those tried for homicide by the various homicide courts and convicted,
those guilty of massacre or attempted tyranny. It is those guilty of particu-
larly heinous crimes who are, not surprisingly, the ones exempt from the
generous and forgiving impetus of the decree. These documents are various
in form, but several do seem to be lists, some public, exemplary memorials,
some held by officials.
Many other lists were made, including lists of people, lists of property,
lists of tribute contributions: some seem very deliberately designed to be
easily legible. The remarkable list of those rewarded for supporting dem-
ocracy at the time of the Thirty gives a broadly spaced list of names
and occupations, superbly legible and clearly laid out (IG ii
2
10, now
Rhodes-Osborne no. 4). There were the lists of the war dead, the lists of
the sixtieth of the tribute paid to Athena, the list of allies and newly
calculated payments made in 425, the lists of the confiscated property of
the Hermokopidai inventoried elegantly and at length under the name of
each malefactor.
43
The First Fruits decree of 434B.C. orders that a
wooden tablet (pinakion) should be made listing the weights of grain
dedicated as First Fruits of the Greek states and arranges for copies to be
set up in the Eleusinion and Bouleuterion, and a list of dedicators is to be
inscribed onto the votive offerings made out of the financial proceeds
(IG i^3 78, ML 73, lines 26ff., 43–4; by contrast, the fourth-century law
about First Fruits, IG ii^2 140, is much less preoccupied with making lists).
The Callias decree(s) (IG i^3 52, ML 58) arranged for lists to be put on
stelaiof the treasures being handed over, and future practice (lines 21ff.;
though these would probably not be laid out in list form). Payers and
defaulters of tribute were to be listed according to the Cleinias decree of
448/7 (IG i^3 34, ML 46), and so on. Many, though not all of these, were to
be displayed in public.
Were there, then, different levels of ‘‘democratic literacy’’ and differ-
ent types of ‘‘democratic document’’? We may wonder whether these
carefully arranged lists on stone and wood were deliberately intended to
be especially legible, more easily deciphered than most other documents
and inscriptions.
44
We may also suspect that they were indeed more
readily read than most other inscriptions. This impinges on the wider
question of the role of public inscriptions, which we cannot pursue here,
the main questions concerning (a) whether pre-Hellenistic inscriptions
constitute the ‘‘authoritative’’ text, either theoretically orde facto;(b)
their relation to archive texts; (c) the combination of symbolic value and
value as a living item of reference; and (d) whether they were widely read
(and by whom)?
45
People do go up and search for a name on one of the
- See Pritchett 1953 6 for detailed treatment.
- This develops a suggestion made in Thomas 1989, 66; lists also discussed in
Thomas 1994, 41 2, a`propos the power of the state. - See esp. Rhodes 2001; Sickinger 1999; Boffo 1995; Thomas 1989 ch. 1 and 1992
ch. 7; Stroud 1998, 46ff. all intertwined with the question of how the archives were used.
Writing, Reading, Public and Private ‘‘Literacies’’ 33