Presently the study of ostracism in world scholarly literature is developing in several main directions: publishing ostraka from Athens (E. Vanderpool, D. J. Phillips, M. Lang, F. Willemsen, S. Brenne, G. Nemeth, J. McK. Camp); scrupulous analysis of narrative tradition on ostracism, attempts to solve contradictions among different ancient writers (R. Werner, A. E. Raubitschek, J. J. Keaney, R. Develin, К. H. Kinzl, and, most recently and profoundly, the volume «Ostrakismos-Testimonien I», 2002, prepared by a group of Austrian and German scholars under the guidance of P. Siewert); studies of individual ostracisms, their chronology and historical context (L. Piccirilli, P. Krentz, G.A. Lehmann, B. M. Lavelle, К. H. Kinzl, P. J. Rhodes); efforts to define the place of ostracism in the system of Athenian democracy and in the public life of classical Athens (A. E. Raubitschek, D. Kagan, C. Mossé, L. G. H. Hall, P. Siewert, H. B. Mattingly, M. R. Christ, D. C. Mirhady). In virtually all of these directions significant achievements have been reached; all the more urgent a new general and comprehensive monograph on ostracism appears to be. The aim of the present book is to fill that gap.
In Russian classical studies ostracism, to our regret, virtually has not yet been an object of special study. Apart from brief mentions of that institution in general works on Ancient Greek history, we can enumerate only a few articles on ostracism (S. I. Ginzburg, S. G. Karpyuk, J. G. Vinogradov). The author of this book has written a number of papers on various problems of ostracism.
8. Chapter I «Problems of chronology» is devoted to consideration and solution of chronological problems connected with ostracism. Most important is ascertainment as exact as possible dates of known ostrakophoriai. We consider these questions first in the order of priority because without preliminary solution of them it is virtually impossible to turn to subjects of more general and principal character. We think that in the very beginning we should establish a definite foundation of facts reliably placed and dated, so that then, when analyzing controversial problems, we could base our interpretations on this foundation.
Sources report eighteen cases of ostracism in Athens. As we have managed to ascertain, ten of these cases can be considered quite trustworthy and authentic; they really took place. They are ostracisms of Hipparchus son of Charmus, Megacles son of Hippocrates, an Athenian unknown by name (most probably Callias son of Cratius), Xanthippus, Aristides, Themistocles, Cimon, Alcibiades the Elder, Thucydides son of Melesias, and Hyperbolus). Five ostracisms are unauthentic: those of Theseus, Clisthenes, Miltiades, second ones of Megacles son of Hippocrates and Alcibiades the Elder. Three ostracisms should be considered questionable (those of Menon, Callias son of Didymias, and Damon), although we are rather inclined to recognize them historical.
Considerable difficulties appear in connection with chronology of the enumerated events. As the main result of our chronological investigations, we have established the dates for ostracisms known from sources. Some of these dates are possible to fix with quite sufficient exactness; others have character somewhat more approximate and/or open to question. However, fluctuation of dates rarely exceeds the bounds of a few years. In general, we have managed to reconstruct in some detail the chronological design of Athenian ostracism and its history in the 5^ century B.C. It can serve as the base for further study. The material obtained is the basis of the chronological table (Appendix VI).
9. In Chapter II «The origin of ostracism» we deal with the problems of date, causes and purposes of the institution's introduction. We think necessary singling out several aspects within this theme; so the chapter is divided into three sections.
In section 1 «The date of introducing the law on ostracism in Athens» we examine the question, which by now can be considered in most respects already answered. By efforts of ancient historians belonging to several generations, as a result of continuous discussion, at present we can regard as firmly established that the event in question is a part of Clisthenes' reforms and does not date from any later time. In the series of democratic transformations carried out by Clisthenes, ostracism chronologically takes one of the first places. It is most probable that the law on ostracism was issued in 508/7 B.C., in the course of struggle between Clisthenes and Isagoras.
