Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T13:12:37.556Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bouleutic Ostracism Again*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

R. Develin
R. Develin*
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since I published my views on the remarkable Vaticanus Graecus, the process of examination has been developed in greater depth. There have been an article from McCargar, comments from Lehmann and an extensive treatment by Longo. The latter in particular has taken into consideration my own arguments, which are presented fairly, even if sometimes the impression is given that I wrote with more assurance than was the case. I admit to the assessment that my views were hypothetical and fragile — they could be no more — and I do not intend simply to defend them. The essential difference between our approaches is that I was not prepared to accept the evidence of Vat. Gr. as it stood and so attempted to provide an explanation to account for error, while Longo can accept the evidence and so goes about trying to explain why it is credible, where it comes from and where it fits in. Let me say that in treating her views I fully realize that she appreciates the conjectural nature of much that she says.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 19 , 1985 , pp. 7 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1985

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 The following are referred to henceforth only by the author’s name: Keaney, J.J. and Raubitschek, A.E., ‘A Late Byzantine Account of Ostracism,’ AJPh 93 (1972), 87–91;Google ScholarBicknell, P.J., review of Thomsen, The Origin of Ostracism in Gnomon 46 (1976), 817–819;Google ScholarMcCargar, D.J., ‘New Evidence for the Kleisthenic Boule,’ CPh 71 (1976), 248–252;Google ScholarDevelin, R., ‘Cleisthenes and Ostracism: Precedents and Intentions,’ Antichthon 11 (1977), 10–21;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHarding, P., ‘Atthis and Politeia,‘ Historia 28 (1979), 129–147;Google ScholarLongo, C.P., ‘La bulé e la procedura dell’ ostracismo,’ Historia 29 (1980), 257–281;Google ScholarLehmann, G.A., ‘Der Ostrakismos-Entscheid in Athen: von Kleisthenes zur Ära des Themistokles,’ ZPE 41 (1981), 85–99;Google ScholarRhodes, P.J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford 1981).Google Scholar

2 The erroneous cause of the 500 is taken up by Bicknell, McCargar and Lehmann; bouleutic ostracism is accepted without argument by Siewert, P., Die Trittyen Attikas und die Heeresreform des Kleisthenes (Vestigia 33, München 1982), 8,Google Scholar62,162 n. 44. McCargar’s point that 6000 is not half the citizen body, and that there is therefore no reason why 200 should be half the boule, is patently weightless.

3 Longo, 270–271; Lehmann’s statement to the contrary is little more than assertion. Longo makes the point that for Ath. Pol. to use the praotes of the demos as an explanation of why ostracism was not employed earlier, the demos must, in Ath. Pol.’s view, have had the capacity to ostracize for some time.

4 On the bouleutic oath see the discussion of Rhodes, P.J., The Athenian Boule (Oxford 1972), 191–207.Google Scholar I am glad to see that Longo takes no refuge in Zambelli, M., ‘L’ origine della bulé dei cinquecento,’ Miscellanea greca e romana 4 (1975), 103–134,Google Scholar a long argument (?) which leads to the conclusion, surely untenable, that Kleisthenes first invented the council of 400, then the 500.

5 I exclude the case of the tyrants themselves (see Develin, 16 n. 22). This leaves that of Isagoras (Develin, 21 n. 47) and the ambassadors to Persia (Her. 5.96); not, I suppose, the expulsion of the Alkmeonids and the 700 families (Her. 5.70; Ath. Pol. 20.3).

6 For Kleitophon see Ath. Pol. 29.3. Longo’s assumption (268) that no clue to the motivation would be found in the text of the law is not necessarily correct; the law could be phrased as the legislator wished and presumably he made no secret of his stance and intent For arguments on the survival of documentary material see Stroud, R.S., ‘State Documents in Archaic Athens,’ in Athens Comes of Age. From Solon to Salamis, ed. Childs, W.A.P. (Princeton 1978), 20–42.Google Scholar

7 So Raubitschek and Bicknell, criticized by Longo, 270–271.

8 Her. 5.69. One might mention here also Diodoros 11.55, which, because of Diodoros’ dubious credentials, I did not wish to base anything upon. His account, however, envisages a single law, adopted after the end of the tyranny, with the demos doing the voting. No other source, of course, shows any awareness of more than one sort of procedure.

9 We should note incidentally a difficulty of argumentation which Longo seems to encounter. She says that the case for Kleisthenes’ laws not being available is based on the supposed discrepancy between Androtion and Ath. Pol. on the authorship and origin of ostracism, which discrepancy does not exist But now she supposes a discrepancy between these two on the original procedure in ostracism, which surely would allow a simple adjustment of detail in the argument against the survival of the laws. I still do not think the argument has any force, especially as I see no discrepancy of any kind.

1 I have tried to persuade myself that Philochoros is not so specific, but I cannot. See Longo, 274 n. 78 for discussion. As she finds lexical references ambiguous, I shall not use them. In my earlier article (12 n. 12, 13) I unwisely invoked common sense on behalf of the quorum theory .which Longo seems to think tells against it, if anything. While I do not banish common sense from historical enquiry, it would be safer to avoid reference to it here.

11 One can compare the use of the word with Vat. Gr., but this may be seen as part of the conventional vocabulary. I assume the words are genuine Philochoros; see Longo, 275 n. 79.

12 Keaney, 89–90.

13 Miscellanea, 609 Müller-Kiessling: . See Develin, 12.

14 Cromey, R.D., Historia 28 (1979), 134Google Scholar seems to accept Vat Gr.; he considers the case for Kleisthenes’ ostracism without actually subscribing to it. He also discusses other elements and at 139 nn. 41 and 42 gives fuller references than I did to the matter of Theseus and provides possible further, though insecure, clues to the confusion which occurred.