11. Section 3 is entitled «Causes and purposes of the introduction of ostracism». In other words, questions of principle are analyzed in it. We insist on distinguishing two aspects within this topic. Usually these aspects are mixed together, and it leads to incompleteness or even inaccuracy of the answers. On the one hand, the idea of ostracism as «prophylactic» banishment of influential persons arose already during the Archaic period at the junction of two trends in the political life, individualist and collectivist ones. These two trends were characteristic of the epoch when polis structures and polis mentality were being shaped. Early forms of ostracism («proto-ostracism») were a means of mutual controlling each other by members of the aristocratic ruling elite, in order to avoid development the power any of them had into tyranny.
On the other hand, as regards Clisthenes' law on ostracism, it was issued in the specific situation on the verge of the Archaic and Classical epochs, and it made ostracism a prerogative of the assembly, that is, it introduced the «classical» form of ostracism, which were to exist during the 5^ century B.C. The law keeps quite well within the framework of the whole series of Clisthenes' reforms, which gave the sovereignty in the polis from the hands of aristocracy to the hands of the demos. The latter, after having adopted the institution aristocratic by origin, became from that moment on the safeguard against revival of tyranny, against sharp outbursts of stasis and destabilizing political life. The demos also exercised through ostracism general control of the noble elite's activities, and that corresponded to its new role in the State. In addition, ostracism, being a measure rather mild and humane, was useful for regulating political struggle, which previously had often taken very brutal forms.
12. Chapter III «Procedural questions» is structured in the following way. In its first section the author brought together all source information on the procedure of Athenian ostracism, which, in general, arouses no or little discussions and perplexities. In other words, under consideration were those of procedural aspects, which appear in more or less clear light. In subsequent four sections of the chapter, we deal more profoundly with debatable problems, which either have no clear answer in the sources, or have several alternative answers, so that one must choose.
In section 1 «General information on the procedure of ostracism», as a result of considering source data we conclude that on the whole the procedure in question is known sufficiently well, as many ancient writers report its various aspects and details, and these reports in most cases agree with each other.
Ostracism, in its procedural respect, was a special kind of assembly meeting, which, owing to some circumstances (of both pragmatic and, probably, ritual character), was held in the Agora even after other meetings had moved to the Pnyx. There was no debate; no formal «candidates» for ostracism were nominated beforehand, so every citizen was free to write any name on his ballot. The voting at ostracism was secret de iure, but in fact nobody saw to strict observance of secrecy. There were also no generally accepted norms of inscribing ostraka.
13. In section 2 «6000 votes — quorum or minimum?» one of the most important, complicated and debatable problems connected with the procedure of ostracism is analyzed. The question is what exactly means the number 6000 that appears in some ancient descriptions of the institution. There are two versions of answer: the number is either general quorum obligatory for recognizing the ostracism valid, or minimal quantity of votes against one person necessary for his banishment. There are testimonies by Greek writers in favour of both suggestions. The Atthidographer Philochorus (FGrHist 328 F30) wrote most authoritatively about the minimum of 6000; Plutarch (Aristid. 7) thought the number to be the quorum. Therefore, disagreement and even contradiction is present within the narrative tradition. Correspondingly, opinions in modern scholarly literature are also diverse; some ancient historians accept Plutarch's "quorum theory", and others — Philochorus' «minimum theory».
Our investigation of the problem allows to maintain (with much more degree of probability if not categorically) that 6000 votes were no general quorum but the necessary minimum for one person. The latter, not the quorum, was taken into account in early epoch, when ostracism still was a prerogative of the Council and not the assembly: at that stage a person was exiled if there were 200 votes against him. And there is no reason to suppose that in the period of «classical» ostracism the situation was different. Arguments listed by those scholars who admit Plutarch's rightness appear under close consideration to be rather postulates than facts surely proved.
