Scanned text contains errors.

514

EXSILIUM.

satisfied, he was liable to be driven or carried out of the country by force. (Dem. c. Arts. pp. 634 and 644.) It sometimes happened that a fugitive for manslaughter was charged with murder ; in that case he pleaded on board ship, before a court which sat at Phreatto, in the Peiraeeus. (Dem. c. Aris. p. 646.) We are not informed what were the consequences if the relatives of the slain man re­fused to make a reconciliation; supposing that there was no compulsion, it is reasonable to conclude that the exile was allowed to return after a fixed time. In cases of manslaughter, but not of murder, this seems to have been usual in other parts of Greece as well as at Athens. (Meursius, ad Lycop. 282 ; Eurip. J-Iipp. 37, and Scholia.) Plato (Leg. ix. p. 865), who is believed to have copied many of his laws from the constitution of Athens, fixes the period of banishment for manslaughter at one year, and the word aTrez/icamiTjurfs-, explained to mean a year's exile for the commission of homicide (rois <p6vov SpvLtfaffi) seems to imply that the custom was pretty general. We have indeed the authority of Xenophon(j.jza£>. iv. 8. § 15) to prove that at Sparta banishment was the consequence of involuntary homicide, though he does not tell us its duration.

Moreover, not only was an actual murder punished with banishment and confiscation, but also a rpav/Jia e/c -n-poi/otas, or wounding with intent to kill, though death might not ensue. (Lysias, c. Simon, p. 190 ; Dem. c. Boeot. p. 1018. 10.) The same punishment was inflicted on persons who rooted up the sacred olives at Athens (Lysias, '"Tn-ep ^tjkov 'ATToXoyta), and by the laws of Sol on every one was liable to it who remained neuter during political contentions. (Pint. Sol. 20 ; Gell. ii. 12.)

Under ^uy?/, or banishment, as a general term, is comprehended Ostracism (barpaKiir^s) ; the difference between the two is correctly stated by Suidas, and the Scholiast on Aristophanes (Equit. 861), if we are to understand by the former aeupv-yia, or banishment for life, "Qvyfi .(say they) differs from ostracism, inasmuch as those who are banished lose their property by confiscation, whereas the ostracised do not; the former also have no fixed place of abode, no time of return assigned, but the latter have." This ostracism was instituted by Cleistlienes, after the expulsion of the Peisistra-ticlae ; its nature and objects are thus explained by Aristotle (Pol. iii. 8): — " Democratical states (he observes) used to ostracise, and remove from the city for a definite time, those who appeared to be pre-eminent above their fellow-citizens, by rea­son of their wealth, the number of their friends, or any other means of influence." It is well known, and implied in the quotation just given, that ostra­cism was not a punishment for any crime, but rather a precautionary removal of those who pos­sessed sufficient power in the state to excite either envy or fear. Thus Plutarch (A rist. 10) says it was a good-natured way of allaying envy (tydovov irapa.-fjivQia $iAc£j/0pco7ros), by the humiliation of superior dignity and power. Mr. Grote (History of Greece, vol. iv. p. 200, &c.) has some very ingenious re­marks in defence of ostracism, which he maintains was a wise precaution for maintaining the demo-cratical constitution established by Cleisthenes. He observes that "Cleisthenes, by the spirit of his reforms, secured the hearty attachment of the body of citizens ; but from the first generation of .Wading men, under the nascent democracy, and

EXSILIUM.

with such precedents as they had to look ba.cV upon, no self-imposed limits to ambition could be expected : and the problem required was to elimi­nate beforehand any one about to transgress these limits, so as to escape the necessity of putting him down afterwards, with all that bloodshed and reac­tion, in the midst of which the free working of the constitution would be suspended at least, if not ir­revocably extinguished. To acquire such influence as would render him dangerous under democratical forms, a man must stand in evidence before the public, so as to afford some reasonable means of judging of his character and purposes ; and the security which Cleisthenes provided was, to call in the positive judgment of the citizens respecting his future promise purely and simply, so that they might not remain too long neutral between two political rivals. He incorporated in the constitu­tion itself the principle of privilegium (to employ the Roman phrase, which signifies, not a peculiar favour granted to any one, but a peculiar incon­venience imposed), yet only under circumstances solemn and well defined, with full notice and dis­cussion beforehand, and by the positive secret vote of a large proportion of the citizens. ' No law shall be made against any single citizen, without the same being made against all Athenian citizens; unless it shall so seem good to 6000 citizens voting secretly1 (Andoc. deMyst. p. 12). Such was that general principle of the constitution, under which the ostracism was a particular case." Mr. Grote further observes, —" Care was taken to divest the ostra­cism of all painful consequence, except what was inseparable from exile ; and this is not one of the least proofs of the wisdom with which it was de­vised. Most certainly it never deprived the public of candidates for political influence ; and when we consider the small amount of individual evil which it inflicted, two remarks will be quite sufficient to offer in the way of justification. First, it com­pletely produced its intended effect ; for the de­mocracy grew up from infancy to manhood without a single attempt to overthrow it by force : next, through such tranquil working of the democratical forms, a constitutional morality quite sufficiently complete, was produced among the leading Athe­nians, to enable the people after a certain time to dispense with that exceptional security which the ostracism offered. To the nascent democrac}r, it was absolutely indispensable ; to the growing, jet military democracy it was necessary ; but the full-grown democracy both could and did stand without it." The manner of effecting it was as follows: — Before the vote of ostracism could be taken, the senate and the ecclesia had to determine in the sixth prytany of the year whether such a step was necessary. If they decided in the affirmative, a day was fixed, and the agora was enclosed by bar­riers, with ten entrances for the ten tribes. By these the tribesmen entered, each with his otrrpa-k.ov, or piece of tile, on which was written the name of the individual whom he wished to be ostracised. The nine archons and the senate, i. e. the presidents of that body, superintended the proceedings, and the party who had the greatest number of votes against him, supposing that this number amounted to 6000, was obliged to with­draw ((JiZTacrTvivcLi) from the city within ten days ; if the number of votes did not amount to 6000, nothing was done. (Schol. ad Aristoph Equ. 85); Pollux, viii. 19.) Plutarch (Arist. c. 7) differs