This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
2 The text of the manuscript is clearly unsound here. （1） The μὲν in the fourth line of Antiph. 5.78 has no answering δὲ. （2） The sense of the passage as it stands is in any case unsatisfactory. σύμβολα （l. 6）were special treaties regulating the settlement of private disputes, generally commercial in character, between the citizens of different states. Fragments of two such treaties have survived : Athens-Phaseils （I.G.i2 16 ff.） and Athens-Mytilene （I.G. i2 60 ff.）; and in the first of these there is a reference to a third, Athens-Chios. It is quite certain, however, that agreements of this sort did not extend to enemy states, as the passage would suggest if the manuscript reading be accepted. Various corrections have been proposed. A. Fraenkel and Wilamowitz suppose a considerable lacuna which contained the words τοὺς δ᾽ ἐς πόλιν συμμαχίδα διοκιζομένους, or the like. The objection to such a solution is that καὶ δίκας ἀπὸ συμβόλων ὑμῖν δικαζομένους in l. 6 becomes otiose, as it is known that σύμβολα already existed between Athens and Mytilene. Better is Reiskes's τοὺς δὲ. We then have a contrast between Euxitheus' father, who is a loyal citizen of Mytilene under Athenian rule, and other Mytileneans who, since the revolt of Lesbos ten years previously, have either （a） shown their hostility to Athens passively by settling on the Asiatic coast in towns under Persian control or （b） shown it actively by remaining in Lesbos and initiating an unending series of lawsuits against the Athenian cleruchs who have become their landlords.