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.