« IndietroContinua »
the Council to discharge, on the one hand, political and diplomatic functions in the determination of the policy of the league, and, on the other, to fulfil judicial and arbitral duties as a federal tribunal.1 " We have here in truth,” says Grote, “one of the few moments in Grecian history wherein a purpose at once common, equal, useful, and innocent, brought together spontaneously many fragments of this disunited race, and overlaid for a time that exclusive bent towards petty and isolated autonomy which ultimately made slaves of them all. It was a proceeding
It was a proceeding equitable and prudent, in principle as well as in detail; promising at the time the most beneficent consequences,—not merely protection against the Persians, but a standing police of the Aegean Sea, regulated by a common superintending authority. And if such promise was not realized, we shall find that the inherent defects of the allies, indisposing them to the hearty appreciation and steady performance of their duties as equal confederates, are at least as much chargeable with the failure as the ambition of Athens.”2
The hegemony of Athens gradually developed into Athenian a decisive political preponderance, and the confederacy sovereignty. was after a time virtually transformed into an Athenian
a empire. The allies became weary of the incessant wars; they disliked absence from home, as Thucydides says; and ultimately most of them agreed to pay an annual sum of money instead of supplying ships and troops, χρήματα επάξαντο αντί των νεων το έκνούμενον ανάλωμα pépeiv.... Such States as had proved recalcitrant,
4 either by refusing to contribute contingents or money, as the case may be, or by openly revolting through the increasing oppressiveness of the Athenian supremacy,
1Thuc i. 96, 97.JCf. Kohler, loc. cit. pp. 88 seq.
i. 4 Thuc. i. 99.-Cf. Kohler, loc. cit. pp. 93 seq.; Nöthe, op. cit. Pp. 9 seq.
were vigorously reduced to the condition of disarmed and passive tributaries, and the terms of their subjection to Athens were severally determined by special treaties. Hermocrates addressing the Camarinaeans in Sicily, 415 B.C., warned them that the Athenians whilst pretending to liberate Hellas were really enslaving it. Thus, the Ionians and other colonists of theirs who were their allies (he reminded them) wanting to revenge themselves on the Persians, freely invited the Athenians to be their leaders; and the invitation was accepted. “But soon they charged them, some with desertion, and some with making war upon each other; any plausible accusation which they could bring against any of them became an excuse for their overthrow.” 1 In accordance with this policy, Naxos, the largest island of the Cyclades, was in 466 B.C. subjugated and deprived of its autonomy; and soon after, Thasos shared the same fate. By the year 454 B.C. all the allied States, except Samos, Lesbos, and Chios, had become 'subjects' (ÚTýkool) of Athens; and the treasury of the league was removed from Delos to Athens. From about 447 B.C. the power of Athens, however, began to decline ; and in 412 B.C., in the twentieth year of the Peloponnesian war, the league was broken up through the jealous activities of her inveterate rival, Sparta.
The Confederates were officially designated oi oúumayo political and (allies) or ai móders (cities, states); 5 but in ordinary refationships
. usage, and to indicate the real character of the relation
1Τhuc. vi. 76: ... τους μεν λειποστρατίαν, τους δε επ' αλλήλους στρατεύειν, τοϊς δ' ως εκάστους τινά είχον αιτίαν ευπρεπή, επενεγκόντες καταστρέψαντο.
2 Τhuc. i. 98 : ... πρώτη τε αύτη πόλις ξυμμαχίς παρά το καθεστηκός έδoυλώθη, έπειτα δε και των άλλων ως εκάστη ξυνέβη.-Cf. ibid. i. 100, 101.
3 Cf. Arist. Ath. Pol. xxiv. 2 ; Corp. inscrip. Att. i. 260. 4 Thục. viii. 14, 22.
5 Cf. Corp. inscrip. Att. i. 9, 31, 37, 40.--Thus i. 9 speaks of η Αθηναίων ξυμμαχία.
ships, they came to be described as ÚTÝKOOL (subjects). Some were autonomous allies, others were tributary.? The former had to supply a specified number of fully equipped vessels of war; but in reference to their internal administration they enjoyed independence. The latter had to pay a yearly tribute, and were subject to certain restrictions in regard to the character of their constitution and internal administration. Athens main
* tained garrisons in many of the allied towns; and in the case also of the subject confederates, public officers (eniokoto) were despatched as overseers of their civil affairs. The prevailing form of government was democratic ; but in some cases aristocracies or oligarchies were retained, as in Samos,' and Mytilene, which were autonomous States prior to their subjugation. It appears that the tributary allies were subsequently divided into tribute-districts, which were also used as divisions in order to facilitate the central administration."
Cf, Thục. vi. 22, 43, 69 ; vii. 57.–See generally A. Fränkel, De condicione, jure, jurisdictione sociorum Atheniensium (Leipzig, 1878), and esp. pp. 9 seq.
2 Thucydides, in vii. 57, does not appear to draw a precise distinction between αυτόνομοι and υποτελείς φόρου (subject to taxation). Cf. ibid. i. 19; iii. 10;
3 For example, Thucydides says, vi. 85: Xiovs uèv kai Mnouus ναίους νεών, παροχή [according to another reading, παροκωχή) αυτονόμους.-vii. 57 : τούτων Χίοι ουχ υποτελείς όντες φόρου, ναύς δε παρέχοντες, αυτόνομοι ξυνέσποντο. ... Μηθυμναίοι μεν ναυσί και
, . où popo útokool. ... (The Chians were independent, and, instead of paying tribute, provided ships. ... The Methymnaeans furnished ships, but were not tributaries.) 4 Cf. Thuc. vi. 85; vii. 57.—But in iii. 10 the Mytilenaeans are
: made to say that all the allies were enslaved except themselves and the Chians, οι ξύμμαχοι έδoυλώθησαν πλήν ημών και Χίων.
5 Cf. Aristoph. Aves, 1021 seq. ; Corp. inscrip. Graec. i. 110. 6 Thuc, viii. 48, 64, 65.
7 Thục. i. 15. Thuc. iii. 27, 47:
Cf. Corp. inscrip. Att. i. 37 ; Hicks, 64 ; Corp. inscrip. Att. i. 31; Hicks, 41:... βοηθείν τας πόλειςώς όχσύτατα κατά τας χσυγγραφάς ... (11. 14-15),—the cities of the Athenian confederacy are to defend
In addition to the regular tax (pópos), Athens
( claimed the right, in cases of emergency, to impose on some of the allies a further tribute (énipopá). Pericles claimed that Athens was entitled to spend the money as she pleased, and that the allies had no right whatever to question the mode of its appropriation, provided they were defended from the Persians, and were afforded the security purchased by such contributions.2 Sometimes a city was exempted from taxation for a certain period (as, for instance, Methone, in 428–7 B.c.),3 in which case it had to contribute only the anapx, or åtapxai (that is, the first-fruits, for sacrificial purposes), consisting of a sixtieth part of the amount of the ordinary tax. Just before the dissolution of the league, Athens substituted for the old tribute a five per cent. ad valorem duty (eikootń) on all exports and imports of the allies. The reason for this action was, according to Thucydides, the expectation of raising larger funds; but probably it was due to the irregularity of the ordinary payments, and the greater difficulty experienced in collecting them owing to the continuing defections. Considered merely as tithes to the gods, and not as tribute in the strict sense, a ram and two sheep had to be provided for the sacrifices at the Panathenaia by each Brea, an Athenian colony in Thrace in accordance with the Evyypapai, viz. the laws drawn up by special commissioners, and approved by the council and assembly.- For a different opinion see Köhler, loc. cit. pp. 125-6; Nothe, op. cit. p. 6.
. . 1 Corp. inscrip. Att. i. 240-244, 249, 252, 256. 2 Plut. Pericl. 12 : εδίδασκεν ουν ο Περικλής τον δήμον, ότι 2 . . :
ó , χρημάτων μεν ουκ οφείλουσι τους συμμάχοις λόγον προπολεμούντες αυτών και τους βαρβάρους ανείργοντες, ουχ ίππον, ου ναύν, ουχ οπλίτην, αλλά χρήματα μόνον τελούντων....
3 Corp. inscrip. Att. i. 40.
Corp. inscrip. Graec. 538.
of the allies and the cleruchs. They shared in the sacred rites and festivals, and so they were obliged to offer to the Eleusinian goddesses the same tribute of grain as the Athenians devoted.2 Athens assumed exclusive jurisdiction in material Jurisdiction.
. questions relating to federal institutions, and especially so in the case of offences against herself in her capacity as head of the league. Thus the Athenian tribunals regularly tried cases of treason, and of hostility on the part of the alleged States against Athens herself, as well as all serious offences against the federal government.
" The Athenian courts served also as final courts of appeal in the case of criminal proceedings against the citizens of any allied State. As to other matters, it has already been stated, in considering the broader question of private international law in Greece, and the jurisdiction relating to foreigners, that with regard to the oikai ovußódaia, that is, causes arising out of commercial agreements entered into between subjects of different countries, a special procedure obtained within the league ; that probably such suits were heard by the tribunals of the city where the defendant was domiciled."
The second Athenian league was established with the The second avowed object of resisting the aggression of Lacedaemon, league. and of ensuring the liberty and autonomy of the allies.?
1 As to the allies, Corp. inscrip. Att. i. 9;i. 37; as to the cleruchs,
2 Cf. Dittenberger, Sylloge inscrip. Graec. 13, for an act of the Ecclesia of 440 B.C.; cf. the passage : ràs dè Tróles (éy)X(o)yéas ελέσθαι του καρπού, καθότι αν δοκει αυτησι άριστα και καρπός) έγλεγήσεσθαι.
3 Aristoph. Wasps, 288 seq. ; Peace, 639 seq.
4 Corp. inscrip. Att. i. 38. (But the fragments of this inscription are very much mutilated.) 5 See vol. i. pp. 198 seq.
Cf. G. Busolt, Der zweite athenische Bund (in Jahrbuch für classische Philologie, Suppl. vii. 1873-5, pp. 641-866).
7 For a decree, 377 B.c. (inscription on a stele), relating to the establishment of the second Athenian Confederacy, see Corp. inscrip.