Who wrote the administrative documents of Athens? Was literacy extensive in ancient Attika? Were inscriptions, those on stone or pieces of pottery (ostraka), written, read and comprehended by common people? In this book Anna Missiou gives full consideration to these questions of crucial importance for understanding the quality of Athenian democracy and culture. She explores how the Kleisthenic reforms provided new contexts and new subject matter for writing. It promoted the exchange of reliable information between the demes, the tribes and the urban centre on particular important issues, including the mobilization of the army and the political organization of the citizen body. Through a close analysis of the process through which Athenian politicians were ostracized and a fresh examination of the involvement of common citizens in the Council of 500, Missiou undermines the current orthodoxy that literacy was not widespread among Athenians. Literacy underwrote the effective functioning of Athenian democracy.

Who wrote the administrative documents of Athens? Was literacy extensive in ancient Attika? Were inscriptions, those on stone or pieces of pottery (ostraka), written, read and comprehended by common people? In this book Anna Missiou gives full consideration to these questions of crucial importance for understanding the quality of Athenian democracy and culture. She explores how the Kleisthenic reforms provided new contexts and new subject matter for writing. It promoted the exchange of reliable information between the demes, the tribes and the urban centre on particular important issues, including the mobilization of the army and the political organization of the citizen body. Through a close analysis of the process through which Athenian politicians were ostracized and a fresh examination of the involvement of common citizens in the Council of 500, Missiou undermines the current orthodoxy that literacy was not widespread among Athenians. Literacy underwrote the effective functioning of Athenian democracy.

Oratory was a vital element in the Athenian democracy. In this study Anna Missiou analyses the ideological content of the speeches of the crypto-oligarch Andokides (active c. 420-390 BC). Drawing on modern communication studies, she proposes a contextual and historical approach to oratory rather than one that concentrates on the speaker. She insists that there was a rational as well as an emotional element in the responses of both orator and audience, and that there was a tension between political equality and socio-economic inequality lying at the centre of Athenian democratic society. She suggests that the political ideology of a speaker can be evaluated in the light of his rhetorical techniques. A detailed analysis of Andokides' arguments for peace in On the Peace with the Lakedaimonians reveals that the intense controversy in Athens over the continuation of the war with Sparta in 391 reflected class antagonism among the Athenians. Dr Missiou argues that the speech was essentially subversive, aimed at spreading pro-Spartan and antiwar feelings rather than persuading the audience to take a particular decision.

Oratory was a vital element in the Athenian democracy. In this study Anna Missiou analyses the ideological content of the speeches of the crypto-oligarch Andokides (active c. 420-390 BC). Drawing on modern communication studies, she proposes a contextual and historical approach to oratory rather than one that concentrates on the speaker. She insists that there was a rational as well as an emotional element in the responses of both orator and audience, and that there was a tension between political equality and socio-economic inequality lying at the centre of Athenian democratic society. She suggests that the political ideology of a speaker can be evaluated in the light of his rhetorical techniques. A detailed analysis of Andokides' arguments for peace in On the Peace with the Lakedaimonians reveals that the intense controversy in Athens over the continuation of the war with Sparta in 391 reflected class antagonism among the Athenians. Dr Missiou argues that the speech was essentially subversive, aimed at spreading pro-Spartan and antiwar feelings rather than persuading the audience to take a particular decision.