There has been much debate in scholarship over the factors determining the outcome of legal hearings in classical Athens. Specifically, there is divergence regarding the extent to which judicial panels were influenced by non-legal considerations in addition to, or even instead of, questions of law. Ancient rhetorical theory and practice devoted much attention to character and it is this aspect of Athenian law which forms the focus of this book. Close analysis of the dispute-resolution passages in ancient Greek literature reveals striking similarities with the rhetoric of litigants in the Athenian courts and thus helps to shed light on the function of the courts and the fundamental nature of Athenian law. The widespread use of character evidence in every aspect of argumentation can be traced to the Greek ideas of ‘character’ and ‘personality’, the inductive method of reasoning, and the social, political and institutional structures of the ancient Greek polis. According to the author’s proposed method of interpretation, character evidence was not a means of diverting the jury’s attention away from the legal issues; instead, it was a constructive and relevant way of developing a legal argument.

In this 2006 book, Adriaan Lanni draws on contemporary legal thinking to present a model of the legal system of classical Athens. She analyses the Athenians' preference in most cases for ad hoc, discretionary decision-making, as opposed to what moderns would call the rule of law. Lanni argues that the Athenians consciously employed different approaches to legal decision-making in different types of courts. The varied approaches to legal process stems from a deep tension in Athenian practice and thinking, between the demand for flexibility of legal interpretation consistent with the exercise of democratic power by ordinary Athenian jurors; and the demand for consistency and predictability in legal interpretation expected by litigants and necessary to permit citizens to conform their conduct to the law. Lanni presents classical Athens as a case study of a successful legal system that, by modern standards, had an extraordinarily individualised and discretionary approach to justice.

This book draws on contemporary legal scholarship to explain why Athens was a remarkably well-ordered society.

Law and Society in Classical Athens, first published in 1987, traces the development of legal thought and its relation to Athenian values. Previously Athens’ courts have been regarded as chaotic, isolated from the rest of society and even bizarre. The importance of rhetoric and the mischief made by Aristophanes have devalued the legal process in the eyes of modern scholars, whilst the analysis of legal codes and practice has seemed dauntingly complex. Professor Garner aims to situate the Athenian legal system within the general context of abstract thought on justice and of the democratic politics of the fifth century. His work is a valuable source of information on all aspects of Athenian law and its relation to culture.

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1905 edition. Excerpt: ... CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The experience of Athens has shown that law may be administered satisfactorily without a professional class either of judges or of lawyers. Magistrates chosen by lot were constantly required to exercise important judicial functions for which they had no special training; nor were they able to gain a fund of knowledge by experience, as they held office for one year only. In all probability, the general efficiency of the magistrates was largely due to the practice which permitted them to choose their own assessors. This enabled a weak magistrate to secure the assistance of a competent man to aid him in his official duties. There is, however, no indication that these assessors were reappointed by succeeding magistrates, as is the case in the British system of government, where deputies may continue to hold office under different ministers of the crown. With the object of making each citizen take his full share in public life, and of preserving equality ( crorifita) in the citizen body, litigants, if citizens, were required to take their own cases in court. But this was an ideal beyond the possibility of achievement even in the Athens of Pericles. And so there arose a class of men whose business it was to write speeches for those who were unequal to the task of pleading their own cases. These Koyvfpajxu. did to a certain degree constitute a professional class, but they were not lawyers in our sense of the word. A knowledge of rhetoric was quite as important for their success as a knowledge of law. Moreover, the necessity of fitting the speech to the character of his client tended to keep the speech-writer in the background. Indeed, every artifice was resorted to in order to keep up the delusion that the litigant...