On the Murder of Eratosthenes

Last updated

"On the Murder of Eratosthenes" is a speech by Lysias, one of the "Canon of Ten" Attic orators. The speech is the first in the transmitted Lysianic corpus and is therefore also known as Lysias 1. The speech was given by a certain Euphiletos, defending himself against the charge that he murdered Eratosthenes, after he supposedly caught Eratosthenes committing adultery with his wife. Euphiletos defends himself claiming that the killing of Eratosthenes was justifiable homicide, rather than murder. The case was heard before the Delphinion, the court which ruled on cases of justifiable homicide. [1]

Contents

Summary

Lysias was a professional Greek speech writer, whose unpretentious simplicity became the model for a plain style of Attic Greek. He was the son of Cephalus, a wealthy native of Syracuse who settled in Athens. Well over 200 passages were written by Lysias, but only 35 survived, and most have fragments missing.

The speech, which was to be delivered by Euphiletos, is divided into four sections. In the first section, the prooimion (introduction), Lysias has Euphiletos address the jury and introduce the case. [2]

In the second section, the diegesis (account), Lysias has Euphiletos provide a narrative of the events leading to the murder. He describes how he married, and how his wife was seen by Eratosthenes at her mother-in-law's funeral. According to Euphiletos, Eratosthenes used Euphiletos' slave to persuade his wife to have an affair with him. [3] In a scene which draws heavily on comic tropes, Euphiletos places himself in the role of the bumbling husband, describing how the pair carried out the affair under his nose. [4] [5] Euphiletos then recounts how an unnamed old woman revealed the affair and the existence of Eratosthenes to him and how he confirmed her story by interrogating the slave girl. [6] He then waited until Eratosthenes returned, at which point he gathered his friends, stormed into his bedroom and killed Eratosthenes, declaring, “It is not I who am going to kill you, but our city's law, which you have transgressed and regarded as of less account than your pleasures, choosing rather to commit this foul offence against my wife and my children than to obey the laws like a decent person.” [7]

In the third section, the pisteis (arguments), Lysias has Euphiletos justify his actions legally. Euphiletos argues that he was legally entitled to murder Eratosthenes for committing adultery with his wife, citing several laws whose text is no longer preserved, including one inscribed on a column on the Areopagus. He denies that Eratosthenes was dragged into the house or sought sanctuary at the household hearth – situations under which the murder would not have been legal. Witnesses are summoned to affirm that Eratosthenes confessed and offered monetary compensation, which Euphiletos argues he was under no obligation to accept, "as I held that our city's law should have higher authority." [8] Lysias has Euphiletos defend the law on policy grounds: written law should be enforced so that people can trust it as a guide to how to behave appropriately and more specifically in order to discourage people from adultery. He devotes the remainder of his speech to establishing that the murder was not premeditated and that he had no pre-existing enmity with (or knowledge of) Eratosthenes. [9]

Finally, in the epilogos (conclusion), Lysias has Euphiletos reiterate his claim that he has behaved according to the law and the interests of the city, saying that if Euphiletos is punished for the murder of Eratosthenes then the court is protecting seducers and corrupting society. [10]

Argument

Lysias’ main framework in this speech was to portray the case using common tropes of adultery from Greek comedy. [11] In this standard narrative, an old, straightforward and naive Athenian everyman is cuckolded by his randy young wife and her conniving young lover. Porter cites Aristophanes' Thesmophoriazusae 476-89 and Menander's Samia 225–248 as well-known examples. [5] Lysias presents Euphiletos in the role of the naive and trusting husband, [11] a characterisation which supports Euphiletos' main arguments, that the murder was not premeditated [12] and that the murder was justified in the interests of the whole community. It accomplishes the former by presenting him as too simple and straightforward to have engaged in the kind of deception and premeditation alleged by his accusers, and the latter by encouraging the audience of jurors to identify with him and his situation. [5]

Premeditation

It was crucial that Lysias established that the murder of Eratosthenes was not premeditated. [13] The prosecution case was that Euphiletos had entrapped Eratosthenes, and was therefore guilty of intentional homicide. [14] Lysias has Euphiletos argue that the murder was not premeditated by stressing Euphiletos' lack of preparation: he had had a friend around for dinner that night but had not kept him around to help, [15] and he repeatedly stresses the difficulty Euphiletos had gathering witnesses after Eratosthenes entered his house because he had not organised them in advance. [16] He does not call on witnesses to corroborate either of these points. [5]

Authenticity

Porter has argued that the speech was never actually delivered in court but was "a particularly sophisticated form of practical rhetorical exercise— a fictional speech based upon a fictional case, designed not only to instruct and delight but, quite probably, to advertise the logographer’s skill." [5] He bases this on five grounds. First, the speech is roughly half the length of comparable speeches concerning murder charges like Antiphon 5 and 6 and Lysias 12 and 13. Second, Euphiletos and Eratosthenes are "curiously generic" – the speech offers almost none of the details about Eratosthenes moral failings or Euphiletos' virtues that such speeches usually include. Third, Porter argues that the litigants' names match their roles in the drama and therefore suggest they are fictional: Euphiletos means "beloved," while Eratosthenes means "vigorous in love." The latter name is also exceptionally rare in Athens. Fourth, Porter argues that the dependence of the narrative on comic tropes suggests that it is fictional. Finally, Porter argues that the speech focuses excessively on the diegesis, giving little attention to matters that would be important if Euphiletos were a real defendant facing the death penalty. For instance, Euphiletos' arguments against premeditation are fairly weak and are not supported by calling on witnesses. [5]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murder</span> Unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse committed with the necessary intention as defined by the law in a specific jurisdiction. This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter. Manslaughter is killing committed in the absence of malice, such as in the case of voluntary manslaughter brought about by reasonable provocation, or diminished capacity. Involuntary manslaughter, where it is recognized, is a killing that lacks all but the most attenuated guilty intent, recklessness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theramenes</span> Athenian statesman (died 404 BC)

Theramenes was an Athenian military leader and statesman, prominent in the final decade of the Peloponnesian War. He was active during the two periods of oligarchic government at Athens, the 400 and later the Thirty Tyrants, as well as in the trial of the generals who had commanded at Arginusae in 406 BC. A moderate oligarch, he often found himself caught between the democrats on the one hand and the extremist oligarchs on the other. Successful in replacing a narrow oligarchy with a broader one in 411 BC, he failed to achieve the same end in 404 BC, and was executed by the extremists whose policies he had opposed.

In ancient Greece, a metic was a resident of Athens and some other cities who was a citizen of another polis. They held a status broadly analogous to modern permanent residency, being permitted indefinite residence without political rights.

A crime of passion, in popular usage, refers to a violent crime, especially homicide, in which the perpetrator commits the act against someone because of sudden strong impulse such as anger or jealousy rather than as a premeditated crime. A high level of social and legal acceptance of crimes of passion has been historically associated with France from the 19th century to the 1970s, and until recently with Latin America.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lysias</span> Athenian orator (c. 445 – c. 380 BC)

Lysias was a logographer in ancient Greece. He was one of the ten Attic orators included in the "Alexandrian Canon" compiled by Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus of Samothrace in the third century BC.

Antiphon of Rhamnus was the earliest of the ten Attic orators, and an important figure in fifth-century Athenian political and intellectual life.

The title of logographer was applied to professional authors of judicial discourse in Ancient Greece. The modern term speechwriter is roughly equivalent.

Oikos (Ancient Greek: οἶκος was, in Ancient Greece, two related but distinct concepts: the family and the family's house. Its meaning shifted even within texts.

Ancient Greek laws consist of the laws and legal institutions of ancient Greece.

<i>K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra</i> 1959 Indian court case

Commander K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra was a 1959 Indian court case where Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, a Naval Commander, was tried for the murder of Prem Ahuja, his wife's lover. Commander Nanavati, accused under section 302, was initially declared not guilty by a jury, but the verdict was dismissed by the Bombay High Court and the case was retried as a bench trial. The case is often erroneously believed to be the last jury trial in India, but there were several trials afterwards that used juries, some well into the 1960s. Nanavati was finally pardoned by Vijayalakshmi Pandit, newly appointed Governor of Maharashtra and sister of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.

<i>Epikleros</i> Term for an Ancient Greek heiress

An epikleros was an heiress in ancient Athens and other ancient Greek city states, specifically a daughter of a man who had no sons. In Sparta, they were called patrouchoi (πατροῦχοι), as they were in Gortyn. Athenian women were not allowed to hold property in their own name; in order to keep her father's property in the family, an epikleros was required to marry her father's nearest male relative. Even if a woman was already married, evidence suggests that she was required to divorce her spouse to marry that relative. Spartan women were allowed to hold property in their own right, and so Spartan heiresses were subject to less restrictive rules. Evidence from other city-states is more fragmentary, mainly coming from the city-states of Gortyn and Rhegium.

Eratosthenes of Athens was one of the Thirty Tyrants elected to rule the city of Athens after the Peloponnesian War.

"Against Eratosthenes" is a speech by Lysias, one of the ten Attic orators. In the speech, Lysias accuses Eratosthenes, a member of the Thirty Tyrants who ruled Athens following the Peloponnesian War, of the murder of his brother, Polemarchus.

"Against Simon" is a speech by Lysias, one of the "Canon of Ten" Attic orators. The speech, the third in the modern Lysianic corpus, concerns a case of "wounding with premeditation" or with the intention to commit murder. This offense was heard not in front of an ordinary court but instead by the council of the Areopagus where not only the litigants of the case but the witnesses as well had to swear to a special oath called the diomosia. In these proceedings, there was also an emphasis on citing only material that was specifically related to the case. Although it is not entirely clear how the Athenians differentiated between premeditated wounding and simple assault, scholars have suggested that the possession of a weapon could be a determining factor.

On a Wound by Premeditation is a speech by the ancient Greek orator and speechwriter Lysias.

<i>De Optimo Genere Oratorum</i>

De Optimo Genere Oratorum, "On the Best Kind of Orators", is a work from Marcus Tullius Cicero written in 46 BCE between two of his other works, Brutus and the Orator ad M. Brutum. Cicero attempts to explain why his view of oratorical style reflects true Atticism and is better than that of the Roman Atticists "who would confine the orator to the simplicity and artlessness of the early Attic orators."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Women in classical Athens</span>

The study of the lives of women in classical Athens has been a significant part of classical scholarship since the 1970s. The knowledge of Athenian women's lives comes from a variety of ancient sources. Much of it is literary evidence, primarily from tragedy, comedy, and oratory; supplemented with archaeological sources such as epigraphy and pottery. All of these sources were created by—and mostly for—men: there is no surviving ancient testimony by classical Athenian women on their own lives.

Ethopoeia (ee-tho-po-EE-ya) is the ancient Greek term for the creation of a character. Ethopoeia was a technique used by early students of rhetoric in order to create a successful speech or oration by impersonating a subject or client. Ethopoeia contains elements of both ethos and pathos and this is noticeable in the three divisions of ethopoeia. These three divisions are pathetical, ethical and mixed. It is essential to impersonation, one of the fourteen progymnasmata exercises created for the early schools of rhetoric.

In Classical Athens, there was no exact equivalent of the English term "adultery", but the similar moicheia was a criminal offence often translated as adultery by scholars. Athenian moicheia was restricted to illicit sex with free women, and so men could legally have extra-marital sex with slaves and prostitutes. Famously, Athenian culture and adultery laws considered seduction of a citizen woman a worse crime than rape.

"Against the Stepmother for Poisoning" is one of fifteen extant speeches by the Athenian orator Antiphon. It is a speech for the prosecution in the case of a woman accused by her stepson of arranging for the murder of his father, her husband. The speech for the defence, apparently made by the sons of the accused woman, does not survive.

References

  1. ↑ Thür, Gerhard. "Phonos." Brill’s New Pauly .
  2. ↑ Lysias 1.1–5
  3. ↑ Lysias 1.6–8.
  4. ↑ Lysias 1.9–14
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Porter. 2007. pp. 60–87.
  6. ↑ Lysias 1.15–21.
  7. ↑ Lysias 1.22–27
  8. ↑ Lysias 1.27–33
  9. ↑ Lysias 1.37–46
  10. ↑ Lysias 1.47–50
  11. 1 2 Wolpert, Andrew (2001). "Lysias 1 and the Politics of the Oikos". The Classical Journal. 96 (4): 420.
  12. ↑ Wolpert, Andrew (2001). "Lysias 1 and the Politics of the Oikos". The Classical Journal. 96 (4): 418–419.
  13. ↑ Kapparis, Konstantinos (1996). "Humiliating the Adulterer: The Law and Practice in Classical Athens". Revue internationale de droit de l'Antiquité. 43: 71.
  14. ↑ Wolpert, Andrew (2001). "Lysias 1 and the Politics of the Oikos". The Classical Journal. 96 (4): 417.
  15. ↑ Lysias 1.22–23, 39–40
  16. ↑ Lysias 1.23, 43

Bibliography

Translations & Commentaries

Scholarship

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.