Treaty between 200 B.C. precision, indicating a tolerably advanced stage in the development of ancient diplomatic methods. "On se croirait en pleine diplomatie du moyen âge," says Egger, "au temps où les républiques de l'Italie septentrionale s'agitaient dans des discordes sans fin, protégées et opprimées tour à tour par les royautés du midi ou par l'Empereur."1 Different kinds of treaties are those (as reported by Polybius) between Byzantium, Prusias, the king of and Rhodes, Bithynia, and Rhodes, 220 B.C.2 The treaty with the Rhodians provided that Byzantium should not impose any toll on ships sailing into the Pontus. In the treaty with Prusias the following conditions were laid down: (1) There shall be peace and amity for ever between Prusias and the Byzantines. (2) The Byzantines shall in no way attack Prusias, nor Prusias the Byzantines. Perpetual peace. Prisoners of war. Restoration of property. Alliance between Pharnaces, (3) Prusias shall restore to the Byzantines all lands, forts, populations, and prisoners of war without ransom; and besides these things, the ships taken at the beginning of the war, and the arms seized in the fortresses; and also the timbers, stonework, and roofing belonging to the fort called Hieron. (4) Finally, Prusias shall compel such of the Bithynians as have any property, taken from the Byzantine district of Mysia, to restore it to the farmers.' An interesting example of a combination effected with a view to opposing the Roman supremacy is the Eumenes, and alliance between Pharnaces, Eumenes, and Ariarthes, 179 B.C. According to Polybius, the terms were as follows: Ariarthes, 179 B. C. Perpetual peace. (1) 1) Eumenes, Prusias, and Ariarthes shall maintain perpetual peace with Pharnaces and Mithridates. 3 Polyb. xxvi. 6 (Shuckburgh, xxv. 2); cf. Liv. xl. 20. (2) Pharnaces shall not enter Galatia on any pretence. ་ (3) 'Such treaties as exist between Phar- (5) Pharnaces shall restore to Ariarthes (6) He shall restore Tium by the Pontus which some time before was given freely and liberally by Eumenes to Prusias.1 (7) Pharnaces shall restore, without ransom, all prisoners of war and all deserters. (8) He shall repay to Morizus and Ariarthes, in lieu of all money and treasure taken from them, the sum of nine hundred talents, and shall add thereto three hundred talents for Eumenes towards the expenses of the war. (9) 'Mithridates, the satrap of Armenia, shall also pay three hundred talents, because he attacked Ariarthes in defiance of the treaty with Eumenes.' Evacuation. Restoration of territory. Prisoners of war. Indemnity. The treaty further mentioned the other signatories, Hostages. and specified the number and quality of the hostages to be given by Pharnaces. Lato and Olus, In the treaty between Lato and Olus, two towns in Treaty between Crete, entered into in the latter half of the second latter half of century B.C., a perpetual alliance was stipulated, and second provision was made regarding the territoriality of their 1 Cf. Polyb. v. 77. 2 Corp. inscrip. Graec. 2554.-Cf. Egger, p. 125. 3 The alliance is entered into "for all time," and, as usual, speaks of their having "the same friends and enemies"; cf. ibid. ll. 10-12: . . [φίλως] καὶ συμμάχως ἀλλάλοις ὑπομένειν ἁπλόως καὶ ἀδόλως εἰς τὸν πάντα χρόνον, καὶ [τὸν] α[ὐτὸν φίλον] καὶ [ἐχ]θρὸν ἕ[ξε]ν. century B.C. Legal settlement of disputes. Amendment of treaty. Boundaries. Treaty between Disputes arising out of contracts. respective laws. Thus, it stipulates that mutual assistance should be rendered in case of aggression directed against them, that all their civil and religious rights should be interchanged, that the treaty should be ratified annually by the solemn oath, the form of which is prescribed, that their magistrates should proceed to the cities to determine questions of law, and, whilst engaged in these duties, that they should be held inviolable, and be accorded hospitality. Further, it provides for the addition or removal of any clause by mutual consent, and for the preservation of the text of the treaty. Finally, their boundaries are clearly marked out. In regard to the above-mentioned question of the territoriality of the law, the agreement between Athens 395-385 B.C. (?) and Phaselis, made about 395-385 B.C., is of the greatest importance. It provides (as has already been pointed out in an earlier chapter1) that disputes arising out of commercial contracts entered into at Athens between Athenian and Phaselite merchants should be heard by the Athenian polemarch; but that actions on contracts not concluded at Athens should be tried in accordance with the conditions of a treaty previously established by the two parties; and, if any Athenian magistrate should pronounce sentence on cases brought before him contrary to these regulations, his judgment was to be regarded as void.2 Treaty between reprisals. The treaty between Oeantheia and Chalaeum, two Locrian towns on the gulf of Crissa in Phocis, concluded about 431 B.C., is one of the most noteworthy conventions relating to the regulation of the practice Regulation of of reprisals, σûλaι. It secured the total discontinuance of seizures on land and in the ports, and restricted the practice to the open sea. It provided for the payment of a certain fine in the case of unlawful capture, and ordered restitution of the goods within a period of ten 1 See vol. i. pp. 198 seq. Maritime capture. 2 Hicks, 36; Corp. inscrip. Att. ii. 11; Michel, 6.-See the Greek text of this convention, vol. i. p. 199, note 2. days. All claims that might arise were to be brought Legal solution before different tribunals according to circumstances.1 of disputes. and the beginning of A somewhat similar engagement is the alliance Alliance between Ceos and the Aetolians, of the beginning of between Ceos the second century B.C. It stipulates that no Aetolian Aetolians, shall carry off to slavery any citizen of Ceos, by land second or by sea, for any grievance whatever; and in return century B.C. the rights of Cean citizenship are bestowed on the Aetolians. Mention has already been made of the conventions Commercial (ovußola) entered into for regulating commercial treaties. (σύμβολα) relationships, of the mode of settling the suits arising therefrom (Sika ȧтò σvμßóλwv), of the determination of the competence of the tribunals, according to the Jurisdiction. prescriptions of the forum contractus, and of the provision for reference to the courts of a third city (ekkλTOS TÓλIS), if mutually agreed upon.3 Though there were numerous treaties to regulate trading transactions and to adjust controversies connected therewith, it cannot be said that amongst the ancient peoples there were treaties of commerce in the strict acceptation of the term, that is, in the modern sense.1 treaty between 389-383 B.C. We have the record of a treaty between Amyntas Commercial III., king of Macedonia, and Chalcis in Euboea, 389- Macedonia and 383 B.C., for the purpose of regulating the exportation Chalcis, of timber for the use of buildings and ships. It was laid down, as the main condition, that there should be a previous declaration and payment of duty.5 Some twenty or thirty years later, a treaty of a like Commercial nature was concluded between Athens and Ceos (about Athens and treaty between Ceos, 360 1 Von Scala, no. 58, estimates the date of this convention at about 350 B.C. 450 B.C.-Cf. as to jurisdiction, vol. i. pp. 198 seq., and see further infra, chap. xxvii. in connection with the various forcible measures short of war. 2 See infra, chap. xxvii., for references and text of the inscription, 3 See vol. i. pp. 198 seq. 4 Cf. Büchsenschütz, Besitz und Erwerb im gr. Alterth. pp. 516 seq. 5 Hicks, 95; Michel 5.-Cf. Egger, p. 103. Commercial treaty between Treaty between 360-350 B.C.). Ceos had joined the Athenian league In the commercial treaty between Athens and Leucon I., king of Bosporus, 357 B.C., the Athenians obtained from him the right of shipping corn without export duty, before any other people were supplied; and in return for this concession, the king and his sons were admitted to Athenian citizenship, and also exempted from the various burdens incidental thereto.5 In the military alliance, during the social war (about and Atarneus, 350-345 B.C.), between the Erythraeans of Asia and C. 350-345 B.C. Hermias, the tyrant of Atarneus, there were certain conditions relating to trading operations, specially inserted in consequence of the prospect of war; for example, with regard to the unloading and safe storage of cargoes on allied territory,-in which case no duty See the inscription in Hicks, no. 118, as to this revolution, and as to the subsequent steps taken by Athens for cementing the alliance on a firmer basis. 2 Hicks, 137; Michel, 401. 8 Cf. Büchsenschütz, op. cit. pp. 516, 550 seq. 4 Von Scala, no. 184. 5 Demosth. c. Lept. 36 (p. 468): is μèv cikóτws kai dikaiws τετύχηκε τῆς ἀτελείας παρ ̓ ὑμῶν ὁ Λεύκων.... § 33: οὐ μόνον iμîv ikavov σîTov áñéσteidev.... Cf. Strabo, vii. 4. 6; Büchsenschütz, op. cit. p. 517. |