Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

514 EXSISILIUAM. EXSILIUM.
satisfied, he was liable to be driven or carried out with such precedents as they had to look back
of the country by force. (Dem. c. Aiis. pp. 634 upon, no self-imposed limits to ambition could be
and 644.) It sometimes happened that a fugitive expected: and the problem required was to elimifor manslaughter was charged with murder; in nate beforehand any one about to transgress these
that case he pleaded on board ship, before a court limits, so as to escape the necessity of putting him
which sat at Phreatto, in the Peiraeeus. (Dem. c. down afterwards, with all that bloodshed and reacAl-is. p. 646.) mWe are not informed what were the tion, in the midst of which the free working of the
consequences if the relatives of the slain man re- constitution would be suspended at least, if not irfused to make a reconciliation; supposing that there revocably extinguished. To acquire such influence
was no compulsion, it is reasonable to conclude that as wonld render him dangerous under democratical
the exile was allowed to return after a fixed time. forms, a man must stand in evidence before the
In cases of manslaughter, but not of murder, this public, so as to afford some reasonable means of
seems to have been usual in other parts of Greece judging of his character and purposes; and the
as well as at Athens. (Meursius, ad Lycop. 282; security which Cleisthenes provided was, to call in
Elurip. IIipp. 37, asld Sclsolica.) Plato (Leg. ix. the positive judgment of the citizens respecting his
p. 865), who is believed to have copied many of future promise purely and simply, so that they
his laws from the constitution of Athens, fixes the might not remain too long neutral between two
period of banishment for manslaughter at one year, political rivals. I-e incorporated in the constituancl the word a~re'LavTrxSu(5s, explained to mean a tion itself the principle of privilegism (to employ
year's exile for the commission of homicide ('ro0S the Roman phrase, which signifies, not a peculiar
od,'ov 3pceeao) seems to imply that the custom was favour granted to any one, but a peculiar inconpretty general. WVe have indeed the authority of venience imposed), yet only under circmnstances
Xenophon (Anab. iv. 8. ~ 15) to prove that at Sparta solemn and well defined, with fslhl notice and disbanishment was the consequence of involuntary cussion beforehand, and by the positive secret vote
homicide, though he does not tell us its duration. of a large proportion of the citizens.' No law
Moreover, not only was an actual murder shall be made against any single citizen, without
punished with banishment and confiscation, but the same being made against all Athenian citizens;
also a'rpalca ic rpovoias, or wounding with intent unless it shall so seem good to 6000 citizens voting
to kill, though death might not ensue. (Lysias, c. secretly' (Andoc. de lMyst. p. 12). Such was that
Simon. p. 100; Dem. c. Boeot. p. 1018. 10.) The general principle of the constitution, underwhich the
same punishment was inflicted on persons who ostracism was a particular case." Mr. Grote further
rooted up the sacred olives at Athens (Lysias, observes, -" Care was taken to divest the ostraTi7rep TstcoD'A7roXo'yfa), and by the laws of Solon cism of all painful consequence, except what was
every one was liable to it who remained neuter inseparable from exile; and this is not one of the
during political contentions. (Plut. Sol. 20; Gell. least proofs of the wisdom with which it was deii. 12.) vised. Most certainly it never deprived the public
Under (vy~, or banishment, as a general term, of candidates for political influence; and when we
is comprehended Ostracisme (ao-pac iycls); the consider the small amount of individual evil wlhich
difference between the two is correctly stated by it inflicted, two remarks will be quite sufficient to
Suidas, and the Scholiast on Aristophanes (Equit. offer in the way of justification. First, it com861), if we are to understand by the former.memLpv- pletely produced its intended effect; for the deyra, or banishment for life. ",yi7.(say they) mocracy grew up from infancy to manhood without
differs from ostracism, inasmuch as those who are a single attempt to overthrow it by force: next,
banishecl lose their property by confiscation, whereas through such tranquil working of the democratical
the ostracised do not; the former also have no fixed forms, a constitutional morality quite sufficiently
place of abode, no time of return assigned, but the complete, was produced among the leading Athelatter have."' This ostracism was instituted by nians, to enable the people after a certain time to
Cleisthenes, after the expulsion of the Peisistra- dispense with that exceptional security which the
tidae; its nature and objects are thus explained ostracism offered. To the nascent democracy, it
by Aristotle (Pol. iii. 8):'~ Democratical states was absolutely indispensable; to the growing, yet
(he observes) used to ostracise, and remove from military democracy it was necessary; but the fullthe city for a definite time, those who appeared to grown democracy both could and did stand without
be pre-eminlent above their fellow-citizens, by rea- it." The manner of effecting it was as follows: -
son of their wealth, the number of their friends, or Before the vote of ostracism could be taken, the
any other means of influence." It is well known, senate and the ecclesia had to determine in the
and implied in the quotation just given, that ostra- sixth prytany of the year whether such a step was
cism was. not a punishment for any crime, but necessary. If they decided in the affirmative, a
rather a precautionary removal of those who pos- day was fixed, and the agora was enclosed by barsessed sufficient power in the state to excite either riers, with ten entrances for the ten tribes. By
envy or fear. Thus Plutarch (A rist. 10) says it was these the tribesmen entered, each with his 5orrpaa good-natured way of allaying envy (mpo'ou 7rapa- cov, or piece of tile, on which was written the
uiOkiea mpcidOpw7ros), by the humiliation of superior name of the individual whom he wished to be
dignity and power. Mr. Grote (History of Greece, ostracised. The nine arcllons and the senate, i. e.
vol. iv. p. 200, &c.) has some very ingenious re- the presidents of that body, superintended the
mnarks in defence of ostracism, which he maintains proceedings, and the party who had the greatest
was a wise precaution for maintaining the demo- number of votes against him, supposing that this
cratical constitution established by Cleisthenes. number amounted to 6000, was obliged to withlie observes that " Cleisthenes, by the spirit of draw (se-raoE'Tm al) from the city within ten days
his reforms, secured the hearty attachment of the if the number of votes did not amount to 6000,
body of citizens; but from the first generation of nothing was done. (Schol. ad Aristoph Efqus. 85;
iseading men, under the nascent democracy, and Pollux, viii. 19.) Plutarch (Arist. c. 7) differs