On
Behalf of Euphiletus
The Deme
of Erchia is summoned before the court by one of its members who has
been rejected by its vote and who pleads that he is being unjustly disfranchised.
A law had been passed by the Athenians ordering that a revision should
be made of the lists of citizens according to demes, and that anyone
who was rejected by the votes of his fellow-demesmen should no longer
enjoy the rights of citizenship; those, however, who were unjustly rejected
had the right to appeal to the court by summoning the members of the
deme, and, if they were again excluded, they were to be sold as slaves
and their property confiscated. It is under this law that Euphiletus,
having summoned the demesmen of Erchia on the ground that they had unjustly
rejected him, instituted the present case. The facts have been already
skilfully set forth and confirmed by witnesses. The following passage,
in which the orator seeks to confirm the evidence, is composed, in my
opinion, with consummate skill, but the reader must decide for himself
whether my judgement of it is correct.
Gentlemen,
you have heard not only us but also all our kinsmen give evidence that
Euphiletus here is our brother. Next consider, in the first place, what
motive our father could have for lying and for having adopted Euphiletus
as his son, if he were not really so.
You will
find that all those who do such things either have no legitimate children
of their own or else are constrained by poverty to adopt aliens in order
that they might receive some assistance from them, because they are
indebted to them for their Athenian citizenship. Our father had neither
of these motives, for in us he has two legitimate sons, so that he would
never have adopted Euphiletus because he lacked an heir.
Nor again
is he in need of any material support or comfort which Euphiletus could
give him; for he is possessed of sufficient resources, and further evidence
has been given you that he brought up Euphiletus and educated him from
childhood and introduced him to the members of his ward--all of which
represents a considerable outlay. So that it is unlikely, judges, that
my father committed so wicked a crime from which he derived no advantage.
Again,
as for myself, no one could imagine me to be so completely insane as
to bear false witness in favor of Euphiletus with the result that I
should have to share my patrimony with a larger number of heirs. For
I should never hereafter be at liberty to plead that Euphiletus is not
my brother; for none of you would listen to me for a moment, if, after
now bearing witness that he is my brother and making myself liable to
the penalties of the law, I should hereafter openly contradict this
assertion.
Thus, gentlemen,
the probabilities are in favor of my having given true evidence, and
the same is true of the other relatives. For observe, in the first place,
that the husbands of our sisters would never have given false evidence
in favor of Euphiletus; for his mother had become stepmother to our
sisters, and it is customary for differences to exist between stepmothers
and the daughters of a former marriage; so that, if their stepmother
had borne Euphiletus to any man other than our father, our sisters would
never have allowed their husbands to give evidence in his favor.
Again,
our uncle, a relative on our mother's side and no kinsman of Euphiletus,
would never have consented, judges, to give in favor of Euphiletus's
mother evidence which was manifestly against our interests, if Euphiletus
were an alien whom we are attempting to introduce into the family as
our own brother. Furthermore, judges, how could any of you convict of
perjury Demaratus here and Hegemon and Nicostratus, who, in the first
place, will never be shown to have lent themselves to any base action,
and who, secondly, being our kinsmen and knowing us all, have each borne
witness to his own relationship to Euphiletus?
I should
like, then, to hear from the most respectable of our opponents, whether
he can produce any other sources of evidence to prove his own Athenian
citizenship than those which we are employing in support of Euphiletus.
I do not think he could urge any plea except that his mother was a citizen
and a married woman and his father a citizen, and he would produce his
kinsmen to bear witness that he was speaking the truth.
Next, judges,
if it were our opponents who were on their trial, they would demand
that you should believe the evidence of their kinsmen rather than their
accusers; and now, when we produce all these proofs, are they going
to demand that you should believe what they say, rather than Euphiletus's
father and me and my brother and the members of the ward and all our
kindred? Furthermore, our opponents are acting out of personal spite
without exposing themselves to any risk, while we are all rendering
ourselves liable to the penalties of the law in giving evidence.
And in addition to the depositions, judges, in the first place, the
mother of Euphiletus, who is admitted by our opponents to be a citizen,
expressed before the arbitrators her willingness to swear an oath in
the sanctuary of Delphinian Apollo that Euphiletus here was the issue
of herself and our father; and who had better means of knowing than
she? Secondly, judges, our father, who naturally is better able to recognize
his own son than anyone else except his mother, was ready on the former
occasion, and is ready now, to swear that Euphiletus here is his son
by a mother who is a citizen and legally married.
In addition
to this, judges, I was thirteen years old, as I have already said, when
he was born, and I am ready to swear that Euphiletus here is my brother
by the same father. You would be justified then, judges, in regarding
our oaths as more worthy of credence than the statements of our opponents;
for we, knowing all the facts, are willing to swear oaths concerning
him, while they are repeating statements which they have heard from
his enemies or uttering their own fabrications.
Furthermore,
judges, we are producing before you our kinsmen, as we produced them
before the arbitrators, as witnesses whom there is no reason for you
to disbelieve; whereas our opponents, when Euphiletus brought his former
case against the community of the deme and the demarch then in office,
who has since died, though the case was before the arbitrator for two
years, could never find a single piece of evidence to show that Euphiletus
was the son of any father other than our father. In the opinion of the
arbitrators this was the strongest indication that our opponents were
lying, and they both gave their award against them. Please take the
deposition about the former arbitration.
Deposition
Furthermore,
judges, we are producing before you our kinsmen, as we produced them
before the arbitrators, as witnesses whom there is no reason for you
to disbelieve; whereas our opponents, when Euphiletus brought his former
case against the community of the deme and the demarch then in office,
who has since died, though the case was before the arbitrator for two
years, could never find a single piece of evidence to show that Euphiletus
was the son of any father other than our father. In the opinion of the
arbitrators this was the strongest indication that our opponents were
lying, and they both gave their award against them. Please take the
deposition about the former arbitration.
Deposition
You have
now heard that my opponents lost their case before the arbitrators.
I claim, judges, that, just as they would have declared, if the arbitrators
had decided in their favor, that this was a strong proof that Euphiletus
is not the son of Hegesippus, so now you should regard as equally strong
evidence of the truth of our contention the fact that they were considered
by the arbitrators to be doing Euphiletus an injury in having subsequently
deleted his name, though he was a citizen and had before been legally
enrolled. You have, I think, now heard enough, judges, to convince you
that Euphiletus here is our brother and your fellow-citizen, and that
he has been unjustly insulted by those who have conspired against him
in the deme.