The law I am going to speak of is to
be found in this oath preserved by schines:
[4]
"I swear that I willnever destroy a town of the Amphictyones, and that I will not divert the
course of its running waters; if any nation shall presume to do such a
thing, I will declare war against them and will destroy their towns."
The last article of this law, which seems to confirm the first, is
really contrary to it. Amphictyon is willing that the Greek towns should
never be destroyed, and yet his law paves the way for their destruction.
In order to establish a proper law of nations among the Greeks, they
ought to have been accustomed early to think it a barbarous thing to
destroy a Greek town; consequently they ought not even to ruin the
destroyers. Amphictyon's law was just, but it was not prudent; this
appears even from the abuse made of it. Did not Philip assume the power
of demolishing towns, under the pretence of their having infringed the
laws of the Greeks? Amphictyon might have inflicted other punishments;
he might have ordained, for example, that a certain number of the
magistrates of the destroying town, or of the chiefs of the infringing
army, should be punished with death; that the destroying nation should
cease for a while to enjoy the privileges of the Greeks; that they
should pay a fine till the town was rebuilt. The law ought, above all
things, to aim at the reparation of damages.
