The relation which subsistei between the Greek colonists and the prior in , habitants of the countries which they occupied, was undoubtedly in most cases that of conquerors and subjects. Either the natives withdrew into the interior and left the ground to the new occupants, as the Siculi did in several instances, or they resisted, in which case, when over powered, the men were exterminated or reduced to slavery, and the conquerors kept the women for themselves. In some instances the older inhabitants were re duced to the condition of serfs or bond men to the new settlers. The records of authentic history do not present us with an instance of any colony being settled in a country where there were not previous inhabitants. The consequence of the immigration of a new race, who seek to possess themselves of the land, must be the extermination or gradual decay of the prior race, unless the old inhabitants are made slaves. So far as we trace the his tory of Greek colonies in the scattered fragments of antiquity, such were the consequences of their colonial settlements. On the coast of Italy it would appear that the Greeks pursued a more humane or more politic course. They are said to have allied themselves to and intermar ried with the natives, and by their supe rior civilization to have acquired great influence. It may here be remarked that the Greeks, so far from being averse to foreign intermixture, as some have said, mingled their blood freely with that of all the nations with whom they came into contact, and thus the civilization of the Hellenic stock was gradually introduced among nations less advanced in the useful arts.
The relations between these Greek colonies and the mother country, and between those colonies that were of a kindred race, may be gathered pretty clearly from Thucydides (i. 24, &c.). Epidamnus was a cokony of Corcyra : but the leader of the colony (obesavis), the founder of the colony, or the person under whose conduct it was settled, was a Corinthian, who was called or invited, says Thucydides, from the mother city (called by the Greeks the metropolis, perpctroxii, or parent state), according to an ancient usage. Thus it appears that if a colony wished to send out a new colony, this was properly done with the sanction of the mother country. Some Corinthians and other Dorian joined in the settlement of Epidamnus, which be came a thriving community, and inde pendent both of Corcyra and Corinth. In the course of time, however, civil dissen sions and attacks from the neighbouring barbarians induced the Epidamnians to apply to Corcyra, as to their metropolis, for assistance, but their prayers were not attended to. Being hard pressed by the enemy, they turned themselves to the Corinthians, and gave up their town to them, as being the real founders of the colony, in order to save themselves from destruction. The Corinthians accepted the surrender, and sent a fresh colony to Epidamnus, giving notice that all the new settlers should be on an equal foot ing with the old settlers: those who did not choose to leave home were allowed to have an equal interest in the colony with those who went out, by paying down a sum of money, which appears to have been the price of allotments of land. Those who went out gave their services ; those who stayed at home gave their money. " Those who went out," says Thucydides, " were many, and those who paid down their money were also many." For the moneyed people it was in fact an affair of pure speculation. The Corey mans, themselves originally a colony from Corinth, having become very Fewer ful by sea, slighted their metropolis, and " did not pay to the Corinthians the cus tomary honours and deference in the pub lic solemnities and sacrifices, as the other colonies were wont to pay to the mother country." They accordingly took offence at the Corinthians accepting the surrender of Epidamnus, and the result was a war between Corcyra and Corinth.
Again, the Corcyrman deputies, who were sent to seek the alliance of the Athenians against Corinth, stated in an swer to the objection that they were a colony of Corinth, that " a colony ought to respect the mother country as long as the latter deals justly and kindly by it, but if the colony be injured and wrongly used by the mother country, then the tie is broken, and they become alienated from each other, because, said the Corcyrieans, colonists are not sent out as subjects, but as free men to have equal rights with those who remain at home." (i. 34.) This
shows the kind of relation as understood by the Greeks between the metropolis and its colonies. The colonies were in fact sovereign states, attached to the mother country by ties of sympathy and common descent, so long as those feelings were fostered by mutual good-will, but no fur ther. The Athenians, it is true, in the height of their power, exacted money from their own colonies as well as from the colonies of other people, and punished severely those who swerved from their alliance, such as Naxos ; but this was not in consequence of any original dominion as supposed to belong to the mother coun try over the colony. Many of the colo nies, especially the earlier ones, which were the consequence of civil war or foreign invasion, were formed by large parties of men under some bold leader, without any formal consent being asked from the rest of the community : they took their families, their arms, and their moveables with them, to conquer a new country for themselves ; they left their native soil for ever, and carried with them no political obligations. Those that went off in more peaceful times, by a common understanding of the whole com monwealth, went also away for ever, and freely and voluntarily, though under a leader appointed by the parent state, to seek a country where they could find an easier subsistence than at home. In either case it was a complete separation of a member from the body. Such were the proper colonists (lotoodto) of the Greeks ; but they were not colonies in the modern sense of the word, nor colo nies in the Roman sense. We have derived from the Romans the name of colony, and our colonies resemble theirs in a great degree, and bear no resem blance to the so-called Greek colonies. Indeed, the Greek colonies should be called by another name ; and the word " foreign settlements," or the German term " auswanderung," comes nearer to the sense of Apoikia (Itiroutia) than the term colony. When the Athenians, in later times, took possession of parts of Eubma (Thucyd. i. 114), and of Egina (ii. 27), of Melos (v. 116), and shared the lands among their own citizens who went there, the relationship thus formed was of a different kind, and came nearer to the nature of a Roman and a modern colony. Yet Thucydides calls the settlers in Me los, Apoikoi (dirottcot); but the name Cle ruchi was usually given to such settlers : and their allotments were called Cleruchiae (xxapooxiu:). In the case of Egina the whole population, which was of Hellenic stock, was turned out, and a body of Athenians occupied their place, with the express object of being as a body or com munity subordinate to the state of Attica, in order to prevent the annoyance to which Attica had long been subject by the proximity of an independent is land so well situated both for the pur pose of annoying Attica and for self-de fence. The relation between the settlers called Cleruchi and the parent state of Athens appears not to have been always the same ; that in some cases at least, they retained all the privileges of Athe nian citizens is sufficiently clear. Of these Athenian settlements the earliest is the instance mentioned by Herodotus (v. 77), which belongs to the last part of the sixth century n.c., of the settlement of four thousand Athenians in Chalcis on the con quered lands. The system subsequently was extended to other places, as appears from the passages above referred to ; and, among other places, the island of Lesbos received Athenian settlers. (Thucydides, iii. 50.) The battle of Egospotami (B.c.