Scanned text contains errors.
a colony of Corcyra; hut the leader (o/'faarTJs) of the colony of Epidamnus was a Corinthian who was invited from the metropolis Corinth. In course of time, in consequence of civil dissensions and attacks from the neighbouring barbarians, the Epidamnians applied for aid to Corcyra, but their request was rejected. They next applied to the Corinthians, who took Epidamnus under their protection, thinking,, says Thucydides, that the colony was no less theirs than the Corinthians': and also induced to do so through hatred of the Corcyraeans, because they neglected them though they were colonists; for they did not give to the Corinthians the customary honours and deference in the public solemnities and sacrifices as the other colonies were wont to pay to the mother country. The Corcyraeans who had become very powerful by sea, took offence at the Corinthians receiving Epidamnus under their protection, and the result was a war between Corcyra and Corinth. The Corcyraeans sent ambassadors to Athens to ask assistance; and in reply to the objection that they were a colony of Corinth, they said " that every colonjr, as long as it is treated kindly, respects the mother country: but when it is injured, is alienated from it; for colonists are not sent out as subjects, but that they may have equal rights with those that remain at home." (Thuc. i. 34.)
It is true that ambitious states, such as Athens, sometimes claimed dominion over other states on the ground of relationship ; but. as a general rule, colonies may be regarded as independent states, attached to their metropolis by ties of sjnnpathy and common descent, but no further. The case of Potidaea, to which the Corinthians sent annually the chief magistrates (S^/xioiyjyoi'), appears to have been an exception to the general rule. (Thuc. i. 56.)
The K.X'ripovyj.a^ of which me-ntion was made above, were colonies of an entirely different kind from the cbroi/acu, of which we have hitherto been speaking. They belonged exclusively to the Athenians ; and the earliest example to which the term, in its strict sense, is applicable, is the occupation of the domains of the Chalcidian'knights (iVTrogoTcu) by four thousand Athenian citizens, b. c, 506. (Herod, v. 77 ; comp. vi. 100.)
In assigning a date to the commencement of this system of colonisation, we must remember that the principle of a division of conquered lands had existed from time immemorial in the Grecian states. Nature herself seemed to intend that the Greek should rule and the barbarian obey; and hence, in the case of the barbarian, it wore no appearance of harshness. Such a system, however, was more rare between Greek and Greek. Yet the Dorians in their conquest of the Peloponnese. and still more remarkably in the subjugation of Messenia, had set an example. In what then did the Athenian K/X-^pouxi'ou differ from this division of territory, or from the ancient colonies ? In the first place the name, in its technical sense, was of later date, and the Greek would not have spoken of the HXfipovxiou of Lycurgus, any more than the Roman of the " Agrarian laws " of Romulus or Ancus. Secondly, we should remember that the term was always used with a reference to the original allotment: as the lands were devised or transferred, and the idea of the first division lost sight of, it would gradually cease to be applied. The distinction, however, between KXypovxoi and
&ttoikoi was not merely one of words but of things. The earlier colonies usually originated in private enterprise, and became independent of, and lost their interest in, the parent state. On the other hand, it was essential to the very notion of a' K\r}povxia that it should be a public enterprize, and should always retain a connection more or less intimate with Athens herself. The word Khypovxla conveys the notion of property to be expected and formally appropriated: whereas the 'airoucoi of ancient times went out to conquer lands for themselves, not to divide those which were already
j conquered. . . .
The connection with the parent state subsisted, as has been just hinted, in all degrees. Sometimes, as in the case of Lesbos, the holders of land did not reside upon their estates, but let them to the original inhabitants, while themselves remained at Athens. (Bockh., Public Econ. of Athens, p. 431, 2nd ed.) The condition o; these /cArjpoir^ot did not differ from that of Athenian citizens who had estates in Attica. All their political rights they not only retained, but exercised as Athenians ; in the capacity of landholders of Lesbos they could scarcely have been recognised by the state, or have borne any corporate relation to it. Another case was where the KXypovxoi resided on their estates, and either with or without the old inhabitants, formed a new community. These still retained the rights of Athenian citizens, which distance only precluded them from exercising : they used the Athenian courts; and if they or their children wished to return to Athens, naturally and of course they regained the exercise of their former privileges. Of this we have the most positive proof (Bockh, Ibid. p. 42.9): as the object of these K\ir)povxiaL was to form outposts for the defence of Athenian commerce, it was the interest of the parent state to unite them by a tie as kindly as possible : and it cannot be supposed that individuals would have been found to risk, in a doubtful enterprise, the rights of Athenian citizens.
Sometimes, however, the connection might gradually dissolve, and the KXypovxoi sink into the condition of mere allies, or separate wholly from the mother country. In Aegina, Scione, Potidaea, and other places, where the original community was done away, the colonists were most completely under the control of Athens. Where the old inhabitants were left unmolested, we may conceive their admixture to have had a twofold effect: either the new comers would make common cause with them, and thus would arise the alienation alluded to above ; or jealousy and dread of the ancient inhabitants might make the colonists more entirely dependent on the mother state. It seems impossible /to define accurately when the isopolite relation with Athens may have ceased, although such cases undoubtedly occurred.
A question has been raised as to whether the Kkypovxoi were among the Athenian tributaries. Probably this depended a good deal upon the prosperity of the colony. We cannot conceive that colonies which were established as military outposts, in otherwise unfavourable situations, would bear such a burthen: at the same time it seerny improbable that the state would unnecessarily forego the tribute which it had previously received, where the lands had formerly belonged to tributary allies.
It was to Pericles Athens was chiefly indebted