The democratic revolution that swept Classical Athens transformed the role of law in Athenian society. The legal process and the popular courts took on new and expanded roles in civic life. Although these changes occurred with the consent of the "people" (demos), Athenians were ambivalent about the spread of legal culture. In particular, they were aware that unscrupulous individuals might manipulate the laws and the legal process to serve their own purposes. Indeed, throughout the Classical Period, when Athenians gathered in public and private settings, they regularly discussed, debated, and complained about legal chicanery, or sukophantia. In The Litigious Athenian, Matthew Christ explores what this ancient discussion reveals about how Athenians conceived of and responded to problematic aspects of their collective legal experience. The transfer of significant judicial power from the elite Areopagus Council to the popular courts was a crucial step in the establishment of Athenian democracy, Christ notes, and Athenians took great pride in their legal system. They chose not to make significant changes to their legal institutions even though they could have done so at any time through a majority vote of the Assembly. Determining that the term sykophant was applied rhetorically rather than, as some have believed, to describe a specific subclass, Christ shows how the public debates over legal chicanery helped define the limits of ethical behavior under the law and in public life.

Publisher description

This book constructs a distinctive view of classical Athens, a view which takes seriously the evidence of archaeology and of art history.

Examines the behavior of Athenians in the classical period, arguing that Athenians felt little pressure as individuals to help fellow citizens.

In 404 b.c. the Peloponnesian War finally came to an end, when the Athenians, starved into submission, were forced to accept Sparta's terms of surrender. Shortly afterwards a group of thirty conspirators, with Spartan backing ("the Thirty"), overthrew the democracy and established a narrow oligarchy. Although the oligarchs were in power for only thirteen months, they killed more than 5 percent of the citizenry and terrorized the rest by confiscating the property of some and banishing many others. Despite this brutality, members of the democratic resistance movement that regained control of Athens came to terms with the oligarchs and agreed to an amnesty that protected collaborators from prosecution for all but the most severe crimes. The war and subsequent reconciliation of Athenian society has been a rich field for historians of ancient Greece. From a rhetorical and ideological standpoint, this period is unique because of the extraordinary lengths to which the Athenians went to maintain peace. In Remembering Defeat, Andrew Wolpert claims that the peace was "negotiated and constructed in civic discourse" and not imposed upon the populace. Rather than explaining why the reconciliation was successful, as a way of shedding light on changes in Athenian ideology Wolpert uses public speeches of the early fourth century to consider how the Athenians confronted the troubling memories of defeat and civil war, and how they explained to themselves an agreement that allowed the conspirators and their collaborators to go unpunished. Encompassing rhetorical analysis, trauma studies, and recent scholarship on identity, memory, and law, Wolpert's study sheds new light on a pivotal period in Athens' history.

Syn�goroi are widely known in Athenian law to have served as supporting speakers and aids to the main prosecutors within a courtroom. Lene Rubinstein argues that these people were an important part of court practice and social and political litigation, though largely ignored in many previous studies of Athenian politics. Her study draws extensively on the speeches of syn�goroi , revealing their multi-functionality as witnesses, as co-speakers alongside the main prosecutor and as part of a collaborative legal team.