‘TO LISTEN TO BOTH SIDES EQUALLY’: JUST JUDGMENT IN THE ATHENIAN COURTS Ella Street 1,2 Abstract: Classical Athens is often celebrated as a model of deliberative democracy and a reminder of the value of talking with others. The historical Athens, however, complicates this picture. In certain political contexts, the Athenians did not think that talking with others would serve justice or democratic equality and they prohibited ver- bal deliberation among jurors in the popular courts (dikasteria). In this article, I explain why they did so. I argue that the jurors’ oath’s injunction to ‘listen to both sides equally’ is at the heart of the Athenian conception of just judicial judgment, and I show how Athenians sought to generate unbiased, democratic and egalitarian judg- ment during trials without relying on a notion of impartiality that requires dispassion or disinterestedness. Keywords: Athenian democracy, law courts, equality, deliberation, impartiality, judicial judgment, democratic participation. Introduction Classical Athens is often celebrated as a model of deliberative democracy and a reminder of the value of talking with others. In The Human Condition, Arendt calls Athens ‘the most talkative of all bodies politic’. 3 John Stuart Mill praised Athens for its commitment to free speech, and deliberative democrats harken back to Athens for inspiration. Indeed, democratic rule in the first democracy is associated first and foremost with the participation of ordinary citizens in decision-making through discussion and debate. The historical Athens, however, complicates this picture. In certain political contexts, the Athenians did not think that talking with others would serve justice or demo- cratic equality. In particular, the Athenians prohibited verbal deliberation among jurors in the popular courts (dikasteria). We may still have something to learn from Athens if we endeavour to understand why. HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT. Vol. XLVI. No. 1. Spring 2025 DOI: 10.53765/20512988.46.1.1 1 Centre for Ethics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Email: Ecs248@cor- nell.edu 2 I thank Matt Simonton, Ryan Balot, Michael Gorup, Daniela Cammack and espe- cially Jill Frank for their insights, criticism and conversation. Thanks also to the partici- pants of the 2023 conference, ‘Judgment, Pluralism and Democracy: On the Value of Talking with Others’, at Bard College and the 2023 Association for Political Theory Annual meeting, where I presented an earlier version of this piece. I acknowledge the support of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council. 3 H. Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago, 2nd edn., 1998), p. 26. As quoted in D. Cammack, ‘Deliberation and Discussion in Classical Athens’,The Journal of Politi- cal Philosophy, 29 (2021), p. 488. Copyright (c) Imprint Academic For personal use only -- not for reproduction