First sacred war & the sieges of Cirrha & Crissa... chemical warfare?

In 590 BCE ca the ancient towns of Cirrha & Crissa, near the site of the oracle of Delphi, were besieged successfully by the Amphictyonic league; at least according to most stories. More possibly for the control of the area and the reassurance of an easy approach to the oracle by the pilgrims. Nevertheless, these warfares took place on the edge of the birth of historiography and the few surviving accounts occurred later. And this war, being considered possibly the start of the sacred Pythian games, seems taking a character of legend and mystery. Besides these, it's of the first recorded cases, where chemical substances were said to be used so the opponent army to be weakened and overcome.

* head photo: map of the area from Ulrichs [1840], with sketch of black Hellebore from codex Dioscurides Neapolitanus of early 7th c, the possible plant used for the water poisoning

The First Sacred War is said to take place in the beginning of the 6th c. BCE [590 BCE ca]; unfortunately with no contemporary accounts. From later sources, we can be informed that on one side were the ancients towns of Cirrha or/and Crissa, south of the oracle of Delphi; two sites that it wasn't 100% clear for the ancients if they were the same under different names or just neighboring ones. A confusion actually that inter alia had led partially to the opinion, that at least instances of the incident were invented in the 4th c. BCE [Robertson [1978]].

On the other side seems to be the Amphictyonic league, that protected the oracle; a union of cities, whose origins are in legend, but maybe they are attached to this war as a consequence. Main involved names on its behalf, were these of Solon the Athenean as consultant, Eurylochus the Thessalean general & Cleisthenes the tyrant of Sicyon. The league won and on the occasion of this victory the sacred Pythian games, in the honor of Apollo, were said to be established; a feast that till then included only musical contests. However, this victory was related with the use of hellebore, an endemic poisonous plant, with which the water supplies of these ancient besieged towns were polluted.

So let's see the sources, as they appeared, trying to extract the truth where possible...

• The first ancient sources. The Athens' interference in an old war
•     Parian Marble/Chronicle, 3rd c. BCE
•     Aeschines, 4th c. BCE
•     Plutarch, 1st c. CE
• Ancient excerpts in later sources. A local war becoming bigger in stories
•     Callisthenes, 4th c. BCE, in Athenaeus, 3rd c. CE
•     Diodorus Siculus, 1st c. BCE, in Constantine excerpta, 10th c. CE
• The confusing Strabo, 1st c. BCE. History & geography
•     The 1st version
•     Comparison with the 2nd confusing version
•     The geography in brief
•     The bare Cirrhean/Crissean plain in Pausanias
• The use of hellebore
•     Frontinus, 1st c. CE [Cleisthenes as mastermind]
•     Polyaenus, 2nd c. CE [Eurylochus as mastermind]
•     Pausanias, 2nd c. CE [Solon as mastermind]
•     Thessalus, 3rd c. BCE? Base of the tale? [Nevros as mastermind]
•     The Black Hellebore
• Water supplies and the besieged city: an overview
• Later or dubious accounts. Medieval comments on Pindar
•     The hypothesis of the Pythian games & Euphorion
•     The Sicyon Pythian games??
• Instead of epilogue
• References

The first ancient sources. The Athens' interference in an old war          up

The earliest references of the war are coming from the 4th - 3rd c. BCE. As a common ground we can recognize, the name of Cirrha as defeated by the Amphictyonic league, and the date that would be the early 6th c BCE. Also all these are coming from an Athenean aspect.

Parian Marble/Chronicle, 3rd c. BCE          up

The Parian Chronicle is a chronology carved on marble, dated in 264-3 BCE ca and covering a range from 1582 BCE to 299 BCE, mainly from an Athenean point of view; now preserved in two major fragments [check website and IG XII,5 444 for transcription]

Text 01: Parian Chronicle 37.52b-53a, in IG XII,5 444

[ἀφ’ οὗ Ἀ]μ[φικτ]ύ[ονες ἔθ]υ[σαν κ]αταπο[λημήσα]ντες Κύρραν, καὶ ὁ ἀγὼν ὁ γυμνικὸς ἐτέθη χρηματίτης ἀπὸ τῶν λαφύρων, ἔτη ΗΗ[Η]ΔΔΓΙΙ, ἄρχοντος Ἀθήνησιν Σίμω[ν]ος

From the time when Amphictyons offered sacrifice after destroying Kyrra in war, and the gymnic game was organized with prize from the spoils, years 327, when Simon was archon in Athens.

The beginning of the text seems to have been reconstructed; as it can be concluded by the brackets. What seems to be certain is that there was a war against Kyrra [=Κύρρα; probably another spelling of Cirrha = Κίρρα], and that the spoils funded the following gymnic games. The date was 327 years before the inscription's date; that is -263 -327 = 590 BCE ca, when Simon was eponymous archon of Athens. There's a doubt if this year refers to the games or to the battle.

Aeschines, 4th c. BCE          up

Aeschines, an Athenean orator, in a speech of 330 BCE ca, mentioned the incident. Without trying to analyze the content of the speech, it should be said that it was written within a context of confrontation with the famous Athenean orator & anti-Macedonean Demosthenes, whose speech-response has also survived.

Text 02: Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon, 3.107-109

107 ἔστι γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὸ Κιρραῖον ὠνομασμένον πεδίον καὶ λιμὴν ὁ νῦν ἐξάγιστος καὶ ἐπάρατος ὠνομασμένος. ταύτην ποτὲ τὴν χώραν κατῴκησαν Κιρραῖοι καὶ Κραγαλίδαι, γένη παρανομώτατα, οἳ εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τὸ ἐν Δελφοῖς καὶ περὶ τὰ ἀναθήματα ἠσέβουν, ἐξημάρτανον δὲ καὶ εἰς τοὺς Ἀμφικτύονας. ἀγανακτήσαντες δ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῖς γιγνομένοις μάλιστα μέν, ὡς λέγονται, οἱ πρόγονοι οἱ ὑμέτεροι, ἔπειτα καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι Ἀμφικτύονες, μαντείαν ἐμαντεύσαντο παρὰ τῷ θεῷ, τίνι χρὴ τιμωρίᾳ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τούτους μετελθεῖν. 108 καὶ αὐτοῖς ἀναιρεῖ ἡ Πυθία πολεμεῖν Κιρραίοις καὶ Κραγαλίδαις πάντ᾽ ἤματα καὶ πάσας νύκτας, καὶ τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν ἐκπορθήσαντας καὶ αὐτοὺς ἀνδραποδισαμένους ἀναθεῖναι τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι τῷ Πυθίῳ καὶ τῇ Ἀρτέμιδι καὶ τῇ Λητοῖ καὶ Ἀθηνᾷ Προναίᾳ ἐπὶ πάσῃ ἀεργίᾳ, καὶ ταύτην τὴν χώραν μήτ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἐργάζεσθαι μήτ᾽ ἄλλον ἐᾶν. λαβόντες δὲ τὸν χρησμὸν τοῦτον οἱ Ἀμφικτύονες ἐψηφίσαντο Σόλωνος εἰπόντος Ἀθηναίου τὴν γνώμην, ἀνδρὸς καὶ νομοθετῆσαι δυνατοῦ καὶ περὶ ποίησιν καὶ φιλοσοφίαν διατετριφότος, ἐπιστρατεύειν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐναγεῖς κατὰ τὴν μαντείαν τοῦ θεοῦ: 109 καὶ συναθροίσαντες δύναμιν πολλὴν τῶν Ἀμφικτυόνων, ἐξηνδραποδίσαντο τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ τὸν λιμένα καὶ τὴν πόλιν αὐτῶν κατέσκαψαν καὶ τὴν χώραν καθιέρωσαν κατὰ τὴν μαντείαν.

107 So there is, Athenean citizens, a field called Cirrhean and a harbour now abominable and accursed. Once the Cirrheans and the Cragalideans inhabited this land, most lawless races, who were impious towards the shrine at Delphi and the votive offerings, and were wrong against Amphictyons. and your ancestors, most indignant with these actions, as it's said, and then the rest Amphictyons, asked for an oracle from the god: with which punishment they should treat these men. 108 and Pythia replied to them that they should fight against Cirrheans and Cragalideans all days and all nights, and after conquering their land and enslaving them, to dedicate the land, lying fallow, to Apollo the Pythian and Artemis and Leto and Athena Pronaia, and not to cultivate this land themselves nor to allow the others to. And when the Amphictyons received this oracle, voted to march against the accursed men according to the prophecy of the god, after Solon the Athenean said his opinion, a man strong in law-making and skilled in poetry and philosophy. 109 and after gathering great force of the Amphictyons, they enslaved the men and destroyed utterly their harbour and their city, and they dedicated the land according to the oracle.

What can be derived as information is, that they were two tribes, the Cirrheans and the Cragalideans, whose city and harbour were totally destroyed by the Atheneans with the help of the rest of the Amphictyons. A war that had as a cause their disrespectful behaviour against the oracle of Delphi. And all these at the time of Solon. Solon was ruling as eponymous archon of Athens in 594 BCE [3rd year of 46th Olympiad: Sosicrates - 2nd c. BCE, as reproduced by Diogenis Laertius of the 3rd c. CE; DL Sol. 62 ]. However, this can't be totally binding; but it may indicate the period of the early 6th c. BCE. Thus in total accordance with the Parian marble; that however was written afterwards.

It should be noted that in the following lines of the speech [3.123], Aeschines is mentioning the destruction of the harbor in front of the Cirrhean plain, but this time during the recent-then 4th sacred war of 339 BCE against Amphissa in Locris. An analogy, mentioned also by Strabo [below text 09], and that could serve somehow the possibility that the events of the 1st sacred war were invented during the 4th c. BCE, theory supported by Robertson [1978]. This theory is dealt at various spots below, especially under Callisthenes. Suffice it to say here, that, as I see it, the fictitious part was more to enlarge the significance of the war and the participation.

A first question is who were these Cragalideans, besides Cirrheans. Aeschines is the only to mention them along with Cirrha. Later accounts will speak only of Cirrha or/and Crissa. Was it another name for Crissa? Hesychius of the 5th c. CE thinks so in his lexicon, where he defines them as "Kings of Crisseans or some other race" [=Κρακαλίδαι· τῶν Κρισσαίων βασιλεῖς. ἢ διάφορον γένος].

And in mythology the possible relation with Apollo, the Delphian god, seems to be intense. Cragalideans obviously could have as first ancestor Cragaleus. According to Nicander of the 2nd c. BCE [as reproduced by Antoninus Liberalis of 2nd c. CE in his Metamorphoseon synagoge], some Cragaleus, son of the legendary Dryops, was turned to stone by Apollo cause he chose Hercules over the god. Further Pausanias [4.34.9] alternatively is mentioning that the tribe of this Dryops [Dryopes] were conquered by Hercules in Parnassus [i.e. near the lands that interest us] and he brought them in front of Delphian Apollo as an offering.

But what could be more interesting is Demosthenes' response. Inter alia he said referring to Aschines' oration...

Text 03: Demosthenes, On the crown, 18.149

καὶ λόγους εὐπροσώπους καὶ μύθους, ὅθεν ἡ Κιρραία χώρα καθιερώθη, συνθεὶς

[Aeschines] composed plausible speeches and tales, on how the Cirrhean land was established as sacred

Besides the fact that Demosthenes had every reason to negate Aeschines' arguments, there's a doubt on what he really meant. When he said 'composed' [=συνθεὶς], was he referring to 'putting the words together' or 'inventing a story'? The fact that he didn't actually question the Cirrhean land as sacred, nor contrast the story with some alternate version, underlines more possibly that he didn't think of this tale as Aeschines' fiction. Robertson [1978, p. 52], though considers the whole story of the 1st sacred war as constructed later, similarly suggests that Demosthenes can't be a proof for this.

fig. 01: Bust of Solon of Athens [110 BCE ca], now in National Archaeological Museum, Naples [Farnese Collection], in wikicommons

Plutarch, 1st c. CE          up

Although Plutarch is a really later source, the fact that he had served as a priest at Delphi, should be taken in account; but also that he's mentioning older sources.

Text 04: Plutarch, Solon 11

ἐθαυμάσθη δὲ καὶ διεβοήθη μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν εἰπὼν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τοῦ ἐν Δελφοῖς, ὡς χρὴ βοηθεῖν καὶ μὴ περιορᾶν Κιρραίους ὑβρίζοντας εἰς τὸ μαντεῖον, ἀλλὰ προσαμύνειν ὑπὲρ τοῦ θεοῦ Δελφοῖς. πεισθέντες γὰρ ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον ὥρμησαν οἱ Ἀμφικτύονες, ὡς ἄλλοι τε μαρτυροῦσι καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τῇ τῶν Πυθιονικῶν ἀναγραφῇ Σόλωνι τὴν γνώμην ἀνατιθείς. [2] οὐ μέντοι στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τοῦτον ἀπεδείχθη τὸν πόλεμον, ὡς λέγειν φησὶν Ἕρμιππος Εὐάνθη τὸν Σάμιον: οὔτε γὰρ Αἰσχίνης ὁ ῥήτωρ τοῦτ᾽ εἴρηκεν, ἔν τε τοῖς Δελφῶν ὑπομνήμασιν Ἀλκμαίων, οὐ Σόλων, Ἀθηναίων στρατηγὸς ἀναγέγραπται.

[Solon] was admired and celebrated among the Greeks as he spoke, in favor of the shrine at Delphi, that they should help [the shrine] and not overlook the Cirrheans who were outraging upon the oracle, but help Delphi for the god. And Amphictyons rushed to war, cause they were convinced by him, as others testify and Aristotle [too] attributing the thought to Solon, in the record of the victors at Pythian games. [2] However Solon wasn't proved a general in this war, as Ermippus says that Eyanthes of Samos suggests; cause neither Aeschines the orator said that, and in the records at Delphi Alcmaeon, and not Solon, is registered as general of the Atheneans.

Plutarch seems confirming the Solon's involvement, while he also suggests at least five different earlier sources for the war incident with the Cirrheans. Noteworthy is that Aristotle [4th c. BCE] made a victor-list of the Pythian games, mentioning the time of the war as their start. Aristotle's authorship seems being confirmed by an inscription at Delphi [SIG(3) 275] dated in late 4th c. BCE. But most important seem to me the records that were kept at the oracle of Delphi, mentioning Alcmaeon as the Athenean general; underlining some independence as a source. Robertson [1978, p. 60] considers these records later than Aristotle.

Further Robertson [1978, p. 67] is wondering how could an Alcmaeon be an Athenean general at the time, since the whole family of Alcmaeonidae was exiled in 632 BCE ca cause of the incidents around Cylon; mentioned already by Plutarch [Sol 12.1-4]. However Alcmaeonidae it's known that returned in Athens at least since the mid 6th c BCE. And it's really possible that this occurred earlier in 594 BCE, after about 30 years of exile, when Solon was eponymous archon. Cause Plutarch [Sol 19.3-4] writes about a law of general amnesty issued by Solon at the time. A possibility that is also suggested by Forrest [1956, p, 50]. If all the above are accurate, it would mean that Cirrha was attacked after 594 BCE.

Ancient excerpts in later sources. A local war becoming bigger in stories          up

The following passages are surviving in later sources. What they have in common is that both are confirming Cirrha as the one opponent, and that its siege was considered long.

Callisthenes, 4th c. BCE, in Athenaeus, 3rd c. CE          up

Callisthenes was a Macedonean historian of mid 4th c. BCE, who wrote on the greek history of his century. More possibly around events of the 3rd sacred war [350 BCE ca], he should have examined the 1st one of 595 BCE ca. The excerpt is reproduced by Athenaeus, almost 600 years later.

Text 05: Callisthenes in Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, 13.10

καὶ ὁ Κρισαϊκὸς δὲ πόλεμος ὀνομαζόμενος, ὥς φησι Καλλισθένης ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ Ἱεροῦ Πολέμου, ὅτε Κιρραῖοι πρὸς Φωκεῖς ἐπολέμησαν, δεκαέτης ἦν, ἁρπασάντων Κιρραίων τὴν Πελάγοντος τοῦ Φωκέως θυγατέρα Μεγιστὼ καὶ τὰς Ἀργείων θυγατέρας ἐπανιούσας ἐκ τοῦ Πυθικοῦ ἱεροῦ. δεκάτῳ δὲ ἔτει ἑάλω καὶ ἡ Κίρρα.

And the so-called Crissean war, as Callisthenes says in [the book] on the Sacred War, when Cirrheans fought against Phoceans, lasted 10 years; when Cirrheans captured Megisto, daughter of the Phocean Pelagon, and the daughters of the Argives as they were returning from the Pythian shrine. And in the 10th year Cirrha was conquered.

There're three interesting points in this excerpt:

a. Firstly, it could be the earliest use of the term Crissa regarding the war. It should be said of course that the passage is written in indirect speech, fact that makes unclear if this term was used by Athenaeus or Callisthenes himself. But in any case the war is called Crissean, distinguished from the [3rd] Sacred war of 356-346 BCE. Nevertheless, it was between Cirrheans & Phoceans. Did Crisseans take part being in any camp? Or it's just a geographical term? More possible the latter, as in the first case it would be expected to be mentioned as leading fighting tribe, too, giving their name to the war; unless they were absorbed by the term of Cirrheans.

b. It's also really noticeable that Cirrheans are fighting against Phoceans, not the amphictyonic league as we've already seen; though not contradictory [and maybe expected]. Phoceans were members of the Amphictyonic league since the very beginning [Aeschin. 2.116, Paus. 10.8.2], thus in 590 BCE too. But they had lost their seat in 346 BCE, which was given to Macedoneans, cause were defeated in the 3rd Sacred War [Diod. 16.60.1, Paus. 10.3.3].

However, it should be noted that the ancient area of Phocis could be considered including in general Cirrha & Crissa, which were almost next to Delphi; Phocis is a more likely candidate as the wider region of these towns, in comparison to Ozolian Locris. And thus one can't tell who specifically are these Phoceans in the Callisthenes' story [text 05]. Possibly it's a really strong indication for a smaller range of this war.

Nevertheless the author Callisthenes is Macedonean who is writing about the recent-then 3rd sacred war; inter alia between Macedoneans and Phoceans. So is this a way to distinguish Phoceans from the amphictyony? Or a way to underestimate the part of the rest amphictyons during the course of this 1st sacred war? Like the Atheneans, who were on the Phocean side in the 3rd sacred war? Maybe it was just a contrast regarding the righteousness of the Phoceans, between 1st & 3rd sacred wars.

c. This possibillity of contrast is underlined by the third point. The given pretext that led to the 1st sacred war [the Crissean] was about the abduction of some women. Forrest [1956, p, 44] has noted that this, along with the 10-year duration of the war, is reminding the Troy story; and already Athenaeus had used it as such an example. But in any case these women were pilgrims. So Phoceans alone protected somehow the oracle.

This approach can be enriched by the following excerpt. It's from a letter, said to be sent by Speusippus to Philip II the Macedonean king, in 340 BCE ca. Without analyzing too much the letter's content, at an instance, where Philip's deeds are actually praised, it was written...

Text 06: Speusippus' letter to Philip II [Epistola Socratica 30]

Ἐπειδὴ δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν Ἀμφικτυονικῶν πραγμάτων δῆλος εἶ σπουδάζων, ἐβουλήθην σοὶ φράσαι μῦθον παρὰ Ἀντιπάτρου, τίνα τρόπον πρῶτον οἱ Ἀμφικτύονες συνέστησαν, καὶ πῶς ὄντες Ἀμφικτύονες Φλεγύαι μὲν ὑπὸ Ἂπόλλωνος, Δρύοπες δὲ ὑπὸ Ἡρακλέους, Κρισσαῖοι δὲ ὑπὸ Ἀμφικτυόνων ἀνῃρέθησαν· οὗτοι γάρ πάντες Ἀμφικτύονες γενόμενοι τῶν ψήφων ἀφῃρέθησαν, ἕτεροι δὲ τὰς τούτων ψήφους λαβόντες τῆς τῶν Ἀμφικτυόνων συντελείας μετέσχον, ὧν ἐνίους σέ φησι μεμιμῆσθαι, καὶ λαβεῖν ἆθλον Πυθίοις τῆς εἰς Δελφοὺς στρατείας παρὰ τῶν Ἀμφικτυόνων.

But as you are clearly interested in the Amphictyonic affairs, I wanted to tell you a story by Antipater, in which way firstly the Amphictyons were formed, and how Phlegyans were destroyed by Apollo, Dryopes by Hercules, and Crisseans by the Amphictyons, even if they were Amphictyons [themselves]· cause all these, though were Amphictyons, were deprived of the votes, and others, after taking their votes, participated in the Amphictyons's company, of which he says that you have imitated some, and that you received by the Amphictyons a prize at the Pythian games cause of the expedition at Delphi.

Natoli [2004, p. 24] gives the possibility that it's a later text, but not that much; the given range is between 339 - 139 BCE. The earliest manuscript, where it has survived, is of the 13th c. [Vat. gr. 64, f222r-223r]. The transcribed text is taken from Orelli [1815, pp.35-39].

Here we can see again an implied comparison between Phoceans and Crisseans. Speusippus is likening the case of Philip II, who gained the votes of the Phoceans, after defeating them in 346 BCE, with Crisseans, who in the same way in older times were destroyed by the Amphictyons. The rest two examples are derived from mythology. This should have occurred during the 1st sacred war.

In any case, according to these previous texts, Cirrha/Crissa [next to Delphi] was crashed by the rest Phoceans and the Amphictyonic league, during the 1st sacred war. But afterwards Phoceans were defeated by Macedoneans with Philip II in the 3rd sacred war. Fact that seems underlining the gradually broader interference at Delphi.

fig. 02: Philip II of Macedon on a silver tetradrachm, Amphipolis, 330 BCE ca, in gallica

Similar anagolies had led Robertson [1978, p. 73] to write: "In the mid 340s the First Sacred War was imported into literature and made into a moral tale which prefigured Philip's intervention in Thessaly and Phocis... The First Sacred War offers a valuable though astringent lesson, for we see how easily and how profusely earlier history was rewritten during the fourth century." And Londey [2016, p. 480], accepting this approach & repeating Robertson's argument [1978, p. 48ff], writes: "The failure of earlier writers, such as Herodotus and Thucydides, to mention the First Sacred War, strongly suggests that the earlier war was, indeed, a fiction."

Though I feel that there was every reason so the story to be used in the 4th c. BCE for the aforementioned political purposes, I think that the core should be true. There's a good number of writers who are mentioning it, though this can't be a solid proof. But it can't be a proof for the opposite approach the absence of earlier accounts, too. Further, Demosthenes [text 03], even if he would like to eliminate the significance of such a story, didn't actually deny it; as he didn't offer any other explanation for the sanctity of the place. This non-denial of the dedication of the land to god Apollo seems also coming along with the comparative descriptions of earlier and later excerpts [below texts 11, 12, 13]. However, the tale itself could be really exaggerated regarding its size.

And I think that maybe it's in Thucydides that we may track this explanation. Describing events that preceded the Peloponnesean war, and specifically for the period from the Trojan war to the Persic ones of the early 5th c. BCE, he writes:

Text 07: Thucydides 1.15.2-3

κατὰ γῆν δὲ πόλεμος, ὅθεν τις καὶ δύναμις παρεγένετο, οὐδεὶς ξυνέστη: πάντες δὲ ἦσαν, ὅσοι καὶ ἐγένοντο, πρὸς ὁμόρους τοὺς σφετέρους ἑκάστοις, καὶ ἐκδήμους στρατείας πολὺ ἀπὸ τῆς ἑαυτῶν ἐπ᾽ ἄλλων καταστροφῇ οὐκ ἐξῇσαν οἱ Ἕλληνες. οὐ γὰρ ξυνειστήκεσαν πρὸς τὰς μεγίστας πόλεις ὑπήκοοι, οὐδ᾽ αὖ αὐτοὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἴσης κοινὰς στρατείας ἐποιοῦντο, κατ᾽ ἀλλήλους δὲ μᾶλλον ὡς ἕκαστοι οἱ ἀστυγείτονες ἐπολέμουν. [3] μάλιστα δὲ ἐς τὸν πάλαι ποτὲ γενόμενον πόλεμον Χαλκιδέων καὶ Ἐρετριῶν καὶ τὸ ἄλλο Ἑλληνικὸν ἐς ξυμμαχίαν ἑκατέρων διέστη.

And none war by land existed, whence some [significant] force occurred: all [wars], as many as they occurred, were made by each [side] against their same-bordering, and Greeks didn't make expeditions abroad for conquest much, from their [land] to others'. Cause subject [cities] hadn't joined the biggest cities, nor yet themselves made common expeditions with equal force, but rather the bordering cities fought by themselves against each other. [3] But in fact, in the old war between Chalcideans and Eretreans, the rest of the Greeks were separated into the alliance of each [city].

So there were wars; but local ones. As could be the one between Cirrheans and Phoceans, that Callisthenes describes [text 05]. However it should be noted that Thucydides is comparing the previous warfares with the really big size of the Peloponnesean war.

Thucydides also suggests that there weren't wars, where allied armies participated with equal force; with just one exception. This could exclude the possibility that an amphictyony took part in the 1st sacred war. But it wouldn't exclude a smaller participation-help in a local war. Fact that would underline that all the stories, that appeared since the 4th c. BCE, about the participation of the Amphictyonic league and decisive actions during this war, occurred to justify an involvement in the oracle's affairs; but by using an already existing story, not by inventing one. The Phoceans just transformed into the Amphictyonic league.

This attempt for a broader claimed involvement in the 1st sacred war can be also seen by the comparison of the different versions of the story about the water poisoning, that we will see far below.

Diodorus Siculus, 1st c. BCE, in Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus excerpta, 10th c. CE          up

An excerpt by Diodorus had survived confirming the long siege, but also giving as reason of the war an attempt of plundering by the Cirrheans. It's also noticeable that on the other side were the Greeks, not just the Amphictyony; an even broader interference, but, however, it isn't clear if they're Diodorus' words or the transcriber's, as the excerpt is given in indirect speech, too.

Text 08: Diodorus Siculus 9.16 in in Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus excerpta

ὅτι τῶν Κιρραίων πολιορκουμένων πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον διὰ τὸ τὸ χρηστήριον ἐπιχειρεῖν συλᾶν, τινὲς μὲν τῶν Ἑλλήνων εἰς τὰς πατρίδας ἐπανῆλθον, οἱ δὲ ἐπερωτήσαντες τὴν Πυθίαν ἔλαβον χρησμὸν οὕτως, ''οὐ πρὶν τῆσδε πόληος ἐρείψετε πύργον ἑλόντες, πρίν κεν ἐμῷ τεμένει κυανώπιδος Ἀμφιτρίτης κῦμα ποτικλύζῃ κελαδοῦν ἱερῇσιν ἐπ᾽ ἀκταῖς.

that, as Cirrheans were besieged already for much time, for attempting plundering the oracle, some of the Greeks returned at homelands, but others after asking Pythia received such oracle: "not before you throw down the tower of this city after taking it, before the wave of dark-eyed Amphitrite is washing my shrine singing to priestesses on the shores".

It's said that the demolition of the coastal Cirrha and the dedication of this land to the oracle of Delphi were based on this prophecy. It can also be read in Aeschines [3.112], though the authenticity of this latter passage has been questioned. But Pausanias is reproducing it, too [Paus. 10.37.6].

The confusing Strabo, 1st c. BCE. History & geography          up

Geographer Strabo of the 1st c. BCE gave some interesting information. However, it seems that there're two different text versions in manuscripts, that are presenting different meanings regarding our story. I follow the earliest, which seemed more likely. After analyzing the 1st, I then compare the two traditions.

The 1st version          up

Text 09: Strabo, Geographica, 9.3.3-4

[3] ὑποπέπτωκε δὲ τῇ Κίρφει πόλις ἀρχαία Κίρρα, ἐπὶ τῇ θαλάττῃ ἱδρυμένη, ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἀνάβασις εἰς Δελφοὺς ὀγδοήκοντά που σταδίων: ἵδρυται δ᾽ ἀπαντικρὺ Σικυῶνος. πρόκειται δὲ τῆς Κίρρας τὸ Κρισαῖον πεδίον εὔδαιμον. πάλιν γὰρ ἐφεξῆς ἐστιν ἄλλη πόλις Κρῖσα, ἀφ᾽ ἧς ὁ κόλπος Κρισαῖος: εἶτα Ἀντικύρα, ὁμώνυμος τῇ κατὰ τὸν Μαλιακὸν κόλπον καὶ τὴν Οἴτην. καὶ δή φασιν ἐκεῖ τὸν ἑλλέβορον φύεσθαι τὸν ἀστεῖον, ἐνταῦθα δὲ σκευάζεσθαι βέλτιον, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀποδημεῖν δεῦρο πολλοὺς καθάρσεως καὶ θεραπείας χάριν: γίνεσθαι γάρ τι σησαμοειδὲς φάρμακον ἐν τῇ Φωκικῇ, μεθ᾽ οὗ σκευάζεσθαι τὸν Οἰταῖον ἑλλέβορον. [4] αὕτη μὲν οὖν συμμένει, ἡ δὲ Κίρρα καὶ ἡ Κρῖσα κατεσπάσθησαν, ἡ μὲν ὕστερον ὑπ᾽ Εὐρυλόχου τοῦ Θετταλοῦ κατὰ τὸν Κρισαῖον πόλεμον: εὐτυχήσαντες γὰρ οἱ Κρισαῖοι διὰ τὰ ἐκ τῆς Σικελίας καὶ τῆς Ἰταλίας τέλη, πικρῶς ἐτελώνουν τοὺς ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ἀφικνουμένους καὶ παρὰ τὰ προστάγματα τῶν Ἀμφικτυόνων. τὰ δ᾽ αὐτὰ καὶ τοῖς Ἀμφισσεῦσι συνέβη.

[3] And Cirrha, an ancient city, lies under the Cirphis [mountain], situated by the sea, from where the mounting to Delphi is about eighty stadia: and it has been situated opposite of Sicyon. And lies before Cirrha the blessed Crissean plain. Cause from there again there's next an other city Crissa, from which the Crissean gulf is named. Then Antikyra, having the same name with the city near the Malian gulf and Oeta [mountain]. And they say that there [=Anticyra in Malian gulf] the hellebore of high quality is grown, but here [=Anticyra in Phocis, near Cirrha] is prepared better, and that cause of this many come here for purification and cure: cause [they say that] some medical plant like-sesame is grown in Phocis, with which the hellebore from Oeta is mixed. [4] and this [=Anticyra] remains, but Cirrha and Crissa were destroyed, the first [=Cirrha] later, by Eurylochus of Thessaly during the Crissean war: cause Crisseans, after becoming prosperous by the duties from Sicily and Italy, they were taking violently heavy tolls from the ones coming to the shrine, and this against the commands of the Amphictyons. And the same happened to the Amphisseans.

Here Strabo describes the region south of Delphi, where two cities, Cirrha and Crissa existed in earlier times. It's unclear if Strabo was seeing ruins or reproducing stories. However he's the first to mention both cities clearly in the same text. As the passage is given here, both were destroyed; first Crissa, then Cirrha. Probably both during the Crissean war, version that it's repeated for Cirrha by Calleshtenes, too [text 05]. These cities appear sharing the same fate, connected with the Crissean plain. It's also noticeable that Crisseans were the ones who provoked the Amphictyons, mainly by disturbing the pilgrims at Delphi; so they were the ones who controlled Cirrha, too. Eurylochus of Thessaly, mentioned for first time, seems to have besieged at least one of these cities; surely Cirrha while possibly Crissa too.

fig. 03: Suggested map of Cirrha and Crissa by Jannoray [1937a, p. 34], based on some archaeological findings

We have also a mention of hellebore; the plant that it's said in later sources that was used for the poisoning of the besieged. However, here it's just as endemic plant, part of an ancient drug-industry somehow.

Comparison with the 2nd confusing version          up

There's a 2nd version of a phrase in manuscripts, giving a totally different aspect.

Text 10: Strabo, Geographica, 9.3.4, 2nd version

ἡ δὲ Κίρρα καὶ ἡ Κρῖσα κατεσπάσθησαν, ἡ μὲν πρότερον ὑπό Κρισαίων, αὐτή δ' ἡ Κρῖσα, ἡ δ' ὕστερον ὑπ᾽ Εὐρυλόχου τοῦ Θετταλοῦ κατὰ τὸν Κρισαῖον πόλεμον

but Cirrha and Crissa were destroyed, the first [=Cirrha] earlier by the Crisseans, and Crissa itself later by Eurylochus of Thessaly during the Crissean war

Here, Cirrha was destroyed by the Crisseans, while afterwards Crissa alone by Eurylochus and the Amphictyonic league. In manuscript tradition, it seems that the 1st version has a lead. I've managed to track only 8 manuscripts; but happily the earliest that has been considered as the principal codex. It is a little damaged but seems almost clearly containing the 1st version [BNF Grec 1397, f218r, 11thc].

From the totally eight manuscripts I've found, in four of them [a, b, c, d] it's given the 1st version, in one [e] is given the first version but with an addition of a definite article, in two [g, h] is given the 2nd version but as a footnote inserted in the text of the 1st version, and only in one [f] is given clearly the 2nd version. The manuscripts: (a). BNF Grec 1397, f218r, 11th c., (b). BNFGrec 1393, f113v, 13th c., (c). LaurMedPlut 28.40, f178v, 14th c., (d). BNF Grec 1408, f283r, 15th c., (e). LaurMedPlut 28.05, f251v, 14th c., (f). BNF Grec 1394, f197v, 15th c., (g). BNF Grec 1396, f158v-159r, 15th c, (h). BNF Grec 1395, f132r-v, 16th c. In the early printed editions, it was given the ancient text of the 1st version while it was translated the 2nd version.

The problem with this 2nd version is that it's coming in a clear opposition to all the rest ancient texts. If we consider it as valid, Cirrha would be an ally of the Amphictyonic league, not an enemy. Thucydides' approach [text 07] would be attractive here, as then the Cirrha-Crissa conflict could just be a local war. But then we should exclude the destruction of Crissa, cause this was made by an allied army, the Amphictyonic league.

Robertson [1978, p. 46-47], also noticed possible mistakes in the 2nd tradition. However, suggests that the 1st tradition should have the meaning that 'Cirrha was destroyed later', and only Crissa earlier during the Crissean war by Eurylochus. The main argument I've read is the sentence structure; i.e. that in the 1st version it would be expected as contrast to the term 'the one [city] later', a following one 'earlier'. This version, too, would come in opposition to many ancient sources, while the suggested syntax interpretation isn't totally convincing.

The geography in brief          up

Strabo defines almost specifically the location of Cirrha; at the base of Cirphis mountain and by the sea, in front of the Crissean plain. While the site of Crissa remains a little uncertain, connected mainly just with the Crissean plain and the gulf [noted already by Robertson [1978], p. 46-47]. It reminds somehow the city and the harbour that were destroyed in Aeschines' version [text 02]. This version seems to be supported by later scholars; i.e. with Cirrha as the harbor and Crisa as the city [check fig. 03 above].

Arcaeological evidence confirm presence in the area since the Archaic period. However, it's still not possible the identification of specific remains with our historic events, especially regarding dates [Dor et al. [1960], Jannoray [1937a], Zurbach et al. [2012], Orgeolet et al. [2017] and comments in Robertson [1978], p. 40].

fig. 04: Archaeological find from the area of Cirrha [L475], a grave of an infant in pithos [=big vase], dated in Middle Helladic period [2000 BCE - 1500 BCE], from Orgeolet et al. [2017]

fig. 05: Statuette from the area of Cirrha, Amphissa museum [inv. 6631], dated in 6th-4th c. BCE, from Huysecom-Haxhi [2016]

Crissa is a name already mentioned by Homer in the 8th c. BCE, but just as a town in Phocis participating in the Trojan war [Il 2.520]. In later sources we can see both terms being used, either as cities or regarding the plain south of Delphi [references in Robertson [1978], p. 40ff, Jannoray [1937a]]. Till here, the main suggested in all the sources besieged city is Cirrha, which in Strabo is clearly a harbor. However, there's also a strong connection between Crissa and the sea. Though the plain south of Delphi had been named either Cirrhean or Crissean, the gulf is almost exclusively Crissean [eg. Thuc. 1.107.3, Strb. 7.7.4, Diod. 12.47.1, even in latin as 'sinus crisaeus' in Plin.N.H. 4.7]. And actually this term was sometimes used defining the whole Corinthian gulf.

Besides this, at one instance Strabo reproduces an older legend given by historian Ephorus of the 4th c. BCE [Strb. 6.1.15], according to which Daulios, the tyrant of Crissa, was the one who colonized Metapontum in S. Italy. This possibly as an echo of the Homeric Crissa. All these seem underlining at least a rumor about Crissa as a local sea power in more ancient times. Thus, as it doesn't seem that rational two independent strong harbors, Crissa & Cirrha, existing in the same small gulf south of Delphi, either Crissa was itself the harbor, or Cirrha was Crissa's harbor, or at least Crissa was controlling the shores nearby including Cirrha, too.

Perhaps similar approaches led to an identification between Crissa & Cirrha, as different names for the same location. First to do so seems to be Pausanias [Paus. 10.37.5 = text 18], while later Stephanus of Byzantium of the 6th c. CE, in his geographical dictionary 'Ethnica' [Ἐθνικά], mentions the possibility. And in the 12th c. CE Eustathius of Thessalonica, in his commentary on Homer's Iliad [Eust.Il B v.520], justified the identification etymologically, as one name being derived from the other; Crissa probably being more ancient.

The bare Cirrhean/Crissean plain in Pausanias          up

In a following excerpt [text 18], where we'll read Pausanias narrating our story of the siege of Cirrha/Crissa, there's also an interesting geographical description around the Cirrhean/Crissean plain...

Text 11: Pausanias, 10.37.5

[5] τὸ δὲ πεδίον τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς Κίρρας ψιλόν ἐστιν ἅπαν, καὶ φυτεύειν δένδρα οὐκ ἐθέλουσιν ἢ ἔκ τινος ἀρᾶς ἢ ἀχρεῖον τὴν γῆν ἐς δένδρων τροφὴν εἰδότες.

[5] And the whole plain from Cirrha is bare, and they aren't willing to plant trees, either cause of a curse, or cause they know that the land is useless as food to trees.

Pausanias, in the 2nd c. CE, says that the Cirrhean plain in front of the city was bare [=ψιλόν]; probably describing the image of his time. So what exactly does he mean?

Bare [=ψιλός] is an adjective, that, when used around agriculture, hasn't 100% clear meaning. It can signify a clean by plants plain; this based on the word itself. But the same word has been used, since at least the 4th c. BCE, as a kind of agriculture. We can read Aristotle [Pol. 1.1258b] distiguishing between bare [=ψιλή] and planted [=πεφυτευμένη] agriculture; similarly does Demosthenes [Dem. 20.115]. This agricultural distinction can be understood more easily by Pausanias, as this bare plain is opposed to a tree-full. The distinction with this meaning is existing already since 4th c. BCE, as said by Theophrastus [CP 3.20.1], and by Xenophon [Xen. Hunt. 5.7]. But what is meant by 'tree'?

Theophrastus, speaking around agriculture, is contrasting trees to grain, mainly based on the size and depth of the roots [CP 2.4.2-3]. Xenophon is referring to the woody matter [=ὑλώδης]. Theophrastus, giving examples, isn't mentioning only trees like olives and oaks, but also bushes and vines. Thus, by bare plain it could be meant a tree-less one; either truly bare or with grass and grain. Pausanias is trying to explain this tree-less situation either by the inhabitants' choice or by the incapability of the ground. So more possibly he's seeing some plants on. Rational, as in any case a river [Pleistos] was flowing through. Fact that maybe is confirmed by Strabo [text 09], when he's calling the plain 'blessed' [=εὔδαιμον]; a word that could mean sometimes wealthy, so maybe fertile, though here it's maybe a reference to the Delphian sanctity.

All these seem agreeing with what Aeschines was saying earlier about the dedication of the land [text 02]; i.e. a fertile land non-cultivated. And it's maybe in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, that this situation is possibly underlined. The hymn, in its second part, describes how god Apollo came into the area of Delphi, and established his cult and temple. So reaching with a Cretan ship into the bay of Crissa...

Text 12: Homeric hymn to Apollo [HH 03], 438-439

ἷξον δ᾽ ἐς Κρίσην εὐδείελον, ἀμπελόεσσαν, ἐς λιμέν᾽

and they reached to far-seen Crissa, rich in vines, to the harbor

In the hymn Crissa, at Apollo's arrival, is inhabited and full of vines [=ἀμπελόεσσαν]; not bare. Cause as we saw vines were considered as trees by the ancient Greeks [eg. Theophr. CP 2.4.2-3], while cultivation is implied. If we apply plausibly this vine-appearance to the whole plain, and not just inside the city, there's a clear contradiction.

This geographical definition becomes more intense with the following lines of the hymn, where the land of the shrine at Parnassus [next to Crissa] is said that on the contrary couldn't be cultivated; restricting this 'rich in vines' only to the previous Crissa's land and plain. More specifically, after Apollo's arrival at Crissa, he ascribed religious duties to the Cretan sailors and led them at his shrine to Delphi at Parnassus mountain. There they asked the god how they should live...

Text 13: Homeric hymn to Apollo [HH 03], 528-530

πῶς καὶ νῦν βιόμεσθα; τό σε φράζεσθαι ἄνωγμεν. οὔτε τρυγηφόρος ἥδε γ᾽ ἐπήρατος οὔτ᾽ εὐλείμων, ὥστ᾽ ἀπό τ᾽ εὖ ζώειν καὶ ἅμ᾽ ἀνθρώποισιν ὀπάζειν.

And now how we [should] live? We urge you to consider. This lovable [land] at least [is] neither fruit-bearing, nor with good meadows, so that by them we live well and at the same time to provide to people.

The place to which the Cretans are referring now, is almost unquestionably only the Delphi site at Parnassus mountain. The adjective 'lovable' [=ἐπήρατος] is indicative; as few lines above [v. 521] was used to describe this specific place again, without including Crissa. Thus there's a contrast. At the time of the hymn, the shrine's site can't produce anything, while Crissa, next to it, is 'rich in vines'.

During the Pausanias' years the Crissean plain is, however, bare. Nevertheless, he does mention vines in an area about 20 kms to the east [near Amvrossos, today's Distomo: Paus. 10.36.1], but also a local wine-legend of the western lands [Paus. 10.38.1]. So vines weren't foreign to those places. Something should have happened between the hymn's time and the one of Pausanias. The dedication of the land to god could explain some parts. So the date range could be narrowed between the hymn and the years of Aeshcines [4th c. BCE: text 02], when probalby the land was considered uncultivated and dedicated.

The dating of the hymn is under question. However, it's considered ancient enough. The time of the 1st sacred war [590 BCE ca] and the following Pythian games have been set as a terminus ante quem by most of the authors [eg. West [2003], p. 10, Allen & Sikes [1904], p. 67, Evelyn-White [1914], p. xxxvii].

fig. 06: Top view of the area with the approximate locations of the cities, via google earth

The use of hellebore          up

Since the 1st c. CE at least, our war story is attached to hellebore, an endemic poisonous plant that was used for the pollution of the water supplies of the besieged city. Noteworthy that this aspect seems firstly appearing in Roman sources [text 14]. However, there's an earlier greek version, that, while it didn't include specifically the plant of hellebore, could be the base [text 19]. In any case in the four surviving versions, the man, who thought this trick, was different. Fact that maybe underlines the claims for broader interference in this warfare, possibly cause the oracle of Delphi was a panhellenic one.

Sextus Julius Frontinus, 1st c. CE [Cleisthenes as mastermind]          up

Frontinus, a Roman civil-engineer, soldier and senator of the late 1st c. BCE, seems to be of the first of the surviving sources that mentioned the use of hellebore...

Text 14: Frontinus, Stratagems, III, 7.6

Clisthenes Sicyonius ductum aquarum in oppidum Crisaeorum ferentem rupit; mox adfectis siti restituit aquam elleboro corruptam, qua usos profluvio ventris deficientes cepit.

Clesthenes of Sicyon cut the water-channel leading into the town of the Crisseans; then when [Crisseans] were weakened by thirst, he restores the water poisoned with hellebore, which after [Crisseans] using it, exhausted by diarrhea of stomach, he captured them.

Two points: Firstly it's the first mention of Clesthenes, the tyrant of Sicyon. And it's noteworthy that Sicyon wasn't considered part of the Amphictyonic league. However, Sicyon could be considered a nearby rival of Cirrha/Crissa, since it could control the same waters of the Corinthian gulf, but from the south [check map on up-right of fig. 06 above]. Secondly Frontinus the author was Roman.

Frontinus was a civil-engineer and this excerpt comes from his work Strategems; thus maybe being faithful to history wasn't his prime concern. Something that should be taken in account and for the Polyaenus' excerpts, below [texts 16 & 17]. Nevertheless, Frontinus' chief work was De aquaeductu, on the aqueducts of Rome. Perhaps this indicates some special knowledge on history details, such as the water-poisoning of our story; or at least a thought on these aspects.

The said effect of this trick was diarrhea. Frontinus could have this medical knowledge by his contemporary Roman Pliny the Elder [below text 21]. But though in the end it proved effective, it sounds really lesser, if not funny. Maybe it was a way to highlight this war-trick, without derogating the dignity and the integrity of the besiegers. And it's an aspect that Romans seem that cared about. Lucius Annaeus Florus, a roman historian of the 1st-2nd c. CE, wrote an epitome of Livy's history. In a chapter on a revolt in Asia minor in 129 BCE ca [unfortunately not surviving in the more detailed Livy's history], Florus described how Aristonicus, pretender to the throne of Pergamon, was defeated by the Romans and how Roman consul Manius Aquillius put an end at this war, conquering the last rebellious cities.

Text 15: Florus, History's epitome, 1.35 [alternate numbering: 3.1]

Aquilius Asiatici belli reliquias confecit, mixtis - nefas - veneno fontibus ad deditionem quarundam urbium. Quae res ut maturam, ita infamem fecit victoriam, quippe cum contra fas deum moresque maiorum medicaminibus inpuris in id tempus sacrosancta Romana arma violasset.

Aquilius killed the survivors of the Asian war, after mixing - wrongly - the water-springs with poison for the surrender of some certain cities. Event that made the victory so early, yet infamous, since probably, against the divine laws and the ways of the ancestors, with filthy drugs, had defiled the sacred till that time Roman arms.

Probably the water poisoning as a war means wasn't considered that moral. However there's an instance at the translation that needs attention. I translated the 'Asiatici belli reliquias confecit' as 'killed the survivors of the Asian war'. Alternatively it has been given as 'brought the Asiatic war to a close' [Forster [1929], p. 161]. My translation seems more literal and accurate, but I can't insist.

I chose this translation based on the story's meaning. But also on the fact that the object of the verb 'confecit' [=complete or kill/destroy] is the 'reliquias' that can be translated as 'remnants' or 'survivors', and not the 'Asiatic war'. Thus with accurate approach, either we have 'kill the survivors of the Asiatic war' or 'complete the remnants of the Asiatic war'.

Polyaenus, 2nd c. CE [Eurylochus as mastermind]          up

Polyaenus, a little later, gave his own perspective of the story in his Strategems.

Text 16: Polyaenus, Strategems, 6.13

Ἀμφικτύονες Κίρραν ἐπολιόρκουν καὶ δὴ κρυπτὸν ὑπόνομον εὗρον ἄγοντα ναματιαῖον ὕδωρ πολύ· καὶ τῇ Εὐρυλόχου γνώμῃ συλλέξαντες Ἀντικύραθεν πολὺ πλῆθος ἑλλεβόρου κατέμιξαν τῷ ὕδατι. Κιρραῖοι πιόντες διαφθείρονται τὰς γαστέρας καὶ πάντες ἐκλυθέντες ἔκειντο· Ἀμφικτύονες ἀπονητὶ τὴν πόλιν ἔλαβον κειμένων τῶν πολεμίων.

The Amphictyons were besieging Cirrha and discovered a secret sewer, that was bringing much flowing water· and after they, on Eurylochus' advice, gathered from Anticyra a great quantity of hellebore, they mixed it with the water. When Cirrheans drank it, they ruined their abdomens and everyone was lying, being set free· Amphictyons, without fatigue, took the city, while the enemies were lying.

The most probable translation of the 'ἐκλυθέντες' is 'being set free', but it's a verb that has been used for 'setting free the abdomen' as a medical term [Diosc. 4.169]. Obviously here, too. The war image has become funny enough. In fact the Amphictyons took the city, while the besieged Cirrheans were in the restroom.

Here the mastermind is Eurylochus, probably the Thessalean general for whom we've read in Strabo [text 09]. However Polyaenus wrote about Cleisthenes of Sicyon, too, but in an alternate story regarding somehow the oracle.

Text 17: Polyaenus, Strategems, 3.5

Κλεισθένης Κίρραν ἐπολιόρκει. μάντευμα ἦν Κιρραίοις, ἀνάλωτον ἔσεσθαι τὴν πόλιν, ἕως ἂν ψαύσῃ τῆς Κιρραίας γῆς ἡ θάλαττα. οἱ μὲν Κιρραῖοι κατεφρόνουν πλεῖστον ἀπέχοντες θαλάττης. ἡ δὲ Κίρρα γῆς ἱερᾶς ἔψαυε καθηκούσης ἐπὶ θάλατταν. ὁ Κλεισθένης τὸ μαντεῖον μαθὼν καθιέρωσε τῷ θεῷ τήν τε πόλιν καὶ τὴν χώραν τὴν Κιρραίαν, ἵνα πᾶσα ἱερὰ γενομένη κατὰ τὸν χρησμὸν ψαύσειε τῆς θαλάττης. τοῦτο πράξας ἐκράτησεν καὶ ἀνέθηκε τὴν χώραν τῷ θεῷ.

Cleisthenes was besieging Cirrha. Cirrheans received oracle, that the city will remain invincible, until the sea would touch the Cirrhean land. And Cirrheans were disdainful cause were far from sea. And Cirrha was bordering with a sacred land, which was going down to sea. Cleisthenes, when learned the prophecy, dedicated to god the city and the Cirrhean land, so that the whole [land], being sacred, to touch the sea, according to the oracle. After doing this, he dominated and devoted the land to god.

It's the first and only text I've read, saying that Cirrha wasn't built by the sea. And in fact it gives an alternate version of the Delphian oracle, different from the one given by Diodorus [text 08]. It's really possible that here emphasis is given to the stratagem itself, ignoring or altering history.

The really old translation of Shepherd [1793], that is reproduced in web, is probably influenced by the rest ancient sources. And he is giving this specific excerpt with the attributes of the lands being reversed; the Cirrhean being on the shores, the sacred not, as all the rest ancient authors did. However, Polyaenus clearly says that the Cirrhean land wasn't by the sea, while on the contrary the sacred land was.

Pausanias, 2nd c. CE [Solon as mastermind]          up

Pausanias gave a more detailed account, but this time Solon was the man behind the plan; as in Aeschines [text 02].

Text 18: Pausanias, 10.37.5-8

[5] τὸ δὲ πεδίον τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς Κίρρας ψιλόν ἐστιν ἅπαν, καὶ φυτεύειν δένδρα οὐκ ἐθέλουσιν ἢ ἔκ τινος ἀρᾶς ἢ ἀχρεῖον τὴν γῆν ἐς δένδρων τροφὴν εἰδότες. λέγεται δὲ ἐς τὴν Κίρραν... καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Κίρρας τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν τεθῆναι τῷ χωρίῳ φασίν. Ὅμηρος μέντοι Κρῖσαν ἔν τε Ἰλιάδι ὁμοίως καὶ ὕμνῳ τῷ ἐς Ἀπόλλωνα ὀνόματι τῷ ἐξ ἀρχῆς καλεῖ τὴν πόλιν. χρόνῳ δὲ ὕστερον οἱ ἐν τῇ Κίρρᾳ ἄλλα τε ἠσέβησαν ἐς τὸν Ἀπόλλωνα καὶ ἀπέτεμνον τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς χώρας. [6] πολεμεῖν οὖν πρὸς τοὺς Κιρραίους ἔδοξεν Ἀμφικτύοσι, καὶ Κλεισθένην τε Σικυωνίων τυραννοῦντα προεστήσαντο ἡγεμόνα εἶναι καὶ Σόλωνα ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν ἐπηγάγοντο συμβουλεύειν: χρωμένοις δέ σφισιν ὑπὲρ νίκης ἀνεῖπεν ἡ Πυθία: “οὐ πρὶν τῆσδε πόληος ἐρείψετε πύργον ἑλόντες, πρίν κεν ἐμῷ τεμένει κυανώπιδος Ἀμφιτρίτης κῦμα ποτικλύζῃ κελαδοῦν ἐπὶ οἴνοπα πόντον.” ἔπεισεν οὖν ὁ Σόλων καθιερῶσαι τῷ θεῷ τὴν Κιρραίαν, ἵνα δὴ τῷ τεμένει τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος γένηται γείτων ἡ θάλασσα. [7] εὑρέθη δὲ καὶ ἕτερον τῷ Σόλωνι σόφισμα ἐς τοὺς Κιρραίους: τοῦ γὰρ Πλείστου τὸ ὕδωρ ῥέον διὰ ὀχετοῦ σφισιν ἐς τὴν πόλιν ἀπέστρεψεν ἀλλαχόσε ὁ Σόλων. καὶ οἱ μὲν πρὸς τοὺς πολιορκοῦντας ἔτι ἀντεῖχον ἔκ τε φρεάτων καὶ ὕδωρ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ πίνοντες: ὁ δὲ τοῦ ἐλλεβόρου τὰς ῥίζας ἐμβαλὼν ἐς τὸν Πλεῖστον, ἐπειδὴ ἱκανῶς τοῦ φαρμάκου τὸ ὕδωρ ᾔσθετο ἔχον, ἀπέστρεψεν αὖθις ἐς τὸν ὀχετόν. καὶ - ἐνεφορήσαντο γὰρ ἀνέδην οἱ Κιρραῖοι τοῦ ὕδατος - καὶ οἱ μὲν ὑπὸ ἀπαύστου τῆς διαρροίας ἐξέλιπον οἱ ἐπὶ τοῦ τείχους τὴν φρουράν, [8] Ἀμφικτύονες δὲ ὡς εἷλον τὴν πόλιν, ἐπράξαντο ὑπὲρ τοῦ θεοῦ δίκας παρὰ Κιρραίων, καὶ ἐπίνειον Δελφῶν ἐστιν ἡ Κίρρα.

[5] And the whole plain from Cirrha is bare, and they aren't willing to plant trees, either cause of a curse, or cause they know that the land is useless as food to trees. And it's said in Cirrha... and they say that the name of our time was given to the place from Cirrha. Homer, however, calls the city by the ancient name Crissa, in Iliad and similarly in the hymn to Apollo. Afterwards Cirrheans committed some other sacrilege against Apollo and cut off the land from god. [6] So Amphictyons decided to fight against Cirrheans, and they put Cleisthenes, the tyrant of Sicyoneans, to be the leader, and brought over Solon from Athens to advise. And Pythia announced to them, after they consulted [her] about victory: "not before you throw down the tower of this city after taking it, before the wave of dark-eyed Amphitrite is washing Apollo's shrine singing over the wine-dark sea". So Solon persuaded them to dedicate the Cirrhean [land] to the god, in order that the sea becomes neighbor to the shrine of Apollo. [7] and it was found by Solon and some other trick against Cirrheans: Solon diverted in some other direction the water of Pleistos [river], that was flowing along a channel [: or water-pipe] in their city. And they still held out against the besiegers, drinking the water from wells and from god [=rain]. and he, after throwing the hellebore roots in Pleistos [river], diverted back again in the channel the water, cause he understood that it had sufficient amount of the drug. And, because Cirrheans were filled freely with water, the ones on the wall-guard deserted [their posts] cause of unending diarrhea, [8] and Amphictyons, when they captured the city, demanded justice from the Cirrheans on behalf of the god, and Cirrha becomes the haven of Delphi.

Besides the name of the inventor, the story doesn't disagree with the previous ones. However he also mentions the name of Cleisthenes of Sicyon as the military leader, who, according to Pausanias won at chariot races during the Pythian games of 582 BCE ca [Paus. 10.7.6]. One more notable thing is that Cirrha exists in Pausanias' years, as the haven of Delphi. In Strabo of the 1st c. BCE [text 09] is destroyed, as the city and the harbor in Aeschines' version of the 4th c. BCE [text 02].

Thessalus' Ambassadorial, 3rd c. BCE. The base of the tale? [Nevros as mastermind]          up

There's an Ambassadorial speech of Thessalus, son of the famous Hippocrates, who represented the island of Cos in front of Athens. The implied date seems to be the 407 BCE, however already since 1839 the speech has been proved as spurious [Littré [1839], vol. 1, p. 433], with main arguments some anachronisms. The suggested true dates for the composition of this speech seem ranging between 366 BCE and 60 CE ca. [Nelson [2002], p. 211, who suggests the mid 3rd c. BCE].

It's maybe what it could be called the base of our poisoning tale, but a little vaguer. Thus I chose to present it in the end of this group.

In any case, in this speech Thessalus tries to remind to the Atheneans some helpful contributions that had come from the island of Cos. The earliest was the decisive interference of some notable Coans in the 1st sacred war.

According to this version, Crisseans, wealthy and powerful, were controlling the area nearby the Delphic oracle, but took advantage of their position, commiting roberries and abductions and generally being impious against god Apollo. Amphictyons decided to react, and though won the war, they commited atrocities in turn; actions that weren't unpunished by god Apollo. They suffered many casualties. Additionally a big city [without name] was still resisting, and as it was under siege, but untaken, Amphictyons had to deal with a plague, too. So they asked for an oracle, that advised them to go to Cos island asking for specific help; and Coans responded sending among others Nevros, an ancestor of Hippocrates and Thessalus, doctor, too...

Text 19: Thessalus' Ambassadorial speech, text as found in Littré [1839], vol. 9, p. 404ff

Ὅτε δ’ οὖν ἀφίκοντο οὗτοι οἱ ἄνδρες οὗ τὸ στρατόπεδον ἐπετελεῖτο, ὁ θεὸς ἔχαιρεν· οἵ τε γὰρ θάνατοι τῶν στρατιωτῶν ἔληξαν, καὶ θείῃ τύχῃ ἵππου τοῦ Εὐρυλόχου, ὃς ἡγεῖτο τοῦ πολέμου Θεσσαλὸς ἐὼν καὶ ἄνωθεν ἐξ Ἡρακλειδῶν, κρούσαντος τὸν σωλῆνα τῇ ὁπλῇ, δι’ οὗ τὸ ὕδωρ ἤγετο ἐς τὸ τεῖχος, ὁκότε διακονίεσθαι ἤθελεν, Νεβρὸς φαρμάκοισιν ἐμίηνε τὸ ὕδωρ· ἔνθεν αἱ κοιλίαι τῶν Κρισαίων ἐφθάρησαν, καὶ μεγάλα δή τι ξυνεβάλετο πρὸς τὸ ἁλῶναι τὴν πόλιν·

So when these men [including Nevros] reached where the army [of the Amphictyons] was waging [war], the god was happy· as the deaths of the soldiers stopped. And when, by divine luck, the horse of Eurylochus - who was the leader in the war, being Thessalean and descendant of Heracleides - [it], willing to roll in the dust, struck with the hoof the pipe, by which the water was led in the wall, Nevros polluted the water with drugs· thence the abdomens of the Crisseans were ruined, and it contributed very much for the capture of the city·

The story is given more dramatized here. Noticeable that Eurylochus of Thessaly has some part, like in Strabo [text 09] and Polyaenus [text 16]; is this indicating a later non-Athenean source? But now Nevros from the Cos island is the mastermind, underlining maybe the broader embracement of the story by more places. I can't know what the true dating is, but the speech's title is mentioned in 60 CE ca by Erotianus for the first time [Τῶν παρ' Ἱπποκράτει Λέξεων Συναγωγή]. While this story version seems to be known by Stephanus of Byzantium of the 6th c. CE...

Text 20: Stephanus of Byzantium, 'Ethnica' [=Ἐθνικά] - Cos [=Κῶς]

ἦν δὲ Ἱπποκράτης τῶν καλουμένων Νεβριδῶν· Νέβρος γὰρ ἐγένετο ὁ διασημότατος τῶν Ἀσκληπιαδῶν, ᾧ καὶ ἡ Πυθία ἐμαρτύρησεν·

And Hippocrates was of the [family of] the so-called Nevrides· cause Nevros became the most famous of the Asclepiads [=doctors, from Asclepius], whom even [oracle] Pythia praised·

One more notable thing of the so-called version of Thessalus [text 19] is the medical details. We don't have the effect of 'diarrhea', however, the 'abdomens were ruined'. More important seems that it's not given the name of a specific drug with which the water was polluted. In the rest versions it's hellebore, an endemic plant in the areas of Delphi. Quite strange; as it would be expected such a clarification by a doctor belonging in the Hippocratic medicine school, that favored science over 'magic'.

Thus there's a strong possibility that the author wasn't a doctor. But the question remains: Was this version of the early, that fed the later ones, and gave space for the hellebore importing? Or a later one that omitted this element, cause it could be considered foreign to the Cos island?

Whatever the case is, there's a strong coincidence. When Roman Frontinus seemed to be the first writing about hellebore in the 1st c. CE [text 14], his contemporary Roman Pliny the Elder was giving its medical effects [below text 21], while his possibly contemporary Erotianus was making known to the Roman world the Hippocratic writings, including this speech [text 19].

The Black Hellebore          up

Already since 4th c. BCE the region around Delphi was known for the hellebore, a plant used for purification. Theophrastus [HP 9.10] is describing two kinds, the white and the black growing in the area; a distinction possibly based on the root-color, while the latter is mentioned as fatal to specific animals. However, he is reproducing sayings and teachings from other unattributed material, as he's noting; that don't seem to agree in everything. While the said cleansing-purification isn't described sufficiently. Roman Pliny the Elder of the 1st c. CE, possibly used as base the Theophrastus' essays, but offered a really enriched version; with some decisive details...

Text 21: Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia, 25.21

nigrum alii ectomon vocant, alii polyrrhizon. purgat per inferna, candidum autem vomitione...

Others call the black [hellebore] 'ectomon' [=cut off (gr)], others 'polyrrhizon'[=with many roots (gr)]. It purges through the abdomen, while the white by vomiting...

As in our story hellebore caused diarrhea to the besieged [texts 14, 16, 18], or even simply ruined the abdomens [text 19], it therefore was more possibly the black hellebore, that was used. However, Pliny still doesn't give a clear description. Dioscourides, of the same century, seems more detailed, confirming the plants' effects.

Text 22: Dioscourides, De materia medica [Περὶ ὕλης ἰατρικῆς], IV.162

[1] ἐλλέβορος μέλας, οἱ δὲ Μελαμπόδιον, οἱ δὲ ἔκτομον, οἱ δὲ πολύρριζον καλοῦσι· Μελαμπόδιον δέ, ἐπειδὴ δοκεῖ Μελάμπους τις αἰπόλος τὰς Προίτου θυγατέρας μανείσας αὐτῷ καθῆραι καὶ θεραπεῦσαι. ἔχει δὲ τὰ φύλλα χλωρά, πλατάνῳ προσεμφερῆ, ἐλάττονα δὲ πρὸς τὰ τοῦ σφονδυλίου καὶ πολυσχιδέστερα καὶ μελάντερα καὶ ὑποτραχέα· καυλὸς βραχύς, ἄνθη δὲ λευκά, ἐμπόρφυρα, τῷ δὲ σχήματι βοτρυοειδῆ, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ καρπὸς κνήκῳ παραπλήσιος, ὃν καὶ αὐτὸν καλοῦσιν οἱ ἐν Ἀντικύρᾳ σησαμοειδές, χρώμενοι πρὸς τὰς καθάρσεις αὐτῷ· ῥίζαι δὲ μέλαιναι, λεπταί, οἱονεὶ ἀπό τινος κεφαλίου κρομυώδους ἠρτημέναι, ὧν καὶ ἡ χρῆσις· φύεται ἐν τραχέσι καὶ γεωλόφοις [2] καὶ καταξήροις τόποις. καὶ ἔστιν ἄριστος ὁ ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων λαμβανόμενος χωρίων, οἷός ἐστιν ὁ ἐξ Ἀντικύρας· καὶ γὰρ ὁ μέλας κάλλιστος ἐν αὐτῇ γεννᾶται. ἐκλέγου δὲ τὸν εὔτροφον καὶ εὔσαρκον, λεπτὴν ἔχοντα τὴν ἐντεριώνην, δριμὺν ἐν τῇ γεύσει καὶ πυρώδη· τοιοῦτος δ' ἐστὶν ὁ ἐν τῷ Ἑλικῶνι καὶ Παρνασσῷ καὶ ‹ἐν› Αἰτωλίᾳ φυόμενος, διαφέρει μέντοι ὁ Ἑλικώνιος. καθαίρει δὲ τὴν κάτω κοιλίαν ἄγων φλέγμα καὶ χολὴν καθ' ἑαυτὸν ἢ μετὰ σκαμμωνίας καὶ ἁλῶν διδόμενος δραχμῆς μιᾶς ἢ τριωβόλου ὁλκή

[1] The black hellbore, some are calling it Melampodion [=blackfoot], some ectomon, some polyrrhizon· and [is called] Melampodion, cause it seems that some Melanpous, shepherd, purged and healed with it the frantic daughters of Proitos. It has green leaves, resembling to plane-tree, but smaller like the ones of sphondylium, with more cuts, darker and somewhat rough· the stem is short, and the flowers, white, inclining to purple, like grapes regarding the shape, and in it the seed like cnicus, which itself the Anticyreans are calling 'like-sesame', using it for purifications· and the roots [are] dark, thin, hanging as if by some onion-like head, of which [there's] also use· it grows on rough, high, [2] very dry places. and the one that is received from such spots is the best, such it's the one from Antycyra· cause the best black [hellebore] grows in there. Choose the well-nourished and fleshy, that has a thin pith, with sharp and fiery taste· such is the one that grows in Helicon [mountain] and Parnassus and Aetolia, but the one from Helicon makes a difference. It purges the down-abdomen, bringing phlegm and bile, given alone or with scammony and salts of one or half the weight of drachm

Dioscourides' treatise survived as a principal medical book for centuries, and happily has some early examples in illuminated manuscripts. According to what we see [fig. 07] and in comparison with the possible real plants below [fig. 08 & 09], the illustrations probably were made after the Dioscourides' description and not from personal knowledge.

fig. 07: left: Vien Cod. Med. gr. 1, early 6th c., fol. 115v. mid: codex Dioscurides Neapolitanus [MS Suppl. gr. 28], early 7th c., f. 73r. right: BNF Grec 2179, 9th c., f. 132r

It's however a little unclear what plants were meant.

The white hellebore of ancients has been identified with Veratrum album, not actually belonging to the Hellebore family as we're classifying them nowadays. I had read no objections in relevant treatises since at least 1753 [Linnaeus [1753], v2, p. 1044]. The black one, that interests us, is maybe a problem.

According to the Hellenic Botanical Society, the only species of hellebore that can be seen in Greece's nature nowadays is the one of Helleborus cyclophyllus, already described since 1867 [Boissier, [1867], v1, p. 61].

fig. 08: Helleborus cyclophyllus, photo by Kostas Zontanos in gbif. Check also http://floramirabilis.blogspot.com/2012/03/helleborus-cyclophyllus.html

However the Hellenic Botanical Society seems arguing against the existence in Greece of another kind, this of Helleborus orientalis; quite close to the one of cyclophyllus. Probably cause since 1789 it had been presented as an endemic plant of the regions that interest us [Lamarck & Poiret [1789], v3, p. 96 (3)]; but possibly now it can't be found. And in fact it resembles more to the Dioscourides' description [text 22]; as the flower is white to purple, not green as cyclophyllus.

fig. 09: Helleborus orientalis, photo by Roelof Wiegers in gbif, and generally examples in gbif

It's possible that this flower, or some variety of it, existed in Greece but became extinct.

Water supplies and the besieged city: an overview          up

The Thessalus' ambassadorial speech [text 19], is also giving a detail about the besieged city, though without name.

Text 23: Thessalus' Ambassadorial speech, text as found in Littré [1839], vol. 9, p. 404ff

Ἦν δέ σφι πόλις ἐγγὺς τούτου τοῦ τόπου μεγίστη, ὅκου νῦν ὁ ἱππικὸς ἀγὼν τίθεται...

And they [=Crisseans] had near that land, a city, the biggest, where now the horserace is taking place

At the time of the composition of the speech the besieged city seems not existing; at its place there's the hippodrome of the Pythian games. It seems that follows the version of Aeschines [text 02] and Strabo [text 09] where the besieged cities were destroyed. It's a little unclear if Strabo [text 09] sees a continuity with a still standing town, as the verb-tense that he's using is perfect. Pausanias however does [text 18].

As we've seen previously in some versions, the siege of this city seems being accomplished with unorthodox means. Generally, the water supplies of the besieged were a target during ancient warfare; but mainly aiming to thirst and exhaustion, not poisoning. Thucydides is mentioning such a tactic during the siege of Syracuse in 414 - 413 BCE, where Atheneans destroyed the water-pipes of the besieged, that in fact were underground [Thuc. 6.100.1]. During the siege of Uxellodunum in 51 BCE, Julius Caesar made difficult, with military tactics, the approach of the defenders to the local river [Caes. Gal. 8.40].

But maybe this tactic was considered cruel.

Aeschines, in 343 BCE ca, is giving the content of the first pact of the Amphictyonic league.

Text 24: Aeschines, On the False Embassy, 2.115

ἅμα δ᾽ ἐξ ἀρχῆς διεξῆλθον τὴν κτίσιν τοῦ ἱεροῦ καὶ τὴν πρώτην σύνοδον γενομένην τῶν Ἀμφικτυόνων, καὶ τοὺς ὅρκους αὐτῶν ἀνέγνων, ἐν οἷς ἔνορκον ἦν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, μηδεμίαν πόλιν τῶν Ἀμφικτυονίδων ἀνάστατον ποιήσειν, μηδ᾽ ὑδάτων ναματιαίων εἴρξειν μήτ᾽ ἐν πολέμῳ μήτ᾽ ἐν εἰρήνῃ, ἐὰν δέ τις ταῦτα παραβῇ, στρατεύσειν ἐπὶ τοῦτον καὶ τὰς πόλεις ἀναστήσειν, καὶ ἐάν τις ἢ συλᾷ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἢ συνειδῇ τι, ἢ βουλεύσῃ τι κατὰ τῶν ἱερῶν, τιμωρήσειν καὶ χειρὶ καὶ ποδὶ καὶ φωνῇ καὶ πάσῃ δυνάμει: καὶ προσῆν τῷ ὅρκῳ ἀρὰ ἰσχυρά.

And at the same time I went through the founding of the shrine and the first synod that made the Amphictyons, and I read their oaths, in which the ancient [people] swore, that they will not ruin any city of the Amphicyonids, nor shut them out from flowing waters, neither in war nor in peace and that, if anyone violate these [oaths], they [swore that] will march against him and ruin the cities, and that, if anyone either plunders the god's things, or participates somehow, or plans anything against the shrines, they will punish [him] with hand and foot and voice and every force: and a strong curse was added to the oath.

Two war tactics could interest us here, as an ancient primitive law of war; the total destruction of a city and the water supplies of the besieged. Tactics that were prevented even in war between the Amphictyons. Nevertheless, both were applied somehow in the case of Cirrha/Crissa; it's quite a coincidence. Is here Aeschines tries to explain the Cirrha's destruction, by the violation of Amphictyons' duties? Maybe close, but perhaps there's something else.

In this excerpt [text 24] we're reading about oaths, followed by curse, made by the amphictyons; and accompanied by the expression 'with hand and foot and voice and every force'. This expression is found in another later speech of Aeschines, in an excerpt folowing the one of text 02. More specifically, after Aeschines' narration about the dedication of Cirrha's land to god Apollo by the amphictyons, he writes:

Text 25: Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon, 3.109-112

109 καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις ὅρκον ὤμοσαν ἰσχυρόν, μήτ᾽ αὐτοὶ τὴν ἱερὰν γῆν ἐργάσεσθαι μήτ᾽ ἄλλῳ ἐπιτρέψειν, ἀλλὰ βοηθήσειν τῷ θεῷ καὶ τῇ γῇ τῇ ἱερᾷ καὶ χειρὶ καὶ ποδὶ καὶ φωνῇ καὶ πάσῃ δυνάμει. 110 καὶ οὐκ ἀπέχρησεν αὐτοῖς τοῦτον τὸν ὅρκον ὀμόσαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ προστροπὴν καὶ ἀρὰν ἰσχυρὰν ὑπὲρ τούτων ἐποιήσαντο. γέγραπται γὰρ οὕτως ἐν τῇ ἀρᾷ, ‘εἴ τις τάδε,’ φησί, ‘παραβαίνοι ἢ πόλις ἤ ἰδιώτης ἢ ἔθνος, ἐναγής,’ φησίν, ‘ἔστω τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος καὶ τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος καὶ τῆς Λητοῦς καὶ Ἀθηνᾶς Προναίας.’

109 and on these they [=Amphictyons] swore a strong oath, that they won't cultivate the sacred land themselves nor will allow other, but will come to god's aid and of the sacred land, with hand and foot and voice and every force. 110 and it wasn't enough to them to take this oath, but they also added invocation and strong curse for them. and such is written in the curse 'if anyone violates these' it says 'either city or citizen or nation, let him be under curse', it says 'by Apollo and Artemis and Leto and Athena Pronaea.'

It's again quite a coincidence, using, in speeches for similar matters, the exact same expressions as 'oaths', 'curse' and 'with hand and foot and voice and every force', and all around events of the 1st sacred war; unless they are identified. The most probable.

If that's the case, it's noteworthy that, according to text 24, these oaths and curses were made on the foundation of the Amphictyony, while on text 25 on the occasion of Cirrha's siege and the dedication of the land. It seems that in Aeschines' mind, these two events could be the same. Though there were stories about the legendary foundation of the Delphic Amphictyony [eg. Strabo 9.3.7], there's nothing in historiography before this 1st sacred war.

If we combine these with the approach, that was tried above on the possible limited locality of the war [texts 05, 06, 07], it's really possible that these oaths and restrictions came afterwards to justify a local destructive war, restricting the winner and creating an alliance over the Delphic matters, as they were of broader interest.

Later or dubious accounts. Medieval comments on Pindar          up

Lyric poet Pindar of the 6th c. BCE praised the victories achieved within the ancient gymnic games. In medieval transcriptions, these poems were followed by comments; and regarding the Pythian games, as it would be expected, there were versions referring to this 1st sacred war with Cirrha. What we could see as common, is that the use of hellebore has been forgotten, while the surviving names are these of Eurylochus and Cleisthenes. And besides these there's doubt regarding the sources that the commentators used...

fig. 10: The charioteer of Delphi, 470 BCE ca, now in Archaeological Museum of Delphi, via wikicommons

The hypothesis of the Pythian games & Euphorion          up

Where the Pindar's poems on Pythian games were presented in commented medieval manuscripts, there was an introductory paragraph, by the commentator, describing the birth of the games. These comments have been divided in four groups. In two [a, c] the birth is attributed to Apollo, in the other two [b, d] is based on the 1st sacred war. The latter are having almost identical content. Here it's Eurylochus that established the Pythian games...

Text 26: b. version of hypothesis of Pythian games, as in Drachmann [1964], vol2, p. 3

(β) ἄλλως· ἡ ὑπόθεσις τῶν Πυθίων. Εὐρύλοχος ὁ Θεσσαλὸς καταπολεμήσας Κιρραίους ἀνεκτήσατο τὸν ἀγῶνα τοῦ θεοῦ· οἱ δὲ Κιρραῖοι λῃστρικῇ ἐφόδῳ χρώμενοι ἐφόνευον τοὺς παραβάλλοντας εἰς τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ. περιεγένετο δὲ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Ἀθήνησι μὲν Σιμωνίδου, Δελφοῖς δὲ Γυλίδα. οἱ μὲν οὖν Κιρραῖοι εἰς τὴν παρακειμένην τῷ Παρνασῷ Κίρφιν ὄρος ἀπέφυγον, ὅσοι δὴ καὶ περιλειφθέντες ἐτύγχανον. καταλιπὼν δὲ ὁ Εὐρύλοχος ἐνίους τῶν Θεσσαλῶν μετὰ Ἱππία τοῦ στρατηγοῦ, ὥστε τοὺς ὑπολοίπους χειρώσασθαι, ᾤχετο ἀνακτησόμενος τὸν ἀγῶνα, καὶ δὴ τοῦτον χρηματίτην μόνον ἔθετο. μετὰ δὲ χρόνον ἑξαετῆ καταγωνισαμένων τῶν μετὰ τοῦ Ἱππία τοὺς ὑπολελειμμένους τῶν Κιρραίων, ἐπὶ μὲν Ἀθήνησιν ἄρχοντος Δαμασίου, ἐν δὲ Δελφοῖς Διοδώρου, ὕστερον καὶ στεφανίτην ἔθεντο κατορθώσαντες. τὸν δὲ Εὐρύλοχον νέον ἐκάλουν Ἀχιλλέα, ὡς Εὐφορίων ἱστορεῖ· ὁπλοτέρου τ’ Ἀχιλῆος ἀκούομεν Εὐρυλόχοιο, Δελφίδες ᾧ ὕπο καλὸν Ἰήϊον ἀντιβόησαν πορθήσαντι, Λυκωρέος οἰκία Φοίβου. μόνων δὲ κιθαρῳδῶν ἀγωνιζομένων τοπαλαιὸν ἐποίησεν ὁ Εὐρύλοχος καὶ τὰ ἕτερα ὑπάρχειν ἀγωνίσματα.

(b) otherwise· the case of Pythian [games]. Eurylochus the Thessalean, after making war against Cirrheans, reinstated the game[s] of the god· and the Cirrheans, using brigandish assault, killed the ones coming near the god's [things = shrine]. and he prevailed over them while Simonides was archon in Athens, and Gyles in Delphi. And Cirrheans fled to Cirphis mountain that was lying next to Parnassus, at least as many as happened to be left. And Eurylochus, after leaving some of the Thessaleans with Hippias the general, in order to subdue the rest, was gone in order to reinstate the game[s], and he established this as prize-contest only. and after a time of six years, when the ones with Hippias prevailed over the rest of the Cirrheans, when Damasius was archon in Athens and Diodorus in Delphi, then they established and wreath-contest since they won. And they called Eurylochus as a new Achilles, as Euphorion records: "And we're hearing of Eurylochus, a younger Achilles, whom with good paean the maidens from Delphi replied to, as he was breaking in the home of Phoibos [=Apollo] of Parnassus [=Lycoreus]". And as earlier only guitar-singers competed, Eurylochus made and the other games to exist.

Two new elements: firstly the name of some Hippias that participated in the war, besides Eurylochus. Secondly, an ancient excerpt attributed to some Euphorion. This Euphorion is said to be Euphorion of Chalkis, a lyric poet of the 3rd c. BCE [Meineke [1843], p. 95: fr.53]. However I couldn't find any justification on this, especially in comparison with Euphorion, a tragic poet of 5th c. BCE, son of famous Aeschylus.

In any case this Euphorion's short excerpt seemed quite interesting. It's noticeable that Eurylochus here is compared with the legendarty Achilles; probably cause both were Thessaleans. Fact that may indicate also an origin of the content. Regarding the described scene, Eurylochus seems entering to occupied Delphi as a liberating saviour. The excerpt survives in four manuscripts [see Drachmann [1964], vol2, p. 3]; from which I've checked the three online and the left one by transcription. There're given different verbs-actions, that however don't change significantly the meaning. There's no doubt that Eurylochus was accepted gladly by the Delphian maidens. But there's some doubt if the above passage describes a violent entrance to Delphi or not. Possibly there were mistakes in the transcriptions.

It's also noteworthy that he entered to Delphi itself, the home of Lycoreus Phoibos. Phoibos is another name for Apollo, while Lycoreus is an adjective for Parnassus mountain attached to Apollo. There's no mention of Cirrha or Crissa in this Euphorion's short excerpt, as appears in manuscripts, though in transcriptions we can see it between brackets. The latter cause it was added really later in a transcription of 1819, possibly as a conclusion and for metrical purposes [Boeckh [1819], p. 293 (fn.3)].

Robertson [1978, p. 64ff], analyzing this text, underlines some possible analogies with the 3rd-4th sacred wars of the 4th c. BCE, and especially with a later Eurylochus, mentioned as general of Philip II the Macedonean.

The Sicyon Pythian games??          up

A weird passage, that gives some alternative information

Text 27: (inscr.) scholia in Pindar's N. 9 [Nemeonikoi], as in Drachmann [1964], vol3, p. 149

Περὶ τῶν ἐν Σικυῶνι Πυθίων ὁ Ἁλικαρνασεὺς οὕτω γράφει· φησὶ δὲ ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τῶν Κρισαὶων κατὰ θάλασσαν ῥαδίως τὰ ἐπιτήδεια ποριζομένων καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μακρᾶς γινομένης τῆς πολιορκίας, Κλεισθένην τὸν Σικυώνιον ναυτικόν ἰδίᾳ παρασκευάσαντα κωλῦσαι τὴν σιτοπομπίαν αὐτῶν, καὶ διὰ ταύτην τὴν εὐεργεσίαν τὸ τρίτον τῶν λαφύρων ἔδοσαν τῷ Κλεισθένει καὶ Σικυωνίοις. ἀφ' οὗ καὶ Σικυώνιοι τὰ Πύθια πρῶτον παρ' ἑαυτοῖς ἔθεσαν.

On the Pythian [games] in Sicyon Halikarasseus [=the one from Halicarnassus] writes this· and he says that during the war, as Crisseans were acquiring the necessities easily through the sea and cause of this the siege was becoming long, Cleisthenes the Sicyonean, after he prepared by himself a naval force, prevented the corn conveyance, and for this beneficence they gave one third of the spoils to Cleisthenes and the Sicyoneans. and ever since the Sicyoneans established the Pythian [games] firstly near them.

Firstly there's a doubt about the source. By the term Halikarasseus [=the one from Halicarnassus] could be meant Herodotus; and maybe it was from the early approaches. However, though Herodotus in his famous histories does mention Cleisthenes in two excerpts [Hdt. 5.67 & 6.126], he doesn't give such a story. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the historian of the 1st c. BCE, has been also suggested [Wilamowitz [1893], p. 18, fn. 27, & Robertson [1978], p. 54, fn. 2]. More rational, but not proven.

In any case, here the Sicyon's and Cleisthenes' interference in the war, wasn't a direct action in battle; but a tactical side-help regarding supplies. Something that could explain many aspects, cause, even if Cleisthenes is mentioned in some sources as involved, his city of Sicyon wasn't participating in the Delphic amphictyony. And it's interesting that Cleisthenes was connected with some Alcmaeon, since their children got married according to Herodotus [Hdt 6.126-131]. Based on the same timing, more possibly this Alcmaeon is the one mentioned as the Athenean general in this expedition [text 04].

Another part is the Pythian games in Sicyon. Not only were established there, besides the famous ones at Delphi, but they were the first. Pausanias is giving a connection between Apollo the Pythian and Sicyon, regarding the cult and some legends [Paus. 2.7]; but it can't be clear what these 'first' Pythian games could exactly mean or what are the origins of this story.

Instead of epilogue          up

The 1st sacred war is an event that could be considered a little vague, at least. Taking place before the birth of historiography, it has been appeared with many differences, alternate versions, even contradictory elements.

If I had to extract what I think as true, this would be a local war, with some participation-help of other cities, that however became bigger in later stories, justifying more interference in the area. A local war that seemed to be the base of an early big defensive alliance, as it was touching the control of a region that interested many states-cities. The broader interest of this area and the following claimed intreference, brought alternate versions of the same events; but in the end underlining that the core should be the same.

Such event should also be a sabotage in the water supplies of the besieged city, that was concretized as water-poisoning with substances like hellebore; i.e. an endemic plant that in our case wasn't proved deadly or really dangerous. This story was presented in four different versions, signifying a broader interest. But perhaps this could also support a minimization of the significance of a war cruelty, in a context of some justification of an earlier conflict so to be forgotten and forgiven; in the end allowing maybe a later alliance.

At least this is the impression I perceived...

References:          up

• Allen, Thomas W., Sikes, E. E. [1904], The Homeric hymns, 1904
• Boissier, Edmond [1867], Flora Orientalis, 5 vols, 1867
• Bommelaer, Jean-François et Laroche, Didier [1991], Guide de Delphes. Le Site, 1991
• Dor et al. [1960], Kirrha. Étude de préhistoire phocidienne, by Dor, Léopold, Jannoray, Jean, Van Effenterre, Henri and Van Effenterre, Micheline, 1960
• Drachmann, Anders Bjorn [1964], Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina, 3 vols, 1964
• Evelyn-White, Hugh G. [1914], Hesiod, the Homeric hymns and Homerica, 1914-1970
• Forrest, G. Georges [1956], The first Sacred War, in Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, vol 80, 1956. pp. 33-52
• Forster, Edward Seymour [1929], (transl.) Lucius Annaeus Florus, Epitome of Roman history, 1929
• Huysecom-Haxhi, Stéphanie [2016], Les terres cuites figurées de Kirrha, in Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, vol 139-140.2, 2016, pp. 711-716
• Jannoray, Jean [1937a], Krisa, Kirrha et la première guerre sacrée, in Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, Vol 61, 1937, pp. 33-43
• Jannoray, Jean [1937b], Fouilles de Krisa (Phocide), in Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, vol 61, 1937, pp. 299-326
• Lamarck, Jean-Baptiste & Poiret, Jean-Louis-Marie [1789], Encyclopédie méthodique. Botanique, 3 vols, 1789
• Linnaeus, Carl [1753], Species Plantarum, 1753
• Littré, Émile [1839], Oeuvres complètes d' Hippocrate, 9 vols, 1839
• Londey, Peter [2016], First Sacred War, in Conflict in Ancient Greece and Rome: The Definitive Political, Social, and Military Encyclopedia [3 volumes], by Sara Elise Phang, Iain Spence, Douglas Kelly, Peter Londey (eds.), vol.2, p. 480, 2016
• Meineke, August [1843], Analecta alexandrina, 1843
• Natoli, Anthony Francis [2004], The Letter of Speusippus to Philip II, 2004
• Nelson, Eric D. [2002], Coan promotions and the authorship of the Presbeutikos, in Hippocrates in Context: Papers Read at the XIth International Hippocrates Colloquium (University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 27-31 August 2002), P.J. van der Eijk (ed.), 2005, pp. 209–236
• Orelli, Johann Konrad [1815], Collectio epistolarvm graecarum, vol. 1, 1815
• Orgeolet et al. [2017], Kirrha 2008‑2015: un bilan d’étape, by Raphaël Orgeolet, Despoina Skorda, Julien Zurbach, Lou de Barbarin, Reine Marie Bérard, Brice Chevaux, Jonhatan Hubert, Tobias Krapf, Anna Lagia, Alexia Lattard, Raphaëlle Lefebvre, Jérémy Maestracci, Alexandre Mahé, Ioanna Moutafi, Simon Sedlbauer, in Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, vol 141.1, 2017, pp. 41-116
• Phialon, Laetitia [2012], Krisa. Un site mycénien à reconsidérer, 2012
• Robertson, Noel [1978], The Myth of the First Sacred War, in The Classical Quarterly vol. 28, No. 1 (1978), pp. 38-73
• Ulrichs, Heinrich Nikolaus [1840], Über die Städte Crissa und Cirrha, in Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Philologische und Historische Klasse, Vol 18, 1840, pp. 77-98
• West, Martin L. [2003], Homeric hymns. Homeric apocrypha. Lives of Homer, 2003
• Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von [1893], Aristoteles und Athen, Analyse der aristotelischen Schrift, vol. 1, 1893Zurbach et al. [2012], Kirrha (Phocide), by Julien Zurbach, Despina Skorda, Raphaël Orgeolet, Anna Lagia, Ioanna Moutafi, Tobias Krapf, Bastien Simier, Reine-Marie Bérard, Gilles Sintès, Antoine Chabrol, in Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, vol 136-137-2, 2012, pp. 569-592