Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

Georges Forrest G

The first Sacred War


In: Bulletin de correspondance hellnique. Volume 80, 1956. pp. 33-52.

Citer ce document / Cite this document : Forrest G Georges. The first Sacred War. In: Bulletin de correspondance hellnique. Volume 80, 1956. pp. 33-52. doi : 10.3406/bch.1956.2408 http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/bch_0007-4217_1956_num_80_1_2408

THE FIRST SACRED WAR

with the blessing of the Amphiktiony of Anthela, attacked and destroyed In the nineties of the sixth century B. C. Thessaly, Athens and Sikyon, Kirrha, a prosperous commercial city situated somewhere in the plain of modem Itea, beneath the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi (1). The allies claimed that it was a Holy War, fought to prserve the freedom of the sanctuary against the impious interfrence of the Kirrhans, and since no Kirrhans survived to contradict them, their version has been generally accepted. But I shall argue hre that their claim was in fact false, that the war was rather more than a pious interlude interrupting the normal political activities of Solon, Kleisthenes and the other allied leaders, that it played an important part in the political history of the allied states, and an even more important part in the development of Delphi. (i) About the date and the course of the war there is, fortunately, little doubt. The story dictated by the ancient vidence is a reasonable one. Kirrha fell in 591, when Simon was archon at Athens and Gylidas at Delphi. The sige had been a long one, so we may assume that hostilities began in 595 or thereabouts. The Thessalian army marched south and drove the Kirrhans inside their walls, but the blockade was inefective until Kleisthenes of Sikyon arrived with his fleet. Then the city fell, and, though some Kirrhans escaped to carry on gurilla warfare from the heights of neighbouring Kirphis for six years more, the war was, in effect, over. Kirrha was razed to the ground, the plain was dedicated to Apollo, never to be cultivated again, and Eurylochos, the Thessalian commander, (1) For the site of Kirrha and the form of its name see J. Jannoray BCH 61 (1937), pp. 33-43, and RA 124-5 (1945), p. 38 n. 1 ; Jannoray and H. van Effenterre BCH 62 (1938), pp. 110-48; H. van Effenterre and J. Roger RA 122 (1944) pp. 15-20 ; L. Lerat art. Krisa in Mlanges Picard, Paris, 1948. For its prosperity, Strabo p. 418. I hve not seen M. Sordi, La prima guerra sacra in Rio. Fil. d'Istruzione Classica, 1953.

34

GEORGE FORREST

marked the victory by celebrating Pythian Games, with prizes of money taken from the spoils. Mopping-up oprations continued until 586/5, and there followed, in 582, the frst officiai clbration of the games, the ().

In lines 532ff. of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo the god establishes his Kretan priests at Delphi and fore tells their future. In lines 540-543 he says , ' . " ' ' ' . ' There will be trouble at the oracle. ' Most commentators (2) hve seen hre a rfrence to the Sacred War, and, if they are right, this is the earliest and best vidence we hve, for thse lines were most probably written in the first half of the sixth century (3). But are they right ? Much of my argument is based on the assumption that they are, but it would be as well to admit at the outset that proof is impossible. There are, however, three good reasons for their belief. 1. There is no vidence of any earlier trouble at the oracle. 2. Even if there had been, the author of the hymn would be far more likely to make the god foretell a rcent event, fresh in everyone's mind, than a bit of ancient history which his audience had forgotten. If he had mentioned the ancient history, he would surely hve included the rcent developments as well. 3. There is vidence for close and continuous contact between Delphi and Krete from the earliest days of the sanctuary down to the end of the (1) The account of the war cornes from the scholiasts on Pindar (Schol. Vel. in Pind. Carm.) (d. Drachmann) : Hypoth. Pythiorum, b and d, and Nem. IX, inscr.). Other sources (cited by Busolt GG2 11, pp. 693 ff.) add only picturesque and unreliable dtail. For the chronology see the excellent account by T. J. Cadoux JHS 68 (1948), pp. 99-101. I suggest 595 for the beginning of the war for convenience not from conviction. An earlier date is possible, a later would cause diiiculties (below p. 48). But choice is free, for the valueless fragment of Kallisthenes (FGrHis 124 fg. 1) is the only vidence for the length of the sige (below p. 44, n. 4). (2) Rfrences in H. T. Wade-Gery's article ' Kynaithos ' in Greek Poetry and Life (Essays presented to Gilbert Murray), Oxford, 1936, p. 57 n. 3. (3) I accept Wade-Gery's arguments for the date with one modification. The Telphousa pisode (Wade-Gery p. 62 n. 1) was surely written after not before the introduction of the chariotrace in 582. It would be an odd coincidence that races should start where the author had made Telphousa insist they would never happen (11. 270-1), whereas it would be quite natural after 582 to look back to a time when they did not happen. After ail the whole point of Telphousa's prophecy is that it is false (11. 375-81).

THE FIRST SACRED WAR

35

seventh century (1). Thereafter there is a complte break, a break which could be well explained by some change in the status of the Kretan priests (perhaps even their expulsion) which so displeased the Kretans that they broke oi relations with the sanctuary. Thse lines imply that the trouble, whatever it was, afected in some way the status of the priests (2). It is tempting to connect the two. For thse persuasive, if not compelling reasons, I am sure that the commentators are right, but they hve not faced the full implications of their interprtation (3). For if thse lines describe the Sacred War the traditional account of that war cannot be true. They can be interpreted only in two ways. Apollo says, either ' your independence will lead you into and you will be subjected to others who will rule you for the rest of time ', or ' your masters will be led into , and you will then be subjected to new masters who will rule you for the rest of time ' (4). In either case it is a change in the organisation of Delphi that is implied, (* is an odd way to describe libration oracle not the removal of an outside threat to the independence of the or the defence of liberty, ' is an odd phrase to use if thse Delphic priests had in fact appealed to the allies to dfend them). It is the organi sation of Delphi that is responsible for the , the , the , and since thse presumably provoked the allied attack, and since that attack was directed against Kirrha, we must suppose that the organisation of Delphi, whatever it may hve been, was acting in the interests of Kirrha. If this is correct we should expect to fnd in the years before 595 some signs of hostility between Kirrha/Delphi and Sikyon, Athens, Thessaly and the Amphiktiony, provocative acts or pronouncements by Delphi which could reasonably be described by the allies as Apollo describes them, , and . Thse can, I think, be found, if we are prepared to accept certain amendments to the received account of the political history of the states involved.

(1) M. Guarducci, Studi e Maleriali di Sloria dlie Religioni 19-20 (1943-6), pp. 85-114. Miss Guarducci tries to extend the connection into the sixth century, but her arguments are not convincing. The latest archaeological contact known to me is represented by a Kretan late Daedalic head (c. 630-20), published by P. Amandry BCH 62 (1938) pp. 326 ff. The latest political contact may be the sending of Epimenides to Athens c. 600 (below p. 41 and n. 3). Earlier examples not mentioned by Miss Guarducci are in Plut. Mor. 1146 c, Diod. Sic. 8. 23. 1, O. Kern, Inschriften von Magnesia, no. 17. For further archaeological vidence see J. Marcad BCH 73 (1949), pp. 421-36. And cf. now J. Defradas, Thmes de la propagande delphique, Paris, 1954, pp. 22 ff and 72 f. (2) Below p. 45. (' la (3) J. Humbert (Homre: Hymnes, exprime avec une brutalit un peu notes the ').difflculty sujtion du sacerdoce au conseil est Paris (Bud), 1941, p. 101 n. 1) suspecte (4) Below p. 45.

36

GEORGE FORREST 1. Sikyon the .

Kleisthenes of Sikyon is by far the clearest (if not the only) example of the anti-Dorian tyrant, the champion of the pre-Dorian subject people of Sikyon (1). Herodotus (2), it is true, ascribes his hatred of Dorians to his troubles with Argos, but whether he disliked Argives because they were Dorians, or disliked Dorians because he was at war with Argos is hardly important for our purpose. It is enough to know that he was, in fact, hostile to both. The two best known and most important facts which connect him with Delphi are first, that in the course of his campaign against Argos Delphi opposed his suggestion to expel the Dorian hero Adrastos from Sikyon, saying that Adrastos was king of Sikyon while he (Kleisthenes) was no more than a (3), and secondly, that Kleisthenes helped to liberate Delphi during the Sacred War. One example of hostility, one of friendship. In what order do they corne ? Most historians, believing that Delphi was more likely to forget a favour than Kleisthenes to forgive an insuit, hve placed the insuit (and consequently Kleisthenes ' war against Argos) after the Sacred War. This Delphic ingratitude is then explained, for the most part, on moral grounds. There was a gnerai rvulsion against tyranny in the first half of the sixth century and Delphi shared in it (4). Delphi, becoming conscious of the importance of the rule of law, ashamed of its association with the Kypselids and Orthagorids and others, erased the name of Kypselos from the Korinthian treasury (5), was rude to Kleisthenes, refused to hve any dealings with Peisistratos when he became tyrant of Athens (6), and so on. Now there certainly was a slow reaction against tyranny during the sixth century, it was, in part at least, a moral reaction (7) and Delphi must hve been to some small degree afected by it. But I cannot believe in any wholesale change of heart. It did not prevent Delphic friendship with the later Sicilian tyrants (8), and, even at the time, the moral rvulsion was not so strong that Delphi felt compelled to refuse the later offerings of Kleisthenes himself (9). Once the dcision to act against any particular tyrant had (1) H. T. Wade-Gery CAH vol. III, ch. XXII. 6. (2) Hdt. V 67-8. (3) Hdt. V 67. 2. The exact meaning of is uncertain, but it is clearly uncomplimentary, cp. H.W. Parke, A History of the Delphic Oracle, Oxford (Blackwell), 1939 (henceforward cited as Parke), p. 139 n. 1. (4) The only explanation that has any serious vidence to support it. (5) Plut. Mor. 400e. (6) Parke, pp. 163 ff. (7) Solon's language in fg. 23 (in Diehl AL G3) shews at best that he felt moral disapproval, at worst that he expected other people to think well of moral disapproval. (8) As shewn for example by the Deinomenid bases (M. N. Tod GUI no. 17). (9) Below p. 37.

THE FIRST SACRED WAR

37

been taken moral arguments might be brought in to justify the action, but for the dcision itself some better, more realistic, explanation is needed. For Kleisthenes it lies in the chronology. We must now look at the other vidence for his relations with Delphi. 1. When Kleisthenes first came to power he was faced with opposition which, he suspected, was being organised by the Kypselids in Korinth (1). There may even hve been open warfare between Sikyon and Korinth at one stage, if we can believe the story in Frontinus of an attack on Sikyon by Periander's ally, Thrasyboulos of Miletos (2). Periander, then, is plotting against Kleisthenes at the beginning of his reign, before the Sacred War. The close friendship between the Kypselids and Delphi suggests that the oracle would be on the side of Korinth (3). 2. On one occasion Delphi gave sympathetic advice to the men of Pellene after they had been defeated in a war with Kleisthenes (4). This pisode cannot be dated. 3. Immediately after the Sacred War Kleisthenes introduced Pythian Games at Sikyon with money taken from the spoils of Kirrha (5). It has been argued (6) that this was an act of dfiance, and such it may hve been, for Peisistratos' temple of Pythian Apollo was certainly intended as a challenge to Delphi. But, on the other hand, Polykrates' ofer of a Pythian festival to Delphi was certainly intended as a compliment (7), and we may just as well take this for our parallel. The institution of games has in itself no significance. Everything dpends on the circumstances and in the circumstances of 590, so soon after the war that Kleisthenes has not had time to spend his prize-money, a compliment is more likely than an insuit. 4. M. Georges Daux has with great skill and patience salvaged from the ruins of the Sikyonian treasury at Delphi the design of two earlier buildings (8). Thse are the subject of an excellent study by M. de La Coste-Messelire (9) in which he argues convincingly that they are Sikyo nian, that they are part of the same building programme, and that they are, in fact, the work of Kleisthenes. The earlier he dates approximately to 580 and connecte with Kleisthenes' victory in the Sacred War or his (1) Nik. Dam. FGrHist 90 fg. 61. 5. (2) Frontinus III 9.7, Hdt. I 20. (3) For the Kypselids and Kirrhan Delphi see Parke pp. 133 f., 136 ff., and below p. 47 n. 5. (4) Anaxandridas FGrHisl 404 fg. 1. (5) Schol. Pind. Nem. IX, inscr. and 20. (6) Parke pp. 139 f., M. F. McGregor TAPA 27 (1941), pp. 282 f. (7) Suidas s. vv. and . Delphi rejected Polykrates' offer not because it objected to games but because it objected to Polykrates. He was connected with Lygdamis (Polyain. I 23) and Lygdamis was a friend of Peisistratos (Hdt. 161.4 and 64. 2). That was enough. (8) CRAI 1922 pp. 69 ff., BCH 46 (1922), p. 510. (9) Au Muse de Delphes, Paris, 1936, ch. 2 and 3.

38

GEORGE FORREST

triumph at the Games of 582 (1), the second he places some years later in the neighbourhood of 560. M. de La Coste-Messelire rightly insists that thse dates are only approximate, but on grounds of gnerai probability it is dificult to resist the conclusion that we hve hre two dedications to Apollo, the one made soon after the tyrant's great service to the god in the Sacred War, the other towards the end of his life (or perhaps by his successor after his death) as a mark of continued loyalty, of thirty years collaboration with Delphi (2). 5. Some time about 570 Kleisthenes held his country-house slection party for the suitors of Agariste (3). Much has been written about this strange occasion, but for the moment only one small point is relevant. Megakles, the Alkmeonid, was the successful candidate. The Alkmeonids were at this time on the best of terms with Delphi (4), and the marriage alliance with Sikyon does not appear to hve afected that friendship. We infer Delphic blessing and thence Delphic approval of Kleisthenes. From thse odd scraps of information it would seem to follow that when Kleisthenes first became tyrant he did not hve Delphic support, that he was in favour immediately after the Sacred War, again at the time of the first Pythian Games in 582 and for a few years afterwards, again in 570, and again at the end of his life (c. 560 ?). Now it would be perfectly possible to argue that in the obscure hurly-burly of early Greek politics any number of alliances could be made, broken, and remade in the course of forty years, but it is surely more economical, and even more plausible, to assign ail the examples of Delphic hostility to the period at which we suspect hostility existed, to put the Pellene oracle, the campaign against Adrastos, and the appeal to Delphi, before the Sacred War. Thus in Kleisthenes ' case we can solve the problem of Delphi's moral rvulsion by assuming that it never existed. One problem is solved, but another appears. Why did Kleisthenes try to get Delphic approval if he knew that Delphi was hostile ? There is no neat answer to this, for Kleisthenes must hve hoped to detach Delphi from its old friend Argos and such a hope could only be explained if we knew more than we do about the history of Argos at this time. If Professor Andrewes' genealogy of the Temenids is correct, we might conjecture that the expulsion of King Meltas, the grandson of Pheidon, was somehow involved, for Meltas was expelled because he was suspected of being too friendly with the non-Dorian Arcadians, probably then by an extrme Dorian group, and it might well hve been the new extremism of the Argives (1) Pausanias X 7. 6. (2) The date of K.'s death cannot be fxed. He was alive about 570 when his daughter was married, dead by 556 when his successor was expelled [CAH III, p. 568). (3) Hdt. VI 126-30. McGregor op. cit., p. 279, ' late autumn 575 '. Late autumn certainly, but 575 or 571 or even 567. (4) Below p. 50.

GEORGE FORREST

39

which provoked Kleisthenes' move against Adrastos in the first place. Further, if Kleisthenes suspected that Delphi's friendship had been with the house of Pheidon rat'ier than with Argos itself, hre was a chance to break into the Delphic circle, perhaps even a chance to win Argos as an ally by restoring the rightful king. The pro-Arcadian Meltas may hve attached himself to the anti-Dorian Kleisthenes in the hope of regaining his throne with the help of Sikyonian arms such a rapprochement would nicely accouht for the appearance of Meltas' nephew Lakedes as one of the suitors of Agariste in 570 (1). Be that as it may, Kleisthenes appealed to Delphi and Delphi rebuffed him. No help could be given to a city which, among other things, could be a serious rival on the Korinthian Gulf both to Delphi's overlord and to its most valuable client, to Kirrha and Korinth. Delphi called Kleis thenes a , a . 2. Athens - the . In Athens the last half of the seventh century was a time of troubles, at home social unrest, abroad the squabbles with Megara. Some time between 636 and 624 a young noble, Kylon, encouraged and helped by his father-in-law Theagenes, tyrant of Megara, 'grew his hair long with a view to tyranny' and went so far as to seize the Akropolis (2). But his attempt failed, he and his companions were captured and put to death by Megakles, the Alkmeonid archon. Now Kylon failed because he had misunderstood the instructions given to him by Delphi. That, at least, was the Delphic explanation, and, as Professor Parke very justly remarks (3), the fact that an explanation was necessary is convincing vidence that Delphi had something to do with the attempt in the first place. Kylon had consulted the Pythia and had been given friendly advice. Parke goes on to say, " It indicates well the diffrence between the seventh century attitude to tyranny and that of later periods, that about 630 a Greek citizen could consult the Pythia on such a subject without receiving a rebuf. He would instead receive a useful tip, if he knew how to act on it ". But this is surely a misrepresentation of Delphi's rle. It is not possible to discuss hre the wider question of how far Delphi could in gnerai give advice on political matters and still remain or appear to remain neutral, but on an issue such as this the answer is clear. Delphi (1) A. Andrewes CQ 44 (1951) pp. 39 ff. I add the old conjecture that Hdt. (VI 127.3) has confused Pheidon the king with an unknown grandson, brother of Meltas and father of Lakedes. Professor Andrewes suggests to me that the confusion might be a simpler one, Lakedes son of an unknown with Lakedes son of Pheidon. In that case Lakedes the suitor is no longer a nephew of Meltas but is presumably one of the family. (2) For the date, Cadoux op. cit., p. 91. For Kylon, Hdt. V 71, Thuc. I 126. (3) P. 138.

40

GEORGE FORREST

could never hve been a sort Disaffected Citizens' Advice Bureau, open to any ambitious revolutionary. If Delphi gave advice to Kylon, it did so because it was friendly towards Theagenes and/or hostile towards the then government of Athens, because it thought Kylon would be a better man to hve in power than Megakles. This is the only solid vidence for Delphi's attitude to Athenian politics at the time, but I regard it as very solid vidence indeed. The position during the next thirty years is obscure. By the beginning of the sixth century we hve on one side a small group of libral aristo cratie families who realised, as wise aristocrats sometimes do, that if the aristocracy was to survive, it would hve to adapt itself to changing conditions, share its power, be willing . this group we can assign the Alkmeonids ; Solon ; his relatives, the family of Kritias and Dropides ; his friends, the families of Konon, of Kleinias, and of Hipponikos (1). On the other side the mass of the nobles and with them the surviving followers of Kylon. But this is slight vidence for the state of affairs a gnration earlier, and, indeed, we can do no more than guess at the answers to the questions that arise. Was there any social unrest as early as 630 ? The measure of reform carried through by Drakon in the twenties suggests that there was. If there was, did the Alkmeonids and their friends appear at once as supporters of reform or did they only climb on to the band-waggon later ? The former is more likely, for someone must hve led the movement and there are no other obvious candidates. Further, at a time when politics were still very much a family affair, it is not entirely ludicrous to argue back from a radical Alkmeon to a radical Megakles. But where does Kylon fit in ? He cannot hve belonged to the same group, he can hardly hve been to the left of that group. For in that case why did he find no support in the dmos ? Mr. Hignett's explanation (2), that the grievances of the people had not yet become acute, will hardly do. For if there were no serious grievances it is unlikely that there would hve been any reform at ail. Moderate reforms are not produced only by moderate grievances, nor indeed do moderate grievances produce only moderate demands, and if Kylon had had any programme of reform, no matter how extrme, he must hve found some support. That he did not suggests that we should place more emphasis on his foreign contacts, on Megara and Delphi, than on any domestic programme. (1) Cf. F. Jacoby, Althis, Oxford, 1949, pp. 39 ff. and notes. C. Hignett A History of the Athenian Constitution, Oxford, 1952, p. 105. For Kritias and Dropides, Solon tg 18 (Diehl AL G3), Plat. Tim. 20 d, Diog. L. III 1. 1. For Konon, Kleinias, and Hipponikos, Plut. Sol. XV. It is signifleant that Konon and (probably) Kleinias came from the Paralia, Konon from Anaphlystos (Kirchner A nos. 8706-8), Kleinias from Sounion (Hignett, op. cit. pp. 391 ff.). Kleinias1 greatgrandson helped the Alkmeonids in the expulsion of the Peisistratids (Isok. XVI 26). By the end of the century Hipponikos' family was established at the Alkmeonid headquarters in Alopeke (Hesperia 5, 1936, p. 410). (2) Hignett, op. cit. p. 87.

THE FIRST SACRED WAR

41

Megakles then dealt ruthlessly with Kylon and his friends, and at the time there would be few in Athens who objected. But as the years passed the ruthlessness was remembered and the need for it forgotten. As the surviving Kylonians rallied and their campaign against the Alkmeonids became more effective, they were joined, presumably, by many reactionary opponents of reform. Then came the support of an even more powerful ally. Some religious authority declared the Alkmeonids to be . In view of Delphi's aid to Kylon there can be little doubt that this religious authority was Delphi. Delphi cursed the Alkmeonids and the Alkmeonids were driven into exile. But hre we must be careful. For there is no direct connection between the curse and the exile. A curse has not, in itself, any automatic political consquences. Indeed the whole point of a curse is that the god or gods will punish the sinners without any governrnental intervention. Its political importance lies in its propaganda value. ' We 've been beaten by the Megarians because we still hve the Alkmeonids with us '. ' There's been a bad harvest because Apollo can't destroy Alkmeonid crops without destroying ours as well '. By arguments like thse I imagine, the Kylonians were able to work up enough feeling against the Alkmeonids to bring about the judicial act which did drive them out of Athens. The important thing is that there must be a judicial act, a prosecution, not because they were , but because they had committed some civil offence, , , (1), and for this reason I am prepared to believe Plutarch's story of the spcial court (2). Whether Solon in fact encouraged the Alkmeonids to submit to this court is not so certain. If he did, he must hve underestimated the strength of the opposition and the Alkmeonids paid for his mistake. The accursed had gone but in the eyes of the Kylonians the pollution remained, and it is to them we should ascribe the steps taken to remove it, the summoning of Epimenides to Athens and the purification of the city by him. Once again I think we can see the hand of Delphi, for Epimenides was a Kretan and we hve already noted the connections between Delphi and Krete (3). This then is the position at Athens in the early years of the sixth century. Thanks to the direct intervention of Delphi, the Kylonians hve been reinstated, the reactionary nobles encouraged, and the reformers hve suffered a serious reverse. The help to Kylon, the imposition of the curse, and the sending of Epimenides are ' which Solon and his (1) In their case (Busolt GG* II p. 209 n. 1). (2) Plut. Sol. XII. Cf. Jacoby op. cit. pp. 367 f. n. 81. (3) Ar. Alh. Pol. 1, Plut. Sol. XII, Suidas s. . . In gnerai I follow Jacoby (loc. cit.) but disagree on the rle of Delphi, for I cannot understand his distinction between purification " by Apollo or in his manner " and " by the Cretan priest Epimenides ". Diog. L. I 109 and Plat. Laws 642d connect Epimenides with Delphi, but neither is serious vidence.

42

GEORGE FORREST

friends could not ignore. It was an Alkmeonid gnerai who commanded the Athenian troops in the Sacred War (1). 3. Thessaly and the Amphiktiony . About the rle of the Thessalians it is idle even to guess. The few surviving dues to their relations with their southern neighbours can do no more than justify the statement that they may well hve been interested in the early years of the sixth century in forcing a way through the pass of Amohissa to the Korinthian Gulf at Kirrha. Thessaly first interfres south of the Malian Gulf at the time of the Lelantine War, about 725, when Thessalian troops arrive in Euboia to support Khalkis (2). Later (' more than two hundred years before the battle of Leuktra ') a Thessalian army is defeated by the Boiotians at Keressos near Thespiai (3). Later again (' not long before the Persian Wars ') another Thessalian army is defeated in Phokis (4). This is ail we hve to play with and it is clearly not enough to produce a connected story of Thessalian expansion. We can only say that attempts at expans ion were always being made, and I assume that it was one of thse attempts that led Eurylochos and his men south through Doris towards the sanctuary of Apollo. But we may reasonably use what we know about the Amphiktiony to fill up our picture of Thessaly. For it is a fair guess that by the end of the seventh century the Amphiktiony was no more than an instrument of Thessalian policy, that it was playing Delphi to Thessaly 's Kirrha. Its early history is obscure (5), but it seems fairly certain that it originated at Anthela by Thermopylae as a League of the neighbouring states, probably at first of Malis, Lokris, and Phthiotis (6). Later it was extended to include Phokis, Doris, Boiotia, the Ionians of Euboia (7), and the various districts of Thessaly a reorganisation which gave Thessaly a clear majority of the votes and may hve been, I think, a part of the settlement that followed the Lelantine War when Thessaly was certainly interfering in the South. But when did the Amphiktiony adopt Delphi as a second centre, when did it get a say in the running of the sanctuary ? It was certainly before the middle of the sixth century for it is the Amphiktions (1) Plut. Sol. XI. (2) Plut. Mor. 760. For the date, Wade-Gery Poel of the Iliad, Cambridge, 1952, p. 61 n. 1. (3) Plut. Camillus XIX 4. (4) Paus. X 1, Hdt. VIII 27. For the original Thessalian attach Hdt. VII 215 and 176. (5) Busolt GG" I pp. 681-4 with refs. to earlier works, Cauer art. Amphiktyonia in HE. (6) The sons of Amphiktion are Malos (Steph. Byz. s. . ), Itonos (Paus. IX 1. 1 and others), and Physkos (Eustath. ad Hom. 277, 19, cf. Steph. Byz. s. . ). (7) It is unlikely that the Athenians were so early included in the Ionian reprsentation and for that reason stories which shew Solon urging th Amphiktions to war are suspect (Aeschines III 108, Plut. Sol. XI).

THE FIRST SACRED WAR

43

who take charge of the rebuilding of Apollo's temple when it is burnt down in 548 (1), and it has often been assumed, rightly I think, that it was, in fact, at the time of the Sacred War. But Parke (2), on the strength of the name of Pylades, Orestes' cousin and son of Strophios, king of Kirrha, argues for an earlier date. The name, he says, has obvious Amphiktionic associations, it does not appear before the seventh century, it would not be invented after the destruction of Kirrha, therefore it must hve been produced in the seventh century to justify the new associa tion between the Amphiktiony and Delphi. That Pylades is a seventh century fiction is probable enough (3), but it is very unlikely that the Amphiktiony was the author of the fiction. For it would hardly be willing thus to abandon its claim to an independent and ancient origin and support a story that made it no more than an adjunct of Kirrha and Delphi. Pylades must then be a Kirrhan invention and in that case Parke's is no longer the only possible explanation. If Kirrha was already represented at Anthela (as it may hve been, if Phokis was a member) then the suggestion that a member of the Kirrhan royal house had had a hand in the foundation of the Amphiktiony could be a Kirrhan attempt to increase its influence. If Kirrha was not represented, then it could be an attempt to claim reprsentation. In neither case is anything implied about the site of the Amphiktiony, for it is easy to forget that if Thessaly could look as far south as Kirrha, Kirrha before 595 could look as far north as Anthela. Kirrha, then, may hve tried to interfre with the Amphiktiony, but what form this interfrence took it is impossible even to guess, unless there be a clue in the tradition of the foundation of a rival amphiktiony at Delphi, preserved in the scholia to Euripides' Orestes (4). Such a (1) Hdt. II 180, V 62. 2. For the date, Paus. X 5.13. (2) P. 119. (3) The earliest mention of Pylades as a member of the Kirrhan royal house may be in Asios of Samos (though it is not certain that Asios was responsible for ail the Phokian genealogy in Paus. II 29. 2), but Asios cannot be dated. I am tempted to see him as an agent of Kleisthenes in his mythological warfare, for (very briefly) : a) His subjects are Kleisthenic fg. 1, Antiope, and fg. 3, Ptoos (for the proposed Theban alliance ?) ; fg. 6, the Tyndaridai (cf. the Sikyonian mtopes (P. de La Coste-Messelire loc. cit. and below p. 47)) ; fg. 8, Pelasgos (Arkadia ? (Paus. VIII 1.4 and below p. 47)) ; fg. 4, Amphiaraos (an enemy of Adrastos) ; fg. 11, Sikyon and his Athenian ancestors. b) A Samian at Kleisthenes' court does not surprise, for Samos would prefer Sikyon to Miletos' friend Korinth. Further Samos was now challenging Megara's hold on the Hellespont by the foundation of Perinthos, and so again would be drawn into the anti-Megarian i. e. Athenian and Sikyonian group ; c) Stylistically a date in the flrst half of the sixth century seems reasonable (but see Wackernagel Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer, Gttingen, 1916, p. 94). Asios' interest in Kirrha would then be explained, but what propaganda Une he did or could take on Kleisthenes' behalf remains a mystery. It would also be interesting to knowjwhy Kypselos called one of his sons Pylades (Nik. Dam. FGrHist. 90 fg 57.7). (4) Schol. Eur. Orest. 1094 (cf. Strabo p. 420) says that Akrisios of Argos helped the Delphians against their neighbours and then founded an amphiktiony in rivalry to the Anthelan

44

GEORGE FORREST

tradition is hardly likely to hve been invented after the Anthelan Amphiktiony had gained effective control of Delphi, and there may be some historical basis for the story. It would be rash to say more than that. But what we may conclude with certainty from ail this is that there is no need whatsoever to assume, because of Pylades, that the Amphiktiony reached Delphi in the seventh century. What is more, there is direct vidence that they did not in the lines of the Hymn to Apollo already quoted. The of line 542 can only be the Amphiktions, and the vital word is they are new to the job, they arrived in 595, in 600 they were still outside, and if there is anything at ail in the Pylades fantasy, they can hve felt nothing but suspicion about the intentions of Kirrha and its satellite. A rival amphiktiony would appear as nothing short of . (iii) And yet the tradition is persistent the Sacred War was fought on behalf of Delphi, and its independence. It is true that the ancient authorities disagree over the actual casus belli, but their disagreement is easily explained. Pausanias say s (1) that the Kirrhans cultivated sacred ground but that is what the Amphissans did to provoke the Sacred War of 340. Aeschines claimed (2) that they tampered with the sacred oferings but that was how the Phokians brought about the Sacred War of 356. Strabo, less dramatically, accuses them (3) of interfrence with pilgrims on the way to Delphi but again this charge was brought against the Amphissans in 340. Kallisthenes, more romantically, tells (4) of the abduction of some of the more attractive pilgrims but this is what a celebrated Trojan had done. We may see them ail as late attempts to explain the unknown by the known, or, in Aeschines' case, to justify organisation. The two were later merged. If there is anything in this, it means that the new amphiktiony was given a founder even more ancient than Amphiktyon, and, moreover, a founder who tied it to non-Temenid Argos. (1) X37. 4ff. (2) III 107 ff. (3) P. 418. (4) FGrHisl 124 fg. 1 and commentary. Kallisthenes undoubtedly gave a full account of the war and probably played a large part in the formation of the tradition, but Jacoby is certainly right in rejecting this compressed excerpt as no more than an imitation of the Trojan War ; is disturbing, but it is odd Greek and odder history, and if we discard the daughters as deutero-Helens the parents may well go with them. There is no other vidence for Argive participation. Unfortunately we cannot for certain tell whether the Kleobis and Biton dedication was to pre- or post-war Delphi (c. 600-590 is the accepted date. Cp. G. Richter , Oxford, 1947, p. 51). That the Phokians were involved in the war is likely enough, but was it simply ? Paus.VI19.4 suggests that one Lokrian city atleast joined the allies. The ancient dedication of the Myanes could commemorate their share in the allied victory (W. A. Oldfather art. , Myania ' in BE).

THE FIRST SACRED WAR

45

contemporary action by inventing a historical prcdent. We may then reasonably suspect thse particular explanations, but at the same time we must admit that they ail hve one common factor Kirrhan interfrence with Delphi and that modem historians hve therefore some grounds for saying that the Sacred War was fought to liberate the common sanctuary from the influence of one temporal power. Yet this cannot be literally true, if I am right in thinking that at least two, and probably ail three, of the allies had no affection for Delphi as it was then being run. The answer is a simple one the allies won the war, it is their version that has survived, and I am quite prepared to believe that they claimed to be fghting for the libration of Delphi. But libration is a familiar political concept which bears little relation to normal ideas of freedom. In this use a man is free if and only if he agres with you. To compel him to agre is to set him free, and compulsion may be necessary, for in his ignorance he may even be fghting against his liberator. There are countless examples from the Spartans in 431 to Prsident Eisenhower and Mr. Chou-en-lai, and it was this kind of libration, I believe, that Kleisthenes, Solon, and Eurylochos brought to Delphi. Apollo, they would argue, is always right, and must therefore always agre with us. But in the case of Adrastos, of Kylon, of Pylades, he has not agreed with us. Therefore his words are being perverted he must be set free, the old pro-Kirrhan organisation must be swept away, a new organisation set up which will see that his thoughts are interpreted correctly (no doubt there was a fifth column at Delphi (1) which would be only too pleased to become the government, and make sure that Apollo never again disagreed with his liberators). What form the changes in the administration took we cannot tell, for our only vidence is once again the Homeric Hymn, and on this point its interprtation is doubtful. Does ' imply that there was no change in the priesthood itself, that the Kretan priests remained in office under new control ? Not necessarily, for Apollo is talking of the office, not of individuals, and even if the individuals were changed, it would be in the interests of the allies to insist on the continuity of the office. I feel myself that the old priests were probably too closely associated with the pro-Kirrhan past to be allowed to remain, but it must be left an open question. Does . . . imply that there had been some controlling body which was replaced by the Amphiktions, or not ? Do we translate line 542 ' You will hve a diffrent group of directors' or ' A group of directors (not yourselves) will hve control over you ' ? The first is certainly more natural, and I should be prepared to accept it, if only to provide a possible solution to another of the minor puzzles that surround the whole problem, the identity of the Kragallidai (2). (1) Rival factions did exist at Delphi (A. Dovatour RE G 46 (1933), pp. 214 1T.). (2) For the form of the name, Busolt G G* I p. 692 n. 6.

46

GEORGE FORREST

Aeschines (1) says that the war was fought not only against the Kirrhans but against the Kragallidai as well, and Hesychius (2) identifies thse men, without much confidence, as . Were they or were they perhaps the family who ran the sanctuary before 595 in Kirrha's interests, the who preceded the Amphiktions ? Their ancestor, Kragaleus, is represented as a son of Dryops. We do not know who the Dryopians were, nor do we know who were the original inhabitants of Delphi, but we do know that the Dryopians were always regarded as being connected in some spcial way with the worship of Apollo (3). This suggestion would adequately explain the connection. But once again we can do no more than ask the question, and leave the answer open. Somehow the organisation was changed, and this must hve happened very early in the war, for the beginning of the sige of Kirrha would give the allies possession of the sanctuary. Naturally from the time of the occupation onwards, that is during the greater part of the campaign, only pro-allied pronouncements would issue from the oracle (4). What is more, any traces of Apollo's earlier ' mistakes ' would be suppressed, the allies' propaganda line became the truth, ' the war was fought for the libration of Delphi '. Fortunately the author of the hymn, in writing his justification of the amphiktionic usurpation, was still too near the events to falsify or accept a falsification of the public facts. iv This is, as far as I know, ail the vidence that can be used to support the hypothesis that the Sacred War was fought against rather than for Kirrhan Delphi. It must be admitted that it is far from conclusive. But obviously the case could be greatly strengthened if it could be shewn that Delphic policy changed abruptly after the war, and, in particulari that the allies found in the oracle after 595 reliable support for their policies. This can be done. If it is agreed that it was only after the Sacred War that the Amphikt ions gained control of the sanctuary, then their advantage is clear. Thessaly, on the other hand, appears to hve found little profit. This is (1) Loc. cit. (2) S. . . (3) Those Dryopians who lived on the slopes of Parnassos were dedicated to Apollo by Herakles (Paus. IV 34.10 and other refs. in Miller art. ' Dryopes ' in RE). Since it appears that Delphi, unlike Mycenaean Krisa, was spared by the invading Dorians (L. Lerat RA 113 (1938), pp. 183-227), the pre-Dorian population (Dryopians ?) may hve remained on the site. It would then be natural that their leading family (if not kings) should trace their descent from Kragaleus. On the Dryopians generally, Millier Dorians I 44 and Miller loc. cil. (4) The best example, Aeschines III 108.

THE FIRST SACRED WAR

47

itself in part due to the move of the Amphiktiony southwards, for it was thus removed from direct, or at least exclusive, Thessalian domination, and came under the influence of Athens, and of Thebes whose power steadily increased throughout the sixth century as a resuit of the unification of Boiotia (1). From the story of Kleisthenes' appeal to Thebes for mythological help against Argos we should infer that Thebes was sympathetic towards the allies during the war (2). Yet sometime before 571 Thebes was at war with Thessaly, and it is probable that at the same time the other southern members of the Amphiktiony, suspicious of Thessalian expansion and encouraged by the support of the new major power in Boiotia, would begin to repent of their earlier submission. I assume that the wars between Thessaly and Phokis later in the century are a mark of this repentance, and it is significant that Delphi backed the Phokians (3). But with Sikyon the case is diffrent. The vidence for Kleisthenes ' close friendship with the oracle after 595 has already been cited (4). But there was more than friendship between the two, there was active coll aboration. Before the war Kleisthenes had been anti-Kypselid, antiArgive, anti-Dorian. In each case Delphi fell into une. Delphi had been an ally of the Kypselids since before their accession (5), and, indeed, the failure of Periander to help Kirrha in its defence of the oracle can only be explained by his own serious domestic troubles at the time, his war with Prokles and his worries about the succession (6). For us the significant thing is that when the Kypselid tyranny fell, Kleisthenic Delphi, unlike Olympia, was only too pleased to forget Kypselid benefactions and erase the name of Kypselos from the Korinthian treasury. Delphi had opposed Kleisthenes' mythological warfare against Argos. After the destruction of Kirrha Kleisthenes' hatred of Argos remained (7), for in 570, if our conjecture is right, he accepted an Argive renegade as a suitor for Agariste, and a few years later he or his successor proclaimed their continued hatred for ail things Argive by the adornment of the second building at Delphi. The absence of Dorian and Argive subjects on the surviving mtopes of this building is so striking that, as M. de La Coste-Messelire argues (8), it appears to be dlibra tely anti-Dorian and anti-Argive. Delphi agreed to its construction. (1) P. Cloch Thebes de Bolie, Naraur, 1952, pp. 17 ff. (2) Hdt. V 67.2. (3) Hdt. VIII 27, Paus. X 1. (4) Above p. 37. (5) Hdt. V 92e. The last line has been doctored but the rest is early (Parke pp. 136 ff.), and I see no reason to disbelieve Hdt.'s version of the circumstances. Delphi was giving Kypselos credentials to prsent to the people of Korinth. Cf. Nik. Dam. FGrHisl 90 fg. 57.6. (6) Hdt. III 50.3. (7) As did that of Argos for Kleisthenes, for McGregor's account of the introduction of the Nemean Games in 573 (op. cit. pp. 277 f.) is wholly convincing. (8) Op. cil. pp. 82-95. There are fgs. of nine of the original fourteen. Of thse flve can be restored with something like certainty, the others are more doubtful but de La Coste-Messelire's guesses are plausible.

48

GEORGE FORREST

Delphi had from earliest times been associated almost exclusively with Dorian states (Khalkis, for example, appears only when she is an ally of Korinth in the Lelantine War) (1). But in 595 the emphasis shifted : new non-Dorian states, like Athens, arrived to consult or dedicate (2), while some of her closest pre-war friends disappeared (3). Delphi's attitude to those Dorian states which still consulted her also changed. When the people of Kyrene appealed for advice in settling their affaire about 570, they were told to accept new colonists from ail over Greece (4), and when there was further trouble there, it was an Arkadian, Demonax of Mantinea, whom Delphi sent out to reorganise the constitution (5). Sparta was readmitted to the Delphic circle only on the condition that she abandoned her traditional policy of Dorian expansion (6), made peace with the Arkadians whom Delphi may hve supported during the preceding war (7), and set herself up as the Achaean leader of the Ploponnse. The symbolic gathering-up of Orestes' bones was suggested by Delphi (8), and it was the champion of the Orestes policy, Kleomenes, who had influence there later (9). His brother Dorieus, true to his name, sailed off to the west without regard for the oracle (10). The emphasis shifted, and in every case shifted as Kleisthenes would want it to shift. At Athens the story can be followed up in even greater dtail. The new priests moved in at the end of the campaigning season of 595, and at once pro-Solonian propaganda began to pour into Athens from Delphi. At first they were even over-enthusiastic in their attempts to make amends for their predecessors' errors. Kirrhan Delphi had tried to make Kylon a tyrant, the new Delphi must then shew that it could be just as helpful to its friends, Solon must become tyrant of Athens a suggestion to that effect was despatched, a suggestion that shews little sign of moral

(1) Naxos and Apollo Archegetes, Thuc. VI 3.1 ; Rhegion, Strabo pp. 257 and 260. (2) Naxos c. 570 (P. Amandry Fouilles de Delphes II, La Colonne des Naxiens, etc. Paris, 1954, pp. 28-32), Siphnos c. 525 (Hdt. III 57.2). Cf. the interesting contrast between the seventh and sixth century objects published by Amandry {BCH 62 (1938), pp. 307-331, and BCH 63 (1939), pp. 86-119 respectively). (3) For Krete, above p. 34 and p. 35 n. 1. Rhodes consulted Delphi about the foundation of Gela (Diod. Sic. VIII 23.1), but no foundation oracle for Akragas is recorded. This may not be accidentai. (4) Hdt. IV 159.2. (5) Hdt. IV 161.1-3. (6) CAH III pp. 565 f. (7) The oracle in Hdt. I 66 is, I suspect, false. However, Pausanias (X 9.6) describes the fourth century Tegeate dedication at Delphi as if it were for the sixth century victory at the Battle of the Fetters. The monument Paus. saw was certainly fourth century (G. Daux Pausanias Delphes, Paris, 1936, pp. 79-81), but did it incorporate an earlier sixth century offering ? If so, Apollo had supported Tegea. (8) Hdt. I 67.2. (9) Hdt. VI 66. (10) Hdt. V 42.2.

THE FIRST SACRED WAR

49

disapproval of tyranny, " " (1). But the priests were new and inexperienced, they misjudged the temper of Athens at the time, and possibly of Solon himself. He had to explain away the Pythia's advice in a singularly unconvincing way. Whether or not he felt a genuine distaste for tyranny, he was clever enough to realise that tyranny was a dangerous thing to play with, that, although offered to him by Apollo ( ) (2) it would be safer to refuse , . And so the line was changed. The next message from Delphi was more to Solon's taste * ' (3) a divine blessing for the whole of his lgislation, and Solon acknowledged his debt to Apollo by writing into his laws the sanction that a magistrate who failed to maintain them should dedicate a life-size golden statue at Delphi (4). A little later the end of the war probably brought help to his conomie programme as well. For, if the plain of Kirrha was then, as it is now, one of the richest olive-producing areas in Greece, it is dificult not to see conomie as well as religious significance in the dedication of the whole plain to Apollo and the ban on future cultivation. It was Solon himself who proposed it, the story says (5). That the Alkmeonids also profited by their association with the new Delphi is undeniable, but hre there are some problems involved. To solve them I must again insist that there is no direct connection between the curse and the exile. Their escape from the curse and their return from exile are spara te questions, and so long as they are treated separately, it is possible to explain both. At first sight the appears to raise diffculties. For how could Alkmeon as command the Athenian troops ? On the other hand, how could he escape from the before Kirrhan Delphi was overthrown ? He must be cleared before his command begins, yet he cannot be cleared until the war is, at least in part, won. The difculty is illusory. For the was laid on the Alkmeonids by Kirrhan Delphi, and the Sacred War is an attack on Kirrhan Delphi. The fact that the Athenian government declared war shews that they had already rejected its authority, (1) Plut. Mor. 152c. (2) Solon tg. 23 (Diehl ALGa). (3) Plut. Sol. XIV 2. (4) Plato Phaedrus 235 d and schol., Plut. Sol. XXV. For the possibility that Solon also created the and for their duties, Jacoby Alihis ch. 1.2. I omit the question of Delphic aid to Solon during the Salamis campaign for both the chronology and the part played by Delphi are too uncertain to justify any useful conclusion. (5) Paus. X 37.6.

50

GEORGE FORREST

and that implies that they no longer regarded the as a proper expres sion the feelings of Apollo. It was in a way appropriate that someone of who had been declared by the old discredited Delphi should lead the attack on those who were to be declared by the new Delphi as soon as it began to opra te, the . There is then no need to clear Alkmeon before the Sacred War begins, nor indeed after it ends. For to withdraw the curse would be to admit that it had been legally imposed in the first place, and this neither Delphi nor the Alkmeonids would be prepared to do (1). So, I imagine, the whole question was quietly dropped, the curse was forgotten until Kleomenes in 508 found that it would be profitable to remember it (2). The question of the exile is more awkward, and there is no clear-cut answer. Much dpends on our interprtation of the Solonian amnesty law of midsummer 594, " " , ' " (3). It has been argued that, since can only be a rfrence to the Kylonians, the other exception must point to the Alkmeonids, that Solon, in his dsire for peace and concord among Athenians left the two sets of extremists abroad. But the Alkmeonid crime was most probably and in that case they are not excluded by the exceptions. Nor are they excluded if Plutarch's story of the spcial court is true, for the law refers to those condemned by the regular courts, not by spcial ad hoc procdures. Finally the appearance of similar exceptions in subsquent Athenian amnesty laws shews that there is no need to attach spcial significance to them in this case (4). But to say that the Alkmeonids were not excluded is not to say that they were therefore necessarily included. They may hve been recalled some time before 594, when the party of Solon was beginning to recover, a recovery marked by the lection of Kritias I as archon in one of the years between 600 and 596 (5). At the same time the possibility that the law was specially designed by Solon to secure their return cannot be ruled out, and this does raise difculties about Alkmeon's command. (1) Cf. Dr. Mossadegh, ' Even if the Shah were to grant me a pardon I should not accept it. For one only pardons traitors and I am not a traitor '. (2) Hdt. V 70.2. Kleomenes' case would hve been less effective than it was if the Alkmeonids had ever been formally cleared. For this reason I cannot agre with Jacoby (op. cil. pp. 39 ff.) that the , were given the duty in order to clear them. It would rather be to guard against any future and any future Epimenides. (3) Plut. Sol. XIX 4. Again in the main I follow Jacoby {op. cit. p. 272 n. 225). (4) Andokides 1. 78. There are serious difculties in Plutarch's story of the Alkmeonid trial, etc. which I hve not tried to face though accepting the story. Hre I can only say that they do not seem serious enough to justify the transfer of the whole affair to 508. (5) Cadoux op. rit. p. 92.

THE FIRST SACRED WAR

51

But they are not fatal, for there was another great Athenian who became commander of his country's forces while in exile and won his recall by his successes in that command Alkibiades. Alkmeon's story may be similar. Either way our story of the war can be saved, and either way Alkmeon commanded for Athens. That he and his family profited from the part he played is abundantly clear. It was at Delphi, says Herodotus, that Alkmeon first came into contact with the Mermnads of Lyda and thanks to the wealth that this friendship brought him he was able to open a stable and win his famous Olympic victory in 592 (1). The connection between the two events may be invention (for it is difficult to believe that the Alkmeonids were too poor before 595 to try their hands at horse-racing) but even if it is true the implied chronology will stand. Alkmeon's visit to Sardis must then be dated to 594 when the war had already settled down to a long dull sige and one of the allied commanders could easily be spared for a goodwill mission to Delphi's most important friend abroad, to assure Alyattes that the new Delphi would be as helpful and co-operative as the old (2). In 593 he would buy his stable and in 592 was the frst (and last) Alkmeonid to win. The story of the close friendship between Delphi and the Alkmeonids during the rest of the century is too well known to need rptition (3) When they rebuilt Apollo's temple towards the end of the century it was a mark of gratitude for three gnrations of co-operation as well as a hint that more was expected. (v) The conclusion then is confirmed. The Sacred War was fought for Delphi, but it was ' for the possession of ' not ' for the sake of '. By the end of the seventh century the oracle, which a hundred and ffty years before was no more than the local sanctuary of Kirrha (4), had become a prize worth fghting for. It had first won distinction by putting the stamp of divine approval on the colonial proposais of Korinth and her allies in the Lelantine War (5). Thanks to the success of thse colonies and the Korinthian victory in the war its influence grew, it was called in to settle (1) Hdt. VI 125 and Pind. Pylh. VII 14-5, from which it is clear that Alkmeon won the only Alkmeonid Olympic victory. Schol. Pylh. inscr. a dates an Alkmeonid victory to 592, and although it is there ascribed to a Megakles, we identify this with Alkmeon's success. It is difcult to see any other solution. (2) Delphi and Lydia, Parke ch. 7. (3) Parke pp. 163-7. (4) Parke (p. 117) dnies this early dependence, but it is implied by the Hom.Hymn 1.282 Apollo founds his temple in Krisan territory. (5) For Korinth, Paus. V 7.3 and Eumelos tg. 11 (Kinkel). For Khalkis, above p. 48 n. 1.

52

GEORGE FORREST

the troubles in Sparta (it approved if it did not originate the Lykurgan reforms) (1), it could even intervene against the established government of Korinth (it gave its support to the rvolution of Kypselos). But the Kirrhan satellite became over-confident. It had now interfered unsuccessfully where its advice was not wanted, it had been rude to someone strong enough to hit back. Not only was it worth fighting for, it had to be fought for. Powerful gods should not make mistakes (2). George Forrest. (1) Tyrtaios fg. 3b (Diehl ALG*), Plut. Lyc. 6. (2) I am very grateful to Sir Maurice Bowra, Mr A. R. Burn, Dr L. H. Jeffery and above ail to Professor A. Andrewes and Professor H. T. Wade-Gery for their advice and criticism on many points in this article. I should also like to thank Mr Daux, the Director, and the members of the cole franaise d'Athnes for their kindness to me in Athens and Delphi.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen