OUP (2022) h/b 291pp £83.00 (ISBN 9780198848202)
Although much is known about ostracism at Athens, there remains much that is uncertain: in this book, W. gives a full account not only of what can be stated with certainty, or a high degree of plausibility, but also of where doubt remains, or where earlier conjectures have been discarded: thus, a building has, so to speak, been constructed, but much scaffolding—often pretty dilapidated—has been left in full view. The book has been well translated into English by Lidia Ozarowska from the original Polish.
After a Preface and an Introduction, there are three parts to the book, each of them divided into sections and then into subsections. Part 1 offers Key Issues in the Study of Athenian Ostracism: was there Ostracism before Ostracism (i.e. beyond its formal institution at Athens) in the Archaic Period? Or before Ostracism in Archaic Athens? There is slender (usually literary) evidence for ostracism in Argos, Megara and Miletus: although a single ostrakon was found in Argos in 1985, attempts at dating, there or elsewhere, are speculative, and depend on what is known or inferred about the relevant political situations.
Slightly better evidence comes from Cyrene (nine ostraka, second half of the fifth century BC). Much more impressive evidence comes from the Tauric Chersonese (45 ostraka), possibly—but not certainly—dating from the second quarter of the 5th century BC to the end of that century. A process similar to ostracism—petalismos—briefly operated in Syracuse, as we learn from Diodorus; other evidence is found at Thurii (2009) and Sicilian Naxos (four ostraka, found in 2001), in both cases dating from the late 5th century BC.
We do not have a ‘copy’ of the Cleisthenic Law on Ostracism—as will become apparent. W. naturally starts his consideration of ostracism in ancient Athens with the (possible) ostrakon found in the agora in 1934, which more or less shows—scrawled dextrosinistrally—the name Pisistratus; it has been dated to the ‘sixth or even seventh century’ BC. As W. shows at length, no firm conclusion about its historical importance (or the reverse) has yet been drawn.
Next, does Vaticanus Graecus 1144 provide evidence for a (pre-Cleisthenic law) ostracism by a vote of the boulê? Again, W. goes into the history of the scholarly discussion, and reasonably concludes, quoting Robert Develin, that ‘the text has very little chance of inserting another stage into the history of ostracism’. W. also argues against any idea that ostracism may have developed from a ‘scapegoat’ ritual. So far, so bad: but what follows is a matter of real and unresolved puzzlement: when did ostracism actually start in Athens? Two sources—the pseudo-Aristotelian Athenaion politeia and Harpocration, as mediated via the Atthidographer Androtion—are in disagreement: it does not help that Wilamowitz regarded the author of Ath. Pol. as a poor historian, and that an attempt by Jacoby to reconcile the accounts was unsuccessful. Was ostracism instituted by Cleisthenes in 508/7 BC (Ath. Pol.), or did it have to wait for the first instance of ostracism, sc. Hipparchus in 488/87 BC (Androtion)? As Beloch pointedly observed, ‘people do not forge such a weapon to let it rust for 20 years in its sheath’.
W. provides a list of 14 (at most) attested ostracisms, from Hipparchus to Hyperbolus (ca. 416 BC): they include the notorious case of Aristides (483/2 BC), Themistocles (470 BC), Cimon (462/1 BC), and Thucydides son of Melesias (443/2 BC): two names which are ostentatiously missing are those of Pericles and Cleon; one name appears twice—that of Megacles (487/6 BC and 472/1 BC; as for Cleon, Aristophanes calls for his ostracism at Knights 855-57. W. is neutral on the subject of the authenticity of the Themistocles Decree; after Hyperbolus, ostracism was ‘discontinued’ (scholiast on Knights 855. The reference as given on p.113 seems to be incorrect; there are further references in Philochorus and Plutarch).
Other topics discussed in this section include the Topography of Ostracism (usefully illustrated), the ‘quorum’ required: was it 6,000 ‘votes’ cast in all, with a simple majority sufficing for exile, or 6,000 against one candidate? The evidence is inconsistent and horribly complex, with W. deciding, after a discussion of some 10 pages, in favour of a simple majority. As for the Duration of Exile, W. is inclined to disbelieve the scattered evidence that the period of exile—itself not harshly carried out—was reduced at some stage from 10 to 5 years. The section ends with a helpful summary of the actual physical procedures of ostracism.
Part II is titled: Towards an Interpretation of the Original Aims of Athenian Ostracism. W. argues that the introduction of ostracism should be interpreted in the context of the fears of the Athenians (excessive growth of individuals’ power, internal conflict, the fear of external intervention). W. believes that ostracism ‘as designed by Cleisthenes’, functioned very well from the moment of the implementation of his (overall) reforms: ‘however, only after 20 years did the people apply the final element, ostrakophoria (‘voting with ostraka)’: whether this deals with Beloch’s remark, quoted earlier, may well become the subject of scholarly debate. Here it is necessary to set out W.’s conclusion about this disputed matter: ‘the discrepancy in this matter between the account in Ath. Pol. and the testimony of the Atthidographer Androtion, which we received from a careless summary of his thoughts in Harpocration’s Lexicon, arises from a misunderstanding and negligence of Harpocration or his close source, or, more probably of the epitomist of Harpocration’s Lexicon’.
Now W. moves to consider the ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ (by which, co-operation may lead to a ‘suboptimal result’). This theory, as W. explains, was formulated by Robert Axelrod: is it relevant to Solon’s reforms and to those of Cleisthenes? The historian de Ste Croix argued that a ‘proper candidate’ for ostracism was a politician who led a group of citizens opposed to the plans of the majority in some crucial matter. But does Croix make allowance for the full two-stage procedure (here described in pp 137-146)? It is here that W. sums up, in ten relatively brief paragraphs, his conclusions about matters of debate or dispute; in even briefer summary, then:
No ‘ostracism before ostracism’;
Cleisthenes invented the law about ostracism;
The first ostrakophoria and exiling a politician occurred 20 years later;
There are very few cases of ostracising an Athenian politician;
There was a clear tendency for ostracisms to be condensed in time;
The institution had a two-stage procedure;
A very high quorum was probably required during the preliminary vote in the Assembly;
Neither a quorum nor a qualified majority of 6,000 ostraka applied;
No attested case of a void ostrakophoria;
On the day of the vote, the Athenians participated in great numbers.
The book might have ended at this point. However, W. believes that insufficient attention has been paid by scholars—e.g. Croix—to the two month period between the epicheirotonia (vote in the assembly) and the ostrakophoria, and considers what tactics or strategies of cooperation and compromise might have been employed by Athenian politicians in that period to bring about a desired result—especially, avoidance of being exiled. Accordingly, Axelrod’s work on the evolution of cooperation is called upon by W., who believes that the ‘main novelty’ in his book is his study of the two-stage procedure of ostracism in its entirety.
There are six illustrations, a List of Abbreviations, a Bibliography, an Index Locorum (including separately Inscriptions and Papyri), and a General Index.
This is an impressive work of great diligence and serious scholarship which will undoubtedly receive much fuller consideration in the appropriate journals. Notably, the evidence is well and fully presented, and the editor is to be commended upon his even-handed assessment of the many disputed issues. The high RRP cost is mitigated somewhat on Amazon—but the purchasers are most likely to be found among the relevant departmental libraries at Universities.
Colin Leach