Conclusions: Some rules of thumb in the study of Athenian forensic oratory

This conclusion presents seven ‘rules of thumb’ for studying Greek forensic oratory. It emphasizes that forensic rhetoric is inherently legal rhetoric, and assessing the persuasiveness of arguments requires understanding the relevant laws. Weak legal arguments are still legal arguments, and disagreements in legal interpretation are essential to legal discourse and the rule of law. Accusations of relying on irrelevant arguments or twisting the law do not necessarily indicate a lack of concern for legality but rather appeal to shared norms and expectations. The conclusion distinguishes between legal practice and institutional norms, aims, and structures, cautioning against conflating evidence of abuse with the system's overall concern for legality. Finally, it argues that the Athenian legal system should not be compared to modern abstract ideals but rather assessed based on its acknowledgment and attempted implementation of key rule of law principles, considering its effectiveness in the context of other historical legal systems.