It is necessary to emphasize that, as far as we can judge, in Ancient Greek democracies and generally in terms of polis mentality, more important category was not quorum (that is some abstract aggregate of citizens, irrespective of opinion each of them had), but the degree of unanimity (homonoia) when taking a decision. At the centre of attention was not how many people were voting, but how many of them made the decision by their votes.
14. In section 3 «On residences of the Athenian ostracized» the author makes the following observations. The original text of Clisthenes' law on ostracism contained no formulations that prescribed any residence to the exiled persons or put any special territorial limitations on them. It was supposed that a victim of ostracism should simply leave the boards of the Athenian polis, that is the territory of Attica.
But in 480 B.C. an amendment was introduced into the text of the law (Arist. Ath. pol. 22. 8; Philochor. FGrHist 328 F30). Its purpose, as we tried to ascertain, was to prohibit the exiled persons from that moment on to cross towards Athens the line marked by such points as Heraestus (the southern extremity of Euboea) and Scyllaeum (the eastern extremity of Argolis and the whole Peloponnesus). Among the reasons for introducing the amendment we should enumerate (in order of importance): striving to avoid residence of the exiles too close to Attica, as it could provoke danger on their part; desire to outline some kind of maritime frontiers of the Athenian polis in the Saronic Gulf; prohibiting politicians ostracized to live in Aegina, an island hostile to Athens.
15. In section 4 «On the duration of the exile» we note that, according to the Clisthenes' law (and, to all appearances, also before Clisthenes) the period of ostracism was ten years. However, the Athenian assembly had full and unlimited power to annul its decision and to pass a decree on preterm return home of one or more citizens ostracized. Several times the demos used that power. In 480 B.C., in view of the danger that arose in connection with Xerxes' invasion, all the victims of the first ostracisms (Aristides, Xanthippus and others) were recalled. In 457 B.C., Cimon was allowed to return before the appointed time, in order to reduce tension in relations between Athens and Sparta.
There is a possibility (however, not very great) that on some stage of the democratic Athens' history (but not later than in 450es B.C.) an amendment was introduced into the law on ostracism that reduced the duration of exile from ten to five years. In any case, some sources (Philochor. FGrHist 328 F30; Diod. XI. 55. 2) report such a reduction. In the present condition of source material, the problem cannot be solved categorically.
16. There have been discoveries of ostraka groups, which, to judge from some peculiarities, had been prepared obviously beforehand, not on the day of the ostracism. In section 5 «To the question of ostraka prepared beforehand» the author considers reasons for appearance of such artifacts. It is noted that, in spite of the common opinion, not all known cases of ostraka prepared beforehand can be regarded results of hetaireiaVs activities and attempts of political manipulations. In a number of cases with much more probability we can say that such ostraka were prepared by scribes, who sold them during ostracisms. We are almost sure that such was the case of 190 ostraka with Themistocles' name discovered in 1939 in a well at the north slope of the Acropolis. The ballots had been inscribed by only 14 diverse hands.
It is necessary to emphasize that citizens of democratic Athens resorted to the help of scribes not because they were in bulk illiterate. It is by no means true, although such judgments are not rare in scholarly literature. Simply inscribing an ostrakon was connected with certain technical difficulties, and sometimes the easiest way out of the situation was purchase of a ballot prepared and inscribed.