Athenian Ostracism: Exile as a Democratic Safeguard in Ancient Greece

The Athenians created a safety valve called ostracism to deal with political issues that could potentially affect their democracy. Ostracism could prevent a possible political disruption or could express anger at a particular politician’s or faction’s policies. Unlike a criminal proceeding such as embezzlement or dereliction of duty, ostracism could be done against anyone, without a real stated reason. The first phase of ostracism was a vote by the Athenian assembly to determine if it should occur. During the sixth month, in the winter, which was January or February, the Athenian assembly was asked if it desired to ostracize an individual. If the members voted yes, then two months later, in the eighth month, the actual vote took place. Citizens would then give an ostracon (piece of pottery sherd) with a name inscribed on it.

Ancient ceramics used for democratic voting in Athens in the fifth century

These shards were then deposited in an urn to ensure anonymity and fairness. The individual with the largest number of votes was to be ostracized, provided that a certain criterion was met. The ancient sources indicate that in order for an ostracism to take place, 6,000 votes needed to be cast. Two views of this existed, though, one that the total number of votes had to be 6,000 and the individual with the largest number would be ostracized, while a second source indicated that 6,000 votes for one person had to be cast. The first view seems to have been prevalent.

Many ostraca found with names written on them were in the same handwriting. Given that individuals were often illiterate, there were shops or individuals that wrote down names given by the voters. Any name could be written, and canvassing probably occurred to pick a candidate for exile.

The person with the most votes had ten days to leave the city. He was required to stay away for ten years. The individual did not lose his citizenship or property, and his family did not have to go with him. The individual did not lose any status, and his family could continue to participate in politics. The individual could be recalled to Athens by a decree of the assembly. Only one person could be ostracized each year.

The system could be used to rid the city of a potential political rival of one group or another. It also allowed the city to rid itself of the leader of a faction and to rid the state of a potential tyrant. Since the system was created during the posttyrant period, many of the early recipients were followers of the tyrant Hippias. Unlike judicial trials, ostracism was a political creation that occurred every year. It was automatic and did not have to be initiated by someone, unlike a judicial case. Many of the cases resulted in the individual going into exile in a city close to home and Athens, but technically outside it. Since most of these individuals were rich and powerful, they would have had connections to allow them to set up residence in other cities.

If Cleisthenes instituted the system, it appears not to have been used for nearly twenty years, when a relative of the tyrant Pisistratus was ostracized in 487. The next year, Megacles, the nephew of Cleisthenes, was exiled. In 485, another relative of Cleisthenes was ostracized, followed the next year by Pericles’s father. In 482, Aristides the Just was ostracized.

In these instances, the post-Battle of Marathon period may show that there were continual fights with supporters of the tyrant’s party. The institution was not used again for another decade until 471, when Themistocles, the victor at Salamis, was exiled. Another ostracism occurred in 461, when Cimon, the son of the Miltiades victor at Marathon, was ostracized for his failure in the Peloponnese, and others occurred in 460 and 457, probably for enemies of Pericles. Likewise, in 442, Thucydides, possibly a relative of the historian Thucydides known for his work The Peloponnesian War, and leader of the conservative faction or group, opposed Pericles, but lost to the charismatic leader and was ostracized. The last individual known to be ostracized was Hyperbolus, who attempted to get the conservative leader Nicias ousted but was prevented when the popular leader Alcibiades backed Nicias.

The early ostracism clearly resulted from the traditional conflicts against the party of the tyranny of Pisistratus and his son, Hippias, especially after the Battle of Marathon, when Hippias tried to return. The next phase of ostracism was more with preventing tyrants, a fear of Themistocles, giving way to ostracisms that punished individuals for bad policies such as Cimon. These ostracisms took place at the same time when others were ostracized for political conflicts between opposing ideologies such as Thucydides and Hyperbolus. Interestingly, after the latter occurred in 417, the system fell out of use and no one else is recorded.