On the Scrutiny of Evandros (6-10)

If all these difficulties are the contrivance of this man, what are we to expect, when once he has passed the scrutiny, of the man who will have persuaded the outgoing magistrates to commit an illegality in his interest? Will he contrive just a few things of this sort in the course of a year? For my part, I think not.

But you have to consider, not this question alone, but whether piety is better served by the sacrifices on behalf of the future magistrate being offered by the king-archon and his fellow-magistrates,—as has in fact been done in the past,—or by this man, whom those who know about him have testified to be not even without stained hands[*]; and whether you have sworn to install a magistrate who has not passed the scrutiny or, after holding the scrutiny, to crown the man who is worthy of the office?

That is what you have to consider. Reflect also on the fact that the author of the law concerning scrutinies had chiefly in view the magistrates of the oligarchy; for he thought it monstrous that the men responsible for the overthrow of the democracy should regain office under that very constitution, and get control over the laws and over the city of which they had formerly taken charge only to maim her with such shameful and terrible injuries. Hence it is not right to be careless of the scrutiny, or to make it of so slight account as to ignore it: no, you should keep guard over it; for on the just title of each magistrate depends the safety of the government and of your whole people.

Suppose that he were now under scrutiny for admission to the Council, and he had his name registered on the tablets as having served in the cavalry under the Thirty: even without an accuser you would reject him. And now, when he is found, not merely to have served in the cavalry and on the Council, but to have also committed offences against the people, will it not be strange behavior on your part not to show that you have the same feelings towards him?