The possibility for physically removing individual politicians from the city of Athens by popular vote represented both a continuity of the aristocratic ‘politics of exile’, as well as a breaking point through the takeover of such political power by the people (Forsdyke 2005). Does this double nature of ostracism –as a democratized aristocratic practice- explain its mixed reception? I hypothesize that contemporary ideas about the institution of ostracism are divided, not least because of the political character of ostracism as a symbol of anti-elite democratic power. To prove this point, I examine the institutions’ reception in the long-run, from Aristotle through modern critics (e.g. John Adams, Barthélemy) or supporters (e.g. Montesquieu, Nietzsche, Georg Grote), paying particular attention to which aspects of ostracism the commentators focus on. Thus, I will show the historical, political and conceptual contingency of ostracism’s interpretation and thereby respectively challenge contemporary understandings of the idea.
