Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:03:06.629Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Practice of Ostracism at Athens*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

Harold B. Mattingly
Harold B. Mattingly*
Affiliation:
Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I have long been tempted by the vast haul of ostraka from the Kerameikos excavations of 1966-8 to review afresh the whole history of ostracism at Athens. Though they have still been only summarily published, enough is now known to make the enterprise worthwhile. I leave aside the question whether Kleisthenes introduced the institution as part of his legislative programme, possibly in a form that involved only his new Council and not the people as a whole. This intriguing topic does not affect the history of ostracism as we know it. Scholars agree that the first victim was Hipparchos Charmou in 487 B.C., but the Kerameikos ostraka tell us nothing of this occasion. Nor do they help with the ostracisms of Xanthippos and Aristeides and, since nothing can really be done with the Agora ostraka here, I shall omit these also from my survey. But the ostracism of Megakles has been brilliantly illuminated.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 25 , 1991 , pp. 1 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This paper grew out of work which I undertook as Visiting Fellow from July to September 1989 at the University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales. I am most grateful to the Department of Classics and Ancient History for their invitation and for providing me with such congenial working conditions: Erica and I must also thank them all for their generous hospitality during our stay. I owe special thanks to Professor Greg Stanton for his encouragement, ready help and constructive discussions and to Dr. David Phillips of Macquarie University for letting me see his current work on ostracism and for stimulating talk on common interests. Dr. Ian Worthington proved a tower of help and support to us both throughout and it was not his fault that the pilots persisted in their strike! I presented some of my results to Seminars at Armidale (Sept. 1989), University of California, Irvine (Feb. 1991 ) and Brown University, Providence (March) and gained much from the lively discussions. My debt to the late Eugene Vanderpool and to David Lewis for information, advice and stimulus is a very great one - even though I have not let this stop me from differing from their views on many points.

References

1 See Willemsen, F., AM 80 (1965) 100–22Google Scholar (henceforth AM) and Arch.Delt. 23, Chronikon B 1 (1968) 24–32Google Scholar (henceforth AD): Daux, G., BCH 92 (1968) 731–3Google Scholar (henceforth BCH). Many more details were made known by Rudi Thomsen in his The Origin of Ostracism (Copenhagen 1972Google Scholar) – henceforth Ostracism –and most of my figures and many names come from him. I deliberately keep to published facts in this paper, apart from information on joins and individual ostraka derived from Willemsen's Athens lecture in December 1973.

2 For the best recent discussions see Longo, Chiara Pecorella, Historia 29 (1980) 257–81Google Scholar and Lehmann, G.A., ZPE 41 (1981) 85–99Google Scholar; both develop ideas first broached by Keaney, J.J. and Raubitschek, A.E., AJPIt 93 (1972) 87–91Google Scholar.

3 ‘Arist.’ Ath.Pol. 22.3–4Google Scholar is quite explicit about this. Only one Hipparchos sherd – evidently a stray – was found in the Kerameikos haul and so far only 12 in all are known. See Lang, Mabel, Agora XXV (1990) 48 fGoogle Scholar. (henceforth Agora).

4 Admittedly many ostraka of Aristeides, Themistokles, Kallixenos and others have been assigned with confidence to either 483 (abortive ostracism?) or 482 (Aristeides). See Vanderpool, E., Ostracism at Athens (Semple Lectures: 1970) – henceforth Ostracism – 20 f.Google Scholar: Lang, , Agora 20–3Google Scholar. For my own case, which seriously undermines this view, see later pp. 6-10.

5 All individual totals come from Thomsen. On 486 see Thomsen, , Ostracism 94–7Google Scholar: Williams, G.M.E., ZPE 31 (1978) 103–13Google Scholar: Lang, , Agora 83 fGoogle Scholar. David Lewis, however, has argued that the mass of Megakles ostraka could be attributed to a ‘second’ ostracism in the late 470s (ZPE 14 [1974] 1–4Google Scholar). Peter Bicknell urged this view independently in AC 39 (1975) 172–5Google Scholar. Lewis restated his position a little more cautiously in his Postscript to Burn, A.R., Persia and the Greeks2 (1984) 603–6Google Scholar. Williams had already refuted him vigorously and, I think, convincingly. His case rests on just one fourth-century law-suit allusion – Lysias 14.39, where the MSS read (Megakles and the elder Alkibiades). The parallel passage in ‘Andok.’ 4.34 has no though some editors have insisted on inserting it. Lysias then stands alone, assuming that there is no MSS corruption, and we should be prepared logically – with Bicknell (p. 175) – to apply to both Megakles and Alkibiades. Vanderpool also interprets it that way (Ostracism 22), but he will not accept a second ostracism for Alkibiades. Lewis ignored the logic, which leads effectively to a reductio ad absurdum.

6 For published joins see Daux, , BCH 732 f.Google Scholar, figs. 5 and 7: Willemsen, , AD 29Google Scholar with PI.19 a and c. Daux's fig. 5 (= Willemsen Pl. 19c) can not be dated 471, since the Kimon/Themistokles joining ostraka come from the same pot as one of Megakles (Thomsen, , Ostracism 95 n.262)Google Scholar. For the other joins I rely on information from Vanderpool and Lewis, based on Willemsen's lecture. On Table A I show in brackets after each name the number of reported joins with Megakles. In the Rectangular Rock-Cut Shaft ostraka of Hipparchos, Megakles, Boutalion and Hippokrates Anaxileou were found stratified below those of Kallixenos, Aristeides, Themistokles and Hippokrates Alkmeonidou (Vanderpool, , Hesperia 15 [1946] 266–8 and 271-4, nos.1-7Google Scholar). Xanthippos is awkward for Lewis's view, since he was ostracised in 484 and seems to have died not long after his generalship in 479/8 (see Postscript [n.5] 605). For the prevalence of voting at ostracisms against families see later p. 22 and n.1 14.

7 See Vanderpool, , Ostracism 21 f.Google Scholar: Daux, , BCH 732Google Scholar: Mattingly, H.B., Univ.LeedsRev. 14 (1971) 232Google Scholar: Bicknell, , Hist.Einzelschr. 19 (1972) 64Google Scholar: Williams, op.cit. (n.5) 105 f., 110.

8 The scribe perhaps jumped from to what followed thus missing out the crucial 485 entry.

9 See Willemsen, , AD 28Google Scholar (the two blocks of ostraka lay about five metres apart): Thomsen, , Ostracism 95–9Google Scholar: Lang, Agora 65 f. and 23.

10 See Plut, . Arisi. 7.4–5Google Scholar. For the minimum vote view see Carcopino, J., L'Ostracisme Athénien2 (1935) 89–104Google Scholar (henceforth Ostracisme): Lehmann, op.cit. (n.2) 95-7: Chiara Pecorella Longo, op.cit. (n.2) 274 f. For the quorum see Jacoby, F., FGrH III B 1.316 f.Google Scholar: Vanderpool, , Ostracism 4Google Scholar: Thomsen, , Ostracism 66 f. n.23Google Scholar.

11 See Andok. 1.87 and Dem. 24.47 and 59 with ‘Dem.’ 69.89: Thuc. 8.72.1 with Andrewes, , HCT 5.183 f.Google Scholar: Jacoby, loc.cit. (n.10).

12 For over-estimates see Thomsen, Ostracism 95 (most of the 1696 Themistokles sherds): Lewis, , ZPE 14 (1974) 3Google Scholar (a high proportion of Kimon's 490): Williams, , ZPE 31 (1978) 109Google Scholar (most of Leagros' 83): Lehmann, op.cit. (n.2) 95 n.29 (most Themistokles). Some 15 ostraka of Megakles are otherwise known, 7 of Boutalion and at least 10 of Hippokrates Anaxileou. Some of the 68 Agora sherds of Aristeides and some of the 20 ostraka known before 1968 for Xanthippos must belong to 486. See Lang, , Agora 93–5, 41 f., 61 f., 35 and 133Google Scholar.

13 Willemsen generously allowed me a free run of all the ostraka finds in August 1969 and I was able to make detailed notes, on which my comments in my Inaugural Lecture at Leeds (see Univ.Leeds Rev. 14 [1971] 281–7Google Scholar) were based, from which others have since drawn. In retrospect I feel that I should have kept off unpublished material like this, at least in the written version. But others have been equally indiscreet. Thomsen published many details in his Ostracism, which were not in the public domain. See also Frost, F., Calif.Stud.Class.Ant. 1 (1968) 79 fGoogle Scholar. At that early stage there was reasonable hope that full publication would not be too long delayed.

14 See Daux, , BCH 731 f., fig.6Google Scholar: Thomsen, , Ostracism 97Google Scholar. I saw the sherd with the drawing on show in the Kerameikos Museum in 1976.

15 See Herod. 6.115 f. and 121 ff: Burn, , Persia1 251 f.Google Scholar: Bicknell, op.cit. (n.7) 65 f. Williams, however, accepts the Herodotean view (op.cit. [n.5] 112 f.).

16 See Bicknell, op.cit. (n.7) 65-71 (Kallias Kratiou an Alkmeonid): Shapiro, H.A., Hesperia 51 (1982) 69–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Davies, J.K., Athenian Propertied Families (Oxford 1972Google Scholar: henceforth APF) 598 (link with Hipponikos): Plut, . Arisi. 7.2–4Google Scholar.

17 Herod. 6.36 and Plut. Per. 3.

18 See Herod. 6.136.2 (Kimon paid) and Plut, . Kim. 4.8Google Scholar (Kallias). Kimon was born C.508 (ibid.). Williams (op.cit. [n.5] 106 f.) exaggerates Kimon's political importance in 486, since he assumes heavy voting against him.

19 For Mnesiphiios see Herod, 8.57 f.: Plut. 795c and Them. 2.6Google Scholar: Frost. CSCA (1968) 124Google Scholar with Historia 20 (1971) 23–5Google Scholar and Commentary on Plutarch's Themistolles (1974) 21 f. and 67 f.Google Scholar; ki, A.J. Podlec. Life of Themistoklem (1975) 69 f. 190 and 194Google Scholar.

20 E. Langlotz. following Letters 8.3, established 510-500 as Le agros kalos period (Zur Zeitbestimmung strengratflgurigen Vasenmalerei und der gleichzeitigen Plastik [1920] 48–54Google Scholar: henceforth Zeitbestimmung), which has since become canonical. E D Francu and M. Victos wanted to bring it down drastically (Proc.Camb.Phil.Soc. 207 [1981] 101, 107, 112 and 124Google Scholar; henceforth PCPS): they pat Leagros With c.495 and his kalas period niter Salamis. Tölle-Kastbein, R. (Arch.Am. [1983] 573–84Google Scholar) proposed as a compromise solution a kalos period round 495. B.D. Meriti dated the dedication before Xerxes, arguing that the Persians took away the statue (Hesperia 5 [1936] 357–9Google Scholar). But Daux has shown (Pharos: Meriti Studies (1974) 40–2Google Scholar) that the base has a type of dicta (small circle in targe) known in only six other inscriptions. One is dated 477/6 (tyrannicides bate: Hesperia 5 [1936] no, 1, 355–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar) and the latest is the Erechtheid casualty lists (ICI2 929) of 460/59 or 459/8. Leagros' dedication probably falb between these limits. Francis and Vickers (PCPS 113-8) reach the tame conclusion from the epigraph: and archaeological evidence.

21 See Raubitschek, A.E.. Dedicatimi from the Athenian Aeropolis (Cambridge, Mass, 1949: henceforth DAA) 339 no, 328Google Scholar (Alkineonid) Davics. APF 373 f with Bicknell. opat. (n.7) 79 and Shapiro, H.A.. Historia 49(1980) 289–93Google Scholar (Peisistratid link).

22 ICI3 472.14.

23 Attempts ta make Themistokles the master-mind seem to go beyond our evidence. See Hignett, C., History of the Athenion Constitution (Oxford 1952: henceforth HAC) 185–9Google Scholar. Podlecki, . Historia 15 (1966) 129–41Google Scholar and Themistokles 188 (more cautious). Frost has been sensibly restrained, even after the Kerameikos discoveries. See CSCA 116 f. and 124 and Commentary 78-80. Contrast Williams, opxit. (n.5) 10f.

24 See Frost/Bauer, Themistokles2 (1967) 130Google Scholar: Vanderpool, , Ostracism 23 f.Google Scholar: Podlecki, , Themistokles 192Google Scholar: Lang, , Agora 21–8Google Scholar. Consistently many ascribe the great bulk of the Kerameikos Themistokles ostraka to 486. See Podlecki, , Themistokles 9 fGoogle Scholar: Thomsen, , Ostracism 95Google Scholar: Lehmann, op.cit. (n.2) 95 n.29: Lang, , Agora 102Google Scholar.

25 Hesperia 7 (1938) 229–42Google Scholar: Vanderpool, , Hesperia 15 (1946) 272 and 274Google Scholar f with Hesperia Suppl. 8 (1948) 394–6Google Scholar: Talcott, L. and Sparkes, B.A., Agora XII (1970) 93Google Scholar.

26 See Vanderpool, op.cit. (n.25) 272 f. nos. 8 and 9. The stratigraphy of the top five metres of fill was not really satisfactory (see pp. 266-8).

27 Hesperia 55 (1986) 1–74 (especially pp. 4 and 9 for some missing Rock-Cut Shaft elements)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 See Vanderpool, op.cit. (n.25) 317 no. 236 (P 2747): Agora XII 93 n.32Google Scholar (citing both the black-glaze and the white-ground cups): Talcott, L., Hesperia 2 (1933) 224–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar (white-ground) and 5 (1936) 336-8 n.6 (citing P 2747 as a parallel to ‘Vicups’ and the white-ground cup).

29 See Young, R.S., Hesperia 20 (1951) 178 fGoogle Scholar. and Vanderpool, , Hesperia 21 (1952) 1 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, nos. 1-2 (Alkibiades: ‘Vicup’) with 37 (1968) 118 f, nos. 1-4 (3a, Dieitrephes: ‘Vicup’).

30 See Talcott, L., Hesperia 5 (1936) 333–54 (kalot, 348-52)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Sparkes and Talcott discussed ‘Vicups’ well in Agora XII 93Google Scholar with notes: they regarded them as a fairly short-lived fashion, with no great development of form. For Alkaios kalos see ARV2 988 no. 20, 1561 (graffiti); Beazley doubted if it was the same Alkaios on the graffiti. Yet the name is so rare at Athens (PA 571-7) that identification seems certain.

31 See ARV2 866 no.1 and 1571 f. (Charmides): Langlotz, op.cit. (n.20) 100, 104 and 109 (Glaukon): Talcott (op.cit. [n.30] 350 f.) and Meritt, (GRBS 8 [1967] 46–9Google Scholar) are just two of many who follow Langlotz. But contrast Phillipart, H., AC 5 (1936) 37, 48–55Google Scholar and Kirchner, , PA 3027Google Scholar (kalos c.460). Francis and Vickers (PCPS 109) proposed c. 460-455Google Scholar.

32 See Lang, , Agora XXIGoogle Scholar, ‘Graffiti and Dipinti’ (1976) 14, C 21 with Pl. 5Google Scholar. Praxon does not appear in PA: perhaps Praxion (PA 12178 f.) was intended. For Ionic gamma and lambda see Vanderpool, , Ostracism 15 and 24Google Scholar: Lang, , Agora XXV 23 fGoogle Scholar. (hardly before 461): Immerwahr, H., Attic Script (1990) 97 and 105Google Scholar (hardly before the 460s on vases). For the other kaloi with patronymics see ARV2 1561 f., 1563, 1568, 1574 f., 1576, 1579, 1589 f., 1595 f.

33 Shapiro, H.A., ZPE 68 (1987) 107–15Google Scholar. He leaves Glaukon c.470, starts the Achilles Painter in the 460s (why so early?) and makes the phenomenon end after a generation c.440.

34 Euaion was also a tragic poet like his brother Euphorion (PA 5255 and 6079).

35 For Leagros' death at Drabeskos see Herod. 9.75 (the natural inference): for Aischylos see Parian Marble (FGrH 239) Ep. 59: for Melanopos see Paus. 1.29.7 with Hesperia 16 (1947) 147 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, no. 36 (his monument) and PA 9019 (Laches). Meritt wanted to associate the epigram with an unknown encounter between Athenians, Spartans and Boiotians after Dekeleia, because of its Ionic script. But Ionic was used on private dedications before 450: see DAA 294, 297 f., 140, 145 and Hesperia 9 (1940) 97–101, no. 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar (from the Eleusinion?). Moreover Pausanias located the battle very precisely in the territory of Tanagra and no battle was fought there around the Ionian War period. For Archeptolemos see Aristoph. Knights 327 and IGI2 929.63 f. (Hippodamas died as Erechtheis general c.459): for Alkibiades see PA 600 (his father died at Koroneia in 447) and Acharn. 716.

36 See Phillipart, op.cit. (n.31) 37, no. 27 with Pis. XVII-XIX: 48-52, no. 33 with Pis. XXII-XXIII: 52-5, no. 34 with PI. XXIV.

37 See Langlotz, op.cit. (n. 20) 100-104; Kraay, Colin [Greek Coins and History [1969] 19–35Google Scholar and NC [1972] 12–24Google Scholar); Boehringer, ChristophJNG 18 [1968] 67–98)Google Scholar. The late date is supported by Starr, Chester (Athenian Coinage [1970] 41 f.Google Scholar), Price, M.J. and Waggoner, Nancy (The Asyut Hoard [1976] 83 with n.121 and 121 f.Google Scholar) and Rutter, N.K. (Campanian Coinage [1979] 25 f)Google Scholar.

38 See DAA 255-8 no. 225 with figs. All the characteristic letter-forms of this inscription – including alpha with slanting bar – are found in IG I2 929 of c.459. See the transcript in IG 1 433 and the excellent photographs in Daux, , BCH 99 (1975) 150–4 with Fig. 203Google Scholar. An early Tribute List (ICI3 263: Year 5) still shows that alpha with slanting nu, tailed round or angular rho, curved upsilon and the older phi. See ATL 1.28Google Scholar, fig. 29 and PI. VII. A Nolan amphora with Glaukon kalos marks a dithyrambic victory of Akamantis (ARV2 1581.20Google Scholar): Pickard-Cambridge, A., The Dramatic Festivals of Alliens2 (1968) 78 n.4Google Scholar and Davies, , APF 91Google Scholar date it late 460s, with Glaukon as choregos (?). Why not as a boy dancer?

39 See Hesperia 2 (1933) 228Google Scholar and 5 (1936) 333-5 (‘transitional profile’ eye on bobbin).

40 See Robertson, M., Greek Painting (Geneva 1959) 111 fGoogle Scholar: Phillipart, op.cit. (n.31) 19 no. 21 with Pl. VI.

41 This redating would ease one minor problem. A graffito from the Shaft showed Ionic lambda and four-bar sigma uncomfortably early. See Lang, , Agora XXI 14, C 21Google Scholar (‘at this date … exceptional’) and Immerwahr, op.cit. (n.32) 97 (‘The graffito might be dated later, if it were not securely anchored in its context’).

42 For Kydrokles see Hesperia Suppl. 5 (1940) 141, no. 31Google Scholar (not Megakles) and Agora XII no. 423: for Hippokrates see ibid. no. 424: for Eratyllos and Dionysios see Vanderpool, , Hesperia Suppl. 8 397, nos. 8b and 7aGoogle Scholar. Kylix foot ostraka against Xanthippos and Aristeides – pace Broneer, Hesperia 1 (1938) 242Google Scholar – were of a rather different type than the North Slope group: see Agora XII 92 on nos. 425-31Google Scholar.

43 Letters 4, 8 and 10 with N. Doenges's edition (1981) 65-7 and 94 f.

44 For these deposits see now Lang, Agora 20-3, whose names I keep. Vanderpool kindly sent me drawings of the Megakles and Aristeides ostraka from the deposits. A few Aristeides are now doubtful. E 1.24 could be a sherd of Habronichos Lysikleous () and E 2.27 () might be the same. For the unaspirated form see Agora ill ) and compare 128-31 ((H)egestratos). E 1.23 with -MAX- need not be Aristeides either. I have deducted these uncertainties from Aristeides' column. The other four men in the tail of E 1 are not likely to have been voted on in 486, since there is no trace of them in the recent Kerameikos haul. Acharnion at least surely belongs to the 480s; one ostrakon was found in a deposit with Hipparchos, Megakles, Xanthippos, Boutalion and Hippokrates Anaxileou – though it does contain later ostraka down to the Elder Alkibiades. See Agora 23, E 3 and Thomsen, Ostracism 106 f.

45 For Eretrieus see Lang, , Agora 44, no. 108Google Scholar. But she admits the chance that nos. 1091 and 1093 from E 1 among the fragments may be for Eratyllos. Moreover the smaller deposit E 2 had one sure Eratyllos and they otherwise match up.

46 There are 43 ostraka against Agasias Agrylethen and Agasias Lamptreus (Thomsen, , Ostracism 101 n.285Google Scholar): the former predominates, if my memory serves me. Thomsen (p. 105 n.360) records 19 ostraka against Philokydes Lamptreus and Philokydes ek Kolonou – the majority belong to the former. E 1.23 should probably be Agasias Arximachou, not Aristeides Lysi machau.

47 See the hypothesis of the Persai (473/2: Perikles choregos). Willemsen discussed this archon sherd in his Athens lecture.

48 This view was first developed, I think, by Carcopino in op.cit. (n.10) 88 l', and 123-5 (à propos of the Kleippides-Thoukydides problem: on which see later, p. 21). Vanderpool came close to this view in Ostracism 20 f. with 27.

49 The joins between Kimon and Themistokles ostraka have been shown to date from 486 not 471. See my n.6.

50 See Letters 8.1Google Scholar: Plut. 605e and Them. 23.1Google Scholar: Krateros frg. 11. All agree on Leobotes' demotic Agrylethen.

51 For Kallixenos see Agora XXV 524 and 589 ([-] aflores-)Google Scholar. For Hippokrates see Davies' useful discussion in APF 372 f.

52 Plut, . Arisi. 10 and 20Google Scholar: Thuc. 1.105.4-6 to 106 and 108.2: Diod. 11.79.3 and 81.4-5 with 82 f.: Aristoph, . Lys. 801Google Scholar and Eccles. 303: Eupolis, Demes frg. 114 and 128 A-B (Edmonds 349 and 363-5:411 B.C.?).

53 On Myron Phlyeus see ‘Arist’. AtkPol. 1.1Google Scholar with Rhodes, , Commentary (1981) 81–3Google Scholar: Plut, . Solon 12.4Google Scholar: Jacoby, , Atthis (1949) 368 n.81Google Scholar: Hignett, , HAC 120-2 and 334 fGoogle Scholar. In Letter 4.15Google Scholar (to Habronichos) Themistokles is made to declare ‘I shall not allow the Athenians to become accursed through any taint from me, nor will I allow them to attach some blood guilt or curse to the city … a clear guilt against which no precaution can be taken, something bigger than the Kylonian affair’ (Doenges' translation, p. 143).

54 Vickers and Francis (op.cit. [n.20] 101-8) denied this inference from Herod. 9.35, but there is no way of proving their contrary assertion nor is there any trace of Leagros subsequently at Athens.

55 See Herod. 8.21; Thuc. 1.93.3 with ‘Arist’ AtkPol. 23.4Google Scholar and Letters 8.10 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Letter 4.24Google Scholar: PA 9417 (demagogue, successor to Perikles): IG 13 130.3Google Scholar. Neither Lysikles can be certainly identified with the general who fell in Karia in 428 (Thuc. 3.19), who may then be a third from this period. The name is fairly common at Athens, occurring in many families and demes (PA 9416-41).

57 The family is well discussed by Davies in APF 513 f. One sherd against Aristaichmos was found in the Agora (XXV 20). For the father see Raubitschek, , DAA 29, no. 24Google Scholar and Jahresheft öst.arch. Inst. 31 (1938) cols. 235 with fig. 2 (photo)Google Scholar. The alphas and nus are not unlike those on Kallimachos' dedication of c.490(DAA 18-20, no. 13).

58 For this suggestion see Thompson, H.A., Hesperia 6 (1937) 155 f.Google Scholar: for Mnesitheides (457/6) see ‘Arist.’ AtkPol. 26.2Google Scholar.

59 For Agasias Lamptreus see Willemsen, AM 109 fGoogle Scholar. with PI. 33.4-5: for the kabs see ARV2 1559 (close to the Panaitios Painter). For a spirited defence of a genuine plot see Harvey, David, Klio 66 (1984) 58–73Google Scholar. Plutarch, (Arist. 13)Google Scholar names the ringleaders Agesias Acharneus and Aischines Lamptreus. Harvey thinks that a scribe might have exchanged the demotics or clumsily substituted the familiar Acharneus for the more unfamiliar Agrylethen. Agasias is a very rare name (PA 94-7). Since PA 96 comes from Acharnai (347/6) I prefer to think that enemies of this family may have fabricated the story to discredit it, inventing a fictitious and reprehensible ancestor. Such devices were common in Demosthenes' day.

60 See Simonides frg. 77 (176) and Plut. 785a with Arist. 1.6Google Scholar: Them. 5.5Google Scholar.

61 See Persai 353-73 (central); Plut, . Them. 22Google Scholar; Podlecki, A.J., Life of Themistokles (Montreal 1975) 194 with n.55Google Scholar.

62 Willemsen (AM 105, no. 4 with PI. 32.6) published a kylix foot of Broneer Type III with the name Themistokles in Hand F. Agora XII 424 (= Agora XXV 737Google Scholar) may be another example; it should go with Hand K, which alone uses the demotic Phrearrios (Agora XXV 1307 K–1314 KGoogle Scholar) – but spelled with two, not three rhos. The demotic group, however, must be the work of more than one hand; see Lang 155 on the variety of thetas and sigmas.

63 See Lang, , Agora XXV 161 with fig. 30Google Scholar. Like most of the Themistokles North Slope group, these came from a fairly narrow range of pottery – in this case large, closed somewhat coarse jars and not kylikes.

64 See Vanderpool, , Hesperia 21 (1952) 1 f.Google Scholar, nos. 1-2 and 37 (1968) 118, no. 2.

65 For the 1932 deposit (155 ostraka, including a few strays) see Peek, W., Kerameikos 3 (1940) 51–85Google Scholar. For Proxenos see p. 82 no. 154 ([---]s/[--va]KTOs) and possibly 128 f. (-EN-/-A-: -NO-). Nos. 42 (-IA-), 44 (-AΔ-) and 43 (-IA-?) fit either Alkibiades or Kallias.

66 See Hesychios s.v. and Raubitschek, , Hesperia 24 (1955) 286–9 (ostracism in 458?)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On skewed samples see Carcopino, op.cit. (n.10) 88 f. and 123-5 (à propos of Kleippides' heavy score). Following Willemsen (AM 120 f.) Thomsen distinguished between Menon Megakleous, Menon Neokleous, Menon Menandridou Gargettios Lemnios and Menon Menekleidou Gargettios. Osborne, (Naturalisation 3.21–3Google Scholar) wanted to conflate all except the Lemnian; clearly he kept him separate because convinced by Raubitschek that Menon Menekleidou was Thessalian.

67 For Alkibiades see Lys. 14.39 and ‘Andok.’ 4.34 with schol. on Ar. Knights 855: for Kallias see ‘Andok.’ 4.32. Only 15 sherds in all are known against Alkibiades, only 9 against Kallias. Vanderpool (Ostracism 23 f. and 25 f.) accepted both ostracisms: so too does Lehmann, (ZPE 69 [1987]Google Scholar – henceforth ZPE – 46 f., nos. 29-31). Carcopino, however, came out firmly against Kallias' ostracism (Ostracisme 118-20). Lang doubts the ostracism (Agora 65), but takes the painted ostrakon no. 310 – with Vanderpool – as possible evidence that ‘he was at least a serious candidate’, victim of ‘a concerted campaign’. In fact only 6 painted ostraka out of 1145 are known from the Agora! All that painted sherds really show is that some voters took care – for whatever reason – to have their ostraka neatly prepared before they went to the Agora. Phillips, (ZPE 83 [1990] 135 f.Google Scholar) is sensibly cautious.

68 For the proxeny see Thuc. 5.43.2 and 6.89.2 with Andrewes and Dover in HCT 4.49 fGoogle Scholar. and 361. At Sparta Thucydides' Alkibiades implied tactfully that Sparta had broken off relations; but 5.43.2 should surely be preferred.

69 On Ephialtes see ‘Arist.’ AtkPol. 25.1–2Google Scholar (462/1) and 4: Plut, . Kim. 15.1–4Google Scholar with 17.3 and Per. 9.5.

70 See Herod. 9.105 and Paus. 1.23.10 (Hermolykos Euthoinou): IG 12 527 = DAA 182 (younger Hermolykos): Thuc. 3.75 with 4.53, 119, 129 f. with 5.61 and 74.3 (Nikostratos). For Skambonidai as their deme see D.M. MacDowell, CQ n.s. 15 (1965) 41-51 and Fornara, C.W., CQ n.s. 20 (1970) 41Google Scholar and Hist.Einzelschr. 16 (1971) 57Google Scholar. They very plausibly refer Ar. Wasps 81 f. to the general. Double representation for Leontis can be avoided: Nikostratos might have taken over from Thucydides (Halimousios) in 424/3, when he was deposed, and Alkibiades could have taken his place after Mantineia (as Wade-Gery argued in CQ 24 [1930] 34 n.2)Google Scholar.

71 See Paus. 5.9.3 and 6.6.1: IG 12 606 = DAA 164: the new decree to be published by Matthaiou according to Lewis. For Didymias see also Eupolis, Golden Race frg. 284 (Edmonds 413: c.423 B.C.). Rapke, T.T. (AC 43 [1974] 332 f.Google Scholar) saw a punning reference there to Alopeke as the deme; but Didymias is so rare an Attic name (PA 3749-52) that we surely must expect a demotic from Akamantis.

72 Hypothesis of Aisch. Agamemnon and IG 22 2318 col.II. 18-20. For the Eumenides see Podlecki's 1989 edition (p. 17-21): Dover, K.J., JHS 77 (1957) 230–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Macleod, C., JHS 102 (1982) 124–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 For the hellenotamias and his son see PA 12267 (IG 13 375.17, 24 f., 31, 37 f.) and 2234. For Timonax Peiraieus see PA 13602 (son of Archinos: c.450). There are Proxenoi in several demes in the fifth century and later in PA, but none in Peiraieus.

74 On the new statues see Paus. 1.8.5 and Parian Marble (FGrH 239)Google Scholar A, Ep. 54 with Meritt, , Hesperia 5 (1936) 359 f.Google Scholar: Langlotz, op.cit. (n.20) 103-6 and 109. For the cult see Podlecki, , Historia 15 (1966) 129–41Google Scholar: accepting Simonides' authorship of the epigram on the base, he argued that, despite early favour from the Athenian tyrants, Simonides' later links were firmly with Themistokles. Certainly they were both in Athens for the Dionysia of 477/6, when the statues were set up (see n.60). Kimon's Alkmeonid marriage may also have significance in this ideological battle. See Davies' good discussion in APF 304 f. and 376-8.

75 See ‘Andok.’ 4.33Google Scholar: Plut, . Kim. 15.3Google Scholar with 17.3 and Per. 9.5Google Scholar: Plato, , Gorgias 516dGoogle Scholar.

76 See Hesperia 24 (1955) 286–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Hesychios s.v. Dem. 23.198 and ‘Dem.’ 12.23Google Scholar (but ateleia only): Osborne, , Naturalisation 3.21 and 23Google Scholar (following Raubitschek). For the two ostraka see Peek, op.cit. (n.62) 71, no. 118 with Pl.18.i and Willemsen, AM 117-20 with Pl.37.6 and 8 (no. 27). The final letter on Willemsen's ostrakon might just be a tortured nu, not a sigma. Gargettothen is found in Ar. Thesm. 898.

77 For Menon as archon see n.47. Dinsmoor suggested the identification long ago (Hesperia Suppl. 5 [1940] 162)Google Scholar. By 427 new citizens were ineligible for the archonship, but Osborne thought that this restriction was introduced by Perikles in 451 (Naturalisation 3.23Google Scholar and 2.11-15). Menon's rise on his view would be almost incredibly rapid. A more serious obstacle for Raubitschek's theory is the legitimate doubt whether Menon of Pharsalos was ever made a citizen. ‘Dem.’ 12.23Google Scholar – pace Osborne – should mean that Menon and Perdikkas (for Alexander I!) were given ateleia only. Herodotos ought to have mentioned Alexander's citizenship – and not just the proxeny – in 8.136 and 143, if he really had it. Hammond seems right to reject the evidence of Dem. 23.198 for him (Macedonia 2.101 f. n.4). And this should go for Menon also.

78 See Herod. 6.136-40 and Andok. 3.3 with Aischines 2.172 (but Miltiades Kimonos!).

79 Plut, . Kim. 5.5 (apheleia) and 15.4 (ameles andphilopotes)Google Scholar.

80 Willemsen, (AM 118 and 120 on nos. 30-2)Google Scholar discussed apheles well. It can be used in a bad sense, neutrally or favourably. See Pearson, A.C., Fragments of Sophocles 2 (1917) 325, frg. 723Google Scholar. The bad sense tends towards ‘crafty’, ‘untrustworthy’, ‘brazen’.

81 Willemsen, , AM 116 f.Google Scholar, no. 23 with PI. 38.6-7 and Peek, op.cit. (n.62) 65, no. 88 with PI. 19.2 f. and Kirchner, , Imagines PI. 12.30 (a better photograph)Google Scholar.

82 Osborne, (Naturalisation 3.22 n.4)Google Scholar took the sherd with Menon Neokleous (Willemsen, AD 29) as implying too close familiarity with Themistokles. This is possible, but it could be simply another wrestle with the patronymic – as, in my opinion, are Menandridou and Megakleous.

83 On Ephialtes see Plut, . Kim. 14.5 and the passages quoted in n.69Google Scholar.

84 See Shear, T.L., Hesperia 10 (1941) 3, fig. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Agora XII 82 fGoogle Scholar. and 237, no. 317 (Attic): Boulter, C., Hesperia 22 (1953) 99, no. 131 with PI. 38 (Ionic) and 61 fGoogle Scholar. (date of closing).

85 In August 1969 I was assured of this, when on the script I wanted to put it earlier. Just one Thoukydides sherd has been listed as coming from below the sand stratum (Willemsen, AD 28 and 32: Inv. No. 3499.2). The stratum contained many fine pieces of fifth-century Attic pottery, especially stamped, decorated black-glaze ware - none of which was found in Boulter's well (Hesperia 22 [1953] 61)Google Scholar. See on this – starting a little before 440 – Talcott, Hesperia 4 (1935) 487 and 497Google Scholar.

86 See Hignett, , HAC 196-8 and 252–5Google Scholar: Sealey, R., Hermes 84 (1956) 234–47Google Scholar. For Archestratos see ‘Arist.’ Ath.Pol. 35.2Google Scholar with Rhodes, , Commentary 440Google Scholar and Hignett, loc.cit. (against attempts to put Archestratos much after Ephialtes). One Kerameikos sherd with Arch—/Aga— could be meant for Archestratos, but other known names like Arehias and Archenos are possible. See Thomsen, , Ostracism 71 fGoogle Scholar.

87 Historia 33(1984)499–504Google Scholar.

88 The lists are found in Marcellinus, Life of Thucydides 28-30 and the scholia on Ar. Wasps 747. David Phillips has recently examined the whole problem with admirable thoroughness (forthcoming in Historia), declaring for the traditional view against Krentz. In my text I give my reasons for disputing his conclusion.

89 I follow Andrewes here (HCT 5.312 fGoogle Scholar. on Thuc. 8.92.8 and 2.22.3). Polemon (see Marcellinus 28) made him son of Menon.

90 See Marcellinus 28-30: IG 13 302.28Google Scholar and 369.25 and 34. The poet was about the same age as Agathon (PA 83: born c.445?), the poet Plato (PA 11845: début C.425) and Nikeratos Nikiou (PA 10741: born c.440, trierarch 410/9). Raubitschek, (Hesperia 24 [1955] 287 n. 10)CrossRefGoogle Scholar argued that the Treasurer was an homonymous grandfather of the poet and was the general of 440/39. This is surely special pleading.

91 Kirchner did this (PA 7272) and made him the general. Phillips followed his conflation, but left the general's identity open.

92 See Phoenix 14 (1960) 91 fGoogle Scholar. with Phoenix 9 (1955) 124 f.Google Scholar: Theompompos, , FGrH 115 frg. 91Google Scholar (schol.Ar. Wasps 947) and 95: Androtion, , FGrH 324 frgs. 37 and 42Google Scholar. Kratinos in his Ploutoi (c.436: Edmonds 79-81, frg. 163) could treat Hagnon's father – a true Athenian citizen obviously – as having once been a hired porter down at Peiraieus. The comic poets enjoyed almost unlimited licence on paternity.

93 Carcopino saw the logic about the general of 440/39, but would not shift the ostracism. He had to postulate the unlikely scenario of Thoukydides being recalled after only two years of banishment! (Ostracisme 175-7)

94 See Plut, . Per. 13.9–10Google Scholar and Kratinos frg. 78 (Edmonds 48: 442?).

95 Geissler, P., Die Chronologie der altattischen Komödie (1925) 22Google Scholar. For Euathlos see Kratinos frg. 75 (Edmonds 49): Ar. Acharn. 710 and Wasps 592 ff. with Merchant Ships frg. 411 (Edmonds 691: 423?): Plato Peisandros frg. 102 (Edmonds 523: 420-415?). Wilamowitz also put the Thrattai considerably later than 442 (Hermes 14 [1879] 319 n.3)Google Scholar. He explained the ostracism allusion as meaning no more than ‘since there will be no ostracism this year’ (one being theoretically possible any year) and was followed by Geissler and Davison, J.A. (JHS 78 [1958] 35)Google Scholar. I was once tempted myself (Mnemosyne 30 [1977] 67 and 69)Google Scholar; but it now seems very forced and I return to what is surely the most natural interpretation of the passage.

96 I think that we should emend in Acham. 705 to (note in line 716). See Leeuwen, J. Van, Ach. p. 121Google Scholar. For Lamachos’ son see Peace 1270-97: for Karkinos' three see Wasps 1497-1515. Lamachos' Tydeus was general in 405/4 (PA 13884): Xenokles' début on the stage was c.415 (PA 11222) and his younger brother Xenotimos is known to have flourished in the early fourth century (PA 11269).

97 See frgs. 81 and 83 (Edmonds 49): Thuc. 2.29 (Thracian alliance): Hesychios s.v. Βρέα (from Kratinos, perhaps from the Thrattai): IG 13 383.143 with 369.68Google Scholar (Bendis cult at Athens). Woodhead (CO n.s. 2 [1952] 57-62) dated Brea C.438 – rather than c.445, as still in IG 13 46 – and suggested that the serving soldiers in lines 30-3 could be those at Samos. As founder Demokleides should be a general and Wade-Gery plausibly supplied his name as the general of Aigeis in 439/8 (IG 13 48.42Google Scholar: just Δεμ — survives). Busolt also inclined to put Brea late (Gr.Gesch. 3.1.417 f.Google Scholar, n.1). I would now date it firmly 439/8 and assume that Kratinos alluded to it very topically in his Thrattai, produced in spring 437.

98 For the Odeion and the contests see Plut, . Per. 13.9–11Google Scholar and Davison, op.cit. (n.95) 33-41. Davison may have been right in arguing that Perikles revived the music contests in a new form after a considerable lapse; but he is less happy in challenging the view that Kratinos implies recent completion of the Odeion. Vitruvius (5.9.1) is not very good evidence for a pre-Periklean (Themistoklean?) Odeion.

99 For Phrynis see Harpokration s.v. and the scholia on Ar. Clouds 969-73. Reimschneider's view on the crux of the archon Kallias is similar to mine (RE 20.926)Google Scholar.

100 See Ar. Clouds 969-73: Pherekrates Cheiron frgs. 144 B*, 145 (Edmonds 263 f.: c. 418). Pherekrates makes Phrynis start the rot, then come the even more decadent Kinesias (PA 8438) and Timotheos, (RE 6A.1331–7)Google Scholar.

101 See Philochoros, , FGrH 328 frg. 121 (schol.Ar.Peace 605)Google Scholar.

102 Krentz put more stress on the war (op.cit. [n.87] 500-3): but controversy over the buildings ran through the 430s. This is shown by IG 13 49 of c.430 (lines 13-16), which curiously recalls Plutarch's anecdote in Per. 14. For this see my article in Historia 10 (1961) 164-6; for the date of IG 13 49 see also W.E. Thompson, Athenaeum n.s. 49 (1971) 329-32 and Calif.StudCl.Ant. 5 (1972) 213 n.18 (accepting my ‘sons of Kleinias’ in line 14)Google Scholar.

103 For the boards of 441/0 and 439/8 see Androtion, , FGrH 324 frg. 38Google Scholar and IG 13 48.41–6Google Scholar. For the board of 440/39 Thucydides provides just six names (1.116.1 with 117). Bridges, A.R. (JHS 100 [1980] 185–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar) challenged the list in IG 13 48, arguing that it contained more than ten names and that not all were generals. His crucial epigraphic rereading of line 45 can itself be successfully challenged. We can stay with the accepted view. Bridges, however, succeeds in showing that the lacuna between lines 26 and 41 is of three rather than fourteen lines and that all the fragments – pace Fornara (JHS 99 [1979] 7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar) – belong together and concern Samos. If Demokleides is right for Aigeis (see n.97), Hagnon will not fit Pandionis (seven letters would be needed). Lewis, (JHS 81 [1961] 118 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar) relied on a Kallias Kalliadou Paianieus of the later fourth century (Hesperia 28 [1959] 215, line 253)Google Scholar. Despite Paus. 1.23.10 Phormion's tribe is open. Themistokles (Leontis) had a house in Melite (Kekropis) according to Plut, . Them. 22.2Google Scholar: similarly Hipponikos from Alopeke (Antiochis) was called Meliteus in comedy on occasion. See Ar. Seasons frg. 572 (Edmonds 729). Phormion was also off the generals' board in 441/0, when Hippothontis was represented by Lampides Peiraieus (name perhaps corrupt: Androtion frg. 38).

104 See Andrewes and Lewis, JHS 77 (1957) 179 on Thuc. 5.19 and 24Google Scholar.

105 See Diod. 12.10.3-4 and schol.Ar. Clouds 331: Photios s.v. : PA 11252-7 (rare Attic name). He was surely the military leader at Thourioi, Lampon the mantis. Neither Fornara (Hist.Einzelschr. 17 [1971] 48Google Scholar) nor Develin, R. (Athenian Officials [Cambridge 1989] 86CrossRefGoogle Scholar) class him as a general this year. The anonymous Life of Thucydides 7, by juxtaposing the prosecution of 443 with the ostracism, may have confused Plutarch or his source on the chronology.

106 For Diotimos see Thuc. 1.45.2 with IG 13 384.9Google Scholar and Strabo 1.47. IG 13 48.41 shows only that the first general listed had a seven-letter nameGoogle Scholar.

107 Sokrates and Andokides served together in 441/0 and Hagnon with Phormion in 440/39 (Thuc. 1.117.2). No problem of double double tribal representation in the late 430s arises, if Phormion is not from Pandionis. That more than anything motivated Lewis's challenge.

108 See the very similar view of Carcopino in op.cit. [n.10] 88 f. and 123-5. Two stray sherds of Thoukydides and Kleippides were found in 1916 in very much the same area as the 1914 group (see Brückner, A., AM 40 [1915] 7–20Google Scholar and 51 [1926] 128 f.). The fine dark sand stretched from the 1916 find-spot all the way to the naiskos which Willemsen excavated; the 1966-8 finds from this ostracism were found in this stratum. See Willemsen, , AD 28–32Google Scholar. This reinforces my point about the identical ‘profile’ of the two deposits. Brückner thought that Kleippides was ostracised between 449 and 443.

109 We must surely credit Plutarch's fifteen successive tenures of office (Per. 6.3: compare Thuc. 2.65.4). In 441/0 Aiantis dropped out, in 439/8 Hippothontis, to make way for Glaukon. See Androtion frg. 38 and IG 13 48.41–6Google Scholar.

110 For Kleippides see Thuc. 3.6 and 18 and for Samos see 1.115.2-5. The ostraka have revealed that Kleippides was the demagogues' father.

111 For Andren Androtionos see Plato, Gorgias 487c: Protagoras 515c: ‘Plut.’ Vitae X Orat. 833e.

112 See Thuc. 4.102.4 with Diod. 12.32.3 and 68.2: Kratinos frg. 163 (Edmonds 79 f.): Plut, . Per. 32.3–4Google Scholar. Edmonds dated the Ploutoi c.436, since the ban on personal attacks in comedy (schol.Ar.AcAara. 67) was apparently lifted only in 437/6.

113 For Teisandros' family see PA 13458 and the stemma at PA 828 (the orator Andokides). On Glaukon see nn.31-5.

114 Compare the brothers Kallixenos and Alkmeon, Aristaichmos and Kydrokles, Kleophon and Philinos; we also find brothers-in-law such as Megakles and Xanthippos, Kallias Hipponikou and Kimon. Phaiax's parentage was known, but the ostraka have added the family deme.

115 See Brückner, , AM 40 (1915) 20 fGoogle Scholar. no. 50 with PI. 4: Hoepfner, W., Kerameikos 10 (1976) 210Google Scholar with fig. 231. For Damon's ostracism see ‘Arist.’ AtkPol. 21A (Damonides!): Plut, . Per. 4.1–4Google Scholar with Arist. 1.7Google Scholar and Nik. 6.1Google Scholar. He was a pupil of the musician Agathokles and a friend of sophists (Plato, Laches 180d and 197d: Prodikos). Plutarch made the building programme central to the conflict between the two leaders and Damon could easily have been caught in this cross-fire. Carcopino, (Ostracisme 125–42Google Scholar) rejected Damon's ostracism with good cause; but it is accepted by Lehmann, (ZPE 47 n.30Google Scholar) and Fornara and Samons (Athens from Cleisthenes to Pericles [1991] 160 f.Google Scholar) – too respectful, I feel, of an ‘Aristotelian’ tradition.

116 The one parallel to AM (1915) 17 no. 44Google Scholar is the ostrakon attacking Menon for his conduct as archon. For the archons at ostracisms see schol.Ar.Knights 855: Carcopino, Ostracisme 74-8.

117 See Woodhead, , Hesperia 18 (1949) 78–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar on IG 1385Google Scholar: MacGregor, M.F., Phoenix 19 (1965) 31 fGoogle Scholar. and 43-6 (in support). Hignett, (HAC 395 f.Google Scholar) and Rhodes, (Athenian Boule 22 f. and 161Google Scholar) were followed in their scepticism by Bianchetti, S. (Stud.It.Fil.Class. 51 [1979] 221–32Google Scholar) and Lehmann, (ZPE 41–5Google Scholar: dates ostracism 418/2). IG 13 84.2 and 19 fGoogle Scholar. seem to show that Aigeis was the last prytany in 418/7 as in 85 on Woodhead's interpretation. But Bianchetti challenged the underlying assumption that only in the penultimate prytany would the name of the next be known in advance; he argued that the order of prytanies was fixed at the start of the conciliar year. He will not convince many.

118 This point was made well by Hignett (HAC 396) and Andrewes, (HCT 5.261)Google Scholar.

119 See ‘Andok.’ 4.22 fGoogle Scholar. and 29 with Thuc. 5.116.2-4 and 6.16.1-2: Andrewes, , HCT 5.190 fGoogle Scholar. Dover was equally sceptical of ‘Andokides’ as a source (HCT 4.287 f.Google Scholar).

120 See Andrewes, , HCT 5.258–64Google Scholar (stressing, IG 1386Google Scholar – the new Argive alliance of 417/6 – Thuc. 5.82.5-6): IG 13 11 (Egesta) with the convincing dating by Chambers, M.H., Gallucci, R. and Spanos, P. in ZPE 83 (1990) 38–63Google Scholar: Thuc. 5.4-5 (Phaiax) with Gomme, , HCT 3.633–5Google Scholar.

121 See Antiphon, , Choreutes 12, 21, 35 f., 38Google Scholar. For atimia see Hignett, , HAC 281 and 313Google Scholar.

122 See Meritt, , Athenian Calendar (1928) 121 f.Google Scholar; Dover, , CQ 44 (1950) 44–56 and 60 (calendar)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: IG 13 370.67Google Scholar and 371.11 with 430.5. For first prytany see Ant, . Choreut. 45 f. with 11, 13Google Scholar.

123 I have excluded the singletons of Charias of Paiania, Myrrhinikos and Phileriphos since neither letter-forms nor find-spot impose this dating rather than, say, 438. See Agora 96 no. 647 and Hesperia 43 (1974) 192Google Scholar fig. 1 no. 10 (Myrrhinikos): Agora 42 no. 96 and Hesperia Suppl. 8 397 fig. 3 (Charias): Peek, , Ker. 3.80 fGoogle Scholar. no. 1 (Phileriphos). I reluctantly omit Krates Athmoneus ‘Phrynondas’ also, despite Phillips’ persuasive case in ZPE 83 (1990) 129–33Google Scholar. The find-spot – with sherds of Themistokles, Dieitrephes and Kimon – would suggest a 461 dating and the reading of the ostrakon is uncertain. See Lang, Agora 100 no. 660 (listed there as Phrynon---/Krates--/Athmo---).

124 See Plut, . Arist. 7.3–4Google Scholar and Nikias 11 (Nikias and Alkibiades) with Alkib. 13.3Google Scholar and 8 with Nikias 11.10Google Scholar (Phaiax); ‘Andok.’ 4 (written as for Phaiax: see Plut, . Alkib. 13.3)Google Scholar. For the two Alkibiades ostraka see Vanderpool, , Hesperia 43 (1974) 189 nos. 1-2 with Pl. 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar. They lay together, having apparently not been used.

125 Thuc. 5.4-5 and 6.16-18 with 6.28.3 and 61.5 (Peloponnesian friends). For Hyperbolos and Ar. Knights 1300-5 see Dover, , HCT 4.241Google Scholar (on Thuc. 6.15.2). In the Pylos euphoria some may even have considered attack on or alliance with Carthage, as in 415/4 and the last war years (Thuc. 6.88.6 and IG 13123)Google Scholar.

126 See Himerios 36.18 and Andok. 1.146.

127 Hippokles is a rare Attic name (PA 7618-24). For the general see Thuc. 8.13 with Andrewes, , HCT 5.32 fGoogle Scholar. (was his father Perikles' military adviser? See Plut. 812c and Per. 13.15Google Scholar): for the member of the Ten see Lys. 2.55.

128 See Thuc. 8.73.3 and the comic poet Plato (frg. 187: Edmonds 551), who echoes the historian's sneer at Hyperbolos' worthlessness. The charges against Alkibiades in ‘Andok.’ 4 still centre on dangerously tyrannical behaviour and Plutarch even argued that Damon was ostracised for meddling in high politics and for love of tyranny (Per. 4.2–3)Google Scholar. The original concept of ostracism and of those who deserved it had in part survived: see Plut, . Arist. 1.2Google Scholar and 7 (citing Damon). For impeachment and graphe paranomon see Bleichen, J., Hermes 112 (1984) 383–90, 395 f.Google Scholar; Lehmann, , ZPE 50 fGoogle Scholar.

129 I am doubtful about postulating abortive ostracisms in general, as some have too readily done. Once the majority in Athens had decided on an ostracism, the dominant mood must have determined that it would be valid. This was surely the whole point of the double vote. The wording in Ath.Pol. 22.6Google Scholar is frankly rather odd, when closely examined: From the fourth year – after 487 (= 484) – they began ostracising those with no links with the tyranny, but felt too powerful, and in the fourth year they made a start with Xanthippos. It is badly put.