Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:34:40.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Introduction of Ostracism and Alcmeonid Propaganda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

G. R. Stanton
G. R. Stanton
Affiliation:
University of New England(Australia)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper focuses on two problems connected with our sources for Athenian politics between 510/09 and 488/7 B.C.:

(i) In the Athenaion Politeia attributed to Aristotle (henceforth Ath.), ostracism is included in the laws of Cleisthenes (22.1). But later (22.3) the author of the Ath. dates the first ostracism (that of Hipparchus, son of Charmus) to the year 488/7. Depending on the date of Cleisthenes' laws, this leaves a gap of thirteen to twenty years between the institution of ostracism and its first use. Yet the very nature of the law suggests that it was passed for immediate use.

(ii) Cleisthenes' rival, Isagoras, is described in Ath. 20.1 as φίλος τῶν τυράννων. This label conflicts with two details in the political struggle. It involves Cleomenes, who had recently expelled the tyrants from Athens, in an astounding volte-face in supporting one who is known as φίλος τῶν τνράννων. Secondly, Isagoras had had the opportunity of imposing by force the kind of government he wanted—but it was an oligarchy (Hdt. v 72.1, Ath. 20.3: a council of three hundred), not a tyranny. How did the inappropriate label originate?

The reaction of most scholars to the first problem has been to reject the ascription of ostracism to Cleisthenes in Ath. 22.1 and 22.4 and date the institution of ostracism to shortly before the first recorded ostracism.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 90 , November 1970 , pp. 180 - 183
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1970

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 These scholars often echo the words of Beloch, K. J. (Griech. Gesch. i 2 2 [Strassburg, 1913] 332)Google Scholar: ‘denn man schmiedet eine solche Waffe doch nicht, um sie 20 Jahre lang in der Scheide rosten zu lassen’. For bibliography of supporters and opponents of the ascription of ostracism to Cleisthenes, see Jacoby, F., FGrH 3 B Suppl. (1954)Google Scholar ii 116 nn. 28, 29; ii 530–2; Sumner, G. V., BICS xi (1964) 85 n. 1.Google Scholar Add Hands, A. R., JHS lxxix (1959) 69–79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, an article which prudently questions many of the assumptions made in discussion of ostracism. The four ancient sources which attribute the law of ostracism to Cleisthenes are not to be lightly dismissed (see F. Jacoby, op. cit. i 120, 124, 316; Kagan, D., Hesperia xxx [1961] 393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

2 Raubitschek, A. E., AJA lv (1951) 221–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Historia viii (1959) 127–8; Hignett, C., A History of the Athenian Constitution (Oxford, 1952) 159–64, 185–6Google Scholar; Werner, R., Athenaeum n.s. xxxvi (1958) 48–89 Google Scholar; Fornara, C. W., CQ n.s. xiii (1963) 101–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Compare the position of F. Jacoby, op. cit. i 119–24, ii 114–18, 530–2.

3 Bloch, H., Gnomon xxxi (1959) 492–3Google Scholar; Dover, K.J., CR n.s. xiii (1963) 256–7Google Scholar; Sumner, G. V., BICS xi (1964) 79–86.Google Scholar

4 Raubitschek, A. E., AJA lv (1951) 223–4.Google Scholar

5 See Robinson, C. A. Jr., AJA lvi (1952) 25 Google Scholar; Hands, A. R., JHS lxxix (1959) 75.Google Scholar Raubitschek's theory that Cleisthenes came out of retirement after Marathon to propose the law of ostracism is rejected by Ehrenberg, V., Historia i (1950) 547–8Google Scholar and Robinson, C. A. Jr., AJA lvi (1952) 23–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 This is the main reason why Forrest, W. G. (The Emergence of Greek Democracy [London, 1966] 201–2)Google Scholar accepts a Cleisthenic origin. Compare Arist. Pol. 1302b10–21 (ostracism adopted in order to avoid the likely results of στάσις).

7 Kagan, D., Hesperia xxx (1961) 393–401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, anticipated in part by Robinson, C. A. Jr., AJA lvi (1952) 24.Google Scholar

8 Archonship: Eliot, C. W. J. and McGregor, M. F., Phoenix xiv (1960) 27–35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with references; Leipsydrion: Hdt. v 62.2; Ath. 19.3.

9 Hdt. v 62.2–63.1, v 66.1; Ath. 19.2–4. This ruthlessness on Cleisthenes' part also discredits the altruistic motive which Kagan, attributes to Cleis thenes (Hesperia xxx [1961] 400–1Google Scholar; cf. the explanations of ostracism in Arist. Pol. 1284a17–37, 1284b15–31 and in Fuqua, C., TAPhA xcvi [1965] 177 Google Scholar).

10 Walker, E. M., CAH iv 169 Google Scholar; C. Hignett, op. cit. 180–2.

11 Hands, A. R., JHS lxxix (1959) 70–1.Google Scholar

12 Hdt. v 66, v 70–2 (cf. Ath. 20.1–3).

13 For a discussion of whether Cleisthenes' laws had been passed before Cleomenes invaded Attica, see C. Hignett, op. cit. 126, 331–6.

14 Hdt. v 70, v 72.1–2; Ath. 20.2–3. On the identification of the boule, cf. C. Hignett, op. cit. 94–5, 128, 146.

15 As Hands, A. R. points out, JHS lxxix (1959) 71.Google Scholar

16 Cf. Jacoby, F., FGrH 3 B Suppl. (1954) i 121, 123.Google Scholar For modern parallels to the non-employment of constitutional measures which are nevertheless in force, see Bloch, H., Gnomon xxxi (1959) 493.Google Scholar The law of ostracism itself continued in existence long after its last recorded use (Ath. 43.5).

17 Raubitschek, A. E., AJA lv (1951) 224–6Google Scholar, rejected by Robinson, C. A. Jr., AJA lvi (1952) 25–6Google Scholar and Hands, A. R., JHS lxxix (1959) 70.Google Scholar Compare also Schaefer, H. in Synopsis, Festgabe für Alfred Weber (Heidelberg, 1948) 491–2Google Scholar = Probleme der alten Geschichte (Göttingen, 1963) 144–5 and Ehrenberg, V., Historia i (1950) 543–4.Google Scholar

18 On the question whether there were ostrakophoriai (successful or unsuccessful) of which we have no literary evidence, compare Hands, A. R., JHS lxxix (1959) 73 Google Scholar, Roobaert, A., AC xxxvi (1967) 532.Google Scholar

19 Hdt. vi 104.2.

20 The inappropriateness of this label is rarely noticed; cf. Beloch, K.J., Griech. Gesch. i2 i (Strassburg, 1912) 400 n. 2Google Scholar; Fritz, K. von and Kapp, E., Aristotle's Constitution of Athens and related texts (New York, 1950) 161 Google Scholar; Ehrenberg, V., From Solon to Socrates (London, 1968) 402 n. 31 and 405 n. 49.Google Scholar To eliminate the inconsistency within Ath. 20.1–3, von Fritz and Kapp translate the phrase ‘a former supporter of the tyrants’. The lack of a past participle may allow ὤν to be understood thus, but the structure of the sentence implies that just as Cleisthenes was a member of the Alcmeonid family so Isagoras was a supporter of the tyrants at the time of the stasis.

21 Compare especially and in Ath. 18.4–5. In 17.4 the φιλία of Peisistratus with the Argives (confirmed by marriage) produced 1,000 troops for his side in the battle of Pallene. In 19.4 this φιλία with Sparta's enemies led the Spartans to ignore their ties of ξενία with the Peisistratidae. The context of Ath. 6.2 (cf. Plu. Sol. 15.7) does not make clear whether φίλοι means personal friends or political adherents. See also Hdt. v 70.2, Plu. Sol. 12.8. G. R. Stanton.

22 [Dio Chr.] or. xxxvii 17.

23 von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, U., Aristoteles und Athen (Berlin, 1893) ii 76 n. 6.Google Scholar

24 Wade-Gery, H. T., CQ xxvii (1933) 17–19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar = Essays in Greek History (Oxford, 1958) 136–9.

25 C. Hignett, op. cit. 179 (cf. 183), suggests that the inclusion of Hipparchus ‘among “the friends of the tyrants” … may be guesswork or an echo of partisan malice’.

26 Cf. Androtion F 6:

27 It was similarly prudent for the opponents of the Alcmeonidae after Marathon to use the label on those successfully ostracised in the years 488/7 to 486/5 (Ath. 22.4–6; on the connection of the Alcmeonidae with those ostracised, see C. Hignett, op. cit. 182–3 and Vanderpool, E., Hesperia xxi [1952] 1–8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar). The statement in Hdt. v 74.1 about Cleomenes should also be regarded as propaganda. For similar propaganda, compare the use of τυραννίς in Ath. 41.2 with regard to the oligarchies of 404–3 and Cicero's employment of dictator, dictatura and rex against Catiline's colleagues in Cat. ii 9.19–20.

28 I thank Mr E. M. Fraser and Mr B. A. Marshall for criticising a draft of this paper. For another acceptance of the attribution of ostracism to Cleisthenes, see now Knight, D. W., Historia Einzelschriften xiii (1970) 22–3.Google Scholar