« IndietroContinua »
The various constituent States were to be free to adopt any form of government they pleased, and were not to be obliged to receive Athenian garrisons or accede to the intervention of Athenian officials in their civil administration. The Athenians and their allies engaged to come to the assistance of any confederate, against whom hostilities might be directed either by land or sea.
A clause to this effect is invariably found in alliances of this nature, and in almost every case is couched in this stereotyped form :
... βοηθείν 'Αθηναίους και τους συμμάχους
ν παντί σθενει κατά το δυνατόν,2 By 387 B.C. Athens had already effected an alliance with Chios, Mytilene, Thasos, Tenedos, Cos, Carpathos, Chalcedon, Rhodes, and others. In view of the aggressions of the Spartans in Boeotia, their reduction of Mantinea, their interference in the Olynthian confederation, and their expedition against Thebes, the Athenians next allied themselves to the latter city, 378 B.C., and through the exertions of Chabrias, Timotheus, and Callistratus, the confederacy was so enlarged that by 357 B.c. it included over seventy members. But, as usual, harmony, stability, and unanimity of purpose were found impossible. Defections soon began to be as frequent as accessions had been before. Organizations quickly constructed and lacking a solid basis of union inevitably tended just as quickly to disintegrate. During the Social war (357 B.c.), the desertion of members continued ; and
i after the battle of Chaeronea, with the consequent extinction of Greek liberty, the league was completely dissolved.
Att. ii. 17, 11. 9 seq., 11. 46 seq. ; Michel, 86; Hicks, 101; Rangabé,
... όπως αν Λακεδαιμόνιοι εώσι τους Έλλη-
2 Hicks, 101, 11. 49-51.
The official title of the second Athenian confederation Position of was οι Αθηναίοι και οι σύμμαχοι (the Athenians and the Athens and the allies). Athens assumed the general hegemony. She exercised supreme control over the military affairs, and acted as the representative of the entire league in relationships with foreign States. Each ally appointed a delegate to the Federal Council, which is frequently described as οι σύνεδροι των συμμάχων (the commissioners of the allies). It sat at Athens, where, it would appear, the delegates had also permanent residences ; whether these were assigned to them by the Athenian government or maintained by their respective States is not known. Each member possessed one vote,-a provision which was a great improvement on the cumbrous machinery of the first confederacy. Probably there were no articles of federation in the strict sense of the term, as is now understood in connection with a federal government, for the purpose of specifying the rights and obligations of the members ; but, rather, Athens entered into separate treaties—of course, more or less to the same effect—with the several States.
Originally it was understood that the allies' con- Contributions tribution was to be only in the form of military or naval contingents, that their independence was to be preserved, that Athens abandoned the policy of Ampoužiai? (that is relinquished all claim to land acquired in allies' territory), that she should station no garrisons in their territory. But in actual practice military service was once more gradually replaced by money supplies —virtually taxes—which now, however, did not bear the detested name of pópos, but were termed
of the allies.
1 Cf. Corp. inscrip. Att. ii. 17, 19.
syntaxis (cúvtaŝis),' a contribution, as devised by Callistratus ; and, further, the eixooth of the earlier league was reintroduced.
Again, the independence of the allies was impaired, -at least, so far as the judicial administration was concerned. The Athenian tribunals seem to have frequently exercised jurisdiction over various offences committed in the allied States. They acted, in many instances, as final courts of appeal, as, for example, from the recorded judgments pronounced in Ceos. In the case of Naxos, subjugated in 376 B.C., a treaty specifically stipulated that Athens should be the πόλις έκκλήτος, the place where appeals against Naxian decisions should be tried,—that is, of course, in those suits where right of appeal was admitted (εφέσιμοι δίκαι). The treaties which had been entered into in the case of the first league with regard to the jurisdiction and proceedings in commercial cases were now renewed by Athens with several States, such as, for example, Chios and Phaselis.? Eventually, also, the practice of establishing cleruchies was re-adopted, and the right of maintaining garrisons in the territory of the allies was again asserted.
The Federal Council, consisting of representatives procedure, etc.
appointed by the allies, really represented the interests of the latter, on the one hand, in so far as their relationships to Athens were concerned, and, on the other, in matters concerning the policy and organization of the league as a whole. Though each State had one vote, yet it is scarcely to be imagined that Athens would tolerate or acquiesce in a majority of votes prevailing over her own counsels, especially so as the greater part of the votes represented small and comparatively unimportant communities. The council meeting in Athens would be constantly face to face with the local Ecclesia. The foreign deputies would undoubtedly be impressed by Athenian institutions and formal pro
1 Cf. Harpocration, s.v. cúvtagus. 2 Gilbert, Gr. Alter. pp. 489-491 ; Eng. tr. p. 435.
cedure, and influenced by the city's traditions and ideals ;
so that, partly through such subconscious influences, and partly through the dialectic subtlety and persuasive force of the Athenians-not to mention local political machinations and all kinds of extra-official resources—the members of the Council would in spite of themselves eliminate their preconceptions and tend to submit to the representations set forth by the head of the confederacy, particularly so in view of the recognition of the admitted community of interests. An example of this predominating will of Athens is furnished by the proceedings relative to the peace of Philocrates, entered into with Philip (346 B.c.), when the federal envoys were obliged to give way, though, in this case, they really differed from Athens and were opposed to the treaty.
The Federal Council was merely a deliberative The Federal assembly. After due discussion of any matter under Councilia consideration,-it drafted an ordinance, or resolution assembly. (óóyua), and sent it up to the Athenian Council (the Bourn). If not approved there, an amendment or counter-proposal (TT poßoúhevua) was drawn up by the Boulé, and forwarded along with the original dogma to the Athenian Assembly (the 'Exklyola). In either case the final decision lay with the Ecclesia, which alone was empowered to convert a proposal into a law (Boúhevua). In this way the Federal Council was invited to express its opinion by the formal dogma in matters relating to the declaration of war, the conclusion of peace, the formation of alliances, and in foreign affairs generally. Occasionally its members ratified treaties by the solemn oath, and despatched envoys on diplomatic legations along with the ordinary Athenian ambassadors. А dogma appears likewise to have been customary to sanction the stationing of an Athenian garrison in
1 Cf. Hicks, 108; Michel, 9o.
2 Corp. inscrip. Att. ii. 51 ; Hicks, 108; Michel, 90.-Corp. inscrip. Att. 57b; Hicks, 119; Michel, 10.
the territory of an allied State, or for the appropriation
of the common funds of the league for some extraCertain judicial ordinary purpose. Finally, apart from its share in
these political functions, the Federal Council was vested with competence as a Court of Justice for the hearing of certain offences against the fundamental objects of the Confederacy, and for the decision of various other questions of a kindred character, as, for example, in a recorded case in which the Federal Council ordered the confiscation of property acquired by an Athenian in the territory of the allies.3
Now as to the Peloponnesian confederacy under Peloponnesian confederacy. Sparta. It consisted of most of the towns of the
Peloponnese which, though under the hegemony of Lacedaemon, yet preserved their autonomy. Thus in the first treaty between Lacedaemon and Argos, 418 B.C. (as in the second treaty in the same year), the fifth clause stipulated that the cities in Peloponnesus, small as well as great, should all enjoy independence, in conformity with their ancestral laws. Whether the relationships were regulated by specific treaties, or were based on a mutual understanding and implicit acceptance of the general objects, is not evident. But most of the members had alleged some grievance or other against Athens. Thus the Corinthians were incensed because the Athenians had seemingly espoused the cause of the Corcyraeans, who had been at enmity with their mother
1 Corp. inscrip. Att. ii. 17b; Hicks, 102 ; Michel, 87 (as to the alliance between Athens and Chalcis in Euboea, 377 B.c.).-Hicks, 130 (decree as to garrison maintained in Andros, 356 B.c.).
2 Corp. inscrip. Att. ii. 62 ; Rangabé, 393; Hicks, 130 ; Michel, 600. -Corp. inscrip. Att. ii. 108, 117.
3 Corp. inscrip. Att. ii. 17, 11. 41 seq., 11. 51 seq.; Michel, 86; Hicks, 101; Rangabé, 381, 381 b.
4 Cf. G. Busolt, Die Lakedaimonier und ihre Bundesgenossen (Leipzig, 1878); Müller, Die Dorier, i. pp. 179 seq.
5Thuc. v. 77, 79.
6 Τhuc. ν. 77: τας δε πόλιας τας εν Πελοποννήσω, και μικράς και μεγάλας, αυτονόμους είμεν πάσας καττα πάτρια.