Antiphon The Second Tetralogy 2

ed. Kenneth John Maidment

The Second Tetralogy. Antiphon. ed. Kenneth John Maidment. London. 1941.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Funding provided by The Annenberg CPB/Project.

Current edition Perseus

The Second Tetralogy: Prosecution for Accidental Homicide (English) (Antiphon. Minor Attic Orators, Vol. 1. Maidment, Kenneth John, translator. London: William Heinemann, Ltd.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941 (printing); 1960 (reprint).)

Editions (1)
Τετραλογία Β΄ Perseus (Antiphon. Minor Attic Orators, Vol. 1. Maidment, Kenneth John, editor. London: William Heinemann, Ltd.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941 (printing); 1960 (reprint).) — 2 focus

Notes on the current edition

The Second Tetralogy

1. For τολμᾶν used absolutely in this sense cf. Antiph. 3.3.2 .
2. i.e. the fact that he was not accustomed to appearing in courts of law, which should make it a priori probable that he is a simple and straightforward man who would not resort to subtleties of argument if his case were a sound one.
3. Two interpretations of the text as it stands in the manuscripts are possible: (1) He threw (his spear), it is true, but killed no one; (2) He struck (someone), it is true, but did not kill him. (1) gives good sense; but elsewhere in the tetralogy βάλλειν means to hit, not to throw. (2) avoids this difficulty; but it has been urged (e.g. by Blass, who favors emendation) that the words τὸν μὲν βαλόντα καὶ ἀποκτείναντα οὔτε τρῶσαι οὔτε ἀποκτείναί φησι in Antiph. 3.3.5 (cf. also Antiph. 3.3.6 sub fin.) prove that the speaker in the present passage had not admitted that X struck Y. The contradiction, 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 Antiph. 3.3.5-6 his opponents argue that the responsibility must rest with X, because X dealt it.
4. For ἀκουσίως cf. Antiph. 2.3.1 , note 2.
5. The argument is: (1) It is agreed that death was accidental. (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 eo ipso discovered the person responsible for the boy’s death.