23. In the Conclusion specific results reached in all chapters and sections and stated above are briefly summarized. Then the sum definition of ostracism as an institution is given. Ostracism existed in some shape already in Archaic Greece, but by the beginning of the Classical period it took its final form. In this "classical" form, as it functioned in fifth-century B.C. democratic states, ostracism can be defined as politically motivated extrajudicial banishment from the polis of the most influential citizens, for a fixed period (10 years in Athens), without any deprivation of civil rights (including property right) and with subsequent full restoration of political rights. The banishment served as a «prophylactic» means and was exercised through the demos' vote in the assembly, using a special procedure (in Athens — with inscribed clay sherds as ballots).
Finally, the author attempts to give a general appraisal of ostracism. To be sure, there are such appraisals in preceding scholarly literature. Some of them are negative and critical (they seem to prevail); others pay more attention to positive and constructive features of the institution (they are less common, but we think them to be more justified). It is interesting in this connection, that among ancient writers, just as among modern researchers, there is no unity on that subject. Among ancient appraisals of ostracism there are also both positive (Plut. Aristid. 7) and negative (Andoc. IV. 3–6; Cic. Tusc. V. 105; De amie. 42; Nep. Them. 8; Aristid. 1; Cim. 3) ones. Most weighed, with proper consideration of both advantages and drawbacks of ostracism, are Aristotle's assessments (first of all, Pol. 1284a4 sqq,).
Generally, one can notice that two principal views of ostracism are possible: from the standpoint of an individual and from the standpoint of the citizen community, the collective body, the polis. And these views quite naturally prove to be in opposition to each other. An aristocratic personality under the conditions of democracy could evaluate ostracism but negatively, for it is to this personality that the institution struck a blow. For instance, Andocides' fourth oration is a manifestation of namely such an «individualist» appraisal of ostracism. Aristotle views ostracism from a different position: he proceeds from interests of the polis as a whole and, as a result, comes to the conclusion, that, however unsympathetic was the institution as such, it had certain necessity and rightfulness, as it, all its shortcomings notwithstanding, allowed to defend the Whole against «disproportion» of its parts. To translate to modern terms, ostracism resisted individualist trends, which tended to undermine the polis collectivism. Plutarch in his description of ostracism tried to combine both approaches to the problem: he pointed out that the «trial of sherds» had often proved to be beneficial for the citizen mass, as the institution alleviated envy and hatred to the leaders, and for the latter it was rather mild and not pernicious measure.
Aristotle's view of ostracism seems to have been more profound than any other view in antiquity. The philosopher grasped and described — surely in a language proper to his time — exceptionally important characteristics of the institution in question. The emergence of ostracism was possible only in the polis framework, moreover, only in definite political conditions, in the situation of struggle between individualist and collectivist trends. This theme was always urgent for the polis: Aristotle means it when he speaks about the «proportionality» parts of the Whole must have. Of the two trends mentioned, ostracism unquestionably embodied the collectivist one. And in its context ostracism was, beyond any doubt, rightful, logical, and constructive.
One more aspect should be noted when stating that ostracism was an outcome of polis conditions. In the public life of the polis, with its direct democracy and absence of mass media, immediate oral communication played a huge part: it is on this level that intercourse of political leaders, members of the elite, with the demos was effectuated. In such a situation the only really efficient means of defeating a political enemy was to make him leave the polis (through banishment, ultimately through execution). Only by such a way it was possible to prevent him from contacts with the citizen body. But on the other hand that means proved to work faultlessly: as soon as a politician found himself outside the polis territory (even if without any deprivation of rights, without atimia — and ostracism was the case), he lost all possibility to influence the political life. The institution of ostracism and the direct polis democracy turn out to have been interconnected inseparably.
24. In the course of the study, in order make clearer some problems under investigation, there emerged a necessity to make a few excurses into the field of contiguous problems. Such excurses would hardly have been proper in the bulk of the book. Accordingly, they are placed to appendices.
Appendix I "On the oration IV of the Corpus Andocideum" deals with one of the most important for us narrative texts, and one unique in the sense that it is devoted almost wholly to ostracism. It is necessary to consider specially and in detail problems connected with the speech also because it is a rather enigmatic text: debatable are the time of its composing, the authorship (most scholars deny that Andocides is the author), genre belonging, and authenticity.
We try to show that the text in question was written in 390es B.C. and is a conscious, rather subtly made fiction, which pursued political ends. In other words, it is neither a speech in the strict sense of the word nor a late rhetorical exercise of negligible source importance, as is often thought; it is a political pamphlet. The text is early and sufficiently authentic (as its author had himself seen ostracism in operation), but it is also subjective and biased in the highest degree. All this should be taken into account when working with this source. Besides, we see no really serious grounds for doubts about Andocides' authorship. However it may have been, the question of authorship in our case is even not the most principal. Much more important is that historic and chronological context of the monument, its genre, purposes of composition, and its orientation have been defined. It allows elaborating correct approaches to the oration.
25. In Appendix II «Ostracism and ostraka outside Athens» we consider problems that virtually have not yet been a subject of research in world ancient history. Up to present, ostracism, as a rule is thought to be an Athenian phenomenon par excellence. Almost all works (and in any case all books) devoted to ostracism study only Athenian source material. However, there is information on ostracism or analogous procedures also in other Greek city-states. Narrative tradition (Arist. Pol. 1302bl8; Schol. Aristoph. Equ. 855) mentions use of ostracism in Argos, Megara, and Miletus. Of these cities, in Argos and Megara ostraka (for the time being, only solitary) have been discovered. A variety of ostracism (socalled «petalism») is known to have been used in Syracuse (Diod. XI. 86–87). In Ephesus on the verge of Archaic and Classical epochs there existed a kind of banishment similar to ostracism (Heraclit. B21 DK). Finally, now, from recent time, it is possible to speak about discovery of ostraka (and so about existence of ostracism) even in such cities, in which that procedure is not evidenced by written sources. To this class of poleis we should refer Cyrene and Chersonesus Taurica (the latter is now second in the world, second only to Athens, by the quantity of ostraka discovered. There is a serious probability that in the future the list of cities known to use ostracism will only increase.
The sum of non-Athenian evidence in our possession compels us to deny the common opinion that ostracism had come to all cities, where it existed, without exceptions only from Athens. For a few cases (Syracuse, possibly Miletus) this thesis undoubtedly remains to be true, but it cannot acquire a generalizing force. In some poleis (in Megara, Ephesus) ostracism with much more probability came into existence in Archaic, pre-Clisthenic time, and this fact contradicts the idea of an Athenian influence. Therefore, we should not reduce artificially the whole history of ostracism (although unknown to us in detail during most part of its extent) to the fifth-century B.C. democratic Athens. The history of that institution is more extensive both in chronological and territorial respects.
26. As in the bulk of the study we had several times to touch upon some problems of the Athenian democracy, that subject required a special excursus (Appendix III, «To the question of the number of citizens in the Classical Athenian polis». Two main problems are discussed: what was approximate number of adult Athenian citizens in the 5^ century B.C., that is in the period when ostracism was in use; and how much was decrease of citizen population during the years of the Peloponnesian war, after which ostracism fell into disuse.
Analysis of source data allowed us to establish the following: during most part of the 5 century B.C., up to the Peloponnesian war, the number of the Athenian citizens kept constantly on the level of not less than 30000, and in the years of the greatest flourishing, under Pericles, it by the most modest assessments exceeded 40000. It should be taken into account when answering the question about the percentage of citizens assumed by the number 6000 that is mentioned in the sources in connection with ostracism.
As regards Athenian losses in the Peloponnesian war, we assess these casualties in their totality (losses in battles, deaths during the epidemic, etc.) as 3335 thousands of adult citizens. The figure is undoubtedly very large; however, we should not forget also the factors that operated «in the opposite direction», such as continuous natural increase through births and return to Athens of cleruchs after the concluding of peace. All this taken into account, we derive, that after the war the number of citizens was at least 25000. Therefore, the Peloponnesian war in general was not a demographic catastrophe for Athens, although it caused the city very significant damage in manpower, which is above any argument. In connection with the chief t