Abstract
The article at hand deals with questions of objectivity and the conception of âtruthâ in the law courts of classical Athens. The surprising differences of Athenian and modern legal systems in this respect raise the question of how legal evidence was presented before the jurors and what was actually deemed relevant for reaching a just verdict in Athenian courts. In order to give an insight into Athenian legal thinking the article will explain first how (and by whom) evidence for a law suit was chosen. Next, some specific forms of evidence, their actual use in court and their incorporation in the law court speeches are to be presented in detail. This way, some unique structures in Athenian legal thinking will become apparent and show that the unusual perception of evidence in Athenian law courts must not be seen as a result of legal disability or lack of rationality but as a means of highly differentiated legal strategies.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
