Ubc - 1987 - A8 S58

THE CONCEPT OF SACRED WAR IN ANCIENT GREECE
By
FRANCES ANNE SKOCZYLAS
B.A., McGill University, 1985
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
(Department of Classics)
We accept t h i s thesis as conforming
to the required standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
August 1987
® Frances Anne Skoczylas, 1987

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the 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 5 r 1Q87

ii
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 literature.
T h i s term has been commonly a p p l i e d by modern s c h o l a r s t o f o u r
wars which took p l a c e i n a n c i e n t Greece between- the s i x t h and
fourth c e n t u r i e s B. C. The modern u s e o f "the a t t r i b u t e
"Sacred War" to refer t o these four wars i n p a r t i c u l a r raises
two q u e s t i o n s . First, d i d the a n c i e n t h i s t o r i a n s give a l l
four o f these wars the t i t l e "Sacred War?" And second, what
justified the use of t h i s t i t l e only for c e r t a i n conflicts?
In order to r e s o l v e the f i r s t of these questions, i t i s
necessary t o examine i n what terms the a n c i e n t historians
referred to these wars. As a r e s u l t of t h i s examination, i t
is clear that o n l y two of the modern s e r i e s of "Sacred Wars"
(the so-called Second and T h i r d Sacred Wars) were actually
given this title i n antiquity. The other two wars (the s o -
called Second and T h i r d Sacred. W a r s ) , although they were
e v i d e n t l y a s s o c i a t e d by the a n c i e n t s with the "Sacred Wars,"
were not g i v e n t h i s attribution. Consequently, the h a b i t o f
grouping a l l four wars together as "Sacred Wars" i s modern.
Nevertheless, the f a c t that the a n c i e n t s d i d s e e some-

iii
connection between these wars does justify this modern
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n to some degree.
Once t h i s conclusion had been reached, i t became possible
to proceed to the second of the problems presented i n t h i s
thesis, namely the j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the a p p l i c a t i o n of the
title "Sacred War" to two specific conflicts. In order to
achieve t h i s aim, those c o n f l i c t s l a b e l l e d "Sacred Wars" by
the ancient historians were compared to two categories of test
cases: the other two c o n f l i c t s c l a s s i f i e d as "Sacred Wars" by
modern scholars and c o n f l i c t s which share elements i n common
with "Sacred Wars" but which are not given t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n by
ancient or modern a u t h o r i t i e s .
In the course of this comparison, I d i s c o v e r e d that
little differentiated the s o - c a l l e d "Sacred Wars" from the
non-"Sacred Wars" and that a l l of these l a t t e r conflicts
appear equally worthy of the t i t l e as those which were in fact
given this attribution. The deciding factor in the
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of a c e r t a i n c o n f l i c t as a "Sacred War," as a
result, lies not i n the specific elements making up i t s
constitution but rather i n the political circumstances
surrounding i t . The two c o n f l i c t s l a b e l l e d by'-ithe ancients as
"Sacred Wars" were given t h i s t i t l e by contemporary powers i n
order to justify military interference i n the political
affairs of other states which might otherwise have been
considered unnecessary. Thus, the term "Sacred War" arose
o r i g i n a l l y as the r e s u l t of an e f f e c t i v e propaganda campaign.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Chapter One: The Ancient Concept of Sacred War 3
Chapter Two: The Modern Concept of Sacred War 29
Chapter Three: Other Religious Disputes 55
Conclusion 71
Notes 76
Bibliography 117
Appendix 128
V
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ATL-Benjamin Dean M e r i t t , H. T. Wade-Gery, Malcolm Francis

McGregor, The Athenian Tribute L i s t s , volume 3 (Princeton:
1950).
BCH-Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique
F Gr H i s t - F e l i x Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen

H i s t o r i k e r , 15 volumes (Leiden, E. J . B r i l l ,
1954-64).
FD-Emile Bourguet, F o u i l l e s de Delphes Tome III Epigraphie

Fascicule V Comptes du IV Siecle (Paris: E. de Boccard,
e
1932).
GG-Karl J u l i u s Beloch, Griechische Geschicte 4 volumes (Berlin

and L e i p z i g : Walter de Gruyter and Company, 1926-27).
IG-Inscriptiones Graecae, e d i t i o minor
JHS-Journal of H e l l e n i c Studies
REG-Revue des Etudes Greques

SEG-Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum
SIG-W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 4th
e d i t i o n , volume 1 (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1960).
Tod-Marcus N. Tod, Greek H i s t o r i c a l Inscriptions (Chicago:

Ares Publishers Inc., 1985).
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish t o extend my deepest thanks to Professor Phillip
E. Harding, the d i r e c t o r of this thesis, f o r h i s invaluable
guidance, encouragement, and c r i t i c i s m . I would also like to
thank Professor A. J . P o d l e c k i and t h e Department of Classics
at the University of British Columbia for additional
assistance and s u g g e s t i o n s throughout the writing of this
thesis. Further gratitude i s d u e Mr. A n d r e Gerolymatos of
McGill University f o r the idea and e n s u i n g i n s p i r a t i o n .

1
INTRODUCTION
From t h e great number of wars in Greek history there are
only four that have been labelled by modern scholars as
"Sacred Wars." These are, namely, the so-called First
(beginning of the sixth century B. C ) , Second (circa 448
B.C.), Third ( 356-46 B. C ) , and Fourth (340/39 B. C ) . To
the modern mind, this attribution makes them appear to
constitute a category of "Sacred Wars" exclusive of every
other known conflict in ancient Greece, whether motivated by
religious ideals or not.
Scholarship has mainly been focused upon each war
individually, rather than upon this apparent category of
"Sacred Wars" as a unit. Little effort has been made to
d e t e r m i n e when t h e t e r m " S a c r e d War" ( t e p o s ndXeyos ) arose for
the first time and if, in fact, it was applied to each of
these so-called "Sacred Wars" in antiquity. If this was not
the case, then perhaps the modern labels of First, Second,
Third, and Fourth attached to these wars are misleading in
that they create an artificial category of "Sacred Wars" out
of conflicts not given this classification by the ancient
historians.
2
Therefore, i n order to examine fully the concept of
"sacred war" i n ancient Greece, we must first ascertain the
date at which the term uepos itdAeuos came into existence.
Next, we shall have to c l a r i f y which of t h e s e wars were i n
fact labelled as "sacred" in antiquity. F i n a l l y , we shall
compare those c o n f l i c t s c l a s s i f i e d as "sacred" by t h e a n c i e n t
sources with two series of test cases: wars given this
attribution by modern scholars and wars similar to the so-
called " s a c r e d w a r s " w h i c h a r e n o t l a b e l l e d a s s u c h by ancient
o r modern historians. 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 establish what elements justified the use of the term
" s a c r e d war" i n a n t i q u i t y exclusively for certain conflicts.

3
THE A N C I E N T CONCEPT O F S A C R E D WAR
The first step towards an analysis of the concept of
"sacred war" i n a n t i q u i t y is to t r y to discover when the term
arose for the f i r s t time i n the corpus of extant Greek
literature. This is not a d i f f i c u l t task, however, since the
term appears i n so eminent a historian as Thucydides. In the
course of his condensed narrative of the Pentecontaetia,
Thucydides relates briefly the events of the so-called Second
Sacred War a t 1.112.5:
Aoo<£6ai ydvLOb be ysxd. TaiJia xov Lepov xaAouuevov ndAeyov Eaxpdxsuaav,

J
xau xpaTnoavxes T O U E V AeAcpoUs tepou TtapeSoaav AeAcpotg* x a i ai5$LS

yaxspov AdnvatoL aitoxwpno'avxajv auxwv axpaxsuaavxes x a t H p a x n a a v x s s
Tcape;6oaav $a)XE0aLV.
Yet T h u c y d i d e s was p r o b a b l y n o t t h e f i r s t t o c o i n t h e
phrase, since he r e f e r s to the c o n f l i c t as a tepos xaAouyEvos
TtdAsyos . The fact that Aristophanes, a contemporary of
Thucydides, i n his Birds of 414 B . C . , s a t i r i c a l l y suggests
the prosecuting of a iephg ndAeuos against Zeus (line 556)
indicates that this t e r m was c u r r e n t at the time. 1

Since this
war was e v i d e n t l y known a s 6 iepog udXeyos by t h e contemporary
Greek world, the identity of the o r i g i n a l source of this name
is difficult to ascertain.
The scholia to Birds 556 a r e not very helpful in this

4
regard. One s c h o l i a s t names Philochorus (F Gr Hist 328 F 34a)
as a source for t h i s war:

6 ' i c p o s n d A e y o g e y e v e x o ""'A^nvatOLS u p o g B O L O J T O U S 3ouAoyevous
acpeAeadab $u)Meu)V x6 y a v x e u o v . v t x n a a v x e s 62 $a)xeDau TCCXALV aite6o3xav,
Ac $ u A d x o p o s e v xrj 6. 6uo 6e u e p o i i t d A e y o t y E y d v a o x v , oSxds x e x a l
6%6te ^ w x e f t a t v eTteSevxo A a x e 6 a u y d v u o u .
Another scholiast on t h i s l i n e adds:

tv e v L o u g T C V u n o y v n y d x o j v A e y e x a b * tepov ndAeyov Aeyeu,
xa-db i i p o s $£ous E O O L X O , a y a 6e x o u ' i e p o D TtoAeyou y v n y o v e u e L
xoD yevoyc'vou ' ASnvcxLOts i p d s $ u x e a s uitep X O \ J hv AcAipoLS oepoO.
£ox£buaa-&au 6e UTt'auxuJv* o u y a p np&s $u)X£ac unep x o u x o u
E T i o A d y a a a v , a A A ' u i t e p Sajxcuv 6 t & xb u p b c A a x e b a u y o v u o u s *x§os.
y e y d v a a u 6e 6i5o u d A e y o i , t e p o t * u p o x e p o g \i£v A a x E b a t y o v u o b c
itpoc M X E C S uitep AeAcpffiv" Mat x p a x r t a a v x E c xoi3 UEpou A a x e b a t y d v t o u
xfiv u p o y a v x e u a v u a p d AeXcpSv e A a g o v * u a x s p o v 61 x p u x u t E X E L
xo\3 TtoAcyou ' A d n v a J o L S Tipos A a x e b a o y o v d o L S unep $ U ) X E O ) V . x a C
xd Lepbv ocuebuxav $ojx£i5cri,, x a ^ d n e p $LA6*xopos E V x r i t 6 A e y e t .
x a A E t x a i ^ S e ' l e p d s , O"XL n c p l xoft tv AeAtpots uepot)
eyevexo.
Most of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n contained i n these scholia
appears to derive from the A t t h i s of Philochorus. But who was
the ultimate source of Philochorus? It cannot be Thucydides,
as the account of the s c h o l i a s t contains d e t a i l s not mentioned
in the text of Thucydides. Philochorus may have derived these
details from Theopompus, but t h i s does not r e s o l v e the
question of h i s ultimate source. Moreover, the offhand way i n
which the s c h o l i a s t briefly a l l u d e s to the testimonies of
Thucydides, Eratosthenes ( t h i r d century B. C.) and Theopompus
would not lead one to conclude that h i s account was based on
the work of any of these h i s t o r i a n s . Therefore, the d e t a i l s
of the s o - c a l l e d Second Sacred War which the s c h o l i a s t claims

5
to have d e r i v e d from Philochorus must o r i g i n a l l y have been
supplied by another fifth-century account which has not
survived. Evidently, however, the use of the term tspbs ito'Asyos
to refer to this war was well-rooted by the time of
Philochorus.
Our last (and l a t e s t ) reference to the s o - c a l l e d Second
Sacred War as a i-epos T C O ' A E U O S occurs i n 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 <5AAOLS T E T I O A A O L S
e"6£L££ ydAoata
X C X L LEpov npax$ ^cJL udAEyov.
T O L S T I E P L T O V
£
ydp ot AaxsSaLyovLOL OTpaTEuaavTEs

E T I E L AsAcpous E L S $ W X E C O V
E X O V T O J V pdv AsAtpoLS ane'6a)xav,

T O L E oncaAAayEVTuiv E U - S L J S E X E L V W V
6 IlEpbxATis EHLOTpaTEi5aas udAtv ELariyays tae'as. xat T O U S
T W VAaxsdaLyovLwv riv E6wxav auxoLS AeAcpot TipoyavTELav E L S T O
ysTamov lyxoAaâvxaiv xoD x ^ o^ Auxou, AaBulv xal auxds a K
upoyavTEuav 'A-&nvaLOLS T O LaUTov A\5xov xaxd Triv

S E L S T O V
6E£LCK> TtAsupciv EVExdpaÊV.
The f i r s t half of Plutarch's n a r r a t i v e , that dealing with the
campaign of the Lacedaimonians and the counter campaign of the
Athenians, appears to be derived from Thucydides (except for
the references to P e r i c l e s ) . In the second half of Plutarch's
narrative, on the c o n t r a r y , he must be speaking from h i s
obvious f a m i l i a r i t y with the sanctuary of A p o l l o at Delphi.
In f a c t , t h i s bronze wolf i s almost c e r t a i n l y the same as that
which Pausanias mentions (X.14.7). 3

Because Plutarch has so
clearly derived the t i t l e of t h i s war from Thucydides, h i s
account offers no further clues as to whether Thucydides
borrowed the expression from another h i s t o r i a n or t h i s term
was simply current i n contemporary usage.

6
Our next task i s to examine t h i s so-called Second Sacred
War in further detail i n order to attempt to detach the
elements which led to the a t t r i b u t i o n of the t i t l e tepo's udAeyos.
The chronology of the war itself i s disputed but i t i s clear
that i t s antecedents l i e i n the 450's. After the Phocians had
captured three of the towns of Doris, the ynTpduoALs of
Sparta, i n 458/7, 4
the Spartans i n t e r v e n e d , defeated the
Phocians, and forced them to r e s t o r e those c i t i e s to the
Dorians. On the route home, the Spartans were attacked by the
Athenians at Tanagra i n Boeotia. The Spartans were v i c t o r i o u s
and withdrew to the Peloponnese without further incident. 5
Two months later, 6

i n 457/6, 7
the Athenian army under
Myronides invaded B o e o t i a , d e f e a t e d the Boeotian army at
Oenophyta, and became master of Boeotia and Phocis. This
point was the high water mark of Athens' dominance over
C e n t r a l Greece. As a r e s u l t , i t was probably following the
Battle of Oenophyta that Athens concluded an a l l i a n c e with the
Amphictyonic League.
The record of this alliance survives only in a
fragmentary inscription. 8
Previously, i t was generally
thought that this inscription recorded a renewal of the
Athenian a l l i a n c e with the Phocians, although no explicit
reference to the Phocians appears on the stone! 9

In 1948,
however, B. D. Meritt proposed a new reconstruction,
s u b s t i t u t i n g the Amphictyonic League (who are mentioned on the
stone) f o r the P h o c i a n s . 10
Meritt s t a t e s , on epigraphical
7
grounds, that t h i s i n s c r i p t i o n must be dated before the middle
of the f i f t h century. 11
Moreover, the treaty must have been
in e f f e c t by 454/3, when the Athenians took the f i e l d against
Pharsalus i n Thessaly, for the Boeotians are already a l l i e s of
the Athenians (Thucydides.I.Ill.1). 12
As Meritt argues, the
best date f o r an Athenian alliance with the Amphictyonic
League would be following the Battle of Oenophyta. 13

At t h i s
point, Athens was master of C e n t r a l Greece and p r o b a b l y
commanded a m a j o r i t y i n the Amphictyonic League. 14

She
thereby must have gained considerable influence at Delphi, a
fact perhaps i l l u s t r a t e d by favorable oracles issued to Athens
during this period. 1 5

The Athenian influence i n Central
Greece and the Amphictyonic League may also have resulted i n
the Phocian control of D e l p h i . 16
After the Five Year Truce had been concluded with Athens
in 451 (Thucydides 1.112.1), Sparta f e l t the time was right to
challenge Athens' imperialistic ambitions i n Central Greece
and to r e g a i n i n f l u e n c e at D e l p h i . In the only recorded
military action of t h i s p e r i o d , the Spartans' conducted an
expedition to Delphi i n which they wrested i t from the hands
of the Phocians and returned i t to the Delphians. Thereupon
the Athenians marched out under P e r i c l e s and d e l i v e r e d the
sanctuary back to the Phocians. 17
Phocian control of Delphi,
which presumably was pro-Athenian, d i d not l a s t long. " pdvou
X
eyyevoyevou y e r a xauxa " (the "Sacred War"), 18

the Athenians
were forced to evacuate Boeotia after their defeat at Coronea
8
and thereby l o s t their influence over Central Greece. Without
the risk of further Athenian intervention, the Delphians were
now free to r e c l a i m control of the sanctuary. I t i s not
recorded at • what p o i n t they d i d so, but clearly they had
recovered their past influence by the b e g i n n i n g of the
Peloponnesian War, as by now the o r a c l e showed f i r m pro-
Spartan sympathies (Thucydides 1.118.3). Delphian autonomy
was subsequently confirmed by an a r t i c l e i n the Peace of
Nicias (Thucydides V.118.2), and the situation of the
sanctuary remained e s s e n t i a l l y unchanged u n t i l the beginning
of the Third Sacred War.
Scholars have divided themselves into two opposing camps
in their i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the chronology of t h i s expedition
of the Spartans and counter expedition of the Athenians. The
object of dispute i s the " iSaxepov 6i TPLTOJU ETEU TOD upoorou icoAeuou"
in the fragment of Philochorus preserved by the s c h o l i a s t 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 P l u t a r c h . 19

The f i r s t camp,
led' by Beloch and supported by the authors of ATL, accept the
chronology of Philochorus and attempt to show that there i s no
c o n f l i c t between h i s account and that of Thucydides, as the '"dSdus
Saxepov " of Thucydides allows some leeway in i t s
interpretation. 2 0
Consequently, they believe that the
expedition and counter e x p e d i t i o n took place i n 449 and 447
respectively. The opposite camp, l e d by Gomme and Jacoby,
9
dismiss the chronology of Philochorus and accept the
implication in Thucydides and Plutarch that the Athenian
reprisal f o l l o w e d c l o s e l y upon the Spartan e x p e d i t i o n . 2 1

They
therefore date these events to 448. 22

Of these two possible
chronologies, that of Thucydides seems more c r e d i b l e than that
of Philochorus (if in fact the scholiast's excerpt can be
wholly attributed to Philochorus), especially as the latter
also contains other discrepancies. 2 3
One may w e l l i n q u i r e why t h i s fairly minor incident was
the first to be c l a s s i f i e d by the a n c i e n t sources that survive

a s a
oepos TidAeuos • T n e
scholiast on A r i s t o p h a n e s Birds 556
(F Gr H i s t 241 F 38) provides us with two reasons. First of
all, " uep<5v no'Xeyov Agfysu, na%b itpds %eo\)s IOOLTO •" A little
further on, he goes on to say: " âXeZxaL 6e U 6g,

P OTU nept
TOO ev AeAcpoUs UpoTJ eye'veTo •" The first reason obviously
derives from the title tepds rcdAeyos itself and not vice
versa. The second reason, however, is more i n t e r e s t i n g . As
this is the f i r s t war up to t h i s time which has been g i v e n the
title L,epos itdXeyos j. n the a n c i e n t s o u r c e s , the mere f a c t that
the war was conducted over the s a n c t u a r y at Delphi could not
have led to this attribution by the original fifth-century
coiner of the p h r a s e . The s u g g e s t i o n s of the s c h o l i a s t are
clearly inferences from a l a t e r viewpoint and add no f u r t h e r
clues to the motives of the o r i g i n a l source of this title in
the fifth 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 A p o l l o at
Delphi had been d i g n i f i e d with the t i t l e 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 conflict was
known to the contemporary Greek world by two names: the
Phocian War and the Sacred War. The apparent t r a d i t i o n among
the Athenian orators of the period, who followed c l o s e l y the
events of the war and were deeply involved in i t s
repercussions, was to refer to i t by the name of i t s
protagonists, the Phocians. Isocrates, i n h i s P h i l i p of 346
B. C., alludes to i t by the p e r i p h r a s i s " a nept

T 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 •" 25

As
allies of the Phocians, i t would perhaps have constituted a
c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t for the Athenian orators to c l a s s i f y this
struggle as a "sacred war."
This was not the case, however, for contemporary writers
of the P e r i p a t e t i c school. Callisthenes of Olynthus, " va^nTns
'ApuaxoTe'Aous xat aveûaSous •" 26

wrotei'a monograph e n t i t l e d "nepL
T O O ' I E P O U noAE'you " ( I _ G r _ H i s t 124 F 1). This work,
along with his Hellenica, must have been composed before
Callisthenes' departure for Asia with Alexander, thus
providing us with a terminus ante quern of 334 B. C. for the
first recorded instance of the term i n reference to t h i s war.

11
Aristotle, presumably following the example of his protege,
refers to t h i s war as 6 uepos Tto'AEyos i n his P o l i t i c s (1304a),
which was left unfinished at his death i n 322 B. C. Another
p u p i l of A r i s t o t l e , Leon of Byzantium, perhaps also following
the example of Callisthenes, composed a monograph e n t i t l e d "6
'Iep6s ndAeyos "(F Gr Hist 132 T 1 and 2). Yet a third fourth-
century monograph on the Third Sacred War, " n e p l xou ' l e p o u TloAdyou,"
was written by a c e r t a i n Cephisodorus of Thebes or Athens
(F Gr Hist 112 F 1). This apparent P e r i p a t e t i c t r a d i t i o n , was
carried on a generation l a t e r by Duris of Samos, a p u p i l of
Theophrastus, 27
A r i s t o t l e ' s successor. 28
In the second book
of his 'ioToptat , he refers to the war as "6 uepos ndAeyos "
Gr Hist 76 F 2).
Callisthenes and the P e r i p a t e t i c school, however, were
probably not the only fourth-century writers to c a l l this wa r
a i e p o s itdAeyos . Pausanias, 29
Strabo, 3 0
and Diodorus
Siculus 31
are f a m i l i a r with the use of both 6 $WXLX6S TtdAeyos
and ° P ° s ndXeyos
t e
to describe this war.
The term 6 $ajKuxds TtdAeyos i - these authors presumably
n
derives ultimately from the orators, but the question of the

source(s) of the term 0
L-epog TtdAeyos i s more problematical..
Pausanias gives no c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n of his sources. Strabo
uses the authority of Ephorus throughout Book IX, 32

but does
not state specifically from what source he derives this
particular section. 33
Diodorus Siculus i s much more h e l p f u l
in this regard. 34
In XVI.14.3-5, under the year 357/6, he
12
mentions three fourth-century writers who have dealt with the
events of the s o - c a l l e d Third Sacred War:

Twv 6e auYYpacpewv AriydcpuXos yev 6 'Ecpdpou xot3 LaxopLoypdcpou
ULOS xov TtapaXeLcpê'vxa TtdXeyov vud xoO" Tcaxpos, ovoyaaSevxa 6 E
ucpdv, aovxExayyEvos E V X E O ^ E V ?ipxxaL onto xfis xaxaXnêaJS xoO E V
AeXcpous uepoO naX xfjg auXriaews xoD yavxetou und $LXoynXou xoO
$a)xea)s" Eycvexo 6*6 ndXeyos oSxos E X T I E V 6 E H C X ews xris <p§opas xtov
6 b a v E u y a y E v w v xPnyaxa. KaXXuoÊvriS 6 E xnv X U J V ' E X X T I V L X U J V Ttpayydxwv
ilaxoptav yeypacpEv e v
3 U * B X O L S 6EXCH xat xaxeaxpocpev E L S xnv xaxaXnipLv
xoi5 UEpoO xat itapavoyuav 4>uXoynXou xoO Owxews. A L U X X O S 6*6 'ASrivaCos
?ipxxaL xriv uaxopdav onto xris L-EpoauXnasus xat yeypacpE 3u3Xous E L X O Q L
xat auyuEpLXaB&v itaaas x&s E V X O L S X P ^ V O L S X O U X O L S yevoys'vas
i t p d ^ E L S nepL xe xnv *EXXa6a xat xnv I L X E X L O V .
Under the year 341/0, i n XVI.76.5-6, we f i n d an apparent
continuation to XVI.14.3-5:
Tuv 6 E ouyypatpECuV *Ecpopos y £ v o Kuyafos x'nv uaxopuav svddSe
xaxsaxpocpsv E L S xry\> Ilepuvdou TtoXuopx-Lav* TtepLELXncps 6 E xfj
ypacpfj n p d £ £ L S xds X E X S V 'EXXnvujv xat 3ap3dpuv onto xfis xuiv
'HpaxXEL,6a3V xa$d6ou* P° X i t E p t E X O I 3 E EXU5V o"xe6ov ETtxaxoaLtov
V 0 V 0 E
xat TtEVxrixovxa xat, BtfSXous y^ypacps xpudxovxa, npoouyoov exdaxn

TtpodEds. ALUXXOS 6'6 'A^nvaUos xns Ssuxspas auvxd^sojs apxnv
TtETtouriTaL xns 'Ecpdpou LaxopLas xrjv X E X E U X T I V xat xds e£ris Ttpd£jELS
auvELpeL xds X E xG5v 'EXXnvujv xat" xuiv gapgdpwv yexPL xfis ^ L X L T I T I O U
XEXeuxfis.
Diodorus mentions another possible source for h i s narrative of
the Sacred War i n XVI.3.8, under the year 360/59:
Tuv 6e auYYpacpdtov 6£OTtoyTtos 6 X L O S T T I V ap n"v xwv itepL

X
. 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 b e l i e v e s that the f i r s t of these historians,
Demophilus, i s the main source used by Diodorus i n h i s account
of the Sacred War. 35

I t i s generally agreed that Demophilus
wrote the t h i r t i e t h and f i n a l book of Ephorus, 36

a view which
is c o n s i s t e n t 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 h i s
f a t h e r ' s work, the reputation of Ephorus must have made i t
quite accessible to l a t e r historians like Diodorus.
Therefore, Hammond i s probably r i g h t i n considering him the
main source of Diodorus for this c o n f l i c t . Furthermore, the
fact that Diodorus mentions him f i r s t i n his l i s t of sources
for the Sacred War must have some s i g n i f i c a n c e . 37
The next writer whom Diodorus mentions i n h i s l i s t of
sources f o r the Sacred War i s C a l l i s t h e n e s who, as we have
seen, composed a monograph e n t i t l e d " nep'L xoO 'lepoD noAeyou ."
The third and f i n a l source given by Diodorus for his
account of the Sacred War i s D i y l l u s of Athens. Hammond
b e l i e v e s that Diodorus used D i y l l u s to "supplement" his main
source, Demophilus, i n h i s n a r r a t i v e of the Sacred War. 38
While we may agree with Hammond i n that Diodorus obviously

made use of the 'io-ropuaL 0 f D i y l l u s , the extent to which he
did so i s impossible for us to gauge, as so l i t t l e of D i y l l u s '
work remains. 39
While Diodorus cites Demophilus, C a l l i s t h e n e s , and
Diyllus as sources i n the p r e f a c e t o h i s n a r r a t i v e of the
Sacred War (XVI.14.3-5), he a l s o mentions Theopompus i n h i s
description of the early a c t i v i t i e s of P h i l i p (XVI.3.8), as we
saw above. The fact that Diodorus does not include Theopompus
in his l i s t of sources i n t h i s preface, however, should not

14
exclude him from being a possible source for the Third Sacred
War because the year 357/6 serves either as a terminus post
quern or ante quern f o r the other three w r i t e r s . 40

Moreover,
Theopompus e v i d e n t l y made a connection between the so-called
Second and Third Sacred Wars, as the twentieth book of h i s
Philippica, which dealt mainly with the events of the year
348/7, contained a digression on the f i f t h - c e n t u r y incident (F

Gr Hist 115 F 156). One can perhaps infer from t h i s evidence
that he also referred to both events as "Sacred Wars."
Although we cannot be sure whether or not Diodorus used
it as a source, we do know that Theopompus wrote a t r e a t i s e
entitled " ilepu x&v kn AeXcpuv xpnudTwv ." This subject proved
to be a popular one, with the tale obviously becoming taller
as the year passed. We find a v e r s i o n i n Book T h i r t y of
Ephorus-Demophilus (F Gr H i s t 70 F 95), i n Phylarchus (F Gr
Hist 81 F 70), and in Strabo (9.3.8), as well as i n Diodorus
(XVI.56.5-8 and XVI.64). As a l l of these versions vary i n
their details, i t is likely 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 r e s u l t , i t i s impossible to assign l a t e r descriptions to any
one fourth-century .source.
Let us now sum up our conclusions concerning the fourth-
century nomenclature of the s o - c a l l e d Third Sacred War. We
have seen that t h i s war was known to i t s contemporaries by two
names: 6 ^WKUKOC ndAeuog and 6 lepog noXcôz . The term

15
"Phocian War" appears from our extant evidence to have been
used extensively by the Athenian orators and c l e a r l y predates
the use of the term "Sacred War" to refer to t h i s c o n f l i c t .
This title was preferred by Callisthenes and his fellow
Peripatetics and presumably a l s o by the h i s t o r i a n s of the
period: Demophilus (and Ephorus), Theopompus, D i y l l u s , and
Duris of Samos. Consequently, i t seems that to refer to t h i s
war as a "sacred war" was not peculiar to the Peripatetic
school, although the t r a d i t i o n apparently originated with i t ,
but eventually became a feature of the h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c genre
as a whole.
We must now turn to an examination of the events of the
so-called Third Sacred War, i n the hope that i t will provide
us with some clue as to why t h i s c o n f l i c t was d i g n i f i e d with
the title of uepos itdAeyos . As we have seen, aside from
casual references to the war i n the speeches of the orators
and the few scattered fragments of the fourth-century
h i s t o r i a n s which s u r v i v e , we have no contemporary record of
this c o n f l i c t . Book XVI of Diodorus Siculus, supplemented by
Book Eight of Justin's brief Epitome of the Historiae
P h i l i p p i c a e 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 t h i s c o n f l i c t . It i s no wonder
that controversy shrouds the chronology and many of the
d e t a i l s of t h i s war.
16
The bare outline of events, at least, i s clear. In the
spring Amphictyonic meeting of 356 , 4 1

the Phocians were
threatened with Amphictyonic reprisal, i f they did not
discharge at once a large fine which had previously been
levied against them. 42

From the c o n f u s i o n i n our sources, i t
appears that this fine was merely a pretext to inflict
punishment on the Phocians f o r more d e e p - s e a t e d reasons. The
Thebans had been harbouring a grudge against the Phocians
since the Battle of Mantinea. After the Battle of Leuctra,
the Phocians had been forced to join the Theban alliance
(Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VI.5.23). The P h o c i a n s , however r e s e n t e d
their new status as subjects ( uTirfaoou ) of the Thebans and
showed their displeasure by refusing to join the Theban
coalition at Mantinea (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a V I I . 5 . 4 ) .
After the death of Epaminondas and the collapse of the
T h e b a n hegemony, t h e T h e b a n s had to resort to p o l i t i c a l rather
than military means to achieve their aims. At some
unspecified point after the Battle of Leuctra, the Thebans
accused the Spartans before the Council of the Amphictyonic
League of having occupied the Cadmeia in a time of peace and
also brought some a l l e g e d charge against the P h o c i a n s . 4 3

The
Spartans were subsequently fined five hundred talents
(Diodorus XVI.28.2) and the Phocians were assessed a penalty
of %oXXa xdXavxa (Diodorus XVI.22.3). N e i t h e r the Spartans
nor the Phocians paid off this penalty within the prescribed
period of time but the matter was ignored u n t i l 357/6 . 4 4

At
17
this time, already provoked by the r e s u l t s of the Battle of
Mantinea and further irritated by the recent a f f a i r in
Euboea, 45
the Thebans judged the time was right to take
a c t i o n , taking advantage of the fact that Athens was engaged
in the Social War 46

and would not be able to i n t e r f e r e . Once
again, the Thebans used their i n f l u e n c e on the Amphictyonic
League 41
to r e t a l i a t e 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 P h o c i s . 48

The Amphictyonic
League thus p l a n t e d i t s e l f firmly behind the Thebans and
ordered the Phocians to discharge their f i n e under the threat
of having a curse l a i d upon t h e i r land. The Spartans a l s o
were threatened, should they not pay o f f their f i n e (which was
now raised to one thousand talents). 49
At t h i s news, the Phocians were thrown into a quandary,
as t h e i r s was a small state without many resources. They had
no hope whatsoever of paying o f f the f i n e , because of i t s
extreme magnitude. 50
Yet, i f the Amphictyons proceeded to
place t h e i r t e r r i t o r y under a curse, they would then a l l be
deprived of t h e i r livelihood. 5 1
Then Philomelus, son of
Theotimus, a high-ranking Phocian, came forward and urged his
fellow-countrymen on to a c t i o n . He argued that the judgments
of the Amphictyonic League were completely unfair and advised
them to s e i z e the s a n c t u a r y of A p o l l o at D e l p h i , on the
grounds that i t was theirs by a n c e s t r a l right, since the
18
Homeric Catalogue of Ships l i s t e d Delphi among the Phocian
towns ( I l i a d 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 a u t o k r a t o r 1,53

and
proceeded to challenge the Amphictyonic judgement. 54
Philomelus then s e t about g a t h e r i n g support for his
cause. He received f i f t e e n talents i n secret and a promise of
f u t u r e a i d from the Spartan king, Archidamus, who was i n a
similar position h i m s e l f with regard to the Amphictyonic
League. With this money added to h i s own personal resources,
Philomelus was able to h i r e mercenaries to seize the oracle
(Diodorus XVI.27.3). He then sent envoys to the Greek states
insisting 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 o t h e r s allied themselves w i t h the

Phocians. 55
The Boeotians, the Locrians, and their supporters
remained h o s t i l e however.
After further Phocian m i l i t a r y successes, the Locrians
appealed to the Boeotians f o r a i d . The Boeotians, i n turn,
sent envoys to the T h e s s a l i a n s and the other Amphictyonic
members, asking them to declare war against the Phocians. The
motion was passed ( (JjricpLaaye'vwv 6k xwv 'AycpL>(Tu6*vu)v TO*V upds $coxeus
TidXeyov ) a n
d the war began i n earnest (Diodorus XVI. 28.2-
4). Philomelus now recruited a still larger army of

19.
mercenaries and with t h i s force he began a successful campaign
against the L o c r i a n s , the Boeotians and the T h e s s a l i a n s
(Diodorus XVI.30). Philomelus also forced the Boeotians to
discontinue t h e i r b r u t a l p o l i c y of executing a l l mercenaries
captured from the Phocian forces as temple-robbers by meting
out the same f a t e t o some B o e o t i a n prisoners (Diodorus
XVI.31.1-2). Philomelus' wave of good f o r t u n e was not
destined to be of long d u r a t i o n . Shortly after t h i s , the
Boeotians by sheer force of numbers defeated the Phocians at
Neon. Philomelus, s t i l l f i g h t i n g bravely, was cornered by the
enemy and threw h i m s e l f o f f a p r e c i p i c e . H i s army then
retreated back to Phocis under Onomarchus, " 0

°* e
ouvdpxwv aux$
axpaxriYOS . "56
At an emergency meeting of the common assembly of the
Phocians, Onomarchus came forward and urged h i s compatriots to
continue the war. When he had been e l e c t e d "strategos
autokrator," Onomarchus proceeded to r e c r u i t further
mercenaries to f i l l the ranks of h i s army (Diodorus XVI.32).
In need of further funds, Onomarchus unscrupulously "borrowed"
from the sanctuary of Apollo, forging the bronze and iron into
weapons and s t r i k i n g coinage from the s i l v e r and gold. With
these extra resources, he was able to bribe the Thessalians
(among others) to remain n e u t r a l , leaving h i s hands free to
make inroads on the t e r r i t o r y of the L o c r i a n s and the
Boeotians (Diodorus XVI.33).
At t h i s p o i n t , P h i l i p of Macedon played a part f o r the

20
first time i n the events of the war when the T h e s s a l i a n s
appealed to him for m i l i t a r y a i d against Lycophron, the tyrant
of Pherae. 57
Lycrophron, i n turn, obtained the support of the
powerful Phocian army. At f i r s t , Onomarchus dispatched h i s
brother Phayllus to Thessaly with seven thousand men. After
t h i s preliminary force was defeated, Onomarchus came i n person
with the entire Phocian army and defeated the combined troops
of Philip and the Thessalians i n two engagements. Philip,
outnumbered but not d i s c o u r a g e d , withdrew to Macedon. 58
Onomarchus, on the other hand, encouraged by t h i s success,
made an incursion into Boeotia and took the c i t y of Coronea. 59
At the beginning of the next campaigning season (spring

352), Philip returned to Thessaly with a larger army. Once
again, Lycophron requested military a i d from h i s powerful
allies, the Phocians. A decisive battle of the combined
forces of the Thessalians and P h i l i p against Lycophron and the
Phocians was fought, most probably on the C r o c i o n Plain
between Halus and P h t h i o t i c Thebes, from which t h i s battle
derives i t s modern name ("Battle of the Crocus Field"). 6 0
Onomarchus and h i s men were routed and f l e d to the sea where

Chares "happened" ( TUXLX&S ) to be s a i l i n g by. Onomarchus was
among the many Phocian s o l d i e r s who drowned i n an attempt to
swim out to the Athenian triremes. In total,there were over
six thousand Phocian c a s u a l t i e s and three thousand Phocian
captives in this ill-fated battle (Diodorus XVI.35.4-6).
Philip capitalized on the f a c t that t h i s was nominally a
21
"sacred war" by ordering h i s s o l d i e r s to don laurel wreaths
before the b a t t l e as avengers of A p o l l o . 61

In keeping with
his self-proclaimed role of Delphic avenger, P h i l i p hung the
dead body of Onomarchus " and threw the rest
62
( TOUS aXAous )
into the sea on the grounds that they had been g u i l t y of
sacrilege. 53
After the death of Onomarchus, h i s brother, Phayllus,
succeeded to the post of "strategos a u t o k r a t o r . 1,64

From
further funds "borrowed" from the sanctuary at D e l p h i , he
attempted to recoup the Phocian losses i n the Battle of the
Crocus F i e l d by h i r i n g still more mercenaries at double the
usual rate of pay ( D i o d o r u s 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 battles (Diodorus
XVI.37.3-6).
Meanwhile, encouraged by his success i n Thessaly, P h i l i p

prepared to extend his influence further south. 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. 65

This was the l a s t decisive action i n the
war u n t i l 346.
The conflict now disintegrated i n t o a tedious war of
attrition, i n which the resources of both the Thebans and the
Phocians were gradually drained. Soon Phayllus died of a ^v^ris

22
vdaos and passed on the o f f i c e of strategos to the young
Phalaecus. 6 6
After several more y e a r s of skirmishing,
Phalaecus was accused in 347 of s t e a l i n g the sacred treasures
for h i s 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 68
and her losses i n the Sacred War were
falling solely upon her citizens rather than upon foreign
mercenaries. 59
F i n a l l y , in 346, the Boeotians sent an embassy
to P h i l i p requesting an a l l i a n c e (Diodorus XVI.59.2). Philip
seized the o p p o r t u n i t y and advanced to Thermopylae.
Meanwhile, the Phocians, f e a r i n g the outcome, should Philip
take the f i e l d against them, had appealed to Athens and Sparta
for help. 7 0
Athens sent a f o r c e under Proxenus and fifty
triremes to the defense of Thermopylae, while Sparta
dispatched one thousand hoplites under Archidamus. 71
Phalaecus, however, had somehow regained his post of general

and he proceeded to send away the Athenian and Spartan forces
from Thermopylae. 72
When P h i l i p arrived at Thermopylae,
Phalaecus capitulated on condition of safe conduct for himself
and his army of eight thousand mercenaries to the
Peloponnese . 7 3
Upon hearing the news of the d e f e c t i o n of
their commander and most of the army, a l l the Phocian towns
surrendered u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y . 74
P h i l i p , having put a decisive end to the war " 5VEU ydxns,"
continued his role as devout defender of Apollo by c a l l i n g an

23
assembly of the Amphictyonic League to decide the fate of
Phocis, instead of taking matters into his own hands (Diodorus
XVI.59.4). One t r i b e actually proposed the t r a d i t i o n a l
punishment f o r temple-robbers, that the offenders be thrown
off a c l i f f (Aeschines 2.142). Nevertheless, due to P h i l i p ' s
influence, a more merciful p o l i c y prevailed. A l l the Phocian
towns were t o be d e s t r o y e d and t h e i r inhabitants were
thereafter to dwell i n s c a t t e r e d villages of no more than
f i f t y houses. A l l t h e i r horses were to be sold and a l l their
arms destroyed. An annual payment of s i x t y talents to replace
the treasures of the sanctuary was imposed. 75

In addition,
Phocis was deprived of her share i n the Amphictyonic League
and her two votes were given to P h i l i p . 7 6

P h i l i p was now the
leading power i n the Amphictyonic League and could control the
voting by v i r t u e of h i s own two votes and h i s sway over
Thessaly and her p e r i o i k o i . P h i l i p presided over the Pythian
Games of 346 B. C. and then returned home to Macedon (Diodorus
XVI.60.2-4).
Thus ended the so-called Third Sacred War, with P h i l i p ' s
use of the machinery of the Amphictyonic League to l e g i t i m i z e
his p o s i t i o n i n Greece. Although, as we have seen above, the
bare f a c t s of the c o n f l i c t are c l e a r from the n a r r a t i v e of
Diodorus, the chronology i s hotly disputed. Once again, we
find modern h i s t o r i a n s divided into two camps: those who
believe that the account of Diodorus contains a narrative
doublet, 77
and their opponents, who argue that such a doublet
24
does not e x i s t and t h e r e f o r e Diodorus' chronology should
stand. 78
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 c o n t r o v e r s i a l "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 r e p e t i t i o n s , can we r e a l l y
impute to our main source for t h i s period such carelessness as
to record unknowingly the events of the same year twice? It
seems a contradiction i n terms to derive most (indeed, almost
all) of our facts concerning t h i s c o n f l i c t from Diodorus but:
at the same time to disregard h i s chronology altogether.
Moreover, Hammond has shown, q u i t e convincingly, that the
internal evidence i n Diodorus squares with the e x t e r n a l
evidence from independent sources. 79

Thus, he dates the
seizure of the sanctuary to 357/6 and the declaration of war
by the Amphictyonic League to 355/54, and h i s chronology has
won wide acceptance. 80
One may well wonder what t h i s lengthy war concluding i n
the upheaval of the Greek world had i n common with the
bloodless squabble of the p r e v i o u s century. The obvious
similarity, of course, i s that both wars were fought over
Delphi. Delphi, by t h i s time, was t r u l y a panhellenic centre.
Its infallible (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 true panhellenic stature during the e r a of

25
colonization. Few c o l o n i e s were e s t a b l i s h e d without divine
assent from Apollo and often others l a t e r invented oracles to
atone for t h i s oversight. In a d d i t i o n to the reputation of
i t s oracle, Delphi also hosted the Pythian Games, which along
with the Olympic, Nemean, and Isthmian Games formed the only
panhellenic festivals. This group of p a n h e l l e n i c f e s t i v a l s
fostered a sense of national unity and a t t r a c t e d v i s i t o r s and
competitors from a l l over Greece. Delphi, therefore, had very
quickly a t t r a c t e d an enormous amount of wealth and prestige
and, consequently, i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that numerous attempts
were made to control the sanctuary. The f i r s t attempt to do
so with m i l i t a r y force i n the c l a s s i c a l period was aptly named
a "Sacred War," as the s c h o l i a s t to Aristophanes' Birds 556
remarks. 81
A second s i m i l a r i t y between the two incidents l i e s on a
less superficial level. The m o t i v a t i o n behind the two
conflicts was e s s e n t i a l l y the same. Although both "Sacred
Wars" were nominally on behalf of Apollo, i n r e a l i t y both were
fought for s t r i c t l y political motives. In other words,
r e l i g i o n was merely an excuse to provoke a war i n both cases.
The differences between the two wars appear f a r more
striking. Nevertheless, we must remember that the ancient
accounts of the fourth-century war are extremely copious and
emotional i n comparison with the terse Thucydidean description
of the f i f t h - c e n t u r y incident. Consequently, i t is difficult
to a s c e r t a i n whether or not p u b l i c reaction to the f i f t h -

26
century affair was on the same emotional level as that
provoked by the fourth-century c r i s i s .
In spite of our lack of evidence, i t seems likely that
this was not the case. Although both the Spartans and the
Athenians had o r c h e s t r a t e d armed take-overs of Delphi in the
fifth-century, neither side i s recorded as having committed
any crime heinous enough to brand them as "sacrilegious" as
the Phocians were a century later. Therefore, the armed
occupation of D e l p h i was probably not sufficient in itself to
incite the pious outrage against the Phocians which is
reflected i n our sources, especially since the contemporary
Greek world was quite aware that the Phocians had been forced
into action by the Thebans. 8 2

Sympathy f o r the Phocians, for
t h e most part, began to fade when t h e i r l e a d e r s more and more
unscrupulously plundered the temple treasures i n order to pay
their army of mercenaries. 8 3

Even Aeschines who, as an
Athenian, was nominally an ally of Phocis and shows himself
sympathetic towards the Phocians (he claims in 2.142 to have
saved them a l l from execution as temple-robbers), censures
their seizure of the sacred treasures (2.132).
We saw above that catalogues of the treasures plundered
from Delphi by the successive Phocian commanders were a
popular contemporary topic. 8 4

As time passed, the tale grew
taller and writers took pleasure in recounting the divine
retribution which they considered justly incurred by the
sacrilegious Phocians and their allies. 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
t a l e n t s and had melted down i r r e p l a c e a b l e treasures, dating
back to the g e n e r o s i t y of Croesus, for their own profane
use. 87
The widespread feeling of outrage generated by the
Phocian spoliation of the sanctuary i s a f e a t u r e of the
fourth-century c o n f l i c t not found i n our accounts (terse as

they are) of the f i f t h - c e n t u r y incident.
The other major differences • between the two wars l i e i n
the d i s t i n c t f e a t u r e s of the fourth-century c o n f l i c t . The
protracted ten-year struggle imposed a l a s t i n g 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 s e t t l e a p r i v a t e grudge was most
effective. 8 8
The ultimate intervention by P h i l i p of Macedon
(also using the machinery of the Amphictyonic League) changed
the face of the Greek world. Therefore, the fourth-century
war had consequences s i g n i f i c a n t l y more far-reaching than the
fifth-century c o n f l i c t .
It i s perhaps for this reason that the contemporary
h i s t o r i a n s , unlike modern scholars, did not give i t a number—
i t was simply known as " 0

tepos TtoAeyos ." There i s nothing at
all in i t s t i t l e to i n d i c a t e that i t had been preceded by
another "Sacred War" i n the previous century. Perhaps the
fact that i t e v i d e n t l y superseded the minor squabble of the
fifth century i n importance caused i t to become "the Sacred

28
War" par excellence. After a l l , very few c o n f l i c t s i n ancient
Greece took on such dimensions as t h i s exhaustive struggle.
Nevertheless, i t i s important to remember that the f i f t h -
century incident i s the o r i g i n a l "Sacred War" and that the
fourth-century c o n f l i c t apparently began as a "Phocian War."
This was the term c o n s i s t e n t l y used by the Athenian orators
during the course of the war although, as a l l i e s of Phocis and
enemies of P h i l i p , they may have been reluctant to acknowledge
it as a "Sacred War." Before long, however, the
historiographic tradition, influenced perhaps by Philip's
propaganda, saw the connection between the f i f t h - c e n t u r y and
fourth-century c o n f l i c t s and borrowed the term "Sacred War"
from Thucydides' narrative. In t h i s way, a "Phocian War"
became a "Sacred War" f o r p o s t e r i t y .

29
THE MODERN CONCEPT OF SACRED WAR
In the previous chapter, we e s t a b l i s h e d that the so-
c a l l e d Second and Third Sacred Wars were l a b e l l e d as such (uepbs
TidAeyos ) i n antiquity. These wars had l i t t l e i n common
except that both were fought over the sanctuary of Apollo at
Delphi. In order to a r r i v e at a working hypothesis to explain
why the term tep6s TtdAeuos w a s exclusively applied to these
c o n f l i c t s , we must contrast them with two categories of test
cases: wars which modern scholars have l a b e l l e d as "sacred"
and wars which share elements i n common with tepol ndAeyoL D U t
are not g i v e n this attribution by a n c i e n t or modern
authorities.
The first category, wars which have been c l a s s i f i e d as
"sacred wars" by modern s c h o l a r s , 89

consists of two other wars
fought at Delphi. These are, namely, the F i r s t Sacred War and
the Fourth Sacred War. Yet, neither of these wars was given
the t i t l e uepds ndAeyos i n a n t i q u i t y . This raises the question
once again of which elements j u s t i f y the use of t h i s term. In
order to address this q u e s t i o n , we must examine these so-
c a l l e d "sacred wars" i n d e t a i l .
30
The nomenclature of the so-called First Sacred War is
consistent. The earliest extant source 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 of Olynthus, whom we h a v e a l r e a d y met in
our discussion of the so-called Third Sacred War. Athenaeus
quotes Callisthenes (F Gr Hist 124 F 1) in a passage of his
Deipnosophistae (XIII.560 B-C):
xai, 6 Kptaauxog TtdXeyos 6voya£d"yevos, u>s cpncu KaXXLcrSevns ev

TCJU IlepL TOO ' l e p o i j IToXeyou, oxe KLppaUou npds $wxeUs eTtoXeyricav,
6exaexri£ ?iv. apitaadvTwv KLppatuiv TT\\> JleXdyovLOS xo\3 ^WXEWS
duyaxepa Meytaxci x a l xds 'Apyeuoav duyaxepas eiavLOuaas ex xoO
nudLxoO tepou. 6exdxuJb 6e exet edAaj xaL ri Ki^ppa.
T h i s b r i e f passage i n Athenaeus does, however, l e a v e ambiguous
w h i c h war i s discussed i n Callisthenes' monograph "ITepu xou
'lepoO noXeyou ." Does the monograph as a whole concern the
so-called First Sacred War or i s Callisthenes' treatment of
6 Kpuaauxos ito'Xeyos s i m p l y a digression contained in his
narrative of the so-called Third Sacred War? At first sight,
the t i t l e " Ilept xoO 'iepoti IloXeyou " appears to r e f e r to the so-
called First Sacred War, because that i s c l e a r l y t h e war which
Callisthenes is describing. 9 0
This first impression i s based
on inference, however, not o n l y from the c o n t e x t but also from
the m i s l e a d i n g modern title of the First Sacred War, as this
war i s not l a b e l l e d as a tepbs ndXeyos by any extant ancient
source.
In order to a s c e r t a i n w h i c h war Callisthenes refers to as
6 L e p d s itdXeyos , i t i s necessary to examine more closely the
scope of Callisthenes' work. We know from Diodorus
(XIV.117.8) that Callisthenes began his history with the

31
events of the year 387/6:
KaAAuaÊvris 6*6 uaTopLoypdcpoc an6 xfis Haxa xouxov T O V
evuauTov yevoyevris ELpnvns *EAAnau Ttpds ApxaÊpCnv xbv

T O L S
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 auvxdêus Etnv uno xoD $LAoynAou xoO
L S $ U M E L J S
xaxdAn^tv xoO EV AsAcpoUs L.Epou.
In h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n to the Sacred War under the year 357/6,
Diodorus included Callisthenes in his l i s t of sources, as we
have seen. 91
Therefore, Callisthenes' Hellenica spanned the
years 387/6-357/6 and could not have contained an account of
the Crisaean War, which took place i n the early s i x t h century,
except as a digression. Nevertheless, i t i s not C a l l i s t h e n e s 1
Hellenica which includes a digression on the Crisaean War but
rather a separate work, e n t i t l e d " IlepL xou ' I E P O T J TIoAdyou ."
There i s another reference to t h i s work on the Sacred War
in Cicero (Epistulae ad Familiares V.12.2):
...an, ut multi Graeci fecerunt, Callisthenes Phocicum 92
bellum, Timaeus P y r r h i , Polybius Numantium (qui omnes

a perpetuis suis h i s t o r i i s ea, quae d i x i , b e l l a
separaverunt)...
From this reference i n Cicero, i t becomes clear that
C a l l i s t h e n e s ' monograph on the "Sacred War" i s an account of
the fourth-century c o n f l i c t , and not the Crisaean War and that
i t was composed as a separate appendix to the main body of h i s
h i s t o r y , i n t h i s case the Hellenica. Because the c l o s i n g date
of Callisthenes' Hellenica marked the b e g i n n i n g of the
hostilities over D e l p h i , i t is likely that t h i s monograph
constituted 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 e a r l i e r c o n f l i c t over Delphi contained i n the
larger context of h i s monograph on the "Sacred War." It i s
clearly the f o u r t h - c e n t u r y conflict which i s g i v e n the
attribution 6 tepos ndAeyos and not the Crisaean War.
Another reference by name to the Crisaean War i s found i n
the Hypothesis to Pindar's Nemean IX. The s c h o l i a s t says:
n e p l TSV iv ELXUWVL, nufcdoiv 6 'AALxapvaasOs OUTCO YPacpet*

cpncfL 6e iv lip TtoAeytj) TWV KpLaadwv xaxi %dXaaaav pa6du)S
Ta entTTl6eLa TtopuCoydvwv xaL 6ud TOUTO yaxpas Y^vovevnc rfjc
itoAuopxdas» KAeLaSevnv TOV ELXULSVLOV vauTtxdv t 6 d a TtapaaxeudaavTa
xwAOaau Tnv aiToioyudav auTuiv, x a t 6ua Tau*Tnv Trfv euEpYeadav TS -
TPUTOV TWV Aacpdpcov E*6oaav Tip KAEuadsvEU xau ELXUUJVLOLS . acp'oS

xau ELxucovuou T& Ilu'Soa up&TOV itap'saUTOus EÊaav.
The s c h o l i a s t does not state e x p l i c i t l y the i d e n t i t y of 6
'AAuxapvaaeus . Drachmann (ad l o c ) 9 4

suggests that the
scholiast refers to Herodotus V.67. This suggestion i s
probably correct, since i n t h i s chapter Herodotus discusses
Cleisthenes and h i s o p p o s i t i o n to the SuadaL and opxad at
Sicyon i n honour of Adrastus. Moreover, this passage of
Herodotus i s cited a little further on i n the scholium to
Nemean IX 30a, where i t should be noted that Herodotus i s
mentioned by name and not by b i r t h p l a c e . Herodotus, however,
makes no reference whatsoever to Cleisthenes' role i n the
Crisaean War or h i s i n s t i t u t i o n of Pythian Games at Sicyon out
of the s p o i l s . And, i n Herodotus' H i s t o r y , the o r a c l e at
Delphi i s generally portrayed as unsympathetic to Cleisthenes.
Therefore, the cpnad f o l l o w i n g the lacuna i n the scholium
cannot refer to Herodotus.

33
The c r u c i a l point to consider regarding the authorship of
the section of the scholium following cpnau i s whether or not
the lacuna contained t h e name of another source.
Unfortunately, the l e n g t h of the lacuna i s i m p o s s i b l e to
determine. I f the l a c u n a was a s h o r t one and d i d not
originally c o n t a i n the name of any other source, then the
Halicarnassian mentioned cannot be Herodotus, because he does
not mention Cleisthenes i n this connection at a l l . Moreover,
there i s no written reference to Herodotus as 6 'AAtxapvaaeus
before the second century B. C. From the time of A r i s t o t l e
(Rhetoric III.9.1) until later Alexandrine s c h o l a r s h i p ,
Herodotus was referred to as Soupdou , 9 5

Nevertheless, i f the
scholiast dates from the l a t e r H e l l e n i s t i c period, i t i s much
more likely that he i s r e f e r r i n g to Herodotus as t h e
Halicarnassian par excellence.
Noel Robertson, 96
f o l l o w i n g Wilamowit2, 97
proposes the
identification 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 i n his work n e p t XP°"VO)V (F Gr
Hist 251 F 1), which does not survive. Since Dionysius' book
on chronology i s not extant, Robertson's suggestion cannot be
positively proved or disproved. Nevertheless, Dionysius i s
not likely to have d i s c u s s e d C l e i s t h e n e s or the S i c y o n i a n
festival in detail. Furthermore, the change of verbs i n the
scholium and the p a r t i c l e °£ do indicate a change of source.
The thesis that the lacuna does c o n t a i n the name of

34
another source was f i r s t put forward by Drachmann (ad loc) .
He proposes that the section on Cleisthenes' involvement can
be a t t r i b u t e d to Menaechmus of Sicyon, 98
who i s also mentioned
in the scholium to Nemean IX 30a. This is a reasonable
conclusion since i t i s l i k e l y that Menaechmus l i v e d i n the
l a t t e r half of the fourth century 99

i n the wake of the furor
over Delphi. Furthermore, Menaechmus i s a natural candidate
to t i e Cleisthenes i n with Delphi, as he wrote both a luxuwvLxd
(F Gr H i s t 131 F 1) and a nuSuxo's (F Gr H i s t 131 F 2).
Nevertheless, too l i t t l e of Menaechmus' work remains f o r us to
v e r i f y t h i s conclusion with any degree of c e r t a i n t y . I t seems
likely, however, that Menaechmus would have had f a r more

motivation to discuss Cleisthenes and the foundation of the
P y t h i a at Sicyon than Dionysius of H a l i c a r n a s s u s . At any
rate, the s o u r c e from whom the s c h o l i a s t derives his
information refers t o this war as 6 ito'Aeyos TWV KptaaiTuv.
Pausanias i s another ancient source to mention t h i s war

by name. Like the s c h o l i a s t i n the Hypothesis to Pindar's
Nemean IX, Pausanias l i n k s Cleisthenes to the Crisaean War.
In h i s 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 c l e a r l y derived h i s information from a l o c a l
Sicyonian tradition (perhaps Menaechmus) 100

concerning this
35
s t o a and i t s namesake.
Strabo, on the other hand, appears to be using yet
another source, 1 0 1
one who wishes t o emphasize the role of
Eurylochus of Thessaly in the Crisaean War. His first
r e f e r e n c e by name to the war o c c u r s i n IX.3.4:

n 6e nat Kdppa x a t r\ KpCaa xaTEaTcda^naav, r\ ye"v ["TCPO'TSPOV und
Kpuaauwv, auxin 6*ri KpCaq} uaxspov uit'EupuAo'xou T O O OetxaAoO xaxa*
T O V Kpl'aaCov ncJAeyov.
In IX.3.10, he a l l u d e s to the war once a g a i n :
y e t a 6e xd\> Kpl'aaCov itd*Aeyov OL. 'AycpLxxu*ov£S LTtTCLXo^v xaC
yuyvuxov Eit'EupuAo'xou 6 L E T a £ j L V aTecpavuxriv xaX I l u ^ b a exdAeaav.
6 KpuaaCos ito'AEyos i s the term used by Strabo to denote this
conflict.
Thus, the so-called First Sacred War was referred to i n
our surviving sources as the following: 6 K p t a a t x o s Tco'Aeyos, 6 no'AEyos
TG5V Kpuaadujv, 6 npos Kuppa Tto'Aeyos, and 6 KpuaaCos Tto'AeyoSo
These different formulations appear to be v a r i a n t s on two
names: the " C r i s a e a n War" or the "War Against Cirrha." The
origin of these names can p o s s i b l e be t r a c e d 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 is likely that t h i s war was not
called a êpos Tto'AEyos by a s i n g l e f o u r t h - c e n t u r y source, which
is peculiar i n view of the i n c r e a s e d concern over Delphi
o c c a s i o n e d by the Phocian War.
The furor over Delphi d i d , however, lead to renewed
interest i n past conflicts involving that sanctuary and the
Amphictyonic League. Not much a t t e n t i o n had been p a i d to the
Crisaean War before this time (it is not mentioned by

36
Herodotus or Thucydides). As a result of the Phocian War,
however, contemporary h i s t o r i a n s became interested in the
Crisaean War and clearly drew some c o n n e c t i o n between i t and
the fourth-century conflict. Despite the fact that they did
not call i t a "Sacred War," they saw occasion to r e f e r to the
Crisaean War s e v e r a l times at least i n the decade f o l l o w i n g
the c o n c l u s i o n of the Phocian War.
The first datable reference to the war is found in
Speusippus' Letter to Philip of Macedon 102

of 342, on the
authority of a c e r t a i n Antipater of Magnesia (F Gr Hist 69 F
2): " KpuaaUou 6e into" xwv 'AucpuMxdovajv avnupednaav."
Probably about this time, C a l l i s t h e n e s included a section on
the C r i s a e a n War i n h i s work on the Phocian War. Although we
cannot a s s i g n a d e f i n i t e d a t e to C a l l i s t h e n e s ' monograph "Ilepu
TOU" 'lepoO noAeyou ," the terminus post quern i s p r o v i d e d by the
conclusion of the Phocian War i n 346 and the terminus ante
quern by Callisthenes 1
departure with Alexander in 344.
C a l l i s t h e n e s a l s o c o l l a b o r a t e d with A r i s t o t l e on n xc5v nuSoovuxwv
avaypacpri , 1 0 3
which was probably begun i n the mid
3 3 0 ' s b e f o r e he s e t out for A s i a . 1 0 4

The title of t h i s avaypacpn
(or TICVCIE, in the laudatory inscription) would lead one
reasonably to i n f e r t h a t i t c o n s i s t e d of a bare l i s t of names,
but the testimony of Plutarch (Solon XI.1) reveals that i t
also contained historical narrative. 1 0 5
It has been suggested that the details of the Crisaean
War found in the Hypotheses to Pindar's Pythian Odes are

37
derived from the avaypacpn. of A r i s t o t l e and C a l l i s t h e n e s
because the dates are given according to both Athenian and
Delpnian archonships. 1 0 6
I t i s important to remember,
however, that the i n 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 v i c t o r s and organizers
(presumably the agonothetai) and gives no i n d i c a t i o n of the
dating system originally used by A r i s t o t l e and C a l l i s t h e n e s .
The Delphians may have used t h e i r own dating system when they
transcribed the m a t e r i a l from the ia'va£; onto the marble.
Nevertheless, A r i s t o t l e and C a l l i s t h e n e s may have composed the
work using the Delphian system of chronology as a gesture of
respect for the eventual p r o p r i e t o r s .
The chronology of the scholium, at l e a s t , must ultimately
have come from Delphi, perhaps from the avaypacprt of A r i s t o t l e
and C a l l i s t h e n e s , which was inscribed on stone for everyone to
see. The s c h o l i a s t may have obtained the d e t a i l s , however,
from some other source. The s c h o l i a s t d i d use Euphorion, the
third-century poet, as a source, 1 0 7

although he was c l e a r l y
not the only authority from whom he derived h i s information
( uapxupeC x a l Eucpopduv }# since most of the c r e d i t for the
defeat of the C r i s a e a n s i s given to E u r y l o c h u s and the
Thessalians, i t has been suggested that the s c h o l i a s t followed
a Thessalian source. 108

Because of t h i s Thessalian bias i n
the Hypotheses Pythiorum, i t i s not l i k e l y that the avaypacpn
of A r i s t o t l e and C a l l i s t h e n e s was the sole or even the main

source of the s c h o l i a s t , as the testimony of Plutarch (Solon
38
XI.1) implies that i t emphasized the Athenian role i n the war.
The extant fragments of Antipater and C a l l i s t h e n e s , as we
have seen, c o n t a i n no more than p a s s i n g r e f e r e n c e s to the
Crisaean War. The f i r s t surviving narrative of i t s events i s
found i n Aeschines 1
speech Against Ctesiphon (III.107-112) of
330 B. C. This i s by no means an unbiased account, however.
Aeschines i s using the events of the Crisaean War i n order to
j u s t i f y h i s actions that l e d to the war over Amphissa, often
c a l l e d the Fourth Sacred War.
The only other narrative of the Crisaean War i s found i n
a speech attributed to Thessalus, son of Hippocrates. It i s
included i n the H i p p o c r a t i c Corpus (Littre IX, p. 404-428),
but i t sauthenticity and d a t e are questioned. Some
scholars 1 0 9
accept i t at face value as a f o u r t h - c e n t u r y
composition, while o t h e r s 110

reject i t as spurious and assign
to i t a l a t e H e l l e n i s t i c date. This account, like that of
Aeschines, i s not an unbiased one, as i t s author wishes to
emphasize ( i n v e n t ? ) the p a r t which the A s c l e p i a d s of Cos
played i n the Crisaean War.
All the other literary references to the Crisaean War
focus only upon c e r t a i n aspects of the c o n f l i c t and many of
them date from H e l l e n i s t i c 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 i s necessary now to examine the events of the Crisaean
War i n order to determine the s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s
39
between i t and the s o - c a l l e d Second and T h i r d Sacred Wars
(which were e n t i t l e d lepoi udAeyou by the ancient sources). As
the e a r l i e s t accounts of the war date from the fourth century,
many of the details have become confused (and therefore
disputed) through the passage of t i m e . 112

Scholars, both
ancient and modern, cannot even agree upon the name of the
protagonist i n the Crisaean War, the c i t y called both Crisa

and Cirrha i n our sources. 113
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 s a c r i l e g e ( aaegeUv, u£pucee.v ) against
the sanctuary at Delphi and its offerings. 1 1 4

Another
tradition shows the Crisaeans abusing their c o n t r o l of the
c o a s t l i n e and the roads going into Delphi either by severely
taxing 115
or, as brigands, robbing and even k i l l i n g visitors
to the temple. 116
C a l l i s t h e n e s (F Gr Hist 124 F 1) a t t r i b u t e s
the cause of the war to the seizure of a woman, but this i s
suspect, as w e l l as the ten year length of the war, as an
attempt to force a p a r a l l e l with the Trojan War. [Thessalus]
(Littre IX, p. 406 ), on the other hand, does not confine
himself to a single cause but provides us with a long list:
OSTOL 6e oi Kpuaatou xdxe T I O A A O L K C I L i a x u p o t x a t T I A O U O L O U ,

xodxous xoCs oryaôLS E I L xaxiji e x P l * T
eûftpuaavxes yap
C T C t V T 0
TtoAAd 6euva xaC itapdvoua Ebpydaavxo, es xdv %£ov aaegoOvxes,

AeAcpobs xaxabouAouyevou, upoaodxous AntCoyevou, §eu>pous auAeovxes,
yuvduxds r e xca TiaC6as a y t v e o v x e S j x a l eus x& auyaxa eûftpdôvxes.
40
The testimony of [Thessalus] a l s o i s suspect, because he i s
blatantly attempting to forge together a l l the conflicting
t r a d i t i o n s concerning the cause of the Crisaean War.
Despite a l l this confusion, i t i s evident that the
enviable p o s i t i o n of the Crisaeans c o n t r o l l i n g the routes into
Delphi both by sea and by land had either provoked jealousy
among t h e i r neighbours or had led to abuse on their part of
their c o n t r o l over the o r a c l e and those consulting i t . For
whatever reason, the Amphictyonic League resolved upon war
against the Crisaeans and obtained a favourable oracle from
Delphi. 117
Thereupon the war against the Crisaeans began i n
earnest and the Amphictyonic f o r c e s were strengthened by
a l l i e d reinforcements.
The connection of the Amphictyonic League with Delphi at
this time is difficult 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 c i t y of C r i s a was in

control of the sanctuary at t h i s time. It seems u n l i k e l y that
both the Amphictyonic League and the powerful c i t y of C r i s a
would peacefully have co-existed at Delphi. A more p l a u s i b l e
hypothesis i s that the Amphictyonic League, with its
Thessalian majority, saw the s i t u a t i o n at the beginning of the
s i x t h century as an opportunity to extend i t s influence from
Anthela to Delphi. By "defending" Delphi from the a l l e g e d l y
sacrilegious Crisaeans, the Amphictyonic League was able

41
legitimately to gain c o n t r o l of this venerated sanctuary and
the r e s o u r c e s therein.
This interpretation is reinforced by Aeschines, who
refers (11.115) to an oath and a c u r s e sworn a t n it p arm
au*vo.6os o f the Amphictyonic League. This oath and curse
appear to be the same as those which Aeschines 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
( I I I . 1 1 3 ) t h a t the r e c o r d of t h i s oath and curse e x i s t e d still
at D e l p h i i n h i s day.
The propaganda used by the Amphictyonic League to justify
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 o t h e r s t a t e s subsequently
tried to glorify their share i n the war. There are three
t r a d i t i o n s about the r o l e p l a y e d by each of the a l l i e s in this
conflict. The A t h e n i a n v e r s i o n s t a t e s t h a t Solon was involved
in the C r i s a e a n War i n the c a p a c i t y o f a d v i s o r and Alcmaeon
was the l e a d e r of the A t h e n i a n contingent. 1 1 8

The Sicyonian
tradition (originating with Menaechmus?) attributes the
command of the Amphictyonic forces to Cleisthenes of
Sicyon. 1 1 9
The third tradition emphasizes Thessalian
involvement i n the war and a s s i g n s the role of Amphictyonic
commander to E u r y l o c h u s of T h e s s a l y . 1 2 0
Modern scholars, for the most part, agree that Athens
played no g r e a t m i l i t a r y role i n the C r i s a e a n War, 121

but are
divided as to whether S i c y o n or T h e s s a l y was the predominant

42
power. Parke 122

argues that a Thessalian commander-in-chief
would be logical due to the m a j o r i t y i n the Amphictyonic
League of the Thessalian bloc. S o r d i , on the other hand,
believes that the Thessalians did not gain control over t h e i r
p e r i o i k o i u n t i l long a f t e r the conclusion of the Crisaean War,
around 560 B. C. Moreover, the distant Thessalians with their
agricultural economy would not have a n y t h i n g to g a i n by
destroying the powerful port of C r i s a . 1 2 3

Sicyon, however, a
powerful r i v a l of C r i s a on the Gulf of Corinth, had everything
to gain by the d e s t r u c t i o n of C r i s a and her hold on the
western trade r o u t e . 124

This argument i s 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 c i t y of C r i s a .
Nevertheless, the opposing t r a d i t i o n s can be reconciled.
Thessaly may have used a c o n f l i c t nominally on behalf of
Apollo (as P h i l i p was to do two centuries l a t e r ) to extend her

influence southward. Thus, Eurylochus presumably put his army
and cavalry at the disposal of the Amphictyonic League and was
subsequently appointed commander of the land forces.
Moreover, i t seems improbable that anyone but a Thessalian
could have been leader of an Amphictyonic force at t h i s time,
when the organization was still a local Thessalian one.
Sicyon, on the other hand, as a sea power, was given c o n t r o l
of the fleet. 1 2 5
In t h i s 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 d e t a i l 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' fleet i n the Gulf of C o r i n t h ended a long
siege, 126
and the c i t y of C r i s a was razed to the ground. 127
The defeat and destruction of Crisa occurred i n the archonship

of Gylidas at Delphi and an ayhv xpnyaTuxns was celebrated out
of the . s p o i l s . 128
After the downfall of their c i t y , the surviving Crisaeans
took refuge on Mount C i r p h i s , separated by the P l e i s t u s River
from Mount Parnassus, and continued resistance from t h e r e . 129
Two stratagems are mentioned i n our sources pertaining to t h i s

stage of the war. The first is a tradition that the
Amphictyons poisoned the water supply of the Crisaeans with
h e l l e b o r e and were able to overcome them i n t h e i r weakened
condition. 130
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 e n t oCvoira T C O V X O V .
In order to circumvent the geographical impossibility, the

Amphictyons dedicated to Apollo the Crisaean Plain,which lay
between Delphi and the s e a . 132

These stratagems are suspect
as later romanticized i n v e n t i o n s , but guerilla operations
obviously continued from Mount C i r p h i s a f t e r C r i s a had been
44
destroyed. Six years later, the l a s t remnants of Crisaean
r e s i s t a n c e were overcome. 133

Finally, i n 582/1, the v i c t o r y
was celebrated by the i n s t i t u t i o n of the ayiov axecpavtxns , the
f i r s t i n a series of o f f i c i a l Pythian festivals. 1 3 4
Most of our sources agree that the Amphictyonic League
was fighting against C r i s a on b e h a l f of D e l p h i . George
Forrest, 1 3 5
however, has challenged this t r a d i t i o n a l view of
the Crisaean War i n a r e - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Homeric Hymn to
Apollo. The c r u c i a l l i n e s (540-43) are at the end of Apollo's
speech to the Cretan s a i l o r s , where he warns them:
fie X L xn.u'aLov eitos eaaexau ne T L e p Y j o v
u3pug %' , n §euus eaxu xaxa^vnttov av^pcSnajv,

aXXot eneu^'uyuv anuctvxopes avSpeg e a a o v x a t ,
xuv v%'avayxaurj 6e6yn aea^'nyaxa itdvxa.
,
The general modern consensus i s that these l i n e s refer to
the Crisaean War, although scholars remain undecided whether

they date from before or a f t e r the war. 136
Forrest, on the
other hand, argues that these lines cannot a l l u d e to the
l i b e r a t i o n of the sanctuary from an outside threat (Crisa) but
rather to a change i n the organization of Delphi ( S.\\OL
anydvxopes ) 1 3 7
Forrest concludes that these "new masters"
can only be the Amphictyons, 138
and the t r a d i t i o n of the
" l i b e r a t i o n " of the sanctuary arose out of later propaganda by
the winning s i d e . 1 3 9
Forrest has r a i s e d an i n t e r e s t i n g problem and his
c r i t i c i s m of the usual i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these l i n e s i s v a l i d .
Nevertheless, h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n rests upon the assumption
that these l i n e s i n fact refer to the Crisaean War and, more

45
p r e c i s e l y , that they date from after i t s conclusion. There i s
no c o n c l u s i v e evidence i n the Homeric Hymn i t s e l f connecting
these l i n e s with the Crisaean War. This suggestion, although
generally accepted, i s a modern inference based on the fact
that there were no other known c o n f l i c t s at Delphi during the
archaic period. Inference or n o t , however, F o r r e s t ' s
conclusion squares with our meagre i n f l u e n c e concerning the
expansion of the Amphictyonic League to Delphi and at least
has the v i r t u e o f not b e i n g misled by l a t e r propaganda
disseminated by that organization.
The war which modern h i s t o r i a n s refer to as the Fourth
Sacred War took place i n the period of increased concern over
Delphi and the Amphictyonic League i n the years following the
conclusion of the P h o c i a n War. The main facts of t h i s
c o n f l i c t 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 p e r s o n a l l y .
The war was apparently known as "the Amphissan War" by
i t 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 " ( I I I . 221 and
237 ) 1 4 0
. P l u t a r c h speaks of the war i n the same terms. 141
Nowhere i n a n t i q u i t y i s this war l a b e l l e d 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" f o r the f i r s t time,

46
the fourth i n a s e r i e s .
The causes of t h i s war are f a i r l y c l e a r . 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 t h i s was land consecrated to A p o l l o . 1 4 2

A
tradition e x i s t e d that 1
this land had been consecrated as a
result of the Crisaean War, 1 4 3

although t h i s may simply have
been an aetiological explanation to account for the sacred
land surrounding the sanctuary. What i s important, however,
i s that t h i s t r a d i t i o n of the consecrated land c l e a r l y existed
long before the Phocian War placed Delphi and i t s sanctuary i n
the l i m e l i g h t .
An Amphictyonic law of 380/79 (IG II 2

1126, SIG 145,
lines 15-26) f i x e s 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 x a v ytT.v e n s u e ) y(xc, [p) t x Co"]
av 'AycpuxxuovES t d p o j a a v , ETCEU x (a] a n d p o S o s yuvnTau,
an ox [JEU a ax to xcou t a p S t . ?; . }.. 3 a x a x r i p a s A f y t v a t o s x a x ' x j j i )
1
T I E A E ^ P O V 'Exaaxov* x o u 6e U£poyvdi{oves i t s p t t o v x a i v ast xav

uepav Y^V^J xau up [aoOadvxcjv xdv situ CE^ pya£;dy£vov' a t 6£ yn
l E p t t e t E V n yn u p [ a a a o t E V , a i t o x E t a d x t o o yn i t £ p t t w v 3 y n o ' s ^ x -
nfjpdaacuv x p t d x o v x a a x a x f i p a s * a t 6e x a yr) omoTU-vn^ 6 CocpeuAwv,
a i c d X t s , e£ a s x'e£ 6 UEpoyvdyunT), £uA£af3>af3 xoO" t a p o u x a t
axpaxEudvxuv e n ' a u x o s ' A y c p t x x d o v e s O ^ t d x a ou u s p o y v d y o v E s
£uaYY 'î Awvx (u.
e
E X j x a s u e p a s Y&S x d u p o v yn ayev y n o E y u a v .
O t x n o t o s " e n t . . . c. 37.... E V F t S t a Q Q e n ^ ^ a A d a a a u , x a s 6 e u a a x d S a s
x
xouv&s e S y e v Ttdvxeaat { j o t s u e p o y v a y d v e a a u ? . .c. . 8 . . . y t j a%ov

y f j l d ) e v a cpe'pev y n o E v d , y n S ' l v o u x S v x d v a u x o v TCAEOV x p t d x o v x a
ayspav..c,.9. yn6e Y 0
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
E V E C y s v vndi. o A y o v * a t 6s x t s T (Q"S v d y o u s x o u x o u s T t a p g a t v o t ,
x o t O a p o y ^ d i J J p v E s C a y u o v x w v o x u v u x a Stxat'ojt acptv 6oxnu eZ\iev
eict [ ? a y t u t . . c.. 7... . 6E xou" § E A O V X E S _ 3 x a ^ a Y C j e J AAdvxuw itot xds
tapoyvdyovss.
Isocrates, i n h i s P l a t a i c u s of c. 373 B. C , refers to
47
this consecrated land i n the course of a polemic against the
Thebans (31):
ou 6uaxuxno'dvTU)V uyffiv ydvou TCV auyydxuv edevTO xnv 4>fitpov,

As xP^l T 1
1 v T e
KO\LV eâvbpontoSuaaadaL xat Trfv x^pav avefvao
ynXoBoxov Aan£p TO Kpuaauov TIE&COV.
The s a l i e n t point i n this passage i s that Isocrates i s c l e a r l y
using the Crisaean P l a i n as an example of punishment following
defeat i n war. This, then, i s our e a r l i e s t reference to the
Crisaean War and indicates that an e a r l i e r t r a d i t i o n of t h i s
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 t h i s consecration was s t i l l in effect at t h i s time and,
therefore, the encroachment by the Amphissans was l e g a l l y an
offense. It i s not s p e c i f i c a l l y stated when the Amphissans
began encroaching upon the consecrated land, but i t must have
been at some point a f t e r the Amphictyonic decree of 380/79.
Since Aeschines (III.119) p o i n t s out to the Amphictyonic
League the f o r b i d d e n buildings erected upon the Crisaean
P l a i n , the encroachment of the Amphissans must have been going
on for some time but t h i s offense was ignored u n t i l i t was
p o l i t i c a l l y expedient to bring i t up.
The occasion arose at the autumn meeting (Pylaea) of the
Amphictyonic League of 340 B. C. 145

Diognetus was the
official representative of Athens to the Amphictyonic Council
(hieromnemon) for that y e a r 145
and Aeschines had been elected
by the Athenians as one of three delegates (pylagorai) . 1 4 7
48
Upon t h e i r a r r i v a l a t D e l p h i , the A t h e n i a n d e l e g a t i o n r e c e i v e d
a secret report that the L o c r i a n s of Amphissa (at the
persuasion of the Thebans) were going to bring about a
resolution ( Sdyya ) t h a t a fine of f i f t y talents be levied
against the A t h e n i a n s f o r having dedicated gilded shields i n
the new temple at Delphi (the o l d Alcmaeonid temple had been
d e s t r o y e d by f i r e i n 373 B. C.) b e f o r e i t had been officially
consecrated. 148
T h i s l a c k o f p r o t o c o l , however, d i d not cause
o f f e n s e so much as the i n s c r i p t i o n on these shields:

'A^nvaCou onto Mrt6wv nat SnftauDV,
OTE xavavxda xoug "EAAnauv eydxovxo.
(Aeschines III.116)
As Diognetus, t h e hieromnemon, and one o f t h e o t h e r
pylagorai had come down with a f e v e r , A e s c h i n e s was asked to
reply to this charge on b e h a l f of the c i t y . 1 4 9

At the
beginning o f h i s speech, Aeschines alleges (III.117) that he
was i n t e r r u p t e d 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 i n the Phocian War, among other
offenses. In r e t u r n , Aeschines p o i n t e d t o the C r i s a e a n (or
Cirrhaean) Plain, which was c l e a r l y visible from the l o f t y
seat o f D e l p h i on Mount Parnassus, as t a n g i b l e evidence o f the
o f f e n s e s of the Amphissans ( I I I . 118-119).
As a result 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 forgotten immediately and t h e
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 c o n s e c r a t e d l a n d . 1 5 1
All the D e l p h i a n s of m i l i t a r y age
and a l l the hieromnemones and p y l a g o r a i were t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n

49
t h i s expedition. On the f o l l o w i n g day (Aeschines III.123),
after the inspection and a fair bit of Amphictyonic
destruction were c a r r i e d out, the Amphictyons were attacked by
the Locrians of Amphissa and b a r e l y managed to escape to
Delphi with their lives. 1 5 2
An emergency assembly was convened at Delphi the very
next day and i t was voted to hold a s p e c i a l meeting of the
Amphictyonic League before the next Pylaea (spring 339) in
order to decide the f a t e 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 p o s i t i o n 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 this meeting, Cottyphus of Pharsalus, 154
president of the Amphictyons, was elected as general
(strategos) of the Amphictyonic f o r c e s . 155
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 f i n e and
at the next Pylaea (autumn 339) Philip (who had previously
been on campaign i n Scythia) was elected commander. 157
At the
head of the second expedition, P h i l i p made as i f to march to
Cirrha but, to the shock and s u r p r i s e of both Athens and
Thebes, seized Cytinium and Elateia instead. 1 5 8

This
unexpected development resulted in the a l l i a n c e of Athens and
Thebes and f i n a l l y in the infamous b a t t l e of Chaeronea i n 338.
50
Thus, like the Phocian War, the Amphissan War served to
l e g i t i m i z e P h i l i p ' s a r r i v a l i n Greece.
The question remains, however, why the Crisaean and
Amphissan Wars were not l a b e l l e d 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 c o n f l i c t s appears the natural term to use,
as both the Crisaean and Amphissan Wars are c l o s e l y linked to
the Phocian War in particular.
The s i m i l a r i t i e s between these c o n f l i c t s are so great, i n
fact, that the tradition between them has become confused.
A l l three of these wars were fought nominally on behalf of the
sanctuary of A p o l l o at Delphi by the Amphictyonic Leaglue
against an offender who had exhibited some form of uBpts . The
real issue i n these wars, however, was control of the
sanctuary and alleged encroachment of sacred land often served
as a c a t a l y s t i n these struggles. It i s d i f f i c u l t to entangle
the separate strands of evidence, especially i n the case of
the Crisaean War, the only one f o r which we have no
contemporary evidence, except for the enigmatic l i n e s 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 a l l e g e d l y present in the Phocian and Amphissan Wars. Even
the name of i t s protagonist i n the majority of the ancient
sources, C i r r h a , reappears i n connection with the Amphissan
War. The ten year duration of the war, as given by

51
Callisthenes (F Gr Hist 124 F 1), i s apparently an attempt to
draw an a r t i f i c i a l p a r a l l e l between i t and the Trojan War, as
w e l l as the Phocian War. Ten, however, was a t r a d i t i o n a l
number and a l l three of these wars might have been remembered
i n later accounts as ten year wars just for that reason. One
scholar even considers the t r a d i t i o n of the two stages i n the
fighting to be a r e f l e c t i o n of the events of the Phocian
War. 159
The b i g g e s t area of c o n f u s i o n i s to be found i n the

causes of the war. Callisthenes (F Gr Hist 124 F 1) alleges
that the seizure of a c e r t a i n Phocian woman was the reason
behind the outbreak of the war. T h i s romantic detail is
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 identical allegation with respect to the
Phocian War, probably f o r the same r e a s o n . 150
The common
tradition of s a c r i l e g e against the g o d 151
i s found i n much
more e x p l i c i t detail i n 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 A p o l l o , i s
r e f l e c t e d i n ancient accounts not only of the Phocian War, 152
but also of the Amphissan War. 153

F i n a l l y , the imposition of
taxes, 154
or worse, 155
upon v i s i t o r s to the sanctuary i s also
a recurrent theme i n accounts of the Amphissan War. 155
Modern scholars agree, f o r the most part, that the
i n t r u s i o n of d e t a i l s i n t o the Crisaean War from the Phocian

52
and A m p h i s s a n Wars r e s u l t e d from the long interval between t h e
outbreak o f war i n the early sixth century and t h e first
written record of i t . By t h e m i d - f o u r t h c e n t u r y , historians
had forgotten the r e a l casus b e l l i and s i m p l y m o d e l l e d i t upon
similar contemporary events. 1 6 7

Nevertheless, i t i s necessary
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 face value,
because most o f our a v a i l a b l e information about early history
has t h i s gap.
Noel Robertson, however, does not share t h e common view.
I n an i n t e r e s t i n g article, 1 6 8
he r e - i n t e r p r e t s a l l the ancient
evidence f o r t h e C r i s a e a n War and c o n c l u d e s by r e l e g a t i n g i t
to the realm o f saga. Coupled with the fact that most of the
details of this conflict are doubled elsewhere, Robertson
argues that the lack of evidence for this war u n t i l t h e 340's
constitutes proof that t h e C r i s a e a n War n e v e r existed. 1 6 9

He
believes that the silence of Herodotus and Thucydides i s
especially damning. 1 7 0
Ro.bertson, then, claims t o be
following t h e example of Demosthenes 1 7 1

and A n t i p a t e r 1 7 2
in
classifying t h e C r i s a e a n War as a yudos , i n v e n t e d by t h e
partisans of Philip f o r propaganda purposes i n the p o l i t i c a l
turbulence following the settlement of the Phocian War. 173
Although Robertson's interpretation i s mainly based on
inference f r o m an argumentum ex silentio, i t i s useful i n that
it provokes a need t o re-examine t h e C r i s a e a n War i n relation
to the other three wars labelled by modern scholars as
"sacred." 1 7 4
Some o f t h e c r i t i c i s m s he makes a r e v a l i d b u t he
53
has overlooked some s i g n i f i c a n t facts.
F i r s t of a l l , when Aeschines denounces the Amphissans for
having cultivated the Crisaean P l a i n , no-one questions the
fact that this land was indeed sacred to A p o l l o , despite
Demosthenes' a l l e g a t i o n s to the c o n t r a r y . Since this
information was apparently common knowledge, Aeschines cannot
have invented the consecration of the p l a i n . Secondly, two
pieces of evidence, Isocrates' Plataicus 31 and t h e
Amphictyonic law of 380/79 (IG I I 1126, SIG 145) prove that

2
this plain was i n fact sacred to Apollo and had apparently
been so for a long time. Therefore, neither Aeschines nor any
other of Robertson's "partisans of P h i l i p " can have invented
the consecration of the Crisaean P l a i n . The t r a d i t i o n that
the consecration of the "land came about as a r e s u l t of the
Crisaean War, as our a n c i e n t sources unanimously state,
c l e a r l y predates the 340's and, probably, the fourth century
altogether.
The fact that the Crisaean War i s not e x p l i c i t l y treated
by any h i s t o r i a n until the m i d - f o u r t h century i s not a
conclusive proof of i t s non-existence either. It appears, on
the contrary, that t h i s c o n f l i c t was largely ignored (except
for the passage i n Isocrates and the Amphictyonic decree of
380/79, which i s less s p e c i f i c ) u n t i l the mid-fourth century,
when i t was r e s u s c i t a t e d as propaganda i n 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 o b l i v i o n , the d e t a i l s of the Crisaean War

54
became confused and different versions circulated which
contemporary politicians used for their 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 conflict until i t was amplified for political reasons
after the Phocian War.
It i s curious, however, i n t h i s period of intense concern
over D e l p h i , that t h e C r i s a e a n and Amphissan Wars, which had
so much i n common with the Phocian War, were not a l s o given
the attribute oepos udAeyos . i n order to reach any k i n d of
conclusion on t h i s subject, i t i s necessary to turn t o another
category of test cases, religious disputes over other
sanctuaries, and d e t e r m i n e i n what terms they a r e spoken o f i n
antiquity.
55
OTHER RELIGIOUS DISPUTES
The second category of test cases to be contrasted with
the wars e n t i t l e d tepol Ttd*AeyoL j_ antiquity

n c o n s i s t s of
examples of other c o n f l i c t s which apparently share elements i n
common with them but are not l a b e l l e d as such by ancient or
modern a u t h o r i t i e s . The s e l e c t i o n of the test cases to be
examined out of the numerous disputes with r e l i g i o u s overtones
which took p l a c e throughout a n c i e n t Greek h i s t o r y was not
purely a r b i t r a r y . Each test case possesses a s p e c i f i c element
in common with the c o n f l i c t s referred to as iepol udAeuoL ,
With t h i s purpose i n mind, two test cases were chosen to
represent t h i s category. The f i r s t to be discussed i s the
confiscation by the A r c a d i a n League of the o f f e r i n g s a t

Olympia i n 364 B. C. This w i l l illustrate 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 untilled. By comparing and
contrasting these c o n f l i c t s with those l a b e l l e d "sacred wars"
by a n c i e n t and modern sources, i t will be p o s s i b l e to
determine more c l e a r l y the motives behind the a t t r i b u t i o n of
the t i t l e .
56
Let us now proceed to the first of these test cases,
namely the c o n f i s c a t i o n by the Arcadian League of the sacred
o f f e r i n g s at Olympia. This apparent act of s a c r i l e g e forms a
l i n k i n the larger chain of events which eventually culminated
in the B a t t l e of Mantinea i n 362 B. C. The c a t a l y s t of t h i s
p a r t i c u l a r c r i s i s was the Elean seizure of the town of Lasion
in the summer of 365. 175
This c o n f l i c t had been brewing since the aftermath of the
Battle of L e u c t r a . A f t e r the d e c i s i v e Spartan defeat at
Leuctra, the Eleans obviously harboured hopes of regaining
some of their former p o s s e s s i o n s , which the Spartans had
seized and declared independent in the course of the
C o r i n t h i a n War (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a III.23 and 30). These
former Elean possessions -included the t e r r i t o r y of T r i p h y l i a ,
located south of E l i s on the western coast of the Peloponnese,
and the town of Lasion, a l i t t l e f u r t h e r north. To their
consternation, the Eleans were f r u s t r a t e d i n t h i s desire on
all sides. Not only were a l l c i t i e s , both great and small
(including specifically the disputed d i s t r i c t of T r i p h y l i a ) ,
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 cities
(presumably Lasion was among t h i s number) c l a i m e d to be
Arcadians i n complete and total r e j e c t i o n of Elean demands
(Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.1.26). The Arcadians, on the other
hand, were overjoyed at t h i s news (they also had claims on
Lasion at least dating back to the beginning of the
57
century) 177
and welcomed these towns with open arms into the
Arcadian League. 178
Resentment built up among the Eleans,
e s p e c i a l l y a f t e r the Arcadians had rejected the proposed peace
treaty of 367 i n which the King of Persia had re-assigned the
disputed t e r r i t o r i e s to E l i s , 1 7 9
and was f i n a l l y manifested by
the seizure of Lasion.
This hostile a c t i o n provoked an immediate Arcadian
response and l e d to renewed war i n the Peloponnese. Once
again, the face of the complex system of a l l i a n c e s i n the
Peloponnese underwent a transformation. 180

At the beginning
of the decade, the diplomatic s i t u a t i o n 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. 182
By the eve of the Elean-Arcadian War, the network
of a l l i a n c e s had changed, somewhat. Relations between Thebes
and Arcadia and Elis and A r c a d i a had cooled (Xenophon,
Hellenica VII.1.26); Achaea, formerly neutral, had joined the
Spartan s i d e (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.1.43); Sicyon (at the
instigation of Euphron) had switched i t s a l l e g i a n c e to the

Arcadian-Argive coalition (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.1.45);
Athens had joined Arcadia i n a defensive a l l i a n c e (Xenophon
Hellenica VII.4.2 and 6); Corinth and i t s a l l i e s had become
neutral as a r e s u l t of a pact with Thebes (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a
VII.4.6-11). The outbreak of war f u r t h e r complicated the
situation. The Achaeans (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.4.17) and
the Spartans (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.4.20) fought together on
the Elean side against the Arcadians, Argives, Thebans, and

58
Messenians (Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.27).
The Arcadians, provoked by the Elean seizure of Lasion,
were completely s u c c e s s f u l i n their counterattack and gained
c o n t r o l of much Elean t e r r i t o r y , i n c l u d i n g the sanctuary of
Olympia (Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.14). The next summer (364)
was the occasion of the one hundred and fourth Olympiad and
the Arcadians accordingly made preparations to hold the games
as usual. Perhaps i n order to l e g i t i m i z e t h e i r p o s i t i o n , the
Arcadians recognized the claims of the P i s a t a n s , i n whose
t e r r i t o r y the sanctuary was located (Strabo VIII.3.30), to be
the o r i g i n a l hosts of the Olympic Games and "reinstated" them
to their alleged ancient s t a t u s . 183

Free of i t s subjection to
the rival Eleans and once more an independent state, 1 8 4
P i s a t i s was q u i t e w i l l i n g to j o i n the Arcadians, even i f i n
only a nominal capacity, in presiding over the Olympic
festival.
The one hundred and fourth Olympic Games apparently began
as i f nothing out of the ordinary had occurred. Competitors
from throughout Greece and abroad assembled 185

and the f i r s t
event, the horse-race began (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.4.29).
This a i r of n o r m a l i t y was not, however, of long d u r a t i o n .
Midway through the next event, the p e n t a t h l o n , the Eleans
stormed the sanctuary and penetrated as far as the innermost
sacred p r e c i n c t , named the A l t i s . 1 8 6
The Arcadians rallied
their forces, supported by a l l i e d troops, 187
and leapt to the
"defense" of the sanctuary. A great b a t t l e took place within
59
the sanctuary itself and Diodorus (who loves a colourful
story) adds (XV.78.3):
TrW yctxnv T S V TiapdvTwv ixL xr\v TavTyyuptv

§e(jdu.£VU)V
'EAArivcov eaTEtpavajyevajv Mat yed'ftauxdas axuvddvcoc.
eTttanyatvoyevwv t a g exarepcj-Sev av6paYa$uag.
The Eleans, who apparently were held in little regard in

i
matters of warfare (Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.30), at first
were successful at routing the enemy but eventually retired
for the night after meeting with a reverse. Meanwhile, the
Arcadians, fearing this unexpected valour of the Eleans,
hastily constructed a stockade around the sanctuary out of the
temporary buildings which had been carefully erected for the
festival (Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.32). Alarmed at this
Arcadian show o f force, the Eleans withdrew altogether. 1 8 8
After this military interlude, the Olympic Games were
resumed and presumably brought to a peaceful conclusion,
although the E l e a n s later refused to recognize this particular
Olympiad as legitimate. 1 8 9
Crushed by their recent defeat in
the Battle of the Altis and their considerable loss of
territory, 1 9 0
the Eleans henceforth kept a low profile. The
ball, so to speak, was now in the court of the Arcadian
League. 1 9 1
It was not long before the Aracadian administration of
Olympia provoked further antagonism. This time, however, the
dispute arose within the League itself. The magistrates of
the Arcadian League ( O L , IV 'Apxdaiv apxo'v-res ) had apparently
been appropriating the sacred money from Olympia in order to

60
pay the federal standing army, the Eparitoi. 1 9 2

The
Mantineans, however, protested against this use of the sacred
money as they were eager to have peace with Elis. 1 9 3

The
Mantineans proceeded to pass a vote t o have nothing further to
do with the sacred 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 cnteiteyâv xo€s a p x o u a u v . "194
This blow to the finances of the League was immediately
countered by the federal magistrates, who summoned the leaders
of the Mantineans before the Ten Thousand. When the
Mantineans failed to appear for trial, they were condemned in
absentia. The Eparitoi were sent to arrest them but were not
admitted within the walls of Mantinea (Xenophon, Hellenica
VII.4.33) .
Meanwhile, other members of the Arcadian League had
seized upon M a n t i n e a ' s suggestion and a vote was passed by the
Ten Thousand not to use the sacred funds from Olympia any
longer. As a result, those soldiers who were unable to
support themselves without pay dropped out of the Eparitoi and
their places were taken by those Arcadians with means, who
eagerly grasped this opportunity for control of the standing
army (Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a V I I . 4 . 3 4 ) . The federal magistrates,
however, remained free during this period to pursue their own
policies.
These actions effectively divided the Arcadian League
into two camps: one, oligarchic (comprising the Ten Thousand
and the Eparitoi), headed by Mantinea and the other,

61
democratic (composed of the f e d e r a l m a g i s t r a t e s and t h e i r
supporters), headed by Tegea. 195

The f i n a l split occurred
when the Mantinean party concluded a peace treaty with E l i s ,
renouncing a l l claims to Olympia and i t s sanctuary, over the
objections of the Tegean party and i t s Theban supporters
(Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.4.35 f f ) . This growing antagonism
came t o a head i n the summer of 362 , when the Mantinean

section of the A r c a d i a n League and i t s a l l i e s (including
Sparta, Elis, and Achaea) faced the Tegean party and its
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 c l o s i n g words of Xenophon's H e l l e n i c a , sounded the
death-knell for the Theban hegemony i n Greece and the Arcadian
League's bid for supremacy i n the Peloponnese.
T h i s d i s p u t e over the sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia i s
reminiscent of the Phocian War i n several ways. F i r s t of a l l ,
the conflict i n both cases occurred over a p a n h e l l e n i c
sanctuary. Strabo (VIII.3.30) describes the o r a c l e , games,
glory, and wealth of the temple at Olympia i n almost the same
terms as Delphi:
rriv 6'ETIL cpdvEuav eaxev E£ apxris yev 6ua TO yavTECov T O U
'OXuyituou Aud"s* EXELVOU 6' E X A E L C D ^ E ' V T O S , ou6ev ?JTTOV auveystvev
H So'^ci TOO" LEpoO • xaC TT\\> avE,r\OLV, 6'an.v "ay£V, eAot3e 6ud T E Trtv
TiavfryupLV xat T O V ay&va T O V ' OAuyrcuaxo'v, aTEcpavuTnv T E x a L usp'Ov
voyuaÊVTa TCV iidvTuv. EHoaynSn S ' E M ^ O . U TtAnôus TUV avaSnyctTcuv,
ansp E X ndans avaTtÊxo Tfjs 'EAAaSog.
Pausanias also d e v o t e s an e q u a l l y large section of h i s
narrative to the temple of Zeus at Olympia (Books V-VI) and
the o f f e r i n g s therein as to that of Apollo at Delphi (Book X).

62
C l e a r l y , then, the sanctuary at Olympia was considered no less
"sacred" i n the eyes of the Greeks than Delphi.
The resemblance of t h i s c o n f l i c t to the Phocian War does
not, however, end here. The armed take-over of a panhellenic
sanctuary on the grounds of an alleged a b o r i g i n a l claim, the
c o n f i s c a t i o n of sacred o f f e r i n g s to pay one's army, 198

and the
eventual reparations exacted.from those g u i l t y of s a c r i l e g e

are a l l elements which recur nearly twenty years l a t e r i n the
Phocian War, forming a curious sort of deja vu.
Nevertheless, despite the armed b a t t l e within the sacred
p r e c i n c t of the sanctuary and the c o n f i s c a t i o n of the sacred
offerings, this conflict i s not c a l l e d a uepog no'Aeyos by any
ancient source. In f a c t , i t i s not given a name at a l l but i s
merely treated as one- i n a s e r i e s of conflicts which
culminated in the Battle of Mantinea. The armed c o n f l i c t in
the sanctuary itself has been named the Battle of the Altis
only i n modern times.
We may perhaps f i n d a clue as to why this c o n f l i c t was
not given the a t t r i b u t i o n uepos ito'Aeyos in the a t t i t u d e s of the
ancient historians. Curiously enough, we find in their
accounts of t h i s 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 authority presumably of Ephorus), who in his self-
righteousness has so much to say on the subject of the
sacrilegious Phocians, simply states the f a c t s (XV.78.1-4,
82.1-3) and shows little trace of bias on either side.

63
Diodorus 1
account, however, i s inaccurate i n s e v e r a l major
respects and may be put aside f o r the most part i n favour of
that of Xenophon.
Xenophon, on the other hand, betrays a sympathy for the
Eleans (VII.4.30 and VII.4.32) and remarks twice (VII.4.34 and
35) upon the i m p i e t y of the s a c r i l e g e committed by the
Arcadian m a g i s t r a t e s . In s p i t e of t h i s apparent pro-Elean
bias, nowhere are any invectives heaped against the Arcadians
for their seizure of the s a n c t u a r y and subsequent
•misappropriation of the sacred o f f e r i n g s and nowhere i s the
conflict referred to as a iepos ndAeyoc . This i s e s p e c i a l l y
peculiar in light of the f a c t that Xenophon f o l l o w e d the
Thucydidean approach to h i s t o r y that he d i d not make any
connection between t h i s dispute and the f i f t h - c e n t u r y c o n f l i c t
over Delphi, which was a much more minor a f f a i r .
For some reason the Arcadian League was not branded as
sacrilegious i n the same way that the Phocians were twenty
years l a t e r , although their offense was s i m i l a r . Perhaps i t
i s due to the fact that the c o n f l i c t was not over Delphi that
no h i s t o r i a n made the connection between s a c r i l e g e and the use
of the term tepds itdAeyos u n t i l the renewed i n t e r e s t i n the
sanctuary of Delphi i n the decade following the conclusion of
the Phocian War.
Let us keep t h i s hypothesis i n mind as we proceed to our
second test case: the dispute over the Sacred Orgas. The t-epb
opyas was a s t r i p of land between Athens and Megara, sacred to

64
the Eleusinian goddesses. The o r i g i n a l meaning of the term
was "a well-watered, fertile spot of land," 2 0 0

but it is
always referred to as uncultivated by the ancient
authorities. 2 0 1
This strip of land had l o n g been a bone of contention,
p r o b a b l y on account of i t s fertility. At the end of the sixth
century B. C , the Athenians were causing the rumour to
c i r c u l a t e that the Spartan king Cleomenes had met h i s horrible
death as a result of his devastation of the Sacred Orgas. 2 0 2
The more famous disputes over this land, however, occurred
between Athens and Megara.
The first recorded instance took place in the fifth
century, among the antecedents to the Peloponnesian War. One
of the a l l e g e d grounds for the n o t o r i o u s Megarian Decree was
the encroachment by the M e g a r i a n s upon the Sacred Orgas. 2 0 3
This religious offense is usually regarded as merely an
Athenian pretext for the seemingly harsh economic measures of
the Megarian Decree, 2 0 4

but one scholar argues that the
Athenian accusation was not a political excuse to provoke
hostilities but a genuine charge of aaeBeta , for which
penalties could be severe indeed. 2 0 5

Although this is an
interesting suggestion, it is important to remember that
trumped-up charges of aaegeua were common enough (as we have
seen in our discussion of the so-called "sacred wars", for
example).
The Sacred Orgas r e t u r n e d to the l i m e l i g h t i n the middle

65
of the fourth century. The antecedents of this dispute are
recorded in a l o n g and interesting inscription from Eleusis,
dated to the archonship of Aristodemus ( 352/1 ). 2 0 6

This
decree makes provisions first of a l l to f i x the d i s p u t e d
b o u n d a r i e s of the Sacred Orgas ( xwv o'ptuv dycptagnxouyevwv
has b e e n r e s t o r e d ) o n c e a n d for a l l . Then t h 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 at D e l p h i i s to
determine " £t Affitov x a t aêt[voJv eaxt xc5t 6ny[u)L tut 'A$rjvauov
y t a ] §o0v xdy $aatAe*a xa v eLpyaay QT]va jrfis tepas opyaSos xa e v j x o s
xaiv opcov ELS oi £xô6oytav xoO npo^crxwtou xat enuaxeunv x^)o0 tepoO
x o t v $eol"v" or " e t AStov x a t ayetjvo'v e a x t xait 6rtya)t xwt 'A^rivattov xa
v [ 0 v evxos xaTjv 6 [pujv e j v e t p y t c f l a y e v a xfis tepag 6pyd6os eav avexa (jrotv

/
s3eoCv." While awaiting the d e c i s i o n of the committee to f i x
the b o u n d a r i e s and the response of the o r a c l e , provisions are
to be made f o r the inscription of this decree and that of
Philocrates xo nept xG3v tepwv , for the expenses of the
elected officials, and f o r the proper preparation of the new
boundary markers. The decree concluded with a list of names
of those e l e c t e d to the v a r i o u s offices.
Although this decree does not s p e c i f i c a l l y mention any
t r o u b l e w i t h the Megarians, 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 b e t w e e n A t h e n s and Megara had
flared up once again. Demosthenes, in his speech On
Organization, 2 0 7
says (32):
et x t s dvayvotn. xa cpricptayad'uyQv xa\, xas npdêts ecpe^fis
6teA\rot, oufi'dv eZz n t a x e u a a t xSv auxalv xaOxa x d x e t v a .
olov a itpos xoOg xaxapdxous Meyapeag ecpncptaaa^'ditoTeyvoyevous
xriv 6 p y d 6 a e ^ t e v a t , xcoAuetv, yn efttxpeiietv. ..anavxa xaAd, 5
5
66
dvSpes ' AdnvaCot, xaOxa xau 6uxaLa xat, xfis Tto'Aecos a £ u a * xa

epya 6e x a and xouxwv oufiayoO.
It is not certain at what date this proposed expedition
against M e g a r a was voted, but apparently it never took place.
The decree of 352/1 was presumably either a consequence of
this trouble or h o s t i l i t i e s arose as a r e s u l t of the
application of this decree. 2 0 8

Since the campaign against the
Megarians referred to by Demosthenes did not take place, the
latter alternative is more probable as Didymus, quoting
Philochorus (F Gr H i s t 328 F 155) and Androtion (F Gr H i s t 324
F 30), gives an account of an actual Athenian expedition of
350/49 :
OIL yvnyoveueu (Demosthenes 13.32) xaiv Tupaxê'vxcov

'A$nvaC*OLS itpos Meyapeas uept xfis t e p a s '0pyd6os.
yeyove 6e xaOxa x a x ' 'ATr.oXAd*6copov a p x o v x a , x a d d i t e p
uaxopeL $LAd* opos ouxcoaCypdcpuv*
X "'A^nvaUou 6e upas
Meyapeas 6uevex§evxes uiz'tp xoT3 optayoO xfis t e p a s 'OpydSos
e i a f i A ^ o v eCs Meyapa yex''EcpudAxou axpaxriyoOvxos eitt xriV
Xcopav, x a t copLaavxo xnV '0pyd6a xnv ilepdv' opcaxaC
6'eyevovxo, auyxwpnadvxwv Meyapeuiv, AaxpaxeC*6ns o iepocpdvxris
xau 6 6au6o0xos ' IepoxAeu6riS. x a t xa s e a x a x t d s xds Ttept xffv
N
'0pyd6a xadudpioaav, xoO $eo0 xpnoavxos ' A C L O V x a t d y e u v o v

dvefai, x a i . yfj e p y a C j o y e v o u s , x a t dcpupoaav XCXACJU axfiAaus x a x d
cpficptaya $LAoxpdxous. 11
S t e u A e x x a t 6e rcepu xa\5xris xfis 6pyd6os x a t ' Av c@o x P~]u)v

ev xfjt X xuv 'AxduSwv, ypdcpwv ouxcos* "(Lptaavxo 6t x a t
'A^nvaCou itpos Meyapeas xrjv 6pyd6a (JûdiXi
xoCv SeoCv OTUOJS
SouAouvxo" auvex^priaav yap oi Meyapets o p t a x ^ s y e v e a S a t xdv
L.epocpdvxnv Aaxpaxeu6riv x a t TOV 6at6o0xov ' IepoxAeb6riv. x a t d>s
ou"xou wpuaav, eve^yetvav* x a t xds e a x a x t d s , oaau ?iaav Ttpos xfju
6pyd6u, xaûepwaav S t a y a v x e u a d y e v o t x a t dveAo'vxos xou -deoO ACOLOV
xat dyeuvov eZvat yf) epyaCoyevous. xau axrfAaus ojpLa§ri xdxAcuu
A t ^ t v a u s $bAoxpdxous etnd'vxos."
67
The actions recorded by P h i l o c h o r u s and Androtion
parallel exactly the two measures contained i n the decree.
The altercation o b v i o u s l y arose as a result of the
r e d e f i n i t i o n of the boundaries by the committee determined by
the decree. These passages of Philochorus and Androtion also
record the response of the o r a c l e at Delphi to the question
proposed i n the second measure o f the decree. The oracle had
apparently determined that i t was " ASiov xau ayeuvov " not to
c u l t i v a t e the haxat^ci,£ ( x a v£pv evx"bs xSfjv ojjscov e] veLp[yaq) yeva
xfis L E p a s 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
P h i l o c h o r u s and Androtion s t a t e , on the contrary, that the
conflict occurred over the marking out of the boundaries (unep
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 u n t i l the p u b l i c a t i o n of a thought-provoking article
by W. R. Connor in 1962 . 211

Connor argues for a redating of
the d e n u n c i a t i o n of the Megarians for encroaching upon the
sacred land by the h e r a l d Anthemocritus and the Charinus
decree subsequent to his death, that i s 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 i s r e a l l y
not s u f f i c i e n t evidence to remove them to a fourth-century
context, 2 1 2
as Connor himself admits. 2 1 3
Nevertheless,
regardless of the q u e s t i o n to which century the Charinus
a f f a i r belongs, i t indeed shows d r a s t i c measures taken by both

the Athenians and the Megarians over the Sacred Orgas.
Despite the severe p r o v i s i o n s of the Charinus decree,
nowhere i s either of the c o n f l i c t s between Athens and Megara
over the Sacred Orgas termed a war, l e t alone a "Sacred War."
Yet the motif of encroachment upon sacred land was listed
among the alleged causes of the C r i s a e a n , Phocian, and
Amphissan Wars. 214

The verb avu'nyu found i n the E l e u s i n i a n
decree i s even used by Isocrates (Plataicus 31) to refer to
the Crisaean P l a i n . In 350/49, however, a s i m i l a r offense
provoked only a campaign to force the Megarians to co-operate.
Why should t h i s offense in one case cause a "Sacred War" and
in another merely a campaign to s e t t l e the issue. Even the
minor fifth-century incident at Delphi i s d e s c r i b e d by
Philochorus as a "Sacred War," while the d i s p u t e over the
Sacred Orgas, equally worthy of the t i t l e , i s apparently l e f t
unnamed by him.
Was the sanctuary of the Two Goddesses at E l e u s i s perhaps
less sacred i n the eyes of the Greeks than the sanctuary of
Apollo at Delphi? Yet Pausanias (III.4.6) says: " M e y a p e u o t v ou

69
note Sefov TWV ev 'EAEUOUVL OVTWV eêyeveTO uAdaaadai, TO yrivuya yriv eirepyaaayevoLS
xriv ilepav " and i n V.10.1 he adds: " ydALOTa 6e TOC'S ev 'EAeuaCvL 6pwyevoos
xat aySvi, T $ I V 'OAuyitta yeTeOTtv S M T O O §EO0 cppovTu'6os."
Therefore, l i k e the Olympic Games and the oracle of Apollo at
Delphi, the E l e u s i n i a n Mysteries were an i n s t i t u t i o n of
panhellenic importance. Nevertheless, s a c r i l e g e against the
Two Goddesses d i d not on any occasion kindle a tepos ito'Aeyos
One must, however, consider the date of the dispute over
the Sacred Orgas of 350/49. I t occurred during a period when
the Phocian War was i n f u l l swing. C u r i o u s l y enough, the
embassy sent to enquire about the c u l t i v a t i o n of the eaxctTtat
is the only recorded instance of a consultation at Delphi i n
the course of that war. 215

Perhaps one "Sacred War" at a time
was enough. S t i l l , t h i s explanation would not account f o r the
fact that the s a c r i l e g e committed by the Arcadian League at
Olympia i n 364 also f a i l e d to provoke a tepoc Tco'Aeyos .
From the d i s c u s s i o n above, i t i s clear that n e i t h e r
category of test cases contains a war given the t i t l e of £epos
ndAeyos in antiquity. Two other wars fought over the
sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi were l a b e l l e d as "sacred wars"
by modern s c h o l a r s , p r o b a b l y as a r e s u l t of t h e i r close
s i m i l a r i t y to the so-called Third Sacred War. C o n f l i c t s over
other sanctuaries, on the other hand, even those with elements
common to the s o - c a l l e d "Sacred Wars," d i d not lead to the
a t t r i b u t i o n of the term tepds Tto'Aeyos i n any case. A l l the
disputes which we have examined took place i n the f o u r t h

70
century B. C , one even at the same time as the s o - c a l l e d
Third Sacred War, so one cannot argue that Greek religious
sensibilities have undergone a change. It appears, however,
that after the Phocian War Greek a t t i t u d e s towards Delphi
i t s e l f underwent a change. The exhaustive length of the war,
protracted by the n o v e l use of m e r c e n a r i e s , f o c u s e d the
attention of the Greek world upon the sanctuary at Delphi for
ten long years. Naturally enough, interest i n former
c o n f l i c t s over Delphi was reawakened after t h i s and the term
i e p o s TtdXeyos was r e d i s c o v e r e d i n the t e x t of Thucydides.
Subsequently, of course, i t was unthinkable to apply the term
to a c o n f l i c t which d i d not concern Delphi and thus neither
the sacrilege of the Arcadian League nor the dispute over the
Sacred Orgas was ever known by t h i s title.

71
CONCLUSION
In the preceding chapters, i t has been established that

the term "Sacred War" was first used by Thucydides i n the
f i f t h century B. C. to refer to an e s s e n t i a l l y minor c o n f l i c t
over Delphi. The term then disappeared for over a century,
although both the Arcadian seizure of Olympia and the dispute
over the Sacred Orgas were equally ( i f not more) worthy of the
t i t l e as the f i f t h - c e n t u r y c o n f l i c t . It f i n a l l y resurfaced i n
the fourth century B. C. -in reference to the so-called Third
Sacred War, when i t was apparently applied e x c l u s i v e l y by
Callisthenes and the other w r i t e r s of the historiographic
genre.
Two questions now remain to be answered. First of a l l ,

why does Thucydides give an e s s e n t i a l l y minor i n c i d e n t the
dignified title of "Sacred War?" And secondly, why is
C a l l i s t h e n e s apparently the f i r s t historian in antiquity to
derive this term from Thucydides and apply i t to a
contemporary c o n f l i c t ?
In order to address the f i r s t of these questions, i t i s
necessary to r e c a l l the exact words of Thucydides in his b r i e f
description of the events of the fifth-century incident

72
(1.112.5): " o tepbs xaAotfyevos no'Xeyos ." This Thucydidean
reference to the c o n f l i c t as " s o - c a l l e d " and the f a c t that
Aristophanes alludes to i t as a tepbs no*Xeyos i n Birds 556
suggest that t h i s was the term current i n contemporary usage.
As we have seen, wars i n ancient Greece were u s u a l l y given

i
i •
names by t h e i r 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" i n extant l i t e r a t u r e from Thucydides onwards.
Thucydides' reference to the "Sacred War" as " s o - c a l l e d , "
however, deserves further a t t e n t i o n . Not only does i t reveal
that Thucydides himself was not the originator of the term but
i t also implies a c e r t a i n hint of disagreement concerning the
application of such a title to t h i s particular conflict.
Consequently, i t seems l i k e l y that Thucydides derived the term
from the Spartan v e r s i o n of the i n c i d e n t . Raphael Sealey
remarks (A H i s t o r y of the Greek City-States [Berkeley:
University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1976], p. 291) i n his account
of the i n c i d e n t : "evidently that was the Spartan name f o r
it," but unfortunately he does not shed any further l i g h t on
the subject.
Sealey*s thesis, however, i s a l o g i c a l one i n s e v e r a l
respects. First of a l l , the i n s t i g a t o r s ( i n this case, the
Spartans) of a war would benefit the most from a cloak spread
over their actions such as t h i s t i t l e , which seemingly bestows
divine approval (another case i n point would be the Crusades).
Secondly, the Spartans were famous f o r using propaganda to

73
j u s t i f y their campaigns. Sparta's expulsion of the tyrants i n
the s i x t h century was nominally j u s t i f i e d as the "liberation
of Greece from tyranny," as was her later role in the
Peloponnesian War. Thus, use of such propaganda by the
Spartans was not unprecedented. Moreover, Spartan use of
Delphi itself for propagandic purposes is attested by
Herodotus (for example, 1.67-68).
Therefore, i t i s probable that Thucydides used the term
"Sacred War" to refer to the f i f t h - c e n t u r y conflict because
that was the Spartan name for i t . After the use of t h i s term
by Thucydides and Aristophanes i n the f i f t h century, i t was
not used again u n t i l Callisthenes r e - i n t r o d u c e d i t i n the
middle of the fourth century. This h i s t o r i a n 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
this conflict seems to have been a feature of the
h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c genre, i t i s l i k e l y that Callisthenes was the
first to do so. F i r s t of a l l , as the writer of a H e l l e n i c a ,
Callisthenes was c l e a r l y following the Thucydidean approach to
h i s t o r y and probably derived the t i t l e "Sacred War" from him.
Secondly, he o b v i o u s l y had a keen interest i n the early
history of Delphi, as his c o l l a b o r a t i o n with A r i s t o t l e shows,
as well as i n the so-called "Sacred War," since he devoted an
e n t i r e monograph to t h i s subject. Thirdly, as nephew and

74
protege of A r i s t o t l e , Callisthenes would n a t u r a l l y have been
inclined to favour the Macedonian v e r s i o n of the conflict.
Since P h i l i p purported to be the champion of Apollo bestowing
divine j u s t i c e upon the s a c r i l e g i o u s Phocians, Callisthenes
clearly condoned this Macedonian propaganda by g i v i n g the
c o n f l i c t 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
Philip ( e s p e c i a l l y Demosthenes), would be p r o h i b i t e d on two
counts from f o l l o w i n g C a l l i s t h e n e s 1
example i n c a l l i n g it a
"Sacred War." F i n a l l y , Callisthenes was deeply interested i n
Homeric saga. He, t h e r e f o r e , 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 h i s monograph "On the Sacred War."
Tradition has i t that a l l three of these wars were ten years
in duration, and t h i s may have been the basis of C a l l i s t h e n e s '
analogy. Nevertheless, Callisthenes evidently saw a
similarity between the C r i s a e a n War and the Phocian War,
thereby justifying the habit of modern scholars of referring
to the former as the First Sacred War. In c o n c l u s i o n ,
although other writers such as Xenophon and Theopompus
followed in the Thucydidean t r a d i t i o n , the t i t l e "Sacred War"
was apparently overlooked by them u n t i l C a l l i s t h e n e s had h i s
own reasons to reapply i t .
It seems, then, that the term "Sacred War" was not so
much a concept in ancient Greece as o r i g i n a l l y a f i f t h - c e n t u r y
j u s t i f i c a t i o n , which was picked up again as propaganda i n the

75
fourth century by P h i l i p II and p a r t i s a n s of h i s Macedonian
cause. The ultimate triumph of P h i l i p of Macedon marked the
end of an era i n 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 i n reference to any c o n f l i c t
in ancient Greece and modern scholars inferred from
Callisthenes' analogy that the term was used e x c l u s i v e l y when
the c o n f l i c t concerned Delphi.

76
NOTES
1
As at the present state of our knowledge we are not yet
able to determine the exact date of Thucydides' composition of
his History, i t i s impossible to s t a t e with any certainty
whether h i s reference to the Sacred War antedates or postdates
that of Aristophanes. Even i f the main bulk of Book One was
written before 414 B. C , he may have added the term tepos
TidAeyos upon r e v i s i o n . Therefore, the reference to a uepbs
TidAeyos i n Aristophanes may be the f i r s t instance of t h i s term
in the corpus of extant Greek literature. But since
Thucydides describes (albeit b r i e f l y ) the actual events of the
c o n f l i c t , I have chosen to give him precedence.

2
Although Jacoby quotes most of t h i s passage in his
section on Philochorus (F Gr Hist 328 F 34b), I have taken i t
from his section on Eratosthenes (F Gr Hist 241 F 38) where he
quotes i t in f u l l .
The scholiast adds the following to the end of the note:

L a x o p e C Tiepu auxoO xal* 6ouxu6t6ns x a t ' E p a x o a $ e v n s ev XWL § xat
8edicoyn:os ev xSv, x e .
3
c f . SIG 4
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 b a t t l e was i n doubt ( oiu<pu6o£os)
since both sides l a i d claim to the v i c t o r y .

5
Thucydides 1.108.2.
7
Diodorus XI.81-83.
3
IG I 2
26, Tod 39. For an E n g l i s h translation, see
Charles 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 H i s t o r i c a l Commentary
on Thucydides (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1945) v o l . 1: 337.
1 0
Benjamin D. Meritt, "Athens and the Amphictyonic
League," American Journal of P h i l o l o g y 69 (1948): 312-314.
Meritt followed t h i s a r t i c l e with another of the same t i t l e i n
AJP 75 (1954): 369-73- w i t h further revisions from the
suggestions of Adolf Wilhelm.
Meritt's r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s have won general acceptance:
Russell Meiggs, The Athenian Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1972) 418-20 and J . A. O. L a r s e n , Greek Federal States
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968) 125-26.
11
Meritt, AJP 69 (1948): 312 and 314.
1 2
Meritt, AJP 75 (1954): 373.
1 3
The authors of ATL date both the Battle of Tanagra and
the Battle of Oenophyta to 458 (171 f f ) , contrary to the usual
dating scheme from Diodorus (Tanagra-XI.80 and Oenophyta-
XI.83.1).
14
Larsen 216.
78
15
H. W. Parke and D. E. W. Wormell, The Delphic Oracle
(Oxford: B a s i l Blackwell, 1956) v o l . 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 l e Renouveau P o l i t i q u e de 1'Amphictionie au IV e
S i e c l e , " BCH 81 (1957): 63.
This i s the g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d date f o r the Phocian
possession of Delphi, although we have no e x p l i c i t evidence of
a Phocian take-over from the Delphians. Nevertheless, i f the
Phocians had s e i z e d control o f the s a n c t u a r y from t h e
Delphians before the period of Athenian influence i n Central
Greece, presumably the Spartans would have i n t e r f e r e d , as they
did i n the case of Doris.

1 7
Thucydides 1.112.-5, P l u t a r c h 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 P e r i c l e s XXI.2.
2 0
GG I I :
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 , P a u l Cloche, "La' P o l i t i q u e
E x t e r i e u r e d'Athenes de 454-453 a 446-5 avant 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 O r i g i n s of the
Peloponnesian War (London: G e r a l d Duckworth and Company,
1972) 189 n. 72.
Jacoby comments: "Consequently TPUTWO ETGL i n the
careless excerpt (which must not i n i t s whole contents
be ascribed to Philochorus) i s i n c r e d i b l e , whether ETGL
be a m i s t a k e f o r pnvu or whether i t i s taken from
Thucydides 1.112.1"
2 2
Gomme 409, Cloche 24. Jacoby ( l o c c i t ) thinks i t
j
possible that the Athenian r e p r i s a l may have f a l l e n i n the
following A t t i c year. Thus the Spartan expedition would take
place i n 449/8 and the Athenian i n 448/7.

2 3
Meiggs 423 remarks: "one may well doubt whether he
(Philochorus) thought the Athenians fought the Spartans i n the
second war." Furthermore, Jacoby ( l o c c i t ) points out that
the r e f e r e n c e to the Boeotians i n F Gr H i s t 328 F 34a may
result from a confusion of Thucydides 1.112 with chapters 111
and 113.
2 4
The chronology of t h i s war i s disputed also and will
be d i s c u s s e d (briefly) in a later s e c t i o n dealing with the
events of the war.
2 5
Demosthenes II.7 (349 B. C ) , XIX.83 (343 B. C ) , and
XVIII.18 (330 B. C ) , Aeschines III.148 (330 B. C ) . So also
Plutarch i n his P e r i c l e s X I I . l , i n a section derived word for
word from Demosthenes XVIII. 18: " TOO $UWLXOU TCOXE\IOU
auvEaxaJTOs . "
2 6
F Gr H i s t 124 T 1 and following, where Jacoby has
grouped together most thoroughly the ancient testimonies to
the l i f e of C a l l i s t h e n e s . A t r a n s l a t i o n of these testimonies
can be found i n Charles Alexander Robinson J r . , A History of
80
Alexander the Great (Providence: Brown U n i v e r s i t y Press,
1953) v o l 1: 45 f f .
2 7
F Gr Hist 76 T 1.
2 8
Diogenes Laertius V.36.
29 *
uepos TtdAeyos: E S T O V TtdAeyov T O V tepbv 6vouaa§EVTa ol
0ri$auoL xaTEOTrioav (Pausanias VIII.27.10)
dvddnycx EO"TL 8n3ado)v, O T E $toX£uaLV EitoAEynoav
TOV LEpdv xaAou*yevov TtdAEyov (X.13.6)
$OJXLXOS TtdAsyos: E V Tip TtoAEyui Tip $cuxtxip (X.35.3)
Both: uoTspov 6E x a t T O V $ C O X L X O V TudAsyov, ovoya^dyEVov 6e

und 'EAAnvwv i s p d v , auv£ c5s
X 6sxa e r e a u v ETtoAeynoav (IX.6.4)
eite'drixEV o $ L A U H T C O S T c s p a s Tip TtoAdyij) $a)XLxip T E x a t iEpip
xAnÊVTL 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)XLX6S TtdAsyos:Diodorus XVI.34.2 and 59.1 (6 Ttpds $o)xeus
TtdAsyos i n XVI.40.1)
IX.2.2, 2.4, 3.11 ("Ecpopos 6', $ TO TUAELOTOV Ttpoo"xpwy£$a Sua

TT*|V TIEpt TaOTCt E T t t y E A E L O I V . . . ) and IX.4.7.
3 3
This i s a section on the plundering ( auAnats ) of the
sanctuary. The p o s s i b l e sources for this subject i n
particular will be d i s c u s s e d later i n my t r e a t m e n t of
Diodorus.
3 4
N. G. L. Hammond has written a very perceptive article
on this subject: "The Sources of Diodorus S i c u l u s XVI,"
C l a s s i c a l Quarterly 31 (1937): 79-91.
"The most obvious and I think the only candidate for

3 5
Source 2, a monograph on the Sacred War with the

81
Phocian commanders as central theme, i s Demophilus: f o r
the other known monographers, Cephisodorus and Leon,
are not mentioned i n Diodorus and the complete lack of
fragments suggests that they were not used by l a t e r
authors." Hammond, CQ 31 (1937): 84.
36 Hammond, CQ 31 (1937): 84-85, Jacoby (ad l o c ) , GG
III : 2
25, G. L. Barber, The H i s t o r i a n Ephorus (Cambridge:
Cambridge University P r e s s , 1935) 41, and Robert Drews,
"Diodorus and His Sources," AJP 83 (1962): 389.

3 7
I t should be noted, i n c i d e n t a l l y , 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 d i r e c t l y 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 a f f a i r s because his work i n f i f t y - e i g h t
books presented too heavy a task to a compiler such as
Diodorus and because the numerous fragments we possess
f i n d no echo i n Diodorus."
First of a l l , t h i s argument appears to do an i n j u s t i c e to
Diodorus. Hammond b e l i e v e s , rightly enough, that the main
source of P h i l i p ' s early career was Ephorus, whose h i s t o r y
spanned thirty books. I f Diodorus i s capable of labouring
through thirty 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 r e f l e c t e d
in Diodorus i s not a conclusive proof of h i s exclusion as a

82
source as t h i s argument would apply to a l l the other sources
mentioned by Diodorus. Ephorus i s generally agreed to be the
main source of Diodorus for Greek a f f a i r s i n Books XI-XVI, but
this should not exclude the p o s s i b i l i t y that Diodorus also
referred to other h i s t o r i a n s such as Theopompus.

4 1
Hammond's d a t e s . Chronology will be d i s c u s s e d
following the narrative of the war.
4 2
Diodorus (XVI.23.3) states that the reason for the
fine was the c u l t i v a t i o n of land sacred to Apollo. Pausanias
(X.15.2) a l s o 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
fine through their l o n g s t a n d i n g h a t r e d of the Phocians.
Justin (VIII.1.6) says that the Thebans accused the Phocians
of having l a i d waste to Boeotia (perhaps J u s t i n i s confusing
t h i s with the l a t e r raids made by the Phocians upon Boeotia
during the war). Aristotle ( P o l i t i c s V.1304a) a t t r i b u t e s the
cause of the war to s t a s i s a r i s i n g from a dispute over the
hand of an heiress. Duris of Samos (F Gr Hist 76 F 2) says
that the war was incited as a r e s u l t of the s e i z u r e of a
Theban woman by a Phocian.
4 3
Diodorus XVI.23.2-4 and 28.2-4, and J u s t i n VIII.1.4-6.
From the juxtaposition of the Spartans and the Phocians i n the
accounts of Diodorus and J u s t i n , i t appears that both charges
were brought forward at the same time.
83
4 4
The arguments of N e i l J . Hackett (The T h i r d Sacred
War, d i s s . , U n i v e r s i t y of C i n c i n n a t i , 1970, 12-15) that the
threat of Theban r e p r i s a l s was l e v e l l e d against the Phocians
soon after the Battle of Leuctra are convincing. He concludes
that the Phocian fine was fixed not long a f t e r the b a t t l e and,
after the period a l l o t e d for payment had elapsed, threats of
punishment by the Amphictyonic League began i n the mid 350's.

4 5
Diodorus XVI.7.2-3, Demosthenes VIII.74, Aeschines
III.85, Tod 153 and 154, P h i l l i p Harding, From the End of the
Peloponnesian War to the B a t t l e of Ipsus (Cambridge: 1985)
#65 and 66.
4 6
Diodorus XVI.7.3-5, Demosthenes XV.3, and Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, Lysias 12.
4 7
The Amphictyonic- League was originally a religious
organization c e n t r e d around the s a n c t u a r y of Demeter at
Anthela, near Thermopylae. Later, the sanctuary of Apollo at
Delphi a l s o came under i t s jurisdiction. The Amphictyonic
League was composed of twelve t r i b e s of northern and central
Greece, each casting two equal votes at the biannual meetings
convened at Thermopylae and concluded at D e l p h i (Strabo
IX.3.7, Aeschines 11.115, Hypereides VI.118, and Harpocration
s. v. nuAaL ) .
The original composition of the Amphictyonic League i s

not certain (incomplete membership lists are found in
Aeschines 11.116, Pausanias X.8.2, and Theopompus-Harpocration
F Gr Hist 115 F 63). The earliest complete list 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 P h i l i p (that king having received the
two votes p r e v i o u s l y 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 i n
346, obtaining one vote apiece from the Perrhaebians and the
Dolopians—Tod 172 A and J . R. E l l i s , P h i l i p II and Macedonian
Imperialism [London: Thames and Hudson, 1976] 121), the
Dorians, the Ionians, the Perrhaebians-Dolopians, the
Boeotians, the L o c r i a n s , the Achaeans, the Magnesians, the
Aenianians, and the M a l i a n s . For further detail 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 insightful article by Georges Daux,
"Remarques sur l a Composition du Conseil Amphictionique," BCH
81 (1957): 95-120.
At the time of the beginning of the Sacred War, Thessaly
along with her p e r i o i k o i c o n t r o l l e d a c l e a r 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^pav 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 J u s t i n
VIII.1.8-9.
5 3
Diodorus XVI.23.6. Hackett (3-4 and 18-19) argues
convincingly from the a n c i e n t e v i d e n c e that a board of
strategoi formed the basis of the Phocian federal government.
When an emergency arose, one of the s t r a t e g o i might be given
dictatorial powers (strategos autokrator) for as long as the
need was present. This was apparently the case i n 356, when
Philomelus was appointed t o the p o s i t i o n of s t r a t e g o s
autokrator. His status, therefore, was entirely
constitutional and there i s no i n d i c a t i o n that he arose to
power t y r a n n i c a l l y .
5 4
Hackett (13) summarizes the long range factors of the
Phocian d e c i s i o n as f o l l o w s : "a deep-seated hatred f o r the
Thessalians, a long standing claim to Delphi and the pre-
eminence i n the Amphictyonic Council, an ever growing
opposition to Theban supremacy i n c e n t r a l Greece, and the
continuous pressure of Theban threats of vengeance a f t e r
Mantinea."
The immediate causes are, of course, the fine itself and the
Amphictyonic threat of r e p r i s a l , should the fine not be paid
off.
5 5
Diodorus XVI.27.5, Pausanias III.10.3, and J u s t i n
VIII.1.8-9.
5 6
Diodorus XVI.31.3-5, Pausanias X.2.4-5, and J u s t i n
VIII.1.13-14.
5 7
Diodorus XVI.14.2 and 35.1, and Polyaenus IV.2.19.
86
5 8
Diodorus XVI.35.1-3. Polyaenus (II.38.2) says:
ev T O i U T T i T f j cpuyfj TOV $aoL\ea TWV Maxe6dva)V $L\LKKOV cpaauv
euTteCv oux ecpuyov, aXX'dvexwpnoa uaTe OL MPLOY, uv'aSdLS itoLfiawyai,
atppo6oTepav TTIV eyBoAnv.'
5 9
Diodorus XVI.35.3. Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics
III.viii.9) and t h es 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 battle a t t h e Hermaion o f Coronea as an example
of the cowardice of mercenaries as opposed t o t h e courage o f
citizen soldiers.
5 0
On t h e s i t e of this battle, see E l l i s 82 a n d 290 n. 96
(in this 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 Strabo 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 :
Clarendon P r e s s , 1 9 6 7 ) 5 4 3 , a n d N. G. L. Hammond a n d G. T.
Griffith, A History o f Macedonia (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1979) v o l 2: 2 7 4 .
6 1
Justin VIII.2.3. Justin then adds (VIII.2.4):
"Phocenses insignibus d e iconspectis conscientia delictorum
territi abiectis armis fugam capessunt." This i s most
u n l i k e l y a s Onomarchus a n d h i s f o r c e o f h a r d b o i l e d m e r c e n a r i e s
would certainly n o t be a f f e c t e d i n so extreme a manner by s u c h
patent religious propaganda. Consequently, this c h a r a d e was
probably not designed as a scare t a c t i c against the Phocians.
Griffith (Hammond-Griffith 274-5) raises the interesting
question o f t o whom t h i s religious propaganda was a d d r e s s e d .
He remarks that i ti s "highly improbable" that this p l a y on
religious sensibility was o n b e h a l f o f t h e G r e e k s because:
" a n e u t r a l , u n p o l i t i c a l opinion o f ordinary people

who w e r e g e n u i n e l y s h o c k e d by t h e ' i m p i e t y ' o f t h e
87
Phocians probably did not e x i s t . This i s shown by
the ease with which the Phocian generals could raise
army after army of mercenaries, while their sacred
money l a s t e d . "
Griffith thinks i t much more l i k e l y that t h i s whole charade
was on behalf of the Macedonian s o l d i e r s , who were much less
aware of che true f a c t s of the war and needed reassurance
after their previous d e f e a t s 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 s l a i n in b a t t l e and then c r u c i f i e d . Pausanias
(X.2.5) says that Onomarchus was cut down while f l e e i n g to the
sea by his own men, who blamed him for their defeat. At any
rate, i t seems c l e a r that Onomarchus was dead before P h i l i p
hung (or c r u c i f i e d ) him as commander of the "sacrilegious"
Phocian troops.
6 3
The question here, as G r i f f i t h (Hammond-Griffith 276-
77) r i g h t l y points out, i s whether T 0
"s aAAous refers to the
six thousand corpses or the three thousand captives. Griffith
comes to the l o g i c a l conclusion that i t i s the corpses which
are being thrown into the sea. Not only would a mass drowning
be highly impractical but no other examples are recorded
anywhere. Moreover, the denial of b u r i a l rites to the
s a c r i l e g i o u s was much more e f f e c t i v e propaganda.
6 4
Diodorus XVI.36.1 and Pausanias X.2.6.
6 5
Diodorus XVI.38.1-2, J u s t i n VIII.2.8, and Demosthenes
IV.17, XVIII.32, and XIX.84 and 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 t h i s source could
not compete with the vast resources of the Phocians "borrowed"

from the temple at Delphi. Therefore, Thebes was forced to
appeal i n 351 to Persia for further f i n a n c i a l help (Diodorus
XVI.60.1). By 347, Thebes had probably exhausted a l l help
from t h i s quarter and her growing desperation i s shown by her
request to P h i l i p to send m i l i t a r y a i d (Demosthenes XVIII.19
and Diodorus XVI.58.2).

6 9
Isocrates V.55.
7 0
Aeschines (11.132) states that the Phocian government
promised to hand over to Athens Alponus, Thronion and Nicaea,
garrisons which c o n t r o l l e d the pass of Thermopylae, i n return
for m i l i t a r y a i d .
71
Aeschines 11.133 and Diodorus XVI.59.
7 2
G. L. Cawkwell ("Aeschines and the Peace of
P h i l o c r a t e s , " REG 73 [I960]: 413-438) proposes the l o g i c a l
thesis that Phalaecus 1
return to power and subsequent
hostility to Athens caused the b e g i n n i n g of Athenian
negotiations with P h i l i p for peace.
7 3
It seems l i k e l y that Phalaecus had previously reached
an agreement with P h i l i p i n secret, as his apparently arrogant
89
refusal of A t h e n i a n and Spartan a i d i s otherwise hard to
explain. As G r i f f i t h (Hammond-Griffith 334) rightly points
out, Phalaecus 1
action i s e x p l i c a b l e by self-preservation.
His army by t h i s 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 a d d i t i o n a l resources,
Phalaecus was already contemplating settlement with Philip.
Therefore, Phalaecus had to regain c o n t r o l of the pass for
bargaining power. Sealey ("Proxenus and the Peace of
P h i l o c r a t e s , " Wiener Studien 68 [1955]: 147) and E l l i s (106
and 266 n. 67) a l s o b e l i e v e that Phalaecus had entered into
negotiations with P h i l i p before regaining control of the
Phocian government. Hackett (123 n. 34) and M. M. Markle
("The Strategy of P h i l i p i n 346 B. C.," C l a s s i c a l Quarterly N.
S. 24 [1974]: 265), on the other hand, contend that Philip
was "forced" to come to terms with Phalaecus only a f t e r his
a r r i v a l at Thermopylae.
7 4
Diodorus XVI.59, Aeschines 11.132-35. Justin
VIII.5.1-5 must be taken with a grain of s a l t .
7 5
Diodorus XVI.60.2. In 56.6, Diodorus estimates the
total sum of the p i l l a g e d treasures at over 10,000 t a l e n t s .
Parke (Parke-Wormell 230), supported by Hackett (114-15),
suggests that Diodorus derives t h i s figure from an estimate
taken by the Amphictyonic League.
A series of i n s c r i p t i o n s recording the Phocian f i n e have

been found at Delphi and at Elatea (SIG 230-35). From t h i s
90
i n s c r i p t i o n a l evidence, i t i s clear that no payments were made
u n t i l 343 B. C. By the eleventh payment, i n the archonship of
Demochares, the amount had been reduced to ten talents a year.
The payments appear to have ceased altogether around 322, by
which point less than f i v e hundred t a l e n t s 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 T r o i s i e m e
Guerre Sacree (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1915). Facing page 106,
Cloche has i n c l u d e d a handy table of the "systemes

if
chronologiques of his predecessors i n contrast with his own.
GG III : 2
262-277, P a u l Cloche, "La C h r o n o l o g i e de l a
Troisieme Guerre Sacree Jusqu en 352 avant J . - C , "

1
Les Etudes
Classiques 8 (1939): 161-204, Robert Drews, "Diodorus and h i s
Sources," American Journal of Philology (1961): 390 n.25 and
391 n. 27, and Raphael Sealey, A H i s t o r y of the Greek City
States (Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a 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 b e l i e v e there i s s u f f i c i e n t
evidence to r e s o l v e the problem, although he does favour
Hammond's chronology.
Hammond, JHS 57 (1937):
7 9
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 i s d i f f i c u l t
to explain s a t i s f a c t o r i l y except on the l i n e s that
during that i n t e r v a l i t was not possible to muster a
m a j o r i t y . i n f a v o u r of d e c l a r i n g war, because the
Thessalian voting power was not united."
Hackett (33 n. 36) accounts for the delay by suggesting that
the Phocians "were not believed to be a serious or permanent

menace i n Delphi u n t i l the two Locrian attacks
(24.4;28.3) had f a i l e d , and Philomelus had further
strengthened his hold on Delphi by r e c r u i t i n g a d d i t i o n a l
troops (25.1;28.1) . "
8 1
The two "Sacred Wars" mentioned by the scholiast are
clearly the two campaigns of the fifth-century conflict, and
not the s o - c a l l e d Second and Third Sacred Wars. In f a c t , the
s c h o l i a s t does not seem to be aware of the fourth-century war
at a l l , although Theopompus' discussion of i t i n Book Twenty
of h i s H e l l e n i c a contained a digression on the fifth-century
incident.
8 2
Isocrates V.54-55 and J u s t i n VIII.1.10. Xenophon
Poroi 5.9 hints that the Thebans themselves were prepared to
seize c o n t r o l of the sanctuary, should the Phocians abandon
it.
8 3
cf G. L. Cawkwell, P h i l i p of Macedon 64-66.
8 4
Theopompus (F Gr Hist 115 F 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 interest at
slightly over one and one-fifth p e r c e n t per annum (Russell
Meiggs and David Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical
Inscriptions [Oxford: Clarendon P r e s s , 1969]: #72, ATL 326-
45, Gomme v o l . 2: 432-436 and vol 3: 687-89 ). Athens,
however, had substantial r e s o u r c e s and a network of tribute-
paying a l l i e s to p r o v i d e the means o f p a y i n g o f f these l o a n s .
P h o c i s , on the o t h e r hand, w i t h i t s l i m i t e d r e s o u r c e s , had no
hope of p a y i n g o f f the sum of over 10,000 t a l e n t s which i t had
"borrowed" from the temple a t D e l p h i .

8 7
Diodorus XVI. 56 (cf, Herodotus 1.50-51).
8 8
I t i s not stated 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 alliance with Athens, have
c l o s e d i t s eyes to the whole affair.

8 9
Noel Robertson ( "The Myth of the F i r s t Sacred War,"
Classical Quarterly 28 N. S. [1978]: 38 n. 3) i s the o n l y
scholar (whom I have read) to p o i n t out the fact that the
"numbered series o f S a c r e d Wars" a r e modern l a b e l s and that
the term uepos TtdAsyos was applied only to the so-called
Second and T h i r d Sacred Wars by the a n c i e n t s o u r c e s .

9 0
This i s the o p i n i o n of C h a r l e s Burton G u l i c k (editor
of the Loeb e d i t i o n of Athenaeus, ad l o c ) .
9 1
KaAAtaÊvriS be T T } V T W V 'EAAnvLxaJv itporfydxiov u a x o p d a v
YsypacpEV ev B U B 6sxa x a l xaxsaxpocpsv s u s TT\V xaxdAn.<Rv
A O L S
xou uEpoO x a t u a p a v o y d a v <JtAoyriAou xou $ O J K E U ) S ^ ^ ^ . ^ ^

93
9 2
Cicero obviously derives the title of "Phocicum
bellum" from the " 0 ^ H ^ O S ndXeyos " °f Demosthenes and the
Athenian orators.
9 3
This i s the opinion of Beloch GG III : 2
25-26 f Jacoby
(ad l o c ) and C. L. Sherman ( e d i t o r of the Loeb volume of
Diodorus, ad l o c ) , and A. B. Bosworth, "Aristotle and
Callisthenes," H i s t o r i a 19 (1970): 409.

9 4
A. B. Drachmann, S c h o l i a Vetera i n P i n d a r i 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 t r a d i t i o n s (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 i n t e r e s t i n g discussion on t h i s point.
9 6
C l a s s i c a l Quarterly 28 N. S. (1978): 54 n. 2.
9 7
Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, A r i s t o t e l e s und
Athen ( B e r l i n : Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1893) vol 1: 18 n.
27.
9 8
Drachmann i s supported i n t h i s conclusion by Marta
Sordi, "La Prima Guerra Sacra," Rivista di Filologia e di
Instruzione C l a s s i c a 31 (1953): 338 and by Parke (Parke-
Wormell 105) who b e l i e v e s that Menaechmus was motivated by
patriotism to exaggerate Cleisthenes 1
role i n the war.
9 9
Jacoby (ad l o c ) . This conclusion i s probably correct
as Menaechmus i s known to have written a h i s t o r y of Alexander
(F Gr Hist 131 T 1). The only evidence to the contrary i s the
94
entry i n Hesychius (F Gr H i s t 131 T 3) which implies that
Menaechmus i s e a r l i e r than A r i s t o t l e : " nuduovrTxas Bu$Au'ov a,
EV $ Me'vau yov Evu'xnoev

X ... 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. A l t e r n a t i v e l y we may
postulate two Menaechmi (!) or even several."

1 0 0
This suggestion i s made by Sordi, RFIC (1953): 339.
1 0 1
Ephorus? Strabo o b v i o u s l y p l a c e s great faith in
Ephorus (esp. IX.3.11) and uses him as an authority throughout
t h i s chapter.
1 0 2
This point i s made by Robertson CQ 28 N. S. (1978):
51.
1 0 3
A r i s t o t l e alone i s named as author of t h i s register
by Plutarch (Solon XI.1), Diogenes L a e r t i u s (V.26), and
Hesychius (F Gr H i s t 131 T 3). An i n s c r i p t i o n at D e l p h i ,
however, honours A r i s t o t l e and Callisthenes as j o i n t authors
of a v i c t o r ' s l i s t (SIG 275, Tod 187, Harding 104).
Robertson (CQ 28 N. S. [1978]: 55) following Jacoby (ad
l o c ) 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 i s natural that i n later memory the greater
name should have ousted the l e s s e r . And, indeed, if the
younger and obscurer man o r i g i n a l l y received equal c r e d i t , we
must suspect that the labour was c h i e f l y h i s . "
A. B. Bosworth (Historia 19 [1970]: 409) remarks, on the

other hand, that the text of the avaypacpn could not possibly
have been completed before C a l l i s t h e n e s departed to j o i n
95
Alexander on campaign i n Asia. T h e r e f o r e , 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 f o r c e d to leave A r i s t o t l e t o complete the work w h i l e
he was absent. T h i s theory would a l s o e x p l a i n the absence of
Callisthenes' name i n the l i t e r a r y r e c o r d .

1 0 4
The t a b l e had been inscribed at Delphi by t h e
a r c h o n s h i p o f Caphis (SIG 252 and FD 58, l i n e 42), which was
originally dated to the year 331/0 but has been r e d a t e d to the
year 327/6 by P. de la Coste-Messeliere, "Listes
Amphictioniques du I V e
Siecle," BCH 73 (1949): 229 f . The
date of the i n s c r i p t i o n adds further weight to Boswell's
theory that Aristotle was l e f t t o complete the commission
a f t e r C a l l i s t h e n e s d e p a r t u r e f o r A s i a i n 334.
1 0 5
Plutarch (Solon XI. 1) says:
Tteuaê'vTes yap uic'exeLvou itpos x6v TtdAeyov (Lpyn^naav
OL 'AucpLXTUoves, As a A A o L xe u a p x u p o C a L x a t - ' A p L a x o x e A n s
iv xfj x u i v IIudLOVLxQv a v a y p a t p f i EdAwvL xr\v yvwynv avaxLdeLc.
1 0 6
Robertson, f o l l o w i n g Wilamowitz and Jacoby, CQ 28 N.
S. (1978): 55 n.5.
107 T h e S C holiast t o Hypothesis b quotes t h r e e hexameter

l i n e s from Euphorion: oitAoxepou x"Ax^f\oz axodoyev EUPUAO'XOLO,
AeAcpLbes $ uito xaAbv 'inl'ov avxLftdnaav
-<KpCaav> iropSnaavxL, AuxojpEos OLxda $OL3OU.
The s c h o l i a s t to Hypothesis d says:

xou, O X L E u p u A o x o g 6 0eaaaAoc. x o u g KLppaiToug endpdnae, yapxupeL xat,
EucpopLajv* oTtAoxe'pou x''AxLAfjos axouoyev EupuAdxoLO.
1 0 8
S o r d i , RFIC 31 (1953).
1 0 9
For b i b l i o g r a p h y , see Robertson, CQ 28 N. S. (1978):
68 n. 1. See a l s o Pierre Guillon, Le B o u c l i e r d'Heracles

96
(Aix-en-Provence: Publication des Annales de l a Faculte des
Lettres, 1963) 56 n. 68.

1 1 0
H. w. Parke (and John Boardman), "The Struggle for
the Tripod and the F i r s t Sacred War," JHS 77 (1957): 277 n. 4
and Robertson CQ 28 N. S. (1978 ): 68 n. 1 (following
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 s c h o l i a on Pindar: Hypotheses
Pythiorum a, b, and d, Nemean IX, and Hypothesis Olympiorum.
1 1 2
Parke (Parke-Wormell 99) remarks that "these accounts
are i n c l i n e d to be d i s t o r t e d either by an e f f o r t to force the
F i r s t Sacred War into p a r a l l e l i s m with later wars of the same
name, or to g l o r i f y particular states or individuals by
exaggerating their share i n championing Apollo."
1 1 3
This i s apparently an i n s o l u b l e problem as the two
names a r e used almost indiscriminately i n the a n c i e n t
testimonies. This has led to mass confusion i n scholars from
the H e l l e n i s t i c period onwards. There are three c u r r e n t
modern theories c o n c e r n i n g the nomenclature of the city
involved i n the Crisaean War.
One school of thought, following the example of Strabo
(IX.3.1), d i s t i n g u i s h e s between the two c i t i e s of C r i s a and
Cirrha (George Grote, H i s t o r y of Greece [New York: Peter
Fenelon C o l l i e r , 1899) v o l 4: 60 n. 1, and Parke [Parke-
Wormell 99-100 and Parke-Boardman 276]). According to t h i s
97
interpretation, the city of C r i s a was located on Mount
Parnassus near Delphi and had extended i t s influence over the
plain called both the Crisaean and the Cirrhaean in our
sources down to the C o r i n t h i a n Gulf, which at that time was
named a f t e r that city 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 c i t y destroyed by the Amphictyonic League in the Crisaean
War. C i r r h a , on the other hand, was the port of Delphi which
was eventually destroyed i n the War over Amphissa.
The second modern theory concerning the nomenclature of
this city follows the French excavation of the area. The
l a t e s t in a s e r i e s of reports on the excavations i s a book by
Leopold Dor, Jean Jan-no r a y , Henri and Micheline van
Effenterre, Kirrha: Etude de l a P r e h i s t o i r e Phocidienne
(Paris: E. de Boccard, 1960). Jean Defradas, Themes de l a
Propagande Delphique (Paris: L i b r a r i e C. Klincksieck, 1954)
21 n. 1 contains a complete bibliography of e a r l i e r articles.
Although these excavations proved that the s i t e on Parnassus
originally thought to be that of the sixth-century city of
Crisa had not been inhabited since the Mycenaean period, they
were not successful i n f i n d i n g the remains of the archaic
city. From these r e s u l t s arose a d i s t i n c t i o n between C r i s a ,
the Mycenaean c i t y on the slopes of Mount Parnassus mentioned
by Homer ( I l i a d 11.520) and C i r r h a , the archaic c i t y on the
coast which was destroyed by the Amphictyonic League a f t e r the

98
Crisaean War. This archaeological theory has been accepted by
Sordi (RFIC 31 [1953]: 320), Defradas ( 2 1 ) , and George
Forrest ( "The F i r s t Sacred War," BCH 80 [1956]: 330). This
theory i s hampered, however, by the lack of success i n f i n d i n g
the " r e a l " s i t e of the archaic c i t y .

j I
The third modern theory i s that the names C r i s a and
Cirrha are both used to refer to the same place (H. T. Wade-
Gery, "Kynaithos," Essays i n Greek History [Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1958) 23 n. 1 and Noel Robertson CQ 28 N. S.
[1978]: 41-48). According to t h i s theory, Crisa was the name
of the a r c h a i c harbour city, but when i t was r e b u i l t , i t
became known as Cirrha (on the analogy of §pdaos/ Sdpaos/Sdppos ) .
Confusion arose later when the o r i g i n a l name of C r i s a had been
forgotten and only the contemporary town of Cirrha remained.
This theory, although also based on conjecture, at least has
the merit of explaining the prevalence of the name Cirrha i n
our sources and of i d e n t i f y i n g the source of the d i f f i c u l t y as
later attempts to d i s t i n g u i s h between Crisa and Cirrha as two
separate c i t i e s .
For convenience, I will refer to the a r c h a i c city
involved i n the Crisaean War as Crisa and the harbour town i n
the War over Amphissa as C i r r h a .

1 1 4
Aeschines I I I . 1.07, Plutarch Solon XI. 1, and Diodorus
IX.16. Pausanias X.37.5 adds that i n addition to their other
acts of aoiQeta. , they even went so far as to appropriate (dnoxeyvw)
some of the god's land. Pausanias i s probably confusing the
99
cause of the Crisaean War with that of the War over Amphissa.
1 1 5
Strabo IX.3.4.
1 1 6
Hypotheses Giympiorum, Hypotheses Pythiorum a, b, and
d.
117
Aeschines III. 108 paraphrases this o r a c l e :
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 ctuxwv e x n o p S n a a v T E S xat auxouc.
a v
av6paito6baaye'vouc. avaSeUvaL xfj) 'AitdAAojvi- xtp

Iludtw x a t xfj 'Apxeyo6u xau xfj ArixoC xat ' A%r\vcj.
Ilpovaua e n t itdarj aepyua, x a t xauxnv xr>v
Xcljpav ynx'auxouc. epydr;ea%ai yrtx'aAAbv lav.
Aeschines i s apparently familiar with the record of t h i s
oracle kept at Delphi i n his own day. Plutarch (Moralia 76e)
mentions the f i r s t l i n e s of t h i s oracle, which he presumably
derived either from the record at Delphi or from the text of
Aeschines.
1 1 8
Plutarch (Solon XI. 1 — u s i n g the avaypacpn of A r i s t o t l e
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, A s
XeyeLv cpnatv "Epybitnos Euav§n xov E d y L o v " ouxe ydp Auax^vriS
6 pnxwp xoOx' e t p r i x e v , ev xe xoCs . AeAcpwv uitoyvriyaauv 'AAxyauwv,
ou ZdAwv, 'A^nvatwv axpaxnyoc. avayeypanxau.
Nevertheless, the f a c t remains that the Alcmaeonidae were

100
almost c e r t a i n l y in exile at this time. George Forrest (BCH
80 [1956]: 50-51) circumvents this problem by comparing
Alcmaeon with A l c i b i a d e s , "another great Athenian who became
commander of his country's forces while s t i l l i n e x i l e and won
his recall by h i s successes i n 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 e x i l e , we must keep i n mind that this
tradition that Alcmaeon was commander of the Athenian
contingent originates 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 ( riyey^v )r Frontinus

III.7.6, and Polyaenus III.5.
120 [Thessalus] ( L i t t r e 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) a t t r i b u t e s the t r a d i t i o n of Alcmaeon
as general of the Athenian contingent to the influence of the
Alcmaeonidae at D e l p h i at the end of the sixth 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 i n l o c a l bias."
1 2 3
Sordi 342.
101
1 2 4
P. N. Ure, The O r i g i n of Tyranny (New York: Russell
and R u s s e l l , 1922) 259-60, Malcolm F. McGregor, "Cleisthenes
of S i c y o n , " T r a n s a c t i o n s and Proceedings of the American
P h i l o l o g i c a l Association 72 (1941): 283, and Sordi 341.

1 2 5
The s c h o l i a s t to Nemean IX t e l l s us that Cleisthenes
and his f l e e t blockaded the Crisaeans i n the Corinthian Gulf.
1 2 6
Scholiast to Nemean IX.
1 2 7
Aeschines III.109, [Thessalus] ( L i t t r e IX 406).
1 2 8
P a r i a n 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 i s dated f a i r l y conclusively to
591/0 B. C. Pausanias (X.7.4) i s the only evidence to the
contrary, as he dates the dyw xpnuonri/ms
v
t o 5 8 6 B < c >
1 2 9
[Thessalus] ( L i t t r e IX 408), Hypotheses Pythiorum b
and d.
1 3 0
Pausanias X.37.6 a t t r i b u t e s t h i s stratagem to Solon,
Polyaenus VI.13 to Eurylochus, Frontinus III.7.6 to
C l e i s t h e n e s , and [Thessalus] ( L i 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 t h i s o r a c l e has a l s o been i n s e r t e d i n Aeschines
(III.112) .
1 3 2
Pausanias (X.37.6) a t t r i b u t e s t h i s t r i c k to Solon and
Polyaenus (III. 5) to Cleisthenes.
102
1 3 3
Hypotheses Pythiorum b and d.
1 3 4
P a r i a n Marble (F Gr H i s t 239 A 38), Hypotheses
Pythiorum b and d, Strabo IX.3.10, and Pausanias X.7.5.
Pausanias (X.7.6) says that C l e i s t h e n e s of Sicyon was the
winner of the c h a r i o t - r a c e , which was added i n t h i s year to
the o f f i c i a l programme of the games.

1 3 5
George Forrest, "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. i n the same breath and i n the same
terms: I I I . 221: Ta ue\ y°P Ttept xous 'Aycpuaaeas nae3nyeya aot
xaL xa HE pi, xr^v Eugotav 6wpo6oxn§evxa,...
I I I . 237: Tac yev yap TtepC xous ' Aycpuaaeas xat xous Eu3oeas
6a)po6oxLas icapaAeunoj*
1 4 1
Demosthenes XVIII. 1: Ou yrfv aXA'sirst "JdAuinros und xfis nepu
xflv "Aycptaaav euxuxdas ercaupdyevos ziz
xflv 'EAdxeuav eâtcprivs eveiteae xat, xrlv
$uxd6a xaxeaxev.
P l u t a r c h may have d e r i v e d the g e n e r a l method of r e f e r e n c e
(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 l a t e r i n 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 a n c i e n t port of C r i s a (now C i r r h a ) and were collecting
harbour dues (xeAn ) from v i s i t o r s .

1 4 3
Aeschines III.108, [Thessalus] (Littre IX 412),
Polyaenus III.4-5, and Pausanias X.37.6.
1 4 4
The fact that Isocrates refers to t h i s land as TO KpuaaCov
ite*6uov adds further support to the theory (propounded i n note
113) that a previous t r a d i t i o n of a c i t y c a l l e d C r i s a existed,
which was confused i n the fourth century with the contemporary
s i t e of C i r r h a .
1 4 5
The chronology of t h i s conflict has a l s o been the
subject of dispute. Aeschines (III.115) dates t h i s meeting to
the archonship of Theophrastus (340/39) so i t follows that the
Pylaea i n question took place either i n the autumn of 340 B.
C. or the s p r i n g of 339 B. C. I follow the chronology of
Griffith (Hammond-Griffith 717-719) in dating t h i s meeting to
the autumn of 340 B. C. A case has been made, however, for
the spring of 339 B. C. (Ellis 290 n. 31 for b i b l i o g r a p h i c a l
references).
1 4 6
Aeschines III.115 and SIG 243 D.
1 4 7
Aeschines I I I . 115 and Demosthenes XVIII. 149.
1 4 8
Aeschines III.116 and Demosthenes XVIII.150 (who
denies the e x i s t e n c e of any such suit contemplated against
Athens).
104
1 4 9
Aeschines I I I . 115-116 and Demosthenes XVIII. 149.
1 5 0
Demosthenes (XVIII.149) describes his audience as
" dvSpojTtous omeupous Adyarv x a l xb u e A A o v 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 c a r r y out i f anyone i s d i s c o v e r e d by the
Amphictyons to be c u l t i v a t i n g 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 h i s compatriot Colosimmus served as
hieromnemones f o r an u n u s u a l l y long p e r i o d of time, from
autumn 346 (SIG 244) u n t i l autumn 339 (SIG 249) or autumn 337
(P. de l a Coste-Messeliere, BCH 73 [1949]: 201-247).
1 5 5
1 5 6
157 Aeschines I I I . 129 and Demosthenes XVIII.152.
158 Aeschines III.140, Demosthenes XVIII.153, Philochorus
(F Gr H i s t 328 F 56), P l u t a r c h Demosthenes XVIII.1), and
Diodorus XVI.84.2. Demosthenes d e s c r i b e s the r e a c t i o n i n
Athens to t h i s news in a j u s t i f i a b l y famous passage
(XVIII.169-178).
1 5 9
Noel Robertson CQ 28 N. S. (1978): 65 remarks:
The f i r s t stage of f i g h t i n g ended after four years with
the Cirrhaeans defeated: thus were the Phocians defeated
105
a f t e r four y e a r s of war i n the B a t t l e of the Crocus

F i e l d , and the T h i r d Sacred War would have ended then had
P h i l i p not been checked at Thermopylae. For s i x y e a r s
more the C i r r h a e a n s kept up a g u e r i l l a r e s i s t a n c e on
Mount C i r p h i s : thus d i d the P h o c i a n s , f a l l i n g back
on t h e i r mountains, p r o l o n g the T h i r d Sacred War f o r s i x
years more.
T h i s analogy, however, seems an extremely l a b o r i o u s attempt to
draw a p a r a l l e l !
160 r p ^ g fragments of C a l l i s t h e n e s and D u r i s both appear
in an extremely chauvinistic passage of Athenaeus (XIII 560)
i n which he attempts t o demonstrate " STL xal OL, yeyLOTOL. ito'AeyoL
6t& yuvaCxas EysvETO."
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
H y p o t h e s i s Qlympiorum, Hypotheses Pythiorum a, b, and
d.
1 6 6
A e s c h i n e s 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, o v e r l o o k s the c r u c i a l passage in
Isocrates' Plataicus, which indicates a tradition of t h i s war
p r e c e d i n g the f o u r t h c e n t u r y .
1 7 0
Robertson (51) c o n s i d e r s the s i l e n c e of Thucydides i n
106
particular as c o n c l u s i v e : "The t r a d i t i o n of the Sacred War
and i t s modern exponents makes Thucydides a l i a r or a f o o l . "
Nevertheless, this i s not a v a l i d argument because both
Herodotus and Thucydides leave out many d e t a i l s which they
consider i r r e l e v a n t 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 x a § L e p a j § n , a u v ^ e l g x a t
6LC£;EA$WV # " w must take Demosthenes' c r i t i c i s m with a grain

e
of s a l t , however, as he i s anxious to d i s c r e d i t Aeschines at
any cost.
F Gr Hist 69 T 2: eiteu6rf 6e x a t itepi, xcov 'AycpLxxuovLxSv

Ttpayyaxaiv SfjAos zZ aitouddôav, eBouArv&nv a o i tppdaaL y u $ o v Ttapd*
' AvxLirdxpo'Uj x d v a xpdrcov icpffixov OL ' AycpLxxuovec a u v d a x n a a v , xaC Tiuis
ovxes 'AycpLxxuoves $AeyuaL yev u i t b 'ATIOAAWVOS, A p d o v x e s 6e u i t o 'HpaxAeoug,
K p L a a L O L 6e uito xffiv 'AycpLXxudvuv avrtLpdSnaav. OSXOL yap i t d v x e s
' A y c p L x x u o v e c y e v d y e v o L xffiv (Jjdcpwv acpnLpe^naav, e x e p o L 6e xas xodxuv
(J^ncpous AaBdvxes xfis xaiv -AycpLxxudvwv auvxeAedas y e x e a x o v , 5v IVLOLS
ae cpnaL yeyLyfja-SaL x a L AaBe~v 5\>Aov IIU^LOLS xfis et,s AeAcpous a x p a x e d a s
T t a p a xtov 'AytpLxxudvwv xas 6uo $wxewv c^ncpous.
1 7 3
Robertson 39 and 73.
1 7 4
Gustav Adolf Lehmann ("Der Erste H e i l i g e K r i e g — E i n e
Fiktion?" H i s t o r i a 29 [1980]: 242-46) provides a b r i e f 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 i n Isocrates (Plataicus
31), which speaks of the Crisaean War i n 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, H e l l e n i c a VI.5.1-3. See T. T. B. Ryder,
Kione Eirene (London: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1965) 71-73
and Appendix IV. As a r e s u l t of this disagreement over the
autonomy clause, E l i s was the only c i t y present to refuse to
sign the treaty (Xenophon, Hellenica VI.5.3).

1 7 7
Xenophon, Hellenica I I I . 2. 30.
1 7 8
Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.1.26: " xous 6e TputpuU'ous HOU xous
dXXovz xous *no acptov (the Eleans) aitoaxdvxas nepu icavxos itotouvievous."
James Roy ("Arcadia and Boeotia i n Peloponnesian Affairs,"

Historia 20 [1971]: 583) suggests that T r i p h y l i a had joined
the League before the Theban embassy to Persia of 367, as the
Arcadian ambassador was a T r i p h y l i a n (Xenophon, Hellenica
VII.1.33, Pausanias VI.3.9). Lasion was a l s o certainly a
member of the Arcadian League when i t was seized by the Eleans
in 365, as we know from the testimony of Xenophon (Hellenica
VII.4.12) and Diodorus (XV.77.1-2). Diodorus, however,
confuses Lasion and T r i p h y l i a 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, H e l l e n i c a VII.1.39) and the
other u n s a t i s f i e d 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 s u c c e s s f u l l y concluded at t h i s p o i n t ) . In
support of Xenophon s account

1
are Ryder 137-39 and John
108
Buckler, The Theban Hegemony (Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y
Press, 1980) 151-60.
180 F o r f u r ther information about the diplomatic
situation i n the Peloponnese during the troubled 360's, see
the clear and concise accounts of James Roy, Historia 20
(1971): Appendix II 594-99 and Dusanic 300-301.

181
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 c o a l i t i o n i n a formal alliance
in 369 after the refusal of Athens (Xenophon, H e l l e 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, H e l l e n i c a
VI.5.29 and VII.1.1).
1 8 3
Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.4.28 and Diodorus XV.78.3.
The fourth-century Pisatan claims are also reflected in
Xenophon, Hellenica III.2. 30.
Apparently, the Eleans were the founders and original
hosts of the Olympic Games (Pausanias V.4.5-6 and 9.4 and
Strabo VIII.3.30), having gained control of the t e r r i t o r y of
their neighbours the Pisatans (a r u r a l people). The Pisatans,
however, resented their subjection to the more powerful Eleans
and, with the help of Pheidon of Argos, managed to s e i z e
c o n t r o l of the sanctuary i n 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 i s evident
not only from i t s coinage (Barclay V. Head, H i s t o r i a Numorum
[Chicago: Argonaut Inc., 1967] 426) and a Pisatan proxeny
decree (SIG 170) but also from a formal a l l i a n c e with Arcadia
(Diodorus XV.78.2, SEG XXII. 339a). Moreover, Dus'anic's re-
interpretation ("Arkadika," M i t t e i l u n g e n des Deutschen
Archaologischen I n s t i t u t s Athenische Abteilung 94 [1979]:
117-118) of SEG XXII.339 has shown, quite convincingly, that
the two fragments belong to two d i f f e r e n t s t e l a i : a Pisatan
a l l i a n c e with Argos and a separate a l l i a n c e with Messenia and
Sicyon.
1 8 5
Pausanias (VI.4.2) mentions Sostratus of Sicyon as
victorious for the f i r s t time at this f e s t i v a l in the TtayHpaTuov
(cf J . G. Frazer, Pausanias' Description of Greece [New York:

Biblio and Tannen, 1965] 10). Pausanias also mentions
(VI.8.3) a c e r t a i n Eubotas of Cyrene as v i c t o r i o u s i n the
chariot-race i n 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, H e l l e n i c a VII.4.29, Diodorus XV.78.2-3
(Diodorus reverses the roles of the Arcadians and the Eleans).
Pausanias (V.10.1) d e r i v e s the name ( A l t i s ) given to the
sacred precinct from aXaos, on the authority of Pindar (X.45).
110
1 8 7
According to Xenophon (Hellenica VI1.4.29), two
thousand Argive h o p l i t e s and, surprisingly enough, four
hundred Athenian horsemen were present i n 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.
Diodorus XV. 78.3: " K a u TTTV oAuyitudSa xauxnv oaxepov oux

1 8 9
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
p h y l a i was reduced from twelve to eight i n the hundred and
fourth Olympiad as a result of the territory lost to the
Arcadians.
1 9 1
J . Roy, H i s t o r i a 20 (1971): 384.
1 9 2
Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.4.33. Diodorus XV.82 (after
a minor doublet c o n s i s t i n g of a r e c a p i t u l a t i o n of the joint
Arcadian-Pisatan management of the Olympic Games) places t h i s
episode i n the year 363/2. Neither Xenophon nor Diodorus
states specifically how long the Arcadians had been mis-
appropriating funds, but they both imply that t h i s had been
going on for some time. Moreover, gold coins bearing the name
of P i s a were struck from the plundered treasures (Head 420)
and the record of reparations due from the Arcadian League (IG
IV 616) of which the total has been e s t i m a t e d at 20,000
Aeginetan staters (Fraenkel apud Dusanic 334 n. 32) contribute

Ill
to the impression that the s a c r i l e g e was no small one.
1 9 3
Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.4.3 and Diodorus XV.82.1-2
(Diodorus completely reverses the r o l e 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 c o n t r i b u t i o n towards the pay of the E p a r i t o i (cf Larsen
188, Roy Historia 20 [1971]: 585, and Buckler 204). This

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n has recently been challenged by Dusanic (303 n.
114) who argues rather that the Mantineans gave back to the
League the amount given to the Mantinean E p a r i t o i . As Dulanic
points out, t h i s l a t t e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n explains the seemingly
excessive burden placed on Stymphalus i n the reparations (IG
IV 616) as due to the f a c t that Mantinea had already repaid
i t s share of the funds from Olympia.
195 T h e oligarchic-democratic conflict 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 difficult to assign
blame and even to know which of the two was the more
o l i g a r c h i c and which the more democratic") and Dusanic, who
a t t r i b u t e s the e x i s t i n g antagonism between Mantinea and Tegea
to economic rather than p o l i t i c a l differences (306).

1 9 6
Xenophon, H e l l e n i c a VII.5.1-5. The formal alliance
of 362/1 between Athens, A r c a d i a ( i . e . Mantinea and i t s
supporters), Achaea, E l i s , and P h l i u s (IG I I 2

112, SIG 181,
112
Tod 144, and Harding 56) dates from after the B a t t l e of
Mantinea (the arguments of Tod [ad l o c ] have won general
acceptance). For the date of the B a t t l e of Mantinea, see
Buckler 260-61.
1 9 7
Compare t h i s description of Olympia with Strabo's
d e s c r i p t i o n of Delphi (IX.3.2-10).
198 T n e Arcadians, however, did not use the sacred money

to h i r e mercenaries, as did the Phocians.
1 9 9
As I observed i n note 192, the t o t a l of reparations
due from the Arcadian League has been estimated at ca. 20,000
Aeginetan staters. This, of course, does not include the
amount a l r e a d y repaid by Mantinea, i f we accept Dusanic's
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of IG IV 616 and Xenophon, Hellenica VII.4.33
(c.f. note 194). T h i s amount, which was presumably to be
spread out among the northern members of the Arcadian League,
is considerably less than the s i x t y talents a year to be paid
by the Phocians (an enormous amount for a small state left
utterly without r e s o u r c e s 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 i s 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 a r b i t r a t i o n . The c i t y of
Cleonae was then chosen by the A r c a d i a n League and the
magistrates governing the temple a t Olympia to a c t as
arbitrator.
2 0 0
Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon (ad loc) ,
Franciszek Sokolowski, Lois Sacrees des C i t e s Grecques (Paris:
Editions de Boccard, 1969) #32 n. 1, and Harding 78 n . l .

2 0 1
The references have been c o l l e c t e d by Dittenberger
SIG 204 n. 2.
2 0 2
Herodotus VI. 7 5.3: | osa
vxa 6 KAeoyevris aAAa xe l6rjW xfis
xwpas nal, xfis xaAouyEvns 'OpydSos §et5v
xe xo5v I v 'EAeuaCvL cepas.
Pausanias III. 4.2: is 6 E AftrivaCoL jyoOvoiT] AsyouaL, 6 L O X L Is 'EAeuauva
lagaAwv E X x6 xeysvog
E L P E §eOv,...
X O J V
and III. 4.3.... 'AdnvaCoL 5e I S T J U K J E

O xrlv 'Opydfia.
I L
203 Thucydides 1.139.2: 6E

O L . 'A^nvaLOL... InspyaaLav
I T C L X O I A O U V X E S
MeyapeOaL xfis y n s L E p a s n a t xfis aopCaxou.
Plutarch, Per i c l e s XXX.2, Pausanias 1.36.3 and I I I . 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 l o c ) , Donald Kagan, The Outbreak of
the Peloponnesian War (Ithaca: Cornell U n i v e r s i t y 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 204, SIG 204, Sokolowski 32 and Harding 78.
2
2 0 7
This speech was generally considered spurious i n the
nineteenth century, but now i t i s almost u n i v e r s a l l y accepted
as a work of Demosthenes. W. Jaeger (Demosthenes [Berkeley:
U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1938] 243 n. 24) chronicles
thoroughly the change of opinion. N e v e r t h e l e s s , the
authorship of t h i s speech does not a f f e c t the i n f o r m a t i o n
contained within.
2 0 8
The answer to t h i s question hinges upon the date of
the speech, as Demosthenes i s c l e a r l y referring to recent
events. These r e f e r e n c e s make i t c l e a r that the speech
belongs to the period 352/49 but i t i s not c e r t a i n whether i t
precedes or follows the implementation of the measures
contained i n the i n s c r i p t i o n . Didymus (Demosthenesl c o l .
13.40=Harding 78B) does date On O r g a n i z a t i o n to 349/8,
although, as Jacoby (F G r Hist I I I B Supplement II 424 )
remarks, his inference i s "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 t h i s speech
cannot yet be considered f i x e d .
Demosthenes refers to the Megarians as w a T a p d x o t i n 352
B. C. (XXIII.2.2) but makes no further reference to a campaign
against them u n t i l 349/8 ( I I I . 2 0 ) . As a r e s u l t , 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 P h i l o l o g y 83 [1962]: 237), and Legon (288) that
after the threat of a campaign i n 352/1 actual m i l i t a r y action
against the Megarians d i d not occur u n t i l the implementation
of the measures of the decree aroused Megarian resentment and
unco-operation.
2 0 9
REG 82 (1969): 300-301.
2 1 0
This i s a l s o the opinion of G. E. M. de Ste. Croix
388 n. 1 and Kevin C l i n t o n , "The Sacred O f f i c i a l s of the
Eleusinian 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 c r i t i c i s m of Connor's t h e s i s , see
K. J . Dover, "Anthemocritus and the Megarians," American
Journal of Philology 87 (1966): 203-209, Lawrence J . Bliquez,
"Anthemocritus and the opyds Disputes," Greek, Roman, and
Byzantine S t u d i e s 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, i n the o r i g i n a l p u b l i c a t i o n of the decree
of 352/1 i n BCH 13 (1889), i s the only modern scholar to draw
a parallel (437) between the Sacred Orgas and the Cirrhaean
116
Plain.
2 1 5
T h i s p o i n t i s made by Parke (Parke-Wormell 227).
Athens, of course, was an ally of Phocis and this was
presumably a factor i n 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 C l a s s i c a l Library, 1968.
Aristophanes. Trans. Benjamin Bickley Rogers. 3 vols. Loeb

C l a s s i c a l Library, 1960-63.
Athenaeus. The Deipnosophists• Trans. Charles Burton Gulick.

7 vols. Loeb C l a s s i c a l 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 P h i l i p p i c , On the Chersonese and

Third P h i l i p p i c . Ed. John Edwin Sandys. New York: Arno
Press, 1979.
Trans. J . H. Vince (vols 1 and 3) and J . H. Vince and C.

A. Vince (vol 2). 3 v o l s . Loeb C l a s s i c a l Library, 1953-
62.
Dinarchus. Orationes Cum Fragmentis. Ed. Nicos C. Conomis.

L e i p z i g : 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 . T r a n s . C. H.
O l d f a t h e r , C. L. Sherman, Bradford Welles, R u s s e l l M.
Geer, and F. R. Walton. 12 v o l s . Loeb C l a s s i c a l
Library, 1960-67.
Eusebius. Chronica. Ed. A l f r e d Schoene. 2 vols. Zurich:

Weidmann, 1967.
118
Frontinus. The Stratagems and the Aqueducts of Rome. Trans.
C h a r l e s E. B e n n e t t . Ed. Mary B. McElwain. Loeb
C l a s s i c a l Library, 1925.
Harpocration. Lexicon i n Decern Oratores A t t i c o s . Ed. W.

Dindorf. 2 vols. Gronigen: Bouma's Boekhius N. V.
Publishers, 1969.
Herodotus. H i s t o r i a e • Ed. Carolus Hude. 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 C l a s s i c a l Library, 1964.
Opera. Ed. David B. Munro and Thomas W. A l l e n . 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 C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y , 1961-66.
J u s t i n . Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum Pompeii Trogi. Ed.

Otto Seel. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1972.
Pausanias. D e s c r i p t i o n of Greece. Trans. W. H. Jones. 5

vols. Loeb C l a s s i c a l Library, 1954.
Pindar. Odes. Trans. S i r John Sandys. Loeb C l a s s i c a l

Library, 1961.
Plutarch. Plutarch's Lives. Trans. Bernadotte P e r r i n . 11

vols. Loeb C l a s s i c a l Library, 1959.
Plutarch's Moralia. Ed. F. C. Babbitt et a l . 16 vols.

Polyaenus. Strategemata. Ed. J . Melber. Stuttgart:

Teubner: 1970.
Strabo. The Geography of Strabo. Trans. Horace Leonard

Jones. 8 vols. 1960.
Thucydides. H i s t o r i a e . Ed. Henry Stuart Jones. 2 vols.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960.
History of the Peloponnesian War. Trans. Charles

Forster Smith. 4 vols. Loeb C l a s s i c a l Library, 1962.
119
Xenophon. H e l l e n i c a . Trans. Carleton L. Brownson. 2 vols.
MODERN SOURCES
Amandry, P i e r r e . 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." C l a s s i c a l Quarterly 8 N. S.

(1958): 144-157.
Barber, G. L. The H i s t o r i a n Ephorus. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1935.
Beloch, Karl J u l i u s . Griechische Geschicte. 4 vols. Berlin

and L e i p z i g : Walter de Gruyter and Company, 1913-27.
Bliquez, Lawrence J . "Anthemocritus and the opyots Disputes."

Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 10 (1969): 157-161.
Bonner, Robert J . and Gertrude Smith. "Administration of

Justice i n the Delphic Amphictyony." Classical
Philology 38 (1943): 1-12.
Bonner, Robert J . "The Megarian Decrees." Classical

Philology 16 (1921): 238-245.
Bosworth, A. B. " A r i s t o t l e and C a l l i s t h e n e s . " H i s t o r i a 19

(1970): 407-13.
Bourguet, Emile. F o u i l l e s de Delphes Tome III Epigraphie

Fasicule V Les Comptes du IV S i e c l e . P a r i s : E. de
e
Boccard, 193T^
L'Administration Financiere du Sanctuaire Pythique au

IV S i e c l e . Paris: L i b r a i r i e des Ecoles Francaises
e
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 O f f e r t s a Georges Daux. P a r i s : E.
de Boccard, 1974: 21-32.
120
Brown, Truesdell S. "Callisthenes and Alexander." American
Brunt, P. A. "The Megarian Decree." American Journal of

Philology 72 (1951): 269-282.
Buckler, John. The Theban Hegemony. Cambridge: Harvard

Burn, A. R. The Pelican History of Greece. Penguin Books

Ltd., 19165.
Bury, J . B., S. A. Cook, and F. E. Adcock ( e d i t o r s ) . The

Cambridge Ancient History. Vols. 3-6. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1925-27.
Bury, J . B. and Russell Meiggs. A History of Greece. London:

Macmillan Press Ltd., 1975.
C a d o u x , T. J . "The A t h e n i a n A r c h o n s from Kreon to

Hypsichides." JHS 68 (1948): 70-123.
C a r g i l l , Jack. The Second Athenian League. Berkeley:

University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1987.
Cawkwell, G. L. "Aeschines and the Peace of P h i l o c r a t e s . "

REG 73 (1960): 416-438.
"Aeschines and the Ruin of Phocis." REG 75 (1962):

453-459.
"Anthemocritus and the Megarians and the Decree of

Charinus." REG 82 (1969): 327-335.
"Demosthenes' P o l i c y After the Peace of P h i l o c r a t e s . "

C l a s s i c a l Quarterly 13 N. S. (1963): 120-138 and
200-213.
"The Peace of Philocrates Again." C l a s s i c a l Quarterly

28 N. S. (1978): 93-104.
P h i l i p 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 P h i l o s o p h i c a l
Society 64.3 (1974) .
Cloche, Paul. "La Chronologie de l a Troisieme Guerre Sacree

Jusqu'en 352 avant J.-C." Les Etudes Classiques 8
(1939): 161-204.
Etude Chronologique sur l a Troisieme Guerre Sacree.

121
Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1915.
"La Grece de 346 a 339 av. J.-C." BCH 44 (1920):

108-159.
"Les Naopes de Delphes et l a Creation du College des

Tamiai." BCH 44 (1920): 312-327.
"Les Naopes de Delphes et l a P o l i t i q u e Hellenique de

356 a 327 av. J.-C." BCH 40 (1966): 78-142.
"La P o l i t i q u e Exterieure d"Athenes de 454-3 a 446-5 avant

J.-C." Les Etudes Classiques 14 (1946): 3-32 and 195
221.
Connor, W. R. "Charinus' Megarean Decree." American Journal

of Philology 83 (1962): 225-246.
"Charinus' Megarean Decree Again." REG 83 (1970): SOS-

SOS.
Daux, Georges. "Note sur 1 Inscription Amphictionique IG I I

1 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 Conseil

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 l a Coste-Messeliere, P i e r r e . "Listes Amphictioniques du

IV S i e c l e . " BCH 73 (1949): 201-247.
e
"Les Naopes a Delphes au IV S i e c l e . " Melanges O f f e r t s

e
a Georges Daux. P a r i s : E. de Boccard, 1974: 199-211.
Demangel, R. " F o u i l l e s et Recherches Sous-Marins en Grece."

BCH 74 (1950) : 271-273.
De Ste. Croix, G. E. M. The Origins of the Peloponnesian 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

122
Dittenberger, W. (ed). Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. Vol.
1. Hildesheim: Georg 01ms, 1960.
Dor, L e o p o l d , J e a n J a n n o r a y , H e n r i et M i c h e l i n e van
Effenterre. Kirrha: E t u d e de l a P r e h i s t o i r e
Phocidienne. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1960.
Dover, K. J . "Anthemocritus and the Megarians." American

Drachmann, A. B (ed). Scholia Vetera i n Pindari Carmina. 3

v o l s . Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1969.
Drews, Robert. "Diodorus and his Sources." American Journal

of Philology 83 (1962): 383-393.
Dusanic, Slobodan. The Arcadian League of the Fourth Century.

Belgrade: 1970.
"Arkadika." Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen

I n s t i t u t s 94 (1979): 117-135.
Ehrhardt, Christopher. "Two Notes on P h i l i p of Macedon's

F i r s t Interventions i n Thessaly." C l a s s i c a l Quarterly
17 N. S. (1967): 296-301.
E l l i s , J . R. P h i l i p II and Macedonian Imperialism. London:
Thames and Hudson, 1976.
F a r n e l l , Lewis Richard. The Cults of the Greek States. 5

v o l s . New York: Caratzas Brothers, 1977.
F i n l e y , M. I. Early Greece: The Bronze and Archaic Ages.

London: W. W. Norton and Company, 1981.
F o r n a r a , C h a r l e s W. A r c h a i c Times to the End of the

Peloponnesian War. Baltimore: John Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y
Press, 1977.
"Plutarch and the Megarian Decree." Yale C l a s s i c a l

Studies 24 (1957): 213-228.
Forrest, George. "The F i r s t Sacred War." BCH 80 (1956):
33-52.
Forrest, W. G. "Colonisation and the Rise of Delphi."

H i s t o r i a 6 (1957): 160-175.
Foucart, P. "Decret Athenien de l'Annee 352 Trouve a

E l e u s i s . " BCH 13 (1889): 433-467.
Frazer, J . G. Pausanias' Description of Greece. 5 v o l s .

123
New York: B i b l i o and Tannen, 1965.
Friedlaender, J u l i u s . "A Coin of Helike." Numismatic

Chronicle 1 N. S. (1861): 216-217.
Glotz, Gustave and Robert Cohen. H i s t o i r e Grecque. 2 v o l s .

P a r i s : Presses U n i v e r s i t a i r e s de France, 1926.
Gomme, A. W. A H i s t o r i c a l Commentary on Thucydides. 3 vols.

G r i f f i t h , G. T. " P h i l i p of Macedon's Early Interventions i n

Thessaly (358-352 B. C.)." C l a s s i c a l Quarterly 20 N. S.
(1970): 67-80.
"The S o - c a l l e d Koine E i r e n e of 346 B. C." JHS 59

(1939): 71-79.
Grote, George. History of Greece. 12 vols. New York: Peter

Fenelon C o l l i e r , 1899.
G u i l l o n , P i e r r e . Etudes Boeotiennes: Le Bouclier d'Heracles.

Aix-en-Provence: Editions Orphrys, 1963.
Hackett, N e i l J . The Third Sacred War. Diss. U n i v e r s i t y of

C i n c i n n a t i , 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." C l a s s i c a l 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 U n i v e r s i t y
Press, 1985.
Head, Barclay V. H i s t o r i a Numorum. Chicago: Argonaut Inc.,

1967.
Homolle, Th. "Remarques Epigraphiques sur 1'Administration

Financiere et l a Chronologie de l a V i l l e de Delphes au
IV S i e c l e . " BCH 22 (1898): 602-633.
e
124
How, W. W. and J . Wells. A Commentary on Herodotus. 2 vols.
Jacoby, F e l i x (ed). Die Fragmente der G r i e c h i s c h e n

Historiker. 15 v o l s . Leiden: E. J . B r i l l , 1954-64.
Jaeger, Werner. Demosthenes. Berkeley: University of

C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1938.
Jannoray, J . and H. van Effenterre. " F o u i l l e s de K r i s a . "

BCH 61 (1937): 299-326 and BCH 62 (1938): 110-148.
Jannoray, J . "Krisa, Kirrha, et l a Premiere Guerre Sacree."

BCH 61 (1937): 33-43.
Jeffrey, L. H. Archaic Greece: The City States c. 700-500

B. C. London: Ernest Bonn Ltd., 1976.
Kagan, Donald. The Outbreak of the P e l o p o n n e s i a n 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 i n Ancient Greece."

C l a s s i c a l Philology 38 (1943): 1-12.
Greek Federal States. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.
Legon, Ronald P. Megara: The P o l i t i c a l History of a Greek

City State to 336 B. C. Ithaca and London: C o r n e l l
Lehmann, Gustav A d o l f . "Der E r s t e H e i l i g e K r i e g - - E i n e

Fiktion?" H i s t o r i a 29 (1980): 242-246.
Lerat, L. "Krisa." Revue Archeologique: Melanges Picard.

II Series 6 V o l . 31 (1948): 621-632.
Marchetti, Pierre. "Le Temple de Delphes et l a Date

d'Aristonymos." BCH 103 (1979): 151-163.
M a r i n a t o s , S p y r i d o n N. "Helice: A Submerged Town of
C l a s s i c a l Greece." Archaeology 13 (1960): 186-
193.
M a r k l e , M. M. "The S t r a t e g y of P h i l i p i n 346 B. C."

C l a s s i c a l Quarterly 24 N. S. (1974): 53-68.
McGregor, Malcolm F. "Cleisthenes of Sicyon and the

Panhellenic F e s t i v a l s . " Transactions of the American
P h i l o l o g i c a l Association 72 (1941): 266-287.
125
Meiggs, R u s s e l l . The Athenian Empire. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1972.
Meiggs, Russell and David Lewis (eds). A Selection of

Greek H i s t o r i c a l I n s c r i p t i o n s . Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1969.
M e r i t t , Benjamin Dean. "Athens and the Amphictyonic League."
American Journal of Philology 69 (1948): 312-314.
"Athens and the Amphictyonic League." American Journal

of Philology 75 (1954): 369-373.
M e r i t t , Benjamin Dean, H. T. Wade-Gery, and Malcolm Francis

McGregor. The Athenian Tribute L i s t s . V o l . 3. American
School of C l a s s i c a l Studies at Athens and Princeton,
1950.
Morford, Mark P. 0. and Robert J . Lenardon. 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 F i r s t Sacred War." JHS 77 (1957): 276-282.
Parke, H. W. and D. E. W. Wormell. The Delphic Oracle. 2

v o l s . Oxford: B a s i l Blackwell, 1956.
Pearson, L i o n e l . The L o c a l Historians of A t t i c a .

Philadelphia: The American Philological Association,
1942.
The Lost H i s t o r i e s of Alexander the Great.

Philadelphia: The American P h i l o l o g i c a l Association,
1960.
Perlman, S. "The Coins of P h i l i p II and Alexander the Great

and their Pan-Hellenic Propaganda." Numismatic
Chronicle Series 7 V o l . 5 (1965): 57-67. .
Picard-Cambridge, A. W. Demosthenes and the Last Days of

Greek Freedom. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1914.
Pouilloux, J . "La Reconstruction du Temple au IV Siecle e
et les I n s t i t u t i o n s Delphiques." Revue des Etudes

Anciennes 64 (1962): 300-313.
Raven, E. J . P. "The Amphictyonic Coinage of Delphi."

Numismatic Chronicle Series 6 V o l . 10 (1950): 1-22.
126
Reinach, Theodore. "Une I n s c r i p t i o n Historique de Delphes."
Revue Archeologique Series 5 V o l . 28 (1928): 34-46.
Rhodes, P. J . A Commentary on the A r i s t o t e l i a n Athenaion

Politeia. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.
Robertson, Noel. "The Myth of the F i r s t Sacred War."

Robinson, Charles Alexander J r . The History of Alexander

the Great. 2 vols. Providence R. I.: Brown University,
1953.
Roux, Georges. "Les Comptes du IV Siecle et l a

e
Reconstruction du Temple d'Apollon a Delphes." Revue

Archeologique 1 (1966): 245-296.
"Note sur l a Construction du Temple de Delphes." BCH
103 (1979): 501-505.
Roy, James. "Arcadia and Boeotia i n Peloponnesian A f f a i r s

370-362 B. C." H i s t o r i a 20 (1971): 569-99.
" P o s t s c r i p t on the A r c a d i a n 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 i n the
Search for Ancient H e l i c e . " J o u r n a l of F i e l d
Archaeology 6 (1979): 243-252.
Sealey, Raphael. "Athens After the Social War." JHS 75
(1955): 74-81.
A History of the Greek City States ca. 700-338 B. C.

Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1976.
"Proxenus and the Peace of Philocrates." Wiener

Studien 68 (1955): 145-152.
"Thucydides, Herodotus,and the Causes of War."

Sokolowski, F. Lois Sacrees des Cites Grecques. Paris: E.

de Boccard, 1969.
127
Sordi, Marta. "La Fondation du College des Naopes et l e
Renouveau P o l i t i q u e de l"Amphictionie au IV S i e c l e . "
e
BCH 81 (1957) : 38-75.
"La Prima Guerra Sacra." R i v i s t a d i F i l o l o g i a e d i

Instruzione Classica 31 N. S. (1953): 320-346.
Tod, Marcus N. Greek H i s t o r i c a l I n s c r i p t i o n s. Chicago: Ares

Publishers, 1985.
Ure, P. A. The Origin of Tyranny. New York: Russell and

R u s s e l l , 1962.
Wade-Gery, H. T. "Kynaithos." Essays i n Greek History.

Oxford: B a s i l Blackwell, 1958: 17-36.
West, M. L. "Cynaethus Hymn to Apollo."

1
C l a s s i c a l Quarterly
25 N. S. (1975) : 161-170.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U l r i c h von. A r i s t o t e l e s und Athen.

2 v o l s . B e r l i n : Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1893.
Wiseman, James. "Epaminondas and the Theban Invasions." Klio

51 (1969): 177-199.
128
HELIKE: ANOTHER CASE OF DIVINE RETRIBUTION
The c o n f l i c t between the Ionians and the c i t y of Helice

in 363 B. C. i s i n t e r e s t i n g i n that i n furnishes an analogy
with the s o - c a l l e d Third Sacred War i n p a r t i c u l a r i n i t s
element of d i v i n e retribution falling upon those unfortunate
souls a l l e g e d l y g u i l t y of s a c r i l e g e . The c i t y of Helice was
situated i n Achaea, near the Corinthian Gulf. T r a d i t i o n has
i t that Helice was one of the o r i g i n a l twelve Ionian colonies
established by the Athenians i n the Peloponnese. 1

From i t s
very early history Helice became an important religious
centre, as i t was the o r i g i n a l home of the c u l t of Heliconian
Poseidon, before the Ionians transferred themselves, cult and
2
all, to A s i a Minor. There, Heliconian Poseidon became the

patron d e i t y of the Pan-Ionia, the f e d e r a l assembly of the
Ionians held near Priene on the peninsula 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 city of the region before d i s a s t e r struck
(Diodorus XV.48.3).
Disaster a r r i v e d i n the form of an earthquake and t i d a l
wave on a winter night i n the year 373/2. 5
Probable cause for
such a severe expression of divine displeasure was not hard to
129
find. A few months e a r l i e r , the Ionians, unable to hold the
Pan-Ionia at i t s t r a d i t i o n a l s i t e of Mycale due to an outbreak
of war, had t r a n s f e r r e d i t to a safe l o c a t i o n near Ephesus.
Thereupon they obtained an oracle from Delphi, which advised
them to ask for the statue ( B P E ' T C X S ) f Poseidon

Q or, f a i l i n g
that, a copy ( acpi^puaus ) f the a n c e s t r a l a l t a r s

Q from the
o r i g i n a l home of Heliconian Poseidon at H e l i c e . 5

The c i t i z e n s
of Helice, however, paid heed to an ancient prophesy that harm
would come to them should the Ionians s a c r i f i c e upon the a l t a r
of Poseidon and consequently refused the Ionian request.
Frustrated by this outright r e f u s a l , the Ionians appealed to
the of the Achaeans and were given permission to
complete t h e i r sacrifice. Upon t h e i r attempt to do so, the
citizens of H e l i c e seized the persons of the Ionian
representatives and m i s t r e a t e d them, thereby incurring a
charge of s a c r i l e g e . 7
Poseidon himself struck down the impious c i t y forthwith
i n a most a p p r o p r i a t e fashion. 8
An earthquake caused the
collapse of most of the town and the ensuing tidal wave
engulfed i t completely, leaving only the tops•of the trees to
show where a prosperous c i 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 cult statue of P o s e i d o n and a l l ( S t r a b o
130
VIII.7.2). By Roman times, the ruins were s t i l l visible,
although they had become somewhat corroded by the sea. 10
Eventually, however, the sea swallowed up Helice altogether,
and the fourth-century c i t y has not yet been rediscovered. 11
According to l a t e r t r a d i t i o n , the wrath of Poseidon was
foretold by ominous p o r t e n t s . Callisthenes (apud Seneca
Naturales Quaestiones VI.26.3) says:
Inter multa prodigia quibus denuntiata est duarum

urbium, Helices et Buris, eversio, fuere maxime
n o t a b i l i a columna i g n i s immensi et Delos a g i t a t a .
Seneca them (VII.5.3-4) adds:
Talem effigiem i g n i s longi f u i s s e Callisthenes t r a d i t ,

antequam Burin et Helicen mare absconderet. A r i s t o t e l e s
a i t (Meteorologica 343a, 343b, and 344b) non trabem
i l l a m sed cometen fuisse...In quo igne multa quidem
fuerunt digna quae notarentur, n i h i l tamen magnis quam
quod, ut i l l e f u l s i t in caelo, statim supra Burin et
Helicen mare f u i t .
Ephorus (apud Seneca Naturales Quaestiones VII.15.2=F Gr Hist
70 F 212) a l s o associates the r i s i n g of t h i s comet with the
destruction of Helice and Bura. Another i n t e r e s t i n g portent
of the impending disaster i s recorded by Aelian (XI.19):

npb itevxe ydp nuepSv acpavua^fivai, xr\v 'EAdxnv, oaot uues ev auxfj
fjaav x a t yaXaZ x a t ocpets x a t axoAoftev6pat xau acpovSuAau x a t xa
AotTta oaa ?iv x o t a O x a , a-Spda internet xfj 069 xfj es Kepuveuav excpepouarj.
Clearly, the d i s a s t e r which b e f e l l the unfortunate c i t y of
H e l i c e was of such magnitude that any unusual occurences of
the time were naturally associated with it. 1 2
Due to i t s antecedents, the destruction of H e l i c e was
considered "a perfect example of divine r e t r i b u t i o n . 1,13

Most
of the ancient a u t h o r i t i e s a t t r i b u t e 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 f a r as to c l a i m (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 strictly true. Diodorus, i n order to
justify t h i s statement, implicates the c i t i z e n s of Bura i n the
offense committed by Helice (XV.49.2) 15

but the crew of the
ten Spartan s h i p s are forgotten by every extant authority
except Diogenes Laertius who attributes the death of their
commander, P o l l i s , to d i v i n e retribution f o r h i s treatment of
Plato. 1 6
This theme of divine retribution for those allegedly
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 T h i r d Sacred War. Pausanias (X.2.4-
7) g i v e s an account of the fates of the Phocian commanders,
implying that they a l l came to a deservedly nasty end.
Diodorus (XVI.61.1) reiterates his conviction that a l l those
who commit sacrilege a g a i n s t the gods meet eventually with
divine retribution:
oXu>s yap ou yo'vov xoCs au-de'vxous xfis L E p o a u X t a s , aXXoT HOU, Tiaau xoCs
npoaaâyevous yo'vov xfis uapavoyuas ontapauxrixos EH xou 6atyovC*ou
ETr.rixoXou'^riae xuyiDpua.
He then goes on to demonstrate this theory in a graphic
description (XVI.61-64) of the fates of the various
participants in the sacrilege committed by the Phocians.
Diodorus even links the two cases of divine retribution by
foreshadowing h i s treatment of the sacrilegious Phocians in
his s e c t i o n on H e l i c e (XV.48.4).
132
Since the incident between the Ionians and the c i t i z e n s
of H e l i c e d i d not develop i n t o a f u l l - s c a l e war, i t cannot
furnish an analogy f o r the use of the term t,eposv

TtcfAeyos •
Nevertheless, i t does bear a marked resemblance to the so-
called Third S a c r e d War i n that the element of d i v i n e
retribution i s spoken of i n the same terms by the same
sources. This was a theme which had been current i n Greek
l i t e r a t u r e since Herodotus—those g u i l t y of uBpus or daegeua

would e v e n t u a l l y be struck down by the hand of heaven—and
examples were easy to f i n d 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
Pausanias VII.24.5, Strabo VIII.7.2, and Diodorus
XV. 49.1. Homer m e n t i o n s " e u p e t a ' EALXTV 1

(Iliad 11.575) and i t s
cult of Poseidon (Iliad VIII.203 and XX.404).
3
Herodotus 1.148, Diodorus XV.49.1, Strabo XIV.1.20.
Strabo VIII.7.2 informs us that Priene had been colonized by
settlers from Helice.
4
A bronze coin bearing the head of Poseidon surrounded
by waves was coined not long before the destruction of the
town. See Julius F r i e d l a e n d e r , "A C o i n o f H e l i k e , " Numismatic
Chronicle 1 N. S. (1861): 216-217 and Head 414.
5
Diodorus XV.48.1, Pausanias VII.24.4, and Aristotle
Meteorologica 343b and 344b. Strabo dates the d i s a s t e r to two
years before the Battle of Leuctra (VIII.7.2). Polybius
(11.41) s a y s 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 .
Eusebius erroneously dates i t to Olympiad 100.1 (380/79)
instead of 101.4.
6
Strabo (VIII.7.2) derives his account from a
contemporary of the event, a certain H e r a c l e i d e s of Pontus.

1
134
Diodorus (XV.48) i s presumably using Ephorus, also a
contemporary, as a source. Seneca, however, criticizes
Ephorus on this subject, perhaps unjustly (Naturales
Quaestiones VII.16.2=F Gr Hist 70 F 212):
Ephorus non vero est r e l i g i o s i s s i m a e fidae; saepe

d e c i p i t u r , saepe d e c i p i t . Sicut hunc cometen, qui
omnium mortalium o c u l i s custoditus est, quia ingentia
r e i t r a x i t eventum, cum Helicen et Burin ortu suo
merserit, a i t ilium d i s c e s s i s s e i n duas S t e l l a s , quod
praeter ilium nemo t r a d i t .
7
Strabo (VIII.7.2) on the a u t h o r i t y of Heracleides of
Pontus says simply that the people of Helice did not obey
( unaxoOoat ) the i n s t r u c t i o n s of the Achaean XOLVO'V . Diodorus
(XV. 49.3) says: " °l 6 ' ' E A L X E C S x a xP^yaxa SuappucâvxES xuiv ' Iwvwv x o u s
TE êiopous 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 i s so
vague (he mentions nothing about the Ionian delegation and
i d e n t i f i e s the victims merely as LME'TOIL d'v6p£s ) and Aelian's
i s based on hearsay ( x o O x d XOL cpaou xal Iv 'EALXTJ yev£a%aL),
i t i s l i k e l y that the t a l e grew t a l l e r with the telling.

8
Diodorus (XV.49.4) remarks:
TOO 6'EX noa£u6a5vos Y v o v £ v a u Trjv y f i v t v t a C s TUOAEOL cpaauv
£
sycpavsCg aitoSecCebS u n d p x E ^ v 6 t a TO xcft) a e t a y C v not xE3v

x a x a x A u a y S v x o O x o v XOV %edv E'XEOV 6LeuA?icp§ai, xr]v E C o u a t a v ,
x a t 6 t a TO SOXEUV xb TtaAatov x f i v IlEAoiio'vvrioov o u x x r t p L o v
y s v o v E v a u rioaeu6a5vos, x a t xnv x^pav x a d x n v <3aitEp L,Epdv TOO
I I o a E L S u v o s v o y i ^ E a ^ a L , x a t TO a u v o A o v Tidaas x d s EV Il£AoTi:ovvnau)
TCOAELS y d A u a x a x S v d§avdxu>v TOV § £ d v x u y a v x o O x o v .
9
Diodorus XV.48.1-3, Pausanias VII.24-25, Strabo 1.3.18
and VIII.7.2, Aelian XI.19, C a l l i s t h e n e s (F Gr Hist 124 F 19-
21) apud Seneca Naturales Quaestiones VI.23 and 26 and VII.5,
135
A r i s t o t l e Meteorologica 343b, 344b, and 368b, On the Cosmos
396a. Philo (De Aeternitate Mundi 140) quotes the following

STCEL x a t x a x d n E A o i i d v v n a d v cpaaL rpeus
verse:
" A u y e L p a v BoOpdv T E u(|>nArfv 'EAuxeuav,
T E L X E O L V f| T a x ' * y E A X £ itept $pda yupua cpdaELV,"
Eubadyovas 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, P l i n y , Natural History
11.206, and Pausanias VII.24.13.
1 1
For the modern search f o r H e l i c e , see Spyridon N.
Marinatos, " H e l i c e : A Submerged Town of C l a s s i c a l Greece,"
Archaeology 13 (1960): 186-193 and Maurice L. Schwartz and
Christos Tziavos, "Geology i n the Search for Ancient H e l i c e , "
Journal of F i e l d Archaeology 6 (1979): 243-252. It i s the
hope of archaeologists that the ruins of Helice w i l l prove to
be another Pompeii.
1 2
The d e s t r u c t i o n of the temple of A p o l l o at Delphi
occurred i n t h e same year as t h e e a r t h q u a k e 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).
14
Diodorus (XV.48.4) makes the following d i s t i n c t i o n :
OL ysv cpuaLxoi. it £ p L 53v x a u xas aixdac T W V T O L O I 5 T ( J J V rca§c3v
oux E L S TO §ELOV a v a c p e p E L V , aAA'eCs cpuaLxds T u v a s xat
xaTrivayxaaysvas itEpLaTaaELS, O L 6'EUO-EBUJS 6 Lax E dy E V O L
upos TO §ELOV TiL-Savds T L v a s aLTdas anoSLbouaL TOU auygdvTos,
(L S 6LO~ §EU)V yfivLV ysyEvriyevriS Tfis auycpopas TOLS E L S T6 §ELOV
aa£8no"aaL *
Diodorus makes i t quite c l e a r , however, that h i s point of view

136
lies with the l a t t e r category, rather than with scientists
such as A r i s t o t l e .
15
c . f . Parke (Parke-Wormell 214).
16 xil. 20' T
^ y *
v e VT0L
IldXAuv Adyos und xe Xappdou n.TTn-dftvau naZ
yexa xatixa ev 'EAdxn xaxctTtovxwdfivaL xou SctLyovdou
ynvdaavxos 6ud xo v cpiAdaocpov, As x a l $a3wpuvds cpnoxv
v
ev irpoSxtj) xuv 'Aitoyvnuoveuydxcov.

Ubc - 1987 - A8 S58

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ubc - 1987 - A8 S58

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ubc - 1987 - A8 S58

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE CONCEPT OF SACRED WAR IN ANCIENT GREECE

FRANCES ANNE SKOCZYLAS

B.A., McGill University, 1985

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

We accept t h i s thesis as conforming

to the required standard

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

® Frances Anne Skoczylas, 1987

department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or

The University of British Columbia

Date AUtt-UST 5 r 1Q87

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 literature.

T h i s term has been commonly a p p l i e d by modern s c h o l a r s t o f o u r

wars which took p l a c e i n a n c i e n t Greece between- the s i x t h and

fourth c e n t u r i e s B. C. The modern u s e o f "the a t t r i b u t e

"Sacred War" to refer t o these four wars i n p a r t i c u l a r raises

two q u e s t i o n s . First, d i d the a n c i e n t h i s t o r i a n s give a l l

four o f these wars the t i t l e "Sacred War?" And second, what

justified the use of t h i s t i t l e only for c e r t a i n conflicts?

In order to r e s o l v e the f i r s t of these questions, i t i s

necessary t o examine i n what terms the a n c i e n t historians

referred to these wars. As a r e s u l t of t h i s examination, i t

is clear that o n l y two of the modern s e r i e s of "Sacred Wars"

(the so-called Second and T h i r d Sacred Wars) were actually

given this title i n antiquity. The other two wars (the s o -

called Second and T h i r d Sacred. W a r s ) , although they were

e v i d e n t l y a s s o c i a t e d by the a n c i e n t s with the "Sacred Wars,"

were not g i v e n t h i s attribution. Consequently, the h a b i t o f

grouping a l l four wars together as "Sacred Wars" i s modern.

Nevertheless, the f a c t that the a n c i e n t s d i d s e e some-

Once t h i s conclusion had been reached, i t became possible

to proceed to the second of the problems presented i n t h i s

thesis, namely the j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the a p p l i c a t i o n of the

title "Sacred War" to two specific conflicts. In order to

achieve t h i s aim, those c o n f l i c t s l a b e l l e d "Sacred Wars" by

the ancient historians were compared to two categories of test

cases: the other two c o n f l i c t s c l a s s i f i e d as "Sacred Wars" by

modern scholars and c o n f l i c t s which share elements i n common

with "Sacred Wars" but which are not given t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n by

In the course of this comparison, I d i s c o v e r e d that

little differentiated the s o - c a l l e d "Sacred Wars" from the

non-"Sacred Wars" and that a l l of these l a t t e r conflicts

appear equally worthy of the t i t l e as those which were in fact

given this attribution. The deciding factor in the

result, lies not i n the specific elements making up i t s

constitution but rather i n the political circumstances

surrounding i t . The two c o n f l i c t s l a b e l l e d by'-ithe ancients as

"Sacred Wars" were given t h i s t i t l e by contemporary powers i n

order to justify military interference i n the political

affairs of other states which might otherwise have been

considered unnecessary. Thus, the term "Sacred War" arose

o r i g i n a l l y as the r e s u l t of an e f f e c t i v e propaganda campaign.

Chapter One: The Ancient Concept of Sacred War 3

Chapter Two: The Modern Concept of Sacred War 29

Chapter Three: Other Religious Disputes 55