This essay tries to demonstrate that there were two contrasting behaviour patterns manifest by parties faced with conflicts and disputes in ancient Greece. In one those concerned attempted to settle their differences by referring to their shared assumption of their situations and relationships involving surrounding third parties. I call this the type of sharing assumption. In the other pattern, they defied the claims of opposing party with their own contradicting interpretation of their relationships. I call it the type of defying assumption. In this latter type they often failed to reach a settlement.
The method employed in this paper is to analyze the dispute scenario with particular reference to a Greek word, peitho, which is the central notion in Greek rhetoric (e.g., Plato's Gorgias), and especially the differences in implication between the middle voice peithomaj, and the active peitho.
My analysis starts with the quarrel between Agamemnon and Achilleus which extends all through the Iliad. In Book 1 all the instances but one (1, 132) are in the middle voice and illustrate the assumption shared by the two parties and surrounding Achaians of their relationships in terms of the distribution of spoils. By contrast, the instances of the active peitho in Books 1 and 9 well illustrate the situation in which one party defies the assumptions of the other. Thus, I argue that their behaviour patterns provide illustrations for the two types of Greek attitude towards dispute resolution.
Further references can be drawn from other scenes in Greek literature which contains countless examples of disputes and conflicts. From them I only take a few illuminating examples. I suggest that the famous carpet scene in Aeschylus' Agamemnon offers us a subtle example of the first type in a sharp contrast to the scene in the Odyssey Book 23 where Odysseus and Penelope confront each other. By contrast, the scene of Melian Dialogue in Thucydides Book 5 provides an illustration of the situation in which each party is determined to destroy the other's claim.
Recent studies on Greek law have stressed context, discourse and structure for settling disputes rather than focussing on (written and unwritten) law. Indeed, it is said that Greek rhetoric contributes to magnifying the 'otherness' of Greek law. As a result I suggest that it is necessary to look at the structural patterns in which ancient Greeks dealt with conflicts and disputes. I hope that this essay will make a contribution to the understanding of Greek law and rhetoric in a much wider context.
