7 - Conclusions

Summary

we see in classical athens the first sustained, well-documented approach to a perennial problem faced by all organized societies in constructing a legal system: the tension between adherence to general rules and doing justice in specific cases. Under the democracy, the Athenians experimented with a variety of responses to this problem. Rather than employ a uniform procedure for all cases, the Athenians adopted a mixed system, with pockets of legal formalism surrounded by popular courts that granted juries a wide degree of discretion. For the majority of cases, the Athenians chose what, by modern standards, is a remarkably flexible approach to legal decision making. Greater formalism in homicide and maritime cases is likely to have promoted the stability of the predominant, and far less rigid, mode of the popular courts.

In this study, I have argued that the Athenian approach to law was more varied and complex than has previously been recognized. A more fine-grained description of the Athenian legal system must take account of not only popular court practice, but also the more formal, legal approach used in homicide and maritime cases. The special homicide and maritime procedures suggest that the Athenians could conceptualize, and to some degree implement, a legal system in which abstract principles were impartially applied. In popular court cases, by contrast, a much broader notion of relevance prevailed, as juries made ad hoc determinations based on the particular circumstances and context of the dispute, including the character and reputations of the litigants.