Ostracism, Sycophancy, and Deception of the Demos: [Arist.]<i>Ath.Pol</i>. 43.5

Christ, Matthew R.

doi:10.1017/s0009838800015974

Cited by 26 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Pol. 43.5 with Rhodes 1981: 527;Christ 1992;Hesk 2000: 51-63); the graphe paranomon against those that made an illegal proposal (that contradicted the laws; see Wolff 1970;Hansen 1974;Canevaro 2015).…”

Section: Why Did the Greeks Count Votes? Voting Figures From The Greek Poleismentioning

confidence: 99%

Ancient Greek History and Contemporary Social Science

Canevaro

Erskine

Gray

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social scientists and political theorists have recently come to realize the potential importance of the classical Greek world and its legacy for testing social theories. Meanwhile, some Hellenists have mastered the techniques of contemporary social science. They have come to recognize the value of formal and quantitative methods as a complement to traditional qualitative approaches to Greek history and culture. Some of the most exciting new work in social science is now being done within interdisciplinary domains for which recent work on Greece provides apt case studies. This book features essays examining the role played by democratic political and legal institutions in economic development; the potential for inter-state cooperation and international institutions within a decentralized ecology of states; the relationship between state government and the social networks arising from voluntary associations; the interplay between political culture, informal politics, formal institutions and political change; and the relationship between empirical and formal methods of analysis and normative political theory. In sum, this book introduces readers to the emerging field of “social science ancient history.”

show abstract

Section: Why Did the Greeks Count Votes? Voting Figures From The Greek Poleismentioning

confidence: 99%

Ancient Greek History and Contemporary Social Science

Canevaro

Erskine

Gray

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Take Down Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

4 Majority Rule vs. Consensus: The Practice of Democratic Deliberation in the Greek Poleis

Canevaro¹

2018

Ancient Greek History and Contemporary Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Finora ci siamo divisi, urtati, lacerati nella stessa discussione del testo costituzionale. Ma vi era uno sforzo per raggiungere l'accordo e l'unità. E ora io sono sicuro che nell'approvazione finale il consenso sarà comune ed unanime e dirò che, al di sotto di una superfice di contrasto, vi è una sola anima italiana. L'Italia avrà una Carta costituzionale che sarà sacra per tutti gli italiani.22 nd of December 1947 Meuccio Ruini, Assemblea Costituente 2The first of these books is Counting the Many: The Origins and Limits of Supermajority Rule, by Melissa Schwartzberg (a political scientist). 4 This monograph 1 I want to thank first and foremost Josh Ober for the many wonderful discussions over the months of his stay in Edinburgh, which have formed the basis of much that I discuss here. I also need to thank Edward Harris, Nino Luraghi, Mogens Hansen, Alberto Esu and David Lewis for many insightful suggestions, and audiences in Edinburgh, Torino, Łódź and Cambridge, MA and London for very productive discussions. The idea for the epigraph was suggested to me, over a lovely dinner, by Maurizio and Gabriella Viroli. 2 'Up until now we have been divided, torn in the very discussion of the constituonal text. But there was an effort to reach agreement and unity. And now I am confident that in the final approval the consensus will be shared and unanimous, and I state that, underneath the surface of the disagreements, there is one Italian spirit. Italy will have a Constitution which will be sacred to all Italians.' The Italian Constitutional Assembly was composed of 556 delegates, elected, with a strictly proportional electoral system, by 89.1% of eligible voters. They were Catholic-democrats, liberali (libertarian conservatives, not to be confused with 'liberals'), republican-azionisti, socialists, communists -they came from all sides of the political spectrum. They started their work on the new constitution in June 1946, and approved the final text in December 1947. They, argued, disagreed, advanced proposals and withdrew them, persuaded and were persuaded multiple times, changed the text and then changed it again, and again. When, finally, it came to the vote, on the 22 nd of December 1947, the Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana was approved with 90% of the votes of the delegates.

show abstract

“…In addition, not only did the ostracized individual preserve his prestige and political influence, but the very fact of having been ostracized gave him extra kudos and was “a compliment rather than otherwise” (Grote, , p. 150). Such was the de facto identification of ostracized persons with elite status that the first ostracism of a non‐elite figure (Hyperbolus) was seen as a paradox, a sign that the institution had been “corrupted” (Christ, , pp. 337–338; see also Forsdyke, , pp.…”

Section: Ostracism: a Self‐limiting Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, it is likely that the sources consider Hyperbolos's ostracism as “corrupt,” primarily because of his non‐elite status. While all previously ostracized figures were de facto from a high social rank, the social selectivity of candidates for ostracism was such that “to be ostracized” became a signifier of high prestige and elite status (Christ, ). This view is echoed in Rosenbloom's (, p. 329) analysis of Hyperbolos's ostracism as an instantiation of sociocultural antagonism typical in ostrakophoriai .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ostracism and democratic self‐defense in Athens

Malkopoulou

2017

Constellations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1contemporary classical studies using archaeological research of the thousands of ostraka excavated in the Agora and Kerameikos. In the first part of this article, I describe the institution of ostracism and distinguish three procedural qualities-temporal, participatory, and inclusive requirements. These are crucial as they illustrate the self-limiting nature of the Athenian model of democratic self-defense. In the second part, I discuss the purpose of ostracism.Was it aimed at preventing the emergence of tyranny? Or are we justified in calling it an anti-aristocratic tool? I conclude this section by arguing that the goal of ostracism was positive; to protect and promote democratic stability, and negative only inasmuch as it excluded any person who acted against this end. In the conclusion, I draw on my findings to build a framework of democratic self-defense that challenges some of the most popular contemporary paradigms.Handing over to the demos the power to exile a prominent political figure was as generous as it was risky. It could result in stripping the city of its best leaders and leaving it at the mercy of mediocre demagogues: this has been indeed a widely held criticism against ostracism. The famous anecdote that had Aristides the Just being ostracized because the demos envied his virtues (Plutarch, Life of Aristides, 7.4. trans. 2008) betrays the pragmatic fear of subjecting Athenian day-to-day politics to the caprice of the demos. This controversial aspect of ostracism has led critics of ancient direct democracy from Plutarch to John Adams in the 18 th century and even today to use ostracism as an illustration of the irresponsible and illiberal aspect of Athenian democracy (Forsdyke, 2005, p. 144; Lane, 2014, pp. 115-127;Roberts, 1994). Yet in reality the procedure was designed in a careful and sophisticated manner so as to prevent its overuse or abuse.The Athenian historian Philochoros writing in the 3 rd century BCE offers a concise description of the practice:Ostracism takes place as follows. Before the eighth prytany, the people vote on whether it is necessary to hold an ostracism. If it is necessary, the agora is fenced in with boards, leaving ten entrances, through which the people enter in their tribes, and deposit their sherds [ostraca] with the writing facing downwards. The nine archons and the council oversee the process. When the sherds have been counted to determine who has the most votes (which must be not less than 6,000), then this person must, after settling his personal commitments, leave the city within ten days, for a period of ten years (this was later reduced to five years). He is allowed to receive income from his possessions, but he must not come nearer [to Athens] than Geraestum, the headland on [the coast of] Euboea. (Philochoros of Athens, Fragment 79b, trans. 2016) 1The procedure of ostracism thus involved several stages, rituals, and requirements. Some of its features were purposefully self-limiting. They included: (a) temporal restrictions, including an annual call for os...

show abstract

Ostracism, Sycophancy, and Deception of the Demos: [Arist.]Ath.Pol. 43.5

Cited by 26 publications

References 3 publications

Ancient Greek History and Contemporary Social Science

Ancient Greek History and Contemporary Social Science

4 Majority Rule vs. Consensus: The Practice of Democratic Deliberation in the Greek Poleis

Ostracism and democratic self‐defense in Athens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About