Humanitext Reader

Antiphon of Rhamnus · Third Tetralogy §3.1-3.7

Prosecutor's Second Speech: Initial Blow and Cause of Death

Passage 3 of 4 · Greek

Summary

In the prosecutor's second speech, the prosecution refutes the defendant's claim that the victim started the fight, arguing that the younger defendant was more likely to initiate the violence. Furthermore, they argue that the victim's death was caused by the defendant's fatal blows rather than any medical incompetence.

§3.1τοῦτόν 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.
I do not wonder that this man, having committed unholy deeds, makes arguments similar to his actions, and I forgive you who, wishing to learn the truth of what was done, tolerate listening to such statements from him, which deserve to be cast out of court.
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.
For while admitting that he struck the man with the blows from which he died, he himself says he is not the murderer of the deceased, but says that we who are avenging him—being alive and seeing the light—are his own murderers.
θέλω δὲ καὶ τἆλλα παραπλήσια ἀπολογηθέντα τούτοις ἐπιδεῖξαι αὐτόν.
I wish also to show that his other defenses are of a similar nature.
§3.2εἶπε 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.
First, he said that even if the man died of the blows, he did not kill him; for he claimed that the one who started the blows, being the cause of what happened, is caught by the law, and that it was the deceased who started them.
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 ῥώμης ἥ τε ἀπειρία τῆς μέθης ἐπαίρει τῷ θυμῷ χαρίζεσθαι, τοὺς δὲ ἥ τε ἐμπειρία τῶν παροινουμένων ἥ τε ἀσθένεια τοῦ γήρως ἥ τε δύναμις τῶν νέων φοβοῦσα σωφρονίζει.
Learn first, then, that it is far more natural for the younger to start violence and act in a drunken rage against the elder; for the former are incited to indulge their anger by the pride of their birth, the peak of their strength, and their inexperience with wine, whereas the latter are sobered by their experience with drunken violence, the weakness of old age, and their fear of the strength of the young.
§3.3ὡς δὲ οὐδὲ τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἐναντιωτάτοις ἠμύνατο αὐτόν, αὐτὸ τὸ ἔργον σημαίνει.
But that he did not defend himself with the same means, but with the very opposite, the deed itself indicates.
ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀκμαζούσῃ τῇ ῥώμῃ τῶν χειρῶν χρώμενος ἀπέκτεινεν· ὁ δὲ ἀδυνάτως τὸν κρείσσονα ἀμυνόμενος, οὐδὲ σημεῖον οὐδὲν ὧν ἠμύνατο ὑπολιπών, ἀπέθανεν.
For the one, using the full strength of his hands, killed; while the other, weakly defending himself against his superior, died without leaving behind even a single sign of his defense.
εἰ δὲ ταῖς χερσὶν ἀπέκτεινε καὶ οὐ σιδήρῳ, ὅσον αἱ χεῖρες τοῦ σιδήρου οἰκειότεραι τούτῳ εἰσί, τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον φονεύς ἐστιν.
And if he killed with his hands and not with iron, he is all the more a murderer in proportion as his hands are more intimately part of him than iron.
§3.4ἐτόλμησε δὲ εἰπεῖν ὡς ὁ ἄρξας τῆς πληγῆς καὶ μὴ διαφθείρας μᾶλλον τοῦ ἀποκτείναντος φονεύς ἐστι· τοῦτον γὰρ βουλευτὴν τοῦ θανάτου φησὶ γενέσθαι.
And he dared to say that the one who started the blows and did not destroy is more of a murderer than the one who killed; for he says that the former became the planner of the death.
ἐγὼ δὲ πολὺ τἀναντία τούτων φημί.
But I say quite the opposite of this.
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.
For if our hands serve what each of us intends, then the one who struck and did not kill became the planner of the blow, whereas the one who struck fatally became the planner of the death; for it was as a result of what that man intended and did that the deceased died.
ἔστι δὲ ἡ μὲν ἀτυχία τοῦ πατάξαντος, ἡ δὲ συμφορὰ τοῦ παθόντος.
Moreover, the misfortune belongs to the one who struck, while the disaster belongs to the victim.
ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἐξ ὧν ἔδρασεν ἐκεῖνος διαφθαρείς, οὐ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀλλὰ τῇ τοῦ πατάξαντος χρησάμενος ἀπέθανεν· ὁ δὲ μείζω ὧν ἤθελε πράξας, τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἀτυχίᾳ ὃν οὐκ ἤθελεν ἀπέκτεινεν.
For the latter, having been destroyed as a result of what that man did, died not by his own error but by that of the striker; whereas the former, having done more than he wished, killed by his own misfortune the one he did not wish to kill.
§3.5ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἰατροῦ φάσκων αὐτὸν ἀποθανεῖν, θαυμάζω ὅτι [οὐχ] ὑφʼ ἡμῶν τῶν συμβουλευσάντων ἐπιτρεφθῆναί φησιν αὐτὸν διαφθαρῆναι.
And as for his claim that the man died because of the doctor, I wonder that he says the deceased was destroyed because of us who advised that he be entrusted to the doctor.
καὶ γὰρ ἂν εἰ μὴ ἐπετρέψαμεν, ὑπʼ ἀθεραπείας ἂν ἔφη διαφθαρῆναι αὐτόν.
For indeed, if we had not entrusted him, he would have said that he died of neglect.
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;
But even if he did die because of the doctor, as he did not, the doctor is not his murderer, for the law acquits him; and since it was because of this man's blows that we entrusted him to the doctor, how could anyone else be the murderer than the one who forced us to employ him?
§3.6οὕτω 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.
Thus, being so clearly convicted of having killed the man in every way, he has reached such a pitch of daring and shamelessness that it is not enough for him to defend himself against his own impiety, but he also says that we, who are prosecuting his pollution, are acting unlawfully and impiously.
§3.7τούτῳ μὲν οὖν πρέπει καὶ ταῦτα καὶ ἔτι τούτων δεινότερα λέγειν, τοιαῦτα δεδρακότι· ἡμεῖς δὲ τόν τε 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.
It is fitting, therefore, for this man, having done such deeds, to say these things and things even more terrible than these; but we, demonstrating that the death is manifest, that the blow from which he died is admitted, and that the law attributes the murder to the one who struck, demand of you on behalf of the victim that you heal the anger of the avenging spirits by this man's death and render the entire city clean of the pollution.

Notes

  1. §3.1τοῦτόν τε οὐ θαυμάζω — The accusative τοῦτον is modified by the participle δράσαντα, followed by the infinitive λέγειν. The infinitive λέγειν can be taken either as a complementary infinitive with οὐ θαυμάζω ('I do not wonder at him for speaking...'), or as extending the sense of ὅμοια οἷς εἴργασται. It is interpreted here as a coherent structure meaning 'I do not wonder that this man, who has committed unholy deeds, makes arguments similar to his actions.'
  2. §3.4τῆς πληγῆς βουλευτὴς — The noun βουλευτής ('planner, schemer') governs the genitive (τῆς πληγῆς). In response to the defense's claim that 'the one who started the blows became the planner of the death' (βουλευτὴς τοῦ θανάτου), the prosecution counters that a person who only struck without killing is merely 'the planner of the blow' (τῆς πληγῆς βουλευτής), making a sharp conceptual distinction.
  3. §3.5ἐπιτρεψάντων ἡμῶν αὐτῷ — A genitive absolute construction, where ἡμῶν is the logical subject. The dative pronoun αὐτῷ refers to the victim being entrusted to the doctor. The whole phrase expresses the circumstance or reason: 'since we entrusted him [to the doctor].'
  4. §3.7ἀκεσαμένους — The main verb ἐπισκήπτομεν governs the dative (ὑμῖν) and takes an infinitive (καταστῆσαι). Although the logical subject of the infinitive is the dative ὑμῖν, the participle ἀκεσαμένους is in the accusative plural. This reflects the standard grammatical tendency for the subject of an infinitive to shift to the accusative case.

Cite this passage

Antiphon of Rhamnus, Third Tetralogy §3.1-3.7. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0028.tlg004.humanitext-grc2:3.1-3.7

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.