accepting the decision, the Megaraeans, by the order of the Achaeans, once more sent thirty-one 'delimitators,' TeрμaσTĥpes, taken from amongst the previously deputed judges; and on this occasion the delimitation of the frontiers was effected with great precision and thoroughness. Melitaea and 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 dialect1), 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. Andros and of boundaries. A territorial controversy between Andros and Chalcis Between was submitted to Erythrae, Samos, and Paros.2 The Heracleian Tables (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. Lepreum and The difference between Lepreum and Elis, which Between arose out of the former's discontinuing to pay the Elis. annual tribute to Zeus, and impliedly asserting its independence, was submitted to the Lacedaemonians. According to the account of Thucydides, the Lepreans 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: ἐκ τούτου διαφορᾶς γενομένης, ἄνευ πολέμου συνέβησαν Ερυθραίοις καὶ Σαμίοις καὶ Παρίοις χρήσασθαι περὶ πάντων δικασταῖς. 3 Corp. inscrip. Graec. 5774-5. Between Paros and Naxos. Between Argos and the Achaeans. 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, 421 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." "1 A religious controversy between Paros and Naxos was referred to a tribunal of Eretrian judges, τὸ Ερετριέων δικαστήριον, and a conciliation, σύλλυσις, was effected. 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,... ὡς ἐν εἰρήνῃ πόλεμον evvóxaoi. 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 Thuc. v. 31 : ... οἱ δ ̓ ἐτράποντο πρὸς τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους. καὶ δίκης Λακεδαιμονίοις ἐπιτραπείσης ὑποτοπήσαντες οἱ Ἠλεῖοι μὴ ἴσον ἕξειν, ἀνέντες τὴν ἐπιτροπὴν Λεπρεατῶν τὴν γῆν ἔτεμον. οἱ δὲ Λακεδαιμόνιοι οὐδὲν ἧσσον ἐδίκασαν, αὐτονόμους εἶναι Λεπρεάτας καὶ ἀδικεῖν Ηλείους, καὶ ὡς οὐκ ἐμμεινάντων τῇ ἐπιτροπῇ φρουρὰν ὁπλιτῶν ἐσέπεμψαν ἐς Λέπρεον. 4 Ibid.: καὶ δίκην ἔσχον ἐπὶ τούτῳ παρὰ Μαντινεῦσιν, ἣν Αράτου μὴ παρόντος Αρίστιππος εἷλε διώκων καὶ μνῶν ἐτιμήθη τριάκοντα. Achaeans. A settlement of the disputes between the Eleans and Between the the Achaeans was effected by a celebrated athlete, Pan- Eleans and the tarces, an Elean, who seems, however, to have officiated as a mediator rather than as an arbitrator. Pausanias says that the inscription on the statue of Pantarces stated that the monument was an offering of the Achaeans, because he made peace between them and the Eleans, and procured the release of the prisoners on both sides.1 Eleans and In a boundary dispute between the Eleans and the Between the Arcadians, it is related that judgment was pronounced the Arcadians. by one Pyttalus, an Elean, who had been a victor in a boxing-match in the Olympic games. Lebedos and In the reign of Antigonus, the inhabitants of Lebedos, Between having been compelled to abandon their country, settled Teos. at Teos; whereupon certain difficulties arose between them and the other inhabitants of Teos. Mytilene was appointed by Antigonus to act as arbitrator, and the differences in question were amicably adjusted.3 Pausanias mentions a report that when Damophon Between Elis was the sovereign of Pisa, he inflicted serious injuries on the Eleans, but that on his death, the Pisans disclaimed, as a State, any share in his misdeeds, and were ready to make peace; whereupon their differences were settled by sixteen women chosen from among the eldest and most distinguished in rank and reputation in the sixteen cities then existing in Elis.* 1 Pausan. vi. 15. 2: Παντάρκην δὲ Ἠλεῖον Ἀχαιῶν ἀνάθημα εἶναι τὸ ἐπίγραμμα τὸ ἐπ' αὐτῷ φησιν· εἰρήνην τε γὰρ Αχαιοῖς ποιῆσαι καὶ Ἠλείοις αὐτόν, καὶ ὅσοι παρ' ἀμφοτέρων πολεμούντων ἑαλώκεσαν, ἄφεσιν καὶ τούτοις γενέσθαι δι' αὐτόν. 2 Pausan. vi. 16. 8. P. Le Bas, Voyage archéologique, ve. partie, no. 86. 4 Pausan. v. 16. 4 : Δαμοφώντά φασι τυραννοῦντα ἐν Πίσῃ πολλά τε ἐργάσασθαι καὶ χαλεπὰ Ἠλείους· ὡς δὲ ἐτελεύτησεν ὁ Δαμοφῶν, οὐ γὰρ δὴ οἱ Πισαΐοι συνεχώρουν μετέχειν δημοσίᾳ τοῦ τυράννου τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων, καί πως ἀρεστὰ καὶ Ἠλείοις ἐγένετο καταλύεσθαι τὰ ἐς αὐτοὺς ἐγκλήματα, οὕτως ἑκκαίδεκα οἰκουμένων τηνικαῦτα ἔτι ἐν τῇ Ἠλείᾳ πόλεων γυναῖκα ἀφ' ἑκάστης εἵλοντο διαλύειν τὰ διάφορά σφισιν ἥτις ἡλικίᾳ τε ἦν πρεσβυτάτη καὶ ἀξιώματι καὶ δόξῃ τῶν γυναικῶν προεῖχεν . . . ἀπὸ τούτων μὲν αἱ γυναῖκες οὖσαι τῶν πόλεων Πισαίοις διαλλαγὰς πρὸς Ηλείους ἐποίησαν. and Pisa. Between This report, however, is probably as much legendary as the Homeric account of Arete, the wife of Alcinous, king of the Phaeacians, who is said to have assisted her friends' husbands to settle their disputes.1 The Athenians having, through pressure of necessity, made a pillaging expedition against Oropus, the Oropians appealed to the Roman senate (156 B.C.), who nominated the Sicyonians as arbitrators, with the instruction that they should impose a fine on the offenders in proportion to the injury that had wantonly been inflicted. The Athenians failed to send a representative at the hearing of the cause, and accordingly the Sicyonians sentenced them to pay a fine of five hundred talents; but on the petition of the Athenians (151 B.C.), who despatched to Rome the celebrated embassy consisting of the three philosophers, Diogenes, Critolaus, and Carneades, the Roman senate reduced the sum to a hundred talents.2 Even this fine was not paid; and subsequently the Oropians consented to receive an Athenian garrison, and to give hostages. The failure to carry out this arrangement, as Barbeyrac points out, was the cause later of a war between the Romans and the Achaeans,-a war which put an end to what liberty there had still remained in Greece.3 It may be mentioned that though we perceive in this case apparently an exercise of sovereign power on the part of Rome, yet, at bottom, it was a case of arbitration proper, on the ground that Rome was not at the time 1 Hom. Odyss. vii. 74: οἶσι τ' ἔν φρονέῃσι, καὶ ἀνδράσι νείκεα λύει. 2 Pausan. vii. II. 4-5 : Σικυώνιοι μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἀφικομένοις ἐς καιρὸν τῆς κρίσεως Αθηναίοις ζημίαν πεντακόσια τάλαντα ἐπιβάλλουσι Ρωμαίων δὲ ἡ βουλὴ δεηθεῖσιν Αθηναίοις ἀφίσι πλὴν ταλάντων ἑκατὸν τὴν ἄλλην ζημίαν. 8 Barbeyrac, op. cit. i. no. 437, p. 397: “L'inexécution de ce traité fut une sémence, qui quelques années après, donna occasion à une guerre des Romains contre les Achéens, dont les suites entrainèrent perte de tout ce qui restait de liberté dans la Grèce." la at war with Athens, nor was Greece yet reduced to a Roman province.1 Samos. There had been several disputes, some dating from Between very early times, between Priene and Samos, as to the Priene and possession of some territory situated on the Asiatic coast. About the middle of the sixth century B.C., a difference between them was settled by Bias, one of the seven sages of Greece; two centuries later, Lysimachus acted as arbitrator between them; 2 afterwards Antiochus Theos intervened, and despatched a number of commissioners; then Ptolemaeus Philometor arbitrated; and finally, about 135 B.C., a commission of Rhodian judges officiated, under the authority of the Romans.3 Olus. An inscription, found in Delos in the temple of Between Apollo, presents a convention between Lato and Olus Lato and (latter half of second century B.C.), agreeing to refer all their disputes of whatever nature they may be to the arbitration of Cnossus. It provides for the setting up of steles recording the compact in the temple at Delos. Cnossus was to deliver judgment within six months, and was empowered to cause the decision to be engraved on steles, and to have the latter deposited in Crete within thirty days. The judgment pronounced and recorded by the Cnossians was ever to have the force of law; so that henceforth every grievance, to which the said judgment relates, was to be terminated. Copies of the present convention were to be sent to Cnossus, and also exchanged between Lato and Clus. The contending parties engaged to submit to the convention, and to the arbitral judgment, under penalty of a specified fine; and provision was made for the recovery thereof in case of failure to acquiesce in the decision 1 Cf. the next chapter, where are mentioned other cases of arbitration between Greek communities, but as conducted under Roman sovereignty. 2 Cf. Corp. inscrip. Graec. 2254. 3 Cf. Corp. inscrip. Graec. 2905; Dittenberger, Syll. inscrip. Graec. 241; Newton and Hicks, Collection of ancient Greek inscriptions in the British Museum, pt. iii. no. 405. |