Athenian Jury Analysis

Athenian law court speeches give great insight into the citizens who made up the jury. They were at the centre of Athenian democracy, yet all modern information concerning the jury and their preferences rely almost entirely on what we see in law courts. By examining which techniques were used regularly in law court speeches, a picture of what appealed to the jury and the type of people it was made up of can be constructed. While it is hard to assess certain techniques impressiveness to the jury as it is rare to know for certain which speeches are successful, their repetition across decades indicates they were popular techniques. The jury’s capacity to understand and remember the material presented, their role in the larger Athenian democracy

Repeatedly, arguments were made calling the fate of Athenian democracy into question due to the crime of their opposition. That each case would have any impact upon the society the Athenians held dear is questionable, but so fundamental was the concept that it made such an effective argument. A particular demographic that was often targeted and can be used to explore this idea further were the wealthy. Lysias 21 describes how the jury could often be wary of the wealthy when the speaker declares, “do but observe, gentlemen of the jury, how slender are the revenues of the State, and how even these are pilfered by their appointed guardians.” Their unease stemmed from the responsibility of wealthy citizens, as they were required to fulfil a greater role in the democracy by performing liturgies, and thus had more capacity to harm the state than the average citizens. Even if they fulfilled this role to the fullest extent, it has been argued that the wealthy could not rely on the jury being favourable towards their public service. It was attempted often though, not only in attempts to make the jury aware of public service, but often that he or his family publically acted in defence of democracy. Lysias 10 has the speaker begin his speech by claiming his father was executed by the Thirty, the popular enemies of democracy . This is the hallmark of many speeches of that era, and rather than

Socrates implication in Plato’s Apology that the jury was knowledgeable to an extent of Athenian writings expands upon the idea of a literate jury. In his questioning of Meletus, he attacks him on the grounds that he is accusing the jury of being “so unversed in letters as to not know” the works of Anaxagoras. This particular passage raises many questions, and it is possible that Socrates may have been making a subtle jab himself at the jury, as he refers the jury to a book rather than rely on their social memory, a technique expected of someone addressing an older audience . However, the particular works he was referring to were at this time no longer in the direct memory of the jury (Anaxagoras died in 428BC, 29 years prior to this case) and it was likely the reference was indeed to aid his audience in identifying the works