Abstract
SummaryThe First Sacred War was hotly debated in the 4th century. The crimes committed by the Crisaeans in this war were later equated to those committed by the Phocians during the Third Sacred War, or those committed by the Locrians of Amphissa during the Fourth Sacred War. This paper shows how the parallels drawn between the First and Third Sacred Wars (SW1–SW3) and between the First and Fourth Sacred Wars (SW1–SW4) were respectively shaped and used as an argument in two different milieus: in pro-Macedonian intellectual circles in Athens, and in the Athenian forensic and deliberative arena. The main aim of this paper is to understand why ‘SW1–SW3’ is not used as an argument in the latter. In fact, Athens’ most prominent politicians had to cope with the Athenian support for the Phocians in the so-called Third Sacred War. Thus, the Phocians were depicted as guilty, but not to the point that they were compared to the Crisaeans. The legacy of the latter was ambivalent and lent itself to this shift in meaning.
Highlights
A Brief Survey of the Evidence on the So-Called First Sacred WarAs has long been recognized, the modern image of the so-called First Sacred War1 is based on several ancient sources;2 these sources divide into four groups.3 The older (“archaic”) sources form a first group and mention several attacks on Delphi, undertaken by various people or heroes in archaic times4
Summary: The First Sacred War was hotly debated in the 4th century
The crimes committed by the Crisaeans in this war were later equated to those committed by the Phocians during the Third Sacred War, or those committed by the Locrians of Amphissa during the Fourth Sacred War
Summary
As has long been recognized, the modern image of the so-called First Sacred War is based on several ancient sources; these sources divide into four groups. The older (“archaic”) sources form a first group and mention several attacks on Delphi, undertaken by various people or heroes in archaic times (among others, the Phlegyans, Dryopes and Kragalidai). Cfr. Momigliano 1934, 46; Sordi 1958a; Buckler 1989a, 28; Jehne 1994, 117. Speusippus’ letter, written between 343 and 341,28 was designed to cause Philip to look unfavourably upon Isocrates by discrediting his “Philip” (of 346), while simultaneously, through justifying Philip’s conquests, to win the King’s approval of Speusippus’ own writings To this end, both earlier and more recent history was depicted using a mixture of legends and historical sources. In contrast to Noel Robertson, who maintained that Callisthenes, like Speusippus, “held up the Archaic conflict as a worthy precedent for the Third Sacred War and Philip’s intervention”, I argue that in the historian’s work the legacy of the Crisaeans is not uniquely related to the impious Phocians. Jacoby ad FGrHist 124 T 23; Düring 1957, 340 (between 340 and 334); Robertson 1978, 59 (late 340s); Prandi 1985, 14–16, 66–68 (between 339 and 335); Spoerri 1988; Mari 2002, 169, 2013, 131; Natoli 2004, 28–31; Christesen 2007, 180, 188 and n. 64 (in the mid-330s); see below, n
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
