“He was successful  in  subsidizing an  entry   in  the competition for tragedies,  a   contest that    already at

that    time    was subject to  contentious rivalry,    and he  erected a   monument    to  his victory that    bore    the

following   inscription:    ‘Themistocles   of  Phrearrhioi was the producer;   Phrynichus  was the author;

Adeimantus  was the archon.’    At  the same    time,   he  made    himself popular with    the masses; he  knew

each    and every   citizen by  name    and he  made    himself available   as  someone who could   act as  an

objective   arbiter in  disputes    over    contracts.” (Plutarch,  The Life    of  Themistocles    5.5–6)

The first time an ostracism was held was in 487 BC, and it was resorted to only about a dozen times
before the practice fell into disuse shortly before 415 BC. Even so, large numbers of ballots were cast in
the course of this relatively brief span of time and thousands of them have been recovered, particularly in
the excavations of the agora that have been undertaken by the American School of Classical Studies in
Athens. All the prominent political figures of fifth-century Athens are represented, in some cases on
hundreds of ostraka. In some instances, it is possible to recognize the same hand at work in the
production of large numbers of the inscriptions, so that it is clear that supporters of one candidate came to
the ostracism prepared to distribute ballots already inscribed with the names of rival candidates. After
all, not every Athenian citizen is likely to have been fully literate in the fifth century BC, and many, though
they may have been able to read, might not have felt comfortable writing. As it is, the ostraka that have
been found are riddled with misspellings, as is the case with the ostrakon illustrated in figure 41. Despite
the problems with the spelling, the man who scratched Themistocles’ name on this ostrakon managed to
identify his chosen candidate by using the full, official designation, giving name, father’s name, and deme.
Before the reforms of Cleisthenes, it was normal to refer to a citizen simply by using his name and his
father’s name, which would be sufficient to indicate the (aristocratic) family from which he came.
Designation by deme was felt to be more “democratic,” since it made reference to the local units of
government that were so strongly emphasized in Cleisthenes’ reforms. How, then, did the man who
inscribed this ostrakon know to which of the 140 demes Themistocles belonged? It seems that
Themistocles, who was himself an ostentatiously democratic politician, was in the habit of conspicuously
using the new Cleisthenic designation, so that he was widely known, to supporters and enemies alike, as
“Themistocles son of Neocles of the deme Phrearrhioi.”

The Delian League

One of the effects of Cleisthenes’ reforms was to encourage a sense of uniqueness among the Athenians.
Since they were no longer members of the traditional tribes whose names they shared with other Ionian
poleis, they began to consider themselves as having a special status among the Greeks. This feeling only
increased following their military successes, first at Marathon and then at Salamis. It was easy for the
Athenians to convince themselves that their success was due in large measure to their newly reformulated
and radically democratic government and their recently reorganized military structure, especially since
their victories had been won over an oriental monarchy that could easily be thought of as the antithesis of
a direct democracy. The naval success at Salamis, in particular, was imagined as a “democratic” victory
because the oarsmen in the Athenian fleet were men of less than hoplite status and, therefore, could make
the best claim to represent “the people.” For this reason, when the Spartans declined to continue their
position of leadership of the allied Greek states after the embarrassing recall of Pausanias, the Athenians
were confident that they could effectively assume that role.

Thus, in 477 BC, a new alliance was created, with no participation by the Spartans, under the leadership
of Athens. The alliance consisted primarily of those poleis that felt most at risk of renewed attack by the