Остракизм в Афинах

17. In Chapter IV «Ostracism in Athenian political struggle» one of the chief aspects of the whole investigation is subject of analysis. Very important are the following questions: what place did ostracism take in the context of political struggle in Classical Athens? What were its functions, and did those functions remain immutable, or did they undergo some evolution? Is it possible to outline certain stages in the history of ostracism in connection with some changes in Athenian political conflicts? However, before passing to direct consideration of these specific problems, it proves to be necessary, for better understanding of history and functioning of the institution in the system of Athenian democracy, to touch preliminary upon topic of more general character, namely main peculiarities of political (and public on the whole) life of Athens, of internal political situation in the Athenian polis during the century when ostracism existed in its "classical" form, that is the fifth century B.C. Dealing with such themes, even if limited scope, is dictated by the logic of research; it is, as far as we can judge, not only justified, but simply inevitable, so far as we are studying a historical phenomenon not in some "vacuum", nut in its proper context.

Accordingly, the chapter is opened by section 1 «On some peculiarities of political life in fifth-century B.C. Athens», in which, as can be seen from the title, we by no means attempted to enumerate and consider all main features of political life and political struggle in the Athenian polis of the period mentioned: such a task would have require a separate monographic study. We were interested primarily in those features, which are relevant for the main theme of the book — functioning of ostracism. It seems necessary to emphasize the following particular aspects.

The internal political situation in the Athenian polis of the Classical epoch was notable for its complicacy and fraction. It by no means resembled the «two-party system» characteristic of many modern democracies. There were a large number of small political groups, which could unite and make coalitions to reach certain aims. The groups in question were not mass organizations; they emerged and existed in the milieu of the political elite. Their character was not abstract and ideological but personal; in each group the role of the leader (individual or collective, as one or another noble family) was extremely great. Questions of external politics were very important in the struggle of the factions, and these questions were comprehended also not abstractly but on quite personal level.

What has been said is relevant for the Classical epoch as a whole. As to such particular period as the fifth century B.C., which attracts our attention in the greatest degree, it takes a special place in the Athenian history. The century in question was a transitional period between the pre-Clisthenic epoch, with its aristocratic rule in the public life and flourishing of regionalism, and the epoch after the Peloponnesian war, when democracy had already developed into its final form, and the nobility as a social stratum had left the political stage. During most part of the fifth century, we can observe some kind of "diarchy" or equilibrium between two leading forces, the demos and the aristocracy. There was certain distribution of powers between them: members of the aristocracy had virtual monopoly to highest posts, and the demos through the assembly and the courts exercised the supreme control over their activities on those posts. The demos' attitude to the nobles was ambiguous: it used their political traditions, their experience and connections in order to govern the state more efficiently, but at the same time it demonstrated constantly its alienation from them and inflicted repeatedly various repressions upon them. The equilibrium was unstable and it raised continuously sharp political conflicts. For all this, during the whole period in question standing of aristocracy always deteriorated, and by the end of the fifth century its importance was reduced to zero.

18. Now, with regard for what has been said, it would be proper to try a definition of ostracism's main functions in the political system of the Athenian democracy. However, before doing it, so that our conclusions do not seem unfounded, it is necessary to analyze factual material and to point main stages the history of ostracism passed during the functioning of the institution in Classical Athens.