Noncitizens in Athenian Courts - LECTURE
Noncitizens in Athenian Courts
Introduction
This lecture explores the role and treatment of noncitizens in the Athenian courts, examining the interplay between legal status and other forms of inequality (wealth, social standing, cultural capital) in accessing justice. It questions whether legal status was the sole determinant of one's ability to navigate the Athenian legal system.
Metics (Resident Aliens)
Definition: Foreign residents in Athens with certain limitations.
Limitations:
Cannot hold Athenian offices (jurors, magistrates).
Cannot participate in the assembly or boule.
Required a prostates (citizen representative or patron).
Had to pay a poll tax (.).
Generally could not own land in Attica, but could own personal property, trade and buildings.
Were required to perform military service.
Legal Distinctions for Metics
Homicide Cases:
The murder of a slave, metic, or foreigner was tried before the court of the Palladium, not the Areopagus (which tried the murder of citizens).
Penalties were limited to exile, not the death penalty.
Reasons for Distinction:
Homicide legislation was very old. This distinction may have been more relevant when the legislation was first established by Draco.
The death of a citizen was considered a distinct and more serious matter than the death of a noncitizen.
Special Suits for Ex-Slaves:
Ex-slaves faced special suits if they failed to uphold their responsibilities to their former masters and could be sold back into slavery.
Equality Before the Law: Theory vs. Practice
Cynthia Paterson's View:
Argues that metics faced a serious disadvantage in court due to scrutiny of their relationship with the Athenian state. She uses analysis of Lycias 22 on the corn dealers as evidence of xenophobia in the courts.
Athenian അനxiety about Foreign Courts:
During the Athenian Empire, cases involving Athenians in subject states had to be tried in Athens, indicating concerns about fair treatment in foreign courts.
Nuances Within the Metics Category:
The experience of a metic varied greatly based on their wealth, social networks, and contributions to the state.
Wealthy metics with strong social connections and citizen co-speakers could potentially receive fairer treatment than poor citizens without such advantages.
Women in Athenian Courts
General Limitations:
These limitations generally applied across the board to free, metic, and slave women.
Litigation:
No direct evidence of women bringing suits, but evidence of suits being brought against them (e.g., Against Neaera, Antiphon's Against the Stepmother).
Arguments often targeted men associated with the women rather than the women themselves.
Presence in Court:
Against Neaera suggests women could be present in court, but they did not speak on their own behalf and had a representative to defend them (e.g. Neaera is present, but is being spoken for).
Social norms dictated that respectable Athenian women should not appear in court unless their status was being questioned.
In Antiphon's Against the Stepmother, women aren't personally referenced; they are referred to as "mother of these men."
Demosthenes suggests that older women might be more acceptable in court due to reduced concerns about sexual propriety.
Witnesses:
Generally, women did not serve as witnesses, but there might be an exception in homicide cases. The validity of the exception however depends on how the existing sources are interpreted.
Sworn Statements:
Women did swear statements under oath, which were then reported in court. These statements often concerned matters of fact or specifically women's issues like legitimacy.
Example: A mother swearing to the legitimacy of her child in the sanctuary of Delphinian Apollo, which highlights the paralegal activities happening in sanctuaries.
Decisive Oaths:
Unlike Gorton women in classical Athens have little evidence for decisive oaths.
Plangon's case shows an oath sworn outside of court that ended a inheritance dispute. Story is found in Demosthenes 39. Plangon says if you ask me, are they your legitimate children, I'll say I'm not willing to swear, and that will be the end of the matter. The father tenders the oath to get Plangon to swear the kids are illegitimate. Plangon accepts the oath, but swears they are legitimate, therefore double crossing the father.
Demonsthenes and others characterize her as a perjurer who deceives others, but there's an agency attributed to her as the mother.
Other Types of Involvement:
Women's testimony was reported and quoted in court by male speakers.
Women's relationships (mothers, wives, daughters) were used to construct the relationships between warring parties.
Example of Licias 32 of the complicated family strife:
Dicaegentus gives a lot of money to Deodatus, who marries his daughter. Deodatus eventually dies and Dicaegentus becomes the guardian. Dicaegentus hands over a tiny pittance of money and claims he spent most of it raising them.
Wife of Deodatus and daughter of Dicaegentus goes to her new husband who doesn't want to be involved. She then goes to her son-in-law, who is compelled to summon a family meeting and persuade Dicaegentus to attend.
All of the language is a rhetorical tour de force, there is a piteous language being invoked.
Women's Agency:
Women were instrumental in cases coming to court (Lynn Foxhall).
Women had detailed financial knowledge of family affairs.
Women could persuade menfolk to pursue justice.
Alternative Perspectives:
Kapyrus argues that widows had more agency and influence than younger, married women.
Women who had to work (e.g., brothel keepers, innkeepers) might have had more engagement in legal issues.
Comic Depiction:
Aristophanes's Wasps shows a female baker engaged in dispute resolution, which raises the question of whether this reflected real-life scenarios.
Slaves in Athenian Courts
Basanos (Torture):
Slaves were used to extract information through judicial torture (basanos), but this was complicated.
Basanos refers to the act of torture, the evidence extracted, and the challenge to submit a slave for torture.
Apollodorus tenders Stephanus a challenge to submit slaves for torture.
Challenges were often refused and used as a rhetorical strategy to imply guilt.
Torture Arguments:
Torture was thought necessary to overcome a slave's loyalty or fear of their master.
Aristotle's Rhetoric presents both sides of the argument: torture can reveal the truth, but it can also lead to false confessions.
Some believe torture was only a rhetorical appeal and not actually practiced.
Rhetorical Appeal:
Torture could serve as evidence of their size.
Challenges might serve as evidence.
The challenge may have been challenged due to it being deemed illegitimate.
Acceptance (rarely):
If challenge to torture was accepted the opponent may change the terms that had been agreed to.
Denunciation:
Slaves could denounce others, especially relevant in impiety cases where their testimony might be granted immunity.
Slave Agency and Responsibility:
Masters were responsible for slave debts and damages.
Slaves could pay with their bodies through corporal punishment.
Very rarely, exceptions for when slaves can serve as litigants:
Demosthenes 55 suggests a slave was sued who did activities without his master. This may be a rhetorical device.
In commercial suits, the rules regarding relevance might have been different. However, the sources are limited, and may have specific characteristics such as slave status.
Protection for Slaves:
Hubris and homicide laws allowed for prosecution of those who committed these acts against slaves.
Killing a slave caused religious pollution.
Master's Control:
Masters could purify themselves for murdering their own slave, with no legal penalty.
The extent of protection under hubris laws is debated.
Letter from a Slave:
A letter found in the Agora details a slave's desperation and appeal to others for help, highlighting the complex social realities of slavery.
Leces is sending a letter asking Xenacles and his mother for help, Leces says he's dying in the foundry and have been turned over to a wicked, beating man. Those who don't think he's a slave claim he's being held as an apprentice.
Conclusion
This exploration of noncitizens in Athenian courts reveals a complex interplay of legal status, social norms, and other factors that influenced access to justice. The sources demonstrate that while legal distinctions existed, the reality was often more nuanced, and individuals found various ways to navigate the legal system.