THE GREAT AMPHIKTYO^C ASSEMBLY. 247 counted as races, (if we treat the Hellenes as a race, we must call these sub-races,) no mention being made of cities: 1 all count equally in respect to voting, two votes being given by the depu- ties from each of the twelve : moreover, we are told that, in determining the deputies to be sent, or the manner in which the votes of each race should be given, the powerful Athens, Sparta, and Thebes, had no more influence than the humblest Ionian, Dorian, or Boeotian city. This latter fact is distinctly stated by JEschines, himself a pylagore sent to Delphi by Athens. And so, doubtless, the theory of the case stood : the votes of the Ionic races counted for neither more nor less than two, whether given by deputies from Athens, or from the small towns of Erythrte and Priene ; and, in like manner, the Dorian votes were as good in the division, when given by deputies from Boson and Kytinion in the little territory of Doris, as if the men delivering them had been Spartans. But there can be as little question that, in practice, the little Ionic cities, and the little Doric cities, pretended to no share in the Amphiktyonic deliberations. As the Ionic vote came to be substantially the vote of Athens, so, if Sparta was ever obstructed in the management of the Doric vote, it must have been by powerful Doric cities like Argos or Corinth, not by the insignificant towns of Doris. But the theory of Amphik- tyonic suffrage, as laid down by .^Eschines, however little realized in practice during his day, is important, inasmuch as it shows in full evidence the primitive and original constitution. The first establishment of the Amphiktyonic convocation dates from a time when all the twelve members were on a footing of equal independence, and when there were no overwhelming cities (such as Sparta and Athens) to cast in the shade the humbler members, when Sparta was only one Doric city, and Athens only one Ionic city, among various others of consideration, not much inferior. There are also other proofs which show the high antiquity of chines, by Harpokration, and by Pausanias. Tittmann (Ucber den Amphik- tyonischcn Bund, sect. 3, 4, 5) analyzes and compares their various state- ments, and elicits the catalogue given in the text. 1 JEschines, De Fals. Legat. p. 280, c. 36. KaTqpi&prioafiTiv de &&i>^ dudsica, TU fj.KTs%i<VTa TOV iepov KOI TOVTUV tJctfa sKaorov e&vo( Iso yevoucvov, TO fieyiarov T> &UTTOVI, etc.
