Immagini della pagina
PDF
ePub

thus implied his independence. Eumenes, king of Pergamus, who had sided with Rome, received Lydia and Phrygia, Mysia and Lycaonia, the greater part of the peninsula of Asia Minor, and he was independent de iure, but de facto under Roman protection. Subsequently a dispute arose between Eumenes and Antiochus 1 as to whether Pamphylia lay on this side of or beyond the Taurus, and therefore whether it belonged to the king of Pergamus, or to the king of Syria.

It appears that the controversy was first referred to Gnaeus Manlius Volso, who, ceasing to be consul in 188 B.C., remained as proconsul in Asia to complete his command. The settlement of the conflict being beyond his power, he submitted it to the senate, as the only competent authority. L. Cornelius Scipio was accordingly despatched to Asia as a special commissioner; and whether his award was pronounced in accordance with the senate's instructions, or was given on his own responsibility is not definitely known. In any case, it would seem that Pamphylia was not adjudged to either of the contending parties, because some twenty years later, 169 B.C., we find it sending ambassadors to Rome as an independent State.3

기 In 189 B.C., Sparta endeavouring to occupy Las, a Between maritime city of Laconia, the latter complained to the Sparta and Achaean league, whose head Philopoemen demanded league. the surrender of the instigators; and, failing to obtain them, he made war on Sparta. The old state of property was then re-established there, the laws of Lycurgus were superseded by Achaean laws, and the fortifications were pulled down, 188 B.c. Ambassadors then arrived in Rome from Sparta to protest against these proceedings, and from Achaea to justify them. Roman mediation proved to be of little avail; for,

1 Ruggiero, PP. 238 seq.; Polyb. xxi. 48; Liv. xxxviii. 39; xxxix. 22.

2 Liv. xxxviii. 35, 37; Polyb. xxii. 24, etc. 3 Liv. xliv. 14:

... Pamphylii legati coronam auream ... in curiam intulerunt..

the Achaean

later, the senate was invited by all parties to arbitrate 1 in the entire dispute,—"an annoying task,” says Mommsen, “which was the righteous punishment of the sentimental policy that the senate had pursued.”? In 184 B.C. Appius Claudius Pulcher, along with other commissioners, was despatched to Greece, and in the general assembly convened at Clitorium, in Arcadia, caused to be cancelled the sentence of death that had been passed on two Spartan emigrants, but referred the main questions at issue to Rome. The senate again charged Appius Claudius together with Q. Caecilius Metellus, and T. Quinctius Flamininus to adjudicate. The award pronounced by them was to the effect that Sparta should re-enter the Achaean league, that she should be permitted to reconstruct her fortifications, and re-establish the Lycurgan institutions, and that the Achaean league should no longer exercise criminal jurisdiction over the Spartans. It was also ordered that this sentence should be committed to writing, and signed both by the Lacedaemonians and the Achaeans,

-"scribique id decretum et consignari a Lacedaemoniis I et Achaeis.” 3

Gortyna had deprived Cnossus of a portion of its territory called Licastium and Diatonium. "It is probable that the two cities in the first place applied to Rome to settle their difference, and that the senate afterwards referred the question to the Roman commissioners who were then in Greece, 184 B.C. Appius Claudius Pulcher, after his arrival in Crete, gave his decision in favour of Cnossus. From the words of Polybius, kai ποιησαμένων λόγους υπέρ τούτων ..., it would seem that it was a kind of compromise, effected through the mediation of Claudius.

Between Cnossus and Gortyna.

5

2

1 Ruggiero, pp. 240 seq. ; Liv. xxxix. 33, 37, 48; Pausan. vii. 9. 5.

Röm. Gesch. vol. i. p. 750: “... eine Belästigung, die die gerechte Strafe für die befolgte sentimentale Politik war.

3 Liv. xxxix. 48. 4 Ruggiero, pp. 244 seq.; Polyb. xxii. 19. 1 (xxiii. 15).

5 xxiii. 15.

Athens and

Sparta and Megalopolis 1 had a territorial dispute, Between which they submitted to Callicrates. His decision was Megalopolis.

Sparta and not accepted by Sparta, which applied to the Achaean league. The latter imposed a fine on Sparta, which still refused to give up the contested territory, but offered to submit to Roman arbitration. The senate accordingly deputed two of its members to decide the cause, 164 B.C. It may

be here mentioned that later Diaeus, the Achaean strategus, in order to divert public attention from an act of corruption committed by him, incited the confederation to commence hostilities against Sparta, ostensibly on the ground that the Spartans in their previous boundary dispute had instead of appealing to the council of the league, violated its laws by despatching a private embassy to Rome.”

The controversy of the year 159 B.c. between Athens Between and Delos 3 was of a private international character. The Delos. Roman arbitrators pronounced in favour of the Achaean league, and recognized its judicial competence with regard to the various confederates. Thus, Polybius relates that after Delos had been granted to Athens, the Delians removed to Achaea ; and having been enrolled members of the confederacy, they wished to have their claims against the Athenians decided according to the convention existing between the Achaean league and Athens. The Athenians, however, denied their right to plead under that engagement; accordingly, the Delians asked leave of the Achaeans to make reprisals on the Athenians. The latter despatched ambassadors to Rome in connection with this matter, and obtained a decision to the effect that judgments pronounced by the Achaeans, in accordance with their laws, concerning the Delians possessed juridical validity and binding force,έλαβον απόκρισιν, κυρίας είναι τας κατά τους νόμους γεγενημένας παρά τους Αχαιούς οικονομίας περί των Δηλίων.4

[blocks in formation]

Between
Melitaea and
Narthacius.

1

The difference between Melitaea and Narthacius 1 (150-146 B.c.) referred to the occupation of a certain territory by Narthacius. The latter claimed that it was recognized in 196 B.c. by the proconsul, T. Quinctius Flamininus as belonging to Narthacius; but the Melitaeans contended that its occupation by them was established after that, and that, moreover, the territory had been theirs from time immemorial. An inscription, engraved on both sides of a stone tablet found in Thessaly, gives the translation of a senatusconsult relating to the contending claims. First, there is a preamble, added at the instance of Narthacius, showing the date of the decree of the senate, and its publication by the magistrates of Thessaly and of Narthacius. Then follows a summary of the claims advanced before the senate by the deputies of Melitaea, after that the same in the case of Narthacius, and finally the decision of the senate.

Owing to the territorial controversy between Hierapytna and Itanos (138-132 B.c.), war broke out between them. On an appeal of Hierapytna to Rome, the senate despatched to Crete Servius Sulpicius together with other commissioners, and an arrangement in favour of Hierapytna was arrived at. But it is not clear whether these proceedings were of the nature of mediation or of arbitration proper. Itanos did not acquiesce, and applied to the senate to reconsider the question, which was thereupon referred to the city of Magnesia, with instructions embodied in a senatusconsult. Magnesia decided in favour of Itanos, but Hierapytna again appealed to Rome. The case was then submitted to the same city, whose assembly (dņuos) nominated a body of seventeen arbitrators presided over by a certain sacred official (vewkópos). There is no record of their sentence.

Between Hierapytna and Itanos.

1 Ruggiero, pp. 251 seg.-Cf. Willems, Le sénat de la rép. rom. vol. i. pp. 708 seq.

2 Ruggiero, pp. 259 seq. ; Corp. inscrip. Graec. 2561 b (in add.).

arbitration.

Next may be mentioned some examples of federal, Cases of or quasi-international, controversies which were sub- federal mitted to arbitration. Substantially these offer but little difference from the cases of international arbitration that have just been considered. Of the three kinds of arbitration relating to Rome, the settlement of international disputes partook of a politico-diplomatic character, that of administrative differences was purely an act of government on the part of Rome, whilst the adjustment of federal controversies occupied an intermediate position between these, much. in the same way as hegemony lay between dominion on the one hand, and protection on the other. Federal arbitration did not possess to the same extent the voluntary character of international arbitration ; for the Roman federal system was not based on perfect political equality of the allied States. Still, it exhibited the formal characteristics of a true arbitral procedure.

The federal controversy between Aricia and Ardea ? Between (446 B.c.) is the most ancient in Roman history, and Ardea. was submitted to the arbitral judgment of Rome. Aricia was one of the members of the Latin confederation. The decision given in favour of the latter caused internal dissensions in Ardea ; the people were desirous of joining the Volsci, whilst the nobility adhered to Rome. Hence the Romans taking advantage of this intestine strife despatched a band of colonists to Ardea, and distributed amongst them the lands of those who were opposed to Rome (442 B.c.).

Dionysius relates that the Aricini and the Ardeates having often fought for a tract of contested land, and being worn out with frequent losses, referred their difference to the arbitration of the Romans. At the assembly of the people, one Scaptius, a plebeian, pointed

2

Aricia and

1 Cf. Ruggiero, p. 76 : “ L'arbitrato federale, non è un puro atto di governo, come l'amministrativo, nè politico-diplomatico, come l'internazionale; esso sta tra l'uno e l'altro, nella stessa guisa che l'egemonia sta tra il protettorato e il dominio."

2 Ibid. pp. 268 seq.

« IndietroContinua »