Immagini della pagina
PDF
ePub

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 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

3

hegemony and

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 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 ἐτάξαντο ἀντὶ τῶν νεῶν τὸ ἱκνούμενον ἀνάλωμα pépew.... Such States as had proved recalcitrant, 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,

1 Thuc i. 96, 97.-Cf. Köhler, loc. cit. pp. 88 seq.

2 Hist. of Greece, vol. iv. chap. xliv. p. 355.

3 Thuc. i. 99 : ἵνα μὴ απ' οἴκου ὦσι.

4 Thuc. i. 99.-Cf. Köhler, loc. cit. pp. 93 seq.; Nöthe, op. cit. PP. 9 seq.

Athens and her allies

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 pretend-
ing 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 them-
selves 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' (Kool) of Athens; and the
(ὑπήκοοι)
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."

3

The Confederates were officially designated oi σúμuaxoi political and (allies) or ai róλes (cities, states); but in ordinary usage, and to indicate the real character of the relation

legal

relationships.

1 Thuc. vi. 76 : ... τοὺς μὲν λειποστρατίαν, τοὺς δὲ ἐπ ̓ ἀλλήλους στρατεύειν, τοῖς δ ̓ ὡς ἑκάστοις τινὰ εἶχον αἰτίαν εὐπρεπῆ, ἐπενεγ κόντες κατεστρέψαντο.

2 Thuc. i. 98 : . . . πρώτη τε αὕτη πόλις ξυμμαχὶς παρὰ τὸ καθεστηκὸς ἐδουλώθη, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὡς ἑκάστῃ ξυνέβη.—Cf. ibid. i. 100, 101.

3 Cf. Arist. Ath. Pol. xxiv. 2; Corp. inscrip. Att. i. 260.

4Thuc. viii. 14, 22.

5 Cf. Corp. inscrip. Att. i. 9, 31, 37, 40.-Thus i. 9 speaks of ἡ Αθηναίων ξυμμαχία.

ships, they came to be described as výkoο (subjects).1 Some were autonomous allies, others were tributary.2 The former had to supply a specified number of fully equipped vessels of war; but in reference to their internal administration they enjoyed independence.3 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 maintained garrisons in many of the allied towns; and in the case also of the subject confederates, public officers (επίσκοποι) 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."

5

1Cf. Thuc. 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 αὐτόνομοι and ὑποτελεῖς φόρου (subject to taxation). Cf. ibid. i. 19; iii. 10; vi. 85.

3 For example, Thucydides says, vi. 85: Xíovs μèv kaì Mŋ0vμναίους νεῶν, παροχή [according to another reading, παροκωχῆ] αὐτονόμους.—vii. 57 : τούτων Χῖοι οὐχ ὑποτελεῖς ὄντες φόρου, ναῦς δὲ παρέχοντες, αὐτόνομοι ξυνέσποντο.... Μηθυμναῖοι μὲν ναυσὶ καὶ où pópy výκоOL.... (The Chians were independent, and, instead φόρῳ ὑπήκοοι. 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, οἱ ξύμμαχοι ἐδουλώθησαν πλὴν ἡμῶν καὶ Χίων.

5Cf. Aristoph. Aves, 1021 seq.; Corp. inscrip. Graec. i. 110.

[blocks in formation]

Cf. Corp. inscrip. Att. i. 37; Hicks, 64; Corp. inscrip. Att. i. 31; Hicks, 41 : . . . βοηθεῖν τὰς πόλεις ὡς ὀχσύτατα κατὰ τὰς χσυγγραφάς (11. 14-15),—the cities of the Athenian confederacy are to defend

...

Taxation.

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 (emipopá).1 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 aπapɣý, or àπapxaí (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 (eikoσTý) 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 έvyypapai, 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; Nöthe, op. cit. p. 6.

1 Corp. inscrip. Att. i. 240-244, 249, 252, 256.

2 Plut. Pericl. 12: ἐδίδασκεν οὖν ὁ Περικλῆς τὸν δῆμον, ὅτι χρημάτων μὲν οὐκ ὀφείλουσι τοῖς συμμάχοις λόγον προπολεμοῦντες αὐτῶν καὶ τοὺς βαρβάρους ἀνείργοντες, οὐχ ἵππον, οὐ ναῦν, οὐχ ὁπλίτην, ἀλλὰ χρήματα μόνον τελούντων....

Corp. inscrip. Att. i. 40.

4 Ibid. i. 257 : αἵδε τῶ(ν) πόλεων αὐτὴν τὴν ἀπαρχὴν ἀπήγαγον.

[blocks in formation]

Thuc. vii. 28 : καὶ τὴν εἰκοστὴν ὑπὸ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον [i.. about 413-412 B.C.] τῶν κατὰ θάλασσαν ἀντὶ τοῦ φόρου τοῖς ὑπηκόοις ἐποίησαν, πλείω νομίζοντες ἂν σφίσι χρήματα οὕτω προσιέναι.

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 dikai ovußólauai, 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."

Athenian

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, i. 31.

2 Cf. Dittenberger, Sylloge inscrip. Graec. 13, for an act of the Ecclesia of 440 B.C.; cf. the passage: Tàs de Tóλes (éy)λ(o)yéas ἑλέσθαι τοῦ καρποῦ, καθότι ἂν δοκῆς αὐτῆσι ἄριστα ὁ καρπο(ς) ἐγλεγήσεσθαι.

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.

6 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.

« IndietroContinua »