— 
tn 
ss 
APPENDIX concerning 
the brother of the far-famed Hriien, though fome pretend 
that he was his fon. The Athenians, who arrogate every thing 
to themfelves, affert, that he was one of their Sovereigns. 
They tell us, that he came to Athens, and married the daugh- 
ter of Crawnaus, the fecond King of Athens *. This unna- 
tural Prince dethroned his father-in-law, and ufurped the 
Crown. He reigned eleven, fome fay twelve years}, and was 
in his turn expelled by ErtrcuTHonivus. According to APoLLoO- 
pDorus, fome were of opinion, that this fame AmpuicTyon 
was not the fon of Deucation, but a native of Atticat ; and 
if ever fuch a perfon did aétually exift, I fhould imagine the 
latter opinion by far the moft probable. But in either cafe, 
nothing can be more abfurd than to fuppofe, that a petty fove- 
reign of a territory, fituated at a confiderable diftance from the 
centre of union, and unconneéted with all the other ftates en- 
gaged in the confederacy, fhould have been poffeffed of fufii- 
cient influence and authority to accomplifh an enterprife of 
fuch magnitude and importance. The very idea carries incon- 
fiftency in its afpecét. This claim we mutt therefore place to 
the account of Athenian vanity. 
Some have afcribed the inftitution to Acrisius, King of 
Argos §, a pofition ftill more improbable, if poffible, than the 
former. That Prince was too inconfiderable, and lived at too 
great a diftance, to have projected fuch a plan, or, if he had, 
he could never have carried it into execution. What could 
have induced a Sovereign of Argos to intereft himfelf in the 
concern of a temple fo remote from his own dominions ? What 
motive can we imagine could have engaged AcRIsIUs to pro- 
ject an inftitution calculated to promote the union and fecurity 
of a number of tribes with which he was altogether uncon- 
neéted ?—an inftitution from which neither himfelf nor his 
fubjects 
* Apottop. Bib. cap. ili. p. 221. Pausaw. in Att. cap. 2. p. 7. bottom. 
+ Id. ib. x Id. tb. § StRago, lib. ix. p. 420. 
