vii. 412 f., 417; Pomptow, in N. Jahrb. f. cl. Philol. cxlix. 826-829) that the amphictyons met both in the spring and in the autumn at Delphi, and the literary sources should alone be sufficient authority for meetings in the same seasons at Thermopylae (Hyp. iv. 7, 25 ff.; Strabo ix. 3, 7, 4, 17; Harpocration, s.v. Πύλαι). It is known, too, that the meeting at Thermopylae followed that at Delphi (inscr. in Bull. Hell. xxiv. 136 f.).
The primary function of the council was to administer the temporal affairs of the two shrines, of which the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi claimed by far the greater share of attention. The hieromnemones were required periodically to inspect the lands belonging to this god, to punish those who encroached, and to see that the tenants rendered their quota of produce; and the council held the states responsible for the right performance of such duties by their respective deputies (CIA. ii. 545; inscr. in Bull. Hell. vii. 428 f.). Another task of the council was to supervise the treasury, to protect it from thieves, and by investments to increase the capital (Strabo ix. 3, 7; Isoc. xv. 232; Demosth. xxi. 144; Plut. Sull. 12). Naturally, too, it controlled the expenditure. We find it, accordingly, in the 6th century B.C. contracting for the rebuilding of the Delphic temple after it had been destroyed by fire (Herod. v. 62; Paus. x. 5. 13), and in the 4th century creating an Hellenic college of temple-builders for the purpose (inscrr. in Bull. Hell. xx. 202 f., 206, xxi. 478, xxiv. 464), adorning the interior with statues and pictures (Diod. xvi. 33), inscribing the proverbs of the Seven Sages on the walls (Paus. x. 24. 1), bestowing crowns on benefactors of the god (CIG. i. 1689 b), preparing for the Pythian games, awarding the prizes (Pind. Pyth. iv. 66, x. 8 f.), instituting a board of treasurers (inscr. in Bourguet, Sanct. Pyth. 175 ff.) and issuing coins. It was also in the material interest of Apollo that the council passed a law which forbade the Greeks to levy tolls on pilgrims to the shrine (Aeschin. iii. 107; Strabo ix. 3, 4), and another requiring the amphictyonic states to keep in repair their own roads which led towards Delphi (CIA. ii. 545). A law of great interest, dating from the beginning of the institution, imposed an oath upon the members of the league not to destroy an amphictyonic city or to cut it off from running water in war or peace; but to wage war upon those who transgressed this ordinance, to destroy their cities, and to punish any others who by theft or plotting sought to injure the god (Aeschin. ii. 115). In this regulation, which was intended to mitigate the usages of war amongst the members of the league, we have one of the origins of Greek interstate law. Though other regulations were made to secure peace at the time of the festival (Dion. Hal. iv. 25. 3), and though occasionally the council was called upon to arbitrate in a dispute (cf. Demosth. xviii. 135), no provision was made to compel arbitration.
For the enforcement of such laws and for administrative efficiency in general it was necessary that the council should have judicial power. As jurors the deputies took an oath to decide according to written law, or in cases not covered by law, according to their best will and judgment (CIA. ii. 545). The earliest known amphictyonic penalty was the destruction of Crisa for having levied tolls on pilgrims (Aeschin. iii. 107; Strabo ix. 3, 4; cf. Paus. x. 37. 5-8). This offence was the cause of the first Sacred War. The second and third Sacred Wars, fought in the 4th century B.C., were waged by the amphictyons against the Phocians and the Amphissaeans respectively for alleged trespassing on the sacred lands (Aeschin. iii. 124, 128; Diod. xvi. 23, 31 f.). In the 5th century the council fined the Dolopians for having disturbed commerce by their piracy (Plut. Cim. 8), and in the 4th century the Lacedaemonians for having occupied the citadel of Thebes in time of peace (Diod. xvi. 23, 29).
The judgments of the council were sometimes considered unfair, and were occasionally defied by the states affected. The Lacedaemonians refused to pay the fine above mentioned; the Athenians protested against the treatment of Amphissa, and were slow in accepting the decisions given under the influence of Macedon. The inability of the council to enforce its resolutions was chiefly due to its composition; the majority of the communities represented were even in combination no match for individual cities like Athens, Sparta or Thebes. The council was a power in politics only when manipulated by a great state, as Thebes, Macedon or Aetolia, and in such a case its decrees were most likely to give offence by their partisanship. Although the council sometimes championed the Hellenic cause, as could any association or individual, it never acquired a recognized authority over all Greece; and notwithstanding its frequent participation in political affairs, it remained essentially a religious convocation.
In addition to the three associations thus far mentioned there was an amphictyony of Onchestus (Strabo ix. 2, 33). It may be inferred from a comparison of Paus. iv. 5. 2 with Herod. vi. 92 that there was an amphictyony of Argos of which Epidaurus and Aegina were members. An amphictyony of Corinth has, with less justification, been assumed on the strength of a passage in Pindar (Nem. Od. vi. 40-42).
Authorities.—Foucart, “Amphictyones,” in Daremberg and Saglio, Dict. d. antiq. grecq. et rom. (1873) i. 235-238; F. Cauer, “Amphiktyonia,” in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl. d. cl. Altertumswiss. (1894) i. 1904–1935; Pomptow, Fasti Delphici, ii. in Neue Jahrb. f. cl. Philol. (1894) cxlix. 497-558, clv. (1897) 737-765, 785-848; E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government in Greece and Italy (2nd ed., London and New York, 1895), 95-111; W. S. Ferguson, “Delian Amphictyony,” in Classical Review (1901), xv. 38-40; Schömann-Lipsius, Griechische Alterthümer (1902), ii. 29-44; E. Bourguet, L’Administration financière du sanctuaire pythique au IVᵉ siècle avant J.-C. (Paris, 1905). The earlier literature has been deprived of a great part of its value by recent discoveries of inscriptions, many of which may be found in the Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, iii. vii. viii. x. xx. xxi. xxiv. xxvi. xxvii., edited with commentary chiefly by Bourguet, Colin, Foucart and Homolle. See also H. Collitz, Sammlung d. griech. Dialekt-Inschriften, ii. p. 643 ff. and Nos. 2508 ff., edited by Baunack. (G. W. B.)
AMPHILOCHUS, in Greek legend, a famous seer, son of Amphiaraus and Eriphyle and brother of Alcmaeon. According to some he assisted in the murder of Eriphyle, which, according to others, was carried out by Alcmaeon alone (Apollodorus iii. 6, 7). He took part in the expedition of the Epigoni against Thebes and in the Trojan War. After the fall of Troy he founded, in conjunction with Mopsus, another famous seer, the oracle of Mallos in Cilicia. The two seers afterwards fought for its possession, and both were slain in the combat. Amphilochus is also said to have been killed by Apollo (Strabo xiv. 675, 676). According to another story, he returned to Argos from Troy, but, being dissatisfied with the condition of things there, left it for Acarnania, where he founded Amphilochian Argos on the Ambracian gulf. He was worshipped at Oropus, Athens and Sparta.
Strabo xiv. pp. 675, 676; Thucydides ii. 68; Pausanias i. 34, iii. 15.
AMPHION and ZETHUS, in ancient Greek mythology, the twin sons of Zeus by Antiope. When children, they were exposed on Mount Cithaeron, but were found and brought up by a shepherd. Amphion became a great singer and musician, Zethus a hunter and herdsman (Apollodorus iii. 5). After punishing Lycus and Dirce for cruel treatment of Antiope (q.v.), they built and fortified Thebes, huge blocks of stone forming themselves into walls at the sound of Amphion’s lyre (Horace, Odes, iii. 11). Amphion married Niobe, and killed himself after the loss of his wife and children (Ovid, Metam. vi. 270). The brothers were buried in one grave and worshipped as the Dioscuri “with white horses” (Eurip. Phoen. 609).
AMPHIOXUS, or Lancelet, the name of small, fish-like, marine creatures, forming the class Cephalochorda, of the phylum Vertebrata. Lancelets are found in brackish or salt water, generally near the coast, and have been referred to several genera and many species. They were first discovered by P. S. Pallas in 1778, who took them to be slugs and described them under the name Limax lanceolatus. The true position in the animal kingdom was first recognized in 1834 by O. G. Costa, who named the genus Branchiostoma, and it has since been dealt with by many writers.
The theoretical interest of Amphioxus depends upon a variety of circumstances. In its manner of development from the egg,
