On Behalf of Euphiletus (0-4)

Argument

(By Dionysius of Halicarnassus) 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.