Second Speech for the Prosecution

[1] I am not surprised that the defendant, who has committed so outrageous a crime, should speak as he has acted; just as I pardon you, who are desirous of discovering the facts exactly, for tolerating such utterances from his lips as deserve to be greeted with derision. Thus, he admits that he gave the man the blows which caused his death; yet he not only denies that he himself is the dead man’s murderer, but asserts, alive and well though he is, that we, who are seeking vengeance for the victim, are his own murderers. And I wish to show that the remainder of his defense is of a similar character.

[2] To begin with, he said that even if the man did die as a result of the blows, he did not kill him: because it is the aggressor who is to blame for what happens: it is he whom the law condemns; and the aggressor was the dead man. First, let me tell you that young men are more likely to be the aggressors and make a drunken assault than old. The young are incited by their natural arrogance,¹ their full vigor, and the unaccustomed effects of wine to give free play to anger: whereas old men are sobered by their experience of drunken excesses, by the weakness of age, and by their fear of the strength of the young.

[3] Further, it was not with the same, but with vastly different weapons that the accused withstood him, as the facts themselves show. The one used hands which were in the fullness of their strength, and with them he slew; whereas the other defended himself but feebly against a stronger man, and died without leaving any mark of that defense behind him. Moreover, if it was with his hands and not with steel that the defendant slew, then the fact that his hands are more a part of himself than is steel makes him so much the more a murderer.

[4] He further dared to assert that he who struck the first blow, even though he did not slay, is more truly the murderer than he who killed; for it is to the aggressor’s wilful act that the death was due, he says. But I maintain the very opposite. If our hands carry out the intentions of each of us, he who struck without killing was the wilful author of the blow alone: the willfull author of the death was he who struck and killed: for it was as the result of an intentional act on the part of the defendant that the man was killed.

Again, while the victim suffered the ill-effect of the mischance, it is the striker who suffered the mischance itself; for the one met his death as the result of the other’s act, so that it was not through his own mistake, but through the mistake of the man who struck him, that he was killed; whereas the other did more than he meant to do, and he had only himself to blame for the mischance whereby he killed a man whom he did not mean to slay.²

[5] I am surprised that, in alleging the man’s death to have been due to the physician,³ he should assign responsibility for it to us, upon whose advice it was that he received medical attention; for had we failed to place him under a physician, the defendant would assuredly have maintained that his death was due to neglect. But even if his death was due to the physician, which it was not, the physician is not his murderer, because the law absolves him from blame. On the other hand, as it was only owing to the blows given by the defendant that we placed the dead man under medical care at all, can the murderer be anyone save him who forced us to call in the physician?

[6] Although it has been proved so clearly and so completely that he killed the dead man, his impudence and shamelessness are such that he is not content with defending his own act of wickedness: he actually accuses us, who are seeking expiation of the defilement which rests upon him, of acting like unscrupulous scoundrels.

[7] Assertions as outrageous as this, or even more so, befit one guilty of such a crime as he. We, on our side, have clearly established how the death took place: we have shown that there are no doubts about the blow which caused it: and we have proved that the law fixes the guilt of the murder upon him who gave that blow. So in the name of the victim we charge you to appease the wrath of the spirits of vengeance by putting the defendant to death, and thereby cleanse the whole city of its defilement.

The Third 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 Third Tetralogy: Prosecution for Murder Of One Who Pleads That He Was Acting in Self-Defence (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 Γ΄ Perseus (Antiphon. Minor Attic Orators, Vol. 1. Maidment, Kenneth John, editor. London: William Heinemann, Ltd.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941 (printing); 1960 (reprint).) — 3 focus

Ἐκ κατηγορίας ὃ ὕστερος

[1] τοῦτόν τε οὐ θαυμάζω ἀνόσια δράσαντα ὅμοια οἷς εἴργασται λέγειν, ὑμῖν τε συγγιγνώσκω βουλομένοις τὴν ἀκρίβειαν τῶν πραχθέντων μαθεῖν τοιαῦτα ἀνέχεσθαι ἀκούοντας αὐτοῦ, ἃ ἐκβάλλεσθαι ἄξιά ἐστι. τὸν γὰρ ἄνδρα ὁμολογῶν τύπτειν τὰς πληγὰς ἐξ ὧν ἀπέθανεν, αὐτὸς μὲν τοῦ τεθνηκότος οὔ φησι φονεὺς εἶναι, ἡμᾶς δὲ τοὺς τιμωροῦντας αὐτῷ ζῶν τε καὶ βλέπων φονέας αὑτοῦ φησιν εἶναι. θέλω δὲ καὶ τἆλλα παραπλήσια ἀπολογηθέντα τούτοις ἐπιδεῖξαι αὐτόν.

[2] εἶπε δὲ πρῶτον μέν, εἰ καὶ ἐκ τῶν πληγῶν ἀπέθανεν ὁ ἀνήρ, ὡς οὐκ ἀπέκτεινεν αὐτόν· τὸν γὰρ ἄρξαντα τῆς πληγῆς, τοῦτον αἴτιον τῶν πραχθέντων γενόμενον καταλαμβάνεσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου, ἄρξαι δὲ τὸν ἀποθανόντα. μάθετε δὴ πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι ἄρξαι καὶ παροινεῖν τοὺς νεωτέρους τῶν πρεσβυτέρων εἰκότερόν ἐστι· τοὺς μὲν γὰρ ἥ τε μεγαλοφροσύνη τοῦ γένους ἥ τε ἀκμὴ τῆς ῥώμης¹ ἥ τε ἀπειρία τῆς μέθης ἐπαίρει τῷ θυμῷ χαρίζεσθαι, τοὺς δὲ ἥ τε ἐμπειρία τῶν παροινουμένων² ἥ τε ἀσθένεια τοῦ γήρως ἥ τε δύναμις τῶν νέων φοβοῦσα σωφρονίζει.

[3] ὡς δὲ οὐδὲ τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἐναντιωτάτοις ἠμύνατο αὐτόν, αὐτὸ τὸ ἔργον σημαίνει. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀκμαζούσῃ τῇ ῥώμῃ τῶν χειρῶν χρώμενος ἀπέκτεινεν· ὁ δὲ ἀδυνάτως τὸν κρείσσονα ἀμυνόμενος, οὐδὲ σημεῖον οὐδὲν ὧν ἠμύνατο ὑπολιπών,³ ἀπέθανεν. εἰ δὲ ταῖς χερσὶν ἀπέκτεινε καὶ οὐ σιδήρῳ, ὅσον αἱ χεῖρες τοῦ σιδήρου οἰκειότεραι τούτῳ εἰσί, τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον φονεύς ἐστιν.

[4] ἐτόλμησε δὲ εἰπεῖν ὡς ὁ ἄρξας τῆς πληγῆς καὶ μὴ διαφθείρας μᾶλλον τοῦ ἀποκτείναντος φονεύς ἐστι· τοῦτον γὰρ βουλευτὴν τοῦ θανάτου φησὶ γενέσθαι. ἐγὼ δὲ πολὺ τἀναντία τούτων φημί. εἰ γὰρ αἱ χεῖρες ἃ διανοούμεθα ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν ὑπουργοῦσιν, ὁ μὲν πατάξας καὶ μὴ ἀποκτείνας τῆς πληγῆς βουλευτὴς ἐγένετο, ὁ δὲ θανασίμως τύπτων τοῦ θανάτου· ἐκ γὰρ ὧν ἐκεῖνος διανοηθεὶς ἔδρασεν, ὁ ἀνὴρ τέθνηκεν.

ἔστι δὲ ἡ μὲν ἀτυχία τοῦ πατάξαντος, ἡ δὲ συμφορὰ τοῦ παθόντος. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἐξ ὧν ἔδρασεν ἐκεῖνος διαφθαρείς, οὐ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀλλὰ τῇ τοῦ πατάξαντος χρησάμενος ἀπέθανεν·⁴ ὁ δὲ μείζω ὧν ἤθελε πράξας, τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἀτυχίᾳ ὃν οὐκ ἤθελεν ἀπέκτεινεν.

[5] ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἰατροῦ φάσκων αὐτὸν ἀποθανεῖν, θαυμάζω ὅτι [οὐχ]⁵ ὑφʼ ἡμῶν τῶν συμβουλευσάντων ἐπιτρεφθῆναί φησιν αὐτὸν διαφθαρῆναι. καὶ γὰρ ἂν εἰ μὴ ἐπετρέψαμεν, ὑπʼ ἀθεραπείας ἂν ἔφη διαφθαρῆναι αὐτόν. εἰ δέ τοι καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἰατροῦ ἀπέθανεν, ὡς οὐκ ἀπέθανεν, ὁ μὲν ἰατρὸς οὐ φονεὺς αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, ὁ γὰρ νόμος ἀπολύει αὐτόν, διὰ δὲ τὰς τούτου πληγὰς ἐπιτρεψάντων ἡμῶν αὐτῷ, πῶς ἂν ἄλλος τις ἢ ὁ βιασάμενος ἡμᾶς χρῆσθαι αὐτῷ φονεὺς εἴη ἄν;

[6] οὕτω δὲ φανερῶς ἐκ παντὸς τρόπου ἐλεγχόμενος ἀποκτεῖναι τὸν ἄνδρα, εἰς τοῦτο τόλμης καὶ ἀναιδείας ἥκει, ὥστʼ οὐκ ἀρκοῦν αὐτῷ ἐστιν ὑπὲρ τῆς αὑτοῦ ἀσεβείας ἀπολογεῖσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡμᾶς, οἳ τὸ τούτου μίασμα ἐπεξερχόμεθα, ἀθέμιστα καὶ ἀνόσια δρᾶν φησι.

[7] τούτῳ μὲν οὖν πρέπει καὶ ταῦτα καὶ ἔτι τούτων δεινότερα λέγειν, τοιαῦτα δεδρακότι· ἡμεῖς δὲ τόν τε⁶ θάνατον φανερὸν ἀποδεικνύντες, τήν τε πληγὴν ὁμολογουμένην ἐξ ἧς ἀπέθανε, τόν τε νόμον εἰς τὸν πατάξαντα τὸν φόνον ἀνάγοντα, ἀντὶ τοῦ παθόντος ἐπισκήπτομεν ὑμῖν, τῷ τούτου φόνῳ τὸ μήνιμα τῶν ἀλιτηρίων ἀκεσαμένους πᾶσαν τὴν πόλιν καθαρὰν τοῦ μιάσματος καταστῆσαι.

Notes on the current edition

The Third Tetralogy

1. ἡ μεγαλοφροσύνη τοῦ γένους ought to mean pride of birth: but the speaker is not limiting his remarks to young aristocrats. γένος must be used in the sense of class or type.

2. A reply to the arguments of the defense in Antiph. 4.2.6 . The terms ἀτυχία, ἁμαρτία, and συμφορά represent the logically distinguishable elements which constitute an unfortunate accident. Owing to ἀτυχία the agent commits an error ( ἁμαρτία), i.e. performs an act which he either had no intention of performing at all or intended to perform differently, and the result is a συμφορά, which may fall either upon the agent himself or upon some second person. In the present paragraph it is assumed for the moment, as it had been assumed by the defense in Antiph. 4.2.6 , that death was purely accidental. Blood-guilt will still rest upon one of the two parties: but it will rest on the party guilty of ἁμαρτία (cf. Antiph. 3 , Tetralogy II). Now the defense had argued in Antiph. 4.2.6 that X, the aggressor, had been responsible for the ἁμαρτία; it had consisted in his taking the offensive: and he was ἀτυχής in doing so. The resultant συμφορά had fallen upon himself. The prosecution here replies that while the συμφορά indeed fell on X, the ἀτυχία and the ἁμαρτία lay with Y, because Y had given a harder blow than he intended.

3. If the οὐχ of the manuscripts is retained, we have a flat contradiction of Antiph. 4.2.4 , where the defense does in fact accuse the prosecution of having caused the man’s death. Further, the argument of the present paragraph becomes exceedingly elliptical. It will presumably run thus: The defendant accuses the physician; but he ought logically to accuse us instead. He would undoubtedly have accused us of having been responsible for the man’s death through neglect, had we not sought medical aid at all; so he should similarly accuse us of murder, if we sent the patient to a bad physician instead of a good one. If the οὐχ is deleted, we get consistency with Antiph. 4.2.4 , and the argument is as in the text. οὐχ was probably inserted by a reader who thought that the first sentence of 5 was self-contradictory. Note that this first sentence ( ὑπὸ δὲ . . . διαφθαρῆναι) does not imply merely that the defense have contradicted themselves by accusing first the physician and then the prosecution; this is clear from the καὶ γὰρ ἂν κτλ. which follows, giving the true reason for the speaker’s surprise.

Antiphon The Third Tetralogy 3

ed. Kenneth John Maidment

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Second Speech for the Prosecution

Current edition Perseus

Ἐκ κατηγορίας ὃ ὕστερος

Notes on the current edition

Stable identifiers