MKT 100 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Parricide, Hubris, Cross-Examination
16 Dec 2017
School
Department
Course
Professor
David Cohen’s Study of Law in Ancient Greece
* Integrity quiz results are attached at the end of this submission
1. Identify the features of the institution of law that we take for granted today which were
absent in ancient Athens
In modern society, all laws that are created are written down and applied equally to all
citizens in each jurisdiction. In ancient Athens, very few laws had been written and was thought
of as common sense to the community. In addition to such, when cases were brought before the
court, the winner of the case would mainly be influenced by the character of the person, their
honor and prestige within the community rather than the facts presented within the case. They
did not have the luxury of going before an unbiased judge and presenting the facts before a judge
and getting a fair ruling. In most cases, since no one was forced to take an oath before testimony,
there was no obligation to speak the truth, which led to witnesses lying before the court for
whomever side they were on. Also, the absence of cross examining witnesses played a key role
in the outcome of cases as the prosecutor was never questioned to clarify the validity of his
claim.
2. Explain why “equality” always involves “emulation” (rivalry, enmity) in ancient Athens.
In ancient Athens, men attempted to win the respect of others that they considered equal to
them or wanted to be seen as equal. Since the culture in ancient Athens defined honor through
comparison with others, it took a form of competition and created emulation between two
individuals. (63) “One man enhances his standing at the expense of those who are his rivals”.
(63) This quote explains that equality will always involve emulation because those men that are
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
seen equal to each other will always maintain a competitive nature with one another as their
prime goal is to surpass to someone that is equal to them, or otherwise known as their rival.
3. Summarize three cases of rivalry discussed by Cohen. For each case, identify:
(1) what the case is about, (2) what was said in the speeches, and (3) what the case teaches us (in
Cohen’s view) about agonistic culture in ancient Athens.
Case One – On the Murder of Eratosthenes
This case is based around Euphiletus, who is trying to prove that his murder of
Eratosthenes was justifiable because he was an adulterer and that there was no prior enmity
between them before the murder. (71) In his speech, he starts by proving that before the murder,
there was no prior enmity between him and Eratosthenes by claiming “(1) Eratosthenes had not
subjected him to sycophantic prosecutions, (2) he had not attempted to expel him from the city,
(3) he had not attempted to expel him from the city, (4) he did not know of any crimes of
Euphiletus, (5) Euphiletus did not stand to gain financially by killing him, (6) there had been no
verbal abuse, drunken brawls, or other quarrels between them.” (71) In his speech, his primary
goal is to take away the prosecutors only argument, to try and prove that there was enmity prior
to the murder. This case shows us that in an agonistic society, it is custom and expected to harm
one’s enemy when exacting revenge in ancient Athens.
Case Two – Lysias’ oration, Against Theomnestus
In this case, Theomnestus was being prosecuted for throwing one’s shield away in battle.
(73) However, he had been acquitted of this charge and countersued the speaker for parricide
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
1
MKT 100 Full Course Notes
Verified Note
1 document
