Civic Punishment or Private Revenge Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Civic Punishment or Private Revenge - Case Study Example A presentation of the fragmented accusations of Euphiletus' accusers will be offered in order to clarify some of the rhetorical strategies that Euphiletus' utilizes in his defense speech. Finally, some concluding remarks on how adultery, crimes of passion and homicide were understood then and now. There is some evidence to suggest that the ethical internals of Euphiletus' defense were intended to generate sympathy among the judges (Herman 407). By presenting himself as deceived husband and victim, Euphiletus is attempting minimally to provide an emotional basis for his desire to kill Eratosthenes. This is important for if Euphiletus wanted to portray himself as an Athenian gentleman whose moral composition represented the mainstream of Hellenistic society, then his act represents the logical consequence of a man whose wife has been caught in flagrante delicto with another man. If it was the case that such an act could not have been conscionable under such conditions then the Euphiletus' strategy would be counterproductive as his demeanor would be interpreted as the manifestation of a morally eccentric minority. However, it is not to suggest that Euphiletus wished to portray himself as a jealous husband fueled with righteous and murderous rage. Rather, at every step as will be shown later he presents himself a mediated actor of the law, merely the hand of the law rather than its head or heart. In fact, he wishes to show that Eratosthenes was not murdered but executed by him and was only done so by him on mere coincidence that it was his wife with whom Eratosthenes had slept (Harris 365). Thus, Euphiletus wishes to draw out the tensions inherent in two antithetical codes of conduct: 1) an older, de-centralized, tribal one in which honor and vengeance played integral roles and 2) a more evolved centralized code of conduct in which democratically endorsed values were mutually agreed upon and enforced communally (Herman 408). By engendering a feeling of vengeance while simultaneously negating its causative role in this act, Euphiletus paradoxical strategy gives a path in which the Athenian judges can acquit Euphiletus on the grounds that the act was one of civic punishment while concomitantly acknowledging the obvious vengeful passions that were aroused duri ng the incident itself. He begins by laying out the task before him, which is to convince the jury that Eratosthenes' killing was prompted by the debauchery of his wife via seduction and the disgrace tendered therein and for no other reason, " that this was the one and only enmity between him and me; that I have not acted thus for the sake of money" (Lamb 1.4). It is important that money or other enmity do not prefigure in any manner for Euphiletus' case, as that would have invalidated the laws for which the type of justified homicide he wished to claim happened. If indeed money or other enmity figured in this case, as his accusers had apparently tried to impute, it would simply be premeditated murder in