previous next

HOSPI´TIUM

HOSPI´TIUM (ξενία, προξενία). 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 privatum and hospitium publicum, ξενία and προξενία.


Greek

In ancient Greece the stranger, as such (ξένος and hostis), was looked upon as an enemy (Cic. de Off. 1.1. 2, § 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 ξένιος and ἱκετήσιος: Hom. Od. 14.57, &100.283, 9.270, 13.213, 7.164: compare Apollon. Argonaut. 2.1134; Aelian, 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 (ἀστράγαλος) 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, Aelian, l.c.; Paus. 7.25). 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. tit. 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, κατάλυσις, κατάλυμα), 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 4.9; Schol. ad Pind. O. 11.51 and 55: compare Plato, Legg. xii. p. 952 E; Lucian, Amor. 12; Thuc. 3.68.) 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. 2.5; Plato, Protag. p. 315 D; Becker-Göll, Charikles, ii. pp. 3, 4.) In the houses of the wealthier Greeks a separate part (hospitium or hospitalia and ξενῶνες) 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, 4; Apul. Metam. ii. p. 119.) [L.S] [W.W]

What has been said hitherto only refers to hospitium privatum; that is, the hospitality existing between two individuals or families of different states. Of far greater importance, however, was the hospitium publicum (προξενία). 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 (6.57), 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, 61), Clearchus for Byzantium (Xen. Hell. 1.1, 35), 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. A. ii. No. 50). Some light is thrown on the passage from Herodotus by an inscription published in the Bull. de Corr. hellén. 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 θεωροδόκοι (cf. C. I. G. 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. 146, etc.: cf. the rule of the temple of Apollo at Didymi, ἢν ξένος ἱεροποιῆι τῶι Ἀπόλλωνι προιερᾶσθαι τῶν ἀστῶν ὃν ἂν θέληι ξένος, Revue archéol. 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. 12, p. 293 E, etc.: cf. Becker-Göll, Charikles, 2.6), 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 prevent intrigues.

To pass on then to the proxeni as usually understood. Boeckh (Sthh. i.3 p. 65), Wachsmuth (Hell. Altertumskunde, 1.1, p. 122), Westermann (de publ. Athen. hon. p. 44), etc., compare them to our modern consuls or ministers resident; Meier (de Proxen. p. 6) takes proxeny to be an honorary distinction (honoris titulus); 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, of which it yet bore certain traces; cf. the phrase καλέσαι τὸν δεῖνα ἐπὶ δεῖπνον εἰς πρυτανεῖον ἐπὶ ξένια (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 βουλὴ πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα τὸν Σιδωνίων, etc. (C. I. A. ii. No. 86, 50.18 ff.; cf. C. I. G. No. 6778, and Xen. Anab. 2.4, 1; Ages. 3, 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. 10.26.7). 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. hellén. i. No. 318: cf. Paus. 4.14.1). The first proxeni of Athens recorded are Alexander, king of Macedon, Φιλέλλην, whom Mardonius sent to Athens on a political mission (Hdt. 8.136); Arthmius of Zeleia (Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 258; Dem. c. Phil. iii. p. 121.42; Din. c. Aristog. § 25); Pindar, who had praised Athens as ἔρεισμα τῆς Ἑλλάδος, 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 Cor. p. 252.82, and Aeschin. F. L. § 89; Xen. Hell. 5.4, 22; Symp. 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, 6), 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, Schol. Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 138), as if it were their δευτέρα πατρὶς (Plat. Legg. i. p. 642 B; cf. Dem. de Rhod. lib. p. 194.15; Xen. Hell. 6.4, 24), 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. Process, ed. Lipsius, p.. 754), advance money to them (Dem. c. Boeot. ii. p. 1019.36) and ransom them when made prisoners of war (Hyper. fr. 79; Thuc. 3.70 and Diod. 12.57), 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. 2.29); 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 συνιστῆται, σημαίνειν (Xen. Hell. 6.1, 4). The Athenians heard of the intended treachery of the Mitylenaeans from Doxander, their proxenus (Arist. Pol. 5.4= p. 1304 a, 9; Thuc. 3.2); 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, 3 f.), Thrason and Demosthenes to Thebes (Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 138 ff.; F. L. § 143), Lichas to Argos (Thuc. 5.76), etc.: 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 f.) .

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. i. No. 21; ii. No. 86), is proxeny alone conferred; it is usually coupled with the title of εὐεργέτης [p. 1.980](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. Inst. 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. Ergocl. § 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. No. 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. G. No. 2330), and Polybius (5.95, 12) 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. 3.52, 68). A second privilege which the Athenians granted to their proxeni was πρόσοδος πρὸς τὴν βουλὴν καὶ τὸν δημον, sometimes with the further privilege πρώτοις μετὰ τὰ ἱερά (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 τὰ βασίλεα, i.e. βασίλεια, 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. ii. No. 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 εἰρ[ήνης], etc. C. I. A. ii. No. 144), ἀτέλεια. (C. I. A. ii. No. 42, etc.; but rarely granted, as we learn from Dem. c. Lept. p. 475.60, p. 496.131 f.). Only in Dinarch. c. Dem. § 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, Paros, No. 2374 c, addenda, p. 1073), προμαντεία, προεδπια (Delphi, C. I. A. ii. No. 550), ἐπιγαμία, ἐπινομία (Bull. de Corr. hellén. 1885, p. 242; Dittenberger, Syll. 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 whom προξενία and εὐεργεσία (C. I. A. ii. No. 186, 1), then ἔγκτησις (No. 186, 2), at last πολιτεία (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, etc.; see also C. I. A. ii. No. 380. This was the most privileged class of foreigners (οἱ προτιμώμενοι τῶν ξένων ὑπ̓ Ἀθηναίων, Bekk. Anecd. 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, Schol. Thuc. 3.70, and Pollux, 3.60, ἀνανάγραπτον τὴν προξενίαν ἔχων), and thus to attract their attention. From Hyper. c. Demad. fr. 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. Lept. p. 469.41); Pythodorus of Delos earned the distinction ἐπειδὴ ἀνὴρ ἀγαθδς ἐστι . . . περὶ τὰ χρήματα τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ (Bull. de Corr. hellén. 1879, p. 474, 50.9 f.); two Tyrians brought a supply of grain to Athens (G. I. A. ii. No. 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 (3000 μέδιμνοι) τῷ δήμῳ τεντέδραχμον προῶτος τῶν καταπλευσάντων ἐμπόρων in B.C. 330-29, two years later ἐπέδωκε τῷ δήμῳ εἰς σιτωνίαν 3000 drachmas, and as a reward in B.C. 325-24 he and his descendants were made πρόξενοι and εὐεργέται, 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 ναύκληροι, 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. A. 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. c. Lept. 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 παρανόμων, 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. A. ii. No. 3 and No. 29, we find ἔδοξε τῇ βουλὴ̂: 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 a στήλη, 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 with the decree engraved was placed in the Acropolis, especially if that was done at the expense of the state (Hartel, Studien üb. Att. Staatsrecht, p. 165). A copy of the decree was sent to the city of the new proxenus (Bull. de Corr. hellén. 1880, p. 355, 1. 51 ff., καὶ πορὶ τὸν Ταρσὲων δᾶμον ὑποτάξαντας τὸ ἀντίγραφον τῶδε τῶ ψαφίσματος), and frequently a second στήλη 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. I. G. No. 2450), Anaphe (C. I. G. No. 2477 c), Bargylia (Le Bas et Waddington, Voyage archéol. v. No. 87, 1, 27 f.: ὅπως ἀναγράψῃ τὸ ὄνομα αὐ[τοῦ π]ατρόθεν ἐν τῇ στήλῃ, ἐν καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι πρόξενοι, etc.). 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, 6.89; 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: cf. Boeckh to C. I. G. No. 1771 ff., and Bull. de Corr. hellén. 1883, p. 47 f.). Some states granted the title of proxeni not to individuals of another state, but to the whole population en masse, e.g. the 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. Soc. ii. p. 112, for in the list of proxeni of the Delphian temple arranged geographically we find: ἐν Κυφαίραι ἁπόλις (Bull. de Corr. hellén. 1883, p. 191, 50.41); cf. also Dem. c. Mid. p. 530.50. In later times guilds had their own proxeni: thus the Athenian Diodorus was proxenus of the σύνοδος τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ ξενίου (C. I. A. ii. No. 475, a guild of Delian traders), and the σύνοδοι τῶν περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνιτῶν had proxeni in several places (A. Müller, Bühnenalterth. p. 401, n. 3). (Schubert, de prox. Attica.

[H.H]


2. Roman

The hospitality of the Romans was, as in Greece, either hospitium privatum or publicum. 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 Caecil. 20, § 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 (Plaut. Poen. 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,” Poen. 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, Liv. 25.18; Cic. in Verr. 2.36, § 89), and in this case the tessera hospitalis was broken to pieces (Plaut. Cistell. 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; Liv. 1.1). 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. 6.15).

Public hospitality, also, seems to have existed at a very early period among the nations of Italy, and the foedus hospitii mentioned in Livy (1.9) can 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 [p. 1.982]public hospitality between the two cities (Liv. 5.50). The Caerites thus obtained the right of isopolity with Rome; that is, the civitas without the suffragium and the honores [CIVITAS p. 448b; COLONIA p. 480a]. 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 publicus to a distinguished foreigner by a decree of the senate seems to have existed down to the end of the republic (Liv. 1.45, 5.28, 37.54). 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, Staatsverw. 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). The 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. 18, § 41; in Verr. 4.65.145. Compare Niebuhr, Hist, of Rome, 2.58; Walter, Gesch. des röm. Rechts, p. 54 ff.; Göttling, Röm. Staatsverf. p. 216 ff.; Marquardt, as above.)

[L.S] [W.W]

hide References (62 total)
  • Cross-references from this page (62):
    • Aristophanes, Birds, 958
    • Diodorus, Historical Library, 14.93
    • Diodorus, Historical Library, 12.57
    • Diodorus, Historical Library, 13.27
    • Euripides, Helen, 146
    • Euripides, Medea, 613
    • Herodotus, Histories, 6.35
    • Herodotus, Histories, 9.11
    • Herodotus, Histories, 6.57
    • Herodotus, Histories, 8.136
    • Homer, Iliad, 3.204
    • Homer, Odyssey, 14.57
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 10.26.7
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 4.14.1
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 7.25
    • Plutarch, Alcibiades, 14
    • Plutarch, Aristeides, 10
    • Thucydides, Histories, 3.2
    • Thucydides, Histories, 3.52
    • Thucydides, Histories, 2.29
    • Thucydides, Histories, 2.85
    • Thucydides, Histories, 3.70
    • Thucydides, Histories, 5.43
    • Thucydides, Histories, 5.59
    • Thucydides, Histories, 5.76
    • Thucydides, Histories, 7.33
    • Xenophon, Anabasis, 2.4
    • Xenophon, Anabasis, 2.1
    • Xenophon, Hellenica, 4.5
    • Xenophon, Hellenica, 4.6
    • Xenophon, Hellenica, 5.4
    • Xenophon, Hellenica, 6.3
    • Xenophon, Hellenica, 6.4
    • Xenophon, Hellenica, 1.1
    • Xenophon, Hellenica, 6.1
    • Xenophon, Memorabilia, 1.2
    • Polybius, Histories, 5.12
    • Polybius, Histories, 5.95
    • Cicero, For Cornelius Balbus, 18
    • Cicero, Divinatio against Q. Caecilius, 20
    • Vitruvius, On Architecture, 6.4
    • Vitruvius, On Architecture, 6.7
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 25, 18
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 5, 50
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 37, 54
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 42, 1
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 8, 14
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 1, 1
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 1, 45
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 1, 9
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 5, 28
    • Thucydides, Histories, 2.13
    • Thucydides, Histories, 3.68
    • Thucydides, Histories, 3.89
    • Thucydides, Histories, 6.89
    • Cicero, De Officiis, 2.1
    • Cicero, De Officiis, 1.1
    • Gellius, Noctes Atticae, 5.13.2
    • Plutarch, Cimon, 18
    • Athenaeus, of Naucratis, Deipnosophistae, 13.81
    • Aelian, Varia Historia, 4.1
    • Aelian, Varia Historia, 4.9
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: