Is Narrative or Argument More Important in Lysias 1?

        Crucially, ethopoiia takes place almost exclusively in the narrative.  According to Aristotle, the use of ethos acts as a means of persuasion by “creating through the speech a character which will induce the required degree of trust on the part of the hearer.” This tactic is so effective in forensic oratory because, as Carey points out, “the Athenian tendency to view the trial as a detail in a broader canvas rather than an occurrence isolated from the rest of the life of litigants and city” made the general conduct of an individual an important means of determining the balance of probability in individual instances. Thus, ethos may “overlap implicitly with explicit argument.” Dionysius of Halicarnassus describes Lysias’ character portrayal thus: “I also ascribe to Lysias that most pleasing quality, which is generally called characterisation. I am quite unable to find a single person in this orator’s speeches who is devoid of character or vitality.” Euphiletos’ self-presentation is arguably the most impressive element of the speech.  Lysias has the speechgiver demonstrate throughout the narrative that he is the perfect husband and Athenian citizen.  In describing his relationship with his wife, Euphiletos describes that he “kept a watch on her as far as was possible, and payed attention to her as it was reasonable” (ἐφύλαττόν τεὡς οἷόν τε ἦν, καὶ προσεῖχον τὸν νοῦν ὥσπερ εἰκὸς ἦν).  This phrasing constructs a space in which the listener can decide what the ‘perfect’ amount of attention is, so that the jury is convinced that Euphiletos is a sensible man and husband.  The effect of this is to create a normalcy which constructs a complicity with the audience: his relationship with his wife is completely natural. Similarly, Euphiletos mentions his comings and going from the country ( ) to further present himself as leading a completely normal life, while having the additional effect of demonstrating that he is a field worker, a respected profession in Athens.  Furthermore, the use of simple, Attic Greek is not, it seems, in an effort to paint a picture of the comic cuckold characterised by Carey (a theory seemingly in contradiction with Euphiletos’ aim of urging the jury to identify with him), but instead to emphasise this general feeling of regularity.  His repeated use of temporal clauses introduced by  and very basic Greek, namely in section 9, when describing the arrangement of his house (      ), is used to create the image of a completely regular man.  This constant appeal to normalcy during the narrative stirs up a fear in the audience which encourages them to vote in his favour: Lysias is just like them and yet has suffered a terrible, and unexpected, injustice. Thus, this defensive strategy in which Euphiletos asks the jury to identify with him is achieved entirely through the narrative.  

        Equally, the use of narrative details to suggest the character of the opponent can be rhetorically effective.  The aim is to create a consistent picture of the opponent which increases the plausibility of the allegations against him. In section 16 of Lysias 1, the old woman who approaches Euphiletos describes Eratosthenes of having made an “art”, or τεχνη of his corruption:     . The effect is to show that Eratosthenes has made a habit of this crime and is therefore a danger to the integrity of the polis, preempting Lysias’ later argument that he acted in the interest of the city.  Lysias’ character assasination is also effective in section 8, where he describes the beginning of the adulterous affair at his mother’s funeral: ἐμὴ γυνὴ ὑπὸ τούτου τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὀφθεῖσα, χρόνῳ διαφθείρεται (“my wife was seen by this man and in time was corrupted by her”).  The use of passives ὀφθεῖσα and διαφθείρεται present Euphiletos’ wife as a victim of Eratosthenes’ persuasion: he is the only active agent in the moicheia.  Often this character assasination is achieved through a technique called diabole, described by Carey as accusing an opponent of something “tangential or unrelated”.  Apollodorus makes use of this rhetorical technique in his Against Neaira, both through his presentation of Stephanus as a sycophant, but also through his description of the early stages of Neaira’s career, which seem apparently irrelevant to the case but serves to prejudice the jurors against her through a characterisation of a young girl eager to have sexual relationships. Apollodorus refers repeatedly to Neaira’s sexual career, “but always by means of periphrases.”  In On the Murder of Eratosthenes, Lysias in section 28 declares that “those who do not act justly not not acknowledge that their enemies speak the truth” (οἱ μὴ τὰ δίκαια πράττοντες οὐχ ὁμολογοῦσι τοὺς ἐχθροὺς λέγειν ἀληθῆ).  His use of the generic negative μη suggests that those to whom he refers habitually act against justice.  It has even been suggested that by doing this Lysias is making a connection between Eratosthenes and his family and the tyrant Eratosthenes, who belonged to the same tribe.  These techniques help to contribute to the general feeling of enmity the speaker incites in the audience against his opponent.  Overall, the effect of the characterisation of both the speaker and his opposition is to confirm “the speaker’s version of his case by presenting an implied argument from probability”.  Thus, the preliminary narrative can be utilized in the subsequent argument.

Therefore, the combination of the vividness or energeia of the diegesis, which makes the information presented so convincing that it almost becomes fact to the listener, and the characterisation, both of the speaker and any opponents, results in the narrative acting as a foundation for the pisteis in the form of arguments based on probability.  Although the Greeks may not have deemed probability as explicitly more credible than truth, demonstrating circumstances as eikota was a crucial element of persuasion.  This method is demonstrated particularly effectively in Lysias 1, where the narrative “prompts the reader to engage in various processes of inference that are all the more powerful for being unspoken.” While Gargain argues that eikos was not a particularly important element of Lysias’ argumentation, it seems that this is, in fact, the most persuasive form of pisteis in the speech. Lysias works to select details whose significance only becomes clear after the narrative context.  Most notably, Euphiletos’ argument against premeditation is based entirely on his account of the night of the murder and how he met his friend Sostratus for dinner at his own house: “If on that night I had designs on Eratosthenes, which was more to my advantage, to go and take my dinner elsewhere, or to bring my guest to dinner with me?” (εἰ ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ νυκτὶ ἐγὼ ἐπεβούλευον Ἐρατοσθένει, πότερον ἦν μοι κρεῖττον αὐτῷ ἑτέρωθι δειπνεῖν ἢ τὸν συνδειπνήσοντά μοι εἰσαγαγεῖν).  These sections contain a number of arguments from probability with conditional clauses.  The preceding narrative has made the listeners into “witnesses of events that he now uses as proof of his innocence”.  This is a prime example of Lysias’ enythymizing: he directs the jurors to assume the argument that had he wanted to entice Eratosthenes into his home, he would have left the house on a pretence of dinner, instead of dining in. We can also gauge the significance of “enthymizing” in the sections of the narrative where Lysias describes hearing the doors creak at night or finding his wife wearing makeup in the morning.  When Euphiletos declares that he had no suspicions, or “though nothing of it” (οὐδὲν ἐνθυμούμενος), he indirectly hints to the audience that there is something to be suspicious about, “something important to enythmize.” Thus, the jury is predisposed to be suspicious of Euphiletos’ wife when the explicit arguments are made. It is therefore evident that possibly the most effective elements of the argument are developed through the narrative, which constructs the audience’s perception of what is likely or probable.

This is not to say, however, that the narrative alone sufficiently fulfils the aim of persuading the listener, as the argument serves its own unique purpose of explicitly stating the speaker's case.  It is in the argument that Eratosthenes is identified as a moichos. Lysias even mentions the fact that moicheia was treated with the same severity under oligarchy and democracy in order to show that because the crime is regarded the same way under any regime, this sin goes beyond politics.  Crucially, Lysias has Euphiletos insist that adultery is a more serious offence than rape, and in doing so conveys the seriousness of the threat which Eratosthenes poses for the state.  In section 27, Euphiletos argues that “while the rapist defiles only the body of the woman, the seducer corrupts the mind as well; the existence of a clandestine relationship makes it difficult to determine the paternity of all children of the woman in question.”  The latter point is key to Euphiletos’ argument, as it reflected Athenian views on marriage, namely that its purpose “was not to provide a man with a soulmate but to provide the oikos with heirs.” Therefore, because the requirement for citizenship and therefore the right to participate in political exercises was Athenian paternity, Euphiletos demonstrates that his aim was to protect not only the oikos, but the polis.  This threat to the state is crucial to Lysias’ argument that Euphiletos was not only sanctioned, but in fact required by law to kill Eratosthenes, and therefore that his act was a service to the city.  This could even serve as an explanation for Lysias’ decision not to take a ransom, a more common response to discovering an adulterous affair in flagrante.  This main line of argument -- Lysias’ ability to turn what is technically a private matter into an attack against the fabric of the state itself -- is therefore crucial to Euphiletos’ appeal to the judges.

However, it is important to note that “in the Athenian context defence based on the letter of the law was not necessarily a strong defence.” There is no doubt that Lysias’ use of Athenian law to back Euphiletos’ case is tentative.  It is generally thought that Lysias refers to a law cited by Demosthenes in his oration Against Aristocrates on justifiable homicide: “If a man kills another unintentionally…  In intercourse with his wife, or mother, or sister, or daughter, or concubine kept for procreation of legitimate children, he shall not go into exile as a manslayer on that account.”  However, there is a clear manipulation of the concept of moicheia, as it is unclear whether the acts mentioned in Demosthenes were in fact covered by moicheia, a term which is crucially not mentioned in the statute.  This ambiguity and confusion becomes even more noticeable when one considers the fact that it was not customary at this time to kill the adulterer, but instead to take a ransom.  While the law may have justified the homicide, it in no way, as Euphiletos is desperate to argue, mandated that he put the adulterer to death.  The second law Lysias asks to be read out is likely to be the procedure for apagoge (summary arrest) against kakourgoi (wrongdoers), reconstructed in rough: “If a man takes a thief, or adulterer, or killer in the act, if he admits his guilt, let him do whatever he pleases with him”. Not only is there little evidence that moichoi were classed as kakourgoi, but the audience is also forced to ask when, and by whom, the adulterer must be asked if he denies the charge, and therefore whether the husband has the authority to question and put the criminal to death.  Cohen also points out that there is evidence to show that the law allowed the man to do as he pleased “without a blade”, and perhaps only by night.  This confusion may explain why Lysias goes into surprisingly little detail on the murder itself, which further weakens his case in relation to Athenian law.  It therefore seems to be the case that the explicit argument based on Athenian law is not hugely persuasive as it allows for interpretations of the statutes and their use.

Overall, it is clear that argument is often forced to rely on narrative techniques, especially in cases where proof based on witness statements, documents, and law is weak.  It is also often observed that the presentation of information as an argument invites counter-arguments.  Thus, explicitly stated arguments are more vulnerable to contradiction, while ideas subtly presented during the narrative and arguments based on probability, which prompt the audience to infer facts without being aware, are generally much more persuasive.  In Lysias 1 in particular, the rhetorical techniques of enargeia and ethopoiia used in the narrative have this effect, and therefore form the foundation for the argument. Webb describes the impact of enargeia within the narration as “simultaneously emotional and cognitive”, giving the audience a fresh understanding of the people and events in question. Additionally, detailed character portrayals are established by Lysias with the effect of presenting credible evidence of Euphiletos’ reliability while disposing the jury against Eratosthenes.  Therefore, although these methods can only be effective when combined with proof, or pisteis, Lysias’ primary defensive strategy, that of the argument based on probability, relies on facts and assumptions established from the methods employed in the narrative, which are at the heart of persuasion.