Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 1.djvu/816

772 AMPHICTYONY, in, was an association of several s for the purpose of protecting some common to them all, and for maintaining within it. The members were called ἀμφικτίονες or ἀμφικτύονες, a word which means “the dwellers around.” The second form of the word Benfey supposes to have arisen from a ted ἀμφικτίϝονες. Out of the name the, according to their habit, easily discovered the founder of the Delphic Amphictyony, with which they were connected; and hence in later times, by an inverse process, the was derived from Amphictyon, one of the  s of. Similar confederations existed in at a very early period, and there is reason to believe that at their stated  they discussed questions of  and matters affecting their  union as well as  subjects. Gradually, however, the influence of the Amphictyonies died away. As s of great power stood on an equality with insignificant s in the number of votes, they naturally prevented the settlement of important matters in such an. Accordingly, during the of  the Amphictyonies almost disappear. They are not mentioned in Thucydides and Xenophon. But they appear again in vigour in the time of, and become engines by which, under pretence of  zeal for the interests of the , wreak their vengeance on their rivals and antagonists.

This is especially true of the Amphictyony of, the most important of all these associations. Though we know better about this confederation than about any other, yet many particulars are hidden in obscurity, and considerable doubts gather around others of which we know something. The Amphictyony existed in very early s, and Æschines states that it arose when the at was first. It is more likely, however, that it was originally connected with and the  of Amphictyonis which was there. The Amphictyony consisted of a union of twelve s, each of which had a right to two s. These s were for the most part n or bordering on ; and it is probable that the others, as the and, gained admission in consequence of  that came to them from. There are nine lists of the s that constituted the c Amphictyony in the classical writers and in s. Of these only one is complete, and the rest differ from each other in some particulars. The one that is complete was found on a c containing a decree of the Amphictyonic council in regard to  to the c. On this are given the s of each, and the final decision of the  in harmony with the majority of s for one of the opinions held. The list is as follows:—The ans, two s; ns, two s;, two s; from , one vote; the  from , one ; the , one ; the ns, one vote; the ns, two s; the n , two s; the ns, one ; the , one ; the , one ; the , one ; the , two s; the , two s; the Hypocnemidii, one ; the Hesperii, one. The exact date of the recorded on the c  is matter of dispute, but the most probable conjecture places it about the   We have therefore clear  as to the constitution of the Amphictyonic  at this date; and, starting from this, we can form some idea of the changes which took place in the members of the. It is generally believed that no change took place in the s forming the league till the time of the, Of these s Æschines gives us a list, with the omission of one. They are the, , , , , , , , , , ; and there can be little doubt that it is the who have been by some mistake omitted. The confusions in some of the other lists have arisen probably from the ignorance of transcribers, who did not know that the and  lived close to each other, and were often comprehended under the same name, and who made two s of the n,  and. Æschines says that all these s had equal right of ; but the on the c  shows that the two s of one  might be divided among two different portions of it. At the conclusion of the the  were excluded, and the ns received their s; and the  of the ns was given to the other  s of. The ans also obtained s, either at this or after the, , by some of the smaller s that had two s being restricted to one. In the same way, and also by the exclusion of the Ozolæ, the ns secured a place in the in, and gradually took possession of a great number of s. The  were restored to their place in , on account of their gallant resistance to the. Finally, the and  were excluded from the, and the constitution of the  as given in the c  was formed. The last change mentioned in classical writers is detailed by Pausanias, but the passage is evidently corrupt. wished to give s to, and for this purpose so altered the constitution of the as to make the s thirty in number. The objects of the league are distinctly expressed in the which the Amphictyons had to take, and which is preserved in Æschines's “De Falsa Legatione.” This  bound the Amphictyons not to destroy any of the Amphictyonic s, not to turn away its  either in time of  or in time of peace; and if any one should attempt to  the  of  (the common centre of the confederacy), to employ their,, , and their whole power to bring him to. The humanising influence which this and other enments of the confederacy were intended to exercise, is perceptible in the part relating to. The framer of the evidently regarded  only as an unavoidable means of settling disputes between two s; but it was to be carried on only for the purpose of bringing the dispute to a decision, and not for destruction and devastation. Another enment probably was that the inhabitants of a conquered should not be sold as. But the chief care of the Amphictyons appears to have been to watch over the, to those who were guilty of a  against it, and to reward those who did anything to increase its splendour and glory. There is difficulty in determining how often the Amphictyons met. But the most likely inference from the somewhat indefinite statements of ancient writers is, that they went twice every both to  and, in  and in. There is also some difficulty in determining the relative positions of the two sets of named in connection with the Amphictyony, the Hieromnemones and the Pylagoroi or Pylagorai. But there can scarcely be a doubt that the Hieromnemon was the principal. There were as many Hieromnemones as there were s; and the Hieromnemones were alone entitled to. The proper consisted therefore only of the Hieromnemones. It is most likely that the Hieromnemones were  by. In the case of the smaller s it is probable that the right to 