ATHENIAN OFFICIALS AND THE CHANGING DEMOCRACY:
THE LITERACY OF THE OFFICIAL
Many other spheres in the Athenian democracy involved writing, of
course, written records and a degree of literacy, and the degree to which
this was so changed in the course of its long history. The literacy of officials
is another type of literacy we need to examine: by this I mean the type of
literacy needed by Athenians active enough to hold some form of office,
whether chosen by lot from the top three property classes like members of
theboule(council), the archons, the various officials in the Athenian
empire and elsewhere, or those chosen by election like the generals. As
before, we have two related questions, the nature of the written texts
made and the types of literate habits that are assumed and then encouraged
by the very existence of these records. We need constantly to bear in mind
that the Athenians must have developed and altered their use of writing
over this period. The radical democracy established from the 460s con-
tinued to evolve with further changes on its restoration in 403. Its hall-
marks included the wide distribution of power and responsibility, relying
on the use of the lot, and the one-year-long tenure of office, which means a
relatively large number of Athenians must have participated actively.
Because the system in 350B.C. had evolved considerably since c. 450B.C.,
the needs of functional literacy will also have changed.
It is essential to differentiate groups of Athenians and types of literacy
partly because some discussions of the Athenian use of written documents
tend implicitly to merge all Athenians together as well as different
periods.^52 It may also be a way toward resolving the dilemma hinted at
above that many inscriptions in the late fifth and fourth century imply that
written records were increasingly being made, while at the same time the
speeches actually delivered in the democratic organs of government give
the impression that the Atheniandemosmostly got its information or-
ally,^53 and many inscriptions were disregarded or not referred to far less
than scholars might expect. Inscriptions were carefully and expensively
made but they are often referred to as having exemplary and symbolic
value—not a negligible value—as well as for their factual or executive
content.
54
One interesting possibility is that new circumstances may
have generated the need for new uses of writing or more records, and
these new uses may then have generated expectations for more, or em-
bedded new ideas about writing.
- Sickinger 1999 does not entirely do this, but seems at times to be moving in this
direction: see note 54 below, and Thomas 2003; and remarks in Thomas 1992, 133 4. - For example, Dem. 47.44 refers for proof of an earlierboule’s decision to those
who were in theboulethat year, and anyone sitting beside them, not to written records. - See Thomas 1989, 49ff.; also Rhodes 2001, with provisos; and the Introduction
to Rhodes and Osborne 2003, p. xiii.
Writing, Reading, Public and Private ‘‘Literacies’’ 37