). Hospitality is one of the
characteristic features of almost all nations previous to their attaining a
certain degree of civilisation. In civilised countries the necessity of
general hospitality is not so much felt ; but at a time when the state or
the laws of nations afforded scarcely any security, and when the traveller
on his journey did not meet with any places destined for his reception and
accommodation, the exercise of hospitality was absolutely necessary. Among
the nations of antiquity, with whom the right of hospitality was hallowed by
religion, it was to some degree observed to the latest period of their
existence, and acquired a political importance which it has never had in any
other state. It was in Greece, as well as at Rome, of a twofold nature,
either private or public, in as far as it was either established between
individuals, or between two states. (Hospitium
and hospitium publicum,
In ancient Greece the stranger, as such (ξένος
), was looked
upon as an enemy (Cic. de Off.
, § 37; Hdt. 9.11
Plut. Arist. 10
); but whenever he
appeared [p. 1.978]
among another tribe or nation without
any sign of hostile intentions, he was considered not only as one who
required aid, but as a suppliant, and Zeus was the protecting deity of
strangers and suppliants. (Ζεὺς
: Hom. Od. 14.57
, &100.283, 9.270,
13.213, 7.164: compare Apollon. Argonaut.
Ael. VH 4.1
.) This religious feeling
was strengthened by the belief that the stranger might possibly be a god
in disguise (Odyss.
17.484). On his arrival therefore,
the stranger, of whatever station in life he might be, was kindly
received, and provided with everything necessary to make him
comfortable, and to satisfy his immediate wants. The host did not
inquire who the stranger was, or what had led him to his house, until
the duties of hospitality were fulfilled. During his stay, it was a
sacred duty of his host to protect him against any persecution, even if
he belonged to a politically hostile race, so that the host's house was
a perfect asylum to him. On his departure he was dismissed with presents
and good wishes (Odyss.
4.37 ff.). It seems to have been
customary for the host, on the departure of the stranger, to break a die
) in two, one half of
which he himself retained, while the other half was given to the
stranger; and when at any future time they or their descendants met,
they had a means of recognising each other, and the hospitable connexion
was renewed (Schol. ad
Eur. Med. 613
). Hospitality thus not only
existed between the persons who had originally formed it, but was
transferred as an inheritance from father to son. To violate the laws of
hospitality was a great crime and act of impiety, and was punished by
men as well as gods (δίκαι κακοξενίας,
). Instances of such hereditary
connexions of hospitality are mentioned down to a very late period of
Greek history; and many towns, such as Athens, Corinth, Byzantium,
Phasis, and others, were celebrated for the hospitable character of
their citizens. (Hdt. 6.35
; Thuc. 2.13
; Plato, Crito,
p. 45 C; Stobaeus, Florileg.
44.40, &c.) But when a more regular and frequent intercourse
among the Greeks began to be established, it was impossible to receive
all these strangers in private houses. This naturally led to the
establishment of inns (πανδοκεῖον, καταγώγιον,
), in which such strangers as had no
hospitable connexions found accommodation. [CAUPONA
] For those occasions, on which numerous
visitors flocked to a particular place for the purpose of celebrating
one of the great or national festivals, the state or the temple provided
for the accommodation of the visitors either in tents or temporary inns
erected about the temple. (Aelian, Ael. VH
; Schol. ad
Pind. O. 11.51
and 55: compare Plato,
xii. p. 952 E; Lucian, Amor.
.) The kind of hospitality
which was exercised by private individuals on such festive occasions
probably differed very little from that which is customary among
ourselves, and was chiefly shown towards friends or persons of
distinction and merit, whose presence was an honour to the house wherein
they stayed. (Xen. Oecon.
p. 315 D; Becker-Göll,
ii. pp. 3, 4.) In the houses of the
wealthier Greeks a separate part (hospitium
) with a separate entrance was destined for the
reception and habitation of strangers, and was provided with all the
necessary comforts for the temporary occupants. On the first day after
their arrival they were generally invited to the table of their host;
but afterwards their provisions (ξένια
), consisting of fowl, eggs, and fruit, were either
sent to them, or they had to purchase them themselves. (Vitr. 6.7
ii. p. 119.) [L.S
What has been said hitherto only refers to hospitium
that is, the hospitality existing between two
individuals or families of different states. Of far greater importance,
however, was the hospitium publicum
). Boeckh distinguishes
two classes of πρόξενοι
: 1st, citizens
living in their own state and appointed by another state to act as its
representatives; and 2nd, citizens appointed by their own state to show
hospitality to foreigners in its name. This second class he supposes to
have existed in Petilia and in Sparta, where, according to Herodotus
), the kings appointed them:
“qui magistratus ex civibus Spartanis a regibus
nominabantur” (C. I. G.
p. 11); and again (l.c.
p. 731), “Spartae fuerunt magistratus
quidam vel certe magistratibus similes curatores proxeni, a regibus
nominati, iique Spartani qui reciperent peregrinos.” Yet
there is no reason to suppose that the πρόξενοι
either at Sparta or at Petilia were a kind of
magistracy, nor that their mode of appointment was different from that
in other states. The five proxeni mentioned in the Petilian inscription
were the usual proxeni acting as witnesses at the making of a will; and
the Spartan proxeni, such as Lichas for Argos (Thuc. 5.76
; ταῖς γυμνοπαιδίαις τοὺς
ἐπιδημοῦντας ἐν Λακεδαίμονι ξενους ἐδείπνιζε,
Xen. Mem. 1.2
), Clearchus for Byzantium (Xen.
), etc., were
probably appointed in just the same way as e. g. Coroebus, the proxenus
of Athens, the decree of whose appointment is still extant (C. I.
ii. No. 50). Some light is thrown on the passage from
Herodotus by an inscription published in the Bull. de Corr.
1881, p. 372 ff.: from this we learn that
the Aetolian League ordained that each city of the league should appoint
certain citizens to entertain the θεωροὶ
of the king of Pergamum when they came to invite them
to the games, and that the magistrates should report the names of these
(cf. C. I.
No. 1193, Argolis) to the στρατηγὸς
or to the πρόξενος.
Again, as a stranger could not approach the god
without the mediation of a proxenus (Eur. Hel.
, etc.: cf. the rule of the temple of Apollo at Didymi,
ἢν ξένος ἱεροποιῆι τῶι Ἀπόλλωνι
προιερᾶσθαι τῶν ἀστῶν ὃν ἂν θέληι ὁ ξένος,
1874, p. 106), when Matrophanes
of Sardes came to Delphi to consult the oracle, a decree was passed
(σὺν ψάφοις ταῖς ἐννόμοις
εἶμεν δὲ καὶ τὰν πόλιν τῶν Δελφῶν
πρόξενον τᾶς πόλιος τᾶς Σαρδιανῶν,
since Sardes was
not represented by a proxenus, i. e. one of the citizens was appointed
to perform the necessary preliminaries to the sacrifice (προθύειν
). The Spartan proxeni alluded to by
Herodotus were probably citizens who in like manner were called upon to
do the honours of the state to foreigners. Such public hospitality [p. 1.979]
is frequently mentioned (Athen. 4.173
e, f; Plut. Quaest. Gr.
293 E, etc.: cf. Becker-Göll, Charikles,
and Plato suggests (Legg.
xii. p. 952 E) that none but
persons officially appointed should be allowed to entertain foreigners
(cf. Schol. Dem. c. Mid.
p. 579; Schol. Aristoph. Birds 958
ff.) in order to
To pass on then to the proxeni as usually understood. Boeckh
i.3 p. 65), Wachsmuth
1.1, p. 122), Westermann
(de publ. Athen. hon.
p. 44), etc., compare them to
our modern consuls or ministers resident; Meier (de
p. 6) takes proxeny to be an honorary distinction
); and Monceaux
(Les Proxénies greoques,
p. 12 f.)
explains it as a contract between a state and a citizen of another
state, whereby the latter, in return for certain privileges, became
there the προστάτης
of the foreign
city. Each of these definitions refers only to one part or another of
the office of the proxeni. Part, and part only, of their functions was
the same as that discharged by consuls and resident ministers now, with
this difference, that the proxeni never were citizens of the state sent
out to reside in the foreign state, but were selected from amongst the
citizens of that foreign state. The proxeni as long as they resided in
their native city represented the interests of the foreign state by
which they were appointed, but it frequently happened that they took up
their residence in the state itself whose proxeni they were, and in a
few instances we read of women being appointed proxeni (cf. the Delphian
decree in C. I. A.
ii. No. 550, conferring proxeny on the
Athenian priestess Chrysis) : in both these cases the proxeny can only
have been an honorary distinction. As we have fullest information
concerning the Athenian proxeny, and as the manner of appointment and
the privileges connected with the office in other states of Greece
varied but slightly, it seems best to discuss the former at length,
giving references where necessary to the other states. The hospitium publicum
among the Greeks arose
presumably from the hospitium privatum,
which it yet bore certain traces; cf. the phrase καλέσαι τὸν δεῖνα ἐπὶ δεῖπνον εἰς πρυτανεῖον ἐπὶ
(C. I. A.
ii. No. 414, etc.), or
ἐπὶ ξένια εἰς τὸ πρυτανεῖον
(C. I. A.
ii. No. 209, etc.), and in one instance the
tallies: ποιησάσθω δὲ καὶ σύμβολα ἡ βουλὴ
πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα τὸν Σιδωνίων,
etc. (C. I.
ii. No. 86, 50.18 ff.; cf. C. I. G.
and Xen. Anab. 2.4
4, etc.). Eustathius dates it back as far as the time of the Trojan war
(on Il. 3.204
; cf. Liv. 1.1
), and Antenor was represented in Polygnotus'
painting in Delphi as proxenus (Paus.
). Proxeni are mentioned in some very early inscriptions,
e. g. in that from Petilia (C. I. G.
No. 4),. in the
Locrian inscription in Roehl (I. G. A.
No. 322), in the
Corcyrean inscription in Rangabé (Antiq.
i. No. 318: cf. Paus. 4.14.1
). The first proxeni of Athens recorded are
Alexander, king of Macedon, ὁ
whom Mardonius sent to Athens on a political
mission (Hdt. 8.136
); Arthmius of Zeleia
(Aeschin. c. Ctes.
§ 258; Dem. c.
iii. p. 121.42; Din. c. Aristog.
25); Pindar, who had praised Athens as ἔρεισμα
and to whom they made a present of 10,000
drachmas (Isocr. Antid.
§ 166). The oldest
extant decree conferring proxeny dates from the middle of the fifth
century (Foucart in Bull, de Corr. hellen.
1877, p. 303
ff. = C. I. A.
iv. No. 27; cf. Sauppe, de prox. Athen.
p. 4f.). The principal duties of a
proxenus were to receive those persons, especially ambassadors, who came
from the state which they represented (Dem. de
p. 252.82, and Aeschin. F. L.
89; Xen. Hell. 5.4
8, 40; Ath. 13.81
, p. 603 f); to procure for them
admission to the assembly, and seats in the theatre (Pollux, 3.59; cf.
Dem. de Cor.
p. 234.28--Xen. Hell. 4.5
), and in general to look after the interests (commercial or
political, as the case might be) both of the state by whom they were
appointed (εἰσὶ δὲ πρόξενοι οἱ ταῖς ἑαυτῶν
πατρίσιν ἄλλων προνοοῦντες πόλεων,
§ 138), as if it were their
i. p. 642 B; cf. Dem. de Rhod. lib.
p. 194.15; Xen. Hell. 6.4
), and of any individual citizen of
that state. Thus Callippus, the proxenus of the Heracleotes at Athens,
made inquiries concerning the banking account of Lycon of Heraclea, who
had died (Dem. c. Callipp.
p. 1237.5), and the proxenus
at Argos took charge of the same person's money when he was carried
thither wounded (l.c.
p. 1238.10); a proxenus
would assist such persons in the law courts (Att.
ed. Lipsius, p.. 754), advance money to them (Dem.
ii. p. 1019.36) and ransom them when made
prisoners of war (Hyper. fr.
79; Thuc. 3.70
), etc. Nicias, the proxenus of Syracuse, did his best
to dissuade his countrymen from warring against that city (Diod. 13.27
); Nymphodorus of Abdera used his
influence with Sitalces, king of Thrace, to further the cause of the
Athenians, whose proxenus he was (Thuc.
); and in like capacity Artas, the king of the Messapians,
assisted the Athenian fleet (Thuc. 7.33
Polemon Perieg. fr.
p. 144, ed. Preller). The
Pharsalian Polydamas addressed the Lacedaemonians: πρόξενος ὑμῶν ὢν . . . ἀξιῶ, ἐάν τέ τι ἀπορῶ, πρὸς
ὑμᾶς ἰέναι, ἐάν τέ τι χαλεπὸν ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ Θετταλίᾳ
). The Athenians
heard of the intended treachery of the Mitylenaeans from Doxander, their
proxenus (Arist. Pol.
5.4= p. 1304 a, 9;
); and Alcibiades reminded the
Lacedaemonians that he had done them many good offices, especially after
their misfortune at Pylus (Thuc. 3.89
; Plut. Alc. 14
); cf. Thuc. 2.85
, etc. Proxeni were usually sent on embassies to
the states by whom they had been appointed: Callias to Sparta (Xen. Hell. 6.3
f.), Thrason and Demosthenes to Thebes (Aeschin. c.
§ 138 ff.; F. L.
143), Lichas to Argos (Thuc. 5.76
cf. especially Thuc. 5.43
and Plut. Alc. 14
; they mediated between the
two states (Plut. Cim. 18
; Theopomp. in
Schol. Aristid. p. 528, ed. Dindorf), sometimes even of their own
accord, to judge from the case of Alciphron, the Spartan proxenus at
Argos (Thuc. 5.59
As regards the honours and privileges which a proxenus enjoyed, the
various Greek states seem to have followed different principles. At
Athens, in very few instances only (e.g. C. I. A.
21; ii. No. 86), is proxeny alone conferred; it is usually coupled with
the title of εὐεργέτης
(cf. Hdt. 8.136
Dem. c. Lept.
p. 475.60), and sometimes with the honour
of a golden crown (C. I. A.
ii. No. 170, 171, etc.,
usually of the value of 1000 drachmas), and at a later time of an olive
wreath (C. I. A.
ii. No. 423, etc.). Amongst the
privileges which were not necessarily included in the proxeny, but were
specially granted, sometimes at a later time (C. I. A.
ii. No. 1 c), as a reward for special services, none was more valuable
than that which guaranteed both to themselves and to their property the
protection of Athens everywhere and as against all persons whatsoever,
it being the duty of the senate together usually with the generals or
the prytaneis or both, ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τοῦ δεῖνος
ὅπως ἂν μὴ ἀδικῆται
: and in a decree conferring
proxeny on a Delian, there is added τοὺς
ἀμφικτύονας τοὺς ἀεὶ ἀμφικτυονέοντας ἐν Δήλῳ
(Bull. de Corr. hellén.
1879, p. 474 f.);
and in C. I. A.
ii. No. 115, καὶ
ἐάν τις ἂλλος που Ἀθηναίων παρατυγχάνει.
Antipater, the murderer of the Athenian proxenus at Iulis in Ceos, was
condemned to death by the Athenian senate (Mittheil. d. Arch.
1877, p. 143, 50.37 f.); ambassadors were sent to king
Philip to demand the liberation of the Athenian proxenus at Carystus
([Dem.] de Halonn.
p. 86.38); the Athenian general
Ergocles was condemned to death, amongst other reasons, for having
injured the Athenian proxeni and citizens (Lys . c.
§ 1; cf. c. Philocr.
2): see also C. I. A.
ii. ad d.
l.c. Smaller or less powerful states could not of course undertake to
protect their proxeni on this extensive scale: thus the Acarnanians
limited themselves to their own territory (C. I. G.
1793 a), as did also the Cnosians in Crete (ἀσφάλειαν πολέμω καὶ εἰρήνας καὶ καταπλέονσι ἐς τὸς
Κνωσίων λιμένας καὶ ἐκπλέονσι, αὐτοῖς καὶ χρήμασι τοὶς
τούτων ἀσυλεὶ καὶ ἀσπονδεί,
Bull. de Corr. hellén.
1880, p. 354). It would
seem that some states guaranteed the safety of their proxeni even in
case of war with his native city, so that they enjoyed even ἐμ πολέμῳ εἰρήνην
(Tenos, C. I.
No. 2330), and Polybius (5.95
) tells of a proxenus being set free
without ransom; but Nicias experienced no such mercy at the hands of the
Syracusans, whom he had served so faithfully (Diod. 12.57
; see also Thuc.
). A second privilege which
the Athenians granted to their proxeni was πρόσοδος πρὸς τὴν βουλὴν καὶ τὸν δημον,
with the further privilege πρώτοις μετὰ τὰ
(C. I. A.
ii. No. 209), i. e.
“statim post peractas res sacras” (Meier, l.c.
p. 17 ; cf. Aeschin. c. Tim.
§ 23, and C. I. G.
No. 3640, ἔφοδον [ἐπὶ τ]ὰμ βόλλαγ καὶ δᾶμομ μετὰ τὸγ
χρημάτισμον [τ]ὸμ περὶ τῶν ἵρων
: and in a late
inscription from Ephesus, μετὰ τὰ ἱερὰ καὶ
Wood, Ephes. App.
p. 20). A third
privilege was the right to acquire property in Attica (ἔγκτησις
), sometimes confined to house
property (C. I. A.
ii. No. 42, etc.), sometimes with
further limitations: τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ καὶ
γῆς δυεῖν ταλάντοιν
(C. I. A.
380), or ἕως ἂν κατέλθωσιν
(C. I. A.
ii. No. 121), etc.; occasionally this
privilege was made hereditary (C. I. A.
ii. No. 41,
etc.). Other privileges were ἰσοτέλεια
(C. I. A.
ii. No. 48), ἀσυλία
(και[ὶ πολένου ὄ]ντος καὶ
etc. C. I. A.
ii. No. 144),
(C. I. A.
ii. No. 42, etc.; but rarely granted, as we learn from Dem. c.
p. 475.60, p. 496.131 f.). Only in Dinarch. c.
§ 45, and Hyper. fr.
80, is there anything said about citizenship being conferred together
with proxeny by Athens: since not one of the numerous Attic inscriptions
on proxeny bears out this statement, it must be considered doubtful,
though other states which were as a general rule more lavish with their
honours and privileges granted their proxeni citizenship (e. g.
Mesambria, C. I. G.
No. 2053 b, c, 2056; Tenos, No. 2330,
2353; Iasus, No. 2673 b, 2676, 2678, etc.) and besides προδικία
(Delphi, C. I. G.
No. 1692; δίκαι πρόδικοι,
2374 c, addenda,
p. 1073), προμαντεία, προεδπια
(Delphi, C. I.
ii. No. 550), ἐπιγαμία,
(Bull. de Corr.
1885, p. 242; Dittenberger,
No. 320), etc. It is evident that a proxenus could
not really enjoy some of these privileges unless he actually took up his
residence in the city which had conferred them; nay, in some cases it
can be shown that the recipients of proxeny were at the time of their
appointment residents at Athens: Archebius and Heracleides, who had
taken refuge there (Dem. c. Lept.
p. 475.60), in B.C.
390-89 (this seems to be the earliest instance), the physician Evenor on
(C. I. A.
ii. No. 186, 1),
(No. 186, 2), at last
(No. 187) was conferred
because πρότερόν τε τήν τε εὔνοιαν
ἀποδέδεικται τῷ δημῳ καὶ χρήσιμον ἑαυτὸν παρέσχηκεν κατὰ
τήν τέχνην τοῖς δεομένοις τῶμ πολιτῶν καὶ ἄλλων τῶν
αἰκούντων ἐν τῆ πόλει καὶ νῦν ἐπδέδωκε,
also C. I. A.
ii. No. 380. This was the most privileged
class of foreigners (οἱ προτιμώμενοι τῶν ξένων
p. 298, 27;
they had πρόσοδον πρὸς τὸν πολέμαρχον,
C. I. A.
ii. No. 42, etc.). The privileges usually
combined with proxeny being so important, there was no lack of aspirants
who strove in every possible way to further the interests of the
Athenians (τὰ συμφέροντα τῷ δήμῳ
these were the ἐφελοπρόξενοι,
, and Pollux, 3.60, ἀνανάγραπτον τὴν προξενίαν ἔχων
thus to attract their attention. From Hyper. c. Demad.
79, we learn what kind of services might secure the coveted
distinction: Epicerdes of Cyrene gave the Athenian prisoners in Sicily
100 minas (C. I. A.
ii. No. 85; cf. Dem. c.
p. 469.41); Pythodorus of Delos earned the distinction
ἐπειδὴ ἀνὴρ ἀγαθδς ἐστι . . . περὶ τὰ
χρήματα τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ
(Bull. de Corr.
1879, p. 474, 50.9 f.); two Tyrians
brought a supply of grain to Athens (G. I. A.
170), etc. The various steps leading to the appointment are clearly seen
in the five inscriptions concerning Heracleides of Salamis in Cyprus
(Mitth. d. Arch. Inst.
1883, p. 211 ff.): he was
praised and voted a golden crown (of the value of 500 drachmas),
ἐπειδὴ ἐπέδωκεν τὸν σῖτον
) τῷ δήμῳ τεντέδραχμον προῶτος τῶν καταπλευσάντων
in B.C. 330-29, two years later ἐπέδωκε τῷ δήμῳ εἰς σιτωνίαν
drachmas, and as a reward in B.C. 325-24 he and his descendants were
and the following privileges granted:
γῆς καὶ οἰκίας ἔγκτησιν κατὰ τὸν
νόμον καὶ στρατεύεσθαι αὐτοὺς τὰς στρατείας καὶ εἰσφέρειν
τὰς εἰσφορὰς μετὰ Ἀθηναίων.
Sometimes the report of
ambassadors was the first step (C. I. A.
ii. No. 50), [p. 1.981]
or friends of the candidate bestirred
themselves on his behalf (οἱ ἔμποροι καὶ
C. I. A.
ii. No. 171); sometimes the would-be proxenus
came to Athens to lay his claims before the senate (Ἀθήναιον,
v. p. 522; cf. C. I.
ii. No. 423: δεδό[σθαι δὲ αὐτῷ
κ]αὶ [πρ]οξε[ν]ί[αν] καὶ γῆς καὶ ο[ἰκίας ἔγκτησιν]
αἰτησα[μέ]νῳ κατὰ τὸ[ν νόμον],
etc.), or gained over
an influential orator to interest himself in his candidature (Dem.
p. 497.132); and some orators found this a
very lucrative business (Hyper. c. Dem.
col. xxiii.; cf.
Din. c. Dem.
§ 45), though not without risk, as
Hypereides' speech shows, κατὰ Δημάδου
for proposing that proxeny should be conferred
on Euthycrates. The appointment (usually extending to the descendants)
was made by a decree of the people in the usual way. In C. I.
ii. No. 3 and No. 29, we find ἔδοξε
: but in the former case the sons of Apemantus
had simply asked to have at their own expense the στήλη
restored on which the decree of proxeny was
engraved, and in the latter there is no question of transferring the
proxeny to the son, which Köhler (Herm.
v. p. 17
f.) considered within the competence of the senate (wrongly; cf.
C. I. A.
ii. No. 121), but of engraving the decree on
which could only be allowed by
the senate ἐὰν καὶ τῷ δήμῳ δοκῇ
(C. I. A.
ii. No. 89, 1. 14 f.). For it was a further
distinction when a στήλη
decree engraved was placed in the Acropolis, especially if that was done
at the expense of the state (Hartel, Studien üb. Att.
p. 165). A copy of the decree was sent to the
city of the new proxenus (Bull. de Corr.
1880, p. 355, 1. 51 ff., καὶ πορὶ τὸν Ταρσὲων δᾶμον ὑποτάξαντας τὸ
ἀντίγραφον τῶδε τῶ ψαφίσματος
), and frequently a
erected there, e. g. the
Delphian decree in C. I. A.
ii. No. 550, and the decree
in Bull. de Corr. hellen.
1879, p. 474, 50.20 f.,
ordering a second στήλη
to be placed in
the temple of Apollo in Delos at the expense of the Amphictyons. In some
cities there were official lists of proxeni, e. g. in Thera (C.
No. 2450), Anaphe (C. I. G.
c), Bargylia (Le Bas et Waddington, Voyage
v. No. 87, 1, 27 f.: ὅπως ἀναγράψῃ τὸ ὄνομα αὐ[τοῦ π]ατρόθεν ἐν τῇ
στήλῃ, ἐν ᾗ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι πρόξενοι,
Proxeny might be renounced (ἀπειπεῖν,
e. g. by the elder Alcibiades) and be taken up again (ἀναλαμβάνειν, ἀνανεοῦσθαι,
e. g. by his
grandson, Thuc. 5.43
; cf. the Parian inscription in C. I. G.
No. 2374 d: ἀναγράψαι δὲ αὐτοὺς καθάπερ
πρότερον ἦσαν προξένους
An institution peculiar to Central Greece were the sureties of proxeny
(ἔγγυοι τᾶς προξενίας
Boeckh to C. I. G.
No. 1771 ff., and Bull. de
1883, p. 47 f.). Some states
granted the title of proxeni not to individuals of another state, but to
the whole population en masse,
Molossians to the Agrigentines (ἔδοξε τοῖς
Μολοσσοῖς προξενίαν δόμειν τοῖς Ἀκραγαντίνοις,
Carapanos, Dodone et ses Ruines,
p. 52); but this
proceeding is not unique, as is said in the Journ. of Hellen.
ii. p. 112, for in the list of proxeni of the Delphian
temple arranged geographically we find: ἐν
(Bull. de Corr.
1883, p. 191, 50.41); cf. also Dem.
p. 530.50. In later times guilds had their
own proxeni: thus the Athenian Diodorus was proxenus of the σύνοδος τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ ξενίου
ii. No. 475, a guild of Delian traders), and the
σύνοδοι τῶν περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον
had proxeni in several places (A. Müller,
p. 401, n. 3). (Schubert,
de prox. Attica.
The hospitality of the Romans was, as in Greece, either hospitium privatum
Private hospitality with the Romans, however,
seems to have been more accurately and legally defined than in Greece.
The character of a hospes, i. e. a person connected with a Roman by ties
of hospitality, was deemed even more sacred, and to have greater claims
upon the host, than that of a person connected by blood or affinity. The
relation of a hospes to his Roman friend was next in importance to that
of a cliens (Gel. 5.13.2
); or, according to
Masurius Sabinus (ib. § 5), the hospes had even higher claims
than a cliens. The obligations which the tie of hospitality with a
foreigner imposed upon a Roman were to receive into his house his hospes
when travelling (Liv. 42.1
), and to protect
and, in case of need, to represent him as his patron in the courts of
justice (Cic. Div. in
, § 66). Private hospitality thus
gave to the hospes the claims upon his host which the client had upon
his patron; but without any degree of the dependence implied in the
clientela. Private hospitality was established between individuals by
mutual presents, or by the mediation of a third person (Serv. ad Aen. 9.360
), and hallowed by
religion; for Jupiter Hospitalis was thought to watch over the jus hospitii,
as Zeus Xenios did with the Greeks
(Cic. in Verr. 4.22
§ 48; pro Deiot.
6.18; ad Q. Fr.
2.12), and the violation of it was as great a crime and impiety at Rome
as in Greece. When hospitium was formed, the two friends used to divide
between them a tessera hospitalis
5.2, 87 ff.), by which they or their
descendants--for the connexion was hereditary as in Greece--might
recognise one another. From an expression in Plautus ( “deum
hospitalem ac tesseram mecum fero,”
5.1, 25) it has been conjectured that this tessera
bore the image of Jupiter Hospitalis. This relation, when once
established, could not be dissolved except by a formal act (renuntiatio,
in Verr. 2.36
, § 89), and in this
case the tessera hospitalis was broken to pieces (Plaut.
2.1, 27). We never find at Rome the
indiscriminate and uninquiring hospitality of the heroic age of Greece,
but some sort of laws of hospitality were probably common to all the
nations of Italy (Aelian, Ael. VH 4.1
). In many cases it was exercised
without any formal agreement between the parties, and it was deemed an
honourable duty to receive distinguished guests into the house (Cic. de Off. 2.1. 8
§ 64; pro Rosc. Am.
Public hospitality, also, seems to have existed at a very early period
among the nations of Italy, and the foedus
mentioned in Livy (1.9
scarcely be looked upon in any other, light than that of hospitium publicum.
But the first direct mention
of public hospitality being established between Rome and another city,
is after the Gauls had departed from Rome, when it was decreed that
Caere should be rewarded for its good offices by the establishment of
public hospitality between the two cities
). The Caerites thus obtained
the right of isopolity with Rome; that is, the civitas without the
suffragium and the honores [CIVITAS
]. In the later times of the republic we no
longer find public hospitality established between Rome and a foreign
state; but a relation which amounted to the same thing was introduced in
its stead,--that is, towns were raised to the rank of municipia (Liv. 8.14
), and thus obtained the civitas
without the suffragium and the honores; and when a town was desirous of
forming a similar relation with Rome, it entered into clientela to some
distinguished Roman, who then acted as patron of the client-town. But
the custom of granting the honour of hospes
to a distinguished foreigner by a decree of the
senate seems to have existed down to the end of the republic (Liv. 1.45
). The privileges of such a public
hospes included a claim to honourable reception, entertainment at the
public expense, admission to sacrifices and games and a complimentary
present on certain occasions, and the more solid rights of buying and
selling in his own name without let or hindrance, and of bringing
actions at law without the intervention of a Roman patron (Marquardt,
i.2 45). Whether he
undertook, in return, any duties towards Roman citizens analogous to
those of the Greek proxenus, is uncertain. Public hospitality was, like
the hospitium privatum, hereditary in the family of the person to whom
it had been granted (Diod. 14.93
honour of public hospes was sometimes also conferred upon a
distinguished Roman by a foreign state. (Boeckh, C. I. G.
i. n. 1331;--Cic. pro Balb.
, § 41; in Verr.
Niebuhr, Hist, of Rome,
2.58; Walter, Gesch. des
p. 54 ff.; Göttling,
p. 216 ff.; Marquardt, as