Page 39 - Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West 411 - 533

Envoys and political communication

restricted the choice of an emissary. Unlike other public functionaries,
Greek envoys did not hold a formal office, an . No restrictions
prevented the reappointment of a former envoy, or limited the duration
of his appointment, which terminated when he returned from his mis-
sion. Whereas holders of most Athenian offices ideally were selected by
lot, envoys were chosen by election in the assembly. Only generals were
similarly free from the standard restrictions surrounding public offices. 32
Though envoys did not enjoy the status of generals, neither were they
mere functionaries. On return from their mission, envoys reported to
the council and assembly, and made recommendations. Their addresses
were considered of equal standing to those of rhetores, movers of proposals
in the council or assembly, and were therefore an important part of the
Athenian political process. Envoys were held responsible for the policies
they advocated, and were liable to the penalties applicable against rhetores.
They were also subject to the same public audit which all holders of
public office were obliged to undergo at the expiry of their term. Envoys
were thus treated simultaneously as special agents, as politically influential
public speakers, and as civic office holders. 33
Considerations of domestic and foreign politics determined the se-
lection of an envoy. Election was firstan acknowledgementof popular
respectfor the individual concerned. The envoy’s knowledge of the re-
cipient state, and his existing contacts with influential persons there, was
the main practical consideration in selection; where possible, envoys were
chosen for their influence in the state to which they were to be sent. An
individual who had introduced a motion concerning another power was
eligible to be chosen as the envoy to implement the resultant decree. 34
Practices for the reception of foreign envoys were customary and for-
mal but, in contrast with later states and Rome in particular, characterised
by little ceremonial and minimal public expense. Neither the dispatch nor
the reception of envoys seems to have been marked by public formalities.
Envoys could expect to receive the customary courtesies of hospitality,

32
Mosley, Envoys and Diplomacy, 39–49; David Stockton, The Classical Athenian Democracy (Oxford,
1990), 105–7.
33
Phillipson, International Law and Custom i, 343–6; Mosley, Envoys and Diplomacy, 78–9; Hansen,
‘Rhetores and Strategoi’, 29–31, 32 §9. Processes against rhetores: Mogens Herman Hansen, ‘The
Athenian “Politicians”, 403–422 bc’, Greek,Roman,and Byzantine Studies 25 (1983), repr. in
his Athenian Ecclesia ii, 9–10. An example of an envoy’s address to the assembly on return from
a mission: Andocides, Oration 3: On the Peace with Sparta,in Minor Attic Orators i, trans. K. J.
Maidment(LCL; London, 1941); cf. Demosthenes’ statement of the responsibilities of an envoy,
Oration 19: De falsa legatione,cc. 4–5. Note that the (lost) collection of public speeches made in
the late fifth century bc by Demetrius of Phalerum included both the speeches of rhetores in the
assembly and the addresses of envoys: RE iv.2, 2829–30.
34
Mosley, Envoys and Diplomacy, 43–9; Adcock and Mosley, Diplomacy in Ancient Greece, 157; Hansen,
‘Rhetores and Strategoi’, 30.
13