FIGUEIRA, THOMAS J., Residential Restrictions on the Athenian Ostracized , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.281 Residential Restrictions on the Athenian Ostracized Thomas J. Figueira I SHALL OFFER here an explanation for the Athenian decision to restrict the places of residence for ostracized politicians.) My con­ clusion will be that the Athenians were concerned lest the ostra­ cized might continue factional activism or even collaborate with foreign adversaries of Athens if permitted to establish themselves in the vicinity of Attica, especially on Aegina. Institutionally, an ostra­ cism served to terminate the rivalry between two leading claimants to leadership, an outcome that was impeded by any opportunity at close hand for continued participation in Athenian politics. The Sources In the archonship of Hypsichides (48211 or, more probably, 481/0), the Athenians recalled those citizens who had been ostracized during the previous decade and placed residential restrictions on those who might be ostracized in future. 2 Our authority is the Ath.Pol. (22.7): , S::' " ~ 'e ' '") I" TETapTC~ u €TH Kan:U€~aVTO 7TaVTas TOVS WUTpaKtap.€VOVS apXOVTOS , y.l, I~ ~ \ \ _ I t I \ \ \ \ tI A , ."txtuOV, uta T1JV :='€P£OV UTpaTHav' Kat TO "Ot7TOV wptuav TOtS OUTpa- I The following works will be cited by author: R. DEvELIN, "Two Notes Concerning Ath. Pol. (1 and 22.8)," Liv.CI.Monthly 9.5 (1984) 76; R. GOOSSENS, "Le texte d' Aristote, Constitution d' Athenes, XXII, 8, et l'obligation de residence des Athe­ niens ostracises," ChrEg 20 (1945) 125-38; A. E. RAUBITSCHEK, "Theophrastos on Ostracism," CIMed 19 (1958) 72-109; P. J. RHODES, A Commentary on the Aris­ totelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford 1981). 2 The relative date for the archonship of Hypsichides is HTapT!ll 0' fTEt, "in the fourth year," which if reckoned from 483/2, the archonship of Nicodemus, would yield 480/79, a year that belongs to Calliades (Diod. 11.1.2; Marm. Par. FGrHist 239A51). Following F. Blass, Aristotelis rrO;\ITEIA A8HNAH1N 4 (Leipzig 1908) 133, J. Carcopino, L 'ostracisme athenien 2 (Paris 1935) 153f, wished to count from 485/4, the year of Xanthippus' ostracism, which marked a watershed for the Ath.Pol. 's account of the 480's. Rhodes 281 finds this improbable and opts for a mistake in composition or transmission (e.g. TplT'!l 0' i'ru of earlier editors). Plut. Arist. 8.1 has TpIT'!l 0' €TU, presumably counting from 48312, yielding 481/0 for the recall and the year of Hypsichides, but also places Xerxes in Thessaly and Boeotia, properly dated to 480/79. If, however, we discount a tendency to delay the recall and to exaggerate the imminence of the invasion of Attica, Plutarch might be taken to direct us toward 481/0, perhaps early 480 (cfn.31 infra). 281 FIGUEIRA, THOMAS J., Residential Restrictions on the Athenian Ostracized , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.281 282 RESTRICTIONS ON THE OSTRACIZED ~ 1 "r ~,~ \\ 1 ~" " ';' Kt"'0IJ-fVOt~, EVTO~ fpaUTTOV Kat LKVl\l\aLOV KaTOtKELV, 1) aTLIJ-ov~ fLVat Ka(JC17raf Any historical discussion of the residential clause must begin with an observation on motivations, which should not be controversial. The limitation on places of residence is to be connected with the decision to recall citizens who had been ostracized earlier, for a change of such practical significance for the continued viability of this institution would hardly have been made in the atmosphere of crisis preceding the Persian invasion without specific relevance. The recall and restric­ tion could have been linked in several ways, not necessarily mutually exclusive: the restrictive clause might have furthered the intention behind the recall itself; it might have been a precaution meant in some way to insure the effectiveness of the recall; it might have been designed to render such a recall unnecessary in the future. Our best in­ formation on the ostracized of the 480's concerns Aristides, who is said to have been recalled through the agency of Themistocles (Plut. Them. 11.1, cf 5.7,12.6; Arist. 7.1,25.10; Nep. Arist. 1.2). Like Ath. Pol. 22.8, Plutarch also mentions a psephisma by which, along with Aristides, all the ostracized were permitted to return. Therefore when we consider the relationship between the act of recall and the imposi­ tion of residential restrictions for the future, we are also in fact deciding whether a connection can be made between Themistoclean policy and the significance of the restrictive clause. The essential feature of the limitation on allowable sites of resi­ dence is a matter of geography, and here there is controversy. The testimony of the Ath.Pol. is suspect because of information in a fragment of Philochorus (FGrHist 328 F 30): (IITTpaKtUIJ-OV Tp07TO~' tAoxopo~ f.KTlOfTat TOV OUTpaKtUIJ-OV f.V Tfi TptTn ypacpwv OVTW' "0 Ot- oUTpa[KtUIJ-O~ TOLOVTO~l 7TPOXELPOTOVft IJ-t-v 0 oijlJ.O~ 7TPO Tij~ oyOO1)~ 7TpvTaVEta~, d OOKE' TO OUTpaKOV EI.UcpEPELV. ()n 0' f.OOKEL, f.cppaUUETO uavtutv .q d.yopa, Kal KanAEL7TOVTO Ei~OOOt OEKa, Ot' ~V EI.U- "",\., "0 ,,' , \, A.. , LOvn~ KaTa .,..vl\a~ fTL fuav Ta OUTpaKa, UTPEcpOVTE~ T1)V f7Ttypa.,..1)V· f.7rEUTaTOVV Ot- 01' n f.VVEa l1.pxovn~ Kat .q ~ovA~. otapt0IJ-1)OEVTWV ot- ()Tql \ ~ , " '\' ,~ \' ~ "I> '5>' 7Tl\ftUTa YfVOtTO Kat IJ-1) El\aTTW E~aKtUxtl\tWV, TOVTOV fuEL Ta utKata I> 1 , \ t:I 1 " ~ 'I> 1 \ \ 1 'I> 1 " uOVTa Kat l\atJoVTa V7TEP TWV tutWV uvval\l\aYIJ-aTWV EV uEKa 1)IJ-fpat~ ~ ~ '\ "I> 1 (" 5>' , 1 ') 1 IJ-ETaUT1)vat T1)~ 7TOI\EW~ ET1) uEKa VUTEpOV uE EYEVOVTO 7TEVTE , Kap7TOV- IJ-EVOV Ta favTov, IJ-~ f.7Tt~atVOVTa f.VTO~ rEpatuTOV TOV Ev~ota~ d.KPWT1)- I" 1 1>' 'y 't:I, ' ~ 'I>'~'~ '0 5>' pLOV ... IJ-0VO~ uE 7TfPtJ0I\O~ fK TWV auo~wv Ec;;WUTpaKtu 1) uta IJ-ox(1)ptav TP07TWV, OV Ot' tJ7TO"'tav Tvpavvloo~' IJ-ETa TOVTOV Ot- KanAv(1) '''0 '~I 0 1 K' 0 ' " , 1 TO E O~, ap~aIJ-EVOV v0IJ-0 ET1)uavTo~ I\ftU fVOV~, OTf TOV~ Tvpavvov~ KaTEAvuEv, C;7TW~ uvvfK~aAot Kat Toh CPtAov~ aVTwv. FIGUEIRA, THOMAS J., Residential Restrictions on the Athenian Ostracized , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.281 THOMAS J. FIGUEIRA 283 After aKpwTTJpLOV Jacoby reckoned both a lacuna and a shift in source, but there is no good reason to follow him in the latter conclusion. 3 His text also reflects a crucial emendation: the manuscripts contain the words €VTOS 7Tfpa TOV, which Dobree corrected to €VTOS r€pa(L) vop.qJ, used by ~ Ar. Eq. 855b to explain the desuetude of ostracism, can mean that Hyperbolus flouted the residence clause; they prefer to emend. 54 Develin 76; Goossens 126. FIGUEIRA, THOMAS J., Residential Restrictions on the Athenian Ostracized , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.281 THOMAS 1. FIGUEIRA 297 lump together passing Cape Scyllaeum on the way to Argos and on the way to Rhodes, though the two places are on either side of the proposed line? Certainly the movements of Cimon seem to under­ mine this approach: he was on both sides of the line during his ostracism, in the Chersonese and visiting Tanagra. Another approach is to invalidate most of the evidence from the later ostracisms by assuming that the ostracized were later freed from any restriction or that they were eventually confined to places within the Athenian apx~.55 Nothing, however, supports such an assumption, and perhaps a fatal objection may be raised against it. Philochorus F30 provides a general overview of ostracism (shared by other Atthi­ dographers): although it was appended to the passage of the ostracism law by Cleisthenes or to an account of the early ostracisms, this survey previewed the end of the institution in the ostracism of Hyperbolus. The survey may also have contained a list of the victims of ostracism (cJ r. Ar. Eq. 855b and supra n.20). Such an overview would not have troubled to treat a short-lived alteration in the institution, one that affected only one ostracism (that of Themistocles). On the contrary, such a sketch would be more likely to note a more enduring restric­ tion-one confining the ostracized to the apx~, for example-or the lack of any restriction at all, a situation that perhaps characterized the ostracisms of Cimon, Menon, Alcibiades the Elder, Thucydides, Da­ mon, and Hyperbolus. This interpretation is borne out by r. Vesp. 947a, which derives from the same tradition as r. Eq. 855b (an Atthidographer via Didy­ mus: see supra 283). The former passage distinguishes ostracism from exile by noting that victims of permanent exile have no fixed place of habitation or term of exile, while the ostracized do (Kat r01TOS' a7Tf.­ otooro Kat XPovoS'). 56 This seems to be a condensed reference to the limitation clause given at greater length in Philochorus F30, and indicates the general relevance of the clause in separating exile from ostracism in popular perspective. A final consideration suggests that the restrictive clause in Ath.Pol. 22.8 continued in force throughout the fifth century. If the ostracized did not obey the restriction on residence, they became artlJ-ovS' ... Ka8a1Tat, "deprived of civil rights ... immediately (or absolutely)." The term Ka8a1Tat, when used to specify a variety of atimia, appears to have a technical sense (Dem. 21.32, 87; [Dem.] 25.30; cf 1TaVra1TaCTLV, Andoc. 1.75); unfortunately there is debate over its precise meaning. 55 For the former: Wilamowitz (supra n.22) 114 n.25, Kenyon (supra n.9) 80f, Goossens 127f, Develin 76; for the latter, Raubitschek I04f. 56 Cf Anecd.Bekk. 285.20, Suda s.v. QUTpaKtCTJLOS; Sandys (supra n.9) 97. FIGUEIRA, THOMAS J., Residential Restrictions on the Athenian Ostracized , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.281 298 RESTRICTIONS ON THE OSTRACIZED Paoli and Harrison argue that it denotes atimia falling short of its archaic connotation of 'outlawry' (less likely, in my view), while Swoboda and Rhodes reserve its use for precisely the most stringent meaning. 57 In contrast, Hansen makes the attractive (though incon­ clusive) argument that Ka()(1.7ra~ distinguishes permanent atimia from the atimia resulting from indebtedness to the state, which might be remedied through payment. 58 Nonetheless, the mere existence of such distinctions is more important, for our purposes, than their precise definition. It is tempting to enter the debate on just when atimia in its original sense of outlawry (where its victim might be killed with impunity) was supplemented by other less drastic deprivations of civil rights. Here, however, one encounters a similarly complex and con­ fused set of hypotheses in which less than absolute forms of atimia might have appeared as early as Draco or as late as 460-405.59 It is enough for our purpose to note that the variety of atimia denominated by kathapax in A th. Pol. 22.8 must be nearly complete loss of civil rights or even outlawry, inasmuch as it represented a further and lasting degradation from temporary exile for an ostra­ cized citizen. The most closely contemporary instance of atimia is the declaration against Arthmius of Zeleia as polemios and atimos (an outlaw, as the orators specify), an enactment variously assigned to Themistocles or to Cimon. 60 Another parallel appears in a law against subversion, especially by members of the Areopagus, proposed by Eucrates in 337/6 (SEG 12 87.20f), which seems to preserve the terminology oflegislation of at least the Cleisthenic period. 61 Neither 57 A. R. W. Harrison, The Law oj Athens II (Oxford 1971) 169-71; U. E. Paoli, Studi di diritto attica (Florence 1930) 316 and n.2. Cf H. Swoboda, "Beitrage zur griechischen Rechtsgeschichte," ZSav 26 (l905) 149-84, esp. 154; Rhodes 282f and "Bastards as Athenian Citizens," CQ N.S. 28 (l978) 89-92. 58 M. H. Hansen, Apagoge, Endeixis and Ephegesis against Kakourgoi, Atimoi and Pheugontes (Odense 1976) 67f. 59 See Swoboda (supra n.S7) IS3f and "Arthmios von Zeleia," AEM 16 (1893) 49- 68, esp. 54-63, who opts for a pre-Solonian origin; he is followed, among others, by M. Ostwald, "The Athenian Legislation against Tyranny and Subversion," TAPA 86 (l95S) 103-20, esp. 107f. Adduced in support of this view are Ath.Pol. 8.S, 16.10; Pluto Sol. 19.4. Hansen (supra n.58: 78-80) proposes a Cleisthenic date; E. Ruschen­ busch, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des athenischen StraJrechts (Cologne 1968) 20f, adopts a date ca 460. 6°Polemios and atimos: Oem. 9.41-43, cf 19.271f; Ael. Arist. 13.190 with scholia (III 327 [DindorfJ); 46.218 with Craterus FGrHist 342 F 14; Plut. Them. 6.4; cf Aeschin. 3.258; Din. 2.24f. Cimon: Craterus; Themistocles: Plut.; Ael. Arist. 46.303. In addition to Swoboda (supra n.S7) see Meiggs (supra n.26) S08-12; Habicht (supra n.37) 23-25. 61 Special precautions against disloyalty by the Areopagites might have had prece­ dents after the expulsion of the Pisistratids, when the Areopagus was filled by Pisis- FIGUEIRA, THOMAS J., Residential Restrictions on the Athenian Ostracized , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.281 THOMAS 1. FIGUEIRA 299 document utilizes the term Ka8a7Tat. Accordingly, it is unlikely that the restriction on residence originally used this qualifier for atimia, which is not then attested before the fourth century. Thus the restric­ tion was not a short-lived provision, but one that lasted long enough (presumably until the codification of Athenian law at the end of the fifth century) to undergo routine modernization of its terminology. The Historical Background of the Recall of the Ostracized In order to preserve the reading of the papyrus with an interpre­ tation of the two capes as the termini of a line of demarcation not to be passed, it has been argued that in 481/0 it was more important to exclude the ostracized from contact with the Persians than to bar them from the vicinity of Attica. 62 This approach seems to confound the very nature of ostracism with legal procedures directed at prose­ cutable offenses. Ostracism was framed to pre-empt a potential tyrant before he committed acts attempting tyranny, acts punishable with atimia. Accordingly, an assumption by an ostracized politician of residence in Persian territory would have been interpreted as medism on the analogy of the behavior of the Pisistratids. So imprudent a person would have been condemned to death in absentia as was Hip­ parchus Charmou. The Athenians were ready to stone to death the councilman who did nothing more than suggest that Mardonius' pro­ posals of 479 to the Athenians be tendered to the ekklesia (Hdt. 9.5.1- 3; cf Dem. 18.204; Lycurg. Leoc. 122; Cic. Off. 3.11.48). As for secret treasonous communications with the Persians, these could be con­ ducted from anywhere-Aegina or even Attica, at least in the minds of the Athenians. The approaches supposedly made to Aristides (dis­ cussed infra) were of this nature. It should be noted that the first three ostracized were condemned for being friends of tyranny (Ath.Pol. 22.6). This charge is likely to have subsumed sympathy for the Pisis­ tratids at the Persian court, indicated by holding political positions that could be interpreted as pro-Pisistratid, rather than provable acts of medism. In conclusion, other recourses against open medism were available, while the residential limitation was unavailing against co­ vert communication. tratid ex-archons. Cf Ostwald (supra n.59) 120-25, who finds echoes of Draconian legislation. 62 Wilamowitz (supra n.22) 114; De Sanctis (supra n.lO) 476f n.40; Rhodes 282; Develin 76; Goossens 126f, who also envisages a desire to keep the ostracized near Attica to be recalled. Would not a strong expectation of such recalls have vitiated the institution of ostracism itself? It is more likely that the Athenians acted to forestall recalls than to facilitate them; cf Carcopino (supra n.2) 49. FIGUEIRA, THOMAS J., Residential Restrictions on the Athenian Ostracized , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.281 300 RESTRICTIONS ON THE OSTRACIZED It was against a threat by no means so vulnerable to prosecution as outright medism that the limitation on residence was introduced. The tradition on Aristides provides the essential evidence.63 The Athe­ nians are said to have been motivated to recall Aristides out of a fear that he would medize, taking many of his fellow citizens into the enemy camp (Plut. Arist. 8.1, Them. 11.1). The Suda reports the Per­ sian approach in greater detail, a bribe of 3,000 darics designed to corrupt Aristides on Aegina (s. vv. 'APUTTElo1]s, ll.apELKOvs). Just as He­ rodotus reflects mid-fifth-century Athenian views on Aristides (an in­ corruptible and unselfish patriotic foil to the _devious Themistocles), Plutarch, who probably reflects the Atthides, introduces this anecdote into his Aristides (8.1) only to emphasize how erroneous was the Athe­ nian judgment of the statesman (cf Them. 11.1). This tradition takes it for granted that there was then no evidence for treasonous, me­ dizing communication initiated by Aristides. Perhaps groundless anxiety among Athenians became a problem for their leadership because of the ability of Aristides to affect the politi­ cal decisions of many fellow citizens. This facility was to a large ex­ tent predicated upon the proximity of Aegina to Athens, and on the regularity and ease of maritime communications between them. Thus the continuing authority of an ostracized leader was based on his demonstrated capacity for influencing the political decisions of his supporters. Themistocles and others in power could now take no other effective steps to relieve public fears. Removing the ostracized farther from Attica would have been difficult, as it demanded the co­ operation of the Aeginetans and perhaps even of the ostracized, who could always claim the status of suppliants. The ostracized could even have been frightened into bolting towards territory held by the Per­ sians (e.g. Hipparchus). Present expedients were unavailing, inas­ much as it was the prior political activities of the ostracized that made them dangerous as leaders for both the irresolute and the disaffected. Now the political influence of the ostracized made it necessary to recall them in order to preserve homonoia (MIL 23.44). The decision to recall the ostracized was probably connected closely with the reconciliation between the Athenians and the Aeginetans that was consummated at the meeting at the Isthmus in autumn 481 (cf Hdt. 7.145.1). In the less likely event that the recall preceded re­ conciliation (see supra n.44), it removed from Aegina several influen- 63 See A. E. Raubitschek, "Oas Oatislied," in K. Schauenberg, ed., Charites: Studien zur Altertumswissenschaft (Bonn 1957) 234-42; L. Piccirilli, "Aristide de Egina? Per l'interpretazione d'!gli ostraka Agora Inv. P 9945 e P 5978," ZPE 51 (1983) 169-76. Raubitschek also discusses Agora Inv. P 9945, which identifies Aristides as a brother of Oatis (or Oareius: Bicknell, Historia [supra n.36] 158). FIGUEIRA, THOMAS J., Residential Restrictions on the Athenian Ostracized , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.281 THOMAS J. FIGUEIRA 301 tial Athenians, the constructive quality of whose intervention there was not assured. If reconciliation came before the recall (supra n.2), the accession of the Aeginetans to the Greek cause might have reas­ sured the Athenians both that their ostracized had been neither advo­ cates ofmedism nor tainted by a prospective Aeginetan medism. In the crisis of 481-480 the threat of Persia was paramount, but it was equally possible to envisage similar complications for Athenian policy towards Greek adversaries that arose from the existence of refugees) for the ostracized near Attica.64 The stay of Aristides and the other ostracized on Aegina spanned a period of both warfare and reconciliation between the two cities (ef Hdt. 7.144.2). Athens' poli­ cies towards Aegina were undoubtedly complicated by the presence there ofleading Athenians who were not only available as advisers but also influential at home. Later, the presence in Argos of Themistocles, who presumably approved of (if he did not encourage) Argive efforts to undermine Sparta's Peloponnesian hegemony, created an analo­ gous problem (supra n.47). The majority of the Athenians, unpre­ pared for a breach with Sparta, reacted by receiving Spartan (or Spartan-inspired) accusations against him (see infra). Moreover, a concealed danger existed. If an Aristides could affect the behavior of his fellow citizens, there was also the risk that he could influence the policy of the people among whom he was living. In 490 the Aeginetans had decided to medize, only to have their intention stymied by the intervention, against considerable resistance, of Kirg Cleomenes of Sparta (Hdt. 6.50.1 f, 61.1, 73.1 f). On the eve of Xerxes' invasion the Aeginetans had joined the Hellenic League (7.145.1). Although the decision to recall the ostracized probably followed the reconciliation with Aegina, there may have remained considerable doubts in Athenian minds concerning the Aeginetan will (contrasting with the attitude of the ostracized) to persevere against Persia. Ac­ cordingly, a defection to Xerxes by Aristides might inspire further de­ fections, not only in Athens but perhaps also on Aegina. A connection has long been made between the ostracism of Aristi­ des and the promulgation of the Themistoclean naval program, which proposed to use the expanded fleet against Aegina. 65 The naval bill 64 Demosthenes exploited the same possibility when he lived on Aegina during his exile in 323 (Plut. Dem. 26.5,27.6; (f Mor. 846E, 849A). 65 Beloch (supra n.46) 142. For other views, see I. Calabi Limentani, Plutarchi Vita Aristidis (Florence 1964) Ixiii-Ixv. Yet the Themistoclean naval legislation signified radical changes in the Athenian military apparatus and, because it superseded the naucraric system, promised changes in the political equilibrium between classes. Even if its opponents did not foresee the emergence of Periclean democracy, they may have risked being perceived as pro-Aeginetan for their preference for compromise with Aegina rather than acquiescing in the 'extreme' measures forwarded by Themistocles FIGUEIRA, THOMAS J., Residential Restrictions on the Athenian Ostracized , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.281 302 RESTRICTIONS ON THE OSTRACIZED and the ostracism are closely juxtaposed in the Ath.Pol. (22.7), espe­ cially if the phrase €V TOVTOLS TOts KaLpOts will bear the meaning 'in this context'. And Plutarch implicates Themistocles as most responsible for the ostracism of Aristides (eJ 282 supra). Raubitschek has added another dimension to our understanding of the relationship between Aristides and the Aeginetans by noting an ostracon (Agora Inv. P 5978) accusing him of hostile acts toward a group of suppliants. Raubitschek identifies these with the fugitives of the uprising of the demos under the leadership of the Aeginetan politician Nicodromus (Hdt. 6.88, 90). The Athenians had planted the fugitives from the failed coup at Sunium. The ostracon, on this interpretation, estab­ lishes that the attitude of Aristides towards the two Aeginetan fac­ tions was controversial during the campaign leading up to his os­ tracism. Perhaps Aristides hoped to defuse further conflict between Athens and Aegina by removing an exacerbating influence, the pres­ ence of 'renegade' Aeginetans in Attica as citizens.66 The beneficiaries of a defeat of the naval bill and those of an expulsion of the Aeginetan fugitives would have been the same Aeginetan elite. Further direct evidence for the influence of Aristides on Aegina and, concomitantly, both for his ability to affect Aeginetan policy towards Athens and for his willingness to intervene in Athenian affairs on behalf of Aegina, would be provided by the historicity of Aristides of Aegina. This namesake of the statesman is described in the apocryphal epistles attributed to Themistocles as having acted as his accuser on the occasion of his condemnation for medism ([Them.] Ep. 11, p.751.31 Hercher). Despite recent scholarship upholding their historical value,67 the epistles do not rank high as sources of verifiable as necessary against Aegina. See T. J. Figueira, "The Chronology of the Conflict between Athens and Aigina in Herodotus Bk. 6," QUCC (forthcoming), and "Xan­ thippos, Father of Perikles, and the Prutaneis of the Naukraroi," Historia 35 (1986) 257-79. 66 See Raubitschek (supra n.63) 240-42. Nonetheless, an argument from the mere fact of Aristides' residence on Aegina during his ostracism should not be the prime determinant of a pro-Aeginetan attitude. Cf Piccirilli (supra n.63) 170f. The Ae­ ginetan oligarchs might have accepted any ostracized Athenian leader as a matter of policy. Of particular significance (if an answer could be reached) would be whether Xanthippus was among the ostracized residing on Aegina. It is likely that Xanthippus shared the anti-Aeginetan stance of his son Pericles, for both of whom see Figueira, Historia (supra n.65) 275-79. 67 See N. A. Doenges, ed., The Letters of Themistocles (New York 1981) 64-115; also R. J. Lenardon, "Charon, Thucydides, and 'Themistocles' ," Historia 15 (1961) 28-40, who suggests Charon of Lampsacus as a source for some of the data uniquely found in the epistles, and The Saga of Themistocles (London 1978) 154-93. Cf C. Nylander, "AI.I.YPIA rPAMMATA: Remarks on the 21st 'Letter of Themistokles,'" OpAth 8 (1968) 119-36 (134-36 on Charon), who finds valuable evidence on the scripts of the Persian Empire in Ep. 21. FIGUEIRA, THOMAS J., Residential Restrictions on the Athenian Ostracized , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.281 THOMAS J. FIGUEIRA 303 evidence on the career of Themistocles. 68 Accordingly, a first impulse is to postulate sheer fabrication by the author of Ep. 11 in attaching to an Aristides the epithet Aeginetes, a creation perhaps generated by the associations of Aristides Lysimachou with Aegina noted above. 69 Yet if this Aeginetan is a doublet of Aristides Lysimachou, he is an incongruous one; the biographical tradition on Aristides portrays him as standing aloof from the attacks on his former adversary (Plut. Arist. 25.10). Indeed the letters themselves take the position that Aristides was innocent of guilt for the ostracism of Themistocles (Ep. 3 [p.742], 18 [757], 19 [758]), only turning on him after his condemnation for medism (Ep. 4 [p.743], 8 [748], 9 [750], 12 [752]; cf Luc. Cal. 27). Aristides the Aeginetan is noted in connection with the hearing that led to the condemnation of Themistoc1es, when charges were heard from Alcibiades, Stratippus, Lacratides, and Hermoc1es (?) of Athens, and Aristides of Aegina, Dorcon (?) of Epidaurus, and Molon (?) of Troezen (and still others). Clearly, the dramatic setting is the pro­ ceedings against Themistocles by the Hellenic League (Diod. 1 1.55.4- 8, cf Pluto Them. 23.6; Ephor. FGrHist 70 F 119). Aristides and the other accusers were trierarchs who had served at Salamis and there­ after resented Themistocles' support for awarding the aristeia to Ameinias, the brother of Aeschylus, addressee of the letter. 7o Strik­ ingly, Diodorus reports that Themistocles did not anticipate a fair hearing at these proceedings specifically because of allied behavior in denying the Athenians the aristeia at Salamis (11.55.6). The author(s) of the epistles drew on sources-apparently good ones-other than Thucydides: Ep. 9 shows a knowledge of the story (probably Atthidographic) how Callias Lakkoploutos became rich (cf Pluto Arist. 5.7f; L Ar. Nub. 63a; Suda S.V. AaKKo7TAoVTOV). Like the list of Themistocles' Argive friends in Ep. 1 (741.4f), or the list of those connected with the oath disavowing complicity with Themistoc1es in Ep. 8, the list of enemies in Ep. 11 (748.4f) is plausible. But we can do 68 For a generous view of their literary character, see J. L. Penwill, "The Letters of Themistokles: An Epistolary Novel?" Antichthon 12 (1978) 83-103, who postulates two independent series, 1-12 and 13-21, with distinctive characterizations of The­ mistocles. Cf W. Niessing, De Themistoclis Epistulis (diss.Freiburg 1929) 55f; Doenges (supra n.67) 17-41. 69 Piccirilli (supra n.63) 171-74; Doenges (supra n.67) 80. 70 A. J. Podlecki, The Life of Themistocles (Montreal 1975) 131, is troubled by the implication that Themistocles was accused for his generalship rather than his dealings with Pausanias. But once the connection had been made between Themistocles and Pausanias' negotiations with the king, his enemies were bound to ransack his actions as a commander in the fleet for the first symptoms of medism-the message of Sicinnus (Hdt. 8.75.1-3; Aesch. Pers. 355-60; Thuc. 1.74.1) and the advice to Xerxes to withdraw (Hdt. 8.11 0.2f; Thuc. 1.137.4). FIGUEIRA, THOMAS J., Residential Restrictions on the Athenian Ostracized , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.281 304 RESTRICTIONS ON THE OSTRACIZED no more than speculate (along with Doenges) that an Atthis lies behind the anecdote. 71 If Aristides existed, his role as an enemy of Themistocles is illu­ minating about Aristides Lysimachou and the Aeginetans. An Aegi­ netan accuser of Themistocles attacked the Athenian in connection with his leadership in the allied fleet of 480; from an anti-Persian Aeginetan, such a charge was received as credible. The name Aristides is not otherwise attested in the Aeginetan aristocracy,72 and it may be that he was named for the Athenian Aristides. He may then have belonged to an Aeginetan family that took pride in a connection with Aristides Lysimachou. He joined in the accusations of the Alcmeonid Leobotes, whose kinsman Megacles may have spent his ostracism on Aegina (cf Pluto Them. 23.1; Craterus FGrHist 342 F 11; cf Pluto Arist. 25.10). In the crisis of 481-480 the Athenians recalled the ostracized; for the future they insured that they could never be compelled to make a similar decision. The ostracized would be removed from cities (such as Aegina) that had been and could be expected to be regional adver­ saries of Athens. Likewise they were separated from their following in Attica by relegation to locations less opportune for communicating with Athens. Whether the amendment of the law of ostracism was a success can only be gauged through that most difficult form of his­ torical analyses, an inquiry into non-occurrences. No one of the major figures later ostracized is known to have exercised an influence similar to that attributed by Plutarch to Aristides in 48110. Themistocles was convicted ofmedism while ostracized. Whether or not we believe that Cimon was recalled or served out his ten years, it is tolerably clear that his activities on his return were undertaken in co-operation with Pericles and his faction.73 It is only on the return of Thucydides son of Melesias, and not by remote control, that a campaign of harassment against Pericles' associates revived.14 On the basis of these surviving data, scarcely random, the limitation on place of residence for the ostracized does not seem to have been unsuccessful. 71 See Doenges' thorough discussion of the sources for the letters (supra n.67: 414- 54). At 73f, 314, while noting that several names have become unrecognizable, Doenges argues that the whole list derives from an Atthidographic source. 72 Cf G. Welter, Aigina 2 (Athens 1962) 107-10. 73 Plut. Cim. 17.8f; Per. 10.3-6; cf Theopomp. FGrHist 115 F 88; Nep. Om. 3.2f; Andoc. 3.3; Aeschin. 2.172. 74 Satyrus fr.14 (FHG III 159=Diog. Laert. 2.12). See D. Kienast, "Der innenpoli­ tische Kampf in Athen von der Ruckkehr des Thukydides bis zu Perikles' Tod," Gymnasium 60 (1953) 210-29. FIGUEIRA, THOMAS J., Residential Restrictions on the Athenian Ostracized , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:3 (1987:Autumn) p.281 THOMAS 1. FIGUEIRA 305 Conclusion Ostracism was designed by Cleisthenes to meet a danger out of the past, namely that an unscrupulous popular politician would exploit stasis in order to establish himself as a tyrant. Ostracism forced the demos to confront this possibility every year, allowing it to pre-empt a potential tyrant before he had committed illegalities. Cleisthenes, however, had designed his reforms well: the regional parties did not revive, and tensions between the old aristocracy and other groups lost their place at the center of the political stage. When ostracism was first used, its chief connection with its Cleisthenic origin was the identifi­ cation of its first victims as partisans of the Pisistratids. The role of ostracism in politics was now to choose between two candidates for political supremacy so that the winner of the vote might acquire a mandate (entirely unofficial), which was especially significant in the upcoming election of strategoi. It is a tribute to the quality of The­ mistoclean propaganda that an artificial struggle against a single an­ tagonist could be imposed on a political reality with many factional leaders, shifting alliances, and partisan successors vying to replace each ostracized leader. The uninterrupted influence of ostracized politicians, such as that of Aristides from nearby Aegina, undermined the rationale for invok­ ing a vote of ostracism. The opportunities available to the Aeginetans in the continuing political activity of the ostracized must have been provocative to Themistocles and his sympathizers, for whom the Aeginetan oligarchs were hybristic aggressors, medizers, and enemies of both their own demos and that of Athens. 75 The residential restric­ tion was meant to preclude just the sort of extraneous influence that had prompted the recall. The clause also contained an implicit mes­ sage useful to Themistocles in asserting authority over his returning enemies: it served as a permanent reminder that the behavior of the exiles on Aegina had not been entirely blameless; and it suggested that any threat to homonoia had come from the side of the ostracized. Seen in this way, the expansion of the basic law of ostracism confirms two of the several possible links between recall and residen­ tial restriction I suggested at the outset: it rendered any future recall unnecessary and it served to encourage political co-operation with Themistocles on the part of the former exiles by implicitly associating their rehabilitation with the troubling conduct of (at least) Aristides. RUTGERS UNIVERSITY June, 1987 75 See Figueira, Historia (supra n.65).