... of the colony seeking to establish a settlement of its own was Certain rights obliged to choose a leader (oikioTs) from its parent mother-state. State. Thus the colony of Epidamnus was founded by Corcyraeans, under the leadership of a Corinthian, who was invited, according to ancient custom, from the metropolis,... οἰκιστὴς Κορίνθιος ... κατὰ δὴ τὸν παλαιὸν νόμον ἐκ τῆς μητροπόλεως κατακληθείς. The metropolis, again, frequently sent governors to the colonies,3 and sometimes also generals. In reference to the failure of the new Spartan colony, Heraclea, Thucydides says that one of the main causes of the ruin and depopulation of the place was the conduct of the governors, apxovтes, sent out from Lacedaemon, who frightened the people away by their severe and often unjust administration.* Finally, the mother-states enjoyed hospitality in the colonies, could contract valid marriages with the inhabitants, and own land there; and, in certain cases, they also possessed special privileges. of a virtual Thus it is seen that there existed a virtual alliance Relationships between the mother-country and her colonies, an alliance. alliance, moreover, based on considerations of sentiment and filial piety, reinforced by the religious sanction, rather than resting on any express compact. And such a union was by no means of a precarious nature. In fact, on several occasions it was found strong enough to supersede treaties concluded with foreign communities, and to impel the colonists to abandon their allies in favour of their own metropolis. An example of this is the exhortation of Themistocles to the Ionians, as referred to above. And Thucydides recounting the various causes of the quarrel between the Athenians and the Peloponnesians, mentions that Potidaea, which was originally a Corinthian colony, but in 432 B.C. the tributary and ally of Athens, revolted from the latter.5 Similarly, the Mytileneans of Lesbos repudiated their 1 Thuc. i. 24; cf. vi. 3, 4, in reference to numerous Hellenic colonies. 4 Ibid. 2Thuc. i. 24. sThuc. ini. 93. Roman colonies. alliance with Athens in order to join the Peloponnesian league; and the envoys from Mytilene, at the council of the Peloponnesian allies held at Olympia, 428 B.C., drew a distinction between their former relationship to Athens and the more fundamental one of kinship.1 As a French writer says: "... Il y avoit entre les métropoles et les villes qu'elles avoient fondées une alliance naturelle qui subsistoit réellement sans avoir besoin d'être marquée par aucun traité positif. Cette union étoit si forte qu'elle passoit par dessus tous les traités faits avec des étrangers." 2 The question of Roman colonies need scarcely occupy our attention here, as their position with regard to Rome was, from an interstatal point of view, different from that of the Greek colonies with respect to their metropolis. There was a certain form of colonization amongst the most ancient communities in Italy. From time to time they sent out their superfluous male population to seek new homes.1 Colonies were established by Rome for the purpose of holding in check a conquered nation, and for preventing hostile incursions, as, for example, in the case of the colonies of Narnia,5 Minturnae, and Sinuessa, Cremona, and Placentia. Hence, we find Cicero designating them 'propugnacula imperii,' the bulwarks of empire. Other reasons for Roman colonization were the desire to increase the population, 8 8 Cf. J. N. Madvig, De coloniarum pop. Rom. jure et condicione (1832); Dumont, Des colonies romaines (in Annales des Universités de Belgique, Bruxelles, 1843, PP. 557 seq.); N. D. Fustel de Coulanges, Le colonat romain (in Recherches sur quelques problèmes d'histoire, Paris, 1885, pp. 1-186); Smith's Dict. of Antiq. s.v. Colonia; Dar.-Sag. s.v. Colonia; Pauly's Real-Encyclop. s.v. Coloniae. 8 Cic. De leg. agr. ii. 27, 73.-Cf. his similar description (Pro Font. i. 13) of Narbo Martius, situated in the province of Gallia: "Colonia nostrorum civium, specula populi Romani et propugnaculum." and so to augment the power of Rome;1 to provide a means for deporting dangerous and turbulent individuals; and, in the case of the coloniae militares, to procure some provision for veteran soldiers.2 The Roman colonists usually received a third of the conquered territory,3—the original inhabitants retaining the rest, and the colony proper was held to be constituted by the new settlers alone. The conquered people did not receive complete citizenship, but were debarred from the political privileges of the ius suffragii. As in the case of Greece, when a law was passed for establishing colonies a number of persons-commonly three-were selected to take charge of the necessary proceedings. The method of apportioning the land, and the fixing of its amount, were prescribed by a legislative act. of Roman colonies. There were different kinds of colonies, such as coloniae Different kinds civium Romanorum, coloniae Latinae, and coloniae Italici iuris. The coloniae civium Romanorum included those which were founded exclusively by Roman immigrants, who, no doubt, retained their full rights of citizenship; whilst the conquered inhabitants were granted the civitas sine suffragio. The coloniae Latinae, of which there were three kinds, were founded after Rome acquired supremacy in Italy, on the decisive defeat of the Latins, 338 B.C., and the Hernicans, 306 B.C., and comprised Latins as well as Roman citizens. Most of these were allowed to remain independent communities, enjoying their own ancestral laws and institutions; they could adopt, when they chose, the principles of Roman jurisprudence. The Roman citizens who settled there lost their civitas, for which Latinitas was substituted, and became peregrini, 1 Liv. xxvii. 9. 2 Liv. xxxi. 4.-Cf. Vell. Paterc. i. 15. 8 Dion. Hal. ii. 35, 50, 53; Liv. x. 1. 4 Cf. Liv. xxxvii. 46: "triumviri ad colonos deducendos."Cf. vi. 21. See vol. i. pp. 240 seq. though commercium, and probably connubium, were extended to them. The coloniae Italici iuris were not colonies in the strict sense, but were rather such provincial cities as received, by way of a special concession, the ius italicum.1 This conferred on the community commercium, including the various incidental rights; and also immunity from taxation. As to the particular duties of the colonies to Rome, there is no text on the subject in the various codes of jurisprudence. 1 See vol. i. p. 234. CHAPTER XX INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN GREECE antiquity. In most of the States of antiquity, with their conception International of a strictly exclusive citizenship, their assumption of arbitration in interminable antagonism towards other communities, and their conviction of superiority in regard to alien peoples, war was a much more frequent mode of settling disputes and satisfying claims than arbitration.. International arbitration, in the strict sense, presupposes the existence of independent and autonomous States recognized as resting on a basis of juridical equality. But this principle, especially so in the case of oriental nations, was not firmly established, owing to the ineradicable notions of alienage, mutual hostility, religious incompatibility, and the natural tendency to resort to arms for the purpose of exacting justice. There were, of course, occasional relaxations in respect of such recourse to forcible measures. For deciding disputes, practices other than war were from time to time adopted, amongst which were mediation and arbitration. But, on the whole, references to arbitration were few. We do not find any general system, any regularized procedure, any accepted body of rules. Two or three examples are commonly cited by modern In the East. enthusiastic advocates of arbitration, as indicating that this peaceful method of terminating controversies was practised in the East. It is related by Herodotus that 1 Cf. L. Kamarowsky, Le tribunal international (trans. from the Russian by Serge de Westman, Paris, 1887), p. 112. |