Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T04:22:41.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ostraka and the Law of Ostracism—Some Possibilities and Assumptions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

A. R. Hands
A. R. Hands
Affiliation:
University College, Ibadan, Nigeria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his History of the Athenian Constitution (Oxford, 1952, pp. 159 ff.) Mr. Hignett rejected Aristotle's attribution of the law of ostracism to Kleisthenes and this rejection met with approval from R. J. Hopper in a review of his book in JHS lxxvi (1956) 141. In preferring a later date for the law, Androtion's date—or what is supposed to be Androtion's date, for without the full context of Harpokration's quotation we cannot be sure that the τότε πρῶτον of that passage is so precise in its reference as to imply a date significantly later than Aristotle's—Mr. Hignett relies mainly on the well-established argument (which he imagines may well have been Androtion's also) that ‘the authors of such a law cannot have intended to let it remain a dead letter … it must have been passed not long before its first application’ (p. 164). Indeed, this must be regarded as his only decisive (so intended) argument, for, as far as sources are concerned, he states ‘the Atthidographers … had no documentary evidence for the date of the law’ and ‘the different dates given by different writers are all due to conjecture’ (p. 160). Here he has the agreement of Jacoby, who says in FGH iii(b) (1954) 121 ‘there was as little documentary evidence for the introduction of ostracism as for the Seisachtheia’ (i.e. none at all), but the latter's conclusion is more cautious—‘our tradition does not allow of making a final decision between the dates of Androtion and Aristotle’ (p. 124).

Our purpose in this paper is, first, to re-examine the historical (and even merely logical) possibilities in this question and to suggest that the more cautious conclusion is the proper one in the light of these possibilities; and, secondly, to review certain other conclusions, based on archaeological as well as literary evidence, arrived at by recent writers regarding the actual history of the institution, in order to see whether some of these too would not need to be more cautiously stated if all the possibilities were taken into account.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 79 , November 1959 , pp. 69 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1959

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.)

References

1 Robinson, C. A. Jr., AJA lvi (1952) 26.Google Scholar

2 Raubitschek, A. E., AJA lv (1951) 225.Google Scholar

3 AJP lxv (1944) 321–39.

4 McGregor, M. F., HSCP Suppl. i 77–8.Google Scholar

5 See below, p. 79. Also Raubitschek, A. E., Actes du Deuxième Congrès International d'Épigraphie Grecque et Latine (Paris, 1952) 62.Google Scholar Of about 60 names, half occur only once.

6 Cf. CP viii (1913) 223–5; also Bonner, and Smith, , Admin, of Justice 211 ff.Google Scholar

7 Cf. Ath. Pol. 63.3 and 42.1—supposing that conditions of eligibility in the fifth and fourth centuries were the same.

8 See below, pp. 76–8, Part I.

9 This would admittedly be scarcely possible if it could be conclusively shown that the ostracism did not take place until 415. For the latest attempt to do this, on the supposition that the vital sentence in Theopompos (FGH 115 F. 96 Jacoby) is incomplete, cf. Raubitschek, A. E., ‘Theopompos on Hyperbolos’—Phoenix ix (1955) 122–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It is suggested that the fragment should read vel vel and the six years be taken as referring to the period before, not after, the ostracism of Hyperbolos. One would, perhaps, have expected ἑπτά rather than ἕξ ἔτη, however, to cover the ‘little more than six years’ which would on this theory have elapsed between Kleon's death and Hyperbolos' ostracism. Cf. also Hignett, 395–6 with regard to the date of this ostracism.

10 Mr. Vanderpool has raised (verbally) the interesting question whether the Athenians were likely or accustomed to resort to abstention or the ‘walk-out’ as practised all too often in the politics of certain countries today. The modern ‘walk-out’, however, is simply an expression of angry impotence which achieves nothing but publicity; in the case of an ostrakophoria, something could be achieved, on the quorum theory, by a refusal to vote—as must have been clear after the institution had been in existence 75 years.

11 E.g. the ‘hoard’ of sherds prepared for use against Themistokles probably in the 480s. Cf. Broneer, O., Hesp. vii (1938) 228–43.Google Scholar

12 Not in the 2nd edition. Contrast there Carcopino's remarks (p. 126) on the Damon ostrakon: ‘Pas plus qu'une hirondelle ne fait le printemps, un ostrakon ne saurait suffire à déterminer un ostracisme.’

13 Cf. Hesp. xxiv (1955) 286–9, where Raubitschek treats the ostracism of Menon as certain.

14 Lysias xiv 39 and [Andok.] iv 34 might be held to imply that Alkibiades and Megakles were of the same generation.

15 Op. cit. (2nd ed.) 70. Cf. Macan, , Herodotus ii 143.Google Scholar

16 For a discussion cf. Hignett, 169–70.

17 This paper was written whilst I was resident, on study-leave, at the British School in Athens. I would like to express my appreciation of the facilities placed at my disposal there and, in particular, to thank Mr. E. Vanderpool, of the American School, for the opportunity to see and discuss many of the ostraka from the Agora excavations and for advice and comment on a number of points in this article; also to record my gratitude to Professor Gomme for criticism and suggestions in excess of ordinary editorial assistance.