Scanned text contains errors.
149; Dionys. iv. 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. siv. p. 664): 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 De-meter, in the village of Anthela, near Thermopylae (Herod, vii. 200), where the deputies or representatives met in autumn; and that of Apollo at Delphi, where they assembled in spring. The connection of this Amphictyony with the latter not only contributed to its dignity, bait also to its permanence. With respect to its early history, Strabo (ix. p. 420) 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. We learn from Aeschines (De F. L. § 122, ed. Bekker), a most competent authority (b. c. 343), that eleven of these tribes were as follows :—The Thessalians, Boeotians (not Thebans only), Dorians, lonians, Perrhaebians, Magnetes, Locrians* Oetaeans or Ainianes, Phthiots or Achaeans of Phthia, Malians, or Melians, and Phocians ; other lists (Paus. x. 8. § 2) leave us in doubt whether the remaining tribe were the Dolopes or Delphians; but as the Delphians could hardly be called a distinct tribe, their nobles appearing to have been Dorians, it seems probable that the Dolopes were originally members, and afterwards supplanted by the Delphians. (Titmann, pp. 39$ 43.) The preponderance of the Thessalian and northern nations of Greece proves the antiquity of the institution, no less than eight of the twelve tribes being of the Pelasgic race : 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. The Thessalians indeed in all probability joined the league about twenty years .before that event, when they settled in Thessaly, after quitting Thesprotia in Epeirus, and the date of the origin of the league itself has been fixed (Clinton, F. H. vol. i. p. 66) between the 60th and 80th years from the fall of Troy. That it existed moreover before the Ionian migration, may be inferred from the lonians of Asia having a vote, acquired without doubt when in the country, and from the statement of Tacitus (Annal. iv. 14) : " Samii decreto Am-phictyomlm nitebantur, quis prascipuum fuit rerum omnium judicium, qua tempestate Graeci, conditis per Asiam urbibus, ora maris potiebantur."
We learn from Aeschines (I. c.), that each of the twelve Amphictyonic tribes had two votes in congress, and that deputies from such towns as
(Dorium and)* Cytinium had equal power with, the Lacedaemonians, and that Eretria and Priene, Ionian colonies, were on a par with Athens (i^-fyy-</>ot rois 'AOijvaiois). It seems therefore to follow, either that each Amphictyonic tribe had a cycle (Strab. ix. p. 420 ; Pausan. x. 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 jSouA^ and eKKXrjcrta—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 (TlvXaia) 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 (IluAayopcu), the other Hieromnemones ('lepo/xz/^uoi/es). Of the former, three were annually elected at Athens to act with one Hieromnemoii appointed by lot. (Aris-toph. Nubes, v. 607.) That his office was highly honourable \ve may infer from the oath of the Heliasts (Dem. c. Timocr. §170, ed. Bekker), 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. (Titmann, p. 87.) Hence it has been conjectured that the Hieromnemones, also called tepoypa/u/xareTs, were superior in rank to the pylagorae. (Titmann, 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, ed. Bekker), " 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 ; Titmann, I. c.), although some writers are of a different opinion. (Schb'mann, de Comit. p. 392.) Again, we find inscriptions (Bockh, Inscr. 1171), containing surveys by the Hieromne-mones, 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 connection 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 Schomann (p. 392), and the statement of Demosthenes (pro Coron. § 277, ed. Bekker), lead to a contrary conclusion. The narrative of Aeschines (c. Ctes. § 121) implies that they were more peculiarly the representatives of their constituent states. Probably the respective functions of the two classes
* There is a doubt about the reading. Thuc. iii. 95 ; Titmann, p. 52.