—
9
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
https://archive.org/details/minoratticorator01 maiduoft
NP ie τωι δ Pe bet
THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY
FOUNDED BY JAMES LOEB, LL.D.
EDITED BY 7. E. PAGE, o.m., tirr.p. + E. CAPPS, PH.D., LL Ὁ. + W. H. Ὁ. ROUSE, turrr.p. L. A. POST, u.u.p. XE. H. WARMINGTON, m.a., F.R.HIST.SOC.
MINOR ATTIC ORATORS I
a! Take! a) 2%
VAASALE IADQAID S801 BHT CLT ΟΣ si Ghote ie f
vie curiae ὁ «στὰ «πῶ JOAL 2 Tt rm GRVOn . Ἢ Wt O43 ut BITAD AF DO. πὰ μὰς VOTOVIMAAW HA wma ΤΟΝ ἃ ἃ
@HOTAAO OLTTA ΒΟ ‘ )
Ta τῶ Ey a” Mtn
* Ore
'| MINOR ATTIC | ORATORS
IN TWO VOLUMES I
ANTIPHON ANDOCIDES
WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY K. J. MAIDMENT, M.A.
FELLOW AND CLASSICAL TUTOR OF MERTON COLLEGE, OXFORD
LONDON WILLIAM HEINEMANN LTD
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS MCMLX
Printed in Great Britain
‘CONTENTS OF VOLUME I
PAGE PREFACE THERE lonsdT j ae Tue Manuscripts - , F ᾿Ξ > [xf ANTIPHON— | ᾿ Lire ΟΕ ANTIPHON , 4 Ἶ ΡΒ 2 I. Prosecution or THE STEPMOTHER FOR Poisonine— Introduction sdenatt J : 8 Analysis. Ξ ξ ᾿ ‘ » 18 Text and Translation . ¢ Ἶ ἐῶ τ. ΣᾺ II, ΠῚ, ΙΝ. ΤῊΣ Terrarocies— General Introduction . 3 - ge ae
II. Toe First Terratocy— ἱ , Introductory Note . ork . 50 Text and Translation . ΕΝ gur uD ge
ΠῚ. Tue Seconp Terratocy— — wissen Introductory Note =. ", . °. 86 Text and Translation . Jers wae ie
MINOR ATTIC ORATORS, I
PAGE IV. Tue Turrp TerraLocy—
Introductory Note . . . ς 118
Text and Translation . ‘ ὃ 120 V. On THe Murper or Heropes—
Introduction . ° J ae Air's
Analysis . . Ξ . ᾿ . 158
Text and Translation. .. ..- . 160
VI. On tHe CuorEUTES— Introduction ὸ ἥ ὰ ἃ . 234
Analysis >. . - . .-. ν» , 244,
Text and Translation’. ‘ 2 . 246 FRAGMENTS—
Note . . . . "»Ὃ"Ἄ - 289
Text and Translation . ΒΟΥ, 400 ἈΡΡΕΝΡΙΧ---
Note ., . . . -. -. 318
Text and ‘Translation ν᾿ .... 4 . [314
ANDOCIDES— ak _ Lire or ANDOCIDES . ad res F ee 5" I. On toe Mysrertes— 4T | Introduction . « ..γ.. oo «7 925 Analysis . ° ΟἿΣ νὰ > p+ 335 Text and Translation. + «+ τ. 888 vi
CONTENTS
PAGE II. On mis Retrurn— Introduction 4 ὲ . 484
Analysis. . . ; : . 460
Text and Translation . ' ‘ . 462 III. On tHe Peace witu Sparta—
Introduction n Ἶ Ξ 3 . 484
Analysis. Ξ Ξ - 406
Text and Translation . ἑ ὲ . 498 IV. Acainst ALCcIBIADES—
Introduction : : - ἢ . 534
Analysis. 2 ν᾽ : é - 540
Text and Translation . ; ; - 542
FRAGMENTS—
Note : J ¢ J Ρ se δ0
Text and Translation ἕ ξ . 580 INDEX OF PROPER NAMES . . 584
gap Text ical Τερραλαβηβαιροαήαβεθηνεῖ ta $xsT 10
τον fre Ivete aera zee mer νο, ah ὁ8ὲ Intedduetion if <5.) ae «πεθάμενον μεν 342 _ BRD Analysis . ὦ- + PPS are rina προς 80 Peet and Fremmbeiainnoitakanea 3 ee rea
z
Feeatna pris i “| .
‘gl i hud οὔ «
3 3, Oe sae Moerveree-. r
PREFACE
Tue text upon which the present translation is based is that of I. Bekker (1822) ; but I have not hesitated to introduce such alterations and corrections as the fresh manuscript evidence and detailed linguistic study of the last hundred years have made necessary or probable. The critical apparatus, while by no means exhaustive, will, I hope, prove full enough to enable the reader to appreciate for himself the rela- tive value of the principal sources from which the text of Antiphon and Andocides derives. Of the surviving fragments all those are printed which possess any historical or literary importance. It appeared beyond the scope of the present volume to include isolated words quoted by the ancient lexico- graphers as grammatical rarities. These are readily accessible in existing editions of the two authors and are of no interest to the general reader. In regard to the translation itself I need say only that I have aimed at being both accurate and readable, but am fully conscious that I have too often failed to be either. I should, however, like to take this oppor- tunity of thanking many friends for their sugges- tions and advice, particularly the present Warden of Merton, Sir John Miles, whose critical acumen and long experience of comparative law have re- peatedly saved me from error; Mr. R. G. C. Levens,
1x
MINOR ATTIC ORATORS, I
my former tutor, who has put me still further in his debt by reading much of the translation in proof and offering valuable criticisms; and Professor H. T. Wade-Gery, who has always been ready with advice upon the many historical problems presented by Antiphon. I must also express my gratitude to the proprietors of the Bibliotheca Teubneriana for their courteous permission to reprint, as it stands, Thal- heim’s text of the first four columns of the papyrus fragments of Antiphon’s. Περὶ τῆς μεταστάσεως, to- gether with his critical apparatus.
yi K. J. MatpMent August 1940
THE MANUSCRIPY'S
ANTIPHON. —When Bekker published his edition of the Attic Orators in 1822, he relied upon four manuscripts for the reconstruction of the text of Antiphon.’ ‘These manuscripts were :
(1) Crippsianus (Brit. Mus. Ban iciniahs 96), thirteenth century
(2) Laurentianus, fifteenth century :
(8) Marcianus, fifteenth century P }
(4) Vratislaviensis, sixteenth century). ᾽ς Ὁ
NBD
The contents of all four, were the same, viz. ; Andocides, Isaeus, Dinarchus, Antiphon, and Lycur- gus, together with a number of short pieces attributed to Gorgias, Alcidamas, and others. , While regarding A, the earliest, as of the first importance, Bekker held that B, L, and Ζ: represented an independent, if inferior, tradition, and. they. consequently occupy a prominent place in his critical apparatus. In 1829 Dobson collated yet another ms. from the British Museum, the fifteenth century Burneianus 96 (M), and attempted to show that it must rank at least as high as Bekker’s B, L, and Z. It has since been con- clusively proved, however, that B, L, Z, and M derive from one another in the order B L M Z, and that B itself. is wholly dependent upon A.% All four there-
«Of: Jahrb. f. Phil. 1817, p. 618, Hermes, xvii, p. 885, and Rhein. Mus. xl., p. 387. iam waeq
xi
MINOR ATTIC ORATORS, I
fore lose their claim to the respect shown them b
their early editors. But the supremacy of A itse
has been seriously challenged since attention was drawn by Maetzner in 1838 to an Oxford ms. of the late thirteenth or early fourteenth ered now known as N (Bodl. Mise. 908), N, it is clear, is independént of A, though closely related to it—both, in fact, may be. descended directly from a common archetype—and is of equal importance for the deter- mination of the text. In the present edition the evidence of both mss. has been allowed full weight ; neither shows a marked superiority over the other, and the choice, not infrequently offered, between two equally acceptable variants, must depend less upon the ms. in which each occurs than upon the intuition of the editor and his conception of what Antiphon could or could not have written. Both ss. have been corrected by more than one hand... A contains corrections both by the copyist himself (A corr.), which generally find confirmation in N and are clearly derived from a common archetype, and also by a second hand (A corr.*). These last are not so certainly based upon ms. authority and cease abruptly at § 84 of the De Caede Herodis. In N the corrections are of the same twofold character. The copyist has himself revised his work from the oneal (N corr.), while here and there a later hand or hands can also be detected at work (N corr.*); these later correc- tions in N, however, are the merest conjectures and can be of little use in the reconstruction of the text.
ANDOCIDES.—Here again the edition of Bekker rested upon A, B, L, Z, with the addition of Ambrosianus D 42 sup. (Q), a fourteenth century paper manuscript containing the last two speeches xii
THE MANUSCRIPTS
of Andocides and the first two of Isaeus. Q, while independent of A, must be ranked below it. It is occasionally of use in supplying an omission in A, and is valuable as in the main confirming A’s readings ; but it has suffered from well meant attempts to smooth out the roughness of Andocides’ style at the cost of accuracy and contains frequent lacunae. In effect, then, A remains our principal authority for the De Pace and In Alcibiadem, and our sole authority for the De Mysteriis and the De Reditu. Once again it seems possible to distinguish the work of two cor- rectors. The first is clearly the copyist himself. The second, who uses a slightly darker ink, but is other- wise almost identical with the first, differs from the A corr.? of Antiphon in that he is clearly making his corrections from the same original as the copyist. In view of the close correspondence between the two hands, both will be referred to without distinction as A corr.
ΝΟ ty GSNSt: |
ἃ. ΡῈ δὰ μα 4,
eu. 4, when genovaily fad Chlistesateks ia N ase .
tlearty Hetiesd Lewin 3 covuncn atrhetype, anal Aree
by 4 Beboud Rend (A curr) “Theo με uit sot δὸ
certainty beet apo 43, authority ani ie bi ἐν ὁ at £34 df the De Céndé flerodes, “Te Νὶ thse
bis : ef ised ser jaro πὴ ἜΤ bes
ot re work | “4 fe ΓΗ͂Ν ody chore piel aslo ἃ, Ὅλον Mas can. hho tae ἀφάτου νι αὐ ets THE ΠΈΣ bids Gor dere
ke &. ὅν κα ζῶο, Stand e nit pin ed eeepc, "
The ἴκηξ.
TAFE DF ANTIPHON
sophistic movement eas felt at Athens ἡ aed when Weave told Mm addition that ee iihades wna 2 MOTE his e pupils, i is bard not.-ta heliews that he fax nee ἐ tonfused with Socrates. Antiphan hiswelf; hewever, ᾿ς must early Rove become internsied in fhesew culture ΕΠ which made {te first apprarance with -the -vipit of
E Protaoras AVDH ALE AfocHO. Sidhe christ its J Pane a yer deeper ducdn the. ore generation, pi προ, aces wowuTeA
ΓΝ oh ro endeine baths ete maar th otha
basco eel ea A ΒΝ rigieig eae efteerevartt aul votesot βαθιά 11
᾿ Hlesonailfied Soin. appar »αρἰίρεάάμι; ates sea
Ε cectipetnatodptth: Oi eas Ta PRL ° - cath ene xdoithnn too itnted 3 Sena aaa oth. bo | iendudlerniedtiledl do: ausel edit enartAsobaes gomittslil _ceidhitedt hed odilgud alovieadh si 4 ish O — amitrBosaestiogque botoveh s sosd bed, ssits | ehdisiherd Legitilogedt Rotreaitingic ai δ bindedt evDis Sobtpos ot: pumidaudad, dew! od dais q cee Rotalthepnene sour atobidceeiceail ta vad dake 4 hie om lng pawn κατ τὰ “τὸ παμν δὐρανυομάι αν
tor atk
in dia + ‘x
bss εἰπε» ϑσ, ἘΣ ΟΣ το: :
oe edd icnd (ἢ
= Htoriety: foe high
ie ἊΜ Ἶ τῇ ne. ole ὼ oad caugohrorrasy 25m at ον Η ty bik laps Se ie nk De Ὁ
LIFE OF ANTIPHON
ANTIPHON was born either shortly before or shortly after the year 480.4 He died at about the age of seventy in 411. Thus, like his younger contem- poraries, Thucydides and Socrates, he saw the swift growth of the Athenian empire, its brief brilliance, its inevitable decline; and, like them, he was in- fluenced profoundly by the release of those energies of the spirit and the intellect which, even in his lifetime, made Athens the focus of Hellenic culture. Of his family little is known; but the fact that his grandfather had been a devoted supporter of the Peisistratidae ὃ is significant of the political traditions which he was brought up to respect. The state- ment that his father, Sophilus, was a sophist ° can hardly be more than an unlucky guess, as he must have been an old man before the full force of the
4“ Sources for life of Antiphon: Thucyd. viii. 68, [Plutarch], Vit. X Or., Philostratus, Vit. i. 15, Photius, cod. 259. Of these the two last are derived from the Pseudo- Plutarch, who drew in his turn upon Caecilius of Calacté writing in the Augustan period. any of the statements of the Pseudo-Plutarch, Philostratus, and Photius are vitiated by the confusion which existed in ancient times between Antiphon the orator, Antiphon the sophist, Antiphon the tragic poet, and a fourth Antiphon put to death by the Thirty Tyrants.
> Tlepi τῆς μεταστάσεως, fragment 1.
¢ [Plutarch], § 2.
2
LIFE OF ANTIPHON
sophistic movement was felt at Athens ; and when we are told in addition that Alcibiades was among his pupils, it is hard not to believe that he has been confused with Socrates. Antiphon himself, however, must early have become interested in the new culture which made its first appearance with the visit of Protagoras of Abdera to Athens ο. 450 and thrust its roots ever deeper during the succeeding generation. But his gifts were not those of a Hippias or Prodicus; he was no encyclopaedist.. He concerned himself solely with the possibility of reducing the rules of effective speaking to an ordered system ; and it is thus with the Sicilians, Corax, Teisias and Gorgias, that he has the closest affinity. We hear of a Teyvn or rhetorical handbook written by him %; and, if the evidence of Plato is to be trusted,’ he opened a school in Athens, where those who wished to succeed in the courts, or Assembly could benefit by his βοναννμον and research.
How soon Antiphon began to win a reputation for himself in this field is not known.¢ » It is likely enough that he became prominent before the beginning of the Peloponnesian War. But more important is the fact that he was at the same time composing speeches for others to deliver in both the law-courts and the Assembly ; for 10 15 in his activity as the first of the λογογράφοι 4 that the explanation.of the vast, but subterranean, influence which he later came to exert
4 See fragments, p. 308.
> Menexenus 236 a. .
¢ The reference to his φιλαργυρία in the Peisander of Plato Comicus ([Plut.] § 16) would seem to show that he had gained notoriety for high fees by circa 420 at the a ut is otherwise of no help.
4 [Plut.] § 4, Died. ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. i, 365.
ANTIPHON
in Athenian politics is largely to be sought. By up- bringing and predilection he was an uncompromising opponent of democracy; and his oratorical genius was always at the service of that compactly organized minority which, though it seldom came into the open, strove ceaselessly to undermine the supremacy of the Demos. All too little is known of the activities of the oligarchic ἑταιρεῖαι before their brief triumph in 411; but it is at least clear that they made a practice of championing the subject-states of the Empire against the oppression of the democratic imperialists, and lost no opportunity of exposing the shortcomings of the popular government in its domestic administration. It is thus of some signifi- cance that among the lost speeches of Antiphon there should occur two in which he defends allied states against Athens,? and that among those which survive, one, the Choreutes, should give prominence to the corruption of the officials of the democracy, and a second, the Herodes, should attempt to clear a native of Lesbos of the charge of murdering an Athenian citizen.
But it was during the critical period which followed the defeat of the Sicilian expedition that Antiphon’s great: opportunity came. In the spring of 411 Peisander arrived in Athens fromthe army at Samos with the news that Alcibiades would secure the sup- port of Persia against Sparta on condition that the popular government was suppressed, Antiphon’s plans were laid and his organization was perfected. The democrats, on the other hand, were in despair and their inability to resist was assured by the
® On the Tribute of Samothrace, On the Tribute of Lindus. See fragments, pp. 290-292.
4
LIFE OF ANTIPHON
news that the army at Samos was in favour of accept- ing the Persian terms. Without violence and with- out, bloodshed, the existing Council and Assembly were superseded by a new Council of Four Hundred anda purely nominal Assembly of Five Thousand, and Athens was completely under the control of the oligarchs... At last the end for which Antiphon had worked so long and so patiently was achieved); ‘but he was destined to benefit but little by his success. Not only had Peisander and his associates already lost their hold over the army at Samos, but a serious split occurred within the Council of Four Hundred itself between the extremists, among whom Antiphon was prominent, and the moderates, led by Theramenes and Aristocrates.. Finally, in May the extremists were forced to appeal to Sparta for help; and a delegation left Athens consisting of Phrynichus, Antiphon, and ten others. The result of the appeal is not known ; but popular feeling in Athens was by now thoroughly outraged, and on the return of the delegates Phrynichus was assassinated and the Four Hundred deposed. Most of the extremists fled for their lives; but three stood their ground, among them Antiphon. He was a disillusioned and a bitterly disappointed man; the work of years had gone for nothing ; and he could expect little mercy from a government which counted him among its most dangerous enemies. Yet when facing the court with his companions on a charge of treason,’ he delivered the greatest defence made within living memory by a
“ The decree of the Boulé, committing Antiphon, Arche- deter tte and Onomacles for trial, has been preserved by the
seudo-Plutarch, as has the official text of their condemna- tion. Both will be found printed in full on pp. 314-317.
5
ANTIPHON
man on trial for his life. Of that defence we have the merest fragments ; but they are enough to show that even at this last hour that proved mastery of device and expression of which Thucydides speaks ὃ didnot desert him: [πῃ spite, however, of his attempt to justify his conduct, he was found guilty and condemned to death. The Eleven executed the sentence ; burial was refused to his corpse ; and his house was rased to the ground.
° Thucyd, viii. 68. > Ibid.
I
PROSECUTION OF THE STEP- MOTHER. FOR POISONING
INTRODUCTION
Tue facts with which the Prosecution for Poisoning is concerned may be summarized as follows. A certain Philoneos entertained a friend to dinner at his house in Peiraeus. His mistress served them both with wine after the meal. The wine, it'seems, was poisoned ; and Philoneos died instantaneously, while his friend fell violently ill and died three weeks later. The woman, who was a slave, was arrested, tortured for information, and executed.
The occasion of the present speech was the re- opening of the case some years afterwards by an illegitimate son of the friend.* In obedience to his father’s dying command (ἐπίσκηψις), he charges the father’s wife, his own stepmother, with the murder of her husband and of Philoneos. The stepmother’s defence is conducted by her own sons, the prosecutor’s half-brothers. The line of attack chosen by the prosecution is that the mistress of Philoneos was merely an accessory to the crime: the principal had been the stepmother, who had previously made
* The stress laid upon the prosecutor’s extreme youth (§§ 1, 30) makes it impossible to sup that he is the legitimate son of an earlier marriage. He has brought the case as soon as he was eligible to do so; and had his half- brothers been younger than he, they would have been debarred by their age from appearing for the defence.
8
PROSECUTION FOR: POISONING
a similar, but ineffectual, attempt to murder her husband.
It has been suggested ‘that the speech was: never intended for actual delivery in a court of law, but that it is simply an academic exercise in the manner of the Tetralogies. The reasons advanced for this are the complete inadequacy of the prosecution’s case from a practical point of view, the absence of witnesses, and the seemingly fictitious character of the proper names which occur. However, a brief consideration of the structure and contents will perhaps be enough to show that we have here what is almost certainly a genuine piece of early pleading.
The case for the prosecution rests upon two things : a carefully elaborated narrative of the planning and execution of the murders, and the development of a single argument to the detriment of the defence, the argument that the accused must be guilty, because the defence has refused to allow the family slaves to be questioned under torture about the previous attempt to poison the husband. The refusal, it is assumed, means that the stepmother was guilty of that attempt, and this fact furnishes in its turn a strong presumption, if not proof, of her guilt in the present instance. .
This is quite unlike the Teiralogies, where no emphasis is laid on the narrative, the minimum of fact is given, and the writer obviously regards the speeches for the prosecution and defence as an opportunity for demonstrating the possibilities of ἃ priort reasoning and sophistry when a case has to be presented to a jury. It is scarcely credible that the present speech, if composed for the same purpose, should contain so cireumstantially detailed a narrative, and at the same
9
ANTIPHON
time be limited to but a single argument in favour of the prosecution. On the other hand, its peculiar meagreness becomes intelligible if it is assumed that the case was historical but, owing to the circumstances which set it in motion, extremely weak.
Thus, a man lies dying from the effects of the wine which he drank when dining with a friend ; the fact that his friend died instantaneously convinces him that they have both been poisoned. He has been on bad terms with his wife for some time, and only recently caught her placing something in his: drink. He suspected her at the time of trying to poison him ; but she avowed that it was merely a ‘love-philtre. The incident remains in his mind, and the facet that his wife is acquainted with the girl who served his friend and himself with wine at dinner leads him to conclude that she has made a second attempt upon his life, this time with success. He therefore sum- mons his son and solemnly enjoins him to prosecute the wife for murder. The son is bound to carry out the command ; but unfortunately there is not a scrap of evidence to show that his stepmother was concerned in his father’s death. The one possible source of information was the supposed accomplice who: ad- ministered the poison; and no amount of pressure had induced her to say anything to incriminate any second person whatsoever. Hence he has to make what play he can with the imaginary account of the planning of the crime given him by his father. He tries to shift attention to the earlier attempt at poisoning which failed; but the defence refuses to let him question the family slaves about the facts. Thus he is reduced to emphasizing as strongly as possible the damning implications of the refusal... That is why
10
PROSECUTION FOR POISONING
the speech necessarily takes its present unsatisfactory form. On the assumption that the prosecution was set in motion entirely in deference to the father’s ἐπί- σκηψις, both its unconvincing argumentation and the absence of witnesses become intelligible.
If this isthe truth, there is a strong probability that the stepmother is innocent. Had she been implicated in any way, it is difficult to believe that the παλλακή of Philoneos would not have tried to shift the blame on to her when faced with torture and death. The refusal of the defence to allow an examination of the slaves is not in itself evidence of guilt : slaves could not be relied upon to adhere to the truth under pressure ; and to refuse to hand them over was the obvious course, in spite of its drawbacks.
The evidence of the proper names which occur in the speech does not affect the above interpretation. There are only two: Philoneos and Clytemnestra. Philoneos is well authenticated as an Attic name by inseriptions ranging from the fifth century to the third and by a reference in the AQ. IloA.* to an Archon so called in the age of Peisistratus. The fact that the Philoneos of this speech lived in Peiraeus® and may thus have had some connexion with shipping is an intelligible coincidence. Clytemnestra (§ 17) occurs in a corrupt passage which should almost certainly be emended to give it a purely metaphorical sense.
If, then, the speech was more than an academic exercise, before what court was it delivered ἢ Prob- ably the Areopagus, which tried cases of wilful murder. Admittedly, the defendant was charged,
* ’A@. TIoA. xvii. 1. For a list of the inscriptions referred to cf. Kirschner’s Prosopographia, 8.0. > See note on § 16.
11
ANTIPHON
not as having caused her husband’s death immedi- ately, but as having procured it through the agency of an accomplice ; and the law of homicide, as we know it in the last.quarter of the fourth century,* distinguished between πρᾶξις and βούλευσις, assign- ing πρᾶξις to the cognizance of the, Areopagus, βούλευσις to that of the Palladium. But this proves nothing of fifth century procedure ; and the evidence of the speech itself, which treats the defendant, no less than the παλλακή, as a φονεύς," suggests rather that contemporary practice made no distinction between principal and agent.
There remains the question of authorship. Ancient tradition unanimously regarded the ‘speech as. the work of Antiphon; and it is supported by the evi- dence of language and style. Here there are none of those peculiarities of diction which must make the authorship of the Tetralogies a matter of doubt; and, although ‘such evidence cannot be stressed, the re- currence in both the Herodes and the Choreutes of a form of argument used in the present speech © points likewise to a common origin for all three. Critics who follow Schmitt ὦ in treating the Prosecution for Poisoning as apocryphal rest their case almost entirely upon the intuitive conviction that it is unworthy of Antiphon. But, as he himself would remark, αὐτὸς ἕκαστος τούτου κρατεῖ. The crudity of the speech, no less than its Gorgian assonances and rhythms,* are better explained by the assumption that it is a pro- duct of Antiphon’s early years,
@ °A9@. IloA. lvii. 3. > 2.9. §§ 2, 6, 20, et passim.
¢ Compare 88 11-12 with Her. § 38 and Chor. ὃ 27.
ἃ De oratione in novercam quae Antiphontis fertur, Fulda, 1853. © Cf. 88 5 sub fin., 22, 27 init.
12
ANALYSIS
§ 1-4. qoae to the jury for sympathy. §§ 5-13. Conclusions to be drawn from the fact that the defence had refused to hand . over their slaves for examination. §§ 14-20. Narrative of the crime. 4 21-31. thengey a repetition of the arguments used o--in §§ 1-13. _ The. half-brother who is con- ducting the defence is bitterly attacked for his behaviour, and fresh emphasis is laid on the guilt of the stepmother. There >is, strictly speaking, no formal peroration.
13
[t11] ΦΑΡΜΑΚΕΙ͂ΑΣ KATA ΤῊΣ MHTPYIAZ
1 Νέος μὲν καὶ ἄπειρος δικῶν ἔγωγε ἔτι, δεινῶς δὲ καὶ ἀπόρως ἔχει μοι περὶ τοῦ πράγματος, ὦ ἄνδρες, τοῦτο μὲν εἰ ἐπισκήψαντος τοῦ πατρὸς ἐπεξελθεῖν τοῖς αὑτοῦ φονεῦσι μὴ ἐπέξειμι, τοῦτο δὲ εἰ ἐπ-
, > , Ψ - > ~ > = εξιόντι ἀναγκαίως ἔχει οἷς ἥκιστα ἐχρῆν ἐν διαφορᾷ ~ > “a ε , A ΦΨῊΝ καταστῆναι, ἀδελφοῖς ὁμοπατρίοις καὶ μητρὶ ἀδελ- a ε A 4 A > A > £7 > 4
2 φῶν. ἡ yap τύχη καὶ αὐτοὶ οὗτοι ἠνάγκασαν ἐμοὶ πρὸς τούτους αὐτοὺς τὸν ἀγῶνα καταστῆναι, οὗς εἰκὸς ἦν τῷ μὲν τεθνεῶτι τιμωροὺς γενέσθαι, τῷ
ὙΠ , , a \ ͵ > , δ᾽ ἐπεξιόντι βοηθούς. νῦν δὲ τούτων τἀναντία γε- γένηται" αὐτοὶ γὰρ οὗτοι καθεστᾶσιν ἀντίδικοι καὶ ~ ε +3 ‘ » ee 2 Ἁ Ἃ if φονῆς, ws καὶ ἐγὼ καὶ ἡ γραφὴ λέγει.
8 Δέομαι δ᾽ ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἐὰν ἐπιδείξω ἐξ ἐπι-
βουλῆς καὶ προβουλῆς τὴν τούτων μητέρα φονέα 4 a 4 ta , ‘ s -¢ > ‘ A οὖσαν τοῦ ἡμετέρου πατρός, Kal μὴ ἅπαξ ἀλλὰ Kai πολλάκις ἤδη ληφθεῖσαν τὸν θάνατον τὸν ἐκείνου ἐπ᾿ αὐτοφώρῳ μηχανωμένην, τιμωρῆσαι πρῶτον
* i.e. the charge as formally registered with the sear (cf. Choreutes, 88 38, 41 ff.). The action itself was of course a δίκη φόνου.
14
PROSECUTION OF THE STEPMOTHER FOR POISONING
Nor only am I still too young to know anything of courts of law, gentlemen ; but I am also faced with a terrible dilemma. On the one hand, how can I dis- regard my father’s solemn injunction to bring his murderers to justice ? On the other hand, if I obey it, I shall inevitably find myself ranged against the last persons with whom | should quarrel, my half-brothers and their mother. Circumstances for which the. de- fence have only themselves to blame have made it necessary that my charge should be directed against them, and them alone. One would have expected them to seek vengeance for the dead and support the prosecution ; but as it is, the opposite is the case: they are themselves my opponents and the murderers, as both I and my indictment α state. Gentlemen, I have one request. If I prove that my opponents’ mother murdered our father by malice aforethought, after being caught not merely once, but repeatedly, in the act of seeking his life, then first
» A natural rhetorical exaggeration. The proof does not in fact occur as promised; but there is no good reason for supposing that the speech is therefore incomplete. In the circumstances outlined in the Introduction such a proof would have been impossible.
15
ANTIPHON
[112] μὲν τοῖς νόμοις τοῖς ὑμετέροις, οὗς mapa τῶν θεῶν καὶ τῶν προγόνων διαδεξάμενοι κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ ἐκείνοις περὶ τῆς καταψηφίσεως δικάζετε, δεύ- τερον δ᾽ ἐκείνῳ τῷ τεθνηκότι, καὶ ἅμα ἐμοὶ μόνῳ
4 ἀπολελειμμένῳ βοηθῆσαι. ὑμεῖς γάρ μοι ἀναγ- καῖοι. οὗς γὰρ ἐχρῆν τῷ μὲν τεθνεῶτι τιμωροὺς γενέσθαι, ἐμοὶ δὲ βοηθούς, οὗτοι τοῦ μὲν τεθνεῶτος φονῆς γεγένηνται, ἐμοὶ δ᾽ ἀντίδικοι καθεστᾶσι. πρὸς τίνας οὖν ἔλθῃ τις βοηθούς, ἢ ποῖ τὴν κατα- φυγὴν ποιήσεται ἄλλοθι ἢ πρὸς ὑμᾶς καὶ τὸ δίκαιον; ᾿
ὅ Θαυμάζω δ᾽ ἔγωγε καὶ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, ἥντινά ποτε γνώμην ἔχων ἀντίδικος καθέστηκε πρὸς ἐμέ, καὶ εἰ νομίζει τοῦτο εὐσέβειαν εἶναι, τὸ τὴν μητέρα μὴ προδοῦναι. ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἡγοῦμαι. πολὺ ἀνοσιώτερον εἶναι ἀφεῖναι τοῦ τεθνεῶτος τὴν τιμωρίαν, ἄλλως τε καὶ τοῦ μὲν eK προβουλῆς ἀκουσίως ἀποθανόντος,
6 τῆς δὲ ἑκουσίως ἐκ “προνοίας ἀποκτεινάσης. καὶ
οὐ τοῦτό γ᾽ ἐρεῖ, ὡς εὖ οἶδεν ὅτι οὐκ᾽ ἀπέκτεινεν
ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ τὸν Πατέρα τὸν ἡμέτερον: ἐν οἷς
μὲν γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐξουσία ἦν σαφῶς εἰδέναι παρὰ τῆς
βασάνου, οὐκ ἠθέλησεν" ἐν οἷς δ᾽ οὐκ ἦν πυθέσθαι, τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ προὐθυμήθη. καίτοι αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐχρῆν,
ὃ καὶ ἐγὼ προὐκαλούμην, προθυμηθῆναι, ὅπως τὸ
πραχθὲν ἢ ἀληθῶς" ἐπεξελθεῖν. μὴ γὰρ ὁμολογούν-
των τῶν ἀνδραπόδων οὗτός τ᾽ εὖ εἰδὼς ἂν ἀπ- εἐλογεῖτο καὶ ἀντέσπευδε πρὸς ἐμέ, καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ ἀπήλλακτο ἂν ταύτης τῆς αἰτίας. ὅπου
Sé μὴ ἠθέλησεν ἔλεγχον ποιήσασθαι τῶν πεπραγ-
μένων, πῶς περί γ᾽ ὧν οὐκ ἠθέλησε πυθέσθαι,
ἐγχωρεῖ αὐτῷ περὶ τούτων εἰδέναι; ἱπῶς οὖν περὶ
.:
16
PROSECUTION FOR POISONING, 3-7
avenge the outrage against your laws, that heritage from the gods and your forefathers which enables you to sentence the guilty even as they did ;. and secondly avenge the dead man, and in so doing give me, a lonely orphan, your aid. For you are my kin; those who should have avenged the dead and supported me are his murderers and my opponents. So where is help to be sought, where is a refuge to be found, save with you and with justice ? 7 I am at a loss indeed to understand the feelings which have led my brother to range himself against me. Does he imagine that his duty as a son consists © simply in loyalty to his mother? To my mind, it is a far greater sin to neglect the avenging of the dead man; and the more so since he met his doom as the involuntary victim of a plot, whereas she sent him to it by deliberately forming that. plot. Further, it is not. for my brother to say that he is quite sure his mother did not murder our father ; for when he had the chance of making sure, by torture, he refused it ; he showed readiness only for those modes of inquiry which could yield no certainty. Yet he ought to have been ready to do what I in fact challenged him to do, so that an honest in- vestigation of the facts might have been possible ; because then, if the slaves had admitted nothing, he would have confronted me with a Tiporousndesc bee based on certainty, and his mother would haye been cleared of the present charge. But after refusing to inquire into. the facts, how can he possibly be certain ς οὗ what he refused to find out ἢ [How, then, is it to be
1 καίτοι τοῦτό γ ἐρεῖ Thalheim, coll. 88 8 et 98. 2 ὅτι οὐκ Cobet: ὅτι γ᾽ οὐκ codd. 8 ἀληθῶς scripsi, auct. Thalheim: ἀληθὲς codd. Alii alia.
17
ANTIPHON
τούτων, ὦ δικάζοντες, αὐτὸν εἰκὸς εἰδέναι, ὧν γε τὴν ἀλήθειαν οὐκ εἴληφε; ᾿
8 Τί more ἀπολογήσεσθαι μέλλει μοι; ἐκ μὲν γὰρ τῆς τῶν ἀνδραπόδων βασάνου εὖ ἤδει ὅτι οὐχ οἷόν Tt ἦν αὐτῇ σωθῆναι, ἐν δὲ τῷ μὴ βασανισθῆναι ἡγεῖτο τὴν σωτηρίαν εἶναι: τὰ γὰρ γενόμενα ev τούτῳ ἀφανισθῆναι φήθησαν. πῶς οὖν εὔορκα ἀντομωμοκὼς ἔσται φάσκων εὖ εἰδέναι, ὃς οὐκ ἠθέλησε σαφῶς πυθέσθαι ἐμοῦ ἐθέλοντος τῇ δι- καιοτάτῃ βασάνῳ χρήσασθαι περὶ τούτου τοῦ
9 πράγματος; τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ ἠθέλησα μὲν" τὰ τού- τῶν ἀνδράποδα βασανίσαι, ἃ συνήδει καὶ πρότερον τὴν γυναῖκα ταύτην, μητέρα δὲ τούτων, τῷ πατρὶ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ θάνατον μηχανωμένην φαρμάκοις, καὶ τὸν πατέρα εἰληφότα ἐπ᾽ αὐτοφώρῳ, ταύτην τε οὐκ οὖσαν ἄπαρνον, πλὴν οὐκ ἐπὶ θανάτῳ φάσ-
10 κουσαν διδόναι ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ φίλτροις. διὰ οὖν ταῦτα ἐγὼ βάσανον τοιαύτην ἠθέλησα ποιήσασθαι περὶ αὐτῶν, γράψας ἐν γραμματείῳ ἃ ἐπαιτιῶμαι τὴν γυναῖκα ταύτην. βασανιστὰς δὲ αὐτοὺς τούτους ἐκέλευον γίγνεσθαι ἐμοῦ παρόντος, ἵνα μὴ avay- καζόμενοι ἃ ἐγὼ ἐπερωτῴην᾽" λέγοιεν---ἀλλ᾽ ἐξήρκει μοι τοῖς ἐν τῷ γραμματείῳ χρῆσθαι: καὶ αὐτό μοι τοῦτο τεκμήριον δίκαιον γενέσθαι," ὅτι ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως μετέρχομαι τὸν φονέα τοῦ πατρός--εἰ δὲ ἄπαρνοι γίγνοιντο ἢ λέγοιεν μὴ ὁμολογούμενα,
1 πῶς οὖν. . . εἴληφε secl. Schoell, qui alterius esse recen- sionis vestigium coniecit. ads... .. εἰδέναι om. N. Η ἠθέλησα μὲν Bake: ἠθελήσαμεν codd. ἐπερωτῴην Jernstedt: ἐπερωτῶ μὴ codd. 4 γενέσθαι Jernstedt, coll. Chor. § 27: ἔσται codd.
« See critical note. 18
PROSECUTION FOR POISONING, 7-10
expected, gentlemen of the jury, that he should be sure of facts about which he has not learnt the truth ? 6] τὰ What reply does he mean'to make to me ἢ He was fully aware that once the slaves were examined under torture his mother was doomed ;_ and he thought that her life depended upon the avoiding of such an examination, as he and his companions imagined that the truth would in that event be lost to sight. How, then, is he going to remain true to his oath as defendant,” if he claims to be in full possession of the facts after refusing to make certain of them by accepting my offer of a perfectly impartial investiga- tion of the matter by torture? In the first place, | I was ready to torture the defendants’ slaves, who knew that this woman, my opponents’ mother, had planned to poison our father on a previous occasion as well, that our father had caught her in the act, and that she had admitted everything—save that it was not to kill him, but to restore his love that she alleged herself to be giving him the potion. Owing, then, to the nature of the slaves’ evidence, I proposed to have their story tested under torture after making a written note of my charges against this woman; and I told the defence to conduct the examination them- selves in my presence, so that the slaves might not give forced answers to questions put by me. I was satis- fied to have the written questions used ; and that in itself should afford a presumption in my favour that my search for my father’s murderer is honest and impartial. Should the slaves resort to denial or make
> A curiously loose expression. The oath taken by both parties in cases of murder was always a διωμοσία (ef. § 28),
never, as here, an ἀντωμοσία. VOL. 1 B 19
ANTIPHON "
(ἡ βάσάνος)᾽ ἀναγκάζοι τὰ γεγονότα κατηγορεῖν" αὕτη γὰρ καὶ τοὺς τὰ ψευδῆ “παρεσκευασμένους λέγειν τἀληθῆ κατηγορεῖν ποιήσει. ij " > ere fee ' ν᾽ 23 a0 3,20,2 11. Καίτοι eb οἷδά γ᾽, εἰ οὗτοι πρὸς ἐμὲ ἐλθόντες, ἐπειδὴ τάχιστα αὐτοῖς ἀπηγγέλθη. ὅτι ἐπεξίοιμι τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν φονέα, ἠθέλησαν τὰ ἀνδράποδα ἃ ἦν αὐτοῖς παραδοῦναι, ἐγὼ δὲ μὴ, ἠθέλησα παρα- λαβεῖν, αὐτὰ ἂν ταῦτα μέγιστα. τεκμήρια παρ- είχοντο ὡς οὐκ ἔνοχοί εἰσι τῷ φόνῳ. νῦν δ᾽, ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι τοῦτο μὲν 6 θέλων αὐτὸς βασανιστὴς γενέσθαι, τοῦτο δὲ τούτους αὐτοὺς κελεύων ἀντ᾽ ἐμοῦ βασανίσαι, ἐμοὶ δήπου εἰκὸς ταὐτὰ ταῦτα 12 τεκμήρια εἶναι ὡς εἰσὶν ἔνοχοι τῷ φόνῳ. εἶ γὰρ τούτων ἐθελόντων διδόναι εἰς βάσανον ἐγὼ μὴ ἐδεξάμην, τούτοις ἂν ἣν ταῦτα τεκμήρια. τὸ αὐτὸ οὖν τοῦτο καὶ ἐμοὶ γενέσθω, εἴπερ ἐμοῦ θέλοντος ἔλεγχον λαβεῖν τοῦ πράγματος αὐτοὶ μὴ ἠθέλησαν δοῦναι. δεινὸν δ᾽ ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ εἶναι, εἰ ὑμᾷς μὲν Y μ “- 5» κ« “ > A A / ζητοῦσιν αἰτεῖσθαι ὅπως αὐτῶν μὴ καταψηφίσησθε, a / avrot δὲ σφίσιν αὐτοῖς οὐκ ἠξίωσαν δικασταὶ γενέσθαι δόντες βασανίσαι τὰ αὑτῶν ἀνδράποδα. 13 Περὶ μὲν οὖν τούτων οὐκ ἄδηλον ὅτι αὐτοὶ » ~ / Ἁ v4 , ἔφευγον τῶν πραχθέντων τὴν σαφήνειαν πυθέσθαι: noegav γὰρ οἰκεῖον σφίσι τὸ κακὸν ἀναφανησό- μενον, ὥστε σιωπώμενον καὶ ἀβασάνιστον αὐτὸ [118] ἐᾶσαι. ἐβουλήθησαν. ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὑμεῖς γε, ὦ ἄνδρες, ” > 4 Ὁ > \ ‘ 7 . a x ἔγωγ᾽ εὖ. οἶδα, ἀλλὰ: σαφὲς ποιήσετε. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν μέχρι τούτου: περὶ δὲ τῶν γενομένων πειρά- σομαι “ὑμῖν διηγήσασθαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν: δίκη δὲ κυβερνήσειεν. 1 -ἡ βάσανος add. Baiter et Sauppe: ἡ δίκη Aldina. Non- nihil excidisse patet.
20:
PROSECUTION FOR POISONING, 10-13
inconsistent statements, my intention was that the torture should force from them the charges which the facts demanded: for torture will make even those prepared to lie confine their charges to the truth. |
I am quite sure, though, that had the defence approached me. with an offer of their slaves directly they learned that I intended to proceed against my father’s murderer, only to meet with a refusal of the offer, they would have produced that refusal as afford- ing the strongest presumption of their innocence of the murder.’ As it is, it was I who in the first. place volunteered to conduct the examination personally, and in the second told the defence to conduct it them- selvés in my stead. Surely, then, itis only logical that this corresponding offer and refusal should afford a presumption in my favour that they are guilty of the murder. Had I refused an offer of theirs to hand over theirslaves for torture, the refusal would have afforded a presumptionin their favour. The presumption, then, should, similarly be in my favour, if I was ready to discover the truth of the matter, while they refused to allow me to do so. In fact, it is amazing to me that they should try to persuade you not to find them guilty, after refusing to decide their case for them- selves by handing over their slaves for torture.
In the matter of the slaves, then, it is quite clear that the defence were themselves anxious to avoid ascertaining the facts. The knowledge that the crime would prove. to lie at their own door made them desirous of leaving it wrapped in silence and un- investigated. But you will not do this, gentlemen, as I know full well; you will bring it into the light. Enough, though ; I will now try to give you a true statement of the facts: and may justice guide me.
21
ANTIPHON
ὝὙπερῷόν τι: ἦν τῆς ἡμετέρας οἰκίας, 6 εἶχε Φιλόνεως ὁπότ᾽ ἐν ἄστει διατρίβοι, ἀνὴρ καλός τε κἀγαθὸς καὶ φίλος τῷ ἡμετέρῳ πατρί: καὶ ἣν αὐτῷ παλλακή, ἣ ἣν ὁ Φιλόνεως ἐ ἐπὶ πορνεῖον ἔμελλε κατα- στῆσαι. ταύτην οὖν [πυθομένη ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ἐποιήσατο φίλην. αἰσθομένη δ᾽ ὅτι ἀδι- κεῖσθαι ἔμελλεν ὑπὸ τοῦ Φιλόνεω, μεταπέμπεται,
\ > \ Ya μὲ ») al ‘ Φ oa" > Kat ἐπειδὴ ἦλθεν, ἔλεξεν αὐτῇ ὅτι καὶ αὐτὴ ἀδι- Κοῖτο ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἡμετέρου" εἰ οὖν ἐθέλει
, ” ε a ἢ δ... ἢ \ wa ; πείθέσθαι, ἔφη ἱκανὴ εἶναι ἐκείνῃ τε τὸν Φιλόνεων φίλον ποιῆσαι καὶ αὑτῇ τὸν ἐμὸν πατέρα, εἶναι φάσκουσα αὑτῆς μὲν τοῦτο εὕρημα, ἐκείνης δ᾽ ὑπηρέτημα. ἠρώτα οὖν αὐτὴν εἰ ἐθελήσει δια- κονῆσαί οἱ, καὶ ἣ ὑπέσχετο τάχιστα, ὡς. οἶμαι.
Μετὰ ταῦτα ἔτυχε τῷ Φιλόνεῳ ἐν Πειραιεῖ ὄντα « \ ‘ / ¢ \ \ ς > A > J; ἱερὰ Aut Κτησίῳ, 6 δὲ πατὴρ ὃ ἐμὸς εἰς Νάξον
“- » πλεῖν ἔμελλεν. κάλλιστον οὖν ἐδόκει εἶναι τῷ Φιλόνεῳ τῆς αὐτῆς ὁδοῦ ἅμα μὲν προπέμψαι εἰς τὸν Πειραιᾶ τὸν πατέρα τὸν ἐμὸν φίλον ὄντα ἑαυτῷ, ἅμα δὲ θύσαντα τὰ ἱερὰ ἑστιᾶσαι ἐκεῖνον. ἡ οὖν παλλακὴ τοῦ Φιλόνεω ἠκολούθει τῆς. θυσίας ἕνεκεν. καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἦσαν ἐν τῷ Πειραιεῖ, οἷον
: eT ” ΕῚ ‘ ? A 7 A > 6 ‘ ες ΄ εἰκός, ἔθυεν. καὶ ἐπειδὴ αὐτῷ ἐτέθυτο τὰ ἱερά, > ~ 2 , ς » μι bal ᾿ > a ἐντεῦθεν ἐβουλεύετο ἡ ἄνθρωπος ὅπως ἂν αὐτοῖς τὸ φάρμακον δοίη, πότερα πρὸ δείπνου ἢ ἀπὸ δεί- πνου. ἔδοξεν οὖν αὐτῇ βουλευομένῃ βέλτιον εἶναι μετὰ δεῖπνον δοῦναι, τῆς Κλυταιμνήστρας ταύτης"
1 πυθομένη 566]. Dobree. Glossema esse videtur_verbo
αἰσθομένη quod sequitur olim adscriptum: πιστουμένη Weber. 2 ἔθυεν Orelli: ἔθυον codd.
22
PROSECUTION FOR POISONING, 14-17
There was an upper room in our house occupied by Pigloseng: a highly respected friend of our father’s, . during his visits to Athens. Now. Philoneos had a mistress * whom he proposed to place in a brothel: My brother’s mother made friends with her ; and on hearing of the wrong intended by Philoneos, she sends for her, informing her on her arrival that she herself was also being wronged by our father. If the other would do as she was told, she said, she herself knew how to restore Philoneos’ love for her and our father’s for herself. She had discovered the means; the other’s task was to carry out her orders, She asked if she was prepared to follow her instructions, and, T imagine, received a ready assent. ~ Later; Philoneos happened to have a sacrifice to perform to Zeus Ctesius? in Peiraeus, while my father was on the point of leaving for Naxos. So Philoneos thought that it would be an excellent idea to make one journey of it by seeing my father as far as Peiraeus, offering the sacrifice, and entertaining his friend. Philoneos’ mistress accompanied him to attend the sacrifice. _On reaching Peiraeus, Philoneos of course ‘carried out theceremony. Whenthe sacrifice was over, the woman considered how to administer the draught: " should she give it before or after supper? Upon reflection, she decided that it would be better to give it afterwards, thereby carrying out the suggestion
᾿ ἃ Clearly a slave, as Philoneos. has. complete control oyer ‘her, and ah was later on tortured and summarily executed:
> Zeus.as god of the household. . Hence the sacrifice takes place at Philoneos’ private resilience, [
τῆς Κλυταιμνήστρας ρας ταύτης ταῖς ὑ ἥκως Gernet alii alia. Tis ee τῆς τούτου μητρὸς gaged τῆς KA. τοῖς rovrov pairiil tieed A: ταῖς KA. τῆς xr. ‘Abedrr.*
48
ANTIPHON
[τῆς τούτου ᾿μητρὸς] ταῖς ὑποβήκαις ἅμα. δια- 18 κονοῦσαν. καὶ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα μακρότερος. ἂν εἴη λόγος περὶ τοῦ δείπνου ἐμοί τε διηγήσασθαι ὑμῖν τ᾽ ἀκοῦσαι: ἀλλὰ πειράσομαι τὰ λοιπὰ ws ἐν βραχυ- τάτοις ὑμῖν διηγήσασθαι, ὡς γεγένηται ἡ δόσις τοῦ φαρμάκου. i ᾿Ἐπειδὴ yap ἐδεδειπνήκεσαν, οἷον εἰκός, ὃ μὲν θύων Au Κτησίῳ κἀκεῖνον ὑποδεχόμενος, ὃ δ᾽ ἐκπλεῖν τε μέλλων καὶ παρ᾽ ἀνδρὶ ἕταΐρῳ αὑτοῦ δειπνῶν, σπονδάς τ᾽ ἐποιοῦντο καὶ λιβανωτὸν ὑπὲρ 19 αὑτῶν ἐπετίθεσαν. ἡ. δὲ. παλλακὴ, τοῦ Φιλόνεω τὴν σπονδὴν ἅμα ἐγχέουσα ἐκείνοις εὐχομένοις ἃ οὐκ ἔμελλε τελεῖσθαι, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἐνέχει τὸ φᾶρ- μακον. καὶ ἅμα οἰομένη δεξιὸν ποιεῖν πλέον δίδωσι. τῷ Φιλόνεῳ, ἴσως (ὡς, εἰ δοίη. πλέον, μᾶλλον φιλησομένη ὑπὸ τοῦ. Φιλόνεω- οὔπω γὰρ ἤδει ὑπὸ τῆς μητρυϊᾶς τῆς ἐμῆς ἐξαπατωμένη, πρὶν ἐν τῷ κακῷ ἤδη ἦν" τῷ δὲ πατρὶ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ 20:ἔλασσον ἐνέχει. καὶ ἐκεῖνοι. ἐπειδὴ ἀπέσπεισαν, τὸν ἑαυτῶν puree τήνε οὐ τῶ τ ἐκπίνουσιν ὑστάτην πόσιν. 6 μὲν οὖν Φιλόνεως εὐθέως ὕαρᾷ- χρῆμα ἀποθνήσκει, ὁ δὲ πατὴρ ὁ ἡμέτερος εἰς νόσον καβαιύπέι, ἐξ ἧς καὶ ἀπώλετο εἰκοσταῖος. ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ὧν ἢ μὲν sie Soo Kal oe el soe ἔχει τὰ ἐπίχειρα ὧν ἀξία" ἦν, οὐδὲν αἰτία οὖσα--τῷ γὰρ δημοκοίνῳ τροχισθεῖσα παρεδόθη---, ἡ 8 αἰτία ' τ δος Ags add. Pahle, 6. A 24
PROSECUTION FOR POISONING, 17-20
‘of this Clytemnestra? here. Now it would take too long for me to furnish or for you to, listen to a detailed description of the meal; so I shall try to. give you as brief an account as I can of the adminis- tration of the poison which followed. Lyd After supper was over, the two naturally set about pouring libations and sprinkling some frankincense to secure the favour of heaven, as the one was offering sacrifice to Zeus Ctesius and entertaining the other, and his companion was supping with a friend and on the point of putting out to'sea. But Philoneos’- mistress, who poured the wine for the libation, while they offered their prayers—prayers never ‘to be answered, gentlemen—poured in the poison with it. Thinking it a happy inspiration, she gave Philoneos the larger draught ; she imagined perhaps that if she gave him more, Philoneos would love her the more : for only. when the mischief was. done did she see that my stepmother had tricked her. She gave our father a smaller draught. So they poured their . libation, and, grasping their own slayer, drained their last drink on earth. Philoneos expired instantly ; and my. father was seized with an illness which resulted in his death twenty days later,. In atone- ment, the subordinate’ who carried out the deed has beén ‘punished as'she desérved, although the crime inno sense originated from her: she was broken on the wheel and handed over to the executioner; and ~ the woman from whomit did originate, who was guilty @ For the metaphorical, use of the name cf. Andoc. Myst. § 129 τίς ἂν εἴη οὗτος; Οἰδίπους, ἢ Αἴγισθος;
5. καὶ χειρουῤγήσάσα hue transposuit Blass: post ἐνθυμηθεῖσα habent codd. 8 ἀξία] ἄξια Blass: οὐκ ἀξία Reutzel. . > 25
ANTIPHON
τε ἤδη Kal ἐνθυμηθεῖσα ἕξει, ἐὰν ὑμεῖς τε Kal οἱ θεοὶ θέλωσιν.
21 Σκέψασθε οὖν ὅσῳ δικαιότερα ὑμῶν δεήσομαι ἐγὼ ἢ ὃ ἀδελφός. ἐγὼ μέν γε τῷ τεθνεῶτι ὑμᾶς κελεύω καὶ τῷ ἠδικημένῳ τὸν ἀΐδιον χρόνον τιμωροὺς γενέσθαι: οὗτος δὲ τοῦ μὲν τεθνεῶτος πέρι οὐδὲν ὑμᾶς αἰτήσεται, ὃς ἄξιος καὶ ἐλέου καὶ βοηθείας καὶ τιμωρίας παρ᾽ ὑμῶν τυχεῖν, ἀθέως καὶ ἀκλεῶς πρὸ τῆς εἱμαρμένης ὑφ᾽ ὧν ἥκιστα
22 ἐχρῆν τὸν βίον ἐκλιπών, ὑ ὑπὲρ δὲ τῆς ἀποκτεινάσης δεήσεται ἀθέμιτα καὶ ἀνόσια καὶ ἀτέλεστα καὶ ἀνήκουστα καὶ θεοῖς καὶ ὑμῖν, δεόμενος ὑμῶν (μὴ τιμωρῆσαι" ἃ αὐτὴ ἑαυτὴν οὐκ ἔπεισε μὴ κακο- τεχνῆσαι. ὑμεῖς δ᾽ οὐ τῶν ἀποκτεινάντων ἐστὲ βοηθοί, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἐκ προνοίας ἀποθνῃσκόντων, καὶ ταῦτα OP ὧν ἥκιστα ἐχρῆν αὐτοὺς ἀποθνήσκειν. ἤδη οὖν ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστι τοῦτ᾽ ὀρθῶς διαγνῶναι, ὃ καὶ ποιήσατε.
23 “Δεήσεται δ᾽ ὑμῶν οὗτος “μὲν ὑπὲρ τῆς μητρὸς τῆς αὑτοῦ ζώσης, τῆς «ἐκεῖνον διαχρησαμένης ἀβούλως τε καὶ ἀθέως, ὅπως δύκην μὴ, δῷ, ἂν ὑμᾶς “πείθῃ, ὧν ἠδίκηκεν: ἐγὼ δ᾽ ὑμᾶς ὑπὲρ τοῦ πατρὸς τοὐμοῦ" τεθνεῶτος αἰτοῦμαι, ὅπως παντὶ τρόπῳ δῷ: ὑμεῖς δέ, ὅπως διδῶσι δίκην οἱ ἀδι- κοῦντες, τούτου γε ἕνεκα. καὶ “δικασταὶ ἐγένεσθε
24 καὶ ἐκλήθητε. “καὶ ἐγὼ μὲν ἐπεξέρχομαι ἰλέγων), 7 ἵνα δῷ _ ὧν ἠδίκηκε. καὶ τιμωρήσω τῷ TE
fi τίμω per he add, Thalheim.
ἢ τοὐμοῦ ranke: pov codd. 3 λέγων secl. Gernet.
* αἰτία must here have the meaning of “ultimately re- 26
PROSECUTION FOR POISONING, 20-24
of the design, shall receive her reward also, if you and heaven so will.? '
Now mark the justice of my request as compared with my brother’s. I am bidding you avenge once and for all time him who has been wrongfully done to death ; but my brother will make no plea for the dead man, although he has a right to your pity, your help, and your vengeance, after having had his life cut short in so godless and so miserable a fashion by those who should have been the last to commit such a deed. No, he will appeal for the murderess ; he will make an unlawful, a sinful, an impossible request, to which neither heaven nor you can listen.’ He will ask you to refrain from punishing a crime which the guilty woman could not bring herself to refrain from committing. But you are not here to champion the murderers : you are here to champion the victims wilfully murdered, murdered moreover by those who should have been the last to commit such a deed. Thus it now rests with you to reach a proper verdict ; see that you do so.
My brother will appeal to you in the name of his mother who is alive and who killed her husband with- out thought and without scruple ; he hopes that if he is successful, she will escape paying the penalty for her crime. I, on the other hand, am appealing to you in the name of my father who is dead, that she may pay it in full; and itis in order that judgement may come upon wrongdoers for their misdeeds that you are yourselves constituted and called judges... I am prosecuting te ensure that she pays for her crime and
sponsible ” rather than “ guilty.” That the παλλακή was to some extent guilty is implicitly acknowledged in the statement that she deserved her punishment.
27
25
26
27
ΤΠ ANTIPHON |
πατρὶ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ Kal τοῖς νόμοις τοῖς ὑμετέροις" ταύτῃ καὶ ἄξιόν μοι βοηθῆσαι ὑμᾶς ἅπαντας; εἶ ἀληθῆ λέγω: οὗτος δὲ τἀναντία, ὅπως “ἡ τοὺς , Lz ΓΝ QA 4... - 29O/ , 4 νόμους παριδοῦσα μὴ δῷ δίκὴν dv ἠδίκηκε, ταύτῃ βοηθὸς καθέστηκε. καίτοι πότερον δικαιότερον τὸν ἐκ προνοίας ἀποκτείναντα δοῦναι δίκην ἢ μή; καὶ πότερον δεῖ" οἰκτεῖραι μᾶλλον τὸν τεθνεῶτα ἢ τὴν ἀποκτείνασαν; ἐγὼ μὲν οἶμαι τὸν τεθνεῶτα: καὶ γὰρ. av) δικαιότερον καὶ ὁσιώτερον καὶ πρὸς θεῶν, καὶ πρὸς ἀνθρώπων γίγνοιτο ὑμῖν. ἤδη οὖν ἐγὼ ἀξιῶ, ὥσπερ: κἀκεῖνον ἀνελεημόνως καὶ ἀν- οικτίστως αὕτη ἀπώλεσεν, οὕτω καὶ αὐτὴν ταύτην ἀπολέσθαι ὑπό τε ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ. δικαίου. ἡ μὲν \ ¢ / A; ἄκη, A / > , γὰρ ἑκουσίως καὶ βουλεύσασα τὸν θάνατον. (ἀπέ- Krewev),? ὃ δ᾽ ἀκουσίως καὶ βιαίως ἀπέθανε: . πῶς γὰρ οὐ βιαίως ἀπέθανεν, ὦ ἄνδρες; ὅς γ᾽ ἐκπλεῖν ἔμελλεν ek τῆς γῆς τῆσδέ, παρά τε ἀνδρὶ φίλῳ αὑτοῦ εἱστιᾶτο: ἡ δὲ πέμψασα τὸ φάρμακον καὶ κελεύσασα ἐκείνῳ δοῦναι πιεῖν ἀπέκτειψὲν ἡμῶν τὸν πατέρα. πῶς οὖν ταύτην ἐλεεῖν ἄξιόν ἐστὶν ἢ αἰδοῦς τυγχάνειν παρ᾽ ὑμῶν ἢ ἄλλου του; ἥτις αὐτὴ οὐκ ἠξίωσεν ἐλεῆσαι τὸν ἑαυτῆς ἄνδρα, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνοσίως. καὶ αἰσχρῶς ἀπώλεσεν. οὕτω δέ τοι καὶ ἐλεεῖν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀκουσίοις. παθήμασι μᾶλλον προσ- ἥκει ἢ τοῖς ἑκουσίοις καὶ ἐκ προνοίας ἀδικήμασι καὶ ἁμαρτήμασι. καὶ. ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνον αὕτη οὔτε θεοὺς οὔθ᾽ ἥρωας οὔτ᾽ ἀνθρώπους αἰσχυνθεῖσα ovde* δείσασ᾽ ἀπώλέσέν, οὕτω "καὶ ᾿αὐτὴ ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ δικαίου ἀπολομένη, καὶ μὴ τυχοῦσα μήτ᾽ αἰδοῦς μήτ᾽ ἐλέου μήτ᾽ αἰσχύνης μηδεμιᾶς παρ᾽ ὑμῶν, τῆς. δικαιοτάτης. ἂν τύχοι τιμωρίας... 1 δεῖ Jernstedt: δικαιότερον οοδ ,; +) τ 2 ἂν add. Dobree. 28
PROSECUTION FOR POISONING, 24-27
to. avenge our.father and your laws :. wherein ‘you ἐς should support me one. and all, if what I say is true. My brother,.on the contrary, is. defending this woman to enable one who has broken the laws to avoid paying for her misdeeds. Yet which is the more just: that a wilful murderer should be punished, or that he should not ? Which has a better claim to pity, the murdéréd man or the murderess ? To 'my mind, | the’ murdered man: because’ in pitying’ him’ you ~ would be acting more justly and more righteously in the'eyes of gods and men. So now I ask that just as this woman put her husband to death without *pity and without mercy, so she may herself be put to.dea by you and: by justice ; for she was the wilful mur- deress. who compassed his death: he was.the victim who involuntarily came to a violent end... I repeat, |, entlemen, a violent end; for he was on the point of sailing from this country and was dining undera friend's roof, when she, who had sent the poison, with orders that a draught be giyen him, murdered our father. What pity, then, what consideration, does a woman who refused to pity her own husband, who killed him impiously and shamefully, deserve from youor anyone _ else ? ‘Involuntary accidents deserve such pity’: not “ἡ déliberately planned crimes’and acts of wickedness. Just’as this woman put*her husband to death with- but respecting or fearing god, hero,‘or human being; so she would in her turn reap her justest reward were she herself put to death by you and by justice, with- out finding consideration, sympathy, or respect.
3 ἀπέκτεινεν add. Reiske: τὸν θάνατον del. Franke. 4 αὕτη Reiske: αὐτὴ codd. 5 οὐδὲ Maetzner: οὔτε N, αἰσχυνθεῖσα οὔτε om. A.
29
ANTIPHON
28 Θαυμάζω δὲ ἔ ἔγωγε τῆς τόλμης τοῦ } ἀδελφοῦ καὶ τῆς διανοίας, τὸ διομόσασθαι ὑπὲρ τῆς μητρὸς εὖ εἰδέναι μὴ πεποιηκυῖαν' ταῦτα. πῶς yap av τις εὖ εἰδείη οἷς μὴ παρεγένετο αὐτός; οὐ γὰρ δήπου μαρτύρων γ᾽ ἐναντίον οἱ ἐπιβουλεύοντες τοὺς θανά- τοὺς τοῖς πέλας μηχανῶνταΐζ τε καὶ παρασκευά- ζουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς μάλιστα δύνανται Aabpadrara καὶ
29 ὡς ἀνθρώπων. μηδένα. εἰδέναι- οἱ δ᾽ “ἐπιβουλευό- μενοι οὐδὲν i ἴσασι, πρίν γ᾽ ἤδη ἐν αὐτῷ ὦσι τῷ κακῷ καὶ γιγνώσκωσι τὸν ὄλεθρον ἐν ᾧ εἰσί. τότε δέ, ἐ ἐὰν μὲν δύνωνται καὶ φθάνωσι πρὶν ἀποθανεῖν, καὶ φίλους καὶ ἀναγκαίους τοὺς σφετέρους (αὐτῶνν" καλοῦσι καὶ μαρτύρονται, καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτοῖς ὑφ᾽ ὧν ἀπόλλυνται, καὶ ἐπισκήπτουσι τιμωρῆσαι
80 σφίσιν αὐτοῖς ἠδικημένοις" ἃ κἀμοὶ παιδὶ ὄντι ὃ πατήρ, τὴν ἀθλίαν" καὶ τελευταίαν νόσον νοσῶν, ἐπέσκηπτεν. ἐὰν δὲ τούτων ἁμαρτάνωσι, γράμματα γράφουσι, καὶ οἰκέτας τοὺς σφετέρους αὐτῶν ἐπι- καλοῦνται μάρτυρας, καὶ δηλοῦσιν ὑφ᾽ ὧν ἀπόλ- λυνται ἡ κἀκεῖνος ἐμοὶ νέῳ ἔτι ὄντι ταῦτα ἐδήλωσε _ δπὴ ἐπέστειλεν, ὦ ἄνδρες, οὐ τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ δούλοις.
Ἐμοὶ μὲν οὖν διήγηται καὶ βεβοήθηται τῷ τε- τ ΚῸ καὶ τῷ νόμῳ: ἐν ὑμῖν δ᾽ ἐστὶ σκοπεῖν τὰ λοιπὰ πρὸς ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς καὶ δικάζειν τὰ δίκαια. οἶμαι δὲ καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς τοῖς κάτω μέλειν οἵ" rele
ἡ πεποιηκυῖαν Cobet: πεποιηκέναι codd, 2. αὐτῶν add. Hitsehige
30
PROSECUTION FOR POISONING, 28-31 oe
I am astounded at the shameless spirit shown by m brother. To think that he swore in his mother’s defence that he was sure of her innocence! How could anyone be sure of what he did not witness in person? Those who plot the death of their neigh- bours do not, I believe, form their plans and make their preparations in front of witnesses ; they act as secretly as possible and in such a way that not a soul knows ; while their victims are aware of nothing until they are already trapped and see the doom which has descended upon them. Then, if they are able and have time before they die, they summon their friends and relatives, call them to witness, tell them who the murderers are, and charge them to take vengeance for the wrong ; just as my father charged me, young as I was, during his last sad illness. Failing this, they make a statement in writing, call their slaves to witness, and reveal their murderers to them. My father told me, and laid his charge upon me, gentle- men, not upon his slaves, young though I still was.
I have stated my case; I have championed the dead man and the law. It is upon you that the rest depends; it is for you to weigh the matter and give a just decision. The gods of the world below are themselves, I think, mindful of those who have been wronged.?
* i.e. a curse will fall upon the living, unless justice is done to the dead. Cf. Tetral. Gen. Introd. pp. 38-39.
3 ἀπόλλυνται Bekker: dv ἀπολοῦνται A pr. N, ἀπόλωνται A corr. 4 οἵ] of”? Boekmeijer.
31
*
pe lm ee ee a Ὁ ee Wee em ἊΝ
nf teh δ Ἢ (ee
ας κ᾿
THE “FETKALOGEES
Now; asis wellknown, the fiest rhheriphs te chawelo: an ‘arb of. pemudsion '' were male duving the fifth centary. ‘They had thes ἡμέρα, he the sophistic movement which came into beta in te generation after, the’ Persian Ws aS, 8 ΤῸ et-the novels of Δ “a6 crete: growin intellectial ‘metivity ai κὰ polit ite
ws “WOVEDU CORTE AT ARTA phiists: | wits : pis ess μὰ τ they aystematiced the ‘know ded ie αὐτῷ > Yoon eds: tbav: ΓΙ tovlacsionss each πε fs ΟΣ sol grridverstint νὐδεέες αὐ ἐτονεοπὰ aiiltot norddite Ay 08 16: ct oma — eesidortod looiRibrosorie τον Dele 28 τονε εϑήϑοθερ; dtotley 51} ebivintod see sory lostl: ᾿ασίνμοδι, yor: tecier itive. ML, I. od i ha dutitey déivetew otha SPHERE TETRALOGEIES 91 δέον. τ πάν Hone haw yhon9jobstlos in’ obipidtorditiv tbritht: _ -Serestowt dine tidita deer pila estloSaqeows to ati! oihicos ult ΠῚ alts swonsthb hdd yoteasddadaqen at old imedty ai vi Get rth wore af ebrottus silt 6 seotpare. yaiisetoss οὐ 0 Sondounm voting -othhuldifdptedcote | beidissndo eb otf ftgninoesot teisabyp vlog σι σάκος: Γ΄ -tpehy’ ghar we gicuie diishs eHotdiil aberdeen: | adore douystichsedhs πιο σου οι pa Vetoolqueinit | deity eens lorddulgabdititiconpdt ulsomsbiizone boasdi : Poitoeodbaaitenn i blsow dusnrtssrh wWivetsalse oie . fave chit dees eoeeotht ove scp HN oye: ‘a Heateccescctine: ubfodwitjsHred yew! oitiongaito hagit- cheothak csldieedqi hes ict ee tbrsorgsloschorth ist event fe seus th sie ésitsitduedasizoh age ‘bestentesteitsioa: | Ἵ eaied: in the second Tetralogy; one. rapaistatal:
Plast WORSE οὐδ Wrst iP een Pepi Lhe!
-19bivs siesta μῦν aie ayvonal 7 byead διτο ρα" 91109 sidadorg ane. ith re a rayne} δὲς oul Samoans orl?
mort bovadieg od nao aici 2ogninepur oT boy
4
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Or all that has come down to us under the name of Antiphon nothing presents a more interesting or a more difficult problem than the three groups of four short speeches each, which are known as the Tetra- logies. Each group deals with a case of homicide, the first with wilful murder, the second with what to-day would be described as death by misadventure, and the third with homicide in self-defence ; and each con- sits of two speeches for the prosecution and two corre- sponding speeches for the defence. In all three the purpose of the author is to show how far it is possible to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused by means of purely general reasoning ; he is concerned with what Aristotle calls πίστεις ἔντεχνοι, “ arti- ficial proofs,” as distinct from πίστεις ἄτεχνοι, proofs based on evidence. Hence although the cases which he selects for treatment would in practice be settled largely by the citation of witnesses and the applica- tion of specific laws, he keeps both witnesses and laws in the background as far as possible and con- centrates instead upon logical subtleties and a priori inferences.*
4 A priori inferences in general are known as εἰκότα, probable conclusions based on known facts. These eviden- tiary facts are called τεκμήρια (a different thing from μαρτυρίαι,
the evidence of witnesses). A third term, σημεῖα, also occurs. The meaning of this can be gathered from an extant fragment
34
THE TETRALOGIES
Now, as is well known, the first attempts to develop an “art of persuasion ’’ were made during the fifth century. They had their origins in the sophistic movement which came into being in the generation after the Persian Wars, to meet the needs of an age of growing intellectual activity and political self-consciousness.. The aim of the sophists was educational; they systematized the knowledge and acquirements necessary to the man who was seeking to become an enlightened and efficient member of society, and for a fee would instruct all comers. In the main they interpreted efficiency as the ability to present a point of view in a convincing fashion, whether in the Assembly, the law-courts, or general conversation; and sophists from Protagoras to Thrasy- machus devoted a great deal of thought to the formulation of the basic principles of argument and the most effective method of presenting a case. It is in this setting that tradition places the Tetralogies. Antiphon himself is known to have taught rhetoric and to have written upon the subject ; and so it was only natural that he should have published a number of model speeches for the benefit of pupils. | Further- more, it is known that the type of situation proposed for discussion in the Tetralogies was a favourite one with the sophists of the fifth century. Pericles, for instance, argued with Protagoras over the hypo- thetical case of the boy who was accidentally killed by ajavelin in the gymnasium,‘ precisely the problem treated in the second Tetralogy; and in Plato's Phaedrus there is a still: more striking parallel.?
of Antiphon’s own Τέχνη (Fr. 74, infra, p. 308): τὰ μὲν παρ- οιχόμενα σημείοις πιστοῦσθαι, τὰ δὲ μέλλοντα τεκμηρίοις.
« Plutarch, Per. 86. > Phaedrus 273 a. 35.
ANTIPHON
Socrates is discussing the methods of argument advo- cated by Antiphon’s predecessor, Teisias; in his hand- book onrhetoric. Teisias, he says, lays itdown.that “if a man who was courageous but physically weak gave a hiding to a strong man who was a coward, because he had been robbed by him of his cloak or something similar, and was prosecuted in consequence, neither of the two must speak the truth. The coward must allege that the courageous man did not give him the hiding unaided, while the other must:seek to establish the fact that the two of them were alone, and then go on to make play with the argument: ‘ How could aman such as I have attacked a man such as he?’ The prosecutor, on the other hand, will not admit his own cowardice, but: will endeavour to produce some false statement by means of which he may perhaps refute his opponent.” Here again we have precisely the methods of argument illustrated at length in the first. Tetralogy.
Thus far the evidence suggests that we are dealing with what is genuinely the work of Antiphon, the work perhaps of his younger days when he had not as yet made his reputation as a λογογράφος and was still obliged to teach for a living. But such a con- sideration is hardly supported, if the style and language of the Teiralogies be compared with that of the Herodes and Choreutes. It was Herwerden* who first called attention to their peculiarities of vocabulary and grammar. Words: like ἀναγιγνώσ- κέιν for ἀναπείθειν (I. β. 1), κἀταδοκεῖν for ὑποπτεύειν (1..γ: 7). καταλαμβάνειν for καταψηφίζεσθαι (111: 8.9), constructions like πειρασόμεθα ἐλέγχοντες (I. γ. 1), and the use of the passive ἀπελογήθη for the usual
> * Mnemosyne, N.S. 9, p. 201, 11, p. 908. 36
THE TETRALOGIES
ἀπελογήσατο (I. y. 1, III. γ.. 1) are found nowhere’ else in Antiphon ; the first three verbs mentioned: are, in fact, pure Ionic. To these one might add such rarities as dvarporeds (I. β. 2); ἐλεγκτήρ (1. 8. 3), συμπράκτωβ (II. ὃ. 6); ἀδυνάτως (IIT: y. 8), θανασίμως (IIL. y. 4), ἀπολύσιμος, καταλήψιμος (III. δ. 9), and’ poetical expressions like γηραιὸς τελευτή (IIL: a. 2). Some of these do not occur again in Greek literature ; rione can be paralleled‘in Antiphon himself. If, then, the Tetralogies' are ‘his work, how comes it ‘that’ they show such ‘peculiarities of grammar and’ diction’? The difficulty is no trifling one. Admittedly, aca~ demic exercises of the type which we are considering will differ considerably from speeches composed ‘by the same author for delivery in a court of law.’ They will: be more concise, probably ἃ good deal more closely argued, and certainly less ornate. But that they should exhibit a language’ entirely’ peculiar to themselves is strange. It is hard to see how the: man who wrote the Herodes, an Athenian born and bred; could have sprinkled his pages with Ionicisms in his’ earlier days. fas ovist ἢ p ost} To
If an examination of their language points to the conclusion that the Tetralogies are not the work ‘of Antiphon, is the same true of the evidence ‘to be obtained from what may conveniently be called their general background ? This is a far harder question. It has already been pointed out that the author is clearly at some pains to give as little prominence as’ possible to πίστεις ἄτεχνοι, proofs based: on specific’ laws; on the evidence of witnesses, ‘and on ‘other matters of fact, because his intention is to reveal the scope of general reasoning in forensic pleading. But reasoning, however general, cannot develop in vacuo;
37
ANTIPHON
it must proceed from premises of a kind ; and if the Tetralogies discard the premises afforded by particu- lar laws; they can do-so only by substituting the universal principles from which those laws derive. This is in fact what happens ; and before proceeding further, we must briefly consider the conception of blood-guilt upon which the entire argument of the Tetralogies rests.
The central fact for the author is that, unlike ordinary crimes, the taking of life, whether wilfully or by accident, is an ἀσέβημα, an act of impiety,* which upsets the existing harmony between man and those superhuman forces which surround, him, and brings upon him a pioopa.ordefilement.? This μίασμα, also spoken of as a xnAis,°.is described at times in terms which suggest a literal stain of blood (cf. II. y. 8, θεία κηλὶς τῷ. δράσαντι προσπίπτει ἀσεβοῦντι). Τὸ rests primarily,.upon the slayer himself; but in ἃ wider sense his family and the entire community to which he belongs areinfected with it,’ possibly because of their contact with him,’ but more probably because of the persistence of the primitive notion that the true unit of existence is the tribe or the πόλις, the mem- bers of which have no separate individuality. This μίασμα will continue until due expiation has been made; and the expiation should, strictly speaking, consist in the death of the slayer ; he has taken the life of another, and his own life must be taken in return. The Tetralogies recognize, however, the pos- sible alternative of exile, the permanent exclusion of the offender from his community being regarded
δι PS Ta Ss, « 10, 11 a 9; ΤΠ. γι ὃ. MNT yolk OT. BS teas od, ἃ 10.
38
THE TETRALOGIES
as itself equivalent to death. Unless expiation of the one sort or the other is forthcoming, the dead man will remain ἐνθύμιος τοῖς ζῶσιν," 1.6. the con- science of the living will be burdened with guilt, and the unseen powers of vengeance which have been awakened by the shedding of blood will work their will. Upon the criminal himself they will bring destruction ; upon the state famine and disaster.? Generally these powers of vengeance are called ἀλιτήριοι ὁ; but here and there a different word is used to describe them—zpoorpérato. 4—a word which lets us see something more of their nature. They are the vaguely conceived personification of eternal justice “ turned to”’ in mute appeal by him who has been wronged.* ‘They will hear his appeal, and until reparation has been made will ceaselessly haunt the guilty.
Much that is curious in the argument of the Tetra- logies follows directly from these presuppositions. Tetralogy II, for example, is concerned with the case of a boy who was accidentally killed by a javelin- cast in the gymnasium. Now it might be expected that the only method of treating the situation open to the author would be to make the prosecution take the line that the victim met his death as the result of a deliberate intention to kill on the part of the defend-
2 I, y. 10. Sometimes he is said to leave an ἐνθύμιον behind him. . Cf, II. a. 2, 11. 8. 9.
> T. a. 10.
¢ III. a,'4, III. p. 8, IIT. δ. 10.
4 Tila. 4. ; .
¢ Sometimes the dead man is himself spoken of as προσ-
39
\) \ANTIPHON τ
ant;.or else as the result, of ‘criminal negligence; while the defendant would reply by trying to prove that death occurred by misadventure... But instead both‘sides admit: from’ the start’ that death was purely accidental, because for the writer it makes no. difference. A ‘life has been lost by violence. Therefore an unéxpiated μίασμα may still rest upon the community. If the boy. was: himself to. blame for running into. the path of. the javelin, all. is well; but if the fault rested with its thrower, the blood-guilt arising from the deed ‘still remains, and he will have to: make reparation with his life. “From this springs the involved argument as to which of the two parties was guilty of ἁμαρτία, with its series of sophistries so wearisomé to modern taste, For the author it represents the one means, however imperfect that may be, of discovering whether or not satisfaction is still owing to the powers of vengeance for the blood which has been shed. δ pero 4ohe It is hardly, necessary to point out \how extra- ordinarily primitive are the beliefs which lie behind this conception of blood-guilt... They have their roots in a dim past when the life of man was felt to be at the mercy of mysterious δαίμονες, spiritual forces which surround him on every side and manifest them- selves: in the endless: processes of nature, forces! of which none knew the limits or precise character, but whith might be rendeted benevolent by due propitia- tion. It was in an animistic world of this kind that the worship known as Chthonic»took) shape.)) The spirits of the dead below the ground were themselves oe to‘inflweénce the lives of those upon the'éarth which they, had quitted. They too. were δαΐμονες, and malignant. ones, starved ahecniiitons for evil,
40
THE TETRALOGIES
unless appeased with food and drink and the per- formance of the ritual proper to them. And most malignant of all was the spirit of the man whose life had been taken from him by violence. He demanded blood, the blood of his slayer; and until he had received satisfaction, his curse lay upon the living.
Beliefs of this kind, woven into the very fabric of life, provide in themselves an inarticulate code. of law ; and with the development of a more complex social system, while some will pass into oblivion, others’ will receive explicit formulation 85 being fundamental to society’s existence. They will) be- come νόμοι πάτριοι whose authority is unquestioned —not so much because the superstitions and taboos from which they originated still persist, but because they ‘have proved their worth in practice and have become accepted as part of the nature of things: We have: seen’ how the author of the Tetralogies takes such a\body of primitive law as his material ; it now remains to ascertain whether this is in any way related to the Athenian legal code in so far as that code is concerned with φόνος. _
\ Homicide in-all its forms was dealt with at Athens axtider the laws first put into writing by Draco in the seventh century, but with origins in a far remoter past. The: basic principle upon which they were framed was the principle with which we have already metiin the Tetralogies, namely, that the shedding of blood involves ἃ defilement which can only beremoved by making due reparation to the dead. But closely related to this was a second principle, of which the Tetralogies take no account, the principle that’ there are| degrees of blood-guilt and that therefore) the reparation:in a given case of φόνος must depend upon
41
ANTIPHON
the nature of that case. Homicide, in fact, under the Draconian code could take one of two main forms, φόνος ἑκούσιος and φόνος ἀκούσιος ; and according as it was the one or the other, so the penalty to be inflicted upon the offender was death (with the recog- nized alternative of exile for life) or exile for a specified period, probably not more than a year (ἀπενιαυτισ- pos). In addition there was a third form, φόνος δίκαιος, which might be ἑκούσιος or ἀκούσιος, but which at the same time embodied a legal principle that the other two did not. How early these momentous distinctions were drawn is not known ; but there can be no doubt that it was long before the days of Draco, as already in his time special courts were in existence for the trial of different kinds of φόνος: These courts were five in number, | The first, and probably the most ancient, was the Areopagus, which sat to try cases of φόνος ἑκούσιος, wilful murder. The second was the court which met in the precincts of the Palladium (τὸ ἐπὶ Παλλαδίῳ δικαστήριον), to try cases of φόνος ἀκούσιος, homicide committed without intent to kill. The third met inthe precincts of the temple of Apollo Delphinius (τὸ ἐπὶ Δελφινίῳ δικ.), totry cases of φόνος δίκαιος, homicide where the defendant pleaded justification. The fourth met in the precincts of the Prytaneum, the ancient Council- Hall (τὸ ἐπὶ τῷ Πρυτανείῳ δικ.), to try cases where the slayer was unknown or where death had been caused by an inanimate object. The fifth sat at Phreatto, a part of Peiraeus on the seashore, (7d év Φρεαττοῖ Six.) and tried cases where a person already in exile for φόνος ἀκούσιος was charged with having taken life a second time before leaving the country ; Phreatto was chosen to enable the defendant to plead
42
THE TETRALOGIES
from a boat, and thereby avoid setting foot on the soil from which his previous crime haddebarredhim. The same jury, the fifty-one Ephetae, sat in all these courts save the Areopagus, which was composed of ex-Archons.
Of two of the five courts, the Areopagus and the Palladium, something more should be added. As already stated, the Draconian code recognized the existing distinction between φόνος ἑκούσιος and φόνος ἀκούσιος. Now such a distinction can only be made after it has become clear that the law must take into account not only facts but intentions. But from this it is only a step to a further principle. Cases sometimes occur where A plans an act and B carries it out at A’s suggestion in ignorance of the effects which will follow. In such cases the βούλευσις and the πρᾶξις, which are usually indissolubly connected, are divided between A and B. It follows that the responsibility for the act must also be divided ; and at once there emerges the principle τὸν βουλεύσαντα ἐν 'τῷ αὐτῷ ἐνέχεσθαι καὶ τὸν τῇ χειρὶ ἐργασάμενον “ ; and this will apply not only to φόνος ἑκούσιος but also to φόνος ἀκούσιος. B may perform an act at the instigation of A which results in the death of C. Neither A nor B foresaw such a consequence ; yet the act was deliberately performed. A is therefore guilty of βούλευσις φόνου ἀκουσίου, and in the eyes of the law must make precisely the same reparation as B. When this principle first received explicit formulation is not known. Possibly it is as early as Draco or earlier. In any case by the fifth century βούλευσις φόνου ἑκουσίου came within the jurisdiction of the
* Andocides, Myst, § 94, 43
ANTIPHON | |
Areopagus and βούλευσις φόνον ἀκόυσίου within that of the Palladium. q loiehye
10 was into the framework of the five courts that ‘Draco. fitted his laws relating to φόνος. ΟΥ̓ the character of that code enough has been said to show that) it represents a relatively advanced stage of development; the instinctive sanctions of a more rudimentary society have been modified by the emergence of consciously articulated legal principles. But in spite of the rational analysis to which the act of homicide has been subjected, the primitive conception of blood-guilt persists and. forms the basis of the: Draconian code. Homicide was. still held: to involve defilement, and was. for that reason placed in a category of its own. This is abundantly clear from known details of procedure in trials for homicide during the fifth century. Thus as soon as a charge of φόνος had been registered with the Basileus, a proclamation was made, forbidding the accused. access to the Agora and temples as being suspected of defilement.¢. Anyone who camé into contact with him or even spoke to him was liable to be infected with the same μίασμα ; while the court which eventually tried the case sat in the open air to! avoid sharing a roof with him.?. ‘There’ could be no better evidence that the old conception of blood- guilt had: never lost)its hold... Homicide was still an éoéBypa rather than an“ddiknpa, an act of impiet rather than a crime against the community. ΝΥ οὖν Ibis plain from: this that, in taking the view which he did. of the nature of blood-guilt, the! author of the Tetralogies was doing nothing more than accept- ing an assumption recognized as fundamental by
@ See Choreutes, Introd. Ὁ. 940. 6 Herodes, § 11. 44.
THE “TETRALOGIES
Athenian law itself. At the same time he diverges noticeably in his treatment of particular cases from the lines laid down in Draco’s code. One of the features of that ‘code was its recognition of the fact that. φόνος ἀκούσιος cannot be' treated :as a crime of the same order‘as φόνος ἑκούσιος ; and it even went so far as to,acknowledge that in certain circumstances φόνος ἀκούσιος Was no crime at all; thus the man who accidentally takes the life of another ἐν ἄθλοις is expressly absolved from blame, and it is held that he has incurred πὸ defilement. The second Tetralogy, however, which deals with a case of homicide in almost these: circumstances, pays no» attention ‘to this. It replaces ‘Draco’s law:with another, which is less of a νόμος, though it is: spoken of: as such, than a general principle» homicide, whatever the cireurastances in which it “is°committed, 15. punishable: with death.? Again, the Draconian code recognized that homicide in ‘self-defence is in» certain cases justified ; it laid down, for instance, that the man who kills»a thief in the éffortto protect his goods is! guiltless.» But ‘the third’ Tetralogy, which would have provided an excel- lent opportunity for exhibiting the principle implicit in such a law, istaken up with argumentalong different nes] 915 Sysugan! 1 Π το 996 silt πο ,ovoils ἘΠ οδ8 this divergence mean that the author of the Tetralogies was ignorant: of Athenian law on, the subject of homicide, and that his conception of blood- guilt. as ‘involving’ defilement agrees «with’ that em- bodied in,the Draconian code only by chance? _ The evidence;does not admit-of a certain answer. But it is significant that while the. Tetralogies do not-openly recognize the existence of the Draconian code, each δ «II. β. 9. 2 ' 4
ANTIPHON
of them deals with one of the three types of φόνος distinguished by it: the first is concerned with φόνος ἑκούσιος, the second with φόνος ἀκούσιος, and the third with φόνος δίκαιος. Further, passing refer- ences to laws other than those of homicide certainly seem to indicate a knowledge of the Athenian legal system as a whole. Thus κλοπὴ ἱερῶν χρημάτων is punishable by fine after being made the subject of a γραφή“; slaves can only give evidence under torture?; a citizen convicted of ψευδομαρτύρία is fined and dis- franchised *; no blame attaches to a physician, if a patient dies while under his care.¢ And in addition to this it must always be remembered that the author is not trying to show how the cases which he selects would be argued in a court of law; as has already been pointed out, he is confining himself as far as possible to purely general reasoning. In view of such facts it seems more probable that he was purposely neglect- ing the details of the Draconian code than that he was ignorant of them altogether.
The evidence of background, then, suggests, if anything, that the writer of the Tetralogies| was acquainted with Attic law. That he was Antiphon, or indeed a native Athenian at all, it is mot easy to believe, when the peculiarities of language are taken into account.? We are left with the possibility that he was a foreigner who had spent time enough in Athens to gain a knowledge of her legal system and write Attic of a kind. On this assumption the Tetra-
4.1, α, ὃ, ὧν 5 παν
¢ 1. δ, 7, ef. Andoc. Myst. § 14. ᾿ ἃ ὙΠ, y. δ.
“ The evidence which suggests’ that the Tetralogies are spurious, while cogent, is not absolutely conclusive. They hare therefore been printed as Antiphon’s in the present edition. s
46
THE TETRALOGIES
logies will stand as the relic of a literature long since dust and shadows ; for the naive ingenuity of their thought and the archaic balance of their language alike suggest that they are the work of a sophist of the age of Corax, Teisias, and Gorgias, rather than the forgery of a later time. If this is so, we may regret the namelessness of their author; but we must count it fortunate that we possess a perfect specimen of that τέχνη ῥητορική which held the young Pericles engrossed, while it invited the scorn of Aristophanes and Plato.
47
ἄστυ α τ οϑήδιάφτρρ, és δὶ it ho “109%, ἐν αὲ tie
᾿ρυρόθλςσβ τ τ am Βὲκῆδδ στῶν ἀπ τος psi ἢ atime besowhake δον bis dare.’ And tn sdditionthe this OL gonet shvaye be remexobered thet the aathe® . ach ty pteahew! how the cases which he selects oe ae tbe pgabdinscauttoflaw, δα hes alediy ροῦν. ἐμ κη ἢ gaat, tee Be confining himself a6 far as ponsible Τρ λον recur τόπου. In view al cach) } O. aneketraore prohable that he was purposely peplent” τ Whe Getalts of the Draconian code than that he Pas Ὶ ‘ase ἜΤ tery altoget hen, ; Phe ieviderice of background, thes wugweets, ἀξ sortie, that the: writer of the Petralagtes: was. aeoeqcttiod with Attic law. Theat hewas Antiphon, we ποῦνε « wative Athenian at allpittenth cary 19 he arts eae 3) : δ ραὶ the powaliarities wt: lay mages are teken - qe δ ssa We. dre left with the posshility: that he we See ere whe Peach. her beg, ——r a Atoms begin aknowhedge! baretena aa anette aut die a hind Gn th esneption th Tetra-
em eae a oi | ἃ ἣν af, Ronchee:, Mion. τ" ἜΝ =e eR are ow See ahha phi that Lin Tetrategey are ef dite nag an ener ebeoiutely condaniee, They
hate, ἥν ΜΕ tees -printed ae δἰ Aaron io. ihe gitesens |
οὐ πείνης,
τε : ΕΝ τ Σὰ
TIRST TETRALOGY
Boresence at the s¢cne of the crime is in any event Eaprobable ἃ priori, and πεῖν that the suggested Brotive is inadequate
The two remaining 4peeches break no new ground,
ut. consist of further argument on the Hires followed the first two. A touch of realiom ia acided in the
3 δ] speech fo οἵ } states that
ἰῇ will nrove ATO: tHOTS’ Sg i tan that he Ἔν" viet πὶ cl ad Ten 18 lego i fies men | pb» ΚΠ ἢ ΡΒ eda a
Eto: sbia adt 16 wordato, war. «> ΟΝ το bist © oslt t0 ϑοπορίνο 918} en .odils aonsteb bus muiigso201q ® od ot esl bre sisitot r9bau bestest od tonnage ovale al .stedoib esitilidedorg 541 28 botosjer τὸ 89
ἢ ψϑοι ΘΝ Ὁ πε συ 7166 aidd to s20quig slodw ont 8561 sd ano Yoorg to shoittasa mong » ist wod works of
-badeuq
Heildates of tqarstis as diw ensgo moituosao1g odT vidt tro .soitecimife yd pent oke ait to ding 977 avidi 54} Βορεθθμα et dasm a Post eal ah: tltiw enolieles tang 2 ¥ I0 pain ta tivews! evoinee a diiw Ὑ gainoteswlt enw K 456} ‘ylvsiluosg 6 bad Y 4661 2ov01g “1295 eid Yo omit τυ ΟΠ ΡΟΤΈ ashiusr oft Βα ϑέσπεπου sot svijom ᾿ -boouborg ai ον δῖα odd to snoarstate oils | -satorils Yo borltsen ost 461} gniwore vd sailor ee εραμόοεαι ylleoigol οἱ aotinas2o1g odd χά το viscid i καὶ, δι Baw eal a oie by ἀν ἘΝ tnd eid tadt .ydtvowsertias tt wbeor oF δὰ eoonstentyo
τοι. ἢ : st
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
Tue situation presupposed by the first Tetralogy is a simple one. X is found dead in a deserted spot. His attendant, a slave, lies mortally wounded at his side and dies shortly after the pair are discovered, but not before stating that he had recognized Y among the assailants. The family of X now prosecute Y for wilful murder. This clearly affords an admirable field for argument ἐκ τῶν εἰκότων on the side of prosecution and defence alike, as the evidence of the slave cannot be tested under torture and has to be accepted or rejected as the probabilities dictate. In fact the whole purpose of this particular Tetralogy is to show how far a priort methods of proof can be pushed.
The prosecution opens with an attempt to establish the guilt of the accused by elimination. Next this negative argument is buttressed by the positive evidence of Y’s past relations with X ; the known fact that X was threatening Y with a serious lawsuit at the time of his death proves that Y had a peculiarly strong motive for committing the murder. Finally the statement of the slave is produced.
Y replies by showing that the method of elimina- tion employed by the prosecution is logically unsound, that the evidence of the slave was given in such cir- cumstances as to render it untrustworthy, that his
50
FIRST TETRALOGY
presence at the scene of the crime is in any event improbable a priori, and finally that the suggested motive is inadequate.
The two remaining speeches break no new ground, but consist of further argument on the lines followed in the first two. A touch of realism is added in the final speech for the defence. The speaker states that he will prove from the evidence of his slaves that he was at home and in bed on the night of the Diipoleia, when the crime was committed. This may well be a practical hint on the part’ of the author to indicate the most effective moment for the introduction of important evidence. Coming where it does, the prosecution has no opportunity of replying to it.
VOL, I c 51
[115] 1
bo
TETPAAOTIA A il ot Tos Oita Ὁ cet) | KATHTOPIA ΦΟΝΟΥ ATIAPASHMOS ὋὉπόσα μὲν τῶν πραγμάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιτυχόν- τῶν ἐπιβουλεύεται, οὐ χαλεπὰ ἐλέγχεσθαί ἐστιν" ἂν δ᾽ οἱ ἱκανῶς μὲν πεφυκότες, ἔμπειροι δὲ τῶν πραγμάτων ὄντες, ἐν δὲ τούτῳ τῆς ἡλικίας καθ- εστῶτες ἐν ᾧ κράτιστοι φρονεῖν αὑτῶν εἰσι, πράσσωσι, χαλεποὶ καὶ γνωσθῆναι καὶ ἐλεγχθῆνα(' εἰσι: διὰ γὰρ τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ κινδύνου ἐκ τ λλοῦ τὴν ἀσφάλειαν ὧν ἐπιβουλεύουσι σκοποῦντες, οὐ πρότερον ἐπιχειροῦσιν ἢ πάσης ὑποψίας φυλακὴν ποιήσωνται. γιγνώσκοντας οὖν ὑμᾶς χρὴ ταῦτα, κἂν ὁτιοῦν εἰκὸς παραλάβητε, σφόδρα πιστεύειν αὐτῷ. ἡμεῖς δ᾽ οἱ ἐπεξερχόμενοι τὸν φόνον οὐ τὸν αἴτιον ἀφέντες τὸν ἀναίτιον διώκομεν: σαφῶς γὰρ οἴδαμεν ὅτι πάσης τῆς πόλεως μιαινομένης ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἕως ἂν διωχθῇ, τό τ᾽ ἀσέβημα ἡμέτερον γίγνεται, τῆς θ᾽ ὑμετέρας ἁμαρτίας ἡ ποινὴ εἰς ἡμᾶς τοὺς μὴ δικαίως διώκοντας ἀ ἀναχωρεῖ. ἅπαν- τος δὲ τοῦ μιάσματος ἀναχωροῦντος εἰς ἡμᾶς, ὡς 1 ἐλεγχθῆναι Kayser: δειχθῆναι codd. 52
THE FIRST TETRALOGY ἃ ' I ANONYMOUS PROSECUTION FOR MURDER
WueEn a crime is planned by an ordinary. person, it, is. not hard to expose ; but to detect and expose criminals who are naturally able, who are men of experience, and who have reached an age when their faculties are at their best, is no easy matter. » The enormous risk makes them devote a great deal of thought to the problem of executing the crime, in safety, and they take no steps until they have completely secured themselves against suspicion. With these facts in mind, you must place implicit con- fidence in any and every indication from proba- bility * presented to eu: We, on the other hand, who are seeking satisfaction for the murder, are not letting the guilty escape and bringing the innocent into. court ; we know. very well that as the whole. _ city is defiled by the criminal until he is brought to justice, the sin becomes ours and the punishment for your error falls upon us, if our prosecution is mis- directed. Thus, as the entire defilement falls upon
.% εἰκός, εἰκότως, and τὰ εἰκότα cannot properly be rendered by any single English equivalent. I have made use of “natural,” “logical,” “* probable,” “to be expected,” ete., according to the requirements of the context.
53
ANTIPHON
Ἅ , , > e tA ἂν δυνώμεθα σαφέστατα ἐξ ὧν γιγνώσκομεν πει- ρασόμεθα ὑμῖν δηλοῦν ὡς ἀπέκτεινε τὸν ἄνδρα. 4 {Οὔτε γὰρ κακούργους εἰκὸς ἀποκτεῖναι τὸν » 1 Ων ι Ὅν \ ” , ἄνθρωπον)" οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἂν τὸν ἔσχατον κίνδυνον περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς κινδυνεύων ἑτοίμην καὶ κατειργασ- , \ ays 7k «Ὁ! » bad “72 BY μένην τὴν ὠφέλειαν ἀφῆκεν: ἔχοντες yap [av]’ τὰ ἱμάτια ηὑρέθησαν. οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ παροινήσας οὐδεὶς διέφθειρεν. αὐτόν- ἐγιγνώσκετο γὰρ. ἂν ὑπὸ. τῶν dosed ter τὴς 291 \ 99> 9 , > \ συμποτῶν. οὐδὲ μὴν οὐδ᾽ ἐκ λοιδορίας" od yap < A \3 > \ “ “- δ᾽ > > , ᾿ 2) δ ᾿ς ἂν)" ἀωρὶ τῶν νυκτῶν οὐδ᾽ ἐν ἐρημίᾳ ἐλοιδο τῳ v2 35 Vv A » / ” , ροῦντο. οὐδὲ μὴν ἄλλου στοχαζόμενος ἔτυχε τού- > \ “A \ ~ > 4 / > / του; οὐ γὰρ ἂν σὺν τῷ ἀκολούθῳ διέφθειρεν αὐτόν. > , A “ ς ig ς ,ὔ Ι ΣΦ, ε ᾿Απολυομένης δὲ τῆς ὑποψίας ἁπάσης αὐτὸς ὁ tA Loc hy > > ~ > /, uA » " θάνατὸς ἐξ ἐπιβουλῆς ἀποθανόντα μηνύει αὐτόν. εἶ χα ᾿ Υ rode i ᾿ ἐπιθέσθαι δὲ τίνα μᾶλλον εἰκός ἐστιν ἢ τὸν μεγάλα \ ΠΝ Ἶ , vw Oy ἢ Cit μὲν Kaka προπεπονθότα, ἔτι δὲ μείζονα. ἐπίδοξον. » δ κυ ” ὅν Φ τ" at ὄντα πάσχειν; ἔστι δ᾽ ὁ διωκόμενος οὗτος" ἐκ παλαιοῦ γὰῤ ἐχθρὸς ὧν αὐτοῦ πολλὰς μὲν καὶ ἢ ὁ μεγάλας γραφὰς διώξας οὐδεμίαν εἷλεν, ἔτι δὲ ,ὔ A / ‘ >? ἿΑ > > μείζους καὶ πλείους διωχθεὶς οὐδεπώποτ᾽ ἀπο- Ν ςι] \ [An >, tt 3 ,ὕ os A > φυγὼν ἱκανὸν μέρος τῶν ὄντων ἀποβέβληκε, τὰ δ᾽. Ξ οὔτε εν ἄνθρωπον add. Ald.
3 “ἂν 866]. Reiske. 8 ἂν add. Dobree: Cf. ὃ, § 5.
@ Inserted in the Aldine edition to fill a probable lacuna in the ms. text; some reference to. κακοῦργοι is clearly wanted. The term κακοῦργος (cf. 5, 88. ὅ, 6) is a generic one compris- ing various species of criminal: κλέπται, τοιχωρύχοι, βαλλαντιο-- τόμοι, etc. The “malefactors” here refe to are doubtless
54
FIRST TETRALOGY, I. 3-6
us, we shall try to show you as conclusively as our knowledge allows that the defendant killed. the dead man. <Malefactors are not likely to have murdered him,)4 as nobody who was exposing his life to a very grave risk would forgo the prize when it was securely within . his grasp ; and the victims were found still wearing their cloaks. Nor again did anyone in liquor kill him : the murderer’s identity would be known to his boon- companions. Nor again was his death the result of a quarrel ; they would not have been quarrelling at the dead of night or in a deserted spot. Nor did the” criminal strike the dead man when intending to strike someone else ; he would not in that case have killed master and slave together.
As all grounds for suspecting that the crime was unpremeditated are removed, it is clear from the cir- cumstances of death themselves. that the victim was. deliberately murdered.2 Now who is more likely to have attacked him than a man who had already suffered cruelly at his hands and who was expect- ing to suffer more cruelly still?. That man is the defendant. He was an old enemy of the other, and indicted him on several serious charges without suc- cess. On the other hand, he has himself been indicted on charges still more numerous and still more grave, and not once has he been acquitted, with the result that he has lost a good deal of his property. Further, he had recently been indicted by the dead man for
λωποδύται “ footpads.” For a further discussion of κακοῦργοι
see Herodes, Introd. > Here, as elsewhere in the Tetralogies, the Greek has to be expanded in translating in order to make the connexion of thought clear. Foran explanation of the words αὐτὸς ὃ θάνατος, “ circumstances of death,”’ see p. 60, note b. ἶ 55
ANTIPHON
ἄγχιστα ἱερῶν κλοπῆς δυοῖν taddvrow yeypap- μένος ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, συνειδὼς μὲν αὑτῷ τὸ ἀδίκημα, ἔμπειρος δ᾽ ὧν τῆς τούτου δυνάμεως, μνησικακῶν δὲ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν, εἰκότως μὲν ἐπεβούλευσεν, εἰ- κότως δ᾽ ἀμυνόμενος τὴν ἔχθραν ἀπέκτεινε τὸν 7 ἄνδρα. ἥ τε γὰρ ἐπιθυμία τῆς τιμωρίας ἀμνήμονα τῶν κινδύνων καθίστη αὐτόν, ὃ τε φόβος τῶν ἐπιφερομένων κακῶν ἐκπλήσσων θερμότερον ἐπι- χειρεῖν ἐπῇρεν. ἤλπιζέ τε τάδε μὲν δράσας καὶ ήσειν ἀποκτείνας αὐτὸν καὶ ἀποφεύξεσθαι τὴν
΄ 29M \ 2 , 297 2)\? 2 7 8 γραφήν: οὐδὲ yap ἐπεξιέναι οὐδένα, ἀλλ᾽, ἐρήμην αὐτὴν ἔσεσθαι: εἴ τε καὶ ἁλοίη, τιμωρησαμένῳ
ἀλλ ὃ > ~ lo / Ἃ > 4 ὃ κάλλιον ἔδοξεν αὐτῷ ταῦτα πάσχειν, ἢ ἀνάνδρως
A > ΄ A “ ~ ~ μηδὲν ἀντιδράσαντα ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς διαφθαρῆναι. ~ δ᾽ ὃ aA / > / > ‘\ nn ’ ὃ σαφῶς δ᾽ ἤδει ἁλωσόμενος αὐτήν" οὐ γὰρ ἂν τόνδε
τὸν ἀγῶνα ἐνόμισεν ἀσφαλέστερον εἶναι. ' 9 Τὰ μὲν βιασάμενα ταῦτά ἐστιν ἀσεβῆσαι αὐτόν. 4 > > A ‘ ‘ μάρτυρες δ᾽ εἰ μὲν πολλοὶ παρεγένοντο, πολλοὺς ἂν παρεσχόμεθα- ἑνὸς δὲ τοῦ ἀκολούθου παραγενο- μένου, οἵ τούτου ἤκουον μαρτυρήσουσιν. ἔμπνους γὰρ ἔτι ἀρθείς, ἀνακρινόμενος ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν, τοῦτον
μόνον ἔφη γνῶναι τῶν παιόντων" αὐτούς. ᾿Εξελεγχόμενος δ᾽ ὑπό τε τῶν εἰκότων ὑπό τε τῶν παραγενομένων, οὐδενὶ τρόπῳ οὔτε δικαίως 10 οὔτε συμφερόντως ἀπολύοιτ᾽ ἂν ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν. οἵ τε \ > , 5 ’ na > 4‘? yap ἐπιβουλεύοντες ἀνεξέλεγκτοι av εἶεν, εἰ μήθ' ὑπὸ τῶν παραγενομένων μήθ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν εἰκότων 1 οὐδὲ Reiske: οὔτε codd. 2 παιόντων ci. Bekker, coll. δ, § 4: παρόντων codd.
* ἱερῶν κλοπή (embezzlement of sacred monies of which the rson concerned was in charge) is to be distinguished from ἱεροσυλία (temple-robbery), for which see Herodes, § 10. The
56
FIRST TETRALOGY, I. 6-10
embezzling sacred monies,* the sum to be recovered being assessed at two talents ; he knew himself to be guilty, experience had taught him how powerful his opponent was, and he bore him a grudge for the past; so he naturally plotted his death: he naturally sought protection against his enemy by murdering him. | Thirst for 1 revenge made him forget the risk, and the Ὁ overpowering fear of the ruin which threatened him spurred him to all the more reckless an attack. In taking this step he hoped not only that ‘his guilt would remain undiscovered, but that he would also escape the indictment? ; nobody, he thought, would proceed with the suit, and judgement would go by default ; while in the event of his losing his case after all, he considered it better to have revenged himself for his defeat than, like a coward, to be ruined by the indictment without retaliating. And he knew.yery well that he would lose it, or he would not have ° thought the present trial the safer alternative. '
Such are the motives which drove him to sin as he did. Had there been eyewitnesses in large numbers, we should have produced them in large numbers; but as the dead man’s attendant was alone present, those who heard his statement will give evidence ς - for he was still alive when picked up, and in reply to our questions stated that the only assailant whiten he had recognized was the defendant.
Inferences from probability and eyewitnesses have alike proved the defendant’s guilt ; so both justice and expediency absolutely forbid you to acquit him. Not only would it be impossible to convict deliberate criminals if they are not to be convicted by eye- penalty for ἱερῶν κλοπή ἡ was the repayment of ten times the sum embezzled ett 3 In Timocr. §§ 111, 112).
» Or possibly: ‘* be acquitted on the indictment.” 5 5
ANTIPHON
ἐξελέγχονται" ἀσύμφορόν θ᾽ ὑμῖν ἐστὶ τόνδε μιαρὸν καὶ ἄναγνον ὄντα εἴς {τε τὰ τεμένη τῶν θεῶν εἰσιόντα μιαίνειν τὴν ἁγνείαν αὐτῶν, ἐπί τε τὰς αὐτὰς τραπέζας ἰόντα συγκαταπιμπλάναι τοὺς ἀναι- tious: ἐκ γὰρ τούτων αἵ τ᾽ ἀφορίαι γίγνονται 11 δυστυχεῖς θ᾽ αἱ πράξεις καθίστανται. οἰκείαν οὖν χρὴ τὴν τιμωρίαν ἡγησαμένους, αὐτῷ τούτῳ τὰ τούτου ἀσεβήματα ἀναθέντας, ἰδίαν μὲν τὴν συμ- φοράν, καθαρὰν δὲ τὴν πόλιν καταστῆσαι.
β [116] ἈΠΟΛΟΓΊΑ ΕἸΣ ΤῸ AYTO ITPATMA
1. Οὔ μοι δοκῶ ἁμαρτάνειν ἀτυχέστατον ἐμαυτὸν ἡγούμενος εἶναι τῶν πάντων ἀνθρώπων. τῶν μὲν γὰρ ἄλλων οἱ δυστυχοῦντες, ὁπόταν μὲν ὑπὸ χει- μῶνος πονῶσιν, εὐδίας γενομένης παύονται" ὅταν δὲ νοσήσωσιν, ὑγιεῖς γενόμενον σῴζονται: ἐὰν δέ τις ἄλλη συμφορὰ καταλαμβάνῃ αὐτούς, τὰ ἐναντία
9 ἐπιγιγνόμενα ὀνίνησιν. ἐμοὶ δὲ ζῶν τε ἅνθρωπος ἀνατροπεὺς τοῦ οἴκου ἐγένετο, ἀποθανών τε, κἂν ἀποφύγω, ἱκανὰς λύπας καὶ φροντίδας προσ- βέβληκεν. εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ. βαρυδαιμονίας ἥκω ὥστε οὐκ ἀρκοῦν μοί ἐστιν ἐμαυτὸν ὅσιον καὶ δίκαιον παρέχοντα μὴ διαφθαρῆναι, ἀλλὰ κἂν μὴ τὸν ἀποκτείναντα εὑρὼν ἐξελέγξω, ὃν of τιμωροῦν- τες αὐτῷ ἀδύνατοι εὑρεῖν εἰσιν, αὐτὸς καταδοχθεὶς φονεὺς εἶναι ἀνοσίως ἁλώσομαι.
1 γε add, Blass. 58
FIRST TETRALOGY. I. 10—II. 2
witnesses and by such inferences: but it is against: all your interests that this polluted wretch should pro- fane the sanctity of the divine precincts by setting foot within them, or pass on his defilement to the innocent by sitting at the same tables as they. It is this that causes dearth and public calamity. And so you must hold the avenging of the dead a personal duty; you must visit the defendant with retribution for the sin which was his alone ; you must see that none but he suffers, and that the stain of guilt is removed from
the city.
II REPLY TO THE SAME CHARGE
I am not far wrong, I think, in regarding myself as the most unlucky man alive. Others meet with mis- fortune. They may be buffeted by a tempest ; but calm weather returns and they are buffeted no longer. They may fall ill ; but they recover their health and are saved. Or some other mishap may overtake them ; but it is followed by its opposite which brings relief. With me this is not so. Not only did this man make havoc of my house during his lifetime : but he has caused me distress and anxiety in plenty since his death, even if I escape sentence ; for so luckless is my lot that a godfearing and an honest life is not enough: to save me. Unless I also find and convict the murderer, whom the dead man’s avengers cannot find, I shall myself be deemed guilty of murder and suffer an outrageous sentence of death.
* Cf. the disabilities involved in τὸ εἴργεσθαι τῶν νομίμων, Choreutes, §§ 34 sqq.
59
| ANTIPHON
8 Καὶ ἐμὲ ὡς δεινὸν μὲν παγχάλεπόν φασιν ἐλέγ-: χεσθὰϊ εἶναι, ὡς δ᾽ ἠλίθιον ἐξ αὐτῶν ὧν ἔπραξα φανερὸν εἶναι ἐργασάμενον τὸ ἔργον. εἰ γὰρ νῦν διὰ τῆς ἔχθρας ᾿ τὸ μέγεθος εἰκότως ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν κατα: δοκοῦμαι, πρὶν. ἐργάσασθαι εἰκότερον ἣν προειδότα'
ig as ὼς ! dial 9. $2, Nok ay Dip a ”\\ τὴν νῦν ὑποψίαν εἰς ἐμὲ ἰοῦσαν," Kat τῶν ἄλλων τ » 2 εἶ , 2A ΗΠ et τίνα ἔγνων. ἐπιβουλεύοντα αὐτῷ, διακωλύειν μᾶλλον ἢ αὐτὸν ἐργασάμενον. εἰς ἑκουσίους καὶ προδήλους ὑποψίας ἐμπεσεῖν" ἔκ τε γὰρ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἔργου φανερὸς γενόμενος ἀπωλλύμην, λαθών τε “ » / Ἁ ς tf > > “νὰ
σαφῶς ἤδη τήνδε τὴν ὑποψίαν εἰς ἐμὲ ἰοῦσαν.
4 "Adda μὲν οὖν πάσχω μὴ ἀπολογεῖσθαι μόνον βιαζόμενος, ἀλλὰ καὶ “τοὺς ἀποκτείναντας φανε- ροὺς καταστῆσαι" ὅμως δὲ καὶ τοῦτο ἐπιχειρητέον' οὐδὲν γὰρ πικρότερον τῆς ἀνάγκης. ἔοικεν εἶναι. ἔχω dé οὐδαμῶς ἄλλως ἐλέγχειν. ἢ ἐξ ὧν τοὺς ἄλλους ὃ κατήγορος ἀπολύων αὐτὸν τὸν θάνατόν φησί μηνύειν ἐμὲ τὸν φονέα ὄντα. εἰ γὰρ τούτων ἀναιτίων ἰδρκοήεσαν εἶναι ἐν ἐμοὶ τἀδίκημα φανεῖ-
1, προειδότα Kayser: τὸν εἰδότα codd. 5. ἰοῦσαν Reiske: οὖσαν codd.
4 Or possibly :. “If on. the one hand-I was detected. i in the act of committing the crime . ...” “The speaker is en- deavouring to prove that he did not commit the murder b showing that his knowledge of the consequences to himself, even in the event of his escaping detection, must necessarily’ have deterred him, . The sentence must therefore be regarded as explaining ΤΟΣ the whole _of that preceding, but only αὐτὸν... ἐμπεσέ
> An oneal difficult sentence. to render. clearly» in
English. The me means that he too is obliged from the
60
FIRST TETRALOGY, II. 3-4
*. Now. the prosecution allege. that it’is very. difficult to prove my guilt because of my astuteness.. Yet in maintaining. that my actions. themselves prove me to-
be the criminal, they,are assuming me to be a simple- |’
ton. For if the bitterness of my feud is a natural ground for your deeming me guilty to-day, it was still more natural for me to foresee before committing the crime that suspicion would settle upon me as it has done. I was more likely to go to the length of stopping anyone else whom I knew to be plotting” the murder than deliberately to incur certain suspicion by committing it myself; for if; on the one hand, the crime in itsclé showed that I was the murderer? I. was doomed: while if, on the other hand; I escaped detection, I knew very well that suspicion would fall on me.as.it has done. _.My, plight is indeed hapless : 1 am forced.not only to defend myself, but to reveal the criminals as well. Still, I. must attempt this further task; nothing, it. seems, is more relentless than necessity. I can expose the criminals, I may say, only by following ~ the principle used by my accuser, who establishes the innocence of every one else and then asserts that the circumstances of death in themselves show the murderer to be me.® 1 the apparent innocence of évery one else’ is to fasten the crime upon me, it is nature of the ‘case to resort to proof by elimination. “The 8 rosecution had argued (a, 88 4, 5) that death could not have n due. to, footpads, a drunken quarrel, ora mistaken assault, 1.6. it cannot have been unpremeditated; therefore, since the circumstances showed it to have been violent, not natural (this is the point of αὐτὸς ὁ θάνατος in a, § 5), it was premeditated; and the defendant was alone likely to:have planned such a crime. Here the defendant recapitulates this, actually:quoting the words αὐτὸς 6 θάνατος, which had formed part of the argument of the prosecution, ©... —. i 61
ANTIPHON
ται, τούτων ὑπόπτων ὄντων ἐγὼ εἰκότως (av)
καθαρὸς. δοκοίην εἶναι.
Ἔστι δὲ οὐκ ἀπεικός, ὡς οὗτοί φασιν, ἀλλὰ εἰκὸς ἀωρὶ τῶν νυκτῶν πλανώμενον ἐπὶ τοῖς ἱματίοις διαφθαρῆναι. τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἐκδυθῆναι οὐδὲν σημεῖόν ἐστιν- εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἔφθησαν περιδύσαντες αὐτόν, ἀλλά τινας προσιόντας φοβηθέντες ἀπέλιπον, ἐσωφρόνουν καὶ οὐκ ἐμαίνοντο τὴν σωτηρίαν τοῦ 6 κέρδους προτιμῶντες. εἰ δὲ μὴ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς
ἱματίοις. διεφθάρη, ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέρους ἰδὼν ἄλλο τ' κακὸν ποιοῦντας, ἵνα μὴ μηνυτὴς τοῦ ἀδικήματος γένηται, ἀπέθανεν. ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν, τίς οἶδε; τοὺς δὲ μὴ πολὺ ἧσσον ἐμοῦ μισοῦντας αὐτόν---ἦσαν δὲ πολλοί---πῶς οὐκ εἰκὸς ἦν ἐμοῦ μᾶλλον διαφθεῖραι αὐτόν; ἐκείνοις μὲν γὰρ φανερὰ ἦν ἡ ὑποψία εἰς ἐμὲ ἰοῦσα, ἐγὼ δὲ ὑπὲρ ἐκείνων ὑπαίτιος ἐσόμενος σαφῶς δη.
1 Τοῦ δὲ ἀκολούθου ἢ μαρτυρία πῶς ἀξία πι- στεύεσθαί ἐστιν; ὑπό τε γὰρ τοῦ κινδύνου ἐκ- πεπληγμένον αὐτὸν οὐκ εἰκὸς ἦν τοὺς ἀποκτείναν- τας γνῶναι, ὑπό τε τῶν κυρίων ἀναγιγνωσκόμενον ἐπινεῦσαι ἦν εἰκός. ἀπιστουμένων δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων δούλων ἐν ταῖς μαρτυρίαις-οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐβασανίζομεν αὐτούς - πῶς. δίκαιον τούτῳ μαρ-
8 τυροῦντι πιστεύσαντας διαφθεῖραί με; εἰ δέ τις τὰ εἰκότα ἀληθέσιν ἴσα ἡγεῖται καταμαρτυρῆσαί Pall ταὐτὸν" ἀντιλογισάσθω ὅτι με εἰκότερον ἦν
ἂν add. Blass: δ᾽ εἰκότως A, δικαίως N.
2 τοὖργον Blass: τοῦτ᾽ ad Gernet: alii alia, Codicum tamen fidem vindicat Thalheim, collato Platonis Phileb. 37 p.
[117]
* ἀναγιγνώσκειν in the sense of “ persuade,” which it must bear here, is found elsewhere only in Herodotus. ‘“ Masters”
62
FIRST TETRALOGY, II. 4-8
only logical for me to be held guiltless, should others be brought under suspicion,
It is not, as the prosecution maintain, unlikely that a man wandering about at the dead of night should be murdered for his clothing ; nothing is more likely. The fact that he was not stripped indicates nothing. If the approach of passers-by startled his assailants into quitting him before they had had time to strip him, they showed sense, not madness, in preferring their lives to their spoils. Further, he may not in fact have been murdered for his clothing : he may have seen others engaged in some quite different outrage and have been killed by them to prevent his giving information of the crime : who knows ὃ Again, were not those who hated him almost as much as I did—and there were a great many—more likely to have murdered him than I? It was plain to them that suspicion would fall on me ; while I knew very well that I should bear the blame for them.
Why, moreover, should the evidence of the attend- ant be allowed any weight? In his terror at the peril in which he stood, there was no likelihood of his recognizing the murderers. On the other hand, it was likely enough that he would obediently confirm any suggestions made by his masters.* We distrust’ the evidence of slaves in general, or we should not torture them; so what justification have you for putting me to death on the evidence of this one ? Further, whoever allows probability the force of fact when it testifies to my guilt must on the same principle bear the following in mind as evidence of
implies that the passers-by who found the slave were members of the dead man’s own family, although this fact is nowhere explicitly mentioned by the prosecution.
68.
ANTIPHON | ΑΗ
τὴν ἀσφάλειαν τῆς ἐπιβουλῆς τηροῦντα φυλάξασθαο καὶ μὴ παραγενέσθαι τῷ" “ἔργῳ μᾶλλον ἢ "τοῦτόν" σφαττόμενον, ὀρθῶς. γνῶ wi
9 Ὡς. δὲ τόνδε; τὸν κίνδυνον οὐκ ᾿ἀοίραλξοφερόν Τοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς γραφῆς ἡγούμην εἶναι, ἀλλὰ πόλλα- ἡλάσιον, εἰ. μὴ παρεφρόνουν, διδάξω. ἁλοὺς. μὲν, γὰρ τὴν γραφὴν τῆς μὲν οὐσίας. ἤδη ἐ ἐκστησόμενος,. τοῦ δὲ σώματος καὶ τῆς πόλεως" ovK dmegTEepoupyy,: περιγενόμενος. :δὲ καὶ λειφθείς, κἂν. ἔρανον. παρὰ. τῶν φίλων συλλέξας; οὐκ ἂν εἰς τὰ ἔσχατα κακὰ. ἦλθον: ἐὰν δὲ νῦν. καταληφθεὶς ἀποθάνω, ἀνόσια ὀνείδη. τοῖς παισὶν ὑπολείψω, ἢ ἢ φυγὼν γέρώψε καὶ ἄπολις: ὧν. ἐπὶ; ᾿ ξενίας πτωχεύσω.
10 - Θὕτω᾽ μὲν. ἃ Karnyopnrat μου, πάντα ᾿ἄπιστά ἐστιν" ἀπολύεσθαι δὲ ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν; εἰ Καὶ εἰκότως" μὲν ὄντως “δὲ "μὴ ἀπέκτεινα | Τὸν ἄνδρα, πολὺ μᾶλλον δίκαιός εἶμι. ἐγώ Te yap “φανερὸν ὅτι μεγάλα ἀδικούμενος ἡμυνόμην᾽" οὐ γὰρ ἂν εἰκότως ἐδόκουν ἀποκτεῖναι. : αὐτόν" τούς τε ἀποκτείναντας. καὶ οὐ τοὺς. αἰτίαν. ἔχοντας ἀποκτεῖναι Lia i ἂν κατα- λαμβάνοιτε..
ιι, Ἐκ δὲ παντὸς. πρόπου ᾿ἀπολυόμενος, τῆς αἰτίας͵ ἔγωγε οὔτε εἰς Ta τεμένη εἰσιὼν τὴν PSEA τῶν
1 76v5e Dobree : οὐδὲ codd.
2 τοῦ Ὁ δὲ σώματος καὶ rip πόλεως Ν : τῆς δὲ 7. καὶ τοῦ σ. Α. * ἡμυνόμην Kayser: ἠμυνάμην, codd.
‘* ἔρανον oul eye Of. infra § 12, ἐρανίζειν. | The’ defer ence in both cases is to a sum of money advanced without interest by- friends who each contributed a portion,. ἔρανος later came to have the more specialized sense of a club formed for the urpose ν of lending money without interest to any of its members. Each member paid a subscription (also called épavos): and such clubs often hep mg’ anded: Pray: They grew political in character as time went on.
64°
FIRST TETRALOGY, 11. 8-11
my-innocence : it was more likely that, with an eye to carrying out my plot in safety, I should take the. precaution of not being present at the scene of the crime than that the aie should recognize me dis-_ tinctly just as his throat was being cut.
I will now show that, unless I was mad, I must have thought the danger in which I now stand far greater, instead of less, than the danger to be expected from ἡ the indictment. If Iwas convicted.on the indictment, I knew that I should be stripped of my property ; but, I did not lose my life or civic rights. _I should still. have been alive, still left to enjoy those rights ; and even though I should have had to obtain a loan of money from my friends,*? my fate would not have been the worst possible. On the other hand, if Dam found guilty to-day and put to death, my children will inherit. from me an insufferable. disgrace ;. if, instead I go into exile, I shall. become a beggar in. a, strange land, an old man without a country. ὁ ᾿ς
Thus not one of the charges brought against me . has any foundation. But even if the probabilities, as distinct from the facts, point to me as the murderer, it is acquittal that I deserve from you far more than’ anything else: since first, it is clear that if I struck, back, it was only because I was being deeply wronged: had that not been so, it would never have been thought likely that I was the murderer : and secondly, it is the murderers, not those accused of the murder, whom it is your duty to convict.?
As I am completely cleared of the charge, it is not I who will profane the sanctity of the gods when I set
εὖ i.e. (1) Even if he can be proved guilty, there are ex- tenuating circumstances which will make it impossible to’ condemn him. (2) But he cannot be proved guilty in any’ 65)
ANTIPHON |
θεῶν μιανῶ, οὔτε ὑμᾶς πείθων ἀπολῦσαί με ἀνόσια πράσσω. οἱ δὲ διώκοντες μὲν ἐμὲ τὸν ἀναΐτιον, τὸν δ᾽ αἴτιον. ἀφιέντες, τῆς τε ἀφορίας αἴτιοι γίγνονται, ὑμᾶς τε ἀσεβεῖς εἰς τοὺς θεοὺς πείθοντες καταστῆναι: πάντων ὧν ἐμὲ ἀξιόν. φασι παθεῖν εἶναι δίκαιοί εἰσι τυγχάνειν.
12 Τούτους μὲν οὖν τούτων ἀξίους ὄντας. ἀπίστους ἡγεῖσθε" ἐμὲ δὲ ἔκ ye τῶν προειργασμένων γνώ- σεσθε οὔτε ἐπιβουλεύοντα οὔτε τῶν οὐ προσηκόν- τῶν ὀρεγόμενον, ἀλλὰ τἀνάντία τούτων πολλὰς μὲν καὶ μεγάλας εἰσφορὰς. εἰσφέροντα, πολλὰ δὲ τριηραρχοῦντα, λαμπρῶς. δὲ χορηγοῦντα, πολλοῖς" δὲ ἐρανίζοντα, μεγάλας δὲ ὑπὲρ πολλῶν ἐγγύας ἀποτίνοντα, τὴν Se οὐσίαν οὐ δικαζόμενον ἀλλ᾽ ἐργαζόμενον κεκτημένον; φιλοθύτην δὲ καὶ νόμιμον ὄντα. τοιούτου δὲ ὄντος μου μηδὲν ἀνόσιον μηδὲ αἰσχρὸν. καταγνῶτε.
Εἰ δὲ ὑπὸ ζῶντος ἐδιωκόμην, οὐκ ἂν μόνον ὑπὲρ.
ἐμαυτοῦ ἀπελογούμην, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτόν τε τοῦτον καὶ τοὺς. τούτῳ. μὲν βοηθοῦντας, παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ δὲ ὠφε- λεῖσθαι ζητοῦντας ἐφ᾽ οἷς κατηγορεῖταί" μου, 1 ἔκ ye Franke: ἔκ τε codd. 2 πολλοῖς Salmasius (cf. Dem. 999. 24): πολλοὺς codd,
3 τὴν δὲ Schaefer: τήν re codd, 4 κατηγορεῖται Vulg.: κατηγορεῖτε AN.
* The εἰσφορά was an gueanidiaary property-tax. levied on citizens ead. metics in time of war.
δ One οὗ the most important liturgies or public services which the richer members of the community were obliged to undertake from time to time. The τριήραρχος served for a year as the commander of a trireme; and although the State
66
FIRST TETRALOGY, II. 11-13
foot within their precincts, any more than it is 1 who am sinning against them in urging you to acquit:me. It is those who are prosecuting an innocent man like myself, while they let the criminal escape, to whom dearth is due: it is they who deserve in full the penalty which they say should be inflicted upon me, for urging you to become guilty of impiety.
If this is the treatment which the prosecution deserve, you must put no faith in them. I myself, on the other hand, as you will see by examining my past life, do not form plots or covet what does not belong tome. On the contrary, I have made several substantial payments to the Treasury,* I have more than once served as Trierarch,? I have furnished a brilliant. chorus,* I have often advanced money to friends, and I have frequently paid large sums under guarantees given for others; my wealth has come not, from litigation, but from hard work ¢; and I have been a religious and law-abiding man. If my character is such as this, you must not deem me guilty of anything sinful or dishonourable.
Were my enemy alive and prosecuting me, I should not be resting content with a defence ; 1 should have shown what a scoundrel he was himself and what scoundrels are those who, while professedly his champions, seek in fact to enrich themselves at furnished rigging, etc., ay fe x trierach was frequently foreed ereipealt Lives ear άλῃς airs and to make up shortages in the payment of his men from his own pocket. The average cost of a Trierarchy was 50 minae.
¢ ἦν. as Choregus he had paid for the training and equip- ment of a chorus at one of the dramatic or choral festivals so frequent at Athens and throughout Greece in general.
@ The Greek is a deliberate jingle, which cannot be rendered convincingly in English. Perhaps“. . . not from litigation, but from application ” might serve.
67
ANTIPHON
ἀπέδειξα" ἂν ἀδικοῦντας. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἐπιεικέσ-:
Ἃ , 4 / > ce lone > τερον ἢ δικαιότερον. παρήσω". δέομαι δ᾽ ὑμῶν, ὦ
ἄνδρες, τῶν μεγίστων κριταὶ καὶ κύριοι, ἐλεήσαντας τὴν ἀτυχίαν. μου tarpovs γενέσθαι αὐτῆς, Kat μὴ
συνεπιβάντας τῇ τούτων ἐπιθέσει περιϊδεῖν ἀδίκως
καὶ ἀθέως διαφθαρέντα peo ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν.
EK KATHTOPIAS Ο ὙΣΤΕΡΟΣ |
Ἥ τε: ἀτυχία ἀδικεῦται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἣν προῖστά-
μενὸς τῆς κακουργίας ἀφανίσαι τὴν αὑτοῦ μιαρίαν
ζητεῖ: ὑπό TE ὑμῶν οὐκ ἄξιος, ἐλεεῖσθαί, ἐστιν, ἀκούσιον μὲν τῷ παθόντι. περιθεὶς τὴν συμφοράν,
ἑκουσίως δὲ αὐτὸς, εἰς τοὺς κινδύνους “καταστάς. ὡς μὲν οὖν ἀπέκτεινε τὸν ἄνδρα, ἐν τῷ προτέρῳ.
λόγῳ ἀπεδείξαμεν: ὡς δὲ οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἐπαλογήθα, νῦν πειρασόμεθα ἐλέγχοντες.
Kite γὰρ προσιόντας. τινὰς προϊδόντες οὗ. ἀπο- κτείναντες : αὐτοὺς; ἀπολιπόντες. @xOvTO! φεύγοντες πρότερον. ἢ ἀπέδυσαν, οἵ ἐντυχόντες ἂν. αὐτοῖς,"
εἰ Kal τὸν δεσπότην τεθνεῶτα ηὗρον, τόν γε, θερά-
1 ἀπέδειξα A: ἐπέδειξα N. ἔ5ὅ5' αὐτοῖς Reiske: abr codd.
δ Implying that the ‘defendant's property would : ‘be con- fiseated upon his conviction. and a percentage given to the prosecution. See Herodes, § 79, for a similar complaint.
» The ,ἀτυχία and ἐλεεῖσθαι; of course echo. the ἐλεήσαντας
τὴν ἀτυχίαν μου at the close of the preceding speech for the:
defence.
¢ It is important to distinguish between the various meani ings of ἀκούσιος. Whereas ἑκούσιος is always “ willing” or “voluntary,” ἀκούσιος can mean one of three things:
68)
FIRST TETRALOGY, II. 13—III. 2
my expense over the charge which I am facing:* However, more out of decency than in fairness to: myself, I. shall refrain. . Instead, I entreat you, gentlemen, you who are empowered to decide the most critical of issues : take pity on my misfortune. and remedy ἰδ : do not join my opponents in ἐμοῖσ attack: do not allow ‘them to make an end of me without regard-to justice or the powers above. - _
tae Ul EE ΝΣ SECOND SPEECH FOR THE PROSECUTION
It is an outrage to “ misfortune ”’ that he should. use it to cloak his crime, in the hope of concealing his , defilement. - Neither does he deserve your “ pity’’®; he did not consult-his victim’s wishes 5 in bringing doom upon him: whereas he did consult his own’ before exposing himself to danger. We proved in our first speech that he is the murderer ; we shall now endeavour to show by examination that his defence was unsound. ~ Ae PTA, τὰ 2OULd, ‘Assume that the murderers hurried - off; leaving their victims before they had stripped them, because they noticed the approach of passers-by. ‘Then even if the persons who came upon them found the master dead, they would have found the slave still conscious, (a) “ unwilling,” (Ὁ) “ accidental ” or “ involuntary,” (σ) “ποη- voluntary.” In (a) 1 do or suffer something against. my. will; in| (6) I do or suffer something voluntarily, but the consequences are other than I willed them to be; in (¢) I do or suffer something unconsciously or in entire ignorance (e.g. I may be hypnotized and panowingly commit murder, or I. may be the unsuspecting victim of sudden death, as here): my will does not enter into the matter at all, ΤῊΝ 69
ANTIPHON
ao» > er oe ee " ποντα, Os ἔμπνους ἀρθεὶς ἐμαρτύρει', ἔτι ἔμφρονα εὑρόντες, σαφῶς ἀνακρίναντες τοὺς ἐργασαμένους ἤγγειλαν ἂν ἡμῖν, καὶ οὐχ οὗτος ἂν τὴν αἰτίαν εἶχεν: εἴτε ἄλλοι τινὲς ἕτερόν τι τοιοῦτον κακουργοῦντες » / ς » > A ov \ ~ / ὀφθέντες ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν, ἵνα μὴ γνωσθῶσι διέφθειραν αὐτούς, ἅμα τῷ τούτων φόνῳ τὸ κακούργημα ἂν ἐκηρύσσετο. καὶ εἰς τούτους ἂν ἡ ὑποψία ἧκεν.
8 Οἵ τε ἧσσον κινδυνεύοντες τῶν μᾶλλον ἐν φόβῳ + 3 > bd Ἂ “ > , ὄντων οὐκ old ὅπως av μᾶλλον ἐπεβούλευσαν
> ΜΝ \ A ‘ Ὁ 5B. σ iO , ε A αὐτῷ" τοὺς μὲν yap ὅ τε φόβος ἥ τε ἀδικία ἱκανὴ ἣν παῦσαι τῆς προμηθίας, τοῖς δὲ 6 τε κίνδυνος ἥ τε αἰσχύνη μείζων οὖσα τῆς “διαφορᾶς, εἰ. καὶ διενοήθησαν ταῦτα πρᾶξαι, a ἀρκοῦσα ἦν σωφρονίσαι τὸ θυμούμενον τῆς γνώμης.
4 Οὐκ ὀρθῶς δὲ τὴν τοῦ ἀκολούθου μαρτυρίαν ἄπιστον λέγουσιν εἷναι. οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ ταῖς τοιαύταις μαρτυρίαις ᾿βασανίζονται, ἀλλ᾽ ἐλεύ Depo ἀφίενται" ὁπόταν δὲ ἢ κλέψαντες ἀ ἀπαρνῶνται ἢ συγκρύπτωσι τοῖς δεσπόταις, τότε βασανίζοντες ἀξιοῦμεν τἀληθῆ" λέγειν αὐτούς. |
5 Οὐδὲ μὴν ἀπογενέσθαι ἣ ἢ παραγενέσθαι εἰκότερον αὐτόν ἐστιν. εἰ γὰρ ἀπεγένετο, τὸν μὲν κίνδυνον
1 Verba ὃς ἔμπνους ἀρθεὶς ἐμαρτύρει delent nonnulli ut quae ex a. 9 per errorem irrepserint. 2 τἀληθῆ Weidner: ἀληθῆ codd.
α The evidence of slaves was accepted only under torture. But the torture could not be inflicted without the consent of the owner. Hence there are instances of the purchase of slaves solely for the purpose ‘of extorting evidence from them (see Herodes, § 47, for a case in point). The last half of the present para; agraph envisages a similar purchase in order to obtain evidence against the slave’s former owner. On the other hand, a slave who defended his master’s life at the risk of his own would more often than not be rewarded with his freedom’ and once he was free, he could not be 70
FIRST TETRALOGY, III. 2-5
as he was picked up alive and gave evidence. They would have questioned him closely and have informed us who the. criminals were: so that the defendant would not have been accused. Or assume, on the other hand, that others, who had been seen by the two committing some similar outrage, had murdered them to keep the matter dark.. Then news of that outrage would have been published at the same time as the news of the present murder, and suspicion would have fallen on those concerned in it.
Again, how persons whose position was not so serious should have plotted against the dead man sooner than persons who had more to fear, I fail to understand. The fears and sense of injury of the second were enough to put an end to caution; whereas Ὁ with the first the risk and disgrace involved, to which their resentment could not blind them, were sufficient to sober the anger in their hearts, even if they had intended to do the deed.
The defence are wrong when they say that the evidence of the slave is not to be trusted; where evidence of this sort is concerned, slaves are not tortured : they are given their freedom. It is when they deny a theft or conspire with their masters to keep silence that we believe them to tell the truth only under torture.*
Again, the probabilities are not in favour of his having been absent from the scene of the crime rather than present at it. In remaining absent he was going
peak : he ane his Ἀπ ματος in a of law in the ordinary way. us the argument in the present passage is: the dying slave was virtually a free man, as he had given his life for his master; hence there is no ground whatever for maintaining, as the defendant is doing, that his evidence can- not be accepted in court because it was not given under torture.
Ἦ
ANTIPHON® 0}
τὸν αὐτὸν «ἔμελλε «καὶ παρὼν κυμδυνεύειν.---πᾶς " ‘yap αὐτῶν. "ληφθεὶς τοῦτον. ἂν "τὸν “ἐπιβουλεύσαντα ἤλεγχεν ὄ ὄντα;---τὸ δ᾽ “ἔργον ἧσσον πράσσειν" οὐδεὶς yap: ὅστις τῶν παρόντων οὐκ ἂν ὀκνηρότερος. εἰς τὴν πρᾶξιν ἦν.
6 ὯΣ δ᾽ οὐκ ἐλάσσω. ἀλλὰ πολὺ “μείζω τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς γραφῆς κίνδυνον ἢ τόνδε ἡγεῖτο εἶναι, διδάξω. τὸ μὲν ἁλῶναι. καὶ ἀποφυγεῖν ἀμφοτέρας τὰς διώξεις ἐν. ἴσαις ἐλπίσι θῶμεν αὐτῷ εἶναι. μὴ παραχθῆναι. δὲ τὴν γραφὴν οὐδεμίαν. ἐλπίδα εἶχε τούτου. γε ζῶντος: οὐ γὰρ. ἂν ἐπείθετο αὐτῷ:. εἰς δὲ τόνδε τὸν ἀγῶνα, ἥξειν οὐκ ἤλπισε: λήσεων γὰρ ἐδόκει ἀποκτείνας αὐτόν.
7 ᾿Αξιῶν, δὲ “διὰ "τὸ φανερὰν εἶναι τὴν Shobtan αὐτῷ ᾿ μὴ καταδοκεῖσθαι ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν, οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἀξιοῖ. εἰ γὰρ" τοῦτον. ev! τοῖς ᾿ μεγίστοις κινδύνοις ὄντα ἱκανὴ ἦν ἢ, ὑποψία ἀποτρέψαι" τῆς ἐπιθέσεως, οὐδείς γ᾽ av* ἐπεβούλευσεν αὐτῷ" πᾶς γὰρ ἂν τις τῶν ἧσσον κινδυνευόντων, τὴν ὑποψίαν μᾶλλον Tod Κινδύνου φοβούμενος, ἡρόσῥ ἢ ἢ οὗτος ἐπέθετο" αὐτῷ.
8 At δ᾽ εἰσφοραὶ καὶ χορηγίαι. εὐδαιμονίας μὲν ἱκανὸν σημεῖόν. ἐστι, τοῦ δὲ μὴ ἀποκτεῖναι τά- ναντία" περὶ γὰρ αὐτῆς τῆς εὐδαιμονίας τρέμων, μὴ ἀποστερηθῇ; εἰκότως μὲν: ἀνοσίως δὲ ἀπέκτεινε
Ἢ ἀγῶνα. Ν: κίνδυνον A. Oa Git βῆ 3 :εἰ yap Reiske:. οὐ γὰρ codd, . Τρ 8. 5. ἀποτράῤαι Reiske : Oe te codd.
4 γ᾽ "ἂν. Reiske yap
_ δ ἐπέθετο Maetzner,. quem dubitanter secutus sum: ἡγεῖτο Godda EFortasse exciderunt nonnulla post αὐτῷ.
, 4 Gees that his position i in both suits was Fryss aan hope~ Ο55,. τὸ ° ΠΕΣ Ian
ΠΣ
FIRST TETRALOGY, III. 5-8
to run the same risks as he would run if present, as any of his confederates if caught would have shown that it was he who had originated the plot. And not only that: he was going to dispatch the business on hand less satisfactorily, as not one of the criminals taking part would have felt the same enthusiasm for the deed.
Further, he did not believe the danger threatened by the indictment to be less serious than that in which he now stands, but much more so, as I will prove to you. Let us assume that his expectations of conviction or acquittal were the same in the one suit as in the other. Now he had no hope of the indict- ment being dropped as long as his enemy was alive’; his entreaties would never have been listened ‘to, But he did not, on the other hand, expect to be involved in the present trial, as he thought that he could commit the murder without being found out.
Again, in claiming an acquittal on the ground that he could foresee that he would be suspected, he: is arguing falsely. If the defendant, whose position was desperate, could be deterred from violence by the knowledge that suspicion would fall on himself, no- body at all would have planned the crime. Every one who stood in less danger than he would have been more frightened by the certainty of being suspected than by that danger, and would therefore have been less ready than he to use violence.
His contributions to the Treasury and his’ provi- sion of choruses may be satisfactory evidence of his wealth ; but they are anything but evidence of his innocence. It was precisely his fear of losing his wealth which drove him to commit the murder : though an unscrupulous crime, it was to be expected
73
ANTIPHON
τὸν ἄνδρα. φάσκων dé od τοὺς εἰκότως ἀλλ᾽ ὄντως" ἀποκτείναντας φονέας εἶναι, περὶ μὲν τῶν ἀπο- κτεινάντων ὀρθῶς λέγει, εἴπερ ἐγένετο φανερὸν ἡμῖν τίνες ἦσαν οἱ ἀποκτείναντες αὐτόν" μὴ δεδη- λωμένων δὲ τῶν ἀποκτεινάντων, ὑπὸ τῶν εἰκότων ἐλεγχόμενος οὗτος ἂν καὶ οὐδεὶς ἕτερος ὯΝ [119] ἀποκτείνας αὐτὸν εἴη. οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ μαρτύρων ἀλλὰ κρυπτόμενα πράσσεται τὰ τοιαῦτα. 9 Οὕτω δὲ φανερῶς ἐκ τῆς αὑτοῦ ἀπολογίας ἐλεγ- χθεὶς διαφθείρας αὐτόν, οὐδὲν ἕτερον ὑμῶν δεῖται τὴν αὑτοῦ μιαρίαν εἰς ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐκτρέψαι. ἡμεῖς δὲ ὑ ὑμῶν. δεόμεθα μὲν οὐδέν, λέγομεν δ᾽ ὑμῖν, εἰ “μήτε ἐκ τῶν εἰκότων μήτε ἐκ τῶν μαρτυρου- μένων οὗτος νῦν ἐλέγχεται, οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι τῶν 10 διωκομένων ἔλεγχος οὐδείς. σαφῆ μὲν γὰρ τὸν θάνατον γιγνώσκοντες, φανερῶς δὲ τὰ ἴχνη τῆς ὑποψίας εἰς τοῦτον φέροντα, πιστῶς δὲ τοῦ ἀκο- λούθου μαρτυροῦντος, πῶς ἂν δικαίως ἀπολύοιτε αὐτόν; ἀδίκως δ᾽ ἀπολυομένου τούτου ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν, ἡμῖν μὲν προστρόπαιος ὁ ἀποθανὼν. οὐκ ἔσται, ὑμῖν 11 δὲ ἐνθύμιος γενήσεται." ταῦτα οὖν εἰδότες βοη- θεῖτε μὲν τῷ ἀποθανόντι, τιμωρεῖσθε, δὲ τὸν ἀπο- κτείναντα, ἁγνεύετε δὲ τὴν πόλιν. τρία γὰρ ἀγαθὰ πράξετε: ἐλάσσους μὲν τοὺς ἐπιβουλεύοντας κατα- στήσετε, πλείους δὲ τοὺς τὴν εὐσέβειαν ἐπιτηδεύον- τας, ἀπολύσεσθες δ᾽ αὐτοὶ τῆς ὑπὲρ τούτου μιαρίας.
2: ἀλλ᾽ ὄντως Funkhanel: ἀλλὰ τοὺς codd. ‘6 add, Weidner. ἐπὶ Ald.: ὑπὸ codd, ὁ ἀδίκως, . + + γενήσεται huc et Jernstedt: ante
σαφῆ͵ μὲν yap .. . habent codd. ἀπολύσεσθε Sauppe: ἀπολύεσθε codd.
74
———
FIRST TETRALOGY, IIT. 8-11
of him. He objects that murderers are not those who were to be expected to commit murder, but those who actually did so. Now he would be quite right, provided that those who did commit it were known to us ; but.as they are not, proof must be based on , what was to be expected : and that shows that the defendant, and the defendant alone, is the murderer. Crimes of this kind are committed in secret, not in front of witnesses.
As he has been proved guilty of the murder so con- clusively from his own defence, he is simply asking you to transfer his own defilement to yourselves. We make no requests: we merely remind you that if neither inferences from probability nor the evidence of witnesses prove the defendant guilty to-day, there remains no means of proving any defendant guilty. As you see, there is no doubt about the circum- stances of the murder: suspicion points plainly to the defendant : and the evidence of the slave is to be trusted; so how can you in fairness acquit him? And if you acquit him unfairly, it is not upon us that the dead man’s curse willlie: it is upon you that he will bring disquiet.?. So with this in mind come to the. victim’s aid, punish his murderer, and cleanse the city. Do this, and you will do three beneficial things: you will reduce the number of deliberate criminals ; you will increase that of the godfearing ; and you ill yourselves be rid of the defilement which rests upon you in the defendant’s name.
@ Lit.; ‘‘ the tracks left by suspicion lead in the direction of the defendant.” ὑποψία is half personified and regarded as itself moving towards the person upon whom it is to settle, Cf. ra ἴχνη τοῦ φόνου in ὃ, § 10, ν
δ See Introduction, p. 39.
75
ANTIPHON aa ὃ ' EZ ἈΠΟΛΟΓΊΑΣ Ὁ ὙΣΤΕΡΟΣ
1. ᾿Ιδοὺ ἐγὼ τῇ τε ἀτυχίᾳ, ἣν οὐ δικαίως αἰτιῶμαι, ὡς οὗτοί dacw, ἑκὼν ἐμαυτὸν ἐγχειρίζω, τῇ TE a ‘ \ ‘ , ~ a τούτων ἔχθρᾳ, δεδιὼς μὲν τὸ μέγεθος Tis. διαβολῆς αὐτῶν, πιστεύων δὲ τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ γνώμῃ τῇ TE ἀληθείᾳ τῶν ἐξ ἐμοῦ πραχθέντων. ἀποστερού- μενος δὲ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν μηδὲ. τὰς -παρούσας ἀτυχίας ἀνακλαύσασθαι. πρὸς ὑμᾶς, - ἀπορῶ. εἰς ἥντινα ἄλλην σωτηρίαν χρή με καταφυγεῖν. καινότατα A , 3 εἴ / col Ἅ / γὰρ δή, εἰ χρὴ καινότατα μᾶλλον ἢ κακουργότατα εἰπεῖν, διαβάλλουσί pe. κατήγοροι γὰρ καὶ τιμωροὶ φόνου προσποιούμενοι εἶναι, ὑπεραπολογούμενοι τῆς ἀληθοῦς ὑποψίας ἁπάσης, διὰ τὴν ἀπορίαν τοῦ ἀποκτείναντος αὐτόν, ἐμὲ φονέα φασὶν εἶναι: δρῶν- τες δὲ τἀναντίᾳ ὧν. προστέτακται. αὐτοῖς, φανερὸν Lg 30 ἰδ. “-“ > -“ ~ ἋἊ \ ὅτι ἀδίκως ἐμὲ: μᾶλλον ἀποκτεῖναι ζητοῦσιν ἢ τὸν , a ᾿ ΣΝ \ a γῶν ΝΜ φονέα τιμωρεῖσθαι. ἐμὲ δὲ “προσῆκεν οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ πρὸς τὴν μαρτυρίαν τοῦ ἀκολούθου ἀπολογηθῆναι" οὐ γὰρ μηνυτὴς οὐδ᾽ ἐλεγκτὴρ τῶν ἀποκτεινάντων εἰμί, ἀλλὰ διωκόμενος ἀποκρίνομαι. ὅμως δὲ περιεργαστέον,. ἵνα ἐκ παντὸς τρόπου τούτους τε ἐπιβουλεύοντάς μοι ἐμαυτόν τε. ἀπολυόμενον ἐπι- 4 δείξω τῆς ὑποψίας. τὴν μὲν οὖν ἀτυχίαν. ἧ με διαβάλλουσιν, εἰς εὐτυχίαν αἰτοῦμαι μεταστῆναι: ἀξιῶ δ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἀπολύσαντάς με yeascaptaras μᾶλλον ἢ καταλαβόντας ἐλεῆσαι. Φασὶ δὲ τῶν μὲν ἐντυχόντων παιομένοις αὐτοῖς οὐδένα ὅντινα οὐκ εἰκότερον εἶναι σαφῶς πυθό- 76
bo
es
FIRST TETRALOGY, IV. 1-4
IV “SECOND SPEECH FOR THE DEFENCE
See, I have chosen to place myself at the mercy of the misfortune which you have been told that I blame unfairly, and at the mercy of my enemies here ; for much as I am alarmed by their wholesale distortion of the facts, I have faith in your judgement and in the true story of my conduct ; though if the prosecu- tion deny me even the right of lamenting before you the misfortunes which have beset me, I do not know where to fly for refuge, so utterly startling—or should I say villainous ?—are the methods which are being used to misrepresent me. They pretend that they are prosecuting to avenge a murder; yet they defend - all the ‘true suspects, and then assert that Iam a murderer because they cannot find the criminal. The fact that they are flatly disregarding their appointed duty shows that their object is not so much to punish the murderer as to have me wrongfully put to death, I myself ought simply to be replying to the evidence of the attendant, for I am not here to inform you of the murderers or prove them guilty : I am answering a charge which has been brought against me. How- ever, in order to make it completely clear that the prosecution have designs upon my life and that no suspicion can attach itself to me, I must, quite un- necessarily, go. further. I ask only that my mis- fortune, which is being used to discredit me, may turn to good fortune ; and:I call upon you to acquit and congratulate me rather than condemn and pity me.
According to the prosecution, those who came up during the assault were one and all more likely to
77
ANTIPHON
μενον τοὺς διαφθείραντας αὐτοὺς εἰς οἶκον ἀγγεῖ-
ὅ λαι ἢ ἀπολιπόντα οἴχεσθαι. ἐγὼ δὲ οὐδένα οὕτω
[190]
᾿ ‘ > a »” ~ a θερμὸν καὶ ἀνδρεῖον ἄνθρωπον εἶναι δοκῶ, ὅντινα οὐκ ἂν ἀωρὶ τῶν νυκτῶν' νεκροῖς ἀσπαίρουσι συν-
’ ’ὔ ς / 4 ~ Ἅ τυχόντα πάλιν ὑποστρέψαντα φεύγειν μᾶλλον ἢ πυνθανόμενον τοὺς κακούργους περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς κινδυνεῦσαι. τούτων δὲ μᾶλλον ἃ εἰκὸς ἦν δρασάν- των, οἱ μὲν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἱματίοις διαφθείραντες αὐτοὺς
> nn wv > / > , > A A > v4 οὐκ ἂν ἔτι εἰκότως ἀφίοιντο, ἐγὼ δὲ ἀπήλλαγμαι τῆς ὑποψίας.
> \ > 4 Ἅ A Ea A ~
Ei δὲ ἐκηρύσσοντο ἢ μὴ ἄλλοι τινὲς κακοῦργοι ἅμα τῷ τούτων φόνῳ, τίς οἶδεν; οὐδενὶ γὰρ ἐπι- μελὲς ἦν σκοπεῖν ταῦτα. ἀφανοῦς δὲ ὄντος τοῦ κηρύγματος, οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τούτων τῶν κακούργων ἄπιστον διαφθαρῆναι αὐτόν.
Τοῦ δὲ θεράποντος πῶς χρὴ πιστοτέραν τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἢ τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἡγεῖσθαι; οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀτιμοῦνταί τε καὶ χρήμασι ζημιοῦνται, ἐὰν μὴ
3 “-“ ~ ~ e A > ” τἀληθῆ δοκῶσι μαρτυρῆσαι: ὁ δὲ οὐκ ἔλεγχον παρασχὼν οὐδὲ βάσανον---ποῦ" δίκην δώσει; i τίς" ἔλεγχος ἔσται; ἀκινδύνως τε οὗτός γε μέλλων
1 τῶν νυκτῶν Ν : τῆς νυκτὸς A. ἶ
2 ποῦ Reiske: οὐ A: τι οὐ N pr., τίνα οὐ N corr.? 3 ἢ τίς Reiske: εἴ τις codd.
α Immediately intended as an answer to y, § 2 init., where it is maintained that if the murder was the work of footpads, the passers-by who appeared on the scene would. have obtained information about their identity from the victims. The reply here given is: (a) if a group of footpads had in fact been engaged in the murder, the passers-by would have run away. ὮΣ The passers-by would in that case have been unable to supply information about the identity of the criminals. (¢) As no passer-by has come forward with such information, all the passers-by must haye run away. (d) It follows from (a) that the murderers must have been a group 78
FIRST TETRALOGY, IV. 4-7
inquire exactly who the murderers were and carry the news to the victims’ home than to take to their heels and leave them to their fate. But I, for my part, do not believe that there exists a human being so reck- less or so brave that,.on coming upon men writhing in their death agony in the middle of the night, he would not turn round and run away rather than risk his life by inquiring after the malefactors responsible.» Now since it is more likely that the passers-by behaved in a natural.manner, you cannot logically continue to treat the footpads who murdered the pair for their clothing as innocent, any more than suspicion can still attach itself to me.” .
As to whether or not proclamation of some other outrage was made at the time of the murder, who knows ? Nobody felt called upon to inquire ; and as the question is an open one, it is quite possible to suppose that the malefactors concerned in such an outrage committed the murder.
Why, moreover, should the evidence of the slave be thought more trustworthy than that of free men? ὃ Free men are disfranchised and fined, should their evidence be considered false ; whereas this slave, who gave us no opportunity of either cross-examining or torturing him—when can he be punished? Nay, when can he be cross-examined δ΄. He could make a state- of footpads. ‘A portentous petitio principii, which of course entirely neglects the fact that passers-by had come forward with very different information.
> Or “ of the free men.” ‘A puzzling sentence which has been treated by some as evidence of the incompleteness of this Tetralogy in its present form. No “ free men” have given evidence in favour of the defence, and we can hardly bes that the speaker is referring to himself. I have taken the words in a pnrely general sense, although I feel it to be unsatisfactory...
79
ANTIPHON
μαῤτυρεῖν, οὐδὲν θαυμαστὸν ἔπαθεν ὑπὸ τῶν κυρίων
ἐχθρῶν μοὶ ὄντων. πεισθεὶς κατἀψεύδεσθαί. prov"
ἐγώ τὲ avoo ἂν πάσχοιμι, εἰ μὴ πιστῶς Κατα- μαρτυρηθεὶς διαφθαρείην ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν. ; 8 Μὴ παραγενέσθαι δέ με τῷ φόνῳ ἀπιστότερον. ἢ παραγενέσθαι. φασὶν εἶναι. ἐγὼ δ᾽ οὐκ ἐκ τῶν εἰκότων . ἀλλ᾽. ἔργῳ. δηλώσω. οὐ παραγενόμενος. ὁπόσοι γὰρ δοῦλοί μοι ἢ δοῦλαί εἰσὶ, πάντας 'παρα-
δίδωμι βασανίσαι: καὶ ἐὰν μὴ φανῶ ταύτῃ τῇ;
νυκτὶ ἐν oikw καθεύδων ἢ ἐξελθών ποι, ὁμολογῶ φονεὺς εἶναι. ἡ δὲ νὺξ οὐκ be cat τοῖς ‘yap Διιπολείοις ὁ ἀνὴρ ἀπέθανε.
9 Περὶ δὲ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας, ἧς ἕ ἕνεκα τρέμοντά μέ
φασιν εἰκότως. ἀποκτεῖναι αὐτόν, πολὺ τἀναντία
ἐστί. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἀτυχοῦσι νεωτερίζειν" συμφέρει"
ἐκ γὰρ τῶν μεταβολῶν ἐπίδοξος. ἡ δυσπραγία μεταβάλλειν αὐτῶν ἐστι" τοῖς δ᾽ εὐτυχοῦσιν ἀτρεμί- ζειν καὶ φυλάσσειν ᾿ τὴν παροῦσαν εὐπραγίαν.
μεθισταμένων γὰρ τῶν πραγμάτων δυστυχεῖς ἐξ
εὐτυχούντων καθίστανται.
10 Ἔκ δὲ τῶν εἰκότων προσποιούμενοί. με ἐλέγχειν,
οὐκ εἰκότως ἀλλ᾽ ὄντως. φονέα μέ φασι τοῦ ἀνδρὸς 4 A > / » ἢ 4 > ~ ~ > εἶναι. «τὰ δὲ εἰκότα ἄλλα πρὸς ἐμοῦ μᾶλλον ἀπο- δέδεικται, ὄντα. ὅ τε “γὰρ καταμαρτυρῶν μου ἄπιστος ounces ὦν, 0 τε ἔλεγχος οὐκ ἔστι" τά
᾿ 1 ποι Reiske: που codd. 2 ἀτυχοῦσι dap Ald. : ἀτυχοῦσιν “ati bales codd.
* A festival in honour of Zeus, celebrated in the first week
of June. i δ The ‘dAda 18 answered by 6 τε yap, which! explains away the one fact which might have been unfayourable to the de-
80
FIRST TETRALOGY, IV. 7-10
ment in:perfect safety ; so it is only natural that he was. induced to lie about me by his masters, who are enemies of mine. On the other hand, it would be nothing short of impious. were I put to death by you on evidence which was untrustworthy. matey Sate According to the prosecution, it is harder to believe’ that I was absent from the scene. of the crime than that I was present at it. But I myself, by. using not arguments from probability but facts, will prove that I was not present. All the slaves in my possession, male or female, I hand over to you for’ torture ; and if. you find that I was not at home» in bed. that night, or that I-left the house, I agree that I am the murderer. ‘The night can be identified, as. the murder was committed during the Diipoleia.* As regards my wealth, my fears for which are said to have furnished a natural motive for the murder, the facts are precisely the opposite. It is the unfortu- nate who gain by arbitrary methods, as they expect, changes to cause a change in their own sorry plight. It pays the fortunate to safeguard their prosperity by living peaceably, as change turns their good fortune into bad. > PHD ant SIG Barr Again, although the prosecution pretend to base their proof of my guilt on inferences from probability, they assert not that I.am the probable, but that I am the actual murderer. Moreover, those inferences? have in fact been proved to be in my favour rather than theirs—for not only has the witness for’ the’ prosecution been proved untrustworthy, but he cannot fence. The connexion of thought is: ‘‘ The inferences are all in my favour; and, after all, it is only inferences that we have to consider in this case. There can be no question of
evidence of fact, as the one possible witness has been proved prejudiced.”” The construction is thus elliptical.
81
ANTIPHON
τε τεκμήρια ἐμά, οὐ τούτων' ὄντα ἐδήλωσα: τά TE ἴχνη τοῦ φόνου οὐκ εἰς ἐμὲ φέροντα, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τοὺς ἀπολυομένους ἀποδέδεικται ὑπ’ αὐτῶν. πάντων δὲ τῶν κατηγορηθέντων ἀπίστων ἐλεγχθέντων, οὐκ ἐὰν ἀποφύγω οὐκ ἔστιν ἐξ ὧν ἐλεγχθήσονται οἱ κακουργοῦντες, ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν καταληφθῶ," Wah Te ἀπο- λογία τοῖς διωκομένοις ἀρκοῦσά ἐστιν. , 1: Οὕτω δὲ ἀδίκως διώκοντές με, αὐτοὶ μὲν ἀνοσίως ἀποκτεῖναι ζητοῦντες καθαροί φασιν εἶναι, ἐμὲ δέ, ὃς εὐσεβεῖν ὑμᾶς πείθω, ἀνόσια δρᾶν λέγουσιν. “ἐγὼ δὲ καθαρὸς ὧν πάντων τῶν ἐγκλημάτων ὑπὲρ (μὲν) " ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπισκήπτω αἰδεῖσθαι τὴν τῶν μη- δὲν ἀδικούντων εὐσέβειαν, ὑπὲρ δὲ τοῦ ἀποθανόντος ἀναμιμνήσκων τὴν ποινὴν παραινῷ ὑμῖν μὴ τὸν ἀναίτιον καταλαβόντας τὸν αἴτιον ἀφεῖναι: ἀπο-
θφμδυτὸ οι γὰρ ἐμοῦ οὐδεὶς ἔτι τὸν αἴτιον ζητήσει:
12 ταῦτα οὖν σεβόμενοι, ὁσίως καὶ δικαίως ἀπολύετέ.
με, καὶ μὴ μετανοήσαντες τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. γνῶτε" ἀνίατος γὰρ ἡ μετάνοια τῶν τοιούτων ἐστίν. 1 γούτων Jernstedt: τούτου codd.
᾿ καταληφθῶ Spengel : : ἐλεγχθῶ codd. 3 μὲν add. Bekker.
“ rexpypia are here distinguished from εἰκότα ; but the dis- tinction is hardly observed by Antiphon in practice.
82
?
FIRST TETRALOGY, IV. 10-12
be cross-examined. Similarly, I have shown that the presumptions ® are in my favour and not in favour of the prosecution; and the trail of guilt has been proved to lead not to me, but to those whom the prosecution are treating as innocent. Thus the charges made against me have been shown without exception to be unfounded. But it does not follow that there is no way of convicting criminals, if I am acquitted ; it does follow that there is no way of effectively defending persons accused, if I am sen- tenced.
You see how unjustifiably my accusers are attack- ing me. Yet notwithstanding the fact that it is they who are endeavouring to have me put to death in so impious a fashion, they maintain that they themselves are guiltless; according to them, it is I who am acting impiously—I, who am urging you to show yourselves godfearing men. But as I am innocent of all their charges, I adjure you on my own behalf to respect the righteousness of the guiltless, just as on the dead man’s behalf I remind you of his right to vengeance and urge you not to let the guilty escape by punishing the innocent; once I am put to death, no one will continue the search for the criminal. Respect these considerations, and satisfy heaven and justice by acquitting me. Do not wait until remorse proves to you your mistake; remorse in cases such as this has no remedy.
VOL. I D 83
< =
fe ΤΙ < peer | τοῖς
_— —
Ie ae = Ἢ 7
| ies το ἢ ἘΞ Ξ
ie |
πὸ ἀν νη
nn aght Best c , ate Sa “He diem sa td at a ΠΩΣ ijn’ | bea: as pte ear or |
‘beans corer SO x cola So Paar Ba :
aie γ. τ
ἘΞΙ͂Ξ ον τὰν
“id luce αὶ οέ : Pes ean eae wet nas ἐξ herdty abaerved. by SPOR, in ‘utboinox © on esd
' SECOND TETRALOGY
= Since an accident involves dpapria on the part of Bethe person responsible, the ohject of the prosecution ‘and defence throughout is ta prove that the duapris rs Jay with the other side. dpeaprfa 5 the failure to perforin uh act as one intended to: perform it, ow-
: ies to OTTO, ᾿ i) : miroi; ἘΣ 15 Ἢ error " ene oe i a ’ ' Ἢ 3h x3
Pita. Fon! Hs a Kids ig Sain
-. το x = .
»»" Ρ Ὕ 2 Ὲ J 2]
Ey ὃ δ 15. 15 unplicg that ἐξ Lae ν 7
Or pus ἘΠῚ e int) Ἔ ῖ — LO: ᾿ ᾿ OUTIL ὦ bg ; 2 THE SECO? D rea era και, ΠΑ) be NAL SF .- a - 5 νὲ ‘ roe ΕἾ
ite is $24 wey esie ah Thi Ρ ΟΣ 1 mY, ὩΣ ak ΔΕ = ae ima a ee ΠΡ Yast ae TLiPER IT ould ! Awiliw Yo UUlive ei X sodiodw Jon ei oneet te noilesup
Jom Y ‘iodtotw siszes tom ptdguslensot τὸ Tob we fee intent cleus, Soba ceed γα τάξει ἡ
ἃ, ἕ .Β al
πόαν 297 oF eavorq ti sovawoll ΠΣ apie, yen “Thiw tasmoeliteb εἰ seiwidiO : odd παρα iud YWsemid soqu γίπο νὴ ΘΌΠ σα τμτοΥ
or Ἢ
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
Tue second Tetralogy is concerned not with estab- lishing facts but with interpreting them. X was practising with the javelin in the gymnasium. Y ran in front of the target just as X was making a cast, and was killed. Y’s father prosecutes X for accidentally causing his son’s death. ="
To_understand the case as developed in the four speeches made by the prosecution and defence, it is necessary to bear in mind the oddly inelastic con- ception of blood-guilt upon which they are based. ‘ Homicide, whether wilful or not, involves blood-guilt ; and that blood-guilt must rest upon someone ; in the last resort it may even be assumed to rest upon the inanimate instrument of death. Here, then, the question at issue is not whether X is guilty of wilful murder or manslaughter, nor again whether Y met his end by misadventure. It is acknowledged from the start that Y’s death was purely accidental. ‘The point is that a life has been lost; and as only two persons, X and Y, were concerned, the blood-guilt must rest upon the one or the other. If it can be shown to rest upon Y himself, due atonement has already been made, as Y has paid with his life. If, however, it proves to rest upon X, X must be punished. Otherwise X’s defilement will bring down divine vengeance not only upon himself but upon the community at large.
86
SECOND TETRALOGY
Since an accident involves ἁμαρτία on the part of the person responsible, the object of the prosecution and defence throughout is to prove that the ἁμαρτία lay with the other side. ἁμαρτία is the failure to perform an act as one intended to perform it, ow- ing to circumstances outside of one’s control; it is “error.” But owing to the conception of blood-guilt mentioned, a ἁμάρτημα which results in another’s death carries a certain moral responsibility with it. It was) only the fact that the agent was per- forming the act at all that made it possible for the error.to occur : and so ‘he must bear the blame. In , y, 8 8 it is implied that at least in some cases a ἅμάρ- τημα is due to the direct intervention of heaven ; the agent has committed a sin, and the divine Nemesis takes the form of his being so blinded ‘that he be- comes guilty of a ἁμάρτημα, for which he is punished ; it is the familiar notion of ὕβρις and ary thinly dis-
ised. Presumably in other cases the ἁμαρτία is due simply to τύχη; but the author of the Tetralogy is not concerned to work out the theory in detail.
87
[191]
ΟΣ (9 rene @6 198 ΠῚ
TETPAAOTIA..B, ..) " KATHOPIA ΦΌΝΟΥ ἈΚΟΎΣΙΟΥ fA oil {ΠῚ Ta lid ὁμολογούμενα γῶν πραγμάτων Seti Te TOD’ γόμοῦ κατακέκριται͵ ὑπό te τῶν. ψηφισαμένων, ot κύριοι πάσης, τῆς πολιτείας εἰσίν: ἐὰν δέ τι ἀμφισβητήσιμον ἢ, τοῦτο: ὑμῖν, ὧ. ἄνδρες πολῖται, προστέτακται διαγνῶναι. οἶμαι. μὲν οὖν οὐδὲ ἀμφισβὴητήσειν. “πρὸς ἐμὲ τὸν διωκόμενον: ‘6 ‘yap παῤς μοὺ ἐν γυμνασίῳ. ᾿ἀκοντισθεὶς διὰ τῶν “πλευρῶν ὑπὸ τούτον. τοῦ ἱμειρᾳκέοῃ!, παραχρῆμα: ἀπέθανεν. ἑκόντα μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἐπικαλῶ ἀποκτεῖναι, ἄκοντα δέ. ἐμοὶ δὲ οὐκ ἐλάσσω τοῦ ἑκόντος ἄκων τὴν συμφορὰν κατέστησε. τῷ δὲ ἀποθανόντι αὐτῷ μὲν οὐδὲν ἐνθύμιον, τοῖς δὲ ζῶσι προσέθηκεν. ὑμᾶς δὲ ἀξιῶ ἐλεοῦντας μὲν τὴν ἀπαιδίαν τῶν γονέων, οἰκτίροντας δὲ τὴν ἄωρον τοῦ ἀποθανόντος τελευ- τήν, εἴργοντας ὧν ὁ νόμος εἴργει τὸν ἀποκτείναντα μὴ περιορᾶν ἅπασαν τὴν πόλιν ὑπὸ τούτου μι- αινομένην.
α For ἐνθύμιος see General Introduction, p. 39. 88
THE SECOND TETRALOGY,
5 ie Ν is j I 7 ἐκ.) i Χ ΩΤ Ὁ PROSECUTION ΘΒ ACCIDENTAL © SO OMICIDE, °° υ
ΟΑΒΕ5 in which the facts are agreed upon are settled in advance either by the law or by: the statutes of the Assembly, which between them control every branch of civie life. But should matter for dispute occur, it is your task, gentlemen, to give a decision. However, I do not imagine that any dispute will in fact arise between the defendant and myself. My son was struck in the side by a javelin thrown. by yonder lad in the nasium, and died instantly. T accuse him not of killing my son deliberately, but of killing him by accident—though the loss which I have suffered is not thereby lessened. But if. he has . not caused’ the dead boy himself disquiet, he has ~ caused ‘disquiet tothe living *; and I) ask you to pity that dead boy’s childless parents: to show your sorrow for his own) untimely end: to forbid his»slayer to set foot where he is forbidden to set foot by the law®: and to refuse to allow him to defile the whole city. , Pe US δ» APPeeMnsr
> See Choreutes, Introd. §§ 34 sqq. for the meaning of 3 89
εἴργεσθαι τῶν vo ri
ANTIPHON B
ATIOAOTIA ®ONOY AKOYZIOY
1 Νῦν δὴ φανερόν μοι ὅτι αὐταὶ αἱ συμφοραὶ καὶ χρεῖαι τούς τε ἀπράγμονας εἰς ἀγῶνας (κατα- “- 1 ἐν ΟἹ Len VALS κ Nive 1 » στῆναι τούς ‘Te ἡσυχίους τολμᾶν τά τε ἄλλα παρὰ φύσιν λέγειν καὶ δρᾶν βιάζονται. ἐγὼ γὰρ ἥκιστα τοιοῦτος ὧν καὶ βουλόμενος εἶναι, εἰ μὴ /, » «-ἅν > A a “ > πολύ ye ἔψευσμαι, ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς συμφορᾶς. ἠναγ- κάσθην νῦν παρὰ τὸν ἄλλον τρόπον ὑπὲρ πραγ- μάτων ἀπολογεῖσθαι, ὧν ἐγὼ χαλεπῶς μὲν τὴν ἀκρίβειαν ἔγνων, ἔτι δὲ ἀπορωτέρως διάκειμαι ὡς 2 χρὴ ὑμῖν ἑρμηνεῦσαι ταῦτα. bd δὲ σκληρᾶς ἀνάγκης βιαζόμενος, καὶ αὐτὸς εἰς. τὸν ὑμέτερον ἔλεον, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, καταπεφευγὼς δέόμαι con 2. 3 , Ὁ γα Ul €¢ wn Ὁ") ὑμῶν, ἐὰν ἀκριβέστερον ἢ ὡς σύνηθες ὑμῖν δόξω εἰπεῖν, μὴ διὰ τὰς προειρημένας τύχας {δυσχερῶς ἀποδεξαμένους μου τὴν ἀπολογίαν δόξῃ καὶ μ' ἀληθείᾳ τὴν κρίσιν ποιήσασθαι: ἡ μὲν γὰρ δόξα τῶν πραχθέντων πρὸς τῶν λέγειν δυναμένων ἐστίν, ἡ δὲ ἀλήθεια πρὸς τῶν δίκαια καὶ ὅσια πρασ- σόντων. 26 . 8 *ESdéxouv. μὲν οὖν" ἔγωγε ταῦτα παιδεύων τὸν ει >, es , A ‘ > a > a υἱὸν ἐξ ὧν μάλιστα τὸ κοινὸν ὠφελεῖται, ἀμφοῖν τι ᾿ ρὸν θὸ 9 , 6. z , ὃ δ, ολὺ ἡμῖν ἀγαθὸν ἀποβήσεσθαι: συμβέβηκε δέ μοι 7 παρὰ γνώμην τούτων. τὸ γὰρ μειράκιον οὐχ ὕβρει οὐδὲ ἀκολασίᾳ, ἀλλὰ μελετῶν μετὰ τῶν ἡλίκων “I καταστῆναι add. Maetzner. 2 δυσχερῶς add. Gebauer. 3 μὲν οὖν edd.: μὲν A, γοῦν Ν.
« For τόλμᾶν used absolutely in this sense ef. y. 2. 90
SECOND TETRALOGY, II. 1-3
II
* REPLY TO A CHARGE OF ACCIDENTAL HOMICIDE
I now see that sheer misfortune and necessity can force those who hate litigation to appear in court and those who love peace to show boldness? and generally belie their nature in word and deed; for I myself, who, unless I am sorely mistaken, am very far from finding or wanting to find such a task congenial, have to-day been forced by sheer misfortune to depart from my habits and appear as defendant in.a case in which I found it hard enough to arrive at the exact truth, but which leaves me still more perplexed when I con- sider how I should present it to you. I am driven by pitiless necessity : and I, like my opponents, gentle- men of the jury, seek refuge in your sympathy. I beg of you: if my arguments appear more subtle than those generally presented to you, do not allow the circumstances already mentioned ὃ so to prejudice you against my defence as to make you base your verdict upon apparent fact instead of upon the truth; apparent fact puts the advantage with the clever speaker, but truth with the man who lives in justice and righteousness.
In training my son in those pursuits from which the state derives most benefit I imagined that both of us would be rewarded ; but the result has sadly belied my hopes. For the lad—not from insolence or wanton- ness, but while at javelin-practice in the gymnasium ες δ i.e. the fact that he was not accustomed to appearing in courts of law, which should make it @ priori probable that
he isa simple and straightforward man who would not resort to subtleties of argument if his case were a sound one.
91:
s-i .1l . GANTIBRGN C4000
ἀκοντίζειν ἐν τῷ γυμνασίῳ ἔβαλε μέν, οὐκ ἀπέκ- TEWE, δὲ ο ὑδένα. κατά γε τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὧ ὧν. ἔπραξεν, ἄλλου δ᾽ εἰς αὑτὸν ἁμαρτόντος, els ᾿ἀκουσίοὺς αἰτίας ἦλθεν.
4 Εἰ μὲν͵ γὰρ, τὸ, ἀκόντιον. ἔξω. TOV. ὅρων. τῆς αὑτοῦ πορείας, ἐπὶ τὸν; παῖδα ἐξενεχθὲν. ἔτρωσεν αὐτόν, οὐδεὶς. ayy? ἡμῖν. λόγος. ὑπελείπετο "μὴ φονεῦσιν" εἶναι" ποῦ δὲ παιδὸς ὑ ὑπὸ τὴν TOD | ἀκοντίου φορὰν ὑποδραμόντος “καὶ “τὸ σῶμα προστήσαντος, (ὁ. μὲν; ἐκωλύθη" .τοῦ σκοποῦ. τυχεῖν, ὁ δὲ ὑπὸ τὸ ἀκόντιον, τὑπελθὼν: ἐβλήθη, καὶ. τὴν αἰτίαν' οὐχ
5 ἡμετέραν" οὖσαν προσέβαλεν "ἡμῖν." διὰ “δὲ τὴν ὑποδρόμὴν βληθέντος τοῦ παιδός, τὸ μὲν μειράκιον οὐ δίκα ἐπικαλεῦξαι, οὐδένα γὰρ “Bade Tay ἀπὸ τοῦ σκοποῦ, ἀφεστώτων: " ὁ δὲ παῖς ,εἴπερ ἑστὼς φανερὸς. ὑμῖν ἐστι “μὴ βληθείς ἑκουσίως δ᾽" ὑπ ὑπὸ τὴν pay τοῦ ἀκοντίου ὑπελθών, ἔ ἔτι sapeorepws
Aodrat ιὰ τὴν αὑτοῦ ἁμαρτίαν. ἀποθανών. οὐ γὰρ. ἂν ἐβλήθη ἀτρεμίζων͵ καὶ "μὴ διατρέχων.. Ἶ
6. ᾿Ακουσίου δὲ τοῦ φόνου a ἀμφοῖν: ὑμῖν. duo: Aoyoupevov γενέσθαι, ἐκ: τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ὁποτέρου αὐτῶν. ἐστίν, ἔτι: ye σαφέστερον Κῶν", oO φονεὺς le βοήν α ἐπὶ codd. iad ii add, scp BSP "
τ : ἐς δι; Bekker : sages abd bitin Agim my ‘add. woe ὯΙ pdvurt ole boo dhadd.sBlass. | too “otal
6, ἔτι. γε ye Saupe : érv.8,codd. δὲ del. ‘Dobrees ἢ - Sag DOOR ἀν, Ἢ
FET EBS. τῷ SOFT lobe Ete bP Mf a) SOU OF ΨΕῈῚ
‘6 Two: ἐπε ἐμμοδα ΣΝ ἡ ἘΠΕ iin het nase. are: possible : (1). He threw (his‘spear), it is true, but killed no one!’’;: (2) § “He 2 ean soméone), it is true, but did ‘not kill him.” (1) gi “sense; but elsewhere ‘in the Tetralogy βάλλαν tn an ἐᾷ, **to hit,” not ‘to throw.” (9) avoids
μ.ὰἰιυνυννυ οὐ - ὐὐδουν δ
SECOND TETRALOGY, II. 3-6
with his fellows—made a hit, it,is true, but killed no one; if one considers: his.true part in the matter? he accidentally °..incurred..the blame. for. the errok of another which affected that other’s own: ‘person. ο΄.
Had the boy. been wounded. because the. jayelin - had travelled in his direction outside, the area ap- pointed for its flight, we should be left, unable to show that we had not caused his death, But he ran into the path of the javelin and placed his person in its way. Hence my son was prevented from hitting the target’: while the boy, who moved into the javelin’s path) was struck, thereby causing us to be blamed for what we did not do. It was because he ran in front of the javelin that the boy was struck. The lad is therefore accused without, just cause, as he did not strike anyone standing clear of the target. At the same time, since itis, plain to you that the boy-was not struck while standing still, but was struck only after deliberately moving into the path, of the javelin, you have still clearer proof that his death was due to an error on his own part. Had he stood still: and. not run across, he. would. oy have been struck.
Both sides are agreed, as you sée, that the boy’s death was accidental ; so by discovering which of the two was guilty of error, we should prove still more this difficulty; but it ‘has ‘been' urged (e. g. by Blass, who favours’ emendation) that the words τὸν μὲν “βαλόντα: "καὶ ΟΣ fice es os certs tahun ak fee ee Se ates eae eee however; is only apparent. The speaker here is saying in effect that. the responsibility for the blow must rest with Y, although X dealt it; in y. ὅ and)6 his opponents argue that
the responsibility must rest. with X, Sie carp xX — it. δ For ἀκουσίως cf. p. 68, notes) τ τ fi
93
|. - ANTIPHON
ἐλεγχϑείη. οἵ τε γὰρ ἁμαρτάνοντες ὡς ἂν ἐπὶι- νοήσωσί τι δρᾶσαι, οὗτοι πράκτορες. τῶν ἀκουσίων εἰσίν" οἵ τεῦ ἑκούσιόν τι δρῶντες ἢ ἢ πάσχοντες; οὗτοι τῶν παθημάτων αἴτιοι. γίγνονται.
Φ To} μὲν τοίνυν μειράκιον περὶ οὐδένα οὐδὲν ἥ ἥμαρ- TEV. οὔτε γὰρ ἀπειρημένον ἀλλὰ προστεταγμένον ἐξεμελέτα, οὔτε ἐν γυμναζομένοις ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ τῶν ἀκοντιζόντων τάξει. ἠκόντιζεν, οὔτε τοῦ σκοποῦ ἁμαρτών, εἰς τοὺς ἀφεστῶτας ἀκοντίσας, τοῦ παιδὸς ἔ ἔτυχεν, ἀλλὰ πάντα ὀρθῶς ὡς ἐπενόει δρῶν ἔδρασε μὲν. οὐδὲν ἀκούσιον, ἔπαθε δὲ διακωλυθεὶς
[199] Τοῦ σκοποῦ τυχεῖν.
O δὲ παῖς βουλόμενος προδραμεῖν, τοῦ καιροῦ"
8 διαμαρτὼν ἐν ᾧ διατρέχων οὐκ ἂν ἐπλήγη, περι- έπεσέν οἷς οὐκ ἤθελεν, ἀκουσίως δὲ ἁμαρτὼν εἰς
' ἑαυτὸν οἰκείαις συμφοραῖς κέχρηται, τῆς δ᾽ ἅμαρ- tias τετιμωρημένος ἑαυτὸν ἔχει τὴν «δίκην, οὐ συνηδομένων μὲν οὐδὲ συνεθελόντων ἡμῶν, συν- αλγούντων. δὲ καὶ συλλυπουμένων.
Τῆς δὲ ἁμαρτίας εἰς τοῦτον" ἡκούσης, τό {τ᾽ > ἔργον οὐχ ἡμέτερον ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐξαμαρτόντος ἐστί, τό τε πάθος. εἰς τὸν δράσαντα ἐλθὸν ἡμᾶς μὲν ἀπολύει τῆς αἰτίας, τὸν δὲ δράσαντα δικαίως ἅμα τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ τετιμώρηται.
1 ὡς Wilamowitz: ὧν codd. 2 dv. oe [re] ἀρᾶσοι Maetzner. od bite ngel: δὲ codd.
καιροῦ Spengel: χώρου cod τοῦτον Reiske: τοῦτο foe: ὁ 7 add. Spengel.
* The argument is: (1) It is agreed that death was acci- dental. (2) But accidents are always due to ἁμαρτία on the part of someone. (3) Therefore if the person guilty of ἁμαρτία is discovered, we have 60 ipso discovered the person responsible for the boy’s death.
94
SECOND TETRALOGY, II. 6-8
conclusively who killed him. For it is those guilty of ὁ error in carrying out an intended act whoare respons- ible for accidents": just as it is those who voluntarily do.a thing or allow it to be done to them who are responsible for the effects suffered.
Now the lad, on his side, was not guilty of error in respect of anyone : in practising he was not doing what he was forbidden but what he had been told to do, and he was not standing among those. en- gaged in gymnastics when he threw the javelin, but in his place among the other throwers: nor did he hit the boy because he missed the target’ and sent his javelin instead at those standing clear. He did everything correctly, as he intended ; and thus he was not the cause of any accident, but the victim of one, in that he was prevented from hitting the target.
The boy, on the other hand, who wished to run forward, missed the moment at which he could have crossed without being hit, with results which he by no means desired. He was accidentally guilty of an error which affected his own person, and has thus |, met with a disaster for which he had himself alone to thank. He has. punished himself for his error, and is therefore duly requited ; not that we rejoice at or approve of it—far from it : we feel both sympathy and sorrow. ᾿
It is thus the dead boy who proves to have been
uilty of error ;..so the act which caused his death is to be attributed not to us, but to him, the party guilty of error: just as the recoiling of its effects upon the © agent not only absolves us from blame, but has caused the agent to be punished as he deserved directly his error was committed.
95
il. (ANTIPHON (400
VP Amodvet δὲ καὶ 6 νόμος; ἡμᾶς, ᾧ πιστεύων; " apn “pare ᾿ἀδίκως μήτε δικαίως. ἀποκτείνειν; ὡς φονέα HE. διώκει. ᾿ ὑπὸ μὲν γὰρ τῆς αὐτοῦ ° τοῦ τεθνεῶτος ἁμαρτίας ὅδε ἀπολύεται. μηδὲ, ἀκουσίως ἀποκτεῖναι αὐτόν". ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ διώκοντος οὐδ᾽ ἐπι- καλούμενος ὡς ἑκὼν ἀπέκτεινεν, ἀμφοῖν ἀπολύεται τοῖν ἐγκλημάτοιν, (μήτ᾽ ἀκὼν)" ae ἑκὼν Gato» κτεῖναι.
Ι0. ᾿Απολυόμενος δὲ ὑ ὑπό τε τῆς ἀληθείας τ' τῶν πραχ- barren. ὑπό τε τοῦ νόμου καθ᾽ ὃν διώκεται, οὐδὲ τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων ἕ ἕνεκα: δίκαιοι, τοιούτων κακῶν. ἀξιόῦοθαί ἐσμεν!" οὗτός τε γὰρ' ἀνόσια, “πείσεται τὰς οὐ προσηκούσαξ' φέρων ἁμαρτίαξ, ἐγώ TE pan- Aov μὲν οὐδέν; ὁμοίως. δὲ τούτῳ ἀναμάῤτητος. “ὦν, εἰς πολλαπλασίους τούτου συμφορὰς ἥξω: ἐπί. τε γὰρ τῇ. τούτου διαφθορᾷ, ἀβίωτον τὸ λειπόμενον τοῦ βίου «διάξω, ἐπί τε τῇ; ἐμονφοῦ SIO ni ἔτι κατορυχθήσομαι" τ. οὕ ἶ
11 ᾿Ελεοῦντες ιδῦν τοῦδε μὲν" τοῦ νηπίου "τὴν ἀναμάρτητον ᾿δυμφορᾶν, ἐμοῦ δὲ τοῦ γηραϊοῦ καὶ ἀθλίου τὴν ἀπροσδόκητον. κακοπάθειαν, μὴ κατα- ψηφισάμενοι δυσμόρους. ἡμᾶς κατάστήφητς, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπολύοντες εὐσεβεῖτε. ὅ τε γὰρ ἀποθανὼν. συμ- φοράϊς" περιπεσὼν." οὐκ ἀτιμῶώρητός: ἐστιν, ἡμεῖς τε οὐ δίκαιοι τὰς τούτων ἁμαρτίας συμφέρειν
12 ἐσμέν." τήν, τε οὖν εὐσέβειαν τούτων τῶν πρᾶχ- θέντων. καὶ τὸ Schaap αἰδούμενοι. ὁσίως καὶ δικαίως “ἀπολύετε ἡμᾶς, καὶ μὴ pour ro, δύο,
1 μήτ᾽ ἄκων add. Alas τ σπιοῦ 96
SECOND TETRALOGY, II. 9-12
., Furthermore, our innocence is attestéd-by the law upon which my accuser relies in charging me with the boy’s death, the law which forbids the taking of life whether wrongfully or otherwise. For the fact that the victim himself was guilty of error
fasts
will be a life within the tomb,........ σπου ἢ, ὃ , Haye pity,,.then,..on; this child, the. victim of calamity, though guilty of no error: and: haye pity on me, an old man in distress, stricken thus suddenly with sorrow. Do not bring a miserable fate upon us by condemning us: but show that you fear God by acquitting is. The dead boy is not unavenged for the calamity which befell him : nor ought we our- selves to share the responsibility for errors due to our accusers. So respect the righteousness which the facts before you have. revealed :.-respect. justice;: and .acquit' us: as: godly and. just men-should:’ Do not. bring’ upon ‘a father’and. a son, two of the ‘most
ivr od
τ 98 Se κατὸρυχθήσομαι Reiske : ἐπικατορ. codd. | 97
ANTIPHON
πατέρα καὶ maida, ἀώροις συμφοραῖς περι-
βάλητε."
γ EK ΚΑΤΗΓΟΡΙΑΣ O ὝΣΤΕΡΟΣ
1 Ὅτι μὲν αὐτὴ ἡ χρεία παρὰ φύσιν καὶ λέγειν καὶ δρᾶν ἅπαντας. "ἀναγκάζει, ἔργῳ καὶ οὐ λόγῳ. δοκεῖ μοι σημαίνειν οὗτος: ἥκιστα. yap ἔν. γε τῷ ἔμ- προσθεν χρόνῳ ἀναιδὴς καὶ τολμηρὸς ὦν, νῦν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς συμφορᾶς ἠνάγκασται λέγειν οἷα
2 οὐκ av ποτε ᾧμην ἐγὼ τοῦτον εἰπεῖν.. ἐγώ TE γὰρ πολλῇ ἀνοίᾳ χρώμενος. οὐκ. ἂν ὑπέλαβον. τοῦτον ἀντειπεῖν" οὐδὲ yap av ἕνα λόγον ἀντὶ δυοῖν" λέξας τὸ ἥμισυ τῆς κατηγορίας ἐμαυτὸν ἂν ἀπεστέρησα" οὗτός τε μὴ τολμῶν οὐκ ἂν προεῖχε τῷ διπλασίῳ μου, ἕνα μὲν πρὸς ἕνα λόγον. ἀπολογηθείς, ἃ δὲ κατηγόρησεν ἀναποκρίτως εἰπών.
8 Τοσοῦτον δὲ προέχων ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ἡμῶν, ἔτι δὲ ev οἷς ἔπρασσε πολλαπλάσια “τούτων, οὗτος μὲν οὐχ ὁσίως δεῖται | ὑμῶν εὐμενῶς" τὴν ἀπολογίαν ibaa aa αὐτοῦ: ἐγὼ δὲ δράσας" μὲν οὐδὲν
ΕΝ, περιβάλοιτε A. 2 ἀντὶ yo UN ἀντιδοὺς ἢ codd. 3 εὐμενῶς Reiske: συχνῶς codd,.
4 δὲ δράσας Reiske: δ᾽ ἔδρασα codd.
4 Τ take the speaker to mean: ‘“ The case seemed so simple that instead of developing any argument in my first
eech for the prosecution, I merely stated the bare facts. The defendant, however, has made an elaborate reply, and will doubtless do. the same again in his second speech; this is equivalent to his making two speeches to my one. Further, he will be able to use his second speech to answer my one
98
SECOND TETRALOGY, II. 12—III. 3
wretched of beings, sorrows which the years of neither can well bear.
Ill
SECOND SPEECH FOR THE PROSECUTION
That sheer necessity can force all men to belie their nature in both word and deed is a fact of which. the defendant-seems to me to be giving very real proof, Whereas inthe past he was the last to show im- pudence or audacity, his very misfortune has to-day forced him to say things which I for one would never have expected of him. I, in my great folly, imagined that he would not reply ; ; otherwise 1 would not have deprived myself of half” of my opportunities as prosecutor by making only one speech instead of two; and he, but for ‘his audacity, would not have had the twofold advantage over me of using one speech to answer the one speech for the prosecution and making: his πὰ πρῶτ when they could not be answered.
With his great advantage over us in the matter of the. speeches, and. with the far greater, one. which his. methods have given him in addition,? it is outrageous that the accused should entreat you to listen kindly to his defence. _I myself, on the other
serious for_the prosecution (ἕνα 7, » ἀπο- μδ αλγῖ δὰ Ι Snot pata. rast vay attack which he made upon me in his first speech (ἃ κατηγόρησεν ἀναποκρίτως εἰπών), betes as prosecutor, I must now devote myself to attacking him.”
> Referring apparently to the artifices énployed: by the defence for working upon the feelings of the court (¢f..B. I ff.).
99
[123]
ANTIPHON
κακόν, παθὼν δὲ ἄθλια καὶ δεινά, καὶ νῦν ἔτι δεινότερα τούτων, ἔργῳ καὶ οὐ: λόγῳ εἰς τὸν ὑμέ- τερον ἔλεον καταπεφευγὼς δέομαι ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες ἀνοσίων ἔργων τιμωροί, ὁσίων δὲ διαγνώμονες, μὴ {παρ᾽ ἔργα φανερὰ ὑ ὑπὸ πονηρᾶς λόγων ἀκριβείας πεισθέντας. ψευδῆ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τῶν πραχθέντων 4 ἡγήσασθαι. ἡ μὲν γὰρ πιστότερον ἢ ἀληθέστερον σύγκειται, ἡ δ᾽ 5 eh a καὶ Patina αν λεχθήσεται" ere tls Td pev οὖν δικαίῳ πιστεύων ϑρεῤθῥῶι τῆς ἀπο- λογίας- τῇ δὲ" σκληρότητι. τοῦ δαίμονος ᾿ ἀπιστῶν ἜΡΩΣ μὴ οὐ μόνον τῆς χρείας τοῦ παϊδὸς ἀπο: στερηθ ῷ, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐθέντην προσκαταγνωσθέντα ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἐπίδω αὐτόν. εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ τόλμης. καὶ ἀναιδείας ἥκει, ὥστε τὸν μὲν βαλόντα. καὶ ἀπο- κτείναντα οὔτε τρῶσαι. οὔτε ἀποκτεῖναί φησι, τὸν δὲ οὔτε ψαύσαντα. τοῦ ἀκοντίου. οὔτε ἐπινοήσαντα ἀκοντίσαι, ἁπάσης, μὲν γῆς ἁμαρτόντα, πάντων δὲ σωμάτων,: διὰ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ “πλευρῶν. διαπῆξαι. τὸ ἀκόντιον λέγει. ἐγὼ δὲ τέ ἑκουσίως κατηγορῶν: ἀπο- κτεῖναι αὐτὸν “πιστότερος ἄν μοι δοκῶ: elvat ἢ οὗτος, (os)* μήτε βαλεῖν a ἀποκτεῖναΐ φησι, a μειράκιονὶ eh stoi ὁ Ὁ μὲν γὰρ ev’ τούτῳ TH καιρῷ '“κελευόμενος" ὑπὸ τοῦ παιδοτρίβου, ὃς ᾿ὑπέδέχετο τοῖς ᾿ἀκοντίζούσι τὰ ἀκόντια; ἀναιρεῖσθαι, διὰ, τὴν τοῦ βαλόντος ἀκολασίαν. πολεμίῳ τῷ τούτου βέλει περιπεσών, sora οὐδ᾽ εἰς ἕν᾽" ἁμαρτών, ἀθλίως: ἀπέθανεν" ὃ δὲ
1 παρ᾽ addidi ; παρὰ τὰ Gernet: δἰ ἴα. 2 és'add. “Ad: 3 κελευόμενος scripsi: καλούμενος codd, ex ὃ. 4.. vex és ὑπεδέχετο κτλ. potius corru jo esse plerique arbitrantur. , ὡς ὑποδέχοιτο «παν: τὴν ὑπε “Xero. ,Thalheim, . desiesister Ἀ Franke... Franke: ἕν codd., Sib 100
5
a
παν E—e—————EEeEeyEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEEOEeEeEEeEeEeEeEeEeEEeEeEeEeEeyEeyeEeEEeEeEeEeEeEeEEeeEeEEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEEEE μὴν
SECOND TETRALOGY, III. 3-6
hand, far from causing any. harm, have. been ‘the victim of cruel affliction, and am to-day being treated still more cruelly. Iti is as one who seeks more than a pretended refuge in‘ your sympathy that I) make my own request of you.. Youwho take vengeance, for unrighteous deeds and determine wherein is | righteousness, do ‘not, I beg of you, let worthless ἡ subtleties of speech induce you ‘to disregard+plain facts and treat the truth as false ; for such subtleties result in a tale more plausible thai true, whereas’ the truth, when told, will “be ‘less gost and therefore legs: convincing.
My faith in justice, then, ἐε τὰ me ty despise his defence. “Yet my distrust ‘of the pitiless will of fate makes me fear that’ I may not only lose “the ras of my. child, but that I may see him convicted
ou of taking his own life in addition. For the
eetnaatit hhas had the audacity and shamelessness nel ‘say >that he who struck and killed, neither wounded nor killed, whereas he who neither touched the javelin nor had any intention of throwing it misséd every other point on earth and every other person, and ‘pierced his own) side, with the javelin, Why, I should myself sound more convincing, I think, were I accusing the lad of wilful murder, than does the defendant in claiming that the lad © neither struck nor killed.
My son was bidden at that moment by the master in charge, ‘who was taking the javelins of the throwers into his keeping, to pick them:up;, but thanks to. the wantonness: of him, who: east it, he was greeted by yonder lad’s cruel weapon; though guilty of error in respect of no single person, he
died a piteous death, The lad,.on the other hand, 101
ANTIPHON
περὶ τὸν τῆς ἀναιρέσεως καιρὸν πλημμελήσας, οὐ τοῦ σκοποῦ τυχεῖν ἐκωλύθη, ἀλλ᾽ ἄθλιον καὶ πικρὸν σκοπὸν ἐμοὶ ἀκοντίσας, ἑκὼν ιμὲν οὐκ ἀπέκτεινεν, μᾶλλον δὲ ἑκὼν ἢ οὔτ᾽ ἔβαλα οὔτ᾽ ἀπέκτεινεν.
1 ᾿Ακουσίως δὲ οὐχ ye ἢ ἑκουσίως ἀποκτεί- ναντες" μου τὸν παῖδα, τὸ παράπαν δ᾽ ἀρνούμενοι" μὴ ἀποκτεῖναι αὐτόν, οὐδ᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου κατὰ- λαμβάνεσθαί φασιν, ὃς ἀπαγορεύει μήτε δικαίως μήτε ἀδίκως yo ἀλλὰ τίς 6 rig A εἰς τίν᾽ ὁ φόνος HOT εἰς τοὺς θεωμένους ἣ εἰς τοὺς παιδαγώγους, ὧν | οὐδεὶς οὐδὲν κατηγορεῖ; οὐ yep ἀφανὴς ἀλλὰ καὶ λίαν φανερὸς. ἔμοιγε αὐτοῦ ὁ θάνατός ἐστιν. ἐγὼ δὲ τὸν νόμον ὀρθῶς ἀγόμῥῥνω! φημὶ τοὺς ἀποκτείναντας κολάζεσθαι" ὅ τε γὰρ ἄκων ἀποκτείνας ἀκουσίοις κακοῖς περι- πεσεῖν δίκαιός ἐστιν, ὅ τε διαφθαρεὶς οὐδὲν ἧσσον ἀκουσίως ἢ ἑκουσίως βλαφθεὶς ἀδικοῖτ᾽ ἂν ἀτιμώ- ρητος γενόμενος.
8 Οὐ δίκαιος δὲ ἀποφυγεῖν ἐστι διὰ τὴν ἀτυχίαν τῆς ἀμᾳρτίας, εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὑπὸ μηδεμιᾶς ἐπιμελείας τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ ἀτυχία γίγνεται, ἁμάρτημα οὖσα τῷ ἁμάρτόντι συμφορὰ δικαία γενέσθαι ἐστίν" εἰ δὲ αὖ θεία' κηλὶς τῷ δράσαντι προσπίπτει ἄσε-
1 ἀποκτείναντες Blass: -avros A pr. N: ἀπέκτεινε A corr. ἀρνούμενοι Blass: ἀρνουμένόυ A pr. N+: -pevos A corr.?
102
SECOND TETRALOGY, III. 6-8
who mistook the moment at which the javelins were being picked up, was not prevented from making a hit. Τὸ my bitter sorrow, he struck a target; and although he did not kill my son deliberately, there are better grounds for maintaining that he did than for asserting that he neither struck nor killed. Although it was by accident that they killed my son, the effects were the same as those of wilful murder. Yet they deny that they. killed him at all, and even maintain that they are not amenable to the lawwhich forbids the taking of life whether wrongfully or otherwise. Then who did throw the javelin? To whom is the boy’s death in fact to be attributed ὃ To the spectators or the masters in charge—whom no one accuses at all? The circumstances of my son’s death are no mystery: to me, for one, they are only too clear ; and I maintain that the law is right when it orders the punishment of those who have taken life ; not only is it just that he who killed without mean- ing to kill should suffer punishment which he did not mean to incur; but it would also be an injustice to the victim, whose injury is not lessened by being accidental, were he deprived of vengeance.
Nor does he deserve acquittal because of his mis- fortune in committing the error which he did. Τῇ, on the one hand, the misfortune is not due to any dispensation of heaven, then, as an error pure and simple, it is right that it should prove disastrous to him who was guilty of it ; and if, on the other hand, a defilement from heaven has fallen upon the slayer by
3 φασιν Blass: φησιν codd. 4 τίς ὃ βαλών; ἐς τίν᾽ RF cae ἀνήκει Bekker: τίς ὁ βάλλων ἐστίν; ὁ φόνος ὃν ἀνήκει ἃ. : βαλὼν A corr.” 5 εἰ δὲ αὖ θεία Jernstedt: ἡ δὲ ἀλήθεια A pr. N: ἡ δὲ θεία A οοττ. : 103
ANTIPHON οἰ ῦ δ!
βοῦντι; od: δίκαιον τὰς" θείὰς προσβολὰς διάκωλύειν ψίμρέσθαι ποτὶ Doigovoig Jom, 26, τ. | gatiod 9 “EdeEav δὲ ‘Kal ὡς οὐ πρέπει χρηστὰ ἐπιτηδεύον- awe aera rio? hia σὺ wre [ii t€1ce wil) δ)΄ὰ δὲ (mre ins tas αὐτοὺς κακῶν ἀξιοῦσθαι: ἡμεῖς δὲ “πῶς av eStvoodt bib ead tant + Ledge ἀϑεξοξαδά LortjoG apérovra πάσχοιμεν, et μηδὲν ὑποδεέστερα τούτων μελετῶντες θανάτῳ ζημιούμεθα; ᾿ eae -ἰΦασκῶν δὲ ἀναμάρτητος, εἶναι, Kat ἀξιῶν τὰς συμφορὰς. τῶν ἁμαρτόντων εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἰς τοὺς ἀναμαρτήτους͵ ἐκτρέπεσθαι, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν͵ λέγεις, ὅ τε, γὰρ, παῖς “μου, εἰς. οὐδένα. οὐδὲν. ἁμαρτών, ὑπὸ Τούτου :: τοῦ. μειρακίου ἀποθανών, ἀδικοῖτ᾽ .. ἂν > , 2 , . > 7 le ~! “ ἀτιμώρητος - γενόμενος": ἐγώ; τε; “τοῦδε. μᾶλλον ἀναμάρτητος" ὧν: δεινὰ πείσομαι, ἃ ὃ νόμος ἅπο- δίδωσί: μου μὴ τυχὼν παρ᾽ ὑμῶν. 5 τ ὉὍὉὍὉὺῸὖὕ. Ὁ Ὁ 10. Ὡς: δὲ οὐδὲ τῆς ἁμαρτίας οὐδὲ τοῦ" ἀκουσίως ἀποκτεῖναι, ἐξ ὧν αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν; ἀπολύέται, ἀλλὰ κοινὰ ἀμφότερα ταῦτα ἀμφοῖν αὐτοῖν ἐστι, δηλώσω. εἴπερ᾽ ὃ παῖς διὰ τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν φορὰν τοῦ ἀκοντίου ὑπελθεῖν καὶ μὴ ἀτρέμας ἑστάναι φονεὺς αὐτὸς αὐτοῦ δίκαιος εἶναί ἐστιν, οὐδὲ τὸ μειράκιον καθα- BMISG A Se ΞΡ THT shy lisels. > rp τι) ΠΤ pov τῆς αἰτίας ἐστίν, ἀλλ᾽ εἴπερ τούτου μὴ ἀκοντί- ζοντος ἀλλ᾽ ἀτρέμα ἑστῶτος ἀπέθανεν ὁ παῖς. ἐξ
AOC Os
ἀμφοῖν δὲ τοῦ φόνου γενομένου, ὁ μὲν παῖς εἰς αὑτὸν ἁμαρτὼν. μᾶλλον -ἢ κατὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἑαυτὸν. τε- + οὐδὲ τοῦ Θαῦρρεὲξ τόδδε τοῦ Αἰ ῬΓ. N:' τοῦδε τῶ ‘A corr?
ἀνα ΤΑ ἦγ svord ‘Dis : ' iSite
ὃ -
Ji
οἰ brksbaodto odtae Δὲ bos 2d Cinvoegaw paw ori _ * qe, it might be argued that. the lad_was ἀτυχής in com- mitting the ἁμαρτία which he did, and therefore deserves acquittal. But the prosecution produce a dilemma: (a) If the, ἀτυχία was a piece of divine retribution for some past offence, he deserves punishment all the more, as it is God's will that he should be punished. (Ὁ) If it is not due to God, ‘then fo say that the lad was the victim of ἀτυχία is only a more 104
SECOND TETRALOGY, III. 8-10
reason. of some: act-of sin, then it is ae for us to impede the visitation of God.* |»
They also maintained that it is ἡ ἂρ those who have lived as honourably as they to be treated with severity. But what of us? Should we be treated aright, if we are punished with death when our life has been as praiseworthy as theirs ?
When he argues that he is not guilty of error and claims that the consequences must be borne by those who are, instead of being diverted to the innocent, he is pleading our case for us. Not only would it be an injustice to my son, who was killed by yonder lad, though guilty of error in respect of no one, were he deprived of vengeance ; but it will be an outrage, if I’ myself, who am even more guiltless than he, fail to obtain’ from you we recompense which the law assigns me.
Further, the defence’s own statements show that the accused cannot be acquitted either of error or of accidentally taking life, but that he and my son are equally guilty of both; I will prove this.> Assume that. because my son moved into the path of the javelin instead of standing still, he deserves to be treated as his own slayer. Then the lad is not free from blame either; he is only innocent if he was standing still and: not throwing his. javelin when the boy was killed: The boy’s death was therefore due to both of them. Now the boy, whose error affected his own person, has punished himself even
polite way of saying that he was ered γὴ ἁμαρτία (ἁμάρτημα
οὖσα), and we are back where we started
“δ᾽ An attempt to show the character’ of the ments use l by the defence. “* If,” say the prosecution, 1¢ dead boy has been proved guilty by, the defence, then
€0 δ po the lad: has been proved guilty too.”
105
ANTIPHON |
τιμώρηται, TéOvnKe γάρ, ὃ δὲ συλλήπτωρ καὶ κοινωνὸς εἰς τοὺς οὐ προσήκοντὰς τῆς ἁμαρτίας ,,. - 4 77 7 > - > γενόμενος πῶς δίκαιος ἀζήμιος ἀποφυγεῖν ἐστιν; 1. Ἔκ δὲ τῆς αὐτῶν τῶν ἀπολογουμένων ἀπολογίας μετόχου τοῦ μειρακίου tod φόνου ὄντος, οὐκ ἂν ὃ / nde ec 7 > A: 4, > , » A ικαίως οὐδὲ ὁσίως ἀπολύοιτε αὐτόν. οὔτε yap ἡμεῖς, of διὰ τὴν τούτων ἁμαρτίαν διαφθαρέντες,
2 ἢ / a > > > #7 > Ἄ αὐθένται καταγνωσθέντες. ὅσια ἀλλ᾽ ἀνόσι᾽ ἂν πάθοιμεν ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν" οὔθ᾽ οἱ θανατώσαντες ἡμᾶς μὴ εἰργόμενοι τῶν προσηκόντων. Τεὐσεβοῖντ᾽ ἂν" eee TOV ἀπολυσάντων τοὺς ἀνοσίους.
Πάσης δ᾽ ὑπὲρ πάντων τῆς κηλῖδος εἰς ὑμᾶς ἀναφερομένης, πολλὴ εὐλάβεια" ὑμῖν τούτων ποιητέα ἐστί: καταλαβόντες μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸν. καὶ εἴρξαντες ὧν ὁ νόμος εἴργει καθαροὶ τῶν ἐγκλημάτων ἔσεσθε,
12 ἀπολύσαντες δὲ ὑπαίτιοι καθίστασθε. τῆς οὖν [124] ὑμετέρας εὐσεβείας ἕνεκα καὶ τῶν νόμων ἀπ- ἄγοντες τιμωρεῖσθε αὐτόν, (ral) αὐτοί τε μὴ μεταλάβητε. τῆς τούτου μιαρίας, ἡμῖν τε τοῖς γονεῦσιν, οἵ ζῶντες κατορωρύγμεθα! ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, δόξῃ γοῦν ἐλαφροτέραν τὴν συμφορὰν καταστή- σατε.
2 Verba εὐσεβοῖντ᾽ ἂν ut corrupta obelis inclusi. 2 εὐλάβεια A corr.® : εὐσέβεια A pr. N. 8 καὶ add. Blass. 4 κατόρωρύγμεθα Ald.: κατωρύγμεθα codd.
α The passive οἵ εὐσεβεῖν, while exceedingly rare (it occurs otherwise £75 at [Plato,] Awviochus 4, as far as I know), might be supported here by the poral! use of the passive of ἀσεβεῖν in the phrase τοὺς ἄνω θεοὺς ἀσεβεῖσθαι, [Lys.] ἢ. 7. But εὐσεβοῖντ᾽ ἄν could only mean ‘‘ would be reverenced”’; and that clearly gives an impossible sense to the passage, which
106
SECOND TETRALOGY, III. 10-12
more harshly than that error warranted : for he has lost his life. So what right has his accomplice, who joined him in committing his unfortunate error, to escape unpunished ?
The accused: have themselves. proved by their defence that the lad had a share in the slaying. So, as just and godfearing men, yon cannot acquit him. If we, who have lost our life through the defendants’ error, were found guilty of having taken it ourselves, it would be an act not of righteousness but of wicked- ness on your part: and if those responsible for our death were not prohibited from setting foot where they should not, [it would be an outrage against heaven ἢ @ you would have acquitted persons stained with guilt.
As the whole of the defilement, upon whomsoever it rests, is extended to you, you must take the greatest care. If you find him guilty and prohibit him from setting foot where the law forbids him to set foot, you will be free of the charges brought to-day ; but if you acquit him, you become liable to them. So satisfy the claims of heaven and the laws by taking him and punishing him. Do not share his blood-guilt yourselves; but let me, the parent whom he has sent to a living death, at least appear to have had my sorrow lightened.
requires something like “would be rendered edcefeis,” or ‘would. be treated as εὐσέβεια requires,’ if it is, to be in- telligible. Conceivably there is a lacuna before εὐσεβοῖντ᾽ ἄν, which might be by τὰ ἄξια ἂν φέροιντο τῆς αὑτῶν ἁμαρτίας" οὐδὲ αὖ αὐτοὶ οἱ θεοὶ or something similar, giving oo ἄν the subject it requires. But this would destroy the balance of the two halves of the sentence as they stand in the mss.; and it is more: probable that the words εὐσεβοῖντ᾽ ἄν are themselves corrupt.
107
si-o! IT] A WNTIPHON?T G/Oou?
᾿ rel οἱ τοῦ > πο ΠΡ ΤΟΝ IOWS wi) ΕΝ } ¥Attie bean ΤΟΙ ou ..ooil 9A ei d fot οὖ of
©) aoe ἘΕΡΑΠΟΛΟΡΊΑΣ Ὁ; YETEPOR
1 τ Todrov ev εἰκὸς "πρὸς". δὴν» δαῦτο κασηγόβίαν προσέχοντα. τὸν νοῦν μὴ μαϑεῖν rip ἀπολογίαν 'μου' ὑμᾶς͵ δὲ χρή," γιγνώσκοντας" ὅτι ἡμεῖς μὲν. ot 'ἀντί-
ικὸι κατ᾽. εὔνοιαν Κρίνοντες. τὸ πρᾶγμὰ ᾿εἰκότως δίκαια, ἑκάτεροι, αὑτοὺς. οἰόμεθα λέγειν, ὑμᾶς. δὲ
2 ὁσίως; ὁρᾶν. προσήκει. τὰ πραχθέντα. ἐκ τῶν.. λεγο- μένων γὰρ ἡ ἰλήθεια. σκεπτέα αὐτῶν: ἐστίν. ἐγὼ δέ; εἰ μέν᾽ τι ψεῦδος εἴῤῥηκα; 'ὁμολογῶ. καὶ τὰ ὀρθῶς εἰρημένα προσδιαβάλλειν᾽ "ἄδύκα εἶναι" εἰ "δὲ. ἀληθῆ μὲν λεπτὰ δὲ καὶ ἀκριβῆ, οὐκ ἐγὼ. ὁ λέγων ἀλλ᾽
SF THY. Oe μον. αὐτῶν. δίκαιος, _ φέρεσθαί ica: BE duds’ πρῶτον. pallet. ὅτι. οὐκ. ἐάν rs | φάσκῃ ἀποκτεῖναι, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, ἀλλ᾽. ἐάν: τις ἐλεγχθῇ: οὗτος: δὲ; ὁμολογῶν τὸ ἔργον. ὡς; ἡμεῖς λέγομεν γενέσθαι, ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀποκτείναντος ᾿ἀμφιο- βητέϊ, ὃν ἀδύνατον ἀλλαχόθεν ἢ ἐκ τῶν πραχθέν:
4 τῶν ᾿ δηλοῦσθαι. ᾿ ᾿“ὀχετλιάζει δὲ". ᾿ κακῶς, “ἀκούειν φάσκων τὸν παῖδα, el μήτε ἀκοντίσας μήτ᾽, ἐπι- νοήσας αὐθέντης ὧν ἀποδέδεικται, καὶ οὐ πρὸς τὰ λεγόμενα:.. ἀπολογεῖται: οὐ; “γὰρ: -«ἀκοντίσαι οὐδὲ ἐ αν ΩΣ φημι τὸν παῖδα, ἀλλ᾽ ants πληγὴν , ἀπ ἡ ινώσκονταν, Α pre N: γώσκειν A corr.
e τιν UE ἐδήο ἢ j
? tie} 4] ΣΡ τῷ
7 The aildition: of this Geiaenibe is inectesti) for a ‘proper abrdesstedidirts of the connexion of un get ane ἡ. τ explanatory of the words ὑμᾶς δὲ χρή ἴπ]. 8. “΄
108
SECOND TETRALOGY, IV. 14
Tt CL τς "ὁ wo ὌΝ ΒΟ ...9)5 ae | ARS -.,SECOND. SPEECH’ FOR ΤῊΕ DEFENCE.
While. itis, only.to be expected.that the pre- oceupation of my opponent with his speech for the prosecution should prevent his understanding my defence, the same is not true of yourselves. You . should bear in ‘mind that while we, the interested parties, take a biassed view of the case, each naturally thinking that his own version of it is fair, your duty is to consider the facts conscientiously ; and so you must give your attention to me as much as you did to him*:, as it is in what is said that the true facts are to besought: For my part,if Ihave toldany falsehoods, I.am«content that you should treat the truth which I.have:spoken as itself a piece of equally. dishonest pleading.’ On the.other hand, if my. arguments have been honest, but close and subtle,,it.is not I who used them, but he whose conduct made them necessary, upon whom the. displeasure which they have caused . sho
uld properly fale, 2.200 0d τῶν een ἐδ ροῦν - I would have you understand to begin with that it requires not mere assertion, but proof, to. show that someone has killed someone else. Now our accuser agrees with us as to how the accident happened, but disagrees as to the person responsible ;" yet it is only from what happened that that person can be deter- mined, He complains bitterly, because, according to him, it isa slur upon his son’s memory that. he should
haye been proved a slayer when he neither threw the javelin nor had any intention of so doing. ‘That com- plaint is‘not an answer to my arguments. I'am not maintaining that his son threw the javelin or struck
109
ANTIPHON .
τοῦ ἀκοντίου ὑπελθόντα οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ μειρακίου
ἀλλ᾽ ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ διαφθαρῆναι: οὐ γὰρ ἀτρεμίζων ἀπέθανε. τῆς δὲ διαδρομῆς αἰτίας ταύτης ‘yiyvo- μένης, εἰ μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ παιδοτρίβου, καλούμενος διέτρεχεν, 6 ὁ παιδοτρίβης ἂν ἀποκτείνας αὐτὸν εἴη, εἰ δ᾽ ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ πεισθεὶς ὑπῆλθεν, αὐτὸς ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ διέφθαρτ' αι.
Θέλω δὲ μὴ πρότερον ἐπ᾽ ἄλλον "λόγον ὁρμῆσαι,
ἢ τὸ ἔργον ἔτι φανερώτερον καταστῆσαι, ὁποτέρου
αὐτῶν ἐστί. τὸ μὲν μειράκιον οὐδενὸς. μᾶλλον τῶν
συμμελετώντων ἐστὶ τοῦ σκοποῦ ἁμαρτόν, οὐδὲ τῶν. ἐπικαλουμένων τι διὰ τὴν αὑτοῦ ἁμαρτίαν δέδρακεν: ὃ δὲ παῖς οὐ ταὐτὰ τοῖς συνθεωμένοις δρῶν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ ἀκοντίου ὑπελθών, σαφῶς δηλοῦται παρὰ τὴν αὑτοῦ ἁμαρτίαν περισ: σοτέροις ἀτυχήμασι" τῶν ἀτρεμιζόντων περιπεσών.
ὃ μὲν γὰρ ἀφεὶς οὐδὲν ἃ ἂν ἥμαρτε, μηδενὸς ὕ ὑπὸ τὸ
βέλος ὑπελθόντος αὐτῷ" ὁ δ᾽ odk® ἂν ἐβλήθη μετὰ
τῶν θεωμένων ἑστώς.
6 Ὡς δ᾽ οὐδενὸς μᾶλλον τῶν συνακοντιξόντων μέτοχός ἐστι τοῦ φόνου, διδάξω. εἰ γὰρ διὰ τὸ τοῦτον ἀκοντίζειν ὁ παῖς ἀπέθανε, mavtes ἂν οἱ συμμελετῶντές,, συμπράκτορες εἶεν τῆς αἰτίας"
* ὑπελθών Nz ἐπελθών A.
* ἀτυχήμασι A. corr.?: ἁμαρτήμασι, A pr. N. 5 αὐτῷ. ὁ δ᾽ οὐκ Blass: ὑπελθόντος " αὐτὸς δ οὐκς codd,
σι
α It is at first sight odd that so little is made of. the part played by the μὰ το i who would be a vitally important witness, were the case being tried in a modern court of law. But it should not be forgotten that the writer is throughout endeavouring to exhibit the ppretbiitivs of the πίστις ἔντεχνος as such. See Gen. Introd, p
> A highly artificial piece ‘of sophistry. (1) The lad did
110
SECOND TETRALOGY, IV. 4-6
himself. .I am maintaining that since he moved within range of the javelin, his death was due not to, the lad, but to himself ; for he was not killed standing in his place.. As this running across was his undoing, it follows that if it was at his master’s summons that he ran across, the master would be the person responsible for his death ὁ ; but if he moved into the way of his own accord, his death was due to himself.
Before, proceeding to any further argument, I wish to show still more ΜΈΛΗ which of the two was responsible for the accident. ‘The lad no more missed the’ target than any of those practising with him ὃ : nor has he rendered himself guilty of any of the acts with whichhe is charged owing to. error on his own part. On the other: hand, the boy did not do the same as. the other onlookers; he moved. into, the javelin’s path. And this is clear proof that it was through his own ‘error that he met with a disaster which those who stood still did not. The thrower would not have been guilty of an error. in any respect,° had no one moved into the path of his , spear ; while the boy would not have been hit, had he remained in his place among the onlookers. ~
Further, my son was not more concerned in the boy’s death than any one of those throwing javelins with him, as I will show. If it was owing to the fact that my son was throwing a javelin that the boy was killed, then all those practising with him must share in the guilt of the deed, as it was not owing to their
ee the same as the other throwers: so, as they did not miss ‘the target, neither can’ he have done. (2) On the other hand, the boy did not do the same as the other spec- tators ; and so he isnot blameless, as they are.
: A curious admission that the μειράκιον was “guilty of ἁμαρτία to at least some extent.
111
ANTIPHON τ
οὗτοι γὰρ οὐ διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀκοντίζειν “οὐκ ἔβαλον' αὐτόν; ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ μηδενὶ" ὑπὸ τὸ ἀκόντιον ὑπ- ἐλθεῖν: ὃ δὲ νεανίσκος οὐδὲν περισσότερον" τούτων ἁμαρτών, ὁμοίως τούτοις οὐκ ἂν ἔβαλεν αὐτὸν ἀτρέμα σὺν τοῖς θεωμένοις ἑστῶτα: © omy Ἔστι δὲ οὐδὲ τὸ ἁμάρτημα τοῦ παιδὸς μόνον, > ‘ ing 414.}5 ! 2 1 Oftle ab SLA ς boy > ¢ Az ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ advdagia.” ὁ μὲν γὰρ οὐδένα ὁρῶν διατρέχοντα, πῶς ἂν ἐφυλάξατο μηδένα βαλεῖν; ὃ > Ἰδὼν. τοὺς. ἀκοντίζοντας. εὐπετῶς ἂν ἐφυλάξατο
μὴ διαδραμεῖν"" ἐξῆν γὰρ αὐτῷ ἀτρέμα ἑστάναι...
8 Τὸν δὲ νόμον. ὃν παραφέρουσιν, ἐπαινεῖν δεῖ.
ὀρθῶς γὰρ καὶ δικαίως τοὺς ἀκουσίως ἀποκτείναν- τας ἀκουσίοις παθήμασι κολάζει. τὸ μὲν οὖν μει- ράκιον' ἀναμάρτητον ὃν οὐκ ἂν δικαίως ὑπὲρ ποῦ ἁμαρτόντος κολάζόιτο' ἱκανὸν γὰρ' αὐτῷ ἐστι τὰς ¢ a ε / ae 4 4 οἱ Κι αν ced ag οἵξ, A αὑτοῦ ἁμαρτίας φέρειν. 6 δὲ παῖς ταῖς αὑτοῦ A ψνν γγὺ { ᾿ ὸ ley ws ἁμαρτίαις διαφθὰρείς, ἅμα ἥμαρτέ Te Kat ὑφ᾽ €av- 708 ἐκολάσθη. κεκολασμένου δὲ τοῦ ἀποκτέίναν: τος, οὐκ ἀτιμώρητος ὁ φόνος ἐστ. ὃ "Exovrds ye δὴ τὴν δίκην τοῦ φονέως," οὐκ ἐὰν ΘΔ St ARISE λα 8. ὅ,κ00 ἡ “ΠΝ VOO τον li bivenn saa ἀπολύσητε ἡμᾶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν καταλάβητε, ἐνθύμιον ὑπολείψεσθε. ὁ μὲν γὰρ᾽ αὐτὸς τὰς αὑτοῦ ἁμαρτίας φέρων, οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν προστρόπαιον καταλείψει" ὁ δὲ καθαρὸς τῆς αἰτίας, ὧν" ἐὰν διαφθαρῇ, τοῖς κατα- λαμβάνουσι μεῖζον. τὸ ἐνθύμιον γενήσεται...
1 μηδενὶ Reiske: μηδένα codd. ty ἡ, Sofa cut 2 περισσότερον Sakorraphos, coll. Plat. Ap. 90 ὁ (cf. § 5. supra): περισσὸν codd, Lio! sy ft “Πρό 3 wh διαδραμεῖν. Wilamowitz + μὴ βληθῆναι Kayser: μηδένα μὴ βαλεῖν codd, Pp), WR ἘΠΕ ΏΩΙΗΟ 4 Verba ἔχοντος . «.- φονέως huc rettulit Jernstedt.. Prae- eedentibus adiungunt codd. __, the aurora ἢ 5 γὰρ om. N. 8 ὧν Scheibe: ὃς δὲ ΝΑ. 119
SECOND TETRALOGY, IV. 6-9 failure to, throw. that. they did.not strike him, ‘but
owing to. the fact that he did not move into the
peek: of the javelin of any one of them. Similarly the young man, who was no more guilty’ of error than they, would not have hit the boy any more than they did, had the boy stood still with the onlookers.
_ Again, not. only, was the boy guilty of the error committed ; he was also to blame for the failure, to
take due precautions. My son saw no oné running across, so ‘how’ could he have’ taker ‘precatitions against striking anyone?» The boy, on'the other hand, upon seeing the throwers, might. easily have guarded against running across,, ashe was, quite at liberty, to remain standing still.
The law which they quote is a praiseworthy one ; it is right and fair that it should visit those who have killed without meaning to do so with chastisement which they did not mean to incur. But the lad is not guilty of error ; and it would therefore be unjust that he should suffer for him who is. It is enough that he should bear the consequences of his own errors. On the other hand, the boy, who perished through his own error, punished himself as soon as he had committed that error. And as the slayer has been punished, the slaying has not gone unavenged.
The slayer has paid the penalty ; so it is not by acquitting us, but by condemning us that you will leave a burden upon your consciences. The boy, who is bearing the consequence of his own error, will leave behind him nothing that calls for atonement from anyone ; but if my son, who is innocent, is put to death, the conscience of those who have con- demned him will be more heavily burdened than ever.
Ε18
0
ὌΝΤΩΝ
Εἰ δὲ αὐθέντης ἐκ τῶν λεγομένων ἐπιδείκνυται, οὐχ ἡμεῖς αὐτῷ οἱ λέγοντες αἴτιοί ἐσμεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ 10 πρᾶξις τῶν ἔργων. ὀρθῶς δὲ τῶν ἐλέγχων Zhe χόντων τὸν παῖδα αὐθέντην ὄ ὄντα, ὃ νόμος ἀπολύων ἡμᾶς τῆς αἰτίας τὸν ἀποκτείναντα καταλαμβάνει. μήτε οὖν ἡμᾶς εἰς μὴ προσηκούσας συμφορὰς ἐμβάλητε, μήτε αὐτοὶ ταῖς τούτων ἀτυχίαις βοη- θοῦντες ἐναντία τοῦ δαίμονος γνῶτε, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ὅσιον καὶ δίκαιον, μεμνημένοι τοῦ πάθους, ὅτι διὰ τὸν ὑπὸ τὴν φορὰν τοῦ ἀκοντίου ὑπελθόντα ἐγένετο, ἀπολύετε ἡμᾶς" οὐ γὰρ αἴτιοι τοῦ φόνου ἐσμέν.
Ὁ
114
SECOND TETRALOGY, IV. 9-10
If the arguments put forward prove the dead boy his own slayer, it is not we who have stated them whom he has to thank, but the fact that the accident happened as it did. Since examination proves be- yond doubt that the boy was his own slayer, the law absolves us from blame, and condemns him who was guilty. See, then, that we are not plunged into woes which we do not deserve, and that you your- selves do not defy the powers above by a verdict succouring my opponents in their misfortunes. Remember, as righteousness and justice require you to do, that the accident was caused by him who moved into the javelin’s path. Remember, and acquit us; for we are not guilty of his death.
VOL. I E 115
oe VI ΘΟ ΠΡ aoa
you bash oshivayquqb ray sod dung eltocmrgys oft dnp inoss boteie ovat arly aw Jom vi. ti τον ίο, mou _ jasbisos 50 Ind 45a¥ all lad lands of.ead 3d ood Ser every odaltiins AP Ὁ5 818 FB’ sf’ 40" H8insqead wobodt woypie teow annyad edd teds dd veh haey ehveloder: erik jee ipeoip oe sepa itis "πὴ ee ojatb Iq, doa as ow dadt (060 596. ΤΕ si Ee ML SRR a pag ao φοϊ τον hy Sods εἰ δα At eb For ob esvise Salata’ HtdD oP egies teg ge Yin. “gniniissHe το ρθε δον bum eepnzwootd aired yredarsmnoih bayor.ordw po Ma DPSENA ABM ἀπ ΔΘΑ ΜΜΜΗΡ 32604 ob.ot, tag divpos bis viodarmod» dtsq ¢ ailayet off, oat Prone ai phe ei to vi ἐξ RRS Oa
ᾷ ἰ 4 “ τὸν
rr :
THIRD TETRALOGY
of the author is clearly to exhibit the lines along which & Pica οἵ τα if th © i ὙΠ τὶ» ἢ πὰ bse ἀρ μος δα δ attearked Con the sicle of the defenee it is atetied that the responsibility for ths nial bios τὰ rst " : I t Σ ; ει AHS ) thy : back δι ; and the striker ἔφ the RATE, beoare: ¥ : the trikes, Way actin vr Umer rea. ΤΣ rf 4 +? γ ᾿} » On the δὲ oO ὙΜΗΘῈ: ΘΘΗΝ Ad hat resp) Asi Ἧς abl + γα κῶν ὧν ΓΗ Pee
“᾿ς Aosvtlthins sag “πὶ Yo ain Wiketiiond seek tel εἰν aut P ἀξ πὰ. ‘loondioh-Hom ab Shisinodd ria 4 ad bjetoviqenpati Bod? ¢ hotivqeib toncwen δυοῖν alhiguchrds® havosa adit © δὶ αοηξιδίσ τῷ δα total @b ἰεήεεο οἱ πτοϊθοτα Wanisinith tie ἱψαήδυφαι ταν ἐχαραψι a ahbie “ova
|THE THIRD TETRALOGY |
Be Ach ¥ ᾿παϑετοϑ ai Zito vovitelos oT isepib-Yletahaitht hae srebts: mrad Amal axrevports aT | Lay acts ont {εν ἔξηγ ) sonmgtsbAlse tibgidsss en edotait wide offetqashs » boviovidt Seon gidershebos ei noitetacaiogus GAT i« b thoviszowstsavi sadulswsil wv syoplatist bnosee odt αἱ παρῇ > old Soritedy coakeonp coil} biniv gistsibsaims bedi » Ghertyite aff ΘΒ ΕΓ οὐ wwiX altidornl hettitrhiowidtykd tbstmen κοντα ἐν δ ott ἄλγε brobesriec: ΠΡΗνρ: et ᾿ Bodh edt) vvewlondadtuth inte lot 4τόθ9 omoz D ovorq of gaitqaretis ¥d 31 toon sonsteb oft jbeed pte Yenoonsitunsia at ti ofidw ; shiviccodl oldaiitani Be escooni onli of sub yioitna esw alten todd bodeog Va2sbizel .bovisce1 noitistts lesibom afi to sonsteg ΕΠ Istushives ylowq esw disob tedt yilidizeog ont 5] po} selimiz einomurgis seu vobie diod bins cbattimbs εἶ of Εἴ yeolnvisl ni dignsl tojsorg 98 se ath 580 1} dtiw ἐξϑῚ Jevar Ὀϑόδσσιοο αὐτάθαἢ 8241 'ποήβ 7 εἀϑπτοτοζαο tisilt josjdo oi ,sveai od? Io mottaoilgaros 96} Yo σε al
eli
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
Tue third Tetralogy treats of φόνος in yet another of its aspects, that of homicide in self-defence. As in the second Tetralogy, the facts are not disputed ; the problem is one of interpretation. An old man, X, quarrels with a young one, Y, as they sit drinking. They come to blows: and X is seriously injured in consequence. He receives medical attention, but ultimately dies. The relatives of X prosecute Y for wilful murder. He, however, pleads provocation and attempts to show that he was acting in self-defence.
The argumentation is considerably more involved than in the second Tetralogy, where the issue resolved itself immediately into the question whether the ἁμαρτία committed lay with X or Y. Here the original charge is wilful murder, and the prosecution make some effort to sustain it throughout. On the other hand, the defence meet it by attempting to prove justifiable homicide ; while it is simultaneously sug- gested that death was entirely due to the incom- petence of the medical attention received. Besides this, the possibility that death was purely accidental is admitted, and both sides use arguments similar to those developed at greater length in Tetralogy II to show that the ἁμαρτία committed must rest with their opponents.
In spite of the complication of the issue, the object
118
THIRD TETRALOGY
of the author is clearly to exhibit the lines along which a plea of justifiable homicide should be supported or attacked. On the side of the defence it is argued that the responsibility for the fatal blow must be thrust back beyond the striker to the aggressor, because Y, the striker, was acting under compulsion. On the side of the prosecution it is urged that responsibility for a given act must remain with the agent himself; Y struck the blow which caused death, therefore Y is to blame for it. This principle is forgotten, however, when the physician comes under discussion. The question of his competence is treated as irrelevant, and it is maintained that the responsibility for death,must be thrust back,to Y, whose blows made medical attention necessary in the first place. But the inconsistency is intelligible, if it is remembered that the purpose of the Tetralogy as a whole is to illustrate the opportunities offered the advocate by a pseudo-philosophical analysis. of the - terms, motive and will. : :
A touch of realism is added in ὃ, where it is stated that the accused has taken advantage of his right to throw up the case half-way through. _ The last speech is delivered by his friends on his behalf. |
119
-TETPAAOTIA’T) 0)" are ᾿ j Ι a ibe Υ̓ : Moennis
KATHTOPIA BONOY | KATA TOY ΛΕΓΟΝΊΟΣ iit | “ ἈΜΥΝΆΣΘΑΙ πο ρδεϊενδέξνι το δῆ
ὶ gd ri hetedyd 1 Νενόῤωσξαι μὲν ὀρθῶς τὰς υϑονενᾶν δύξαρ" περὶ πλείστου. τοὺς κρίνοντας ποιεῖσθαι" διώκειν. τε kai μαρτυρεῖν. ‘kara τὸ δίκαιον, ; μήτε. τοὺς. ᾿ἐνόχους ἀφιέντας. μήτε; τοὺς. καθαροὺς, εἰς ἀγῶνα καθισ- 2 TdvTas. ὅτε; γὰρ. (ὁ θεὸς ιβαυλόμενοον ποιῆσαι τὸ ἀνθρώπινον φῦλον" τοὺς πρώτους" γενομένους ἔφυσεν ἡμῶν, Tpopéas Te Kal σωτῆρας)" "παρέδωκέ τὴν γῆν. καὶ τὴν ᾿θάλαδδάν, ba μὴ ondvet sae ἀνᾶγ: καίων προαποθνῇ σκοιμεν ς: οὔ. ευτῆς. ὅστις οὖν, Se ὑπὸ τη αν νας βίου ἡμῶν, ἀνόμως τινὰ ἀποκτείνει, ἀσεβεῖ μὲν περὶ τοὺς θεούς, συγχεῖ δὲ τὰ νόμιμα τῶν ἀνθρώ- ὃ πων. ὅ τε γὰρ ἀποθανών, στεῤόμενος ὧν ὁ θεὸς ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ, εἰκότως θεοῦ τιμωρίαν ὑπολείπει τὴν τῶν ἀλιτηρίων δυσμένειαν, ἣν ot παρὰ τὸ 1 ὅτε Spengel: 6 τε codd. 2 ὁ add. Thalheim, coll. § 3, B. 7, 8. 3 φῦλον N: γένος A. 4 πρώτους N: πρῶτον A. 120
τὸ THE: THIRD: TETRALOGY > PROSECUTION FOR MURDER OF ONE WHO PLEADS THAT HE WAS ACTING IN ὁ Ye SELF-DEFENCE gn le Ir is very rightly laid: down. that in cases: of murder prosecutors must take especial care to observe justice in making their charge and presenting their evidence : they must neither let’ the guilty escape nor bring | the innocent 'to trial. “For when God was minded to — create the human race and brought the first of us into being, he gave) us the earth-and sea to sustain. and preserve us, in order that we might not.die for want of the necessaries of life: before old-age brought us to our.end. Such being the value placed upon our life by God, whoever unlawfully slays his fellow both sins against the gods and’ confounds the ordinances of man. For thewictim, robbed of ‘the gifts bestowed by God.upon him, naturally leaves. behind him the ἢ angry spirits of, vengeance,* God’s ‘instruments. of punishment, spirits which they who. prosecute_and satis For the ἀλιτήριοι wor see General Introduction, p. 39.. ou
* σωτῆρας add, Thalheim. - Nonnihil huiusmodi videtur ex- ἧς A Ors ἀν jay SGD pid Sold =
cidisse, 121
ANTIPHON
δίκαιον κρίνοντες ἢ μαρτυροῦντες, συνασεβοῦντες τῷ ταῦτα δρῶντι, οὐ προσῆκον μίασμα εἰς τοὺς
4 ἰδίους οἴκους εἰσάγονται: ἡμεῖς τε οἱ τιμωροὶ τῶν διεφθαρμένων, εἰ δι’ ἄλλην τινὰ ἔχθραν τοὺς ἀν- αἰτίους διώκοιμεν, τῷ μὲν ἀποθανόντι οὐ τιμω- ροῦντες δεινοὺς ἀλιτηρίους ἕξομεν τοὺς τῶν ἀπο- θανόντων προστροπαίους, τοὺς δὲ καθαροὺς ἀδίκως ἀποκτείνοντες ἔνοχοι τοῦ φόνου τοῖς ἐπιτιμίοις ἐσμέν, ὑμᾶς δὲ; ἄνομα δρᾶν πείθοντες καὶ τοῦ ὑμετέρου ἁμαρτήματος ὑπαίτιοι γιγνόμεθα.
5 ᾿Εγὼ μὲν οὖν δεδιὼς ταῦτα, εἰς ὑμᾶς παράγων τὸν ἀσεβήσαντα καθαρὸς τῶν ἐγκλημάτων εἰμί: ὑμεῖς δὲ ἀξίως τῶν προειρημένων. τῇ κρίσει προσ- ἔχοντες τὸν νοῦν, ἀξίαν δίκην. τοῦ πάθους τῷ εἰρ- γασμένῳ ἐπιθέντες, ἅπασαν τὴν πόλιν καθαρὰν, τοῦ
6 μιάσματος καταστήσετε. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἄκων ἀπ- ἔκτεινε τὸν ἄνδρα, ἄξιος ἂν ἦν συγγνώμης τυχεῖν τινός" ὕβρει δὲ καὶ ἀκολασίᾳ παροινῶν εἰς ἄνδρα πρεσβύτην, τύπτων τε καὶ πνίγων ἕως τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπεστέρησεν αὐτόν, ὡς μὲν ἀποκτείνας τοῦ φόνου τοῖς ἐπιτιμίοις ἔνοχός ἐστιν, ὡς δὲ συγχέων ἅπαντα τῶν γεραιοτέρων τὰ νόμιμα οὐδενὸς ἁμαρτεῖν, οἷς οἱ τοιοῦτοι κολάζονται, δίκαιός ἐστιν.
1 Ὁ “μὲν τοίνυν νόμος ὀρθῶς ὑμῖν “τιμωρεῖσθαι παραδίδωσιν αὐτόν" τῶν δὲ μαρτύρων ἀκηκόατε, οἱ παρῆσαν παροινοῦντι αὐτῷ. ὑμᾶς δὲ χρὴ τῇ τε ἀνομίᾳ τοῦ παθήματος ἀμύνοντας; τήν τε ὕβριν
| ἃ δὲ Schaefer: τε codd. 2 ἀξίαν δίκην τῶν εἰργασμένων ἐπιθ. A pr. 122
THIRD TETRALOGY, I. 3-7
testify without giving heed to justice bring into their own homes, defiling them with the defilement of another, because they share in the sin of him who did the deed. And similarly, should we, the avengers of the dead, accuse innocent persons because of some private grudge, not only will our failure to avenge the murdered man cause us to be haunted by dread demons to whom the dead will turn for justice, but by wrongfully causing the death of the innocent we are liable to the penalties prescribed for murder, and because we have persuaded you to break the law, the responsibility for your mistake also becomes ours. » :
For my part, my fear of such consequences has led me to bring the true sinner before you, and thus the stain of none of the charges which I am making rests upon me; and if you yourselves give that attention to the trial which the considerations I have put before you demand, and inflict upon the criminal a punish- ment proportionate to the injury which he has done, you will cleanse the entire