVI.23.2-4 and 29.4. 5 0 Diodorus XVI.23.4, J u s t i n VIII.1.8 and Pausanias 85 5 1 Diodorus XVI. 23. 4: iteptopav &'i xa^tepouuevnv xnv x p^av o u udvov avav6pov uitdpxetv, aXXa xat xdv6uvov lirLtpepexv xfj xffiv andvxwv xoO 3dou avaxpoitrj 5 2 Diodorus XVI.23.4-6, Pausanias X.2.2-3, and Justin VIII.1.8-9. 5 3 Diodorus XVI.23.6. Hackett (3-4 and 18-19) argues convincingly from the ancient evidence that a board of strategoi formed the basis of the Phocian federal government. When an emergency arose, one of the strategoi might be given d i c t a t o r i a l powers (strategos autokrator) for as long as the need was present. This was apparently the case in 356, when Philomelus was appointed to the p o s i t i o n of strategos a u t o k r a t o r . His s t a t u s , t h e r e f o r e , was e n t i r e l y constitutional and there i s no indication that he arose to power tyrannically. 5 4 Hackett (13) summarizes the long range factors of the Phocian decision as follows: "a deep-seated hatred for the Thessalians, a long standing claim to Delphi and the pre-eminence in the Amphictyonic Council, an ever growing opposition to Theban supremacy in central Greece, and the continuous pressure of Theban threats of vengeance after Mantinea." The immediate causes are, of course, the fine i t s e l f and the Amphictyonic threat of reprisal, should the fine not be paid off. 5 5 Diodorus XVI.27.5, Pausanias III.10.3, and Justin VIII.1.8-9. 5 6 Diodorus XVI.31.3-5, Pausanias X.2.4-5, and Justin VIII.1.13-14. 5 7 Diodorus XVI.14.2 and 35.1, and Polyaenus IV.2.19. 86 5 8 D i o d o r u s XVI.35.1-3. P o l y a e n u s ( I I . 3 8 . 2 ) s a y s : 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 TT IV eyBoAnv.' 5 9 D i o d o r u s X V I . 3 5 . 3 . A r i s t o t l e ( N i c o m a c h e a n E t h i c s I I I . v i i i . 9 ) and t h e s c h o l i a s t on t h i s passage (F Gr H i s t 115 F 94) use t h i s b a t t l e a t t h e Hermaion o f Coronea as an example of the c o w a r d i c e o f m e r c e n a r i e s as opposed t o t h e courage o f c i t i z e n s o l d i e r s . 5 0 On t h e s i t e o f t h i s b a t t l e , see E l l i s 82 and 290 n. 96 ( i n t h 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 f o r S t r a b o 9 C433), N. G. L. Hammond, A H i s t o r y o f Greece t o 322 B. C. ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1967) 543, and N. G. L. Hammond and G. T. G r i f f i t h , A H i s t o r y o f M a c e d o n i a ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1979) v o l 2: 274. 6 1 J u s t i n V I I I . 2 . 3 . J u s t i n t h e n a d d s ( V I I I . 2 . 4 ) : "Phocenses i n s i g n i b u s d e i c o n s p e c t i s c o n s c i e n t i a d e l i c t o r u m t e r r i t i a b i e c t i s a r m i s f u g a m c a p e s s u n t . " T h i s i s most u n l i k e l y as Onomarchus and 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 c e r t a i n l y not be a f f e c t e d i n so extreme a manner by such p a t e n t r e l i g i o u s p ropaganda. C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h i s charade was p r o b a b l y not d e s i g n e d as a s c a r e t a c t i c a g a i n s t the P h o c i a n s . G r i f f i t h ( H a m m o n d - G r i f f i t h 274-5) r a i s e s t h e i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n o f t o whom t h i s r e l i g i o u s propaganda was a d d r e s s e d . He remarks t h a t i t i s " h i g h l y i m p r o b a b l e " t h a t t h i s p l a y on r e l i g i o u s s e n s i b i l i t y was on b e h a l f o f t h e Greeks because: " a n e u t r a l , u n p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n o f o r d i n a r y p e o p l e who were 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 ' of the 87 Phocians probably did not exist. This is shown by the ease with which the Phocian generals could raise army after army of mercenaries, while their sacred money lasted." G r i f f i t h thinks i t much more l i k e l y that this whole charade was on behalf of the Macedonian soldiers, who were much less aware of che true facts of the war and needed reassurance after their previous defeats at the hands of the Phocians (Diodorus XVI.35.2). 6 2 Diodorus XVI.35.6. In XVI.61.2, Diodorus states that Onomarchus was slain in battle and then crucified. Pausanias (X.2.5) says that Onomarchus was cut down while fleeing to the sea by his own men, who blamed him for their defeat. At any rate, i t seems clear that Onomarchus was dead before Philip hung (or crucified) him as commander of the "sacrilegious" Phocian troops. 6 3 The question here, as G r i f f i t h (Hammond-Griffith 276-77) rightly points out, is whether T 0 " s aAAous refers to the six thousand corpses or the three thousand captives. G r i f f i t h comes to the logical conclusion that i t is the corpses which are being thrown into the sea. Not only would a mass drowning be highly impractical but no other examples are recorded anywhere. Moreover, the d e n i a l of b u r i a l r i t e s to the sacrilegious was much more effective propaganda. 6 4 Diodorus XVI.36.1 and Pausanias X.2.6. 6 5 Diodorus XVI.38.1-2, Justin VIII.2.8, and Demosthenes IV.17, XVIII.32, and XIX.84 and 319. 6 6 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 contributions for the war from various supporters (Tod 160 and Harding 76) between 354/3 and 352/1, the small sums from this source could not compete with the vast resources of the Phocians "borrowed" from the temple at Delphi. Therefore, Thebes was forced to appeal in 351 to Persia for further financial help (Diodorus XVI.60.1). By 347, Thebes had probably exhausted a l l help from this quarter and her growing desperation is shown by her request to Phil i p to send military aid (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 controlled the pass of Thermopylae, in return for military aid. 7 1 Aeschines 11.133 and Diodorus XVI.59. 7 2 G. L. Cawkwell ("Aeschines and the Peace of Philocrates," REG 73 [I960]: 413-438) proposes the logical t h e s i s that Phalaecus 1 return to power and subsequent h o s t i l i t y to Athens caused the beginning of Athenian negotiations with Philip for peace. 7 3 It seems li k e l y that Phalaecus had previously reached an agreement with Philip in secret, as his apparently arrogant 89 refusal of Athenian and Spartan aid i s otherwise hard to explain. As G r i f f i t h (Hammond-Griffith 334) rightly points out, Phalaecus 1 action is explicable by self-preservation. His army by this time was presumably running short of funds (cf G. L.. Cawkwell, P h i l i p of Macedon [London: Faber and Faber, 1978] 96) and, unable to procure additional resources, Phalaecus was already contemplating settlement with P h i l i p . Therefore, Phalaecus had to regain control of the pass for bargaining power. Sealey ("Proxenus and the Peace of Philocrates," Wiener Studien 68 [1955]: 147) and E l l i s (106 and 266 n. 67) also believe that Phalaecus had entered into negotiations with P h i l i p before regaining control of the Phocian government. Hackett (123 n. 34) and M. M. Markle ("The Strategy of Philip in 346 B. C.," Classical Quarterly N. S. 24 [1974]: 265), on the other hand, contend that Philip was "forced" to come to terms with Phalaecus only after his arrival at Thermopylae. 7 4 Diodorus XVI.59, Aeschines 11.132-35. J u s t i n VIII.5.1-5 must be taken with a grain of salt. 7 5 Diodorus XVI.60.2. In 56.6, Diodorus estimates the total sum of the pillaged treasures at over 10,000 talents. Parke (Parke-Wormell 230), supported by Hackett (114-15), suggests that Diodorus derives this figure from an estimate taken by the Amphictyonic League. A series of inscriptions recording the Phocian fine have been found at Delphi and at Elatea (SIG 230-35). From this 90 inscriptional evidence, i t is clear that no payments were made until 343 B. C. By the eleventh payment, in the archonship of Demochares, the amount had been reduced to ten talents a year. The payments appear to have ceased altogether around 322, by which point less than five hundred talents had been repaid ( E l l i s 123, Tod 172, FD p. 63-64, Harding 88). 7 6 Diodorus XVI.60, Pausanias X.2.2-3, and Antipater of Magnesia F Gr Hist 69 F 2. 7 7 Paul Cloche, Etude Chronologique sur l a Troisieme Guerre Sacree (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1915). Facing page 106, Cloche has i n c l u d e d a handy t a b l e of the "systemes if chronologiques of his predecessors in contrast with his own. GG I I I 2 : 262-277, Paul Cloche, "La Chronologie de l a Troisieme Guerre Sacree Jusqu 1 en 352 avant J.-C," Les Etudes  Classiques 8 (1939): 161-204, Robert Drews, "Diodorus and his Sources," American Journal of Philology (1961): 390 n.25 and 391 n. 27, and Raphael Sealey, A History of the Greek City  States (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976) 463-468. 7 8 N. G. L. Hammond, "Diodorus' Narrative of the Sacred War and the Chronological Problems of 357-352 B. C," JHS 57 (1937): 44-78, E l l i s 73-75, and G r i f f i t h (Hammond-Griffith) 227-29. Hackett (127) does not believe there is sufficient evidence to resolve the problem, although he does favour Hammond's chronology. 7 9 Hammond, JHS 57 (1937): 44-78. 91 8 0 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 is 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 lines that during that interval i t was not possible to muster a m a j o r i t y . i n favour of d e c l a r i n g war, because the  Thessalian voting power was not united." Hackett (33 n. 36) accounts for the delay by suggesting that the Phocians "were not believed to be a serious or permanent menace in Delphi u n t i l the two Locrian attacks (24.4;28.3) had failed, and Philomelus had further strengthened his hold on Delphi by recruiting additional troops (25.1;28.1) . " 8 1 The two "Sacred Wars" mentioned by the scholiast are clearly the two campaigns of the fifth-century conflict, and not the so-called Second and Third Sacred Wars. In fact, the scholiast does not seem to be aware of the fourth-century war at a l l , although Theopompus' discussion of i t in Book Twenty of his Hellenica contained a digression on the fifth-century incident. 8 2 Isocrates V.54-55 and Justin VIII.1.10. Xenophon Poroi 5.9 hints that the Thebans themselves were prepared to seize control of the sanctuary, should the Phocians abandon i t . 8 3 cf G. L. Cawkwell, Philip of Macedon 64-66. 8 4 Theopompus (F Gr Hist 115 F 247-9), Ephorus-Demophilus (F Gr Hist 70 F 95) and Phylarchus (derived from Duris of Samos?) (F Gr Hist 81 F 70). 8 5 Pausanias III.10.5 and X.2.4-7 and Diodorus XVI.56.8, 58.5-6 and 61-64. 8 6 Athens had borrowed over 4800 talents from Athena and 92 the Other Gods between 433 and 426 at a rate of i n t e r e s t at s l i g h t l y over one and o n e - f i f t h percent per annum (Ru s s e l l Meiggs and David Lewis, A S e l e c t i o n of Greek H i s t o r i c a l  Inscriptions [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969]: #72, ATL 326-45, Gomme v o l . 2: 432-436 and v o l 3 : 687-89 ). Athens, however, had s u b s t a n t i a l resources and a network of t r i b u t e -paying a l l i e s to provide the means of paying o f f these loans. Phocis, on the other hand, with i t s l i m i t e d resources, had no hope of paying o f f the sum of over 10,000 talents which i t had "borrowed" from the temple at Delphi. 8 7 Diodorus XVI. 56 (cf, Herodotus 1.50-51). 8 8 I t i s not s t a t e d i n Thucydides whether or not the Amphictyonic League was involved i n the f i f t h - c e n t u r y dispute. It may, however, because of i t s a l l i a n c e with Athens, have closed i t s eyes to the whole a f f a i r . 8 9 Noel Robertson ( "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 n. 3) i s the only scholar (whom I have read) to p o i n t out the f a c t that the "numbered s e r i e s of Sacred Wars" are modern labels and that the term uepos TtdAsyos was a p p l i e d only to the s o - c a l l e d Second and Third Sacred Wars by the ancient sources. 9 0 This i s the opinion of Charles Burton Gulick (editor of the Loeb e d i t i o n of Athenaeus, ad l o c ) . 9 1 KaAAta^EvriS be T T } V T W V 'EAAnvLxaJv itporfydxiov uaxopdav YsypacpEV ev B U B A O L S 6sxa x a l xaxsaxpocpsv sus TT\V xaxdAn.<Rv xou uEpoO xat uapavoydav <JtAoyriAou xou $ O J K E U ) S ^ ^ ^ . ^ ^ 93 9 2 Cicero obviously derives the t i t l e of "Phocicum bellum" from the " 0 ^ H ^ O S ndXeyos " °f Demosthenes and the Athenian orators. 9 3 This is the opinion of Beloch GG III 2: 25-26f Jacoby (ad loc) and C. L. Sherman (editor of the Loeb volume of Diodorus, ad loc) , and A. B. Bosworth, " A r i s t o t l e and Callisthenes," Historia 19 (1970): 409. 9 4 A. B. Drachmann, Scholia Vetera in Pindari Carmina (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1964) vol 3: 149. 9 5 Strabo (XIV.2.16) and Plutarch (Moralia 604 F) are apparently attempting to reconcile the two traditions (cf W. W. How and J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964] vol 1: 53]. Many thanks to Dr. J. A. S. Evans also for an interesting discussion on this point. 9 6 Classical Quarterly 28 N. S. (1978): 54 n. 2. 9 7 U l r i c h von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Aristoteles und  Athen (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1893) vol 1: 18 n. 27. 9 8 Drachmann is supported in this conclusion by Marta Sordi, "La Prima Guerra Sacra," Rivi s t a di F i l o l o g i a e di  Instruzione Classica 31 (1953): 338 and by Parke (Parke-Wormell 105) who believes that Menaechmus was motivated by patriotism to exaggerate Cleisthenes 1 role in the war. 9 9 Jacoby (ad loc). This conclusion is probably correct as Menaechmus is known to have written a history of Alexander (F Gr Hist 131 T 1). The only evidence to the contrary is the 94 entry in Hesychius (F Gr Hist 131 T 3) which implies that Menaechmus is earlier than Aristotle: " nuduovrTxas Bu$Au'ov a , EV $ Me'vau Xyov Evu'xnoev ... Robertson CQ 28 N. S. ( 1978): 56 n.3 dismisses i t as "merely the inference of some Alexandrian scholar faced with two concurrent works. Alternatively we may postulate two Menaechmi (!) or even several." 1 0 0 This suggestion is made by Sordi, RFIC (1953): 339. 1 0 1 Ephorus? Strabo obviously places great f a i t h in Ephorus (esp. IX.3.11) and uses him as an authority throughout this chapter. 1 0 2 This point is made by Robertson CQ 28 N. S. (1978): 51. 1 0 3 Aristotle alone is named as author of this register by Plutarch (Solon XI.1), Diogenes Laertius (V.26), and Hesychius (F Gr Hist 131 T 3). An inscription at Delphi, however, honours Aristotle and Callisthenes as joint authors of a victor's l i s t (SIG 275, Tod 187, Harding 104). Robertson (CQ 28 N. S. [1978]: 55) following Jacoby (ad loc) suggests 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 is natural that in later memory the greater name should have ousted the lesser. And, indeed, i f the younger and obscurer man originally received equal credit, we must suspect that the labour was chiefly his." A. B. Bosworth (Historia 19 [1970]: 409) remarks, on the other hand, that the text of the avaypacpn could not possibly have been completed before Callisthenes departed to join 95 Alexander on campaign i n A s i a . Therefore, he suggests that C a l l i s t h e n e s was o r i g i n a l l y commissioned to compose the avaypacpn but was forced to leave A r i s t o t l e to complete the work while he was absent. This theory would also explain the absence of Cal l i s t h e n e s ' name in the l i t e r a r y record. 1 0 4 The t a b l e had been i n s c r i b e d at D e l p h i by the archonship of Caphis (SIG 252 and FD 58, l i n e 42), which was o r i g i n a l l y dated to the year 331/0 but has been redated to the y e a r 327/6 by P. de l a C o s t e - M e s s e l i e r e , " L i s t e s Amphictioniques du IV e S i e c l e , " BCH 73 (1949): 229 f. The date of the i n s c r i p t i o n adds f u r t h e r weight to Boswell's theory that A r i s t o t l e was l e f t to complete the commission a f t e r Callisthenes departure for Asia i n 334. 1 0 5 Plutarch (Solon XI. 1) says: T t e u a ^ e ' v T e s yap u i c ' e x e L v o u itpos x6v TtdAeyov (Lpyn^naav O L ' A u c p L X T U o v e s , As aAAoL xe uapxupoCaL xat- ' A p L a x o x e A n s iv xfj xuiv IIudLOVLxQv a vaypa tp f i EdAwvL xr\v yvwynv a v a x L d e L c . 1 0 6 Robertson, following Wilamowitz and Jacoby, CQ 28 N. S. (1978): 55 n.5. 107 T h e S C h o l i a s t to Hypothesis b quotes three hexameter l i n e s from Euphorion: oitAoxepou x"Ax^f\oz a x o d o y e v E U P U A O ' X O L O , AeAcpLbes $ uito xaAbv ' i n l ' o v avxLftdnaav -<KpCaav> i r o p S n a a v x L , AuxojpEos OLxda $ O L 3 O U . The s c h o l i a s t to Hypothesis d says: xou, O X L EupuAoxog 6 0eaaaAoc. xoug KLppaiToug e n d p d n a e , yapxupeL xat, EucpopLajv* oTtAoxe'pou x ' ' A x L A f j o s axouoyev E u p u A d x o L O . 1 0 8 Sordi, RFIC 31 (1953). 1 0 9 For bibliography, see Robertson, CQ 28 N. S. (1978): 68 n. 1. See a l s o P i e r r e G u i l l o n , Le B o u c l i e r d'Heracles 96 (Aix-en-Provence: Publication des Annales de la Faculte des Lettres, 1963) 56 n. 68. 1 1 0 H. w. Parke (and John Boardman), "The Struggle for the Tripod and the First Sacred War," JHS 77 (1957): 277 n. 4 and Robertson CQ 28 N. S. (1978 ): 68 n. 1 ( f o l l o w i n g Wilamowitz). 1 1 1 Strabo 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 scholia 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 inclined to be distorted either by an effort to force the First Sacred War into parallelism with later wars of the same name, or to g l o r i f y p a r t i c u l a r states or i n d i v i d u a l s by exaggerating their share in championing Apollo." 1 1 3 This is apparently an insoluble problem as the two names are used almost i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y in the ancient testimonies. This has led to mass confusion in scholars from the H e l l e n i s t i c period onwards. There are three current modern theories concerning the nomenclature of the c i t y involved in the Crisaean War. One school of thought, following the example of Strabo (IX.3.1), distinguishes between the two c i t i e s of Crisa and Cirrha (George Grote, History of Greece [New York: Peter Fenelon C o l l i e r , 1899) vol 4: 60 n. 1, and Parke [Parke-Wormell 99-100 and Parke-Boardman 276]). According to this 97 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , the c i t y of C r i s a was located on Mount Parnassus near Delphi and had extended it s influence over the p l a i n c a l l e d both the Crisaean and the Cirrhaean in our sources down to the Corinthian Gulf, which at that time was named a f t e r that c i t y as a testament to i t s importance (Thucydides s t i l l c a l l s the Corinthian Gulf the Crisaean Gulf-1.107.3,11.69.1,83.1,86.3, 92.6, 93.1, and IV.76.3). This was the city destroyed by the Amphictyonic League in the Crisaean War. Cirrha, on the other hand, was the port of Delphi which was eventually destroyed in the War over Amphissa. The second modern theory concerning the nomenclature of this c i t y follows the French excavation of the area. The latest in a series of reports on the excavations is a book by Leopold Dor, Jean Jan-no ray, Henri and M i c h e l i n e van Effenterre, Kirrha: Etude de l a Prehistoire Phocidienne (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1960). Jean Defradas, Themes de la  Propagande Delphique (Paris: Librarie C. Klincksieck, 1954) 21 n. 1 contains a complete bibliography of earlier a r t i c l e s . Although these excavations proved that the site on Parnassus o r i g i n a l l y thought to be that of the sixth-century c i t y of Crisa had not been inhabited since the Mycenaean period, they were not successful in finding the remains of the archaic c i t y . From these results arose a distinction between Crisa, the Mycenaean city on the slopes of Mount Parnassus mentioned by Homer (I l i a d 11.520) and Cirrha, the archaic city on the coast which was destroyed by the Amphictyonic League after the 98 Crisaean War. This archaeological theory has been accepted by Sordi (RFIC 31 [1953]: 320), Defradas (21), and George Forrest ( "The First Sacred War," BCH 80 [1956]: 330). This theory is hampered, however, by the lack of success in finding the "real" site of the archaic ci t y . j I The t h i r d modern theory i s that the names Crisa and Cirrha are both used to refer to the same place (H. T. Wade-Gery, "Kynaithos," Essays in Greek History [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958) 23 n. 1 and Noel Robertson CQ 28 N. S. [1978]: 41-48). According to this theory, Crisa was the name of the archaic harbour c i t y , 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 original name of Crisa 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 in our sources and of identifying the source of the d i f f i c u l t y as later attempts to distinguish between Crisa and Cirrha as two separate c i t i e s . For convenience, I w i l l refer to the archaic c i t y involved in the Crisaean War as Crisa and the harbour town in the War over Amphissa as Cirrha. 1 1 4 Aeschines III. 1.07, Plutarch Solon XI. 1, and Diodorus IX.16. Pausanias X.37.5 adds that in addition to their other acts of aoiQeta. , they even went so far as to appropriate (dnoxeyvw) some of the god's land. Pausanias is 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 d. 1 1 7 Aeschines III. 108 paraphrases this oracle: xat a u t o e s aveupeU f| Iludua itoAeyeiv Kuppatous xat KpayaAuSai'S ndvx' fiyara nat Tidaas vu*xxac, xai xrtv x^P a v ctuxwv exnopSnaavTES xat auxouc. av6paito6baaye'vouc. avaSeUvaL xfj) 'AitdAAojvi- xtp Iludtw x a t xfj 'Apxeyo6u xau xfj ArixoC xat ' A%r\vcj. Ilpovaua ent itdarj aepyua, xa t xauxnv xr>v Xcljpav ynx'auxouc. epydr;ea%ai yrtx'aAAbv lav. Aeschines i s apparently familiar with the record of this oracle kept at Delphi in his own day. Plutarch (Moralia 76e) mentions the f i r s t lines of this oracle, which he presumably derived either from the record at Delphi or from the text of Aeschines. 1 1 8 Plutarch (Solon XI. 1—using the avaypacpn of Aristotle and Callisthenes as hi's source) and Aeschines (III. 108) state that Solon 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, As XeyeLv cpnatv "Epybitnos Euav§n xov EdyLov" ouxe ydp Auax^vriS 6 pnxwp xoOx' etprixev, ev xe xoCs . AeAcpwv uitoyvriyaauv 'AAxyauwv, ou ZdAwv, 'A^nvatwv axpaxnyoc. avayeypanxau. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Alcmaeonidae were 100 almost certainly in exile at this time. George Forrest (BCH 80 [1956]: 50-51) circumvents this problem by comparing Alcmaeon with Alcibiades, "another great Athenian who became commander of his country's forces while s t i l l in exile and won his r e c a l l by his successes in command." P. J. Rhodes (A Commentary on the A r i s t o t e l i a n Athenaion Politeia [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981] 81) agrees that "Alcmaeon's command may have preceded the return of the Alcmaeonids to Athens." Despite the curse and exile, we must keep in mind that this t r a d i t i o n that Alcmaeon was commander of the Athenian contingent o r i g i n a t e s from Delphi, which was notoriously favourable to the Alcmaeonidae, and not Athens. 1 1 9 Scholiast to Pindar's Nemean IX, Pausanias II.9.6 ( auuTtoAeurTaas 'AycpLXT\5oau - ) and X.37.6 ( r i y e y ^ v )r Frontinus III.7.6, and Polyaenus III.5. 120 [Thessalus] (Littre IX, 412), Hypothesis Olympiorum, Hypotheses Pythiorum b and d, Strabo IX.3.4 and 3.10. 1 2 1 Parke (Parke-Wormell 105) and Robertson CQ 28 N. S (1978): 67. Sordi (323) attributes the tradition of Alcmaeon as general of the Athenian contingent to the influence of the Alcmaeonidae at Delphi at the end of the si x t h century (Herodotus V.62-63). N. G. L. Hammond, "The Seisachtheia and the Nomothesia of Solon," JHS 60 (1940): 82 and Forrest BCH 80 (1956): 41-2 and 49-50 accept this tradition. 1 2 2 Parke (Parke-Wormell 105). He adds that this version "appears to have no motive in local bias." 1 2 3 Sordi 342. 101 1 2 4 P. N. Ure, The Origin of Tyranny (New York: Russell and Russell, 1922) 259-60, Malcolm F. McGregor, "Cleisthenes of Sicyon," Transactions and Proceedings of the American  Philological Association 72 (1941): 283, and Sordi 341. 1 2 5 The scholiast to Nemean IX t e l l s us that Cleisthenes and his fleet blockaded the Crisaeans in the Corinthian Gulf. 1 2 6 Scholiast to Nemean IX. 1 2 7 Aeschines III.109, [Thessalus] (Littre IX 406). 1 2 8 Parian Marble (F Gr Hist 239 A 36), Hypotheses  Pythiorum b and d. For the most thorough account of the chronology, see the a r t i c l e by T. J. Cadoux, "The Athenian archons from Creon to Hypsichides," JHS 68 (1948): 99-101, where the archonship of Simon is dated f a i r l y conclusively to 591/0 B. C. Pausanias (X.7.4) is the only evidence to the contrary, as he dates the dywv xpnuonri/ms t o 5 8 6 B < c > 1 2 9 [Thessalus] (Littre IX 408), Hypotheses Pythiorum b and d. 1 3 0 Pausanias X.37.6 attributes this stratagem to Solon, Polyaenus VI.13 to E u r y l o c h u s , F r o n t i n u s III.7.6 to Cleisthenes, and [Thessalus] (Li t t r e IX 412) to Nebrus, an Asclepiad from Cos. 1 3 1 Pausanias X.37.6 and Diodorus IX.16. A spurious version of this oracle has also been inserted in Aeschines (III.112) . 1 3 2 Pausanias (X.37.6) attributes this trick to Solon and Polyaenus (III. 5) to Cleisthenes. 102 1 3 3 Hypotheses Pythiorum b and d. 1 3 4 Parian Marble (F Gr Hist 239 A 38), Hypotheses  Pythiorum b and d, Strabo IX.3.10, and Pausanias X.7.5. Pausanias (X.7.6) says that Cleisthenes of Sicyon was the winner of the chariot-race, which was added in this year to the o f f i c i a l programme of the games. 1 3 5 George For r e s t , "The F i r s t Sacred War," BCH 80 (1956): 33-52. 1 3 6 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. in the same breath and in the same terms: III. 221: Ta ue\ y°P Ttept xous 'Aycpuaaeas nae3nyeya aot xaL xa HE pi, xr^ v Eugotav 6wpo6oxn§evxa,. . . III. 237: Tac yev yap TtepC xous ' Aycpuaaeas xat xous Eu3oeas 6a)po6oxLas icapaAeunoj* 1 4 1 Demosthenes XVIII. 1: Ou yrfv aXA'sirst "JdAuinros und xfis nepu xflv "Aycptaaav euxuxdas ercaupdyevos ziz xflv 'EAdxeuav e^ atcprivs eveiteae xat, xrlv $uxd6a xaxeaxev. Plutarch may have derived the general method of reference (although not the exact words) to the c o n f l i c t from Demosthenes and Aeschines or else from Marsyas (F Gr Hist 135-36 F 20) or Theopompus (F Gr Hist 115 F 328), both of whom he 103 mentions later in this section (Demosthenes XVIII.2-3). 1 4 2 Demosthenes XVIII.150 and Strabo IX.3.4. Aeschines (III.113 and 119) also alleges that the Amphissans had rebuilt the ancient port of Crisa (now Cirrha) and were coll e c t i n g harbour dues (xeAn ) from v i s i t o r s . 1 4 3 Aeschines III.108, [Thessalus] ( L i t t r e IX 412), Polyaenus III.4-5, and Pausanias X.37.6. 1 4 4 The fact that Isocrates refers to this land as TO KpuaaCov ite*6uov adds further support to the theory (propounded in note 113) that a previous tradition of a city called Crisa existed, which was confused in the fourth century with the contemporary site of Cirrha. 1 4 5 The chronology of this c o n f l i c t has also been the subject of dispute. Aeschines (III.115) dates this meeting to the archonship of Theophrastus (340/39) so i t follows that the Pylaea in question took place either in the autumn of 340 B. C. or the spring of 339 B. C. I follow the chronology of G r i f f i t h (Hammond-Griffith 717-719) in dating this meeting to the autumn of 340 B. C. A case has been made, however, for the spring of 339 B. C. ( E l l i s 290 n. 31 for bibliographical references). 1 4 6 Aeschines III.115 and SIG 243 D. 1 4 7 Aeschines III. 115 and Demosthenes XVIII. 149. 1 4 8 Aeschines III.116 and Demosthenes XVIII.150 (who denies the existence of any such suit contemplated against Athens). 104 1 4 9 Aeschines III. 115-116 and Demosthenes XVIII. 149. 1 5 0 Demosthenes (XVIII.149) describes his audience as " dvSpojTtous omeupous Adyarv x a l xb ueAAov ou Tcpoopuiyevoug." 1 5 1 Aeschines III..122 and Demosthenes XVIII.150. The o f f i c i a l survey •( itepuoSos ) mentioned by Demosthenes (XVIII.150 and 151) i s presumably that which the Amphictyonic law of 380/79 (IG I I 2 1126, SIG 145 l i n e s 15-21) i n s t r u c t s the hieromnemones to carry out i f anyone i s discovered by the Amphictyons to be cultivating the sacred land. 1 5 2 Aeschines III.123 and Demosthenes XVIII.151. 1 5 3 Aeschines III.125-28 and the scholium to Aeschines III.128. 1 5 4 Cottyphus and his compatriot Colosimmus served as hieromnemones for an unusually long period of time, from autumn 346 (SIG 244) until autumn 339 (SIG 249) or autumn 337 (P. de la 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 III. 129 and Demosthenes XVIII.152. 158 Aeschines III.140, Demosthenes XVIII.153, Philochorus (F Gr Hist 328 F 56), Plutarch Demosthenes XVIII.1), and Diodorus XVI.84.2. Demosthenes describes the reaction in Athens to t h i s news i n 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 fighting ended after four years with the Cirrhaeans defeated: thus were the Phocians defeated 105 afte r four years of war i n the Battle of the Crocus F i e l d , and the Third Sacred War would have ended then had P h i l i p not been checked at Thermopylae. For six years more the Cirrhaeans kept up a g u e r i l l a resistance on Mount C i r p h i s : thus did the Phocians, f a l l i n g back on their mountains, prolong the Third Sacred War for six years more. This analogy, however, seems an extremely laborious attempt to draw a p a r a l l e l ! 160 r p^g fragments of Cal l i s t h e n e s and Duris both appear i n an extremely c h a u v i n i s t i c passage of Athenaeus (XIII 560) in which he attempts to demonstrate " STL xal OL, yeyLOTOL. ito'AeyoL 6t& yuvaCxas E y s v E T O . " 1 6 1 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 Hypothesis Qlympiorum, Hypotheses Pythiorum a, b, and d. 1 6 6 Aeschines III.113 and 119, Strabo IX.3.4. 1 6 7 Forrest 44 and Parke (Parke-Wormell 103). 1 6 8 Noel Robertson, "The Myth of the F i r s t Sacred War," CQ 28 N. S. (1978): 38-73. 1 6 9 Robertson, however, overlooks the c r u c i a l passage i n Isocrates' P l a t a i c u s , which indicates a t r a d i t i o n of t h i s war preceding the fourth century. 1 7 0 Robertson (51) considers the s i l e n c e of Thucydides i n 106 particular as conclusive: "The tradition of the Sacred War and i t s modern exponents makes Thucydides a l i a r or a fool." Nevertheless, th i s i s not a v a l i d argument because both Herodotus and Thucydides leave out many details which they consider irrelevant to their topics. 1 7 1 Demosthenes (XVIII.149) accuses Aeschines of" xat Adyous eunpoaiikous xau y u d o u s , odev f| Ktppada x^pa xa§Lepaj§n, auv^elg xat 6LC£;EA$WV # " w e must take Demosthenes' criticism with a grain of salt, however, as he is anxious to discredit Aeschines at any cost. F Gr Hist 69 T 2: eiteu6rf 6e xat itepi, xcov 'AycpLxxuovLxSv Ttpayyaxaiv SfjAos zZ aitoudd^oav, eBouArv&nv a o i tppdaaL yu$ov Ttapd* ' AvxLirdxpo'Uj xdva xpdrcov icpffixov OL ' AycpLxxuovec a u v d a x n a a v , xaC Tiuis ovxes 'AycpLxxuoves $AeyuaL yev uitb 'ATIOAAWVOS, Apdovxes 6e uito 'HpaxAeoug, KpLaaLOL 6e uito xffiv 'AycpLXxudvuv avrtLpdSnaav. OSXOL yap i tdvxes 'AycpLxxuovec 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 yexeaxov, 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 Ttapa xtov 'AytpLxxudvwv xas 6uo $wxewv c^ncpous. 1 7 3 Robertson 39 and 73. 1 7 4 Gustav Adolf Lehmann ("Der Erste Heilige Krieg—Eine Fiktion?" Historia 29 [1980]: 242-46) provides a brief reply to Robertson's a r t i c l e . Lehmann points out that (1) Robertson is arguing from a strained argumentum ex silentio and (2) he has overlooked the c r i t i c a l passage in Isocrates (Plataicus 31), which speaks of the Crisaean War in terms of a concrete example. 1 7 5 Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.12 and Diodorus XV.77. For the chronology, see S. Dusanic, The Arcadian League of the  Fourth Century (Belgrade: 1970) 302 n. 100. 107 1 7 6 Xenophon, Hellenica VI.5.1-3. See T. T. B. Ryder, Kione Eirene (London: Oxford University Press, 1965) 71-73 and Appendix IV. As a result of this disagreement over the autonomy clause, E l i s was the only city present to refuse to sign the treaty (Xenophon, Hellenica VI.5.3). 1 7 7 Xenophon, Hellenica III. 2. 30. 1 7 8 Xenophon, Hellenica VII.1.26: " xous 6e TputpuU'ous HOU xous dXXovz xous *no acptov (the Eleans) aitoaxdvxas nepu icavxos itotouvievous." James Roy ("Arcadia and Boeotia in Peloponnesian A f f a i r s , " Historia 20 [1971]: 583) suggests that Triphylia had joined the League before the Theban embassy to Persia of 367, as the Arcadian ambassador was a Triphylian (Xenophon, Hellenica VII.1.33, Pausanias VI.3.9). Lasion was also c e r t a i n l y a member of the Arcadian League when i t was seized by the Eleans in 365, as we know from the testimony of Xenophon (Hellenica VII.4.12) and Diodorus (XV.77.1-2). Diodorus, however, confuses Lasion and Triphylia throughout this passage. 1 7 9 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, Hellenica VII.1.39) and the other unsatisfied Greek c i t i e s (Xenophon, Hellenica VII.1.40) rejected the Persian proposal outright at the peace congress at Thebes (contra Diodorus XV.76.3 who appears to imply that a common peace was successfully concluded at this point). In support of Xenophon 1s account are Ryder 137-39 and John 108 Buckler, The Theban Hegemony (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980) 151-60. 180 F o r f u r t h e r information about the d i p l o m a t i c situation in the Peloponnese during the troubled 360's, see the clear and concise accounts of James Roy, H i s t o r i a 20 (1971): Appendix II 594-99 and Dusanic 300-301. 1 8 1 The Boeotian contingent included the Eleans, Argives, and Arcadians. This group' was apparently on good terms already by 370 (Xenophon, Hellenica VI.19 and 23) and Thebes joined the Arcadia-Argos-Elis coalition in a formal alliance in 369 after the r e f u s a l of Athens (Xenophon, Helle n i c a VII.1.18, Diodorus XV.62.3, and Demosthenes XVI.12 and 19). 1 8 2 The Spartan contingent included Athens, Corinth,and most of the northern Peloponnesian states (Xenophon, Hellenica VI.5.29 and VII.1.1). 1 8 3 Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.28 and Diodorus XV.78.3. The fourth-century Pisatan claims are also r e f l e c t e d in Xenophon, Hellenica III.2. 30. Apparently, the Eleans were the founders and o r i g i n a l hosts of the Olympic Games (Pausanias V.4.5-6 and 9.4 and Strabo VIII.3.30), having gained control of the territory of their neighbours the Pisatans (a rural people). The Pisatans, however, resented their subjection to the more powerful Eleans and, with the help of Pheidon of Argos, managed to seize control of the sanctuary in 668 B. C. (Herodotus VI.127 and Pausanias VI.22.2). Varying accounts of other interludes of 109 Pisatan control are given by later sources (Pausanias VI.22.2-3, Strabo VIII.3.30, and Eusebius 1.198), but Elean might always prevailed in the end. 1 8 4 This brief period of Pisatan independence is evident not only from i t s coinage (Barclay V. Head, Historia Numorum [Chicago: Argonaut Inc., 1967] 426) and a Pisatan proxeny decree (SIG 170) but also from a formal alliance with Arcadia (Diodorus XV.78.2, SEG XXII. 339a). Moreover, Dus'anic's re-i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ("Arkadika," Mitteilungen des Deutschen  Archaologischen Instituts Athenische Abteilung 94 [1979]: 117-118) of SEG XXII.339 has shown, quite convincingly, that the two fragments belong to two different s t e l a i : a Pisatan alliance with Argos and a separate alliance with Messenia and Sicyon. 1 8 5 Pausanias (VI.4.2) mentions Sostratus of Sicyon as victorious for the f i r s t time at this festival in the T tayHpaTuov (cf J. G. Frazer, Pausanias' Description of Greece [New York: B i b l i o and Tannen, 1965] 10). Pausanias also mentions (VI.8.3) a certain Eubotas of Cyrene as victorious in the chariot-race in the same f e s t i v a l . Diodorus (XV.78.1) and Eusebius (1.206) name Phocides, an Athenian, as winner of the stadion. 1 8 6 Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.29, Diodorus XV.78.2-3 (Diodorus reverses the roles of the Arcadians and the Eleans). Pausanias (V.10.1) derives the name (Altis ) given to the sacred precinct from aXaos, on the authority of Pindar (X.45). 110 1 8 7 According to Xenophon (Hellenica VI1.4.29), two thousand Argive h o p l i t e s and, s u r p r i s i n g l y enough, four hundred Athenian horsemen were present in support 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. 1 8 9 Diodorus XV. 78.3: " K a u TTTV oAuyitudSa xauxnv oaxepov oux dveypacpav 'HACUOL Sua TO 6oxeuv 3da xau d6uxus SuaxeSfivaL,." Pausanias VI. 4.2, 8.3 ( *CB6nAos ) and 22.3 ( dvoAuynuds j . 1 9 0 Pausanias (V.9.5) records that the number of Elean phylai was reduced from twelve to eight in the hundred and fourth Olympiad as a result of the t e r r i t o r y lost to the Arcadians. 1 9 1 J. Roy, Historia 20 (1971): 384. 1 9 2 Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.33. Diodorus XV.82 (after a minor doublet consisting of a recapitulation of the joint Arcadian-Pisatan management of the Olympic Games) places this episode in the year 363/2. Neither Xenophon nor Diodorus states s p e c i f i c a l l y how long the Arcadians had been mis-appropriating funds, but they both imply that this had been going on for some time. Moreover, gold coins bearing the name of Pisa were struck from the plundered treasures (Head 420) and the record of reparations due from the Arcadian League (IG IV 616) of which the t o t a l has been estimated at 20,000 Aeginetan staters (Fraenkel apud Dusanic 334 n. 32) contribute I l l to the impression that the sacrilege was no small one. 1 9 3 Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.3 and Diodorus XV.82.1-2 (Diodorus completely reverses the role of Mantinea in this dispute). 1 9 4 Most scholars interpret this statement of Xenophon (Hellenica VII.4.33) to mean that the Mantineans raised their own contribution towards the pay of the Eparitoi (cf Larsen 188, Roy Historia 20 [1971]: 585, and Buckler 204). This interpretation 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 Eparitoi. As Dulanic points out, this latter interpretation explains the seemingly excessive burden placed on Stymphalus in the reparations (IG IV 616) as due to the fact that Mantinea had already repaid its share of the funds from Olympia. 1 9 5 T h e o l i g a r c h i c - d e m o c r a t i c c o n f l i c t within the Arcadian League i s well demonstrated by Roy (Historia 20 [1971]: 585-88) and supplemented by Buckler (204-5) against the objections of Larsen (189: " i t is d i f f i c u l t to assign blame and even to know which of the two was the more oligarchic and which the more democratic") and Dusanic, who attributes the existing antagonism between Mantinea and Tegea to economic rather than p o l i t i c a l differences (306). 1 9 6 Xenophon, Hellenica VII.5.1-5. The formal alliance of 362/1 between Athens, Arcadia ( i . e . Mantinea and i t s supporters), Achaea, E l i s , and Phlius (IG I I 2 112, SIG 181, 112 Tod 144, and Harding 56) dates from after the Battle of Mantinea (the arguments of Tod [ad loc] have won general acceptance). For the date of the Battle of Mantinea, see Buckler 260-61. 1 9 7 Compare this description of Olympia with Strabo's description of Delphi (IX.3.2-10). 198 T n e Arcadians, however, did not use the sacred money to hire mercenaries, as did the Phocians. 1 9 9 As I observed in note 192, the total of reparations due from the Arcadian League has been estimated at ca. 20,000 Aeginetan staters. This, of course, does not include the amount already repaid by Mantinea, i f we accept Dusanic's interpretation of IG IV 616 and Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.33 (c.f. note 194). This amount, which was presumably to be spread out among the northern members of the Arcadian League, is considerably less than the sixty talents a year to be paid by the Phocians (an enormous amount for a small state l e f t u t t e r l y without resources at i t s defeat) u n t i l they had reimbursed the sanctuary at Delphi the 10,000 talents which they had "borrowed" (c,f, note 75). Naturally, the Arcadian fine would be far less than the Phocian because they used the funds from Olympia only to pay the standing army and not to hire thousands of mercenaries and their "borrowing" did not go on incessantly for a number of years. Another point to be made about the record of Arcadian reparations is that the Arcadians apparently (according to 113 Fraenkel, editor of IG IV 616) decided of their own accord to submit the matter of reparation to arbitration. The city of Cleonae was then chosen by the Arcadian League and the magistrates governing the temple at Olympia to act as arbitrator. 2 0 0 L i d d e l l and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon (ad loc) , Franciszek Sokolowski, Lois Sacrees des Cites Grecques (Paris: Editions de Boccard, 1969) #32 n. 1, and Harding 78 n.l. 2 0 1 The references have been collected by Dittenberger SIG 204 n. 2. 2 0 2 Herodotus VI. 7 5.3: |vxaosa 6 KAeoyevris aAAa xe l6rjW xfis xwpas nal, xfis xaAouyEvns 'OpydSos §et5v xe xo5v Iv 'EAeuaCvL cepas. Pausanias III. 4.2: is 6 E AftrivaCoL jyoOvoiT] AsyouaL, 6 L O X L Is 'EAeuauva lagaAwv E X E L P E x6 xeysvog X O J V §eOv,... and III. 4.3.... 'AdnvaCoL 5e O I L I S T J U K J E xrlv 'Opydfia. 203 Thucydides 1.139.2: O L . 6 E 'A^nvaLOL. . . I T C L X O I A O U V X E S InspyaaLav MeyapeOaL xfis yns LEpas nat xfis aopCaxou. Plutarch, Per i c l e s XXX.2, Pausanias 1.36.3 and III.4.6, scholiast to Aristophanes' Peace 605 (Philochorus F Gr Hist 328 F 121=Fornara 115 A), s c h o l i a s t to Aristophanes' Acharnians 532 (Fornara 123 B) and Harpocration s. v. 'AvSsydxpLxos. 2 0 4 c.f. Gomme (ad loc), Donald Kagan, The Outbreak of  the Peloponnesian War (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1969) 245, and Ronald P. Legon, Megara (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 2 204, SIG 204, Sokolowski 32 and Harding 78. 2 0 7 This speech was generally considered spurious in the nineteenth century, but now i t is almost universally accepted as a work of Demosthenes. W. Jaeger (Demosthenes [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1938] 243 n. 24) chronicles thoroughly the change of o p i n i o n . N e v e r t h e l e s s , the authorship of this speech does not affect the information contained within. 2 0 8 The answer to this question hinges upon the date of the speech, as Demosthenes is c l e a r l y r e f e r r i n g to recent events. These references make i t clear that the speech belongs to the period 352/49 but i t is not certain whether i t precedes or follows the implementation of the measures contained in the i n s c r i p t i o n . Didymus (Demosthenesl c o l . 13.40=Harding 78B) does date On Organization to 349/8, although, as Jacoby (F G r Hist IIIB Supplement II 424 ) remarks, his inference is "crude and probably mistaken." The latest trend of opinion dates the speech to 352 (cf George Cawkwell, "Anthemocritus and the Megarians and the Decree of Charinus," REG 82 [1969]: 329, supported by Legon 286. Although Cawkwell makes a good case, the date of this speech cannot yet be considered fixed. Demosthenes refers to the Megarians as w a T a p d x o t in 352 B. C. (XXIII.2.2) but makes no further reference to a campaign against them u n t i l 349/8 (III.20). As a result, i t seems safest to assume with Jacoby (F Gr Hist IIIB, Supplement I 115 531), W. R. Connor ("Charinus' Megarean Decree," American  Journal of Philology 83 [1962]: 237), and Legon (288) that after the threat of a campaign in 352/1 actual military action against the Megarians did not occur u n t i l the implementation of the measures of the decree aroused Megarian resentment and unco-operation. 2 0 9 REG 82 (1969): 300-301. 2 1 0 This is also the opinion of G. E. M. de Ste. Croix 388 n. 1 and Kevin Clinton, "The Sacred O f f i c i a l s of the E l e u s i n i a n M y s t e r i e s , " T r a n s a c t i o n s of the American  Philosophical Society 64.3 (1962): 18 n. 1. 2 1 1 W. R. Connor, "Charinus' Megarean Decree," American  Journal of Philology 83 (1962): 225-46. 2 1 2 For more exhaustive criticism of Connor's thesis, see K. J. Dover, "Anthemocritus and the Megarians," American  Journal of Philology 87 (1966): 203-209, Lawrence J. Bliquez, "Anthemocritus and the opyds Disputes," Greek, Roman, and  Byzantine Studies 10 (1969): 157-64, G. L. Cawkwell, "Anthemocritus and the Decree of Charinus," REG 82 (1969): 327-35, G. E. M. de Ste. Croix 246-51 and 386-88, and Legon 286 n. 103. 2 1 3 W. R. Connor, "Charinus' Megarean Decree Again," REG 83 (1970): 308. 2 1 4 P. Foucart, in the original publication of the decree of 352/1 in BCH 13 (1889), is the only modern scholar to draw a pa r a l l e l (437) between the Sacred Orgas and the Cirrhaean 116 Plain. 2 1 5 This point is made by Parke (Parke-Wormell 227). Athens, of course, was an a l l y of Phocis and t h i s was presumably a factor in the oracle's eventual decision. 117 BIBLIOGRAPHY ANCIENT SOURCES Aeschines. Against Ctesiphon. Ed. Rufus S. Richardson. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1889. The Speeches of Aeschines. Trans. Charles Darwin Adams. Loeb Classical Library, 1968. Aristophanes. Trans. Benjamin Bickley Rogers. 3 vols. Loeb Classical Library, 1960-63. Athenaeus. The Deipnosophists• Trans. Charles Burton Gulick. 7 vols. Loeb Classical Library, 1961. Demosthenes. De Falsa Legatione. Ed. G. H. Heslop. London: Rivington's, 1872 On the Crown. Ed. William Watson Goodwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. On the Peace, Second Philippic, On the Chersonese and  Third Philippic. 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 vols. Loeb Classical Library, 1953-62. Dinarchus. Orationes Cum Fragmentis. Ed. Nicos C. Conomis. Leipzig: Teubner, 1975. Diodorus S i c u l u s . L i b r a r y of H i s t o r y . Trans. C. H. Oldfather, C. L. Sherman, Bradford Welles, Russell 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. Ed. Alfred Schoene. 2 vols. Zurich: Weidmann, 1967. 118 Frontinus. The Stratagems and the Aqueducts of Rome. Trans. Charles E. Bennett. Ed. Mary B. McElwain. Loeb Classical Library, 1925. Harpocration. Lexicon in Decern Oratores Atticos. Ed. W. Dindorf. 2 vols. Gronigen: Bouma's Boekhius N. V. Publishers, 1969. Herodotus. Historiae• Ed. Carolus Hude. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. 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 Classical Library, 1964. Opera. Ed. David B. Munro and Thomas W. Allen. 5 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962-78. Hypereides. Orationes. Ed. C. Jensen. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1963. Isocrates. Trans. George Norlin (vols 1 and 2) and Larue Van Hook (vol 3). Loeb Classical Library, 1961-66. Justin. Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum Pompeii Trogi. Ed. Otto Seel. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1972. Pausanias. Description of Greece. Trans. W. H. Jones. 5 vols. Loeb Classical Library, 1954. Pindar. Odes. Trans. Sir John Sandys. Loeb Classical Library, 1961. Plutarch. Plutarch's Lives. Trans. Bernadotte Perrin. 11 vols. Loeb Classical Library, 1959. Plutarch's Moralia. Ed. F. C. Babbitt et a l . 16 vols. Loeb Classical Library, 1969. Polyaenus. Strategemata. Ed. J. Melber. Stuttgart: Teubner: 1970. Strabo. The Geography of Strabo. Trans. Horace Leonard Jones. 8 vols. 1960. Thucydides. Historiae. Ed. Henry Stuart Jones. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960. History of the Peloponnesian War. Trans. Charles Forster Smith. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library, 1962. 119 Xenophon. Hellenica. Trans. Carleton L. Brownson. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library, 1950. MODERN SOURCES Amandry, Pierre. La Mantique Apollinienne a Delphes. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1950. Andrewes, A. The Greek Tyrants. New York: Harper and Row, Badien, E. "The Eunuch Bagoas." Classical Quarterly 8 N. S. (1958): 144-157. Barber, G. L. The Historian Ephorus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935. Beloch, Karl Julius. Griechische Geschicte. 4 vols. Berlin and Leipzig: 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 in the Delphic Amphictyony." Classical  Philology 38 (1943): 1-12. Bonner, Robert J. "The Megarian Decrees." Classical  Philology 16 (1921): 238-245. Bosworth, A. B. "Aristotle and Callisthenes." Historia 19 (1970): 407-13. Bourguet, Emile. Fouilles de Delphes Tome III Epigraphie Fasicule V Les Comptes du IVe Siecle. Paris: E. de Boccard, 193T^ L'Administration Financiere du Sanctuaire Pythique au  IVe Siecle. Paris: Librairie des Ecoles Francaises d'Athenes et de Rome, 1905. "Les Comptes de l'Archontat de Demochares." BCH 21 (1897): 477-496. "Les Versements de 1'Amende des Phocidiens." BCH 21 (1897): 321-344. Bousquet, Jean. "Le Compte d'Automne 325 a Delphes." Melanges Helleniques Offerts a Georges Daux. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1974: 21-32. 120 Brown, Truesdell S. "Callisthenes and Alexander." American  Journal of Philology 70 (1949): 225-248. Brunt, P. A. "The Megarian Decree." American Journal of  Philology 72 (1951): 269-282. Buckler, John. The Theban Hegemony. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980. Burn, A. R. The Pelican History of Greece. Penguin Books Ltd., 19165. Bury, J. B., S. A. Cook, and F. E. Adcock (editors). The  Cambridge Ancient History. Vols. 3-6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1925-27. Bury, J. B. and Russell Meiggs. A History of Greece. London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1975. Cadoux, T. J . "The Athenian Archons from Kreon to Hypsichides." JHS 68 (1948): 70-123. Ca r g i l l , Jack. The Second Athenian League. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Cawkwell, G. L. "Aeschines and the Peace of Philocrates." REG 73 (1960): 416-438. "Aeschines and the Ruin of Phocis." REG 75 (1962): 453-459. "Anthemocritus and the Megarians and the Decree of Charinus." REG 82 (1969): 327-335. "Demosthenes' Policy After the Peace of Philocrates." Classical Quarterly 13 N. S. (1963): 120-138 and 200-213. "The Peace of Philocrates Again." Classical Quarterly 28 N. S. (1978): 93-104. Philip of Macedon. London: 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 Philosophical  Society 64.3 (1974) . Cloche, Paul. "La Chronologie de la Troisieme Guerre Sacree Jusqu'en 352 avant J.-C." Les Etudes Classiques 8 (1939): 161-204. Etude Chronologique sur la Troisieme Guerre Sacree. 121 Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1915. "La Grece de 346 a 339 av. J.-C." BCH 44 (1920): 108-159. "Les Naopes de Delphes et la Creation du College des Tamiai." BCH 44 (1920): 312-327. "Les Naopes de Delphes et la Politique Hellenique de 356 a 327 av. J.-C." BCH 40 (1966): 78-142. "La Politique 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." American Journal  of Philology 83 (1962): 225-246. "Charinus' Megarean Decree Again." REG 83 (1970): SOS-SOS. Daux, Georges. "Note sur 11 Inscription Amphictionique IG I I 2 1126." American Journal of Philology 70 (1949): T8~9 191. "Remarques sur l a C o m p o s i t i o n du C o n s e i l Amphictionique." BCH 81 (1957): 90-120. Davies, 0. "Two North Greek Mining Towns." JHS 49 (1929): 89-95. Defradas, Jean. Les Themes de l a Propagande Delphique. Paris: L i b r a i r i e C. Klincksieck, 1954. De la Coste-Messeliere, Pierre. "Listes Amphictioniques du IVe Siecle." BCH 73 (1949): 201-247. "Les Naopes a Delphes au IVe Siecle." Melanges Offerts  a Georges Daux. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1974: 199-211. Demangel, R. "Fouilles et Recherches Sous-Marins en Grece." BCH 74 (1950) : 271-273. De Ste. Croix, G. E. M. The Origins of the Peloponnesian War. London: Gerald Duckworth and Company, 1972. Dindorf, W. (ed). Scholia Graeca in Aeschinem et Isocratem. Hildesheim: Verlag Dr. H. A. Gerstenberg. Scholia to Aristophanes. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1838. 122 Dittenberger, W. (ed). Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. Vol. 1. Hildesheim: Georg 01ms, 1960. Dor, Leopold, Jean Jannoray, Henri et M i c h e l i n e van E f f e n t e r r e . K i r r h a : Etude 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." American  Journal of Philology 87 (1966): 203-209. Drachmann, A. B (ed). Scholia Vetera in Pindari Carmina. 3 vols. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1969. Drews, Robert. "Diodorus and his Sources." American Journal  of Philology 83 (1962): 383-393. Dusanic, Slobodan. The Arcadian League of the Fourth Century. Belgrade: 1970. "Arkadika." Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen  Instituts 94 (1979): 117-135. Ehrhardt, Christopher. "Two Notes on Philip of Macedon's Fir s t Interventions in Thessaly." Classical Quarterly 17 N. S. (1967): 296-301. E l l i s , J. R. Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism. London: Thames and Hudson, 1976. Farnell, Lewis Richard. The Cults of the Greek States. 5 vols. New York: Caratzas Brothers, 1977. Finley, M. I. Early Greece: The Bronze and Archaic Ages. London: W. W. Norton and Company, 1981. Fornara, Charles W. A r c h a i c Times to the End of the  Peloponnesian War. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1977. "Plutarch and the Megarian Decree." Yale Classical  Studies 24 (1957): 213-228. Forrest, George. "The First Sacred War." BCH 80 (1956): 33-52. Forrest, W. G. "Colonisation and the Rise of Delphi." Historia 6 (1957): 160-175. Foucart, P. "Decret Athenien de l'Annee 352 Trouve a Eleusis." BCH 13 (1889): 433-467. Frazer, J. G. Pausanias' Description of Greece. 5 vols. 123 New York: Biblio and Tannen, 1965. Friedlaender, Julius. "A Coin of Helike." Numismatic  Chronicle 1 N. S. (1861): 216-217. Glotz, Gustave and Robert Cohen. Histoire Grecque. 2 vols. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1926. Gomme, A. W. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1945. G r i f f i t h , G. T. "Philip of Macedon's Early Interventions in Thessaly (358-352 B. C.)." Classical Quarterly 20 N. S. (1970): 67-80. "The So-called Koine Eirene of 346 B. C." JHS 59 (1939): 71-79. Grote, George. History of Greece. 12 vols. New York: Peter Fenelon Colli e r , 1899. Guillon, Pierre. Etudes Boeotiennes: Le Bouclier d'Heracles. Aix-en-Provence: Editions Orphrys, 1963. Hackett, Neil J. The Third Sacred War. Diss. University of Cincinnati, 1970. Hammond, N. G. L. "Diodorus" Narrative of the Sacred War." JHS 57 (1937): 44-78. A History of Greece to 322 B. C. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. "The Seisachtheia and the Nomothesia of Solon." JHS 60 (1940): 71-83. "The Sources of Diodorus XVI." Classical Quarterly 31 (1937): 79-91. 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 University Press, 1985. Head, Barclay V. Historia Numorum. Chicago: Argonaut Inc., 1967. Homolle, Th. "Remarques Epigraphiques sur 1'Administration Financiere et la Chronologie de la V i l l e de Delphes au IVe Siecle." BCH 22 (1898): 602-633. 124 How, W. W. and J. Wells. A Commentary on Herodotus. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964. Jacoby, F e l i x (ed). Die Fragmente der G r i e c h i s c h e n  Historiker. 15 vols. Leiden: E. J. B r i l l , 1954-64. Jaeger, Werner. Demosthenes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1938. Jannoray, J. and H. van Effenterre. "Fouilles de Krisa." BCH 61 (1937): 299-326 and BCH 62 (1938): 110-148. Jannoray, J. "Krisa, Kirrha, et la 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 Peloponnesian War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1969. 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 in Ancient Greece." Classical 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: Cornell University Press, 1981. Lehmann, Gustav Adolf. "Der Erste H e i l i g e Krieg--Eine Fiktion?" Historia 29 (1980): 242-246. Lerat, L. "Krisa." Revue Archeologique: Melanges Picard. II Series 6 Vol. 31 (1948): 621-632. Marchetti, Pierre. "Le Temple de Delphes et la Date d'Aristonymos." BCH 103 (1979): 151-163. Marinatos, Spyridon N. "He l i c e : A Submerged Town of Classical Greece." Archaeology 13 (1960): 186-193. Markle, M. M. "The Strategy of P h i l i p in 346 B. C." Classical Quarterly 24 N. S. (1974): 53-68. McGregor, Malcolm F. "Cleisthenes of Sicyon and the Panhellenic Festivals." Transactions of the American  Philological Association 72 (1941): 266-287. 125 Meiggs, Russell. The Athenian Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Meiggs, Russell and David Lewis (eds). A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969. Meritt, Benjamin Dean. "Athens and the Amphictyonic League." American Journal of Philology 69 (1948): 312-314. "Athens and the Amphictyonic League." American Journal  of Philology 75 (1954): 369-373. Meritt, Benjamin Dean, H. T. Wade-Gery, and Malcolm Francis McGregor. The Athenian Tribute Lists. Vol. 3. American School of Classical Studies at Athens and Princeton, 1950. Morford, Mark P. 0. and Robert J. Lenardon. Classical  Mythology. New York: Longman, 1971. 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. "The Struggle for the Tripod and the First Sacred War." JHS 77 (1957): 276-282. Parke, H. W. and D. E. W. Wormell. The Delphic Oracle. 2 vols. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1956. P e a r s o n , L i o n e l . The L o c a l H i s t o r i a n s of A t t i c a . Philadelphia: The American P h i l o l o g i c a l Association, 1942. The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great. Philadelphia: The American Philological Association, 1960. Perlman, S. "The Coins of Philip II and Alexander the Great and their Pan-Hellenic Propaganda." Numismatic  Chronicle Series 7 Vol. 5 (1965): 57-67. . Picard-Cambridge, A. W. Demosthenes and the Last Days of  Greek Freedom. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1914. Pouilloux, J. "La Reconstruction du Temple au IVe Siecle et les Institutions Delphiques." Revue des Etudes  Anciennes 64 (1962): 300-313. Raven, E. J. P. "The Amphictyonic Coinage of Delphi." Numismatic Chronicle Series 6 Vol. 10 (1950): 1-22. 126 Reinach, Theodore. "Une Inscription Historique de Delphes." Revue Archeologique Series 5 Vol. 28 (1928): 34-46. Rhodes, P. J. A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion  P o l i t e i a . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981. Robertson, Noel. "The Myth of the First Sacred War." Classical Quarterly 28 N. S. (1978): 38-73. Robinson, Charles Alexander Jr. The History of Alexander the Great. 2 vols. Providence R. I.: Brown University, 1953. Roux, Georges. "Les Comptes du IVe Siecle et la Reconstruction du Temple d'Apollon a Delphes." Revue  Archeologique 1 (1966): 245-296. "Note sur la Construction du Temple de Delphes." BCH 103 (1979): 501-505. Roy, James. "Arcadia and Boeotia in Peloponnesian Affairs 370-362 B. C." Historia 20 (1971): 569-99. "Postscript on the Arcadian League." H i s t o r i a '23 (1974): 505-507. Ryder, T. T. B. Koine Eirene. London: Oxford University Press, 1965. 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 in the Search f o r A n c i e n t 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." JHS 75 (1955): 74-81. A History of the Greek City States ca. 700-338 B. C. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976. "Proxenus and the Peace of Philocrates." Wiener  Studien 68 (1955): 145-152. "Thucydides, Herodotus,and the Causes of War." Classical Quarterly 7 N. S. (1957): 1-12. Sokolowski, F. Lois Sacrees des Cites Grecques. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1969. 127 Sordi, Marta. "La Fondation du College des Naopes et le Renouveau Politique de l"Amphictionie au IVe Siecle." BCH 81 (1957) : 38-75. "La Prima Guerra Sacra." Rivista di Filologia e di Instruzione Classica 31 N. S. (1953): 320-346. Tod, Marcus N. Greek Historical Inscriptions. Chicago: Ares Publishers, 1985. Ure, P. A. The Origin of Tyranny. New York: Russell and Russell, 1962. Wade-Gery, H. T. "Kynaithos." Essays in Greek History. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958: 17-36. West, M. L. "Cynaethus1 Hymn to Apollo." Classical Quarterly 25 N. S. (1975) : 161-170. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von. Aristoteles und Athen. 2 vols. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1893. Wiseman, James. "Epaminondas and the Theban Invasions." Klio 51 (1969): 177-199. 128 HELIKE: ANOTHER CASE OF DIVINE RETRIBUTION The conflict between the Ionians and the city of Helice in 363 B. C. is interesting in that in furnishes an analogy with the so- c a l l e d Third Sacred War in pa r t i c u l a r in i t s element of divine retribution f a l l i n g upon those unfortunate souls allegedly guilty of sacrilege. The city of Helice was situated in Achaea, near the Corinthian Gulf. Tradition has i t that Helice was one of the original twelve Ionian colonies established by the Athenians in the Peloponnese.1 From i t s very early h i s t o r y Helice became an important r e l i g i o u s centre, as i t was the original home of the cult of Heliconian Poseidon, 2 before the Ionians transferred themselves, cult and a l l , to Asia Minor. There, Heliconian Poseidon became the patron deity of the Pan-Ionia, the federal assembly of the Ionians held near Priene on the peninsula of Mycale.3 Helice, however, retained both i t s c u l t 4 and i t s status, as i t was the most important c i t y of the region before disaster struck (Diodorus XV.48.3). Disaster arrived in the form of an earthquake and tidal wave on a winter night in the year 373/2.5 Probable cause for such a severe expression of divine displeasure was not hard to 1 2 9 find. A few months earlier, the Ionians, unable to hold the Pan-Ionia at i t s traditional site of Mycale due to an outbreak of war, had transferred i t to a safe location near Ephesus. Thereupon they obtained an oracle from Delphi, which advised them to ask for the statue ( B P E ' T C X S ) Q f Poseidon or, f a i l i n g that, a copy ( a c p i ^ p u a u s ) Q f the ancestral altars from the original home of Heliconian Poseidon at Helice. 5 The citizens of Helice, however, paid heed to an ancient prophesy that harm would come to them should the Ionians sacrifice upon the altar of Poseidon and consequently refused the Ionian request. Frustrated by this outright refusal, the Ionians appealed to the of the Achaeans and were given permission to complete their s a c r i f i c e . Upon their attempt to do so, the c i t i z e n s of H e l i c e s e i z e d the persons of the Ionian representatives and mistreated them, thereby incurring a charge of sacrilege. 7 Poseidon himself struck down the impious city forthwith in a most appropriate fashion. 8 An earthquake caused the collapse of most of the town and the ensuing t i d a l wave engulfed i t completely, leaving only the tops•of the trees to show where a prosperous ci t y had once stood. There were no survivors from either Helice or the neighbouring town of Bura and even ten Lacedaimonian ships which happened to be anchored nearby were destroyed. 9 One hundred and f i f t y years later, Eratosthenes could s t i l l see the c i t y of Helice beneath the waves, bronze c u l t statue of Poseidon and a l l (Strabo 130 VIII.7.2). By Roman times, the ruins were s t i l l v i s i b l e , although they had become somewhat corroded by the sea. 1 0 Eventually, however, the sea swallowed up Helice altogether, and the fourth-century city has not yet been rediscovered. 1 1 According to later tradition, the wrath of Poseidon was f o r e t o l d by ominous portents. Callisthenes (apud Seneca Naturales Quaestiones VI.26.3) says: Inter multa prodigia quibus denuntiata est duarum urbium, Helices et Buris, eversio, fuere maxime notabilia columna ignis immensi et Delos agitata. Seneca them (VII.5.3-4) adds: Talem effigiem ignis longi fuisse Callisthenes tradit, antequam Burin et Helicen mare absconderet. Aristoteles ai t (Meteorologica 343a, 343b, and 344b) non trabem illam 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 Hist 70 F 212) also associates the rising of this comet with the destruction of Helice and Bura. Another interesting portent of the impending disaster is recorded by Aelian (XI.19): npb itevxe ydp nuepSv acpavua^fivai, xr\v 'EAdxnv, oaot uues ev auxfj fjaav xat yaXaZ xat ocpets xat axoAoftev6pat xau acpovSuAau xat xa AotTta oaa ?iv xotaOxa, a-Spda internet xfj 069 xfj es Kepuveuav excpepouarj. Clearly, the disaster which b e f e l l the unfortunate c i t y of Helice was of such magnitude that any unusual occurences of the time were naturally associated with i t . 1 2 Due to i t s antecedents, the destruction of Helice was considered "a perfect example of divine retribution. 1 , 1 3 Most of the ancient authorities attribute the catastrophe to the 131 impiety committed by the c i t i z e n s of H e l i c e . 1 4 Diodorus even goes so far as to claim (XV.49.6): " x e ' T 0 U a t v oxu TtXnv xaiv daeBnoavTuv OU6EIS aXXos Tcepue'iteae xfj auycpopqi." This, however, i s not s t r i c t l y true. Diodorus, i n order to j u s t i f y t h i s statement, implicates the c i t i z e n s of Bura i n the offense committed by H e l i c e (XV.49.2) 1 5 but the crew of the ten Spartan ships are f o r g o t t e n by every extant a u t h o r i t y except Diogenes L a e r t i u s who a t t r i b u t e s the death of t h e i r commander, P o l l i s , to divine r e t r i b u t i o n for his treatment of P l a t o . 1 6 T h i s theme of d i v i n e r e t r i b u t i o n f o r those 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 i s echoed i n both Pausanias' and Diodorus' accounts of the s o - c a l l e d Third Sacred War. Pausanias (X.2.4-7) gives an account of the f a t e s of the Phocian commanders, i m p l y i n g t h a t they a l l came to a d e s e r v e d l y nasty end. Diodorus (XVI.61.1) r e i t e r a t e s his conviction that a l l those who commit s a c r i l e g e against the gods meet eventually with divine r e t r i b u t i o n : oXu>s yap ou yo'vov xoCs au-de'vxous xfis LEpoauXtas, aXXoT HOU, Tiaau xoCs npoaa^ayevous yo'vov xfis uapavoyuas ontapauxrixos EH xou 6atyovC*ou ETr.rixoXou'^riae x u y i D p u a . He then goes on to demonstrate t h i s theory i n a g r a p h i c d e s c r i p t i o n (XVI.61-64) of the f a t e s of the v a r i o u s p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the s a c r i l e g e committed by the Phocians. Diodorus even l i n k s the two cases of d i v i n e r e t r i b u t i o n by foreshadowing h i s treatment of the s a c r i l e g i o u s Phocians i n his section on Helice (XV.48.4). 132 Since the incident between the Ionians and the citizens of Helice did not develop into a f u l l - s c a l e war, i t cannot furnish an analogy for the use of the term t,epovs TtcfAeyos • Nevertheless, i t does bear a marked resemblance to the so-c a l l e d T h i r d Sacred War i n that the element of d i v i n e r e t r i b u t i o n i s spoken of in the same terms by the same sources. This was a theme which had been current in Greek literature since Herodotus—those guilty of uBpus or daegeua would eventually be struck down by the hand of heaven—and examples were easy to find or forge. 133 NOTES TO APPENDIX i i • 1 Strabo VIII.7.1 and 7.4, Herodotus 1.145, and Pausanias VII.4.1. 2 P a u s a n i a s V I I . 2 4 . 5 , S t r a b o V I I I . 7 . 2 , and D i o d o r u s XV. 49.1. Homer mentions " e u p e t a ' E A L X T V 1 ( I l i a d 11.575) and i t s c u l t of Poseidon ( I l i a d VIII.203 and XX.404). 3 H e r o d o t u s 1.148, D i o d o r u s XV.49.1, S t r a b o XIV.1.20. S t r a b o VIII.7.2 informs us t h a t P r i e n e had been c o l o n i z e d by s e t t l e r s from H e l i c e . 4 A bronze c o i n b e a r i n g the head of Poseidon surrounded by waves was c o i n e d not l o n g b e f o r e the d e s t r u c t i o n of the town. See J u l i u s F r i e d l a e n d e r , "A C o i n of H e l i k e , " Numismatic  C h r o n i c l e 1 N. S. (1861): 216-217 and Head 414. 5 D i o d o r u s XV.48.1, P a u s a n i a s VII.24.4, and A r i s t o t l e M e t e o r o l o g i c a 343b and 344b. Strabo dates the d i s a s t e r to two y e a r s b e f o r e t h e B a t t l e o f L e u c t r a ( V I I I . 7 . 2 ) . P o l y b i u s (11.41) says that the c a t a s t r o p h e o c c u r r e d npb xffiv A E U T P L X S V . E u s e b i u s e r r o n e o u s l y d a t e s i t t o Olympiad 100.1 (380/79) i n s t e a d of 101.4. 6 S t r a b o ( V I I I . 7 . 2 ) d e r i v e s h i s a c c o u n t f r o m a contemporary of the e v e n t , a c e r t a i n H e r a c l e i d e s of Pontus. 1 134 Diodorus (XV.48) i s presumably using Ephorus, a l s o a contemporary, as a source. Seneca, however, c r i t i c i z e s Ephorus on t h i s s u b j e c t , perhaps u n j u s t l y (Naturales Quaestiones VII.16.2=F Gr Hist 70 F 212): Ephorus non vero est religiosissimae fidae; saepe decipitur, saepe decipit. Sicut hunc cometen, qui omnium mortalium oculis custoditus est, quia ingentia rei traxit eventum, cum Helicen et Burin ortu suo merserit, ait ilium discessisse in duas S t e l l a s , quod praeter ilium nemo tradit. 7 Strabo (VIII.7.2) on the authority of Heracleides of Pontus says simply that the people of Helice did not obey ( unaxoOoat ) the instructions of the Achaean XOLVO'V . Diodorus (XV. 49.3) says: " °l 6''EALXECS x a xP^yaxa Suappuc^avxES xuiv ' Iwvwv xous TE ^eiopous cruM^picaaav, noe'Bnodv TE ELS TO $eUov." Pausanias (VII.24.6) and Aelian (XI.19) assert that the Ionian representatives were murdered. As Pausanias' account is so vague (he mentions nothing about the Ionian delegation and identifies the victims merely as LME'TOIL d'v6p£s ) and Aelian's is based on hearsay ( xoOxd XOL cpaou xa l Iv 'EALXTJ yev£a%aL), i t is l i k e l y that the tale grew t a l l e r with the t e l l i n g . 8 Diodorus (XV.49.4) remarks: TOO 6'EX noa£u6a5vos Y £vov£vau Trjv y f i v t v t a C s TUOAEOL cpaauv sycpavsCg aitoSecCebS undpxE^v 6 t a TO xcft) a e t a y C v not xE3v xaxaxAuaySv xoOxov XOV %edv E'XEOV 6LeuA?icp§ai, xr]v ECouatav, x a t 6 t a TO SOXEUV xb TtaAatov x f i v IlEAoiio'vvrioov ouxxrtpLov y s v o v E v a u rioaeu6a5vos, xa t xnv x^pav xadxnv <3aitEp L,Epdv TOO IIoaELSuvos v o y i^Ea^aL , x a t TO auvoAov Tidaas xds EV Il£AoTi:ovvnau) TCOAELS ydAuaxa xSv d§avdxu>v TOV § £ d v xuyav xoOxov. 9 Diodorus XV.48.1-3, Pausanias VII.24-25, Strabo 1.3.18 and VIII.7.2, Aelian XI.19, Callisthenes (F Gr Hist 124 F 19-21) apud Seneca Naturales Quaestiones VI.23 and 26 and VII.5, 135 Ari s t o t l e Meteorologica 343b, 344b, and 368b, On the Cosmos 396a. Philo (De Aeternitate Mundi 140) quotes the following STCEL xa t xaxd nEAoi idvvnadv cpaaL rpeus verse: "AuyeLpav BoOpdv T E u(|>nArfv ' E A u x e u a v , T E L X E O L V f| Tax ' * y E A X £ itept $pda yupua cpdaELV," E u b a d y o v a s rb ndAaL y s v o y d v a s TtoAAfj T O O TtsAdyous ETCLxAuaftfjvaL cpopcj. 1 0 Ovid, Metamorphoses XV.293-5, Pliny, Natural History 11.206, and Pausanias VII.24.13. 1 1 For the modern search for Helice, see Spyridon N. Marinatos, "Helice: A Submerged Town of Cla s s i c a l Greece," Archaeology 13 (1960): 186-193 and Maurice L. Schwartz and Christos Tziavos, "Geology in the Search for Ancient Helice," Journal of Field Archaeology 6 (1979): 243-252. It is the hope of archaeologists that the ruins of Helice w i l l prove to be another Pompeii. 1 2 The destruction of the temple of Apollo at Delphi o c c u r r e d i n the same year as the earthquake i n the Peloponnese, according to the Parian Marble (F Gr Hist 239 A 71), although no ancient source associates the two events (c.f. Parke-Wormell 214). 1 3 Parke (Parke-Wormell 214). 1 4 Diodorus (XV.48.4) makes the following distinction: O L y s v cpuaLxoi. it £ p L 53v x a u x a s a i x d a c T W V TOLOI5T(JJV rca§c3v oux E L S T O § E L O V avacpepELV, aAA'eCs cpuaLxds T u v a s x a t x a T r i v a y x a a y s v a s i t E p L a T a a E L S , O L 6 ' E U O - E B U J S 6 Lax E dy E V O L upos T O § E L O V TiL-Savds T L v a s aLTdas a n o S L b o u a L T O U a u y g d v T o s , (L S 6LO~ §EU)V yfivLV y s y E v r i y e v r i S T f i s a u y c p o p a s T O L S E L S T6 § E L O V aa£8no"aaL * Diodorus makes i t quite clear, however, that his point of view 136 l i e s with the l a t t e r category, rather than with s c i e n t i s t s such as Aristotle. 1 5 c.f. Parke (Parke-Wormell 214). 16 xil. 20' T^ v y e* V T 0 L IldXAuv Adyos und xe Xappdou n.TTn-dftvau naZ yexa xatixa ev 'EAdxn xaxctTtovxwdfivaL xou SctLyovdou ynvdaavxos 6ud xovv cpiAdaocpov, As x a l $a3wpuvds cpnoxv ev irpoSxtj) xuv 'Aitoyvnuoveuydxcov. 

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