Oaths and Disputes in Fourth-Century Athenian Society

Oaths, just as prayers, were a means for communicating with gods and constructing relationships through charts, favour Oaths combined with curses-also a special form of prayer-had a religious and social sanction for Greeks Yet in the fourth-century Athenian courts an oath appeared to be less crucial than it used to be The legendary judge Rhadamanthys imposed oaths on both litigants and secured a just settlement (Pl Nomoi 948b-c) Actually both the Gortyn Code and Solonian laws suggest that oaths settled disputes where no contract or witnesses were available In the fourth century, artful reasoning from probability replaced such irrational methods of proof and oath was no longer considered decisive This paper examined procedures involving oath and proklesis, or oath-challenge in fourth-century forensic speeches The proklesis for oath has been treated as subsidiary by the scholars, whose main concern was with that for torture Aristotle first introduced a distinction into evidence (pistis), that is, pisteis entethnoi and ptsteis atechnoi (Rhet 1377a8-b11)and both torture and oath were classified in the latter As for modern scholars, therefore, both proklesis for oath and for torture were regarded as similai procedures for presenting evidences to the court Probably it is such interpretation that caused long-standing disagreements among legal historians Many scholars stressed the rhetorical function of the proklesis, while Headlam and Mirhady concluded that such challenges were meant for settlement, an alternative to a jury trial The discord could be partly attributed to the scarcity of evidence There were so many references to proklesis but in almost all cases such a challenge was not accepted Yet a single accepted challenge is found in 'Against Boiotos' (Dem 39 and 40), which is for oath, not for torture By exploring this case, it can be inferred that the accepted oath was regarded as conclusive for both disputants Although the speaker repeated the illegitimacy of Boiotos in detailreferring to communal events of the phratry and demes, he never insisted the accepted challenge should be annulled Indeed the plaintiff after all acknowledged his father's recognition of Boiotos as an established fact, and he accused Boiotos of other related matters Remarkably, the oath-taker in the accepted case was a woman, and the procedure was carried out before an arbitrator outside the court On the other hand, there is no single instance where proklesis for torture was accepted and carried through Surely at least one case would have survived if it actually produced a piece of evidence at all Probably these two prokleseis must be estimated individually Considering an oath was decisive in archaic settlements, not proklesis but an oath was crucial in the procedure Oaths could produce significant evidence and conclude disputes Not through legal procedures but by charis-relationships could women intervene in disputes between male citizens Oaths settled disputes in the fourth century through rituals, ceremonial events and even as part of a legal procedure They did construct a body of evidence and settle disputes outside the court, where pisteis entechnoi prevailed