Exile, Ostracism, and Democracy by Forsdyke Sara;

Author:Forsdyke, Sara;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Princeton University Press

OSTRACISMS IN FIFTH-CENTURY ATHENS

I have argued that ostracism was a largely symbolic institution designed to deter intra-elite competition by recalling the historical relation between exile and political power, particularly at the moment of the democratic revolution of 508/7. In the last section, furthermore, I argued that ostracism was highly effective, and that the Athenians seldom made use of their power over decisions of exile. Yet there were ten instances in the fifth century when ostracisms were actually held, and it is worth asking what these events can tell us about the role of ostracism under the Athenian democracy. Unfortunately, the evidence for the circumstances of the known instances of ostracism is slight. Nevertheless, a case can be made that in a number of these instances, conflict between rival elite leaders was particularly intense, and hence the Athenians felt the need to make use of their power of expulsion to diffuse the crisis and remind elites of non-elite power to determine the outcome of intra-elite conflict.

Ostracism was first used, and used most frequently, in the 480s. Between 487 and 482 no fewer than five persons were ostracized, a number equal to half the certain instances of the use of ostracism. The frequency of the use of ostracism in this decade may itself indicate that the city was undergoing a particularly intense period of political strife. Unfortunately, the decade between Marathon and Salamis is one of the most obscure in classical Greek history.98 After a brief discussion of some later ostracisms for which the circumstances are marginally better known, therefore, I shall return to the earlier cases.

The first ostracism for which the circumstances may be elucidated is the ostracism of Aristides son of Lysimachus, in 482. Our sources are unanimous in reporting a strong rivalry between Aristides and Themistocles in the years before the Persian invasion of 480/79.99 We know of several issues that came before the people in these years, and Themistocles and Aristides may have advocated rival policies in regard to them. One important issue was what to do with the money from the publicly owned mines at Maronea.100 Another was the on-going hostilities between Athens and Aegina.101 The-mistocles proposed that the money be used to build ships to prosecute the war with Aegina.102 The evidence points to the likelihood that Aristides opposed this policy, since he seems to have spent his period in exile on Aegina, and one ostracon accuses him of hostility toward a group of suppliants, who may have been fugitives from Aegina living in Athenian territory. 103

These pieces of evidence together suggest that Themistocles and Aristides vied with one another for leadership of the polis. Herodotus in fact says that the rivalry between these two politicians was tied to personal animosity and hatred: "Themistocles was no friend of Aristides, but in fact a great enemy [, 8.79.2]." Such language evokes the kind of intense private and public competition between elite leaders that often resulted in the outbreak of violent politics of exile in the archaic period.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.