AMPHIC´TYONES
AMPHIC´TYONES (
Ἀυφικτύονες), members of an
Amphictyonia
(
Ἀμφικτυονία or
Ἀμφικτιονία). Institutions called Amphictyonic appear to
have existed in Greece from time, immemorial. Of their nature and object
history gives us only a general idea; but we may safely believe them to have
been associations of originally neighbouring tribes, formed for the
regulation of mutual intercourse, and the protection of a common temple or
sanctuary, at which the representatives of the different members met, to
transact business and celebrate religious rites and games. This identity of
religion, coupled with near neighbourhood, and that too in ages of remote
antiquity, implies in all probability a certain degree of affinity, which
might of itself produce unions and confederacies amongst tribes so situated,
regarding each other as members of the same great family. They would thus
preserve among themselves, and transmit to their children, a spirit of
nationality and brotherhood; nor could any better means be devised than the
bond of a common religious worship, to counteract the hostile interests
which, sooner or later, spring up in all large societies. The true
derivation of the word from
κτίω, with the
same meaning as
περικτιόνες, is given by
several ancient writers (Hesychius; Anaximenes ap. Harpocrat. s.v.
Androtion's
Ἀτθὶς, ap.
Paus. 10.8.1). The mythic founder Amphictyon,
son or grandson of Deucalion, belongs. to the same region of eponymous
heroes as, Hellen and his sons, and need not be seriously considered.
The causes and motives from which we might expect such institutions to arise
existed in every neighbourhood; and accordingly we find many Amphictyoniae
of various degrees of importance, though our information respecting them is
very deficient. Thus we learn from Strabo, that there was one of some
celebrity whose place of meeting was a sanctuary of Poseidon
(Müller,
Dorians, 2.10.5; Strab. 8.6, 14) at
Calauria, an ancient settlement of the Ionians in the Saronic Gulf. The
original members were Epidaurus, Hermione, Nauplia, Prasiae in Laconia,
Aegina, Athens, and the Boeotian Orchomenus (Thirlwall,
Hist. of
Greece, vol. i. p. 375); whose remoteness from each other makes
it difficult to conceive what could have been the motives for forming the
confederation, more especially as religious causes seem precluded by the
fact, that Troezen, though so near to Calauria, and though Poseidon was its
tutelary god, was not a member. In after-times, Argos and Sparta took the
place of Nauplia and Prasiae, and religious ceremonies were the sole object
of the meetings of the association. The unnamed Amphictyony to which the
Messenians were ready to refer their differences with the Spartans
[p. 1.103](
Paus. 4.5.1) may
have been that of Calauria; though the existence of another at Argos,
including all the Peloponnesian Dorians, and having either the Argive Hera
or the Pythian Apollo for its tutelary divinity, has been conjectured by
some modern scholars (Schömann,
Alterth. 2.25; De
Sainte-Croix,
Des Anciens Gouvernemens
Fédératifs, Paris, 1804, p. 129; K. O.
Müller,
Dorians, 1.154). Better attested is that of
Onchestus in Boeotia, where the gathering was round a famous temple of
Poseidon (Strab. 9.2, 33;
Paus. 9.26.3). Near
Samicum in Elis was also a temple of Poseidon, the centre of worship to the
six Triphylian cities; and this is sometimes described as an Amphictyony
(Strab. 8.3, 13); as is also the Euboean festival of the Amarynthia. [
AMARYNTHIA]
One of the most important was that of Delos, the religious metropolis or
ἱστίη νήσων (Callim.
Hymn. in
Del. 325) of the neighbouring Cyclades, where musical and
gymnastic contests were celebrated every fourth year (a
πεντετηρὶς) in honour of the Delian Apollo.
Thucydides, describing the purification of Delos by the Athenians in 426 B.C., attests the great antiquity of this
festival, quoting two passages from the Homeric Hymn to Apollo (
Thuc. 3.104; Hom.
Hymn. in Apoll.
146 ff. and 165 ff.). Plutarch (
Plut. Thes.
21) ascribes the foundation of it to Theseus. The names of the states
composing this Amphictyony are preserved in the inscription known as the
Marmor Sandvicense, which contains the accounts of the
four years 377-374 B.C., and is given by
Böckh in
C. I. G. 1.252 and in the appendix to his
Political Economy (vol. ii., p. 78 ff.; 2nd Germ. edit.).
They include the islands of Myconos, Syros, Tenos, Ceos, Siphnos, Seriphos,
Ios, Paros, Icaria, Naxos, Andros, and the town of Carystus in Euboea. The
θεωροὶ sent by the Athenians to Delos
are well known [THEORI; DELIA]; they were also
called
Δηλιασταὶ. (Ath. vi. p. 234 e;
Harpocrat.,
Hesych. sub voce)
The system indeed was by no means confined to the mother country; for the
federal unions of the Dorians, Ionians, and Aeolians, living on the west
coast of Asia Minor, seem to have been Amphictyonic in spirit, although
modified by exigencies of situation. Their main essence consisted in keeping
periodical festivals in honour of the acknowledged gods of their respective
nations. Thus the Dorians held a federal festival, and celebrated religious
games at Triopium, uniting with the worship of their national god Apollo
that of the more ancient and Pelasgic Demeter. The Ionians met for similar
purposes in honour of the Heliconian Poseidon
1 at Mycale,--their place of assembly being called the Panionium, and
their festival Panionia. The twelve towns of the Aeolians assembled at
Grynea, in honour of Apollo. (
Hdt. 1.144,
148,
149;
Dionys. A. R. 4.25.) That these
confederacies were not merely for offensive and defensive purposes, may be
inferred from their existence after the subjugation of these colonies by
Croesus; and we know that Halicarnassus was excluded from the Dorian union,
merely because one of its citizens had not made the usual offering to Apollo
of the prize he had won in the Triopic contests. A confederation somewhat
similar, but more political than religious, existed in Lycia (Strab. 14.3,
2): it was called the “Lycian system,” and was composed of
twenty-three cities.
But besides these and others, there was one Amphictyony of greater celebrity
than the rest, and much more lasting in its duration. This was by way of
eminence called the Amphictyonic league; and differed from the other
associations in having two places of meeting, the sanctuaries of two
divinities. These were the temple of Demeter, in the village of Anthela,
near Thermopylae (
Hdt. 7.200), where the
deputies or representatives met in autumn; and that of Apollo at Delphi,
where they assembled in spring. The connexion of this Amphictyony with the
latter not only contributed to its dignity, but also to its permanence. With
respect to its early history, Strabo (9.3, 7) says, that even in his days it
was impossible to learn its origin. We know, however, that it was originally
composed of twelve
tribes (not cities or states, it
must be observed), each of which tribes contained various independent cities
or states. As to the names of the twelve tribes, however, our accounts are
very various. The lists in Pausanias (
10.8.2)
and Harpocration, s.v. differ in some particulars from that of Aeschines
(
F. L. § 116). The latter, who may be taken as
an authoritative witness for his own time, after mentioning that there were
twelve
ἔθνη in the league, gives only
eleven names--the Thessalians, Boeotians (not Thebans only, he remarks),
Dorians, Ionians, Perrhaebians, Magnetes, Locrians, Oetaeans, Phthiots or
Achaeans of Phthia, Malians or Melians, and Phocians. Recent editors have
supplied the Dolopians as the twelfth name, following a conjecture of
Tittmann's in his work on the Amphictyonic League (p. 40); and the list, as
thus completed, is adopted by Grote (vol. ii. p. 325). Others join the
Dolopians with the Perrhaebians, and reckon as a separate tribe the Aenianes
who, on Tittmann's view, are included among the Oetaeans (Foucart, ap. D.
and S., s. v.). It must be admitted that it is impossible fully to harmonise
the ancient authorities themselves: but the list may have varied at
different times, and Pausanias, who gives only ten names (omitting the
Boeotians and Perrhaebians) expressly refers the ten to the mythic
Amphictyon. The preponderance of the Thessalian and northern nations of
Greece proves the antiquity of the institution; and the fact of the Dorians
standing on an equality with such tribes as the Malians, shows that it must
have existed before the Dorian conquest of the Peloponnesus which originated
several
states more powerful, and therefore more
likely to have sent their respective deputies than the tribes mentioned.
That it existed moreover before the Ionian migration, has been inferred from
the Ionians of Asia having a share in the vote, and from the statement of
Tacitus (
Tac. Ann. 4.14): “Samii
decreto Amphictyonum nitebantur, quis praecipuum fuit rerum omnium
judicium, qua tempestate Graeci, conditis per Asiam urbibus, ora maris
potiebantur.” The passage in Tacitus is, however, with more
probability referred to the Delian Amphictyony.
We learn from Aeschines (
l.c.) that each of the
twelve Amphictyonic tribes had two votes in congress, and that deputies from
such towns as
[p. 1.104](Dorium and)
2 Cytinium had equal power with the Lacedaemonians, and that Eretria
and Priene, Ionian colonies, were on a par with Athens (
ἰσόψηφοι τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις). It seems
therefore to follow, either that each Amphictyonic tribe had a cycle (Strab.
9.3, 7;
Paus. 10.8.2), according to which its
component states returned deputies, or that the vote of the tribe was
determined by a majority of votes of the different states of that tribe. The
latter supposition might explain the fact of there being a larger and
smaller assembly--a
βουλή and
ἐκκλησία--at some of the congresses, and it is
confirmed by the circumstance that there was an annual election of deputies
at Athens, unless this city usurped functions not properly its own.
The council itself was called
Pylaea (
Πυλαία) from its meeting in the neighbourhood of Pylae
(Thermopylae), but the same name was given to the session at Delphi as well
as to that at Thermopylae. It was composed of two classes of
representatives, one called
Pylagorae (
Πυλαγόραι), the other
Hieromnemones
(
Ἱερομνήμονες). Of the former, three
were annually elected at Athens to act with one Hieromnemon appointed by
lot. (Aristoph.
Nubes, 5.623.) That his office
was highly honourable we may infer from the oath of the Heliasts (Dem.
c. Timocr. p. 747.150), in which he is mentioned with the
nine archons. On one occasion we find that the president of the council was
a Hieromnemon, and that he was chosen general of the Amphictyonic forces, to
act against the Amphissians. (Tittmann, p. 87.) Hence it has been
conjectured that the Hieromnemones, also called
ἱερογραμματεῖς, were superior in rank to the pylagorae.
(Tittmann, pp. 84, 86.) Aeschines also contrasts the two in such a way as to
warrant the inference that the former office was the more permanent of the
two. Thus he says (
c. Ctes. § 115), “When
Diognetus was Hieromnemon, ye chose me and two others Pylagorae.”
He then contrasts “the Hieromnemon of the Athenians with the Pylagorae
for the time being.” There is even good reason for supposing that
the Hieromnemon was elected for life (Clinton,
F. H., vol.
iii. p. 621; Tittmann,
l.c.), although some writers
are of a different opinion (Schömann,
de
Comit. p. 283). Again, we find inscriptions (Böckh,
Inscr. 1171), containing surveys by the Hieromnemones, as
if they formed an executive; and that the council concluded their
proceedings on one occasion (Aesch.
c. Ctes. § 124),
by resolving that there should be an extraordinary meeting previously to the
next regular assembly, to which the Hieromnemones should come with a decree
to suit the emergency just as if they had been a standing committee. Their
name implies a more immediate connexion with the temple; but whether they
voted or not upon matters in general is doubtful: from the two Amphictyonic
decrees quoted below, we might infer that they did not, while the
inscriptions (1688 and 1699), quoted by Schömann (p. 392), and the
statement of Demosthenes (
pro Coron. p. 277.149 f.), lead to
a contrary conclusion. The narrative of Aeschines (
c. Ctes.
§ 116) implies that they were more peculiarly the representatives
of their constituent states. Probably the respective functions of the two
classes of representatives were not strictly defined, and varied at
different times, if indeed they are always correctly distinguished by the
authors who allude to them. The
ἐκκλησία,
or general assembly, included not only the classes mentioned, but also those
who had joined in the sacrifices and were consulting the god; and as there
was a large multitude annually collected at the Amphictyonic session at
Thermopylae, it was probably numerously attended. (Hesychius, s.v. cf.
Soph. Trach. 639.) It was convened on
extraordinary occasions by the chairman of the council (
Ὀ τὰς γνώμας ἐπιψηφίζων, Aesch.
l.c. 124).
Of the duties of this latter body nothing will give us a clearer view than
the oaths taken and the decrees made by it. The oath was as follows (Aesch.
de F. L. § 115): “They would destroy no
city of the Amphictyons, nor cut off their streams in war or peace; and
if any should do so, they would march against him and destroy his
cities; and should any pillage the property of the god, or be privy to
or plan anything against what was in his temple at Delphi, they would
take vengeance on him with hand and foot, and voice, and all their
might.” There are two decrees given by Demosthenes, both
commencing thus (Dem.
de Cor. p. 278.154):
“When Cleinagoras was priest (
ἱερεύς), at the spring meeting, it was resolved by the
pylagorae and the assessors of the Amphictyons, and the general body of
them,” &c. The resolution in the second case was, that as
the Amphissians continued to cultivate “
the sacred district,
” Philip of Macedon should be requested to help Apollo and the
Amphictyons, and that he was thereby constituted absolute general of the
Amphictyons. He accepted the office, and soon reduced the offending city to
subjection. From the oath and the decrees, we see that the main duty of the
deputies was the preservation of the rights and dignity of the temple at
Delphi. We know, too, that after it was burnt down (B.C. 548), they
contracted with the Alcmaeonidae for the rebuilding (
Hdt. 2.180,
5.62); and Athenaeus
(A.D. 228) informs us (iv. p. 173 b) that in other matters connected with
the worship of the Delphian god they condescended to the regulation of the
minutest trifles. History, moreover, teaches that if the council produced
any palpable effects, it was from their interest in Delphi; and though it
kept up a standing record of what ought to have been the international law
of Greece, it sometimes acquiesced in, and at other times was a party to,
the most iniquitous and cruel acts. Of this the case of Crissa is an
instance. This town lay on the Gulf of Corinth, near Delphi, and was much
frequented by pilgrims from the West. The Crissaeans were charged by the
Delphians with undue exactions from these strangers, and with other crimes.
The council declared war against them, as guilty of a wrong against the god.
The war lasted ten years, till, at the suggestion of Solon, the waters of
the Pleistus were turned off, then poisoned, and turned again into the city.
The besieged drank their fill, and Crissa was soon razed to the ground; and
thus, if it were an Amphictyonic city, was a solemn oath doubly violated.
Its territory--the rich Crissaean or
[p. 1.105]Cirrhaean
plain--was consecrated to the god, and curses imprecated upon any one who
should till or dwell in it. Thus ended the First Sacred War (B.C. 586), in
which the Athenians and Amphictyons were the instruments of Delphian
vengeance. (
Paus. 10.37.4; Clinton, F. H.,
vol. ii. p. 196; Aeschin.
c. Ctes. § 107 ff.) The
Second or Phocian War (B.C. 356) was the most important in which the
Amphictyons were concerned (Thirlwall,
Hist. of Greece, vol.
v. pp. 263-372; Grote, ch. 87); and in this the Thebans availed themselves
of the sanction of the council to take vengeance on their enemies, the
Phocians. To do this, however, it was necessary to call in Philip of
Macedon, who readily proclaimed himself the champion of Apollo, as it opened
a pathway to his own ambition. The Phocians were subdued (B.C. 346), and the
council decreed that all their cities, except Abae, should be razed, and the
inhabitants dispersed in villages not containing more than fifty
inhabitants. Their two votes were given to Philip, who thereby gained a
pretext for interfering with the affairs of Greece; and also obtained the
recognition of his subjects as Hellenes. To the causes of the Third Sacred
War allusion has been made in the decrees quoted by Demosthenes. The
Amphissians tilled the devoted Cirrhaean plain, and behaved, as Strabo (9.3,
4) says, worse than the Crissaeans of old (
χείρους
ἦσαν περὶ τοὺς χένους). Their submission to Philip was
immediately followed by the battle of Chaeroneia (B.C. 338), and the
extinction of the independence of Greece. In the following year, a congress
of the Amphictyonic states was held; in which war was declared as if by
united Greece against Persia, and Philip elected commander-in-chief. On this
occasion the Amphictyons assumed the character of national representatives
as of old, when they set a price upon the head of Ephialtes, for his treason
to Greece at Thermopylae, and erected monuments in honour of the Greeks who
fell there. Herodotus indeed (7.214, 228), speaking of them in reference to
Ephialtes, calls them
οἱ τῶν Ἑλλήνων
Πυλαγόροι.
We have sufficiently shown that the Amphictyons themselves did not observe
the oaths they took; and that they did not much alleviate the horrors of
war, or enforce what they had sworn to do, is proved by many instances.
Thus, for instance, Mycenae was destroyed by Argos (B.C. 468), Thespiae and
Plataeae by Thebes, and Thebes herself swept from the face of the earth by
Alexander (
ἐκ μέσης τῆς Ἑλλάδος
ἀνήρπασται, Aeschin.
c. Ctes. § 133).
Indeed, we may infer from Thucydides (
1.112),
that a few years before the Peloponnesian war the council was a passive
spectator of what he calls
ὁ ἱερὸς
πόλεμος, when the Lacedaemonians made an expedition to Delphi,
and put the temple into the hands of the Delphians; the Athenians, after
their departure, restoring it to the Phocians: and yet the council is not
mentioned as interfering. It will not be profitable to pursue its history
further; it need only be remarked, that Augustus wished his new city,
Nicopolis (B.C. 31), to be enrolled among its members; and that Pausanias,
in the second century of our era, mentions it as still existing, but
deprived of all power and influence. In fact, even Demosthenes (
de Pace, extr.) spoke of it as the shadow at Delphi
(
ἡ ἐν Δελφοῖς σκια). In the time of
Pausanias, the number of Amphictyonic deputies was thirty.
A question of some interest arises with regard to the two places of meeting.
Where did the association originate?--were its meetings first held at
Delphi, or at Thermopylae? There seems a greater amount of evidence in
favour of the latter. In proof of this may be alleged the number of
Thessalian tribes from the neighbourhood of the Maliac bay, and the
comparative insignificance of many of them; the assigned birthplace and
residence of the mythic Amphictyon, the names Pylagorae and Pylaea. Besides,
we know that Thessaly was the theatre and origin of many of the most
important events of early Greek history; whereas, it was only in later
times, and after the Dorian conquest of Peloponnesus, that Delphi became
important enough for the meetings of such a body as the Amphictyonic; nor,
if Delphi had been of old the only place of meeting, is it easy to account
for what must have been a loss of its ancient dignity. But whatever was the
cause, we have still the fact, that there were two places of congress; to
account for which, it has been supposed that there were originally two
confederations, afterwards united by the growing power of Delphi, as
connected with the Dorians, but still retaining the old places of meeting.
We must, however, admit that it is a matter of mere conjecture whether this
were the case or not, there being strong reasons in support of the opinion
that the Dorians, on migrating southwards, combined the worship of the
Hellenic Apollo with that of the Pelasgian Demeter, as celebrated by the
Amphictyons of Thessaly. (Thirlwall,
Hist. of Greece, cc. x.
xliii.; Grote, vol. ii. ch. 2; Heeren,
Ancient Greece, 100.7;
De Sainte-Croix,
Des Anciens Gouvernemens
Fédératifs; Tittmann,
Ueber den
Bund der Amphictyonen; Müller,
Dorians,
book 2.3.5; Hermann,
Staatsalterth. § §
11-14; Freeman,
Hist. of Federal Government, ch. iii.)
[
R.W] [
W.W]