Ostracism (, ostrakismos) was an Athenian democratic procedure in which any citizen could be expelled from the city-state of Athens for ten years. While some instances clearly expressed popular anger at the citizen, ostracism was often used preemptively as a way of neutralizing someone thought to be a threat to the state or a potential tyrant. The word ostracism continues to be used for various forms of shunning.
Procedure The term ostracism derives from the pottery sherds used as voting tokens, called ostraka (singular: ostrakon; ). Broken pottery, abundant and virtually free, served as a kind of scrap paper (in contrast to papyrus, which was imported from Egypt as a high-quality writing surface, and too costly to be disposable).
Each year Athenians were asked in the assembly whether they wished to hold an ostracism. The question was put in the sixth of the ten months used for state business under the democracy (January or February in the modern Gregorian calendar). According to Philochorus, the process of ostracism (1) was a two-stage process, (2) was open to all Athens citizens, (3) was overseen by outside officials, (4) must meet a specific quorum, and (5) regulated penalties.
A majority of citizens must agree to start the procedure of ostracism. If they did, an ostracism would be held two months later. In a section of the agora set off and suitably barrieredAccording to some sources, part of the agora was roped-off, according to others it was temporarily immured with wooden planks. called the perischoinisma (περισχοίνισμα), In Pollux, VIII. 20 (ed. Bethe, Leipzig, 1900–37) in the section on σκεύη δικαστικά—κιγκλίς, δρύφακτος κτλ.—we read περισχοινίσαντας (περισκηνήσαντας A) δέ τι τῆς ἀγορᾶς μέρος ἔδει φέρειν εἰς τὸν περιορισθέντα τόπον Ἀθηναίων τὸν βουλόμενον ὄστρακον ἐγγεγραμμένον τοὔνομα τοῦ μέλλοντος ἐξοστρακίƷεσθαι. Perischoinisma : The roping off of an area outside a structure being used as a court. citizens gave the names of those they wished to be ostracized to a scribe, as many of them were illiterate, and they were scratched on pottery shards. The shards were piled up facing down, so the votes would remain anonymous. Ostracism served as a political tool to eliminate rivals. It reflected the Athenians' belief in the importance of civic engagement and the power of collective decision-making.Plutarch, The Life of Aristides, and The Life of Cimon Nine Archontes and the council of the five hundred supervised the process while the Archontes counted the ostraka submitted and sorted the names into piles.Burckhardt, Leonhard; Burckhardt, Leonhard Alexander; Ungern-Sternberg, Jürgen von (2000), p.69 The person whose pile contained the most ostraka would be banished, provided that a quorum was met. According to Plutarch, the ostracism was considered valid if the total number of votes cast was at least 6,000; according to a fragment of Philochorus, at least 6,000 votes had to be cast against the person who was to be banished. See n. 30 Plutarch's evidence for a quorum of 6,000 agrees with the number required for grants of citizenship in the next century and is generally preferred.
The person newly ostracized had ten days to leave the city. If he attempted to return, the penalty was death. The banished man's property was not confiscated and there was no loss of status. After ten years, he was allowed to return without stigma. It was possible for the assembly to recall an ostracized person ahead of time; before the Persian invasion of 479 BC, an amnesty was declared under which at least two ostracized leaders—Pericles' father, Xanthippus, and Aristides 'the Just'—are known to have returned. Similarly, Cimon, ostracized in 461 BC, was recalled during an emergency.Plutarch, Life of Cimon 17.2–6.
History Ostracism was not in use throughout the entire period of Athenian democracy (circa 506–322 BC), but only occurred in the fifth century BC. The standard account, found in Aristotle's Constitution of the Athenians 22.3, attributes the establishment to Cleisthenes, a pivotal reformer in the creation of the democracy. In that case, ostracism would have been in place from around 506 BC. The first victim of the practice was not expelled until 487 BC—nearly 20 years later. Over the course of the next 60 years some 12 or more individuals followed him. The list may not be complete. The list of known ostracisms is as follows:
487 Hipparchos son of Charmos, a relative of the tyrant Peisistratos 486 Megacles son of Hippocrates; nephew of Cleisthenes (possibly ostracised twice)Lysias 14.39 485 Kallixenos nephew of Cleisthenes (not known for certain) 484 Xanthippus son of Ariphron, Pericles' father 482 Aristides son of Lysimachus 471 Themistocles son of Neocles (last possible year) 461 Cimon son of Miltiades 460 Alcibiades, father of Cleinias (possibly ostracised twice) 457 Menon son of Meneclides (less certain) 442 Thucydides son of Melesias 440s Callias son of Didymos (less certain) 440s Damon son of Damonides (less certain) 416 Hyperbolus son of Antiphanes (±1 year)
Around 12,000 political ostraka have been excavated in the Athenian agora and in the Kerameikos. The second victim, Cleisthenes' nephew Megacles, is named by 4647 of these, but for a second undated ostracism not listed above. The known ostracisms seem to fall into three distinct phases: the 480s BC, mid-century 461–443 BC and finally the years 417–415: this roughly correlates with the clustering of known expulsions, although Themistocles before 471 may count as an exception. This may suggest that ostracism fell in and out of fashion.Mabel Lang, (1990). Ostraka: 3–6, Athens.
The last known ostracism was that of Hyperbolus in circa 417 BC. There is no sign of its use after the Peloponnesian War, when democracy was restored after the oligarchic coup of the Thirty had collapsed in 403 BC. However, while ostracism was not an active feature of the fourth-century version of democracy, it remained; the question was put to the assembly each year, but they did not wish to hold one.
Distinction from other Athenian democratic processes Ostracism was crucially different from Athenian law at the time; there was no charge and no defense could be mounted by the person expelled. The two stages of the procedure ran in the reverse order from that used under almost any trial system—it is as if a jury were first asked "Do you want to find someone guilty?", and subsequently asked "Whom do you wish to accuse?". The judicial framework is perhaps the institution's most peculiar feature: it can take place at most once a year, and only for one person. It resembles the Greek pharmakos or scapegoat—though in contrast, pharmakos generally ejected a lowly member of the community.
A further distinction between these two modes (and not obvious from a modern perspective) is that ostracism was an automatic procedure that required no initiative from any individual, with the vote simply occurring on the wish of the electorate—a diffuse exercise of power. By contrast, an Athenian trial needed the initiative of a particular citizen-prosecutor. While prosecution often led to a counterattack (or was a counterattack itself), no such response was possible in the case of ostracism as responsibility lay with the polity as a whole. In contrast to a trial, ostracism generally reduced political tension rather than increased it.
Although ten years of exile may have been challenging for Athenians, it was a lenient punishment compared to the sentences that courts could impose. When dealing with politicians held to be acting against the interests of the people, Athenian juries could inflict severe penalties such as death, unpayably large fines, confiscation of property, permanent exile, or loss of citizens' rights through atimia. Further, the elite Athenians who suffered ostracism were rich or noble men who had connections or xenoi in the wider Greek world and who, unlike genuine exiles, were able to access their income in Attica from abroad. In Plutarch, following the anti-democratic thought common in elite sources, people might be recalled early, thus being an example of the inconsistency of majoritarianism characteristic of Athenian democracy. However, ten years of exile usually resolved whatever had prompted the expulsion. Ostracism was a pragmatic measure; the concept of serving out the full sentence did not apply as it was a preventive measure, not a punitive one.
An example of the practicalities of ostracism comes from the cache of 190 ostraka discovered dumped in a well next to the acropolis. From the handwriting, they appear to have been written by fourteen individuals and bear the name of Themistocles, ostracised before 471 BC, and were evidently meant for distribution to voters. This was not necessarily evidence of electoral fraud (being no worse than modern voting instruction cards), but their being dumped in the well may suggest that their creators wished to hide them. If so, these ostraka provide an example of organized groups attempting to influence the outcome of ostracisms. The two-month gap between the first and second phases would have allowed for such a campaign.
There is another interpretation, however, according to which these ostraka were prepared beforehand by enterprising businessmen who offered them for sale to citizens who could not easily inscribe the desired names for themselves or who simply wished to save time.See Surikov, pp. 284–294
The two-month gap is a key feature in the institution, much as in elections under modern liberal democracies. It prevented the candidate for expulsion being chosen out of immediate anger, although an Athenian general such as Cimon would have not wanted to lose a battle the week before such a second vote. It opened a period for discussion (or perhaps agitation), whether informally in daily talk or public speeches before the Athenian assembly or Athenian courts.Oration IV of Andocides purports itself to be speech urging the ostracism of Alcibiades in 415 BC, but it is probably not authentic. In this process a consensus, or rival consensuses, might emerge.
Purpose Because ostracism was carried out by thousands of people over many decades of an evolving political situation and culture, it did not serve one monolithic purpose. Observations can be made about the outcomes, as well as the initial purpose for which it was created.
The first instance of people ostracized in the decade after the defeat of the first Persian invasion at Marathon in 490 BC were related or connected to the tyrant Peisistratos, who had controlled Athens for 36 years up to 527 BC. After his son Hippias was deposed with Spartan help in 510 BC, the family sought refuge with the Persians. Nearly twenty years later Hippias landed with an invasion force at Marathon. Tyranny and Persian aggression were paired threats facing the new democratic regime at Athens, and ostracism was used against both.
Tyranny and democracy had arisen at Athens out of clashes between regional and factional groups organized around politicians, including Cleisthenes. As a reaction, in many of its features the democracy strove to reduce the role of factions as the focus of citizen loyalties. Ostracism may have been intended to work in the same to similar ends: by temporarily decapitating a faction, it could help defuse confrontations that threatened the order of the State.