previous next


PARAPRESBEIA (παραπρεσβεία) signifies any corrupt conduct, misfeasance, or neglect of duty on the part of an ambassador; for which he was liable to be called to account and prosecuted on his return home (Dem. F. L. p. 430.278 f.; p. 342.4 f.; c. Mid. p. 515.5). Ambassadors were usually elected by the people in: assembly (C. I. A. ii. No. 17, 50.72 ff.; iv. No. 27 a, 50.45 ff.; Aeschin. F. L. § 18 f., etc.), on rare occasions by the senate (Heydemann, de Sen. Athen. p. 37; cf. Dem. F. L. p. 380.126). At the time of the Peloponnesian war and before, only men above fifty years of age were eligible as ambassadors (Plut. Per. 17; C. I. A. i. No. 40, 50.16; cf. Plat. Legg. xii. p. 950 D); later on this restriction was removed, for Demosthenes had not reached that age when he was sent to Philip in B.C. 346. Persons fit for the post (ἄξιοι πίστεως, Aeschin. F. L. § 23; λέγειν δυνάμενοι, c. Ctes. § 139) and personae gratae to the state to which the embassy was to be sent (l.c. § 138 f.; Thuc. 5.44, etc.; usually the πρόξενοι, Schubert, de prox. Attic. p. 78) were proposed by their friends (Aeschin. F. L. § 18) or might even propose themselves (Din. c. Dem. § 81; Lys. c. Agor. § 9). In most cases the ambassadors received definite instructions (C. I. A. i. No. 40, 50.16 ff.; Dem. F. L. p. 352.37; p. 392.162; Aeschin. F. L. § 98, etc.); but sometimes this was, from the nature of the case, not possible, and they had to act according to their own judgment. Hence such instructions as Aeschin. F. L. § 104, πράττειν δὲ τοὺς πρέσβεις καὶ ἄλλ᾽ τι ἂν δύνωνται ἀγαθόν: Cf. C. I. A. ii. No. 17, 50.74, and as an instance of independent action on the part of ambassadors may be cited the steps taken by Learchus and Ameiniades against the Lacedaemonian envoys (Thuc. 2.67). Ambassadors who were empowered to make peace or conclude an alliance without further reference to the popular assembly were called αὐτοκράτορες (Andoc. de Pac. § 33, αὐτοκράτορας γὰρ πεμφθῆναι εἰς Λακεδαίμονα διὰ τοῦθ᾽, ἵνα μὴ πάλιν ἐπαναφέρωμεν, as contrasted with Thuc. 5.41, πρὶν τέλος τι αὐτῶν ἔχειν, ἐς τὸ Ἄργος πρῶτον ἐπαναχωρήσαντας αὐτοὺς δεῖξαι τῷ πλήθει, καὶ ἢν ἀρέσκοντα , ἥκειν ἐς τὰ Ὑακίνθια τοὺς ὅρκους ποιησομένους); yet such ambassadors had no power to settle the conditions on which peace was to be made, etc., these having been determined upon before they were despatched. Egger's definition (Mémoire histor. sur les Traités Publics, p. 8) is therefore too wide: “Les ambassadeurs prenaient quelquefois le titre de plénipotentiaires, quand on les dispensait formellement d'en référ à leurs commettants pour la conclusion du traité.” That the power of the πρέσβεις αὐτοκράτορες was such as described above is borne out, e. g. by Lysias' (c. Agor. § 8 ff.) and Xenophon's (Hell. 2.2, 11 ff.) accounts of Theramenes' embassy to Sparta. The Athenians had proposed to Agis to become allies of Sparta, retaining their walls and the Peiraeus, and Agis referred the ambassadors to the ephors at Sparta. This they reported to the popular assembly, by whom they were despatched to Sparta. On the frontier the ephors asked what their propositions were; and hearing that they were the same as those made to Agis, they desired them to go back and come prepared with something more admissible, informing them at the same time that no proposition could be received which did not include the demolition of the Long Walls for a continuous length of ten stadia. With this answer the envoys returned to Athens; a senator advised the acceptance of the terms, but was thrown into prison, and a resolution was passed forbidding any such motion in future. Then Theramenes offered to go as envoy to Lysander, to find out the real intentions of the Spartans as regards Athens; and when after three months' delay Lysander referred him to the ephors, Theramenes returned to Athens. He was now chosen πρεσβευτὴς αὐτοκράτωρ to Sparta, together with nine others, i. e. empowered to conclude peace if the Spartans accepted the conditions which he was prepared to offer, these having been agreed on by the people (Θηραμένης . . . λέγει ὅτι . . . ποιήσειν ὥστε μήτε τῶν τειχῶν διελεῖν μήτε ἄλλο τὴν πόλιν ἐλαττῶσαι μηδέν, etc. Lys. l.c. § 9). At Sellasia these envoys informed the ephors that they were αὐτοκράτορες, and were therefore permitted to come to Sparta; but when the Spartans insisted upon the demolition of the Long Walls, etc., the envoys could do nothing but refer (ἐπαναφέρειν, Xen. l.c. § 21) these terms to the Athenians; in the popular assembly they strongly recommended submission to Sparta, and the terms were accepted by a large majority. It is clear that if Theramenes and his colleagues had been plenipotentiaries in the usual sense of the word, i. e. empowered to make peace on the best terms they could secure, they would have done so at once at Sparta. See also Diod. 12.4, διόπερ οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἀρτάβαζον καὶ Μεγάβυζον ἔπεμψαν εἰς τὰς Ἀθήνας πρεσβευτὰς τοὺς διαλεξομένους περὶ συλλύσεως: ὑπακουσάντων δὲ τῶν Ἀθηναίων καὶ πεμψάντων πρέσβεις αὐτοκράτορας ὧν ἡγεῖτο Καλλίας Ἱππονίκου ἐγένοντο συνθῆκαι περὶ τῆς εἰρήνης, etc. In Dem. F. L. p. 395.173, αὐτοκράτωρ has of course a different sense (Schäfer, Dem. u. s. Zeit, ii. p. 227, n. 1).

For ambassadors to act contrary to their instructions (παρὰ τὸ ψήφισμα πρεσβεύειν, Dem. F. L. p. 346.17) was a high misdemeanour [p. 2.342](Plat. Legg. xii. init. p. 941 A). On their return home they were required immediately to make a report of their proceedings (ἀπαγγέλλειν τὴν πρεσβείαν), first to the senate (ἐπὶ κεφαλαίων, Aeschin. F. L. § 45) and afterwards to the people in assembly (l.c. § § 17, 25, 45 ff.; Dem. F. L. p. 342.4, etc.).1 If the report made to the senate seemed satisfactory and no complaint was made against the ambassadors, a member of the senate moved a vote of thanks to the envoys and an invitation to dinner in the Prytaneum, and this motion was afterwards submitted to the popular assembly. Thus, after the return of the first embassy to Philip, Demosthenes moved in the senate στεφανῶσαι θαλλοῦ στεφανῷ ἕκαστον καὶ καλέσαι ἐπὶ δεῖπνον εἰς τὸ πρυτανεῖον εἰς αὔριον, and in the popular assembly ἐπαινέσαι καὶ καλέσαι ἐπὶ δεῖπνον, etc. (Aeschin. F. L. § § 45, 53; cf. Dem. F. L. p. 414.234). When objections were raised to the conduct of the ambassadors, as happened after the second embassy, no such vote of thanks, etc. was proposed in the senate (Dem. F. L. p. 350.31; cf. p. 355.45, etc.). This vote of thanks had in course of time become a mere formality (τὸ νόμιμον ἔθος ποιῶν, Dem. F. L. p. 414.234, and argum. p. 338; cf. Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 178), and to judge from the case of Timagoras, a person, though thus honoured, might later on be severely punished if misconduct in the embassy could be proved against him (Xen. Hell. 7.1, 38;--Dem. F. L. p. 400.191; p. 383.137). Since it was forbidden by law στεφανοῦν τοὺς ὑπευθύνους (Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 11), such a motion probably always contained the clause ἐπειδὰν τὰς εὐθύνας δῷ (cf. C. I. A. ii. No. 114 A; Rangabé, Ant. Hell. ii. No. 425). For that the ambassadors had to render an official account of their conduct in the embassy in the usual way [EUTHYNE] is clear (Aristotle in Harpocr. s. v. εὔθυνοι: Pollux, 8.45, etc.). At the anakrisis held by the logistae, their κήρυξ asked, if any one intended to accuse the functionary who was rendering his account (τίς βούλεται κατηγορεῖν; Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 23; cf. Dem. F. L. p. 341.2). If an accuser appeared, he had to establish his complaint and reduce it to the form of a γραφή, and the prosecution would be conducted in the usual way, stopping the proceedings of the εὔθυναι. (This explains why Aeschines had not rendered his account before Demosthenes brought him to trial, Dem. F. L. p. 374.104 f.) We do not. know within what time this account had to be rendered, whether ambassadors were bound to render it thirty days after their return, as most magistrates had to do after the expiration of their term of office. Thirlwall (Hist. of Greece, vi. p. 31) can scarcely be right in saying that the time for doing it was left to their discretion; for the instance from which he draws this inference must be explained differently. From the way in which Demosthenes had attacked him on his return from the second embassy to Philip both in the senate and in the popular assembly, Aeschines had reason to fear that charges would be made against him on the occasion of his rendering his account. He therefore tried at first to escape it altogether; and with a view to that, when Demosthenes wished to render his account in due form, he presented himself before the logistae and argued that there was no occasion to render an account of this second embassy, as it was for a matter of form only, viz. to receive the oath of Philip (Aeschin. F. L. § 123). This objection was overruled, and Demosthenes went through the necessary forms and received his discharge, no one complaining of his conduct, and probably some other envoys likewise (Dem. F. L. p. 377.118; Aeschin. F. L. § 178). Now Aeschines changed his tactics, and professed to be eager to render his account (c. Tim. § 168), and Demosthenes and Timarchus brought charges of neglect of duty against him (Dem. F. L. p. 343.8). Aeschines, however, gained time by proceeding against Timarchus: he demanded a judicial scrutiny into Timarchus' character, and thus in a summary way got rid of one of his accusers (ἠτίμωσεν ὑπακούσαντά τιν᾽ αὑτοῦ κατήγορον, Dem. F. L. p. 423.257). At last, more than three years after the embassy (Dion. Halic. Epist. i. ad Amm. 10, ἄρχων Πυθόδοτος, i. e. B.C. 343-2. . . καὶ τὸν κατ᾽ Αἰσχίνου συνετάξατο λόλον, ὅτε τὰς εὐθύνας ἐδίδου τῆς δευτέρας πρεσβείας τῆς ἐπὶ τοὺς ὅρκους), Demosthenes brought Aeschines to trial, when he, it is said, was acquitted by a majority of only thirty votes (Plut. Dem. 15; [Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt. p. 840 B, C). The γραφὴ παραπρεσβείας which might be brought only on occasion of the εὔθυναι was a τιμητὸς ἀγών (Aeschin. F. L. § 5, etc.); and as it might comprise charges of the most serious kind, such as treachery and treason against the state, the defendant might have to apprehend the heaviest punishment. Callias, (Dem. F. L. p. 428.273) had to pay a fine of fifty talents ἐν ταῖς εὐθύναις (on his embassy: cf. Duncker, Abh. a. d. Griech. Gesch. p. 121 ff.). Aelian's story (V. H. 6.5), that the Athenian ambassadors sent to Arcadia, though successful in the object of their mission, were condemned to death because they had not travelled by the prescribed route, wants confirmation. Besides this γραφή, an εἰσαγγελία might be brought against an ambassador (Dem. F. L. p. 374.104 f.), e. g. against Epicrates (Dem. F. L. p. 429 f., § 276 ff.), and probably against Philon (Isocr. c. Callim. § 22; ἐνδειχθέντα can scarcely be [p. 2.343]used here in its technical sense). (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 459 ff., p. 290.) Aeschines (F. L. § 139) says that Demosthenes had threatened to bring an eisangelia (εἰσαγγεῖλαι παραπρεσβεύσασθαι against him for going as ambassador to Philip and to the Amphictyonic council, without being appointed as such (cf. Dem. F. L. p. 379.125 ff.); it is true that Aeschines, when elected to go on the third embassy, declined under the pretext of ill-health (Dem. F. L. p. 379.124), but the election was renewed by a decree which Demosthenes passed over (Aeschin. F. L. § 94, ψήφισμα τὸ μὲν ἀνέγνως, scil. Dem. F. L. p. 381.130, τὸ δὲ ὑπερέβης: cf. Dem. F. L. p. 395.172, ἐπὶ τὴν τρίτην πρεσβείαν δίς με χειροτονησάντων ὑμῶν δὶς ἐξωμοσάμην); cf. Plat. Legg. xii. p. 941 A. Antiphon and Archeptolemus were proceeded against by an εἰσαγγελία προδοσίας ([Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt. p. 833 E, F), and the impeachment of Philocrates was not παραπρεσβεία (Schömann, de Com. p. 195), but ῥήτορα ὄντα λέγειν μὴ τὰ ἄριστα τῷ δήμῳ τῷ Ἀθηναίων (Hyper. pro Eux. 100.39).

[C.R.K] [H.H]

1 Boeckh (Sthh. i.3 p. 303) states that the state paid the ambassadors their ἐφόδια ad vance, quoting C. I. G. No. 107 = C. I. A. ii. No. 311, Ephem. arch. No. 407=C. L. A. No. 64 (C. I. G. 2556 is a Cretan inscr.), and Fränkel adds (vol. ii. p. 67, App.) that sometimes the ambassadors received their pay after their return. It would seem that to about the middle of the fourth century the ambassadors received their ἐφόδια after their return (C. I. A. ii. No. 156, p. 423; No. 64 = Olymp. 105, 4; No. 89 = Olymp. 106, No. 108 c. b. 50.24 = c. Olymp. 107, 4, fifty drachmas), so much per day; Aristophanes (Aristoph. Ach. 66, cf. 602) speaks of two drachmas, and the scholiast's remark is to the point, καθάπτεται γὰρ τῶν πρεσβευτῶν ὡς ἐπίτηδες χρονοτριβούντων ἐν ταῖς πρεσβείαις ὑπὲρ τοῦ πλείονα μισθὸν λαμβάνειν. From Dem. F. L. p. 390.158, we may conclude that the amount was less: each of the ten ambassadors received a hundred drachmas for ninety days, but in fact the journey lasted only seventy days. At a later period the ἐφόδια were paid in advance: thus for a journey to Byzantium fifty drachmas (C. I. A. ii. No. 251 = Olymp. 118-120), cf. C. I. A. ii. No. 311 = Olymp. 123, 3; τὸ τεταγμένον; and the Avaricious Man in Theophrastus (Thphr. Char. 26, ed. Jebb=30) leaves the money allowed to him by the state at home and borrows of his colleagues in the embassy.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: