• 1 I should like to express my thanks to all the participants in the conference in Aix-en-Provence for (...)
• 2 The opposition between Sparta and Athens is a distinctive feature of the funeral oration as a whole (...)
• 3 Thuc. 2.39.1. Cf. Plut. Lyc. 27.2-3, who refers to this passage, but misinterprets its meaning: Per (...)
• 4 Harris, 1992, p. 163; Dillery, 1993, p. 6; Jansen, 2012, p. 732-733 n. 36.
• 5 Hornblower, 1991, p. 303-304, found this chapter puzzling, as the statement about the Athenian lack (...)
• 6 On the epainos see Ziolkowski, 1981, p. 181-184. On the military training see Rusten, 1989, p. 149. (...)
• 7 On this point see Fantasia, 2003, p. 385.
• 8 On the relation between Athens’ eulogy and its condition after the first phase of the war, see Sick (...)

1In the funeral oration for the fallen of the first year of the Peloponnesian War, Pericles states that Athens is in many ways different from other poleis.1 It is evident that the main contraposition in Pericles’ words is with Sparta.2 Among the issues that distinguish Athens from Sparta there is the fact that during the preparation for military activity Athens is open to all (πόλιν κοινήν) and does not expell those foreigners (ξενελασίαις),3 who wish to observe the Athenian military practice.4 Although this statement is inserted in the laudatory section (epainos) of the speech and should be related essentially to the military sphere,5 it also assumes a general value arguing for an optimistic view of human relations.6 An element not to be overlooked is that this attitude of openness towards the outsiders is claimed as a characteristic feature of the Athenian mentality in a celebratory context of great importance for the city,7 and in a moment of general bewilderment due to the progress of the war.8

• 9 Canfora, 2011, p. 9.
• 10 For an introduction to this issue see Ziolkowski, 1981, p. 1-8, 188-195. For the idea that the fune (...)
• 11 Thuc. 2.34.4-5; 2.36.4 with Loraux, 1981, p. 79-83. The Athenian willingness to open the city to fo (...)

2Although the picture Pericles offers of the Athenians’ way of life can be to some extent an idealization and a self-commemorative representation of the city,9 it would be difficult for such a statement to have been pronounced if it had not had a shred of truth.10 Pericles’ words count not only as part of a self-congratulatory speech, in which Athens magnifies itself before its civic body, but above all for the image that the Athenians wanted to give of themselves externally. It is no coincidence that the ceremony was open to all, both citizens and foreigners (ὀ βουλόμενος καὶ ἀστῶν καὶ ξένων), who were free to accompany the coffins to the burial place. There the speaker, chosen by the city, praised the fallen.11

• 12 On the representation of history in the funeral orations as a continuum see Canfora, 2011; Poddighe (...)
• 13 For this topic in the funeral orations see Lys. 2.11-16 with Frangeskou, 1999, p. 321, who has stre (...)

3The same topic can be found in other fourth-century funeral orations, according to a recurring pattern by which Athenian history is represented as an uninterrupted sequence of events.12 Every time the weak are victims of injustice by more powerful enemies, Athens intervenes, regardless of the danger, supporting their cause against the arrogant wrongdoers. One way to refer to this attitude is the recourse to myth. The story of Heracles’ sons, who, persecuted by Eurystheus, fled to Athens, is used to enhance the idea of the Athenians as protectors of the oppressed and as defenders of justice. The Athenians preferred to risk an open conflict with the Argives rather than granting the extradition of the refugees.13

• 14 For this definition see Reinhardt, 1989, p. 214-215. On the presence of the topic of the exile in G (...)
• 15 Isoc. 4.54-56. Cf. also Isoc. 6.42. On the opportunity to connect Isocrates’ discourses with the ep (...)
• 16 Isoc. 12.93-94.
• 17 Aeschin. 3.134: ἡ δ ἡμετέρα πόλις, ἡ κοινὴ καταφυγὴ τῶν Ἑλλάδων. Cf. Isoc. 4.41; Dem. 20.55: οἳ παρ (...)
• 18 Thuc. 1.2.6. Cf. Fantasia, 2003, p. 385; Forsdyke, 2005, p. 237-238.
• 19 Plut. Sol. 24.4. It is matter of debate whether the legislator intended to encourage the grant of c (...)
• 20 Arist. Pol. 3.1.1275b34-39. For the continuity between Solon, Pisistratus and Cleisthenes on the is (...)
• 21 Isoc. 14.1. For the positive reasons for requesting asylum see Isayev, 2017, p. 85-87. For the issu (...)

4Likewise, Isocrates evokes this theme in his Panegyric, a speech that shares some traits with the genre of the epitaphs. This is a myth that Euripides had already brought to the stage in 430 BC in the Children of Heracles. This drama develops a theme dear to the Attic tragedy at least from Aeschylus’ Suppliants and Eumenides: the Athenian intervention in favour of non-Athenian suppliants. Plays like these are part of the cycle of tragedies of the refuge or suppliant plays together with Euripides’ Suppliants and Medea and Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus.14 In these tragedies Athens is celebrated as a paradigm of hospitality and a model of virtue that reproduces the values of its citizens: a real exception, if compared to other poleis in terms of openness and protection offered to people in difficulty. In particular, the opposition with Sparta concerning the reception and hospitality is a recurring theme in the Athenian public discourse.15 Just to make an example, in his Panathenaicus Isocrates contrasts the customs of the Athenians and the Spartans with regard to the treatment of Plataea: by evoking the Spartan siege of 427 BC and the extermination of the population, to which only 212 citizens survived, he contrasts it with the behaviour of the Athenians, who installed the displaced Messenians in Naupactus and gave the Plataeans the Athenian citizenship.16 The democratic rhetoric therefore tended to represent Athens as an open city, but also as a safe haven for the oppressed and a common refuge for the Greeks.17 The Athenian attitude to welcome refugees from the whole of Greece, who fled from their countries of origin due to war or civil discord, and to make them citizens is old. According to Thucydides, it dates back to a period even earlier that the Ionian migration to Asia Minor.18 And if we give credit to Plutarch, the principle of welcoming the economic migrants and individuals who were expelled permanently from their countries of origin – some of them could be considered as political refugees - was introduced by Solon in the Athenian legislation: the Solonian reception model envisaged the naturalisation of this kind of foreigners and their full integration into the civic group.19 The provisions by Pisistratus and Cleisthenes seem to go in the same direction: in particular, a passage in Aristotle credits the latter with the regularization of the position of foreigners residing in Athens through their formal inclusion in the civic body.20 Foreigners had to be aware of this particular willingness of the Athenians in helping the weakest, if in the Plataicus the Plataean delegates address the request for help to the Athenians with reference to their habit to help the victims of injustice and to show their deep gratitude to the benefactors.21

• 22 For the definition of the Athenian exceptionalism see Garland, 2014, p. 125-128 and in general for (...)
• 23 The principle to assist those who have been wronged (βοηθεῖν τοῖς ἀδικουμένοις) became a pretext fo (...)
• 24 Forsdyke, 2005, p. 234-239.
• 25 On this point see Tzanetou, 2005; 2011; 2012.

5The Athenian strong propensity to welcome outsiders is a characteristic feature of the city since its origins. The Athenian exceptionalism, such as defined by Garland, reveals itself above all in offering refuge and support towards displaced persons and refugees.22 It has been rightly observed, in this regard, that such a mode of being was not exempt from a certain degree of self-interest23 and that the city showed itself particularly well disposed towards individuals, groups or communities that had shown loyalty towards the Athenians. Similarly, Forsdyke has shown that the idea that the Athenians kindly welcomed exiles from other Greek cities is a way to justify their imperialism.24 Tragedy, in particular, through its typological representation of the exiles as suppliants, has proved to be functional to spread this assumption.25 It is therefore a very complex dynamic: on the one hand, we see the traditional image of Athens as a protector of the weak and strong with the arrogant; on the other hand, the Athenian imperialism is justified also from a moral point of view by the role of Athens as prostates of Greece; at last, we should acknowledge that the willingness to receive the exiles followed a logic based on the reciprocity of benefactions and on the encouragement to emulate the behaviour of the benefactors.

• 26 See in particular Liddel, 2016, p. 349-350.
• 27 On the meaning of ἐπιτήδειον see Canevaro, 2016, p. 71-75; id., 2018, p. 74-80.
• 28 Dem. 20.51-64.

6Demosthenes bases much of his case against Leptines on the latter point, namely the importance of manifesting the gratitude of Athens towards the faithful allies in difficulty.26 On this subject the speaker makes a strong argument against Leptines’ law, accused of passing an inappropriate law (μὴ ἐπιτήδειον) when he proposed to eliminate the exemptions from liturgies.27 A section of the speech reminds the audience of the harmful consequences of this measure in the relations between Athens and its foreign benefactors.28

• 29 The quotation is from Gray’s article in this volume. On the different reasons that could led the At (...)
• 30 For the analysis of the population flight see Kulesza, 1999. On the polis desertion and the resilie (...)

7The image of Athens as a haven for refugees, in particular for those who proved to be faithful allies, is confirmed by ancient evidence. With the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War we have secure information about the conduct of Athens about refugees. Both those who had lost their city due to the destruction caused by the war and those whose exile had been motivated by their pro-Athenian sympathies could find acceptance and protection in Attica. As Gray has rightly stressed, refugees “could rarely hope for unconditional aid or protection on the grounds of their bare humanity alone”, except in the case of women, children and the elderly; rather, they relied on their behaviour and on the story of the relations with the Athenians for getting reception.29 In these cases the phenomenon known as population flight represented a valid way of defense for the Greek cities and facilitated their repopulation and rapid recovery.30 The following analysis of the occasions from the onset of the Peloponnesian War until the middle of the fourth century, in which Athens welcomed refugees from many areas of Greece, can show that the image the city gave of itself corresponded to a large extent to its real attitude towards the displaced.

• 31 On the fugitives and refugees in the Peloponnesian War see Panagopoulos, 1979; Seibert, 1979, p. 54 (...)
• 32 For die Geschichte der phygades until the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War see Seibert, 1979, p. 7 (...)
• 33 Garland, 2014, p. 3 has estimated that over 100.000 persons were displaced during this conflict.
• 34 Garland, 2014, p. 6-7.

8The outbreak of the Peloponnesian War provoked the displacement of a large number of persons.31 This admittedly was not about a new phenomenon, as the history of refugees we can reconstruct from the literary sources dates back to the seventh century BC.32 However, the destructions caused by war and the numerous civil conflicts within the poleis resulted in a proliferation of wanderers and fugitives in search of refuge never seen before.33 Since the analysis of individual cases is less indicative of the attitude of a state towards refugees, I focus on the treatment of the groups of refugees that found a welcome in Attica. The results of this investigation can only be partial, as any source concerns itself with the “global implication” of the war.34

• 35 On this episode see Seibert, 1979, p. 58-60; Gehrke, 1985, p. 132; Prandi, 1988, p. 97-120.
• 36 Thuc. 2.6.4, 78.3.
• 37 Thuc. 3.24. It has been estimated that the Plataeans were probably 150 in number. Cf. Prandi, 1988, (...)
• 38 Thuc. 3.55.3, 63.2; Isoc. 12.94; 14.51-52; [Dem.] 59.104-106; Diod. Sic. 15.46.6. On this grant see (...)
• 39 Kapparis, 1999, p. 395-396.
• 40 Lambert, 1994, p. 49 ff.; Kapparis, 1995, p. 375-378; Bearzot, 1997, p. 55 ff.
• 41 Bearzot, 1997, p. 57.

9The first piece of information in chronological order concerns the Plataeans on the occasion of the second destruction of the city.35 Already in 431, at the time of the sudden coup d’état in Thebes, the Athenians sent to Plataea a garrison equipped with food, according to women, children and disabled to the battle the chance to move to Athens.36 We should add to them at least a part of the fighters, about 400 men, who represented the half of the military potential that Plataea was able to express, and the 212 soldiers who managed to leave Thebes in 428/7: they too took refuge in Athens37 and were benefited by the grant of citizenship, most likely after the surrender of the city.38 And although it was a concession with significant limitations in the sphere of family law, it does not seem that such limitations should be understood as a sign of a missed opportunity for the integration of refugees. The Plataeans were not relegated to the metic status; being defined explicitly as citizen in the sources (politai), they were included in the tribes and in the demes, but excluded from the system of the phratries and from the archonship and the hereditary priesthoods.39 The failure to be included in the phratries seems plausibly justified by the Athenian will to respect the structure and autonomy of these organisations. Such a choice avoided that individuals belonging to a different ethnic group could be forced to join religious associations based on kinship.40 In this sense, it is right to speak of the Plataeans as a true minority on an ethnic and religious level, but, despite this apparent limitation, Athens did non intend to marginalize as much as to protect them.41

• 42 Thuc. 3.70.6. On this episode see Panagopoulos, 1979, p. 271-273; Seibert, 1979, p. 62-63; Gehrke, (...)
• 43 Thuc. 3.71.2.
• 44 Thuc. 3.71.2-72.1. On the island as a place of detention see Constantakopoulou, 2007, p. 129-134; B (...)
• 45 Thuc. 3.74.1.

10In 427, after the murder of the democratic leader Peithias and of 60 among councilours and private citizens, the Corcyraean democrats left the island, first taking refuge on an Athenian trireme, then reaching Attica.42 This is clear from the fact that the pro-Corinthian oligarchs, in response to this, sent ambassadors to Athens in order to give an account of the events in their favour and to ask the democrats, who had taken refuge there (καταπεφευγότας), not to do any hostile act.43 While we do not know anything about their treatment in Athens, it is certain that the consequent Athenian decision to arrest the envoys and to place them in custody in Aegina is indicative of the protection that Athens gave to these refugees.44 It is possible that the Corcyraean refugees returned home shortly after the first claim of the democrats or after the end of the stasis:45 what is clear is that it was not a long period of refugeehood.

• 46 Panagopoulos, 1979, 275-276; Seibert, 1979, p. 67-68; Legon, 1981, p. 237-247; Gehrke, 1985, p. 108 (...)
• 47 Thuc. 4.74.2.
• 48 For this hypothesis see Panagopoulos, 1979, p. 275. Yet, Legon, 1981, p. 247 linked these exiles to (...)
• 49 Thuc. 6.43; 7.57.8, where Thucydides speaks of them as φυγάδες κατὰ ξυμφοράν.
• 50 For this interpretation of isoteleia see Maffi, 1973; Loddo, 2019, p. 10-11 n. 25.

11We have little information on the democratic Megarians who left Megara in 424 following the handover of the city to Brasidas.46 Those who had exposed themselves most in negotiations with the Athenians, frightened by the progress of the war and knowing they had been easily recognizable, secretly left the city.47 It is possible that their destination was Athens,48 since Thucydides mentions 120 Megarian exiles, lightly armed, among the Athenian forces that in 415 left for the expedition to Sicily.49 Fourth-century Athenian custom to award to the benefactors by granting tax equality with the Athenians (isoteleia), which also included the right to fight alongside the Athenians,50 could well be a sign that the Megarian democratic exiles were still in Athens as refugees ten years after their arrival.

• 51 Thuc. 6.95.2.
• 52 Thuc. 4.76.
• 53 The ateleia grant is attested in Dem. 20.131, but it is unclear from the context whether we should (...)
• 54 According to Diod. Sic. 15.40.4 Megara underwent a constitutional change, when democracy was overth (...)
• 55 Xen. Hell. 2.4.1 with Bearzot in this volume. On the figures of the Athenian diaspora see Isoc. 7.6 (...)

12In a quick reference to the failed attempt to overthrow the oligarchic government by the pro-Athenian democrats in 414, Thucydides says that some of the conspirators were captured, while some of them found refuge in Athens.51 This faction a few years earlier had so worried the Thebans that in 423 they were led to break down the city walls of Megara.52 The concession of the fiscal exemption to the Megarians and the Messenians mentioned in a Demosthenes’ discourse does not seem to date back to the fifth century,53 nor should it be related to the presence of some Megarian exiles in Athens,54 but probably it was granted as a reward for the reception of the Athenian democratic exiles at the time of their expulsion by the Thirty.55 It is not to be excluded, however, that the reference here is to foreign residents from Megara.

• 56 On this episode see Panagopoulos, 1979, p. 285-286; Seibert, 1979, p. 89; Gehrke, 1985, p. 35-36.
• 57 In Byzantium there was a pro-Athenian faction (ἅμα δὲ τοῖς ἀττικίζουσι ... in Plut. Alc. 31.3), who (...)
• 58 Xen. Hell. 1.3.18; Diod. Sic. 13.66.6.
• 59 Xen. Hell. 2.2.1.

14One of these fifth columns seems to have operated also in Byzantium in the Ionian War.56 Not tolering the severity of the Spartan harmost Clearchus, the Byzantian democrats57 first handed in the city to Alcibiades and his colleagues;58 then, after the battle of Aegospotami, when Lysander took the city, they fled away in fear of retaliation, presumably following the Athenian garrison, which the Spartans allowed to withdraw. After heading to Pontus, they reached Athens as refugees and were honoured with citizenship.59

• 60 ML 94, ll. 12-16 = IG I³ 127, ll. 12-14. On this grant see Shipley, 1987, p. 129-133; Rhodes-Osborn (...)
• 61 Osborne, 1981-1983 (1982), p. 25 has observed that this grant should be considered as an act of iso (...)
• 62 Xen. Hell. 2.3.6-7 con GHI 2.
• 63 GHI 2 ll. 48-50, 58 ff.
• 64 Osborne, 1981-1983 (1982), p. 25: “The fact that assignation was to be employed reveals that substa (...)
• 65 Shipley, 1987, p. 132, 303 (for the list of the Samians in Athens).

16Soon after the end of the Peloponnesian War, Athens rewarded its most loyal allies. The case of the pro-Athenian faction in Samos is among the most eloquent example of this behaviour. In 405 the Athenian Assembly voted to grant citizenship to the Samians.60 The original stele bearing this grant was probably destroyed under the Thirty, since the decree was reinscribed in 403/2. The Athenian citizenship, previously granted to all the Samians,61 was confirmed for those who where expelled by Lysander and continued to side with Athens.62 The two decrees of 403 reaffirmed the previously granted rewards, honoured Ephesus and Notion for sheltering the Samian exiles, and praised a Samian citizen, Poses, for his good deeds towards the Athenians.63 It is difficult to estimate how many Samians found refuge in Athens on this occasion.64 The list provided by Shipley is only partially indicative, as he himself acknowledges, because naturalisation may have obliterated the origin of the beneficiaries.65

• 66 Some exiles, however, went to Argos (Diod. Sic. 15.40.3). Cf. Seibert, 1979, p. 106-107. On the sta (...)
• 67 Dem. 20.51.
• 68 Xen. Hell. 4.2.16-23; Dem. 20.52-53; Diod. Sic. 14.83.1-2; schol. Dem. 24 (130 Dilts); Hyp. fr. 96 (...)
• 69 Dem. 20.52-53. Although in Xenophon’s account there is no evidence of the activity of the pro-Athen (...)
• 70 A striking parallel is represented by the case of the Phliasians, who claimed to have been exiled d (...)
• 71 Xen. Hell. 5.1.34.

17The Athenians frequently praised for their loyalty those allies who were members of the pro-Athenian faction in their countries of origin and favoured the Athenian cause at home. Occasionally, the Athenians presented as faithful allies in the public commemoration of their euergetism those who were actually responsible for the internal seditions toring apart their native cities. One can consider as part of a general pattern the case of some pro-Athenian exiles, who were received in Attica and celebrated as benefactors and saviours of the city. An example can be the treatment reserved for those Corinthians who fled to Athens after the Peace of Antalcidas.66 In the long accusation speech Demosthenes delivered against Leptines, he warns that among the benefactors rewarded in the past by the Athenians there were also the allies during the war against Sparta.67 The allusion is to the battle of Nemea of ​​394 that was fought in the context of the Corinthian War.68 On that occasion, according to Demosthenes, after the Spartan victory on the Athenians, the pro-Spartan faction (οἱ ἐν τῇ πόλει) decided not to welcome the Athenian soldiers within the walls, but to send ambassadors to the Lacedaemonians. It was then that the pro-Athenian faction opened the city gates to the Athenians, against the will of the majority of the citizens (βίᾳ τῶν πολλῶν) handing over the city.69 The aid given by the Corinthian supporters was remarked by the image of heroes who put their salvation at risk to rescue the Athenians and their allies. The Corinthian refugees used the argument of the expulsion that they suffered by the Lacedaemonians at the time of the stipulation of the peace of Antalcidas in order to ask for protection. This justification for the exile is not untenable per se, since on other occasions the exiles complained of having been expelled for their foreign politics.70 But it is a fact that Xenophon presents their removal as a spontaneous act, even if partly induced by Agesilaus’ pressure and the threat of war.71

• 72 Xen. Hell. 4.4.1-7; 5.1.34.
• 73 Dem. 20.54.

18Xenophon’s account allowed to trace the origin of that expulsion in the behaviour that the pro-Athenian Corinthians held after Nemea: they, as convinced supporters of the need to continue the war for avoiding a new pro-Spartan turn of the city, committed a sacrilege by murdering several people during the last day of the Euclea.72 However, this does not allow us to reject Demosthenes’ argument that the Corinthians were expelled for their loyalty to Athens; rather, one can argue that the exiles would have used this argument to activate the proverbial Athenian gratitude towards benefactors, though their attikismos was not the main reason for their exile. Demosthenes is very vague in describing the ways in which the Corinthians were received in Athens, only stressing that the Athenians “decreed them all that they needed” (ἅπανθ’ ὧν ἐδέοντο).73

• 74 Cf. Gehrke, 1985, p. 87 has argued that the Corinthians received the tax equality with the Athenian (...)
• 75 It is possible to deduce it from what Aeschin. 2.148 says about his mother’s stay in Corinth as an (...)
• 76 Xen. Hell. 2.4.29-30.
• 77 Diod. Sic. 14.82.1-3. We only have the text of the alliance between Athens and Boiotia (Tod II 101 (...)

19It is certain that the Corinthians received the tax exemption, since their case is mentioned as an example of those benefactors who would have been damaged by the law of Leptines abolishing all exemptions (μηδέν’ εἶναι ἀτελῆ). Nevertheless, the aforementioned expression ἅπανθ’ ὧν ἐδέοντο seems to refer to a series of measures for the refugees which also included ateleia.74 Among the reasons for the reception of these exiles there may have been the Athenian gratitude to them who ignored the Spartan imposition of delivering the democratic Athenians expelled by the Thirty.75 The Corinthians had also refused to join the Spartan expedition of King Pausanias to Attica at the request of the Athenian oligarchs.76 The crucial reason, however, must be identified in the anti-Spartan alliance that from 395 BC bound Corinth to the Athenians, the Argives and the Boiotians, after the victory at Haliartus.77 By virtue of this alliance those Corinthians had opened the gates of the city to the Athenians could be represented in the Athenian public discourse as faithful allies, lawfully and without obvious forcing, rather than as traitors.

• 78 McKechnie, 1989, p. 45-48.
• 79 Xen. Hell. 5.2.7; Diod. Sic. 15.11.2. Gehrke, 1985, p. 103-105; Nielsen, 2002, p. 175, 318, 390-391
• 80 Xen. Hell. 5.2.6.
• 81 The two components, the pro-Argive and the pro-Athenian ones, although were linked by the same conc (...)
• 82 IG II² 37, ll. 5-7: εἶ]ναι δὲ [καὶ τοῖ]ς ἄλλο[ι]ς το[ῖς φεύγοσι] Θασί[ων ἐπ’ ἀ]ττικισμῶι τ[ὴν ἀτέλε (...)

20During the Spartan and the Theban hegemonies a huge refugee crisis from many Greek cities was accompanied by several destructions and devastations. McKechnie has investigated the phenomenon of the systematic destruction of cities by the Spartans and the Thebans to ensure stability and control of the subject cities through the marginalisation of the opponents of their policy.78 Some of these refugees managed to escape the fate of slaves or apolides thanks to the Athenian protection. By contrast, the Mantineans suffered the shame of the dissolvement of their polis into its constituent villages (dioikismos).79 The disappearance of the polis led to the self-imposed exile of an unidentifiable number of the Mantineans, dissatisfied with the dismantling of their city and worried about their fate. In Xenophon’s account, the safety of the dissidents was guaranteed by the intercession of King Pausanias who asked his son Agesipolis to provide them with a safe conduct. His intervention saved the lives of sixty persons.80 We have scanty evidence on their fate after leaving Mantinea. It is possible that a part of the dissidents, probably the pro-Argive component, went to Argos, as in the case of the Corinthian pro-Argives. Presumably the largest part of the democrats moved to Athens.81 This information is derived from an Athenian honorary decree concerning the Thasian refugees, who were rewarded with the tax exemption. The Thasian case appears to be regulated on the basis of the previous treatment accorded to Mantinean refugees.82 Based on the fact that the tax exemption was granted to the other Thasian exiles (τοῖ]ς ἄλλο[ι]ς το[ῖς φεύγοσι] Θασί[ων) it can be argued that in the case both of the Thasians and of the Mantineans the leaders of the delegation received different and more important honours than the rest of their group. I suggest that the reason for granting protection to the Thasians according to the Mantinean precedent was that in the legal plea both the groups of exiles mentioned their attikismos as the main cause of their expulsion.

• 83 IG II² 17 = D8 Osborne. It dates back to 394/3 BC.
• 84 His ancestors are defined proxenoi and euergetai of the polis of the Athenians, ll. 6-7; Sthorys hi (...)
• 85 See in particular the reference to his role of mantis on the occasion of the battle of Cnidus at ll (...)
• 86 Polyaenus, Strat. 1.45.4; Nep. Lys. 3.1; Plut. Lys. 13.5.
• 87 IG II² 24, ll. 28-31.

21During the fourth century there were at least four occasions when Athens offered hospitality to the Thasian exiles. An inscription bearing two decrees, one by the Council and one by the Assembly, attests the grant of citizenship to the soothsayer Sthorys of Thasos, a longtime partisan of Athens.83 In this case naturalisation is explained both by the commitment of the honorand and his family on behalf of Athens,84 and by specific merits of Sthorys as a mantis in the military sphere.85 Although the inscription does not refer to his status as an exile, it is likely that Sthorys was not an ordinary immigrant, but he had to leave Thasos in 405 BC, following the overthrown of the Thasian democracy by Lysander, the massacre of the pro-Athenian faction and the establishment of a decarchy.86 Sthorys is mentioned again in a decree dating back to 388 BC about a Thasian embassy in Athens. The Thasian spokesmen, Archippus and Ipparchus, required Sthorys to be sent to the island as archon and mantis, likely when Athens regained control of Thasos.87

• 88 IG II² 25. The inscription can be related to the naturalisation decree of 333/2 BC (IG II² 336, a d (...)
• 89 Osborne, 1982, p. 57 n. 179.

23The status before the Athenian naturalisation of the above-mentioned Thasian citizens, Archippus and Ipparchus, is difficult to assess.88 It has been claimed that these are two Athenian sympathizers who were expelled from Thasos or induced to leave the island because attikizontes.89 However, there are no evidence for this, because they are never qualified as exiles in the two relevant inscriptions, and in the naturalisation decree the reason for granting citizenship is expressed in formulaic manner (ἀνδραγαθίας ἕν[εκα] τῆς ἐς Ἀθηναίος, ll. 3-4). They might be exiles, yet it is hard to ascertain.

• 90 Dem. 20.59.
• 91 IG II² 33; Dem. 20.63. Cf. Canevaro, 2016, p. 292.
• 92 Osborne, 1982, p. 45-57.
• 93 In the list of refugees there are at least 34 individuals, among whom we recognize the name of Amin (...)
• 94 Agora Inv. No. I 7534 = Walbank, 1995.
• 95 Walbank, 1995.

24The Thasians led by Eckphantus mentioned in Demosthenes’ Against Leptines as ateleis are definitely exiles.90 These are the pro-Athenian Thasians who handed over their city to Thrasyboulus on the occasion of his campaign in the Hellespont and are remembered in an honorific inscription, the same probably that Demosthenes asks the clerk to read out,91 dated between 389 and 375 BC.92 But, if Demosthenes remembers only Eckphantus as the leader of the refugees, the inscription also mentions Nausinicus. Probably they were the representatives of their fellow exiles, who were charged with the responsibility of starting negotiations with Athens. It is likely that they had to deliver a list of the other phygades to which the fiscal exemption was granted (ll. 8-9).93 A further provision in favour of other exiles should be placed in the same period or a little later.94 Some Thasians demanded that the sale of confiscated goods to be canceled (τὰ δημιόπρατα ... ἐξαλείψαι): a part of these exiles was still in Athens (ll. 6-7).Walbank has suggested that this decree should be dated to a time when Thasos was governed by a pro-Athenian regime, when ambassadors were sent to Athens asking for help.95 One can argue that there is some relation between this document and the account given by Demosthenes and in IG II² 33.

• 96 Dem. 20.60-63. Archebius, but not Heraclides, is mentioned among the Athenian friends abroad in Dem (...)
• 97 IG I³ 227. The most convincing hypothesis is that which recognizes in this Heraclides a citizen of (...)
• 98 Seibert, 1979, p. 479 n. 872. See also Gehrke, 1985, p. 37. One of the anonymous reviewers suggeste (...)
• 99 Theopomp. BNJ 115 fr. 62; Arist. Pol. 4.4.1291b23. For the adoption of Byzantium’s democracy by the (...)

25Demosthenes recalls the grant of the proxenia and the tax exemption to two pro-Athenian Byzantians, Archebius and Heraclides. Maybe they were the leaders of the democratic faction, who handed over the city to the Athenians and favoured the establishment of a democracy at the time of the Thrasyboulus campaign in the Hellespont.96 While Archebius is also known from another passage in Demosthenes, the role of Heraclides in this episode is only attested in the Against Leptines. Some doubts have been expressed in the possibility of recognizing in our Heraclides the so-called Heraclides Basileus mentioned in an Athenian honorary decree.97 Likewise, it is also uncertain what was the status of Archebius and Heraclides, if exiles or partisans of Athens in Byzantium, when Demosthenes speaks of them. If their status as benefactors of Athens cannot be questioned, it is more difficult to determine whether they were exiles, who fled to Athens, as some maintained.98 Some aspects, in fact, speak against this possibility. First, the democracy restored by Thrasyboulus does not seem to have been questioned in the following decades. Second, Theopompus reports the spread of democracy to Chalcedon by the Byzantians. Third, Aristotle, still in the 330s, speaks of Byzantium in the Politics as a democracy.99 So, it remains difficult to reconstruct the conditions that may have lead to the expulsion - or self-imposed removal - of this two Byzantians. It seems therefore preferable to consider Archebius and Heraclides as the benefactors of Athens, but not as political exiles.

• 100 On these episode see Seibert, 1979, p. 112-114; Gehrke 1985, p. 175-177; Buck, 1994, p. 64-72.
• 101 Xen. Hell. 5.2.25-32; Diod. Sic. 15.20.2; Nep. Pel. 1.4; Plut. Pel. 5.3-7.1; de gen. Socr. 575f-576 (...)
• 102 IG II² 37. The inscription has been variously interpreted as referring to exiles from Apollonia, Th (...)
• 103 On this episode see Loddo, 2019, p. 10-11.
• 104 The status of exiles is, however, a conjecture: [τοῖς φεύγοσι τῶν] at l. 10. For the date of 383/2 (...)

26The Athenians welcomed Boiotian refugees in many occasions during the Spartan hegemony. A good example is represented by the reception of the Theban exiles expelled – or voluntarily moved away – from Thebes after the fall of Cadmea by Phoebidas, and the consequent oligarchic revolution.100 Literary evidence shows that 300 exiles found refuge in Athens, without specifying, however, what concessions were made to them.101 On the basis of epigraphical evidence it is possible to reconstruct with some certainty the grant of the tax exemption for ordinary refugees and some form of legal assimilation for their leaders.102 Athens in that occasion welcomed the exiles, not only for its traditional generosity towards the weakest, but also as a sign of gratitude towards the Thebans for their help in 403.103 It is not clear whether IG II² 245, a fragmentary decree in which is attested the grant of the ateleia to some Boiotians (l. 10), probably exiles, should also be referred to the Theban exodus.104

• 105 Xen. Hell. 6.1.3; Paus. 9.1.8; Diod. Sic. 15.46.4-6. But see the perplexities of Prandi, 1988, p. 1 (...)

27After the third destruction of their city in 373 BC, the Plataeans were expelled again from their territory. Xenophon merely says that the exiles turned to the Athenians for help (καταπεφευγότας), as they were φίλοι, and Pausanias claims that the Athenians received them again. Only Diodorus explicitly states that those who escaped to be arrested fled to Athens with their wives and children and with their possessions. They received equality of civic rights (ἰσοπολιτεία) from the Athenian people.105 If they were refugees in Athens once again, it is not improbable that the discourse of a Plataean refugee in Isocrates’ Plataicus should be interpreted as an attempt to persuade the Athenians to support the displaced in order to recover their homeland.

• 106 On this episode see Seibert, 1979, p. 118; Gehrke, 1985, p. 183-184; Tuplin, 1986; McKechnie, 1989, (...)
• 107 Presumably between 375 and the date of the Plataicus (373/2), as the Plataeans claim that it would (...)
• 108 Xen. Hell. 6.3.1, 5.
• 109 Xen. Hell. 6.3.1, 5. Cf. Isoc. 6.27.
• 110 Diod. Sic. 15.46.6. Cf. Polyaenus, Strat. 2.3.3.
• 111 See Seibert, 1979, p. 118, 484 n. 939. The argument of McKechnie, 1989, p. 68 n. 134 that the Thesp (...)

28It is debated whether exiles from Thespiae took refuge in Athens.106 Before the Theban attack on Plataea, the cities of Thespiae and Tanagra were forced to become tributaries of Thebes,107 but it was only after the destruction of Plataea that the Thespians turned to Athens.108 Xenophon seems to put on an equal footing the destruction of Thespiae with that of Plataea of 373/2 BC, after which the Plataeans took refuge in Athens.109 Instead, Diodorus only attests the devastation of the territory of Thespiae, placing it before the Theban attack on Plataea in 373 B.C.110 He leaves unanswered the question of the fate of the displaced. However, the hypothesis that the Athenians received the exiles is supported by some arguments. Xenophon represents the Thespians in the act of making a plea (ἱκετεύοντας) to the Athenians, so that they do not allow them to become apolides. Another clue could be seen in the fact that he also observes that there was a certain cooling of the relationship between Athens and Thebes.111

• 112 Paus. 9.13.8, 14.2- On the identification of the site of Ceressos see Moggi-Osanna, 2010, p. 297.

29Yet, this hypothesis presents some difficulties. According to Pausanias, the Thespians, who were worried about Epaminondas’ reaction to the non-participation of Thespiae in the battle of Leuctra, first took refuge in Ceressus, a fortress not far from their city; then, Epaminondas expelled them.112 What seems relatively clear is that in his account Pausanias refers to a later moment than Xenophon and Diodorus, surely after Leuctra. So, while the text of Pausanias does not preclude accepting the presence of a group of Thespian exiles in Athens, the lack of evidence of any grants by the Athenians calls for a caution approach. Indeed, the framework provided by Xenophon only allows to affirm that the Thespians made a formal plea in Athens, sure in the knowledge that the Plataeans received asylum in the same period, but not to say anything about the outcome of their request. The very content of the plea does not appear clear. The sentence “not to allow them to become stateless” (μὴ σφᾶς περιιδεῖν ἀπόλιδας γενομένους) can be interpreted in the sense of a request of asylum or of a military and diplomatic intervention to avert that Thebes destroyed Thespiae.

• 113 IG II² 109. For the text see Osborne, 1981, p. 49-51. For the different interpretations Pomtow, 190 (...)
• 114 Pomtow, 1905, p. 95-96; Giuliani, 2001, p. 204-205, for the anti-Theban alignment of the exiles.
• 115 Buckler, 1989, p. 9-13, 196-197.
• 116 Sánchez, 2001, p. 142-143, 168-173.
• 117 Thuc. 1.111.1; Xen. Hell. 6.3.1. Cf. Buckler, 1989, p. 12 n. 6.
• 118 According to Sordi, 1957, p. 44-45, 69-70, Athens blamed the violation of the autonomy of Delphi by (...)

30In 363 BC the Amphictyonic Council voted to banish a group of leading 10 Delphian citizens and their leader, Astycrates, and to confiscate their property. An Athenian decree attests to the acceptance and protection accorded to them as political refugees, who were previously condemned by the Amphictyonic Council to perpetual exile (aeiphygia).113 It has been argued that their expulsion was the result of a stasis in which a pro-Phocian faction faced with a pro-Boiotian one.114 Astycrates and his family probably belonged to the first group. The accusation could not be motivated solely by political factors, namely the fear that the Astycrates group could resort to violence and the Phocian military aid for gaining political ascendency.115 Religious issues as a charge of sacrilege could have determined it.116 In any case, the pro-Phocian alignment may have justified the exiles’ choice to seek refuge in Athens, traditionally a Phocians’ ally.117 For our perspective it is worth pointing out that the Athenians justify the protection accorded to these exiles through the illegality of their exile. It was imposed in absolute violation of the Amphictyonic and Delphian laws. Scholars appear to be divided in assessing whether this justification was true or not.118 The observation that the exile was the result of an illegal procedure led the Athenians to conclude that both the banishment and the order of confiscation of property were invalid (ateleis, A ll. 24-25). It is not to be excluded, however, that the connection between the illegal management of the Council meeting by the hieromnemon Andronicus and the illegitimacy of the exile conviction was pointed out by the exiles themselves in the plea before the Athenian Council.

• 119 The return of the exiles is attested only by epigraphic documents: FD III 1 146, ll. 4-5; CID II 31 (...)
• 120 Aeschin. 2.131; Diod. Sic. 16.24.4-5.
• 121 Buckler, 1989, p. 25. For the exiles’ new careers after their return at home, see Giuliani, 2001, p (...)
• 122 CID II 67-73.
• 123 This is a hypothesis formulated by Pomtow, 1906, p. 405 and from then on accepted by the subsequent (...)

32These refugees returned home after the occupation of Delphi by Philomelus,119 after he ordered the destruction of the stelai with the convictions against them.120 They were particularly useful to Philomelus not only for their pro-Phocian feelings, but also for their role as mediators with Athens.121 After the defeat of the Phocians in the Third Sacred War they were exiled a second time, but we do not know what their destination was.122 Alexander’s exile decree most likely established their definitive return.123

• 124 Gehrke, 1985, p. 122.
• 125 Dem. 13.8; 15.19.
• 126 For the definition of the epistle 7 as letter of recommendation see Ceccarelli, 2013, 288. For its (...)
• 127 Isoc. ep. 8.1, 4, 10. Aristoxenus of Tarentum (El. 2.37 Barker) mentions Agenor together with Pitha (...)
• 128 Isoc. ep. 8.1, 3. For the dating see Nagy, 2004, p. 19. On this episode see Loddo forthcoming.

33Around 351 democracy in Mytilene was overthrown and an oligarchy was established, presumably under the influence of Mausolus of Caria.124 Demosthenes, our main source, urging the Athenians to engage concretely in the defense of democratic values against the oligarchies, recalls the abolition of democracy in Mytilene in conjunction with what happens in Rhodes, without referring, however, to the existence of exiles.125 Isocrates attests that the establishment of the oligarchy caused the expulsion of at least a part of the democrats. In a kind of letter of recommendation126 for recalling a family of famous musicians from the exile he points out that there had been an amnesty in Mytilene with the reintegration of a part of the exiles and the recovery of previously confiscated property.127 The letter, addressed to the Mytilenean archontes, aims to plea the cause of a family of Mytilenean exiles who had found refuge in Athens; one of them, Agenor, opened a music school there and was a famous teacher. That the democratic exiles were received in Athens can be deduced from the fact that the grandchildren of Isocrates attended the Agenor school in Athens when the letter was written, probably around 350 BC.128 It is not clear what their condition was in Athens: Isocrates’ allusion to the fact that the Mytileneans let their celebrated fellow citizens live as metics abroad could be a factious representation, aimed at highlighting the disadvantage that an exile could suffer.

• 129 Dem. 5.25; Dem. 15.4; schol. in Dem. 15.1; Hypoth. Dem. 15; [Dem.] 13.8; Theopomp. BNJ 115 fr. 121.
• 130 Dem. 15.14.
• 131 Schol. in Dem. 15.1: κατέφυγεν οὖν ὁ δῆμος ἐπὶ τὴν Ἀθηναίων πόλιν ἀξιῶν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐλευθερίας.

34After the end of the Social War and the conquest of its independence from Athens, Rhodes was affected by a constitutional change: democracy was broken down and an oligarchy was established with the support of Mausolus of Caria.129 The new regime expelled not only the democrats, but also those citizens who had favoured its installation.130 The leaders of the democratic faction addressed to the Athenians the request to intervene for restoring them at home and Demosthenes’ discourse For the Liberty of the Rhodians testifies, in fact, that Athens is divided on what to do. Probably the Rhodian democrats were received in Athens,131 but we have no information about the manners in which they were accepted.

• 132 Dem. 20.131. Kremmydas, 2012, p. 403 and Canevaro, 2016, p. 394, have called for the case di Lys. 2 (...)
• 133 Kremmydas, 2012, p. 403; Rubinstein, 2018, p. 7 n. 30.
• 134 For the dating between 468/8 and 464/3 BC see Luraghi, 2008, p. 182, who yet does not link the rece (...)
• 135 Luraghi, 2008, p. 186.
• 136 Thuc. 1.103.1-3.
• 137 Dem. 16.9, 18. For the context of the discourse see MacDowell, 2009, p. 207-210; for the events con (...)
• 138 The discourse Against Leptines was delivered in 355/4 BC, but Leptines’ law was passed in 356/5. Cf (...)

35If the Athenians welcomed the Messenians is difficult to assess. Demosthenes attests the grant of the tax exemption - it is unclear whether from the metoikion alone or from any form of taxation - to the Megarians and the Messenians, but he suggests that Leptines complained that many appealed for the tax exemption as if they were Megarians or Messenians without actually being.132 It has been suggested that behind this concession we should read the presence of refugees from Megara and Messene in Athens in the fourth century, before 355/4 BC.133 However, it does not seem likely that the concession in question is to be placed in the fourth century. The only probable context for the reception of exiles from Messene by Athens is that connected with the Ithome earthquake and the Messenian revolt.134 It is indeed possible that the Messenians, driven out by the Spartans, initially found refuge in Athens and were facilitated with the ateleia mentioned by Demosthenes.135 The Athenian concern about the fate of the Messenians is evident in the decision to install them at Naupactus.136 After the crisis of the Theban hegemony, Athens attempted to establish good relations with Messene. There is clear evidence of this from Demosthenes’ statement about the existence of oaths between Athens and Messene that obliged Athens to assist the Messenians.137 Leptines’ complaint would make sense if we get a suggestion that on that occasion many Messenians, hoping to take advantage of the tax exemption they had obtained in the past, have put forward the request to reactivate this privilege, or that some of them have tried to assert the alleged descent from the Messenian refugees to ensure the benefits resulting from this status.138

• 139 Dem. 23.116; 12.21; Diod. Sic. 16.8.2 with Sordi, 1969, p. 19-20, who attests the exile of the oppo (...)
• 140 IG II² 8077-8087. For this hypothesis see Seibert, 1979, p. 134, 493 n. 1046.

36With the rise of Macedon the expulsions as a result of the confrontation between the warring factions in the Greek poleis did not decrease. In many Greek cities pro-Macedonian factions rivaled anti-Macedonians, resulting in new civil conflicts. Philip used internal political strife in the Greek cities to his advantage, supporting his partisans with financial funds, helping the exiles to return and forcing his opponents into exile. It is possible that the part of these exiles took refuge in Athens, but we often are unable to verify this hypothesis. This pattern has been proposed for the cities of Amphipolis, Methone and Olynthus. In the case of Amphipolis, which was taken in 357,139 the presence of Amphipolitan exiles in Athens has been deduced from some tombstones in Attica: but the funerary inscriptions attesting the identity of the dead as the Amphipolitan origins date back to the second and the first centuries BC, so it is difficult to conclude that they belonged to refugees.140

• 141 Dem. 4.35; Diod. Sic. 16.31.6, 34.4-5; Iust. Epit. 7.6.13-16.
• 142 Dem. 9.26; 19.194-198, 305-310; Diod. Sic. 16.53.3; Iust. Epit. 8.3.11.
• 143 IG XII, 8 4.
• 144 Harp. s.v. Ἰσοτελὴς καὶ ἰσοτέλεια; Suda s.v. Κάρανος. A citizen from Olynthus, the sculptor Sthenni (...)
• 145 IG II³ 1 503. The hypothesis that the exiles in question were from Olynthus is by Wilhelm on the ba (...)

37Philip razed Methone to the ground with the justification that it was made available as a base for the anti-Macedonian military operations. The destructions could have provoked an exodus of displaced, but nothing in the sources leads us to assert the hypothesis that Athens has welcomed its inhabitants as refugees.141 We can reconstruct with certainty the Athenian intervention in support of the refugees from Olynthus. This happened after Philip besieged the city, razed it to the ground and subjected the population to andrapodismos.142 Those who managed to avoid the fate of slaves found their way to other Greek cities: some to Myrina of Lemnus where they obtained a chorion,143 others presumably in Athens. The treatment they received is debated: while Harpocration citing Theophrastus argues the Olynthians received the fiscal assimilation with the Athenians, the lexicon Suda claims they were naturalised en masse.144 The possibility to argue that the population mentioned in a mutilated inscription of the mid-fourth century and honoured by the Athenians with the exemption from the metoikion is the Olynthians is doubtful.145

• 146 Dem. 5.19; 19.80-81. Cf. also Aeschin. 2.142 who reported the alleged salvation of some Phocian amb (...)
• 147 IG II³ 1 418. For the dating to 337/6 BC see Lambert 2012, p. 143. The same Asclepiodorus is attest (...)
• 148 IG II² 7879. Cf. Lambert 2012, p. 143 n. 30.
• 149 Aeschin. 2.141-142.

38The defeat of the Phocians in the Third Sacred War caused serious consequences for the survival of the Phocian cities, reduced in villages due to the dioikismos. At least part of the population reached Athens in search of protection, perhaps after a formal expulsion. Demosthenes stated that the Thessalians were hostile to the Athenians because of their acceptance of the Phocian refugees and in the On the false embassy he said that the best and most moderate faction of the Phocian exiles lived in Athens peaceably, while the rest of the population was disarmed and forced to live distributed in villages.146 In the case of Asclepiodorus, a Phocian citizen installed in Athens maybe after the 346 Phocian displacement, an Athenian honorific decree attests the grant of a foliage crown, the hospitality in the city-hall and the fiscal assimilation.147 Probably his son is Philon Asclepiodorou isoteles, whose name appears in a funerary inscription.148 The Phocian refugees, among whom such Mnason the Phocian was mentioned, were called by Aeschines as witnesses together with Theban ones in his suit against Demosthenes.149

• 150 IG II³ 1 302, ll. 32-33.
• 151 Acarnanians: IG II³ 1 316, ll. 24-25; Thessalians: IG II² 545 + 2406, ll. 15-17.
• 152 IG II³ 1 452, ll. 11-12.
• 153 IG II³ 1 404, ll. 10-11.

40Starting with the second half of the fourth century in the Attic inscriptions makes an appearance a formula that apparently limited the granting of rights and privileges to refugees to the duration of their stay in Attica. This limitation is found for the first time in the honorary decree for the exiles from Abdera in a partially restored form, ἕως κατέλθωσι[ν εἰς τ]ὴν αὑτῶν, which we translate as «until they return home».150 It appears in a shorter form in the honorary decrees for the Acarnanian and Thessalian refugees - ἕως ἂν κατέλθωσιν -151 and, with the indication of the place of origin of the refugees involved, in the decree for Pisithides of Delos - ἕως ἂν κατέλθηι εἰς Δήλον.152 Finally, a prescription of similar significance, but bearing a different formulation - ἕως ἂν τὴ]ν πατρίδα κομίσω[νται δι]ασεσωιμένους, «until they return home safely» - concerns exiles probably from Neapolis of Thrace.153

• 154 IG I³ 106 (409/8 BC).
• 155 In l. 7 we read [ο͂ μετοικίο, ἕος ἂν κατίοσιν, ..........22..........]ς with the use of the verb κά (...)

41These inscriptions covered the period between 346 BC, when the decree for the Abderites must be dated, and 321/320 or 320/19 BC, when the decree for exiles from Thessaly dates back. I do not consider here the case of the fifth-century decree concerning some Byzanthian citizens, Polycles, Peraieus and Mandrobolus who are praised for their loyalty to the demos of the Athenians, especially for their services rendered to the army.154 While their status as exiles is uncertain, since they may well be supporters of Athens in Byzantium, the temporal limitation of the honours granted to them - the exemption from the metoikion - cannot be taken into consideration, not so much because it is expressed abnormally, but because it is totally integrated.155

• 156 Polyaenus, Strat. 4.2.22. The dating of this episode is debated: see Bliquez, 1981; Veligianni Terz (...)
• 157 For Philip’s campaign: Dem. 18.30; for the conquest of the various cities: [Dem.] 7.37; Dem. 8.64; (...)
• 158 It has been suggested (Bliquez, 1981, p. 73) that a reference to Abdera can be found in the express (...)
• 159 This is what the numismatic documentation seems to show. The interruption of the Abderitan coinage, (...)
• 160 On the legal aspects of the ancient supplication see Naiden, 2006, p. 171-218.

42Between 355 and 347 BC Philip attacked Abdera.156 It is possible that on that occasion he took not only Abdera, but also its region, included Maronea. However, in the accounts of Philip’s Thracian campaign there is no trace of clashes with the Abderites.157 It has been suggested that Abdera had lost its importance in the international stage, which would justify not only its lack of mention among the conquered cities,158 but also the Philip’s bloodless passage in its territory - perhaps authorized by the Abderitans -159 that preserved it from the destruction reserved for the other cities. The decree for the exiles from Abdera well fits into this context. In 346/5 BC the Athenian Assembly decreed honours and privileges for the Abderitan Dioscorides, Dionysodorus’ sons, and his brothers, Charmides and Anassipolides, after his presentation of a legal plea addressed first to the Council, then to the people.160

• 161 Henry, 1983, p. 1-21. The use of the imperfect tense ἦσαν (as in the integration proposed by Lamber (...)
• 162 Henry, 1983, p. 206.
• 163 On the wording and meaning of these provisions see Henry, 1983, p. 171-181 (epimeleia), 204-223 (en (...)

43On the basis of a comparison with the case of the Acarnanian refugees, Bliquez argued convincingly that the evaluation of asylum applications presented to Athens was normally carried out within one year. It follows that the fall of Abdera under the Macedonians could be placed in 347/6 BC. The honoured are clearly partisans of Athens in Abdera, but it is not clear whether they are citizens on whom a deportation order was levied or their exile is the result of self-imposition. The reason for the grant of honours is expressed in a formulated way: Dioscorides and his brothers are called benefactors of the Athenian people (ll. 14-17).161 The reference to the their benefactions appears in the decree of the Assembly to define the conduct of Athens towards the benefactors in a way that can recall the traditional image of Athens as a polis that always expresses gratitude to the benefactors and that intervenes to assist its friends in difficulty (ll. 25-27). The honours and privileges granted concern the care by the councillours and generals in office from time to time (ll. 17-20), an inviolability clause (l. 20), the invitation to lunch in the Prytaneum (ll. 21-22), the right of enktesis and perhaps the ateleia (l. 32)162 and the right to pay the eisphorai with the Athenians (ll. 33-34, partially integrated).163 The formula for restricting the rights appears in ll. 32-33 immediately after the mention of the right of [οἰκ]εῖν Ἀθήνησιν.

• 164 Wilhelm, 2006, p. 194-198.
• 165 Neapolis as member of the Delian League: IG II² 43B, 34. For the overthrow of the democracy in Thas (...)
• 166 The Neopolitans are praised in an honorific decree (IG I³ 101, 410/9) for fighting together with th (...)
• 167 IG II² 128.
• 168 In the literary sources we find the expression ἐφόδια τῆς φυγῆς (Aeschin. 1.172 referred to Demosth (...)
• 169 Lambert, 2012, p. 211-212.
• 170 Loomis, 1998, p. 214.

44The decree provides the protection and hospitality for exiles who are in Athens at the moment referred in the stele as shown in the invitation to entertainment in the Prytaneum (ll. 11-12). Their provenance is uncertain, what makes impossible to date the decree with any precision. Lambert’s dating to the period 345-320 BC, which is based on the shape of the letters, remains the most reliable. However, Wilhelm argued that these are exiles from Neapolis of Thrace based on the comparison between this inscription and the honorary decree for the Abderitan exiles, suggesting that the political conditions that led to the exile of the honoured are definitily the same. It would therefore be one of the cities subdued by Philip during his Thracian campaign164. In favour of Wilhelm’s proposal there is both the fact that the Neopolitans were long-standing allies of the Athenians and the existence of a appropriate context where we can place the expulsions. As members of the Delian League they fought alongside the Athenians on the occasion of the defection of Thasos,165 their motherland.166 The Macedonian aggression drove them to seek an alliance with Athens against Philip. Proof of this is a decree dated to 356/5 in which the Neopolitan ambassadors reached Athens to treat the alliance.167 Yet, many aspects continue to defy explanation as the context in which one should place the travel expenses (ephodia)168 and the alleged subsidy of three obols per day. Lambert has already stressed the fact that the travel reimbursements are normally attested in favour of the Athenians citizens and not of foreigners.169 In any case it is not easy to understand from the context the identity of those who received the ephodia and how much they amounted to.170 The limitation of the validity of the prerogatives granted to the exiles does not appear in connection with a specific privilege, but with all rights accorded to them.

• 171 [Dem.] 48.24-26; Aeschin. 3.97-99, 256.
• 172 Rhodes-Osborne, 2003, p. 382; Dany, 2015, p. 22-25; De Martinis, 2018, p. 133.
• 173 Low, 2018, p. 463-464.
• 174 For the grant of golden crowns see Henry, 1983, p. 22-32.
• 175 The grant of citizenship is obviously not affected by such a limitation.

45The defense against the Macedonian threat governed the relations between the Athenians and the Acarnanians from the 40s of the fourth century. Although in fact the Acarnanians have been faithful allies of Athens, this collaboration seems to be strengthened when Philip threatened their territory. Around 342 the Acarnanians demanded the support of Athens against Philip and the Athenians, according to Demosthenes, sent troops to aid them. In return, the Acarnanians fought alongside Athens against the Macedonians in 340.171 The decree here considered also attests to the presence of the Acarnanian exiles in Chaeronea alongside the Athenians. What remains unclear is, however, whether this was an official contingent or a group of pro-Athenian volunteers belonging to the anti-Macedonian faction, whose main exponents are the Phormion and Carphinas mentioned in the decree.172 Although the indirect reference to the battle of Chaeronea (ll. 11-12) could have been a reason for a Pan-Hellenic claim, the Acarnanian exiles are praised as benefactors of the Athenians alone.173 While Phormion and Carphinas were honoured with the Athenian citizenship, through the reactivation of the grant accorded to their grandfather Phormion (ll. 19-21), and a golden crown,174 the Athenians decreed for the other refugees the right of enktesis oikion, the fiscal assimilation with the Athenians, the exemption from the metoikion and the epimeleia (ll. 24-31). As in the Neopolitans’ case, the limitation to the enjoyment of rights does not appear in connection with a single provision, but is linked to all the privileges accorded to the refugees.175

• 176 I follow here the proposal of Constantakopoulou, 2016, p. 128, 140 n. 31 to identify the internatio (...)
• 177 Dem. 18.134; Hyp. fr. 67 Jensen. For the discussion of this hypothesis see Osborne, 1982, p. 87-88.
• 178 Inv. no. M 5585, side B = SEG 50.178. The information about the inscription are given by Kritzas, 2 (...)
• 179 Gehrke, 1985, p. 235 n. 3, has gathered the evidence about other refugees, who suffered similar ass (...)
• 180 On this right see Henry, 1983, p. 168-171.
• 181 The resources to pay such allowance are drawn from the discretionary fund for the decrees. Addition (...)

46In 334 a citizen from Delos, Pisithides, is living in Athens as refugee. We do ignore the very context of his expulsion or flight. The hypothesis that Pisithides’ affair has to be connected with the decision of the Delians to appeal to a foreign body, possibly the Amphictyonic Council,176 for challenging the authority of Athens over the sanctuary, is attractive, but indemonstrable.177 In any case, it is clear that the episode concerning Pisithides should be considered in the broader framework of the anti-Athenian feelings of the Delian community who never stopped gaining its independency. This climate of intolerance towards Athens could be led its sympathizers to leave Delos and to reach Athens. And Pisithides had clearly been a long-time partisan of Athens, as shown by the grant of the Athenian citizenship. A new inscription, unfortunately still unpublished, contains some pieces of information about trials concerning Pisithides conducted in Athens in the court known as the Meson ton kainon.178 During his stay in Athens he was victim of an assassination attempt by one of his sons who, unlike the others, was excluded from the naturalisation (ll. 18-21).179 This complot justified the presence of the inviolability clause and the proclamation of outlawry for anyone who killed him and for any state that harboured him (ll. 31-35).180 The exceptionality of the provisions for Pisithides is also testified by the subsistence allowance (trophe) of one drachma per diem to pay him in monthly instalments until he returned home (ll. 35-41).181

• 182 On this decree see Gehrke, 1985, p. 196-197; Poddighe, 2002, p. 166-169; Ead., 2013, p. 234-235; St (...)
• 183 Despite some differences in the lists of the populations who took part in the Lamian War, the Thess (...)
• 184 If the restoration of λέγει in ll. 4-5 is correct, there was a sole spokesman of the delegation, wh (...)
• 185 Diod. Sic. 18.15.2 states that it was exceptional for its courage and that in it the Greeks trusted (...)

47An Athenian decree honouring the Thessalian exiles dates back to 320/19 BC.182 Their expulsion was provoked by the participation of all the Thessalian cities, except Pelinna and Larissa, in the Lamian War on the side of the Greeks and against Antipater.183 After the end of the war Antipater intervened to overthrow the democracy in the Thessalian cities and to change their laws: so, these expulsions should be considered a consequence of the punishment imposed by Antipater. The exiles found refuge in Athens, after presenting a legal plea to the people of the Athenians in which they recalled their contribute to the war.184 The involvement of the Thessaly in the Lamian war, in fact, was pivotal thanks to the role of its renowned cavalry.185 Claiming their friendship with the Athenians around 50 exiles were received in Athens where they gained the fiscal assimilation with the Athenians, the exemption from the metoikion and the right of enktesis (ll. 11-15). The limitation of the enjoyment until they returned home is linked to the tax exemption and to right of enktesis (l. 11-12).

• 186 Some Troizenian exiles found refuge in Athens after Chaeronea, but before the promulgation of Alexa (...)
• 187 See the somewhat analogous reasoning of Henry, 1983, p. 227 n. 23 that the phrase οἰκοῦντι οἰκοῦσι (...)

48It is a fact that around the middle of the fourth century the Athenians introduced a significant change in the reception of refugees limiting the enjoyment of rights until they returned home. However, they continued to welcome them as before.186 There were no restrictions either on their number or on the duration of their stay in Athens. A first point worth stressing is that this limitation does not seem to be in connection with naturalisation; rather it is connected with some fiscal privileges.187 This means that such limitation only applied to those provisions that could alleviate the refugee status and were related to the emergency phase, regardless of its actual duration.

• 188 See Loddo, 2012, p. 57 n. 6 with the sources.
• 189 Euboulides was demarchos in Halymous when the diapsephisis was carried out (Dem. 57 passim). He als (...)

49Was there, I wonder, any concrete condition that led to the introduction of this limitation? Did it coincide with a change of attitude towards refugees? It is perhaps not only a coincidence that in the same year in which the Athenians decreed some privileges for the exiles from Abdera and they inserted the limitation clause in a decree for the first time a revision of the citizenship lists of all the demes of Attica was proclaimed.188 In that case the concern was obviously to find out the false citizens registered fraudulently in the civic lists, but the suit of Lysias’ Against Pancleon shows that there had been attempts to pass off as naturalised citizens even in the past.189

• 190 Canevaro, 2016, p. 55-63.
• 191 Dem. 20.131 (translated by Kremmydas, 2012).
• 192 See Liddel, 2016, p. 350 with some examples.
• 193 See e.g. IG II² 33, l. 11-25; IG II² 37, l. 27-35; IG II² 545, l. 23 ff.
• 194 For the use of the adjective ἀνάξιος see Dem. 20.1, 2, 6, 7, 39, 47, 56, 97, 104, 113, 137.
• 195 For the outcome of the trial as favourable to Demosthenes see Kremmydas, 2012, p. 58-60; Canevaro, (...)

50Nevertheless, I believe to be more pertinent to this discourse to look to the socio-political framework of the Against Leptines. I do not mean that Leptines intended to abolish all the exemptions, as Demosthenes suggests. The background to his proposal was to limit the exemptions from the liturgies so that the burden of this form of taxation weighed on the richest part of the liturgical class.190 Anyway, the economical crisis that resulted from the Social War constituted a favourable ground for passing this law. More relevant for my argument is what Demosthenes says at §32: “Now, they may also try to evade this point by arguing that some people are exempt (ἀτελεῖς) by claiming that they are Megarians or Messenians, a great throng of people”.191 Recalling as an example the case of the Megarian and Messenian exiles honoured with the tax exemption, Demosthenes reports one of the reasons that persuaded the Assembly to support Leptines’ proposal, the fact that there were many attempts to claim the right to the fiscal exemption on the basis of an alleged refugee status. The other side of the coin is that this system of honours could be open to risk of bribery. This is well evident in the allegations of advocating honours in return of money.192 The Athenians usually registered the names of the recipients of honours and privileges they accorded, but apparently this was not enough to prevent such behaviours.193 The unworthiness of those who enjoyed the exemptions was to be a cornerstone of Leptines’ argument194 and one of the ways to be unworthy could well be to mystify their own status. Naturally, that Leptines’ law was repealed or not it is irrelevant for my argument, as it only concerned the exemptions from liturgies.195 What is important is rather that part of the Athenian population could share Leptines’ view about the abuses of honours and privileged by self-styled refugees and that this posed a serious problem in the middle of the fourth century.

• 196 This is well evident in the epigraphic dossier concerning the Samian exiles honouring those who aid (...)
• 197 Isoc. 14.56. Cf. supra 3.6.
• 198 IG II³ 1 411.
• 199 Pomp. Trog. 8; Iust. Epit. 8.6.7. However, Diod. Sic. 16.72.1 states that Arybba died in Epyrus.
• 200 LSJ s.v. κομίζω II.8: get back, recover.

51Yet, it is not without significance that this limitation did not apply to those among the foreign residents who were honoured with the ateleia grant. The metics and the political refugees shared in fact some aspects that put them in a middle position between citizens and outsiders. This connection has led some scholars to consider the political refugees as privileged metics. But it is the very exile that led the Athenians to specify the terms of their presence in Attica in a more regulated way than usual. Such new regulation adequately considered the lawful aspiration of the political exiles to recover their home and cannot be seen as a sign of change of attitude towards them. The political exile, in fact, was not conceived as a definitive status, but as a phase of transition that normally decayed when the conditions at home changed becoming suitable for the return. This formula presupposes the Athenian awareness both of the exiles’ desire to recover the homeland196 and of the advantages that Athens could gain from the refugees’ return. So, Plataea’s request of reintegration at home in 373 BC should be considered as a part of this trend: the Plataeans, already living in safety in Athens as refugees, asked the Athenians for support to recover their city and territory.197 This double perspective is well evident in the naturalisation decree possibly dating to 342 BC for Arybba, King of the Molossians.198 The notice we find in Pompeius Trogus, who speaks of the exile of Arybba by Philip II and of his substitution with Alexander, Olympiades’ brother,199 probably represents the context in which Arybba went to Athens as political refugee. The Athenians not only granted him citizenship, but also undertook to aid a foreign king in exile in Athens to recover the power in his native country. In doing so, they used a formula slightly different from the typical one “until they return home” employing the variant ὅπως Ἀρύββας καὶ οἱ παίδες αὐτοῦ [κομί]σωνται τὴν ἀρχὴν τὴν [πατρ]ώιαν in connection with the care of the generals (ll. 40-45). The meaning of κομίζω seems to imply, indeed, a commitment to restore Arybba and his family through the action of the generals.200 We should compare this clause with ἕως ἂν τὴ]ν πατρίδα κομίσω[νται ... δι]ασεσωιμένους in IG II³ 1 404, l. 10, where the Athenians undertook to protect the recipients of the decree until they recovered their home.