7 Aristocracy' in Athenian Diplomacy: Noboru Sato

86031_Aristocracy_Book:Layout 1 21/12/15 09:23 Page 203
‘ARISTOCRACY’ IN ATHENIAN DIPLOMACY
Noboru Sato
Introduction
It is hard to imagine a society without political elites and leaders. A small
number of people always exercise more influence within their community
than others, because they have more ‘political capital’ than the rest of the
community, i.e. they have resources such as wealth, religious authority,
military or administrative offices, specialised knowledge, sophisticated
skills, or degrees from high-ranking universities, from which they derive
power and authority.1 At one end of the spectrum, most political capital is
inherited and restricted to a small number of families, and we have an elite
of ‘aristocrats’ ruling an ‘aristocratic society’.2 At the other end, the chances
of obtaining political capital are open to many members of the community,
so that social mobility is high, and the families who produce political
leaders change from generation to generation.
Political capital takes many forms, and different communities have
different ideas about what constitutes political capital. These ideas, moreover,
vary and change even within a single community. In Athens, the dominant
form of political capital changed throughout its history. W.R. Connor
claims that most Athenian politicians before the age of Pericles were from
traditional leading families and derived influence from personal connections
with other such families. In the late fifth century, however, newly-rich men
made themselves influential by cultivating the support of the people
through public speaking and generous spending on liturgies.3 In other
words, new and relatively ‘open’ forms of political capital (eloquence and
largesse) replaced the traditional and exclusive form (i.e. friendships with
other leading families). Over a longer span of time, according to J.K.
Davies, Athenian political history witnessed three phases: first, families
who held hereditary control over particular cults exercised power; then,
rich men won the support of the people by conspicuous expenditure;
finally, rhetorical and administrative skills enabled those with no inherited
advantages to be dominant in politics. That is to say, Davies considers
hereditary control of cult, wealth, and rhetorical and administrative skills
as successively the most influential forms of political capital from the
203
Noboru Sato
archaic period to the late fifth century.4 These theories have been expanded
and refined,5 but scholarship has generally agreed that the influence of
hereditary forms of political capital almost disappeared in Athens under
democracy in the late fifth and fourth century, with the exception of
inherited wealth, which must have remained more or less important.
One important form of political capital in Athens’ changing political
scene has not attracted much attention: friendships with foreign kings,
elites, and countries. Foreign affairs were, needless to say, enormously
important to citizens in the ancient world, all the more so because they
were themselves soldiers and experienced frequent wars and military or
political interventions. That personal relations played an important role in
international politics is well established, notably by the studies of Gabriel
Herman and Lynette Mitchell,6 but the significance of friendships, xenia
and proxenia as political assets within Athens, has been little studied. In this
chapter, first of all, I elucidate the importance of international personal
friendships as a form of political capital for Athenian politicians in the
late fifth and fourth century, the period when the power of hereditary
forms of political capital is thought to have declined. Next, I look at the
extent to which personal international ties were hereditary or affected by
social mobility.
Personal international connections as political capital

In order to gauge the importance of personal friendships with foreign
kings, leaders or states as a form of political capital, let us begin by examining
the roles of international connections in Athenian decision-making.
Athens established a democratic process for foreign affairs as for all
other matters. Athenian ambassadors were elected by the people’s assembly.
While they were abroad, they were expected to behave in accordance with
the people’s instructions. When they came back home, they were required
to submit to an audit.7 When foreign ambassadors came to Athens, they
were formally accepted by the prytaneis and the council and made speeches
before council and assembly.8 After the ambassadors’ report and debates
between Athenian politicians, it was the citizens in assembly who made
the final decision by a show of hands.
It was, however, obviously impossible to eliminate from the formal
decision-making process the use of informal political influence through
personal contacts. First of all, Athenian politicians apparently had private
negotiations with various people, including ambassadors or politicians
from foreign states, before they sat at the formal negotiating table in
council or assembly. Some episodes illustrate the importance of such
informal preliminary negotiations.
204
‘Aristocracy’ in Athenian diplomacy

Aeschines often mentions Demosthenes’ private negotiations with
foreigners before the formal process. In 348/7, when Antipater of Macedon
visited Athens, Demosthenes was said to have advised the ambassador on
his speech beforehand (Aeschin. 3.72). He was also said to have negotiated
in advance with ambassadors from Chalcis about the contents of the
Athens-Euboea alliance, which was officially proposed by Demosthenes
himself, and to have prepared a speech for Callias, the tyrant of Chalcis
(3.91, 95). Aeschines also claims that the letters and ambassadors sent by
the leading men of Asia and Europe, ignoring council and assembly, came
to private houses, and that certain citizens who received ambassadors and
letters boasted of them before the people (3.250). Here the orator clearly
insinuates that Demosthenes had private contacts both with Persia and
with certain major Greek states.9
While it is not certain that the origins of these personal connections
between Demosthenes and foreign politicians preceded their putative
private meetings, more or less long-term friendships between many
Athenian politicians and foreigners are attested before they had informal
meetings. Dinarchus suggests that Theban ambassadors privately met
Demosthenes in order to mobilise the Arcadians against Macedon in 335,
asking for a huge amount of money, which is described as a small part of
the gold received from the Persian king (Din. 1.20). By this time this
Athenian politician seems to have already obtained a proxenia from the
Thebans (Aeschin. 2.131, 134) and played an important role in forging an
Athenian-Theban alliance in 339/8.10 In 422/1 BC, Alcibiades privately
met Spartan envoys including Endius, his xenos, after the council meeting
but before the assembly (Thuc. 5.45).11 According to Thucydides, the
ambassadors made a speech in the council to assuage discord between the
Athenians and the Lacedaemonians, stating that they had come with full
power (autokratores) to reach an agreement. This made Alcibiades worry
that the Athenians would be persuaded and reject the alliance with the
Argives and their allies for which he had been paving the way. Before the
assembly met, he persuaded the ambassadors to conceal their full powers,
promising that he would help them achieve some of their objectives.
Although the ambassadors relied on Nicias as a champion of the peace
treaty between Athens and Sparta and they must have known that
Alcibiades was in opposition to them,12 his friendship with Endius
presumably enabled him to meet them. In the assembly, as a result of
Alcibiades’ intrigues, the Spartan ambassadors were discredited and the
movement towards the alliance with the Argives prevailed.
Alcibiades could also have had preliminary negotiations with the
Spartans for the peace treaty in 423/2. At the Spartan assembly, according
205
Noboru Sato
to Thucydides, Alcibiades complained that the Lacedaemonians neglected

his hereditary connection to their state and honoured Nicias and Laches by
negotiating the treaty with Athens through them instead (Thuc. 6.89).13
Alcibiades was, however, neither a military officer nor an ambassador in
423/2. This episode thus suggests that the Spartans could negotiate with
an Athenian with personal connection to Sparta, even if he was not
officially elected as a representative for the people of Athens.
In 390/89 BC, Aristophanes, son of Nicophemus, privately hosted and
entertained the ambassadors from Cyprus (Lys. 19.27). Presumably
Aristophanes did not just offer them food and hospitality. First of all, he
can be plausibly connected to Cyprus, or Euagoras, the ruler of Cypriot
Salamis. Although there is no clear evidence of any close connection
between them before this date, Aristophanes’ father Nicophemus lived in
Cyprus with his close friend Conon, who was clearly connected with
Euagoras.14 Moreover, in 393, when Conon wanted to send someone to
Sicily in order to connect Dionysius with Euagoras by marriage,
Aristophanes undertook the task with Eunomus, a xenos of the Syracusan
tyrant (19.20). Besides, he was thought to have involved himself with public
affairs as well as his private business (οὐ µόνον τῶν ἰδίων ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν κοινῶν
ἐβούλετο ἐπιµελεῖσθαι). And in 390/89, when the Athenians voted to assist
the Cypriots, Aristophanes himself went to Cyprus as an ambassador
(Lys. 19.23).
It seems highly likely that such private negotiations were common.
Foreign ambassadors were evidently free to meet with Athenian citizens,
including politicians. Ambassadors from foreign states were not under
surveillance in Athens except at reception parties (xenia).15 There was no
public residence for foreign ambassadors in Athens. The polis seems to
have relied on private persons, especially proxenoi, to entertain foreigners.
Private houses of proxenoi were such common places for foreign ambassadors
in Athens to stay at that Athenians (and presumably other Greeks) could
easily find ambassadors there, as Xenophon suggests (Hell. 5.4.22).16
The proxenoi in Athens and other Athenians who hosted ambassadors
were often themselves active in politics. Callias, a Spartan proxenos, who
received the Spartan ambassadors in 378, had been sent to Sparta three
times as an ambassador (Xen. Hell. 5.4.22; 6.3.2, 4). Meidias, a proxenos for
Eretria and maybe a friend of the Eretrian tyrant Plutarchus, was active in
foreign affairs to some extent (Dem. 21.110, 171–4, 200). Aeschines called
Demosthenes a Theban proxenos in his speech of the year 343 (Aeschin.
2.141, 143). This political rival of Demosthenes was, in turn, said to be a
proxenos both for Eretria and for Oreus, and hosted envoys from these
states in 342/1 (Dem. 18.82–3). Callippus, a Heraclean proxenos in the late
206

fourth century, seems to have been active in politics ( politeuomenou kai ouk
idiōtou ontos [Dem.] 52.28, cf. 3, 9, 25). Epigraphical evidence also suggests
that not a few leading Athenian politicians, such as Conon, Androtion of
Gargettus, Leodamas of Acharnae, Aristophon of Azenia, and Cephisophon
of Aphidona, were proxenoi.17 Although there is no information on whether
these Athenians hosted ambassadors or politicians from the states that
granted them proxenies, such foreign states would plausibly expect them
to care for their fellow citizens visiting Athens.
Private negotiations must have been useful both for foreign ambassadors
and for Athenian politicians. The latter presumably expected to obtain
updated and relatively reliable information from them, though there must
have been a risk of deception. While some scholars have emphasized the
importance of proxenoi as informants to the foreign governments that
appointed them,18 they must also have been well-informed sources of
information to their own governments. For the foreigners, preliminary
negotiations must have been important especially because they could not
move a resolution in Athens by themselves but needed suitable Athenian
instigators and movers in the council and assembly. Ambassadors could
also gauge Athenian public opinion and citizens’ moods through private
negotiations with the locals.
As well as in informal preliminary negotiations, private international
friendships were important in the formal diplomatic process, though it is
often impossible to distinguish the formal negotiations from the preceding
private discussions. Callias son of Hipponicus, one of the ambassadors
sent to Sparta in 371 in order to persuade the Lacedaemonians to make a
peace treaty, started his speech by declaring that he was a Spartan proxenos
(Xen. Hell. 6.3.2, 4–6). This suggests that proxenia was to a certain extent
effective in winning the favour of the people of the state which had granted
the honour.
Theopompus says in the tenth book of his Philippica, ‘When five years
had not yet gone by, a war having broken out with the Lacedaemonians, the
people sent for Cimon thinking by his proxeny he would make the quickest
peace. When he arrived at the city, he ended the war’ (FGrH 115 F88;
cf. Aeschin. 2.172; Andoc. 3.3). Other sources give different accounts of
this episode, but the principle that a politician’s personal friendships could
strongly affect the people’s choice of ambassador is clear. In 330, when
prosecuting Demosthenes, Aeschines says, ‘in other days many men who
stood in the closest relations (malista oikeiōs) to the Thebans had gone on
missions to them’ (3.138) and lists the names of politicians elected as
ambassadors.19 Arrian relates a similar episode concerning ambassadors
sent to Alexander. Just after the destruction of Thebes, on the motion of
207
Noboru Sato
Demades the Athenians chose those who were known to be most friendly
(epitēdeiotatous) to the Macedonian king and sent them to him (Arr. 1.10.3).
These anecdotes suggest that, especially when they were choosing
ambassadors to the big powers which were hostile or at least not friendly
to Athens, the Athenians carefully selected the men most acceptable to
these states. There is no reason to assume that the Athenians did so only
with large states like Sparta, Thebes or Macedon. According to Thucydides,
the Acarnanians asked the Athenians to send a son or kinsman of Phormio,
who had influence over the people in the region and probably formed a
xenia relationship with an Acarnanian. The Athenians sent his son, Asopius,
as general in command of thirty ships (Thuc. 3.7.1).20
As Mitchell shows, while conflict between factions within the polis
undeniably affected ambassadorial appointments and general elections,
many Athenian ambassadors and generals had personal connections with
the states to which they were sent.21 The better one’s chances of being
elected as an ambassador or general, the more easily one could join in the
decision-making process concerning foreign affairs, which in turn
enhanced one’s status within the polis. The ambassadors did not just deliver
a report in the Assembly when they came back home. From time to time
they made proposals themselves concerning their mission, as did
Philocrates and Andocides (Dem. 19.47–8; And. 3). Demosthenes made a
speech in support of Callias the ruler of Chalkis, saying that he wished to
speak concerning Arcadia, where he had just been sent as an ambassador
(Aeschin. 3.97–100). When he had finished his report, he moved a
resolution on the alliance between Athens, Chalcis, Oreus and Eretria.22
In fact, Athenian citizens seem to have thought highly of their leaders’
personal international connections. In 400/399, Andocides, trying to win
the citizens’ favour in court, referred to his personal ties with Macedonian
kings and other important persons.
I have been on terms of familiarity with many, and I have had dealings with
still more. In consequence, I have formed ties and friendships with kings,
with states, and with individuals too, in plenty (ἐµοὶ ξενίαι καὶ φιλότητες
πρὸς πολλοὺς καὶ βασιλέας καὶ πόλεις καὶ ἄλλους ἰδίᾳ ξένους γεγένηνται).
Acquit me, and you will share in them all, and be able to make use of them
whenever occasion may arise. (And. 1.145; cf. 2.11; Lys. 6.48)
This passage suggests that many Athenian citizens would have generally
regarded such personal connections with foreign kings, states and
individuals as beneficial to their own polis. In 338, after the battle of
Chaeronea, Aeschines openly claimed that he was a xenos and friend of
Philip II of Macedon (Dem. 18.284, cited below). It is likely that Aeschines
made use of his closeness to the Macedonian king in order to win the
208

favour of the citizens, either at the election of the ambassador to Macedon,
at the assembly concerning the peace treaty, or on both occasions.23
These examples, as well as the anecdotes telling of private preliminary
negotiations and the evidence of ambassadorial elections, clearly show that
personal international connections were one of the most valuable political
resources in democratic Athens.
Heredity and mobility in personal international connections

In principle, international personal relationships were hereditary in the
ancient Greek world. Several Athenian politicians, including Alcibiades,
Andocides, and Callias, clearly inherited xenia or proxenia from their fathers
or ancestors.24 Nicias’ xenia with Pausanias is said to have played an
important role when Nicias’ nephew and grandson met the Spartan king
(Lys. 18.10). Aristophanes’ connection with Cyprus came from his father
Nicophemus and his friend Conon. The Theban proxenia of Thrason of
Erchia may have something to do with his family. His brother Lysiteides
is named by Plutarch as pro-Theban (Mor. 575e), and his maternal uncle
was probably Thrasybulus of Collytus, the man most trusted by the
Thebans (Aeschin. 3.138). Demus, son of Pyrilampes, inherited from his
father a golden cup granted by the Persian king and plausibly his xenia as
well (Lys. 19.25). The reason Asopius, son of Phormio, was dispatched to
Acarnania was that he was the offspring of a general who had influence
over the people in that region (Thuc. 3.7.1).
Moreover, according to fourth-century inscriptions, the proxeniai granted
to Athenian citizens were automatically bestowed on their descendants as
well. With a few exceptions, almost all proxeny decrees contain a phrase
such as ‘record both the man (=honorand) himself and his descendants as
proxenos and euergetēs (ἀναγράψαι πρόξενον καὶ εὐεργέτην καὶ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκγόνους)’, or
similar expressions.25 The descendants of proxenoi were, therefore, auto-
matically in possession of this valuable political resource through their
families. Alcibiades’ grandfather is the only person whose hereditary
proxeny is known to have been renounced (Thuc. 5.43.2, 6.89.2). This
exception may prove the general rule in the Greek world that the proxenies
were normally transmitted from the first honorands to their descendants.
According to Alcibiades, moreover, it was his grandfather himself, not
Sparta, who had renounced the proxeny.26 We have no evidence of a
proxeny which was officially dissolved by the state that had granted it.
In his Rhetoric Aristotle says that the newly rich cause more annoyance
to the people than those who have long possessed or inherited wealth, and
the same applies to offices of state, power, numerous friends, virtuous
children, and other advantages of the same kind (1387a15–26). This may
209
Noboru Sato
suggest that the people tended to feel more indignant about, or more
envious of, those who acquired new foreign friends than those who
inherited from their ancestors.
Nevertheless, the literary and epigraphical sources for the fourth century
suggest that this form of political capital was in fact not exclusively
hereditary but rather widely open to new politicians. First of all, foreign
states did not always expect the same Athenian families to liaise between
the people of Athens and themselves. According to various sources,
foreign states often had more than one channel to negotiate with Athens.
Not a few foreign kings and politicians had many xenoi and friends in a
foreign state at the same time, and they were not necessarily of the same
family. For example, Perdiccas the Macedonian king had several xenoi in
Thessaly (Thuc. 4.132.2). Archidamus, the Spartan king, and his son
Agesilaus each had a Phliasian leader and his followers as their xenoi
(Xen. Hell. 5.3.13). In order to show intimacy with a fellow citizen who
left a fortune, a Siphnian says that he had the same policies, friends and
xenoi as the deceased (Isoc. 19.7): in other words, several foreigners had at
least two xenoi in Siphnus. Although there are not many who are known to
have several xenoi in Athens at the same time, sharing xenoi does not seem
to have been uncommon in Athens or in other parts of the Greek world.27
Euagoras, the ruler of Cypriot Salamis, was close to Conon, and
presumably Nicophemus, a friend but not a relative of the former, became
acquainted with the Cypriot through his friend (see above). Philip II of
Macedon was a xenos of Aeschines of Cothocidae (Dem. 18.284; 19.314)
and Demades of Paeania also seems to have had close relationships with
the king.28
The same was true of proxenies. Carthaea, one of the Cean cities, listed
its proxenoi, including Aristophon of Azenia and several other Athenians,
in an inscription (IG XII 5.542),29 which clearly shows that this small polis
had more than one Athenian citizen as its proxenos at the one time. Several
proxeny decrees show that more than one person was sometimes granted
a proxeny for a state at the same time or within a short period. Xanthippus
of Erchia and Philopolis of Deirades were honoured by the Olbians and
obtained proxenies at the same assembly (I. Olbia 5). Leodamas of
Acharnae, a politician of the mid-fourth century, was honoured with a
proxeny by the Parians just before Aristocrates of Thoricus became
another Parian proxenos. The separate decrees which honoured them were
inscribed on the same stele (SEG XLVIII 1135). While Leodamas is known
to have been still active by 355 at the latest (Dem. 20.156), Aristocrates
may be identified with his namesake in a decree of the tribe Acamantis in
361/0 (SEG XXIII 78).30 It is plausible that these two Athenians were Parian
210

proxenoi at the same time. Although foreign states do not seem to have
lavishly or routinely granted proxenies to visiting Athenians, it is clear that
they quite commonly had more than one proxenos.31 When Aeschines and
his fellow ambassadors stayed in Euboean cities in 347/6, they could
expect to obtain proxeniai from the people of Oreus (Aeschin. 2.89;
cf. Dem. 18.82; 19.155). In this case, moreover, while Oreus had Aeschines
and presumably others as its proxenoi, the city seems to have privately
negotiated with Demosthenes concerning an alliance between Athens and
Euboea (Aeschin. 3.102–103).32 Rivalry between Orean political groups
may have resulted in such plural negotiation channels. While Demosthenes
claims that Aeschines accepted envoys from Philistides of Oreus, ‘a puppet
tyrant of Philip’ (Dem. 18.79, 82), Aeschines states that Demosthenes
negotiated with Gnosidemus, son of Charigenes, who had been once the
most powerful Orean (Aeschin. 3.103–105). Gnosidemus seems to have
belonged to those who were preparing for the Euboean-Athenian alliance
promoted by Demosthenes and Callias, the tyrant of Chalcis, which is
bitterly criticised by Aeschines.33 These examples show that foreign states
often had several Athenians as their negotiation channels.
This lack of exclusiveness of negotiation channels must have given new
politicians chances of obtaining international personal relationships for
themselves. Indeed, we have already come across examples of Athenian
politicians of the fourth century who were not from established leading
families yet became foreign proxenoi. Aeschines became proxenos of Oreus
and Eretria, as noted above, and his relationship with Philip of Macedon
is portrayed by Demosthenes as follows:
But no sooner had the news of the battle reached us than you ignored all
your protests, and confessed, or rather claimed, that there were friendship
and hospitality ( philia kai xenia) between Philip and you, substituting those
names for your wage-earning (mistharnia); for with what show of equality or
honesty could Philip possibly be the host or the friend or even the
acquaintance of Aeschines, son of Glaucothea the tambourinist? I cannot
see: but the truth is, you took his pay to injure the interests of your
countrymen. (Dem. 18.284)
Although Demosthenes surely exaggerates the asymmetrical relationship
between Aeschines and Philip, it is generally accepted that Aeschines came
from a family without any previous political record.34 The difference
between a king and an upstart presumably enabled the orator to resort to
such rhetoric.35 As for Demosthenes himself, it is unlikely that he had
inherited his Theban proxenia from his homonymous father, who was not
active in politics, though we do not know how he obtained it (Aeschin.
2.141, 143).36 Demades of Paeania also appears to have had personal
211
Noboru Sato
connections with Philip and other Macedonian politicians through his own
political activities, not inherited from his ancestors.37 As these examples
show, elite networks in and beyond the Greek world were not exclusive to
established families but open to newcomers.
As far as epigraphic evidence goes, Athenians who were granted proxeniai
by foreign states are often prosopographically obscure or otherwise wholly
unknown.38 This does not necessarily mean either that most of them came
from outside established political families or that their descendants were
not active in politics. It is better to avoid an argument ex silentio. However,
the large number of decrees of cities newly granting proxeniai to Athenians
in the fourth century shows at least that foreign states were not content
with whatever traditional connections they may have had, but kept trying
to find new Athenian friends, who could liaise between themselves and
Athens in order to consolidate their relationships. In 394, Conon, one of
the most important Athenian military and political leaders of this
period, was honoured with proxenia by the Erythraeans (RO 8 = I. Erythrai
und Klazomenai 6). At that time, Conon was touring the Aegean with
Pharnabazus after the victory of the naval battle at Cnidus. Since they had
remained allied to Sparta until that time, the Erythraeans may have been
eager to establish a good relationship with Athens through this general.39
What is more, the inscription reveals that the city had just experienced a
civil war and expelled oligarchic groups. This must have also made the
Erythraeans eager to make friends with the Athenian politician on the spot.
The people of Arcesine granted Androtion of Gargettus proxenia in the
middle of the fourth century, because he was generous and behaved well
as an Athenian governor of the island (RO 51=IG XII 7.5). Aeschines may
have been granted proxenia during his visit to Oreus because, although still
at the beginning of his political career, he had the support of Eubulus, one
of the leading politicians of the time.40 These examples suggest that, when
Athenian leaders and ambassadors visited foreign states, the people there
often seized the opportunity to make friends with leading Athenians,
though they did not routinely do so.41 Nothing even hints that foreign
states held back from friendships with visiting Athenian politicians out of
consideration for existing inherited proxenies.
Foreign states could and did choose more suitable Athenian politicians
as circumstances demanded. They did not have to negotiate with Athens
through families who had hereditary connections with them or with their
leaders. As already mentioned, in 422/1, the Lacedaemonians did not
choose Alcibiades, despite his hereditary xenia with Endius, a Spartan
ephoros, and the hereditary Spartan proxenia that his family had once had.
The Lacedaemonians chose, probably on their own initiative, Nicias and
212

Laches (Thuc. 4.118.11; 5.16, 43.3). Nicias was, according to Thucydides,
not just one of the Athenian generals but the most influential statesman
and the most fortunate general of his time (5.16.1). Thus foreign states and
leaders that wanted to negotiate unofficially with Athenian politicians
would take into consideration these politicians’ current power or reputation
within Athens. That is to say, if an Athenian citizen had neither hereditary
xenia nor inherited proxenia but was influential because of other forms of
political capital, he could be chosen by a foreign state as a new and effective
channel for opening negotiations with Athens. As has been suggested,
various forms of political capital, such as wealth and rhetorical skills, gave
those who were not from a family of pedigree opportunities to be active
politicians, which in turn could earn them recognition from foreigners. In
some cases, a minor politician may have been acquainted with foreigners
through the leader of his political faction in Athens. Since political groups
seem to have nominated their own members for ambassadorial elections
from time to time, the chances to build personal friendships abroad were
open to new and minor politicians as well.42
Political circumstances, especially civil war or constitutional change, in
foreign states also affected the ability of Athenian politicians to make
political capital from their international connections. Aeschines hosted the
Eretrian ambassadors in 342/1 as their proxenos in Athens (Dem. 18.82). He
probably obtained the status in 347/6, when he was sent to Philip but
stayed in Euboea for a while with his colleagues (Aeschin. 2.89). A couple
of years earlier, however, it was Meidias of Anagyrus who acted as an
Eretrian proxenos (Dem. 21.200). In 349/8, when Plutarchus, the tyrant of
Eretria, requested Athenian intervention in a rebellion, Meidias supported
the request and promoted the expedition.43 He seems to have been closely
connected not only with the Eretrian state but with the tyrant himself, as
suggested by Demosthenes, who calls Meidias a friend and a xenos of the
tyrant (Dem. 21.110). This close relationship must have been a double-
edged sword. His connection with the state was presumably seriously
weakened, if not officially terminated, when Plutarchus was expelled by
the Eretrian ‘democrats’ in 349/8. If so, the overthrow of the tyranny in
Eretria caused one Athenian to lose and another to gain political capital.44
One more important point should be added. Personal international
friendships were not always an asset, but could sometimes harm politicians.
Personal friendships with foreign states were valuable political resources
when Athens was on good terms with those states, and even more so when
the Athenians wanted to restore relations with them, as in the case of
ambassadors elected when Athens was eager to make peace with the
enemy. But the reputation and status of a politician with connections to a
213
Noboru Sato
particular state could be damaged when its relation towards Athens became
hostile. The Athenians knew well how much personal connections affected
their leaders’ political behaviour, and often suspected politicians of making
proposals only for the benefit of the foreign states to which they had
personal ties. The Attic orators often make negative comments on personal
international relationships (e.g. Dem. 18.284, cited above; 21.110, 200).
Demosthenes fends off possible attacks and suspicions by denying any
personal link with the Rhodians (15.15). The same cautious stance seems
to be applied to his relationships with Thebes. He does not give any
indication of his own close connections to the Thebans in his surviving
speeches, while his status of Theban proxeny was associated with his
‘treacherous’ diplomacy by Aeschines in his oration in 343 (Aeschin.
2.141, 143). This rival politician even censured Demosthenes for being a
Boeotian sympathiser (Boiōtiazei ), in the same speech, given the increased
unpopularity of the Thebans at Athens after their alliance with Philip II
(2.106).45 Aeschines himself, according to Demosthenes, denied any
relationship with Philip while Athens was at war with Macedon, though
this was possibly overstated (Dem. 18.183–4). As early as the mid-fifth
century, Alcibiades’ grandfather may have renounced his proxeny for
Sparta in order to allay public suspicion, facing a deteriorating relationship
between Athens and Sparta and his own ostracism in the late 460s (Thuc.
5.43.2; 6.89.2).46 Pericles also made a speech before the Athenian citizens
to dispel their concern regarding his xenia with Archidamus, the Spartan
king, just before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian war ( Thuc. 2.13.1).
Therefore, whether they inherited personal international friendships or
obtained these for themselves, politicians needed to handle this form of
political capital with care.
Conclusion
Athenian diplomacy in the late fifth and the fourth century had an
‘aristocratic’ aspect but also reveals high social mobility. Personal inter-
national friendships were valuable and hereditary as a form of political
capital in Athens, as elsewhere in the Greek world and beyond. While
personal connections with foreign states and leaders were theoretically
hereditary, they were in practice not exclusive to a limited number of
established political families but open to newcomers. Foreign states
sometimes chose their channel of negotiation with Athens irrespective of
hereditary personal connections. Other forms of political capital, such as
wealth, rhetorical skills and military achievements, created high social
mobility within Athens, which foreign states could not overlook. This
social mobility was enhanced by political instability outside of Athens: war
214

could turn relations that had previously been assets into liabilities and vice
versa, while civil war could overturn existing networks and create the
opportunity and need for new links, and thus for new political capital.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Prof. N. Fisher, Prof. H. van Wees, Dr. H. Bowden and
Prof. P.J. Rhodes for their comments on my paper. I am grateful to the
Canon Foundation in Europe, whose research fellowship enabled me to do
research on this topic in UK, and to the Department of Classics, University
College Cork for its support during the Celtic Conference in Classics.
215
Noboru Sato
LIST OF FOREIGN PROXENIAI HELD BY ATHENIANS
s. = son of; d. = deme
No Polis Date Name Source

1 AENIS post Sosistratus s. Phileas (LGPN (6), IG IX ii 3b
(HYPATA) 323 otherwise unknown) = SGDI II
1429
2 AETOLIA 4 cent. No name SEG xxv 615
3 ARCADIA 360s Phylarchus s. Lysicrates (LGPN RO 32

1=PA 15041, otherwise unknown) = IG V ii 1
4 ARCESINE 357/6? Androtion s. Andron d. Gargettus RO 51

(LGPN 3 = PA/APF 913 +915) = IG XII vii 5
5 ARGOS late 4 Pamphilus s. Aeschytes d. Xypete, SEG XXX 355

cent. (LGPN 104, PA/APF 14785,
a kōmarchos and kōmastēs at the
Tetrakomoi in IG ii2 3103.5, 8)
6 BOEOTIA just Callippidas s. Theocles (LGPN 6, SEG XXVII

after otherwise unknown) 60
338?
7 CARTHAEA 4 cent. Theozotides s. Nicostratus d. IG XII V

(CEA) Athmonon (LGPN 3 = PA/APF 542.43
6915, a chorēgos in Dem. 21.59, a
grandson of a homonymous
politician in the late fifth century)
Hieronymus (LGPN 4, otherwise
unknown)
Democrates s. Menippus d.
Acharnae (LGPN 18, maybe =
LGPN 19 = PA/APF 3522, if so,
a councillor in 360/59)
?Chabrias s. Ctesippus d. Aexone
(LGPN 2 = PA/APF 15086)
Nicodemus s. Euctaeus d. Xypete
(LGPN 52 = PA/APF 10872, his
son was a victorious chorēgos in
IG II2 3055)
Aphareus s. Isocrates d. Erchia
(PA 1 = PA/APF 2769, a poet and
speech writer [Plut.] Mor. 837f.)
216

Aristophon s. Aristophanes d.
Azenia (LGPN 19 = PA/APF
2108)
8 CAUNUS late Nicocles s. Lysicles d. Cydantidae SEG XLVII

4 cent. (LGPN 33 = PA/APF 10903, 1568 =
IG II2 1597.4; SEG XXXIV 157.16; Kadmos
IG II2 417; defixio Zieberth no.1) XXXVI 37
Lysicles s. Lysimachus (otherwise
unknown, but his father may be
named in IG II2 4555)
8 CNIDUS 1st half Amphares s. Demotimus IKnidos I 50

of 4 (LGPN 1, otherwise unknown) = SEG xxxix
cent. 1117
10 CORCYRA 4 cent.? Dionysius s. Phrynichus (LGPN IG IX i 682

3 cent.? 25 = PA 4128, otherwise unknown)
11 CORINTH ca. 325– Xenocles s. Hagnotheas, (LGPN SEG XXX 990

(cf. Jones 275 15, otherwise unknown)
1980, Pausimachus s. Democles d.
Salmon 2003) Colonus (LGPN 6, otherwise
unknown)
12 DELOS end Chaerites s. Polymedes d. ID 74

4 cent. Myrrhinus (LGPN 2, otherwise
unknown)
Antiphon s. Theodorus
(Chaerites’ brother, LGPN 15,
otherwise unknown)
13 DELOS end Callias s. Callippus d. Thorae ID 75

4 cent. (LGPN 199, otherwise unknown)
Hieron (LGPN 76, otherwise
unknown, Callias’ son)
Eretrieus (LGPN 3, otherwise
unknown, Callias’ son)
14 DELPHI 4 cent. Timocrates s. Nicomachus d. SEG XXV 568

Acharnae (LGPN 29, otherwise
unknown; his father may be
identified with a tamias in IG II2
1470.3)
217
Noboru Sato

15 DELPHI 336/5 Neo[cleides] s. Nicias d. SEG XVIII
Eroeadae? (LGPN 12, otherwise 170 = SGDI
unknown) II 2656
16 DELPHI 350– Demades s. Demeas d. Paeania, FD III iv 383

325 (LGPN 4=PA/APF 3263) (no proxeny
is mentioned)
17 DELPHI end 4 Casandrus s. Theophilus (LGPN FD III iv 140

cent. 1, otherwise unknown)
18 DELPHI 338/7 Celaenus s. Polycratides (LGPN FD III iv 141

1, otherwise unknown)
19 DELPHI 4 cent.? [Philocra?]tes s. Phil[on?] d. SGDI 2655 =

Pergase BCH VI 64
(p. 229)
20 DELPHI 324 Charidemus s. Charidemus d. BCH 52

Paeania (LGPN 51), may be (1928) 217 =
identified with LGPN 50=PA/ BCH 75
APF 15392, diaitētēs in 330/29 (1951), 305,
(IG II2 1924.6), syntrierarch in 322, 330–2
(IG II2 1632. 260, 311, 70)
21 DELPHI 324/3 Epiteles s. Soinomus d. Pergase FD III i 408

(LGPN 11 = PA 4955+4963, cf.
naopoios in CID ii 32; mover of a
decree IG II2 365)
22 ELIS early Diphilus s. Melanopus (LGPN 8, I.v.Olym. 30

4 cent. cf. PA 4471<ARV 2 1574–5II) (SGDI 1183)
23 ERETRIA late Aeschines s. Atrometus d. Dem. 18.82,

4 cent. Cothocidae (LGPN 54= PA/ 34
APF 354)
24 ERETRIA late Meidias s. Cephisodorus d. Dem. 21.200

4 cent. Anagyrus (LGPN 10 = PA/
APF 9719)
25 ERETRIA late Phanocles s. Phaeniades d. Ptelea? IG XII ix.195

4 cent. (LGPN 16 = PA/APF 14058,
syntrierarch in IG II2 1632 (323/2),
218

but he may not even be Athenian,
see Knoepfler 2001: 154)
26 ERETRIA end Aristonymus s. Theophilus, Eretria XI 11

4 cent. otherwise unknown
27 ERYTHRAE 398 Conon s. Timotheus d. RO 8=

Anaphlystus (LGPN 21 = PA/ I.Erythrai und
APF 8707) Klazomenai 6
28 HERACLEA 4 cent. Callippus s. Callias d. Lamptrae [Dem.] 52.

PONTICA (LGPN 41 = PA 8078, Isoc.15.93, passim
(cf. IG II2 1544.6)
29 IASUS 4 cent./ Glaucus s. Theopropus (LGPN 3 I.Iasos 42

3 cent. = PA 2993)
Aristonicus (LGPN 5 = PA 2024;
Glaucus’ brother)
30 ILION ca. 359 Menelaus s. Arrabaeus (naturalised I.v.Ilion 23

from Pelagonia/Macedonia IG II2
110, cf. Arist. Pol. 5.8.11/1311b12,
Dem. 1.27?)
31 IOS 4 cent. no name IG XII v 1000
32 OLBIA mid Xanthippus s. Aristophon d. I.Olbia 5

4 cent. Erchia (LGPN 9, otherwise
unknown);
Philopolis, s. Philopolis d. Deirades
(LGPN 1, his grandfather may be
Polystratus cf. APF 12076)
33 OREUS 2nd half Aeschines s. Atrometus d. Aeschin. 2.89

of 4 Cothocidae (LGPN 54= PA/ cf. Dem.
cent. APF 354) 18.82
34 PAROS 4 cent. Cephisophon s. Cephalion d. IG XII v 114

(THASOS) Aphidona (LGPN 22=PA/
APF 8410)
35 PAROS ca. 350 Leodamas, s. Phaeax, d. Acharnae SEG XLVIII

(presumably the politician LGPN 1135
1=PA/APF 9077, not LGPN 2=
PA/APF 9076)
219
Noboru Sato

Aristocrates s. Chares d. Thoricus
(LGPN 92, maybe identified with
the mover of a decree of Acamantis
in SEG XXIII 78 (361/0BC))
36 SALAMIS 334/3 Theodorus s. Theodorus d. SEG LII 135

(CYPRUS) Leuconion, (LGPN 145? = the
mover of a decree in IG II 2 330)
37 SICINOS end no name IG XII suppl.

4 cent. 177
38 SPARTA 5 cent. Cimon s. Miltiades d. Laciadae Theop. FGrH

(LGPN 11 = PA/APF 8429) 115 F 88; cf.
Aeschin.
2.172;
Andoc. 3.3
39 SPARTA 5 cent. Callias s. Hipponicus d. Alopece Xen. Hell.

(LGPN 82 = PA/APF 7825), 5.4.22;
Hipponicus s. Callias d. Alopece 6.3.3–5;
(LGPN 14 = PA/APF 7659) Dem. 19.273
40 SPARTA 5 cent. The family of Alcibiades s. Thuc. 5.43,

Cleinias d. Scambonidae (LGPN 6.89, Plut.
23 = PA/APF 600) until his Alc.14
grandfather.
41 SPARTA 4 cent. Callias s. Hipponicus d. Alopece Xen. Hell.

(LGPN 84 = PA/APF 7826) 5.4.22;
6.3.3–5;
Dem. 19.273
42 SYRACUSE 5 cent. Nicias s. Niceratus d. Cydantidae D.S. 13.27

(LGPN 95 = PA/APF 10808)
43 THEBES 4 cent. Thrason d. Erchia (LGPN 19 = Aeschin

PA/APF 7384) 3.138
44 THEBES end [Call]aeschrus and his brother?

4 cent. s. Philaeus d. Cydathenaeum SEG XXVIII
(LGPN 17, naopoios (CID II 119. 466
28); his father may be a prytanis in
ca. 360 in Agora XV 15 (PA 7762))
220

45 THEBES 4 cent. Demosthenes s. Demosthenes Aeschin. 2.
d. Paeania (LGPN 37=PA/APF 141–3
3597)
Notes
1 I owe this idea to Bourdieu 1979; Bourdieu 1980. ‘The definition of capital is very
wide for Bourdieu and includes material things (which can have symbolic value), as
well as “untouchable” but culturally significant attributes such as prestige, status and
authority (referred to as symbolic capital), along with cultural capital (defined as
culturally-valued taste and consumption patterns)’ (Harker et al. 1990, 1).
2 The words ‘aristocracy’ and ‘aristocratic’ are commonly used in historical and
classical studies, often without any definition. Definition and methodology have been
an important part of scholarly discussion: see e.g. Duplouy 2006, passim, esp. 12–23
and other chapters in this book. Here I try to provide an ‘etic’ account of one aspect
of ‘aristocracy’, rather than to understand ‘emic’ ancient belief and practice.
3 Connor 1971.
4 Davies 1981.
5 E.g. Rhodes 1986. For revisionist views of the genē as ‘aristocratic’ group, see e.g.
Bourriot 1976; Roussel 1976. See also Lambert and Pierrot in this volume. Focusing
on the ‘classe politique’ in the fourth century, Mossé 1995 emphasises the importance
of specialised knowledge. It is beyond the scope of the present chapter to discuss
these theories further.
6 Herman 1987; Mitchell 1997a; Mitchell 1997b. On proxenia, see also Monceaux
1886; Perlman 1958; Wallace 1970; Gauthier 1972, 18-27; Gschnitzer 1973; Walbank
1978, 1-9; Marek 1984. Most works on proxeny are interested in Athenian proxenoi, or
Greek proxenoi in general, but not in the Athenians with proxenies for foreign states
in particular. Perlman in his short essay says that the ‘foreign connexions of a
politician, as expressed by proxenia, are a means of increasing his popularity and
influence at home’ (1958, 185), but his argument is based on only a few examples and
not made out in detail.
7 Mosley 1973, 21–29, 39–49; Adcock and Mosley 1975, 165–169. Mosley (1973,
41) claims that the Athenian envoys were less responsible on the basis that denounced
envoys were less severely punished than generals. Several envoys, however, received
much heavier punishments than ordinary officials: Epicrates, Andocides, Cratinus
and Eubulides, the envoys to Sparta in 392/1, were denounced by Callistratus and
sentenced to death in absentia (Philoch. FGrH 328 F149a; Andoc. 3; Dem. 19.277–9).
Timagoras was executed after his embassy to Persia in 368/7 (Dem. 19.191). These
cases as well as others, such as those against Philocrates and Aeschines in 346 and
343, show that the euthyna did not lose substance.
8 Mosley 1973, 78–80.
9 Although Aeschines does not identify the ‘leading men’ in Europe, he may allude
221
Noboru Sato
to Demosthenes’ contacts with Theban ambassadors (see below) or to private
communication with Greek leaders in general.
10 Trevett 1999.
11 On xenia between Endius and Alcibiades, see Thuc. 8.6.3.
12 Thuc. 8.6.3. See Herman 1987, 148, though he seems to exaggerate the importance
and obligation of these xenoi.

13 Alcibiades’ speech is misleading. His grandfather had renounced his hereditary
Spartan proxeny and Alcibiades was trying hard to recover the status. Although Nicias
had a xenia with the family of the Spartan king Pausanias (Lys. 18.10), nothing suggests
that their relationship was established before the negotiation for the so-called Peace
of Nicias (cf. Mitchell 1997a, 90 and n.4).
14 Xen. Hell. 2.1.29; Lys. 19.36; D.S. 13.106.6; Davies 1971, 508.
15 On the reception party for the foreign ambassadors (xenia), see e.g. Rhodes 1984.
16 The fact that many citizens knew where the ambassadors stayed does not mean
that these foreigners were monitored by the Athenians.

17 Conon, a military and political leader in the late fifth and early fourth centuries
became a proxenos for the Erythraeans (RO 8). Androtion, a leading politician in the
time of the social war, was honoured with proxeny by the people of Arcesine in the
early 350s (RO 51). Leodamas of Acharnae, a Parian proxenos, can be plausibly
identified with a homonymous politician in the fourth century (SEG XLVIII 1135).
Aristophon of Azenia, an energetic politician in the fourth century, obtained a proxeny
from Carthaea on Ceos (IG XII v 542.43). Cephisophon of Aphidona was ‘popular in
the Aegean’ as suggested by the proxeny decree passed by Paros and Thasos (IG XII
v 114; cf. APF 292). See the list at the end of this chapter.
18 E.g. Gerolymatos 1986; Lewis 1996, 81–3.
19 On the ambassadors to Thebes listed by Aeschines and their loyalties, see Trevett
1999.
20 On the generals’ election and their contacts in particular parts of the Greek
world, see Mitchell 1997a, 96–108; Mitchell 2000.

21 Mitchell 1997a, 90–110.
22 While ordinary Athenians presumably did not objectively assess the reliability of
ambassadors’ speeches, these seem to have played an important role in persuading

assemblies. Although he may exaggerate, Demosthenes emphasises the importance of
ambassadors’ reports (Dem. 19, passim).
23 Demosthenes, in his third letter on the sons of Lycurgus, is critical of the practice
of the Athenian people in paying too much attention to the close connections of some
politicians with leading Macedonians and refers to the case of Laches, who was
condemned but released when Alexander the Great sent a letter for him (Dem. Ep.
3.23–24, 26–7; on the authenticity of Demosthenes’ first to fourth letters, see
Goldstein 1968; cf. Clavaud 1987). This letter may illustrate the Athenian attitude
towards the politicians with friendships with foreign leaders or countries. But it seems
unsafe to generalise from this, since Macedon had achieved ascendancy over Greek
cities at the time of this letter.
24 Alcibiades is called a hereditary xenos (patrikos xenos) of Endius (Thuc. 8.6.3).
Andocides (2.11) tells that Archelaus the Macedonian king was a patrikos xenos of his.
According to Xenophon (Hell. 6.3.2, 4-6), Callias’ father’s father handed an inherited
(patrōia) proxeny for the Spartans to his descendants.
222

25 Just a few inscriptions do not contain any similar expressions: for instance, the
proxeny decree of Aenis for Sosistratus (IG IX ii 3b) says nothing about his descendants,
though this does not necessarily mean that his proxeny was not inherited by his
descendants.
26 On the political context of this renunciation, see below.
27 E.g. Archebiades and Aristonus are xenoi of Lycon, a Heraclean (Dem. 52.3),
though their connections were not political but commercial.

28 D.S. 16.87; Arrian, Anab. 1.10.3; Hyp. fr. 77; Dem. 18.285. Contemporary sources
do not probe Demades’ private contacts with Philip and other Macedonian politicians,
and later authors who do are not necessarily reliable, but there is probably a kernel of
truth in their stories.
29 One of the Carthaean proxenoi may be Chabrias, a military leader of Athens,
though the restoration is insecure (IG XII v 542.40).

30 On this identification, see Matthaiou 1992–1998, 433–6.
31 SEG XXX 990 is another example. There are some other proxeny decrees
honouring several Athenians at the same time, but they are members of the same
family or relatives (ID 74, 75; I.Iasos 42; SEG XLVII 1568= Kadmos XXXVI 37; SEG
XXVIII 466). While the custom of honouring several foreigners with one decree was
not uncommon in classical and hellenistic Greece, most of the epigraphical examples
in the fourth century show that states in this period tended to award a proxeny
to one Athenian at a time. According to Mosley, the Athenians did not often
entrust embassies to one citizen (Mosley 1973: 55–62). Considering the size of
embassies, the number of the proxenies granted to Athenians at any one time is
clearly small.
32 The episode of Oreans’ bribing of Demosthenes should not be accepted at face
value (Brunt 1969, 254–5; Harris 1995, 146).

33 On the other hand, the political situation within and around Oreus must have
been unsettled in this period. This is suggested by the arrest of Anaxinus, Demosthenes’
Orean xenos (Dem. 18.137; Aeschin. 3.223–4). According to Demosthenes, the Orean
was arrested as Philip’s spy and may have privately met Aeschines among others
(Dem. 18.137).
34 Cf. APF 544–5; Harris 1995, 17–40.
35 We find many similar expressions, especially in the latter half of the fourth
century, claiming that some Athenian politicians were flatterers to or hirelings of

foreign kings or tyrants and denying their equality (e.g. Dem. 8.61, 66; 9.14; 15.32;
18.148; [Dem.] 17.11–13; Din. 1.28; 103; Hyp. 4.21–2). These expressions may partly
reflect the fact that those who were not from a traditional family became acquainted
with foreign rulers (as well as Athens’ relatively weak political position, compared to
the fifth century, and the orators’ intention of degrading opponents who had contacts
with Macedonia). On the other hand, the politicians with international friendships in
the fifth and the early fourth centuries are rarely described in such hostile terms.
Andocides, from a family of pedigree, is exceptionally described as flattering many
kings in the early fourth century (Lys. 6.6), perhaps a result of his fugitive life.
36 Demosthenes must have had a close connection to Thebes by the time Aeschines
was accused in 343 BC. On his family, see APF 113–39. For a different view of
Demosthenes’ family, see Badian 2000.
37 See above n.28. On Demades’ family, see APF 99–100 (pace Badian 1961, 34).
223
Noboru Sato
38 In detail, see the list of the Athenians who were foreign proxenoi at the end of this
chapter.
39 On Conon’s expedition, see Xen. Hell. 4.8.1–2; D.S. 14.84.3–4. On the political
context of this decree, see Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 44–7. It is plausible that pro-
Athenian politicians in Erythrae, at least, must have sought to win the backing of
Athens, not just of Conon himself, by honouring the general. Athens’ intervention in
the Erythraean civil war just before 386 suggests that a democratic group in Erythrae
sought to build better rapport with Athens in this period (RO 17). On the historical
situation concerning Erythrae, Athens and Persia in this period, see Rhodes and
Osborne 2003, 74–7; Sato 2006.
40 Aeschines made his debut as a politician in late 348, cf. Harris 1995, 38–9, 50–1.
41 See above n.31.
42 For the relationship between nomination for elections and political groups, see
Mitchell 1997a, 92–3. Aeschines was nominated by Nausicles, one of his friends, to
serve among the ambassadors of 346 who were sent to Macedon to make peace
(Aeschin. 2.18–19).
43 On the Euboean affair in this period, see Brunt 1969; Cawkwell 1978; MacDowell
1990, 5–7.
44 The failure of the expedition itself may have damaged Meidias’ reputation among
the Athenians, as suggested by his own absence from politics and by the prosecution
of Hegesilaus, who assisted Plutarchus (Dem. 19.290 with Scholia (513 Dilts)). But his
private connection with the ex-tyrant must have been, at least, an important reason for
the Eretrians to choose their new proxenos.
45 Trevett 1999.
46 APF 15; Hornblower 2009, 102, 512.
Bibliography
Adcock, F.E. and Mosley, D.J.
1975 Diplomacy in Ancient Greece, London.
Badian, E.
1961 ‘Harpalus’, JHS 81, 16–43.
2000 ‘The Road to Prominence’, in I. Worthington (ed.), Demosthenes: Statesman
and Orator, London, 9–44.
Bourdieu, P.
1979 La distinction, Paris.
1980 Le sens pratique, Paris.
Bourriot, F.
1976 Recherches sur la nature du génos; étude d’histoire sociale athénienne, Paris.
Brunt, P.A.
1969 ‘Euboea in the time of Philip II’, CQ 19, 245–65.
Cawkwell, G.
1978 ‘Euboia in the late 340’s’, Phoenix 32, 42–67.
Clavaud, R.
1987 Démosthène: lettres et fragments, Paris.
Connor, W.R.
1971 The New Politicians of Fifth-Century Athens, Princeton.
224

Davies, J.K.
1971 Athenian Propertied Families, 600–300 BC, Oxford.
1981 Wealth and the Power of the Wealth in Classical Athens, London.
Duplouy, A.
2006 Le prestige des élites: recherches sur les modes de reconnaissance sociale en Grèce entre
les x e et v e siècles avant J.-C., Paris.
Gauthier, P.
1972 Symbola: les etrangers et la justice dans les cités grecques. Nancy.
Gerolymatos, A.
1986 Espionage and Treason: A study of the proxenia in political and military intelligence
gathering in classical Greece, Amsterdam.
Goldstein, J.A.
1968 The Letters of Demosthenes, New York.
Harker, R. et al.
1990 An Introduction to the work of Pierre Bourdieu, New York.
Harris, E.M.
1995 Aeschines and Athenian Politics, New York and Oxford.
Herman, G.
1987 Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City, Cambridge.
Hornblower, S.
2009 A Commentary on Thucydides: Vol. III, Oxford.
Jones, N.F.
1980 ‘The civic organization of Corinth’, TAPA 110, 161–93.
Knoepfler, D.
2001 Eretria XI: Décrets érétriens de proxénie et de citoyenneté, Lausanne.
Lewis, S.
1996 News and Society in the Greek Polis, London.
MacDowell, D.
1990 Demosthenes: Against Meidias (Oration 21), Oxford.
Marek, C.
1984 Die Proxenie, Frankfurt.
Matthaiou, A.
1992–1998 ‘Τρεῖς ἐπιγραφὲς Πάρου’, Ηόρος 10–12, 423–36.
Mitchell, L.G.
1997a Greeks Bearing Gifts, Cambridge.
1997b ‘Philia, eunoia, and Greek interstate relations’, Antichthon 31, 28–44.
2000 ‘A new look at the election of generals at Athens’, Klio 82.2, 344–60.
Monceaux, P.
1886 Les proxénies grecques, Paris.
Mosley, D.J.
1973 Envoys and Diplomacy in Ancient Greece, Wiesbaden.
Mossé, C.
1995 ‘La classe politique à Athénes au IVème siècle’, in W. Eder (ed.), Die
athenische Demokratie im 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Stuttgart, 107–38.
Perlman, S.
1958 ‘A note on the political implications of proxenia in the fourth century BC’,
CQ 8, 185–91.
225
Noboru Sato
Rhodes, P.J.
1984 ‘Ξένια and δεῖπνον in the Prytaneum’, ZPE 57, 193–9.
1986 ‘Political activity in classical Athens’, JHS 106, 132–44.
Rhodes, P.J. and Osborne, R.G.
2003 Greek Historical Inscriptions 403–323 BC, Oxford.
Roussel, D.
1976 Tribu et cité, Besançon.
Salmon, J.B.
2003 ‘Cleisthenes (of Athens) and Corinth’, in P. Derow and R. Parker (eds),
Herodotus and his World, Oxford, 319–36.
Sato, N.
2006 ‘Athens, Persia, Clazomenae, Erythrae: an analysis of international
relationships in Asia Minor’, BICS 49, 23–37.
Trevett, J.C.
1999 ‘Demosthenes and Thebes’, Historia 48.2, 184–202.
Walbank, M.B.
1978 Athenian Proxenies of the Fifth Century, Toronto.
Wallace, M.B.
1970 ‘Early Greek proxenoi ’, Phoenix 24, 189–208.
226

7 Aristocracy' in Athenian Diplomacy: Noboru Sato

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

7 Aristocracy' in Athenian Diplomacy: Noboru Sato

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

86031_Aristocracy_Book:Layout 1 21/12/15 09:23 Page 203

‘ARISTOCRACY’ IN ATHENIAN DIPLOMACY

Personal international connections as political capital

‘Aristocracy’ in Athenian diplomacy

to Thucydides, Alcibiades complained that the Lacedaemonians neglected

‘Aristocracy’ in Athenian diplomacy

‘Aristocracy’ in Athenian diplomacy

Heredity and mobility in personal international connections

‘Aristocracy’ in Athenian diplomacy

‘Aristocracy’ in Athenian diplomacy

‘Aristocracy’ in Athenian diplomacy

No Polis Date Name Source

2 AETOLIA 4 cent. No name SEG xxv 615

3 ARCADIA 360s Phylarchus s. Lysicrates (LGPN RO 32

4 ARCESINE 357/6? Androtion s. Andron d. Gargettus RO 51

5 ARGOS late 4 Pamphilus s. Aeschytes d. Xypete, SEG XXX 355

6 BOEOTIA just Callippidas s. Theocles (LGPN 6, SEG XXVII

7 CARTHAEA 4 cent. Theozotides s. Nicostratus d. IG XII V

‘Aristocracy’ in Athenian diplomacy

No Polis Date Name Source

8 CAUNUS late Nicocles s. Lysicles d. Cydantidae SEG XLVII

8 CNIDUS 1st half Amphares s. Demotimus IKnidos I 50

10 CORCYRA 4 cent.? Dionysius s. Phrynichus (LGPN IG IX i 682

11 CORINTH ca. 325– Xenocles s. Hagnotheas, (LGPN SEG XXX 990

12 DELOS end Chaerites s. Polymedes d. ID 74

13 DELOS end Callias s. Callippus d. Thorae ID 75

14 DELPHI 4 cent. Timocrates s. Nicomachus d. SEG XXV 568

No Polis Date Name Source

16 DELPHI 350– Demades s. Demeas d. Paeania, FD III iv 383

17 DELPHI end 4 Casandrus s. Theophilus (LGPN FD III iv 140

18 DELPHI 338/7 Celaenus s. Polycratides (LGPN FD III iv 141

19 DELPHI 4 cent.? [Philocra?]tes s. Phil[on?] d. SGDI 2655 =

20 DELPHI 324 Charidemus s. Charidemus d. BCH 52

21 DELPHI 324/3 Epiteles s. Soinomus d. Pergase FD III i 408

22 ELIS early Diphilus s. Melanopus (LGPN 8, I.v.Olym. 30

23 ERETRIA late Aeschines s. Atrometus d. Dem. 18.82,

24 ERETRIA late Meidias s. Cephisodorus d. Dem. 21.200

25 ERETRIA late Phanocles s. Phaeniades d. Ptelea? IG XII ix.195

‘Aristocracy’ in Athenian diplomacy

No Polis Date Name Source

26 ERETRIA end Aristonymus s. Theophilus, Eretria XI 11

27 ERYTHRAE 398 Conon s. Timotheus d. RO 8=

28 HERACLEA 4 cent. Callippus s. Callias d. Lamptrae [Dem.] 52.

29 IASUS 4 cent./ Glaucus s. Theopropus (LGPN 3 I.Iasos 42

30 ILION ca. 359 Menelaus s. Arrabaeus (naturalised I.v.Ilion 23

31 IOS 4 cent. no name IG XII v 1000

32 OLBIA mid Xanthippus s. Aristophon d. I.Olbia 5

33 OREUS 2nd half Aeschines s. Atrometus d. Aeschin. 2.89

34 PAROS 4 cent. Cephisophon s. Cephalion d. IG XII v 114

35 PAROS ca. 350 Leodamas, s. Phaeax, d. Acharnae SEG XLVIII

No Polis Date Name Source

36 SALAMIS 334/3 Theodorus s. Theodorus d. SEG LII 135

37 SICINOS end no name IG XII suppl.

38 SPARTA 5 cent. Cimon s. Miltiades d. Laciadae Theop. FGrH

39 SPARTA 5 cent. Callias s. Hipponicus d. Alopece Xen. Hell.

40 SPARTA 5 cent. The family of Alcibiades s. Thuc. 5.43,

41 SPARTA 4 cent. Callias s. Hipponicus d. Alopece Xen. Hell.

42 SYRACUSE 5 cent. Nicias s. Niceratus d. Cydantidae D.S. 13.27

43 THEBES 4 cent. Thrason d. Erchia (LGPN 19 = Aeschin

44 THEBES end [Call]aeschrus and his brother?

‘Aristocracy’ in Athenian diplomacy

No Polis Date Name Source