Isaeus

12. ON BEHALF OF EUPHILETUS

. ON BEHALF OF EUPHILETUS This speech is, strictly speaking, a fragment, since it is preserved by Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his essay on Isaeus (Isaeus 17). It further differs from the preceding speeches in that its subject matter is civic rights; together with some other fragments, this indicates that Isaeus did not restrict himself solely to matters of inheritance. Euphiletus, son of Hegesippus, was struck off the register of the deme Erchia during one of the periodic revisions of the register. He brought suit against the demesmen and two arbitrators found in his favor (12.11), but the demesmen refused to back down, and Euphiletus exercised his right of appeal to the court of the Thesmothetae. The penalty if he lost was enslavement and the confiscation of his property. The speech was delivered by an advocate (synēgoros), Euphiletus ’ elder half-brother (the son of Hegesippus by a previous marriage), and the preserved fragment, admired by Dionysius for its argumentative skill, is from the proofs section. The speaker begins with possible motives why Hegesippus might have adopted Euphiletus. He argues from probability (eikos) that adoption was unlikely because Hegesippus already had two sons, and bringing up Euphiletus caused him considerable expense (12.1– 3). Nor was it likely that he, the speaker, would testify falsely on  On the legal problems raised by the involvement of arbitrators, see Wyse 1904: 716–717.  The precise procedure involved here is unclear. It may have been a private action (see Rubinstein 2000: 61 n. 99). For the view that it was the members of the deme who were appealing, see M. Just, “Le rōle des ␦␫␣␫␶␩␶␣␫ ⬘ dans Isée 12, 11,” RIDA 15 (1968), 107 –116. on behalf of euphiletus 195 Euphiletus’ behalf when he would have to share his patrimony (12.4). Similarly, the other relatives had more reason to testify against Euphiletus than for him (12.5–6), and the opponents could not have produced better witnesses than these if they had been on trial (12.7– 8). The speaker then turns to a nontechnical proof (atechnos pistis), the oaths that his mother, father, and he himself were ready to swear to Euphiletus’ legitimacy (12.9–10): the offer by the mother to take an oath may have been particularly effective. He goes on to contrast the reliability of his witnesses, as kinsmen, with the opposition ’s lack of evidence to the contrary, which strongly influenced the arbitrators (12.11), and backs this up with the hypothetical inversion that just as the opponents would have used the arbitrators’ decision as a strong proof if it had been in their favor, so it should now count for Euphiletus (12.12). The law ordering the revision of the deme register was proposed by Demophilus in the archonship of Archias (346/5). It clearly caused a good deal of litigation, as is evidenced also by Lost Speech VI (Against Boeotus; cf. Dem. 39) and Demosthenes 57, Against Eubulides . The present speech will have been delivered, after two years with the arbitrators (12.11), in 344/3, which in turn is evidence for the longevity of Isaeus’ forensic career. 12 Introduction The deme of Erchia is summoned to the court by a member who has been rejected by its vote, on the ground that he was unjustly excluded from the citizenship. The Athenians had passed a law ordering a scrutiny of the citizen roll by demes and prescribing that anybody who was rejected by the votes of his demesmen was not to share in the citizenship; but those who were unjustly rejected were to have the right of appeal (ephesis) to the court by summoning the demesmen, and if they were  See Usher 1999: 168–169.  Nothing survives of this speech.  Dionysius (Isaeus 16) introduces the excerpt he quotes with these remarks. 196 isaeus excluded a second time, they were to be sold as slaves and their property confiscated. It was under this law that Euphiletus summoned the demesmen of Erchia, on the ground that they had unjustly expelled him and instituted this lawsuit. The facts have already been precisely stated and confirmed by witnesses; the following passage, in which he seeks to strengthen the testimony, is in my opinion composed with great precision, but you must decide for yourself whether my judgment of it is appropriate. [] So then, gentlemen of the jury, you have heard not...