Keeping to the Point in Athenian Forensic Oratory

Nyhet

Law, Character and Rhetoric

Häftad, Engelska, 2026

389 kr

Kommande

When a litigant initiated a lawsuit in Classical Athens, he submitted a written plaint to the relevant magistrate. This document contained his name, the name of the defendant, the legal procedure employed, and the specific violations of part of the law. If the magistrate accepted the plaint, the legal charges were read to the court before and after the litigants spoke, and the judges swore in their oath to vote only about the charges in the plaint, that is, whether the defendant had violated a specific law or not. In private suits, litigants took an oath to ‘keep to the point’, that is, discuss only the legal charges. In public cases litigants were under the same obligation. This volume examines several Athenian court speeches and show that litigants paid close attention to legal relevance in court. Consequently, the essays in this volume make the case for integrated approach to rhetoric and law emphasizing an institutional understanding of Athenian forensic oratory.

Produktinformation

Utgivningsdatum2026-07-31
Mått156 x 234 x undefined mm
FormatHäftad
SpråkEngelska
SerieNew Approaches to Ancient Greek Institutional History
Antal sidor304
FörlagEdinburgh University Press
ISBN9781399523882

Tillhör följande kategorier

Rättshistoria inom Juridik
Forntidens historia inom Historia och arkeologi

Edward M. Harris is Professor Emeritus of Ancient History at Durham University. He has published Aeschines and Athenian Politics (OUP, 1995), Democracy and the Rule of Law in Classical Athens (CUP, 2006), and The Rule of Law in Action in Democratic Athens (OUP, 2013). He has translated Demosthenes, Speeches 20-22 (UT Press, 2008) and Demosthenes Speeches 23-26 (UT Press, 2018) and co-edited with L. Rubinstein, The Law and the Courts in Ancient Greece (Duckworth, 2004) and with D. Leão and P. J. Rhodes, Law and Drama in Ancient Greece (Duckworth, 2010). Alberto Esu is Lecturer in Classical Greek History at the University of Manchester. He has published on ancient Greek law and institutions, political thought, and Athenian oratory. He is the author of Divided Power in Ancient Greece: Decision-Making and Institutions in the Classical and Hellenistic Polis (2024) and has co-edited (with E. M. Harris), Keeping to the Point in Athenian Forensic Oratory: Law, Character and Rhetoric (EUP, 2025).

Preface and Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations List of ContributorsIntroductionAlberto Esu and Edward M. HarrisPart I. Keeping to the Point in Major Public Procedures 1. The Rhetoric of the Graphē Paranomōn in the Trial on the CrownGuy Westwood2. Law, Office and Honour: Legal Relevance and Forensic Arguments in Demosthenes’ Against AndrotionAlberto Esu3. Gossip, Morals and Poetry: Legal Relevance in Aeschines’ Against TimarchusMatteo Barbato 4. How Does Lycurgus Keep to His Point? Legal and Rhetorical Relevance in Against LeocratesJakub Filonik5. Institutions, Character and Relevance: Keeping to the Point in DokimasiaiPeter A. O’ConnellPart II. Keeping to the Point on Hybris, Violence and Disenfranchisement 6. The Legal Charge in Demosthenes’ Against MeidiasEdward M. Harris 7. Did Ariston Keep to the Point? Dikē Aikeias and Graphē Hybreōs in Demosthenes’ Against CononLinda Rocchi8. Trial and Error: Impiety and Legal Relevance in Andocides’ On the MysteriesRebecca Van Hove Part III. Keeping to the Point on Inheritance and Damages 9. Character Evidence in Isaeus’ Speeches from Inheritance DisputesBrenda Griffith-Williams10. Against Timotheus: Keeping to the Point in a Suit for DamageGiacinto FalcoConclusions: Some Rules of Thumb in the Study of Athenian Forensic OratoryMirko CanevaroBibliographyGeneral IndexIndex Locorum

A well-documented, clear and comprehensive analysis of the institutional aspect of Athenian forensic oratory, highlighting the relevance of legal arguments in Classical Athens. An essential reading for the study of Athenian forensic oratory, emphasising its inherently legal character and advocating for a balanced historical perspective, without the pitfall of comparing ancient Athenian practices to modern legal ideals.