54 ALAIN BRESSON (TRANSLATED By EDwARD M. HARRIS)
injustice for the citizens of the other city: συνθῆκαι περὶ τῶν εἰσαγωγίμων
would therefore be only a clumsy expression that would in fact cover trea-
ties concerning persons. In fact, far from being irrelevant, the use of the word
συνθῆκαι by Demosthenes Against Leptines 37 to designate the reciprocal
advantages granted and received by the Athenians and the king of Bosporus
actually enables us to understand what Aristotle means by συνθῆκαι περὶ τῶν
εἰσαγωγίμων: these conventions or contracts were actually agreements that
were not necessarily bilateral in form.^54 In concrete terms, these συνθῆκαι
could take very different forms. They were certainly clauses of treaties, but they
could also be unilateral concessions like those of decrees from cities or in royal
rescripts granting a particular dorea.
It is nevertheless true that most of the treaties or conventions that can
be linked to foreign trade concern the rights of persons and not products.
Could one still claim that when two states concluded treaties concerning
the rights of individuals, the consequences that these treaties might have on
the exchange of their commodities were a kind of unintended by-product?
Or, on the contrary, could conventions about persons not have been con-
cluded except with the aim of exchanging commodities, all within the
framework of an actual policy about imports and exports? Juxtaposing two
passages, one about Corcyra, the other about Byzantium, will enable us to
answer this question.
According to Thucydides, a little before the skirmishes that led to the con-
flict between Athens and Corinth in 433, Corinthian ambassadors attacked the
Corcyreans in front of the Assembly at Athens with the aim of discouraging
the Athenians from giving aid to the Corcyreans. In particular, they accuse the
Corcyreans of not respecting the interstate norms of proper conduct:Because of this the location of their city ensures self-sufficiency and,
instead of tying themselves down with treaties, they make themselves
judges of the wrongs they do to others. They do not have to go to sea
to visit their neighbors but receive foreign ships, which are forced to put
into their harbors. In this way, the specious neutrality^55 that they claim to
follow is not caused by their fear of getting involved with wrongs done
by others but by their desire to commit them all by themselves, to use
violence when they are in a superior position, to take advantage when
they can escape detection, and to cast away all scruples when they can
gain an advantage.^56First of all, let us eliminate a misunderstanding that might arise from this text.
Does Thucydides mean that the Corcyreans do nothing but import because
foreign merchants regularly come to their ports while Corcyrean merchants
hardly ever go to foreign ports? Not at all: on the contrary, the speech of
the Corinthian ambassador intends to show how cunning the Corcyreans are.