Immagini della pagina
PDF
ePub

Between
Syracuse and

Between
Corinth and

a

wish to be ranked among the Boeotians,-ậv OnBalous Βοιωτων τους μη βουλομένους ές Βοιωτους τελέειν.1

Hippocrates, the tyrant of Gela, in the course of Hippocrates. extending his dominions, having vanquished the Calli

politae, the Naxians, the Zanclaeans, and the Leontines, was about to reduce also the Syracusans to subjection. But the Corinthians and Corcyraeans, as Herodotus relates, saved the Syracusans, after the defeat of the latter at the river Eleorus, by effecting a reconciliation, whereby Camarina which originally belonged to the Syracusans was to be given up to Hippocrates. This was not, however, a case of arbitration proper.

The proposed arbitration between Corinth and Corcyra. Corcyra involved the question of the alleged right

of the mother-state over its colony. The city of Epidamnus had been founded as a colony by Corcyra -herself a colony of Corinth—under the leadership of a Corinthian, in pursuance of long-established custom. It flourished rapidly; but in consequence of civil strife and barbarian attacks, it appealed to her mother-city, Corcyra, for assistance, which was, however, refused. Accordingly, acting under the advice of the Delphian oracle, the Epidamnians placed themselves under the protection of the Corinthians, their original founders. The latter took up their cause, partly because they themselves had been slighted by Corcyra, and partly because they considered that Epidamnus belonged as much to them as to Corcyra. In view of the extensive preparations of Corinth, Corcyraean ambassadors were despatched to summon the Corinthians to withdraw their troops, and to insist that they had nothing to do with Epidamnus. But if they made any claim to it, the Corcyraeans offered to submit the cause for arbitration to such Peloponnesian States as both parties would

i Herodot. vi. 108.

2 Herodot. vii. 154 : ερρύσαντο δε ούτοι επί τοϊσδε καταλλάξαντες, επ' ώτε “Ιπποκράτεϊ Καμαρίνας Συρακουσίους παραδούναι. 8 Thục. i. 24

4 Thục. i. 25.

agree upon, and their decision was to be final; or, they were ready to refer the matter to the pronouncement of the Delphian oracle. Corinth, however, rejected the overtures, and declared war.

On another occasion, according to Plutarch's report, when Corcyra was at variance with Corinth, Themistocles had been chosen to arbitrate between them, and effected a reconciliation. His award was to the effect that the Corinthians should pay down twenty talents, and that each State should have an equal share in the city and island of Leucas, as being a colony of both.?

In the conflict between Melos and Cimolos, 338 B.C., Between with regard to the possession of some small islands Melos and (viz. Polyaegos, Heteria, and Libia) situated near Cimolos, Argos acted as arbitrator at the invitation, and in accordance with the decree, of the common council of the Greeks, κοινών συνέδριον, instituted in 338 B.C. The Argive functionaries, who appear to have included a president, a secretary (ypopeus), and an assessor (πεδιών = μετεών, in the inscription), decided in favour of Cimolos.3

1 Τhuc. i. 28: ει δέ τι αντιποιούνται δίκας ήθελον δούναι εν Πελοποννήσω παρα πόλεσιν αίς αν αμφότεροι ξυμβωσιν όποτέρων δ' αν δικασθη είναι την αποικίαν, τούτους κρατείν. ήθελον δε και το εν Δελφοίς μαντείο επιτρέψαι.

2 Plut. Themistoc. 24: γενόμενος γαρ αυτών κριτης προς Κορινθίους εχόντων διαφοράν, έλυσε την έχθραν είκοσι τάλαντα κρίνας τους Κορινθίους καταβαλείν και Λευκάδα κοινή νέμειν αμφοτέρων άπoικoν.

3 Hicks, 150 ; Michel, 14.-Cf. Sonne, op. cit. pp. 34. seq.- The following is the inscription on a marble slab found in Cimolos, and now in Smyrna :

θεός.
"Έκρινε ο δάμος και των
'Αργείων κατά το δόκη-
μα του συνεδρίου των
Ελλάνων, ομολογη-
σάντων Μαλγίων και
Κιμωλίων έμμενες
αι κα δικάσσαιεν τοι
'Αργείοι περί ταν
[v]άσων, Κιμωλίων

Between Corinth and Epidaurus.

A

There was a dispute between Corinth and Epidaurus (c. 250 B.c.) as to some territory situated in the mountainous region on the Saronic Gulf. Both towns were members of the Achaean league,' and were, on that account, debarred from referring their difference to a third city. According to the constitution of the league, the general assembly alone had jurisdiction in the case of controversies arising between the confederates.? reference to a third city would necessarily involve the despatch of ambassadors, which was a privilege exercised by the Achaean towns only by the sanction of their federal council. Hence the disputants were obliged to apply to the congress.

By the order of the Achaeans, states the inscription, the Megaraeans pronounced judgment. The latter appointed a tribunal consisting of 151 judges, who repaired to the contested territory, and declared that it belonged to the Epidaurians. The Corinthians not

1 See supra, pp.

ημεν Πολύαιγαν, Έτήι-
ρειαν, Λίβειαν. Έδί-
κασσαν νικήν Κιμωλί-
[o]υς. 'Αρήτευε Λέων
[β]ωλάς σευτέρας, Ποσιδά-
ων γρο[+]εύς βωλάς, Πέριλ.
λος πεδιών.
26

seg.
2 Cf. Dubois, op. cit. p. 143; and supra, p. 27.

3 Michel, 20; Dareste, Haussoullier, and Reinach, Inscrip. jurid. grecques, pp. 342-9.--Cf. Sonne, op. cit. p. 30; and J. F. and T. Baunack, Studien auf dem Gebiete des griechischen und der arischer Sprachen (Leipzig, 1886), vol. i. pp. 219-236.—This inscription on a marble slab was found at Epidaurus in 1886. The following gives the substance of the judgment (apart from the detailed delimitation) as above stated :

.. κατά τον αίνον τον των 'Α. χαιων δικαστήριον αποστείλαντες άνδρας εκατόν πεντήκοντα ένας, και επελθόντων επ' αυτήν την χώραν των δικαστών και κρινάντων] Επιδαυρίων ειμεν ταν χώραν, αντιλεγόντων δε των Κορινθίων τω] τερμονισμώ, πάλιν απέστειλαν του Μεγαρείς τους τερμο[ιξ]ούντας εκ των αυτών δικασταν άνδρας τριάκοντα και ένα κατα τ]όν αίνον τον των Αχαιών. Ούτοι δε επελθόντες επί ταν χώραν ε]τερμόνιξαν κατά τάδε.

Melitaea and

accepting the decision, the Megaraeans, by the order of the Achaeans, once more sent thirty-one delimitators,' Tepuartñpes, taken from amongst the previously deputed judges; and on this occasion the delimitation of the frontiers was effected with great precision and thoroughness.

A frontier dispute, involving also a question of Between political relationships, between two Thessalian towns, Peria. Melitaea and Peria, was submitted to the judgment of the Aetolians (end of third century B.c.). The latter nominated four citizens from amongst themselves to officiate as arbitrators. In the award (contained in an inscription, couched in the Doric dialect), a certain delimitation of the territories in question was prescribed, so long as the Peraeans would remain united to the Melitaeans ; but in the event of a separation being effected, another arrangement was indicated. Further, both towns were to enjoy the same laws, and certain commercial matters in dispute were to be referred to the aediles of Melitaea.

A territorial controversy between Andros and Chalcis Between was submitted to Erythrae, Samos, and Paros.?

The Heracleian Tables 3 (tabulae Heracleenses), dis- Delimitation covered in 1732 near Heracleia, contain an inscription which indicates, amongst other things, the determination of the boundaries of the sacred territory belonging to a temple of Bacchus.

The difference between Lepreum and Elis, which Between arose out of the former's discontinuing to pay the Edipreum and annual tribute to Zeus, and impliedly asserting its independence, was submitted to the Lacedaemonians. According to the account of Thucydides, the Lepreans

Andros and
Chalcis.

of boundaries.

Elis

[ocr errors]

1 Rangabé, t. ii. no. 692 ; Michel, 22.-Cf. Dubois, op. cit. p. 228; Szanto, Das griechische Bürgerrecht, p. 152 ; and Bérard, De arbitrio.. pp. 32-4.

2 Plut. Quaest. graec. 30: εκ τούτου διαφοράς γενομένης, άνευ πολέμου συνέβησαν 'Ερυθραίοις και Σαμίοις και Παρίoις χρήσασθαι περί πάντων δικασταίς.

3 Corp. inscrip. Graec. 5774-5.

had undertaken to pay a rent of a talent to the Olympian Zeus in consideration of having been permitted by the Eleans to cultivate some land taken from certain Arcadian tribes, against whom the Lepreans had assisted the Eleans, 42 1 B.c. Taking advantage of the occasion of the Peloponnesian war, the Lepreans ceased paying, and the Eleans accordingly tried to compel them. “The Lepreans then had recourse to the Lacedaemonians, who undertook to arbitrate. The Eleans suspected that they would not have fair play at their hands; they therefore disregarded the arbitration and ravaged the Leprean territory. Nevertheless, the Lacedaemonians went on with the case, and decided that Lepreum was an independent State, and that the Eleans were in the wrong. As their award was rejected by the Eleans, they sent a

garrison of hoplites to Lepreum.” Between Paros A religious controversy between Paros and Naxos was

referred to a tribunal of Eretrian judges, 'Eper piéwv

dukao týplov, and a conciliation, orvos, was effected.2 Between Argos

The Mantineans officiated in an arbitration between Argos

and the Achaeans. Aratus, the commander of the Achaean confederacy, had made a hurried march on Argos, as Plutarch relates, and then retired, thus exposing the Achaeans to the charge of making a warlike invasion in time of peace,-... ώς εν ειρήνη πόλεμον εξενηνόχασι.3 The complaint was submitted to Mantinean judges; and, as Aratus did not make an appearance, Aristippus, who was the Argive representative, won his cause, and secured the imposition of a fine of thirty minae upon the Achaeans.

"1

and Naxos.

and the Achaeans.

1Τhuc. V. 31 : ... οι δ' ετράποντο προς τους Λακεδαιμονίους. και δίκης Λακεδαιμονίους επιτραπείσης υπoτoπήσαντες οι Ηλείοι μη ίσον έξειν, ανέντες την επιτροπών Λεπρεατών την γην έτεμον. οι δε Λακεδαιμόνιοι ουδέν ήσσον εδίκασαν, αυτονόμους είναι Λεπρεάτας και αδικείν Ηλείους, και ως ουκ έμμεινάντων τη επιτροπη φρουράν οπλιτών έσέπεμψαν ές Λέπρεον. Corp. inscrip. Graec. 2265.

3 Plut. Arat. 25. 4 Ιbid.: και δίκην έσχον επί τούτω παρά Μαντινεύσιν, ήν 'Αράτου μη παρόντος 'Αρίστιππος είλε διώκων και μνών ετιμήθη τριάκοντα,

2

« IndietroContinua »