2. (London, 1579). On North's and Amyot's translations of Plutarch see Russell, D. A., Plutarch (London, 1973), pp. 15OffGoogle Scholar.

3. τί δή τρισί ϰαγεπωτάϒοις ϰαίρεις θηρίοις ϒλανκί καί δράκοντι καί δήμimage;

4. τό βήμα, the speakers' platform.

5. εί … έτγϰανε προειδώς τά κατά τήν πολιτείαν κακάά, φόβονς καί φθόνονς καί διαβολάς καί άϒώνας North's translation does not bring out the full force of the manuscripts' reading άϒώνας ‘contests’, where Plutarch is no doubt thinking of political litigation. (North was translating Amyot's French version of 1559 which has here ‘les peines et travaux’.)

6. Among other passages cf. Themistocles 18.3, 22.1, Aristides 7.1—2, 26.3, Cimon 15.1–2, Pericles15, 33.5, 34.3, 37.2, Nicias 6.1–2, 22.2–3, Alcibiades 13.3, 35–6, 38.1–2. N.B. Here and subsequently I cite subsections in Plutarch's Livesaccording to the Loeb, not the Teubner, edition.

7. Classic sympathetic treatments are those of Gomme, A. W., History, N.S. 36 (1951), 12ff., esp. 25ffGoogle Scholar. ( = More Essays in Greek History and Literature, pp. 177ff., esp. pp. 189ff.) and Jones, A. H. M., Athenian Democracy (Oxford, 1957), Ch. 3Google Scholar. Forrest, W. G., The Emergence of Greek Democracy (London, 1966)Google Scholar, Chs. 1 and 10, and Croix, G. E. M. de Ste, The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London, 1972)Google Scholar are conspicuously inclined to rebut criticisms of Athenian democracy; cf. also Roberts, J. T., Accountability in Athenian Government (Wisconsin, 1982)Google Scholar for a broadly sympathetic treatment of Athenian severity to officials. For a more critical view Hansen, v. M. H., Eisangelia (Odense, 1975), esp. pp. 11, 58–65Google Scholar.

8. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides(Oxford, 1944), i.59ff.Google Scholar, henceforth referred to as H.C.T.

9. Cf. Forrest, , op. cit., pp. 12–16Google Scholar.

10. YCS 24 (1975)Google Scholar, Studies in the Greek Historians, 51–2.

11. In this section I give only minimal references where the events are well attested. Fuller ones may be found in Kirchner, I., Prosopographia Attica (Berlin, 1901)Google Scholar. In die case of propertied individuals see also Davies, J. K., Athenian Propertied Families (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar. Hansen, J. H. has useful lists of cases (with citation of sources and discussion) of those accused by γραφή παρανόμων in The Sovereignty of the People's Court in Athens in the Fourth Century B.C. and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals (Odense, 1974), pp. 28–43Google Scholar, and of those accused by είσαγγελία in Eisangelia, pp. 69—120. Many cases including officials are studied also in Roberts, , op. cit. supra, n. 7Google Scholar.

12. Some trials there were (Lysias 25.25–6), and some of those who served in the army under the Four Hundred suffered partial άπμία (Andoc. 1.75–6, cf. Aristoph., , Frogs 686–705)Google Scholar. But such evidence as we have suggests limited and legal reprisals only. Cf. also n. 16.

13. As renumbered in Bartoletti's Teubner edition (1959).

14. He was fined only a drachma, according to schol. Aeschines 3.195.

15. Philocrates was condemned to death in absentia, Aeschines 2.6, cf. Hansen, , Eisangelia, p. 102Google Scholar; Timarchus was disfranchised, Demosth. 19.257, 284, Hypotheses to Aesch. 1 and 2. For the fates of the other four, see Appendix 2.34, 36, 38, 40

16. Arguably Antiphon should be excluded from the six active in democratic politics, since he avoided speaking in public (Thuc. 8.68) and his principal attested political activity was to scheme for democracy's overthrow, not to work with it. Moreover, he was condemned under the Five Thousand, not under full democracy (pace Thuc. 8.68.2, on which see Andrewes' note in H.C.T. The prescript of the document quoted in “Plutarch,” Lives of the Ten Orators 833D–E shows, if genuine, that Antiphon was indicted before full democracy was restored; and the movements of Theramenes abroad (Diod. 13.47, 49, Xen., Hell. 1.1.12) would have made it impossible for him to be an accuser at the trial (as he was, Lysias 12.67), had it been postponed until the first weeks of full democracy in summer 410 (cf. Hansen, , Eisangelia, pp. 113–15)Google Scholar. It is disputed how closely the regime of the Five Thousand resembled full democracy (see Croix, G. E. M. de Ste., Historia 5 (1956), 1–23Google Scholar; contra Rhodes, P. J., JHS 92 (1972), 115–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Andrewes, H.C.T., v. 323ff.)Google Scholar. If Antiphon is excluded from our tally, the casualty rate among active politicians among the Ten Orators under the democracy becomes four out of five.

17. Even for generals our information is severely limited. Hansen (op. cit., pp. 60ff.) has calculated that we know of 160 generals covering some 300 of the 770 generalships of the period 432–355; of the 160, 33 were impeached by eisangelia(and more may have fallen victim to other processes).

18. For discussion of the terminology see Hansen, , op. cit. first sup. n. 11. pp. 22ff.Google Scholar, Connor, W. R., The New Politicians of Fifth Century Athens (Princeton, 1971), pp. 116ffGoogle Scholar.

19. Only his generalship in 441/0 is undisputed. Sophocles' political life is discussed by Westlake, H. D., Hermes 84 (1956), 110ff.Google Scholar, Woodbury, L., Phoenix 24 (1970), 209ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Jameson, M. H., Historia 20 (1971), 541ff.Google Scholar, Avery, H. C., Historia 22 (1973), 510ff.Google Scholar.

20. Confiscation of property was normal for those sentenced to exile, according to Aristoph., Schol.Wasps 947Google Scholar; for its accompaniment to (at least some) death sentences see Harrison, A. R. W., The Law of Athens (Oxford, 1971), ii.178, n. 3Google Scholar.

21. Among the 41, I have noticed it explicitly attested as a separate penalty only in 3 cases: Antiphon, , “Plut.,” Ten Orators 834AGoogle Scholar; Aristogiton “Dem.” 25.42; Demades, Plut., Phocion 26Google Scholar. For the complexities of atimiasee MacDowell, D. M., The Law in Classical Athens (London, 1978), pp. 73–5Google Scholar, with further references.

22. The scholiast ad loc. first glosses the incident as a fine of five talents, but his fuller explanation, that Cleon was forced to disgorge a bribe, leaves it unclear whether any formal penalty was in question. Some scholars have even argued that Aristophanes is alluding to a scene in a recently produced comedy, rather than to a real life political reverse suffered by Cleon (see most recently MacDowell, D. M., G & R 30 (1983), 145, n. 13)Google Scholar.

23. Well put by Hansen, , Eisangelia, p. 65Google Scholar, on the number of generals found guilty in είσαγγελίαι.

24. F. G. Hist. 338 F10 = Plut., , Demosth. 15.3, cfGoogle Scholar. “Plut., ,” Ten Orators 840C.Google ScholarPace Plutarch, the circumspection of both orators in 330 in referring to the case in 343 does not indicate that the latter never came to trial: Aeschines preferred not to remind the jury that he had stood trial once for treasonable conduct; Demosthenes preferred not to remind them that he had failed to win that case against Aeschines.

25. Thuc. 3.86,88,90,99,103,115, 4.1, 3–5,8, 13ff., 24–5,46–8,58–65, cf. Westlake, H. D., Historia 9 (1960), 385ffGoogle Scholar. ( = Essays on the Greek Historians and Greek History (Manchester, 1969) pp. 101ff.)Google Scholar. Roberts, J. T. (op. cit. sup., n. 7), pp. 115–17, 127–8Google Scholar argues that the generals may have been culpably responsible for their own delay in reaching Sicily, but even if this were so (which is unclear), it would not have justified their conviction on the charge which Thucydides gives.

26. Cf. Gomme, , H.C.T., iii. 584–8Google Scholar, still the fairest analysis. For more sceptical treatments of Thucydides' objectivity on the Amphipolis episode see Westlake, H. D., Hermes 90 (1962), 276ffGoogle Scholar. = Essays (op. cit. sup., n. 25), pp. 123ff., Roberts, J. T., op.cit., pp. 128ffGoogle Scholar.

27. Cf. Davies, J. K., op. cit. sup., n.11, pp. 133–5, 518–19Google Scholar, on the contrasting incomes of Demosthenes and Hyperides derived from these channels.

28. Cf. the ideals of Pericles' Funeral Speechin Thuc. 2.35ff., esp. 40.2, and also 2.60.5–7.

29. See on the whole subject Lintott, A. W., Violence, Civil Strife and Revolution in the Classical City (London, 1982)Google Scholar.

30. Forrest, W. G., op. cit. sup., n. 7, pp. 21–36Google Scholar convincingly demonstrates the implausibility of simple equations of the demos with any particular social or regional section of the citizen population of Attica.

31. Past and Present 21 (1962), 3–24Google Scholar = Studies in Ancient Society (London, 1974), pp. 1–25Google Scholar.

32. Op. cit. 15.

33. On Generals' rights of access to boule and Assembly see Rhodes, P. J., The Athenian Boule (Oxford, 1972), pp. 43–6Google Scholar.

34. It is worth remembering that the cases resulting in the convictions in the Table were the tip of the iceberg where our 41 politicians are concerned. Their arraignments were not confined to cases in which they were condemned. An extreme case is that of Aristophon (n. 28), represented only by a debatable fine in the Table, but, according to Aeschines 3.195, prosecuted 75 times by γραφή παρανόμων(on average about once a year, since he lived to be 100, see Appendix 2.28; though pace Aeschines, it is to be suspected that Aristophon was boasting, and that some of the cases never came to court). Cf. also Lycurgus, prosecuted many times, though never convicted ([Plut., ,]; Ten Orators 842F)Google Scholar. Cephalus, never prosecuted under γραψῂ παρανóμων (Aeschines, loc. cit.) was clearly exceptional cf. Hansen, , op. cit. first sup., n. 11, pp. 25–6Google Scholar.

35. Pace Finley, , op. cit. 15Google Scholar.

36. At Minoa in 427 (Thuc. 3.51); Tanagra 426 (3.91); in the Corinthiad and at Methone in 425 (4.42–5); Cythera 424 (4.53–6); Mende 423 (4.129–30).

37. Cf. esp. his failure to complete the wall of investment in time to stop Gylippus from getting in and checkmating it with the third cross-wall (Thuc. 7.1–6, cf. also 42).

38. More specifically he acquiesced in it in time (Thuc. 7.50.3), though after prolonged resistance to it (7.48–9), but insisted on further (calamitous) delay after the eclipse of the moon (7.50).

39. Plutarch also, while regarding Nicias as cautious by nature (Nicias 2.3–4), saw his caution as exacerbated by fear of the demos, ibid. 6.1–2, cf. also 4 (with quotations from comedy), 14.2–4, 16.8, 21.4, 22.3, Comparison of Nicias and Crassus 5.2, Aristoph., Birds 640, Thuc. 5.16.1.

40. Cf. Justin 5.6.10. Isocrates (5.62), less plausibly, attributes his failure to return to shame.

41. Provided that one is prepared to take seriously Theramenes' professions at Xen., Hell. 2.3.48, cf. 2.3.15–22,35–49, [Ar.,] Ath. Pol. 28.5,34.3 (with Rhodes's notes ad loc); see Andrewes, H.C.T., v. 298–300Google Scholar for the interesting suggestion that Thucydides' less favourable judgement at 8.89.2–3 did not represent his final opinion.

42. Cf. for his agility Aristoph., , Frogs 534–41, 967–70Google Scholar; see Lysias 12.62–78 for a more sinister interpretation of his cleverness.

43. Xen., Hell. 1.7.4, 8, 2.3.32, 35, Diod. 13.101. Andrews, in Phoenix 28 (1974)Google Scholar argues persuasively that he acted in part in self-defence in 406.

44. The argument (for which see Rhodes ad loc.) that the language of Ath. Pol. 44.1, taken with 44.3, shows that a man could be έπιστάτης τών πρντάνεων only once in his life, not once in each of the two years in which he might serve on the boule, seems less than conclusive.

45. Op. cit. sup., n. 18, pp. 175—94. Notice Connor's amusing if unverifiable suggestion (p. 189 n. 80) that Theagenes of Acharnae (Kirchner, , op. cit. 6703)Google Scholar who named his son Idiotes (‘private citizen’) may have been ‘ an embittered politician turning his back on public life’.

46. The most useful ancient accounts of ostracism are [Ar.,] Ath. Pol. 22, 43.5, Plutarch, , Aristides 7Google Scholar, Androtion, F. Gr. Hist. 324 F5Google Scholar, and Philochorus, F. Gr. Hist. 328 F30Google Scholar. For modern discussion and bibliography see Meiggs, and Lewis, , A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford, 1969), pp. 40–17Google Scholar; Thomsen, R.The Origins of Ostracism (Copenhagen, 1972)Google Scholar; Vanderpool, E. in University of Cincinnati Classical Studies, Lectures in Memory of L. T. Semple II (Cincinnati, 1973), 215–70Google Scholar; Rhodes, P. J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford, 1981), pp. 267–71Google Scholar.

47. The exact territorial limits prescribed for the ostracized are uncertain (see Rhodes, , op. cit., p. 282)Google Scholar but eviction from Attica was certainly included.

48. A suggestion made by a student when this paper was read in Edinburgh.

49. Gomme, , H.C.T. i. 437Google Scholar, Vanderpool, , op. cit., 215Google Scholar ‘an honourable exile’.

50. F.187 = Kock, , Com. Graec. Fr. (Leipzig, 1880), i.654Google Scholar.

51. Kock's emendation of τρόπων (itself a correction in the manuscripts).

52. Exceptionally Roberts, Mrs. J. T., op. cit. sup., n. 7., p. 143Google Scholar calls it ‘a severe sentence’ and ‘a serious penalty’.

53. On the status of [Andocides] 4 see Raubitschek, A. E., TAPhA 79 (1948), 191ff.Google Scholar, Burn, A. R., CQ N.S. 4 (1954), 138ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Dover, K. J., Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum (Berkeley, 1968), pp. 191–2Google Scholar.

54. Even if Keaney, J. J. is correct (Historia 19 (1970), 1–11)Google Scholar in arguing for two separate ancient theories of ostracism, one concerned with tyranny, the other with more general undemocratic inequality, on either theory ostracism is designed to prevent something undesirable and discreditable.

55. Meiggs, and Lewis, , op. cit., p. 42Google Scholar.

56. Vanderpool, , op. cit., p. 223Google Scholar.

57. Some advance consideration of these is contained in Thomsen and Vanderpool (both op. cit., n. 46) and most recently D. M. Lewis's additional chapter in Burn, A. R., Persia and the Greeks (2nd ed.London, 1984)Google Scholar.