We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Antiphon, in his fifth oration, relates that c. 422–413 B.C. Euxitheos, a young Mytilenean, and Herodes, probably an Athenian cleruch in Mytilene, embarked together on a ship bound from Mytilene for Ainos in Thrace. Shortly after they left port, a storm forced them to put into an unnamed harbour in Methymnian territory. The two men left their uncovered ship to take shelter in a covered one; whether others from their own ship went with them is not indicated. During the night, a drinking party ensued. Herodes, after heavy drinking, left the covered ship and disappeared; he could not be found in the morning, nor even after two days of searching. When the weather cleared, the search was abandoned, and all ships in the port resumed their voyages. On Euxitheos' return to Mytilene, a charge of murder was brought against him by Herodes' relatives, who tried him in Athens. Antiphon's fifth oration is his final defence; we do not know whether the speech was successful.
1 On the date see Schindel, U., ‘Der Mordfall Herodes’, NAWG 8 (1979), 206–208.Google Scholar
2 While not mentioned in the speech, this is especially well argued by Schindel, op. cit. (above n. 1), 208–13; on the controversy, cf. recently Maffi, A., review of E. Heitsch, Antiphon aus Rhamnus (AAWM 1984, 3, Wiesbaden, 1984; reference from M· Haslam) in Gnomon 57 (1985), 696.Google Scholar
3 Due, B., Antiphon. A Study in Argumentation (Copenhagen, 1980), 34. Due 34–7 and Schindel, op. cit. (above n. 1), 231–2 are among the most recent scholars to consider Euxitheos′ narrative–in fact, his whole speech-sophistic and misleadingGoogle Scholar
4 They were, of course, already known to the court, as noted by Gernet, L., Antiphon, Discours (Paris, 1923), 117n. 2.Google Scholar
5 For the confused evidence on the exact nature of the slave's complicity cf. Schindel, op. cit. (above n. 1), 234–7, Due, op. cit. (above n. 3), Heitsch, op. cit. (above n. 2), 73–4.
6 Maidment, Cf. K. J., Minor Attic Orators (London and Cambridge, MA, 1941), i.149, 181Google Scholar; Scheidweiler, F.,‘Antiphons Rede iiber den Mord an Herodes’, RhM 109 (1966), 319, 321Google Scholar; Ferrante, D., Antifonte. 
(Naples, 1972), 7Google Scholar; Schindel, op. cit. (above n. 1), 213; Heitsch, op. cit. (above n. 2), 34.
7 Bushala, E. W., ‘Torture of Non-Citizens in Homicide Investigations’, GRBS 9 ( 1968), 62Google Scholar, Palau, Cataldi A., ‘Ipotesi per un “giallo” antico’, Helikon 17 (1977), 201–202Google Scholar; perhaps also Thür, G., Beweisführung vor den Schurgerichtshöfen Athens. Die Proklesis zur Basanos (SAWW 317, Vienna, 1977)Google Scholar, 52. Edwards in Edwards, M. and Usher, S., Greek Orators 1. Antiphon and Lysias (Warminster and Chicago, 1985), 88–89Google Scholar, in the best discussion I have seen of this question, declines to accept either alternative. (I owe this last reference to M. Haslam.)
8 Cataldi Palau, art. cit. (above n. 7), 194, 202 thinks it probable that Herodes was accompanied by a servant; Schindel, op. cit. (above n. 1), 223 argues convincingly that he was not. What the speech tells us is that Herodes was accompanied by Thracian slaves (prisoners of war? See Schindel, 215–16) for whom he was to receive ransom on arriving in Thrace (20).
9 Cataldi Palau, art. cit. (above n. 7), 202; Edwards, op. cit. (above n. 7), 99 thinks it possible that the man, while free, was some sort of travelling companion for Herodes.
10 Bushala, art. cit. (above n. 7), 61–8. To my knowledge, only Cataldi Palau, art. cit. (above n. 7), 202 has objected (although cf. also Ferrante, loc. cit. [above n. 6]), and her arguments are ineffectual in the face of an extended contrast between the two-most explicit in 50-which can only be explained by the 
antithesis of 49. Cf. Bushala 62.
11 Not necessarily Mytilenean, as Schindel, art. cit. (above n. 1), 213 supposes; the ship is not stated to have returned to Mytilene (pace Gernet's translation of 29, op. cit. [above n. 4]), and the ship's prolonged stay at Mytilene (if the two men constituted its crew or were a major component) is explained by the investigation. Cf. Heitsch, op. cit. (above n. 2), 34.
12 See Casson, L., Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World (Princeton, 1971), 328Google Scholar
13 Cataldi Palau's speculations, art. cit. (above n. 7), 195 about the size of the covered ship are not binding, since we do not know how many boarded it to drink-and, if we did, that would not establish how many it normally accommodated.
14 Cataldi Palau, art. cit. (above n. 7), 195 n. 4 argues that this would have left the ship bereft of a two-man crew. Why should this have troubled Euxitheos?
15 See Casson, op. cit. (above n. 12), 328.
16 Maidment, Cf., op. cit. (above n. 6), 181 and Edwards, op. cit. (above n. 7), 88. Heitsch, op. cit. (above n. 2), 67 would remove the difficulty by understanding 
as a reference to the undeniable fact that the two men had voyaged together: ‘in dem selben Boot (wie der gefolterte Sklave)’. (Cf. Gernet's translation, op. cit. [above n. 4]: ‘celui qui naviguait sur le meme vaisseau que moi’.) Heitsch must mean the voyage from the Methymnian port to Mytilene; what reference does this have to Euxitheos′ alibi? It is very difficult not to take 
. On the participles cf. Edwards, op. cit. (above n. 7), 88–9.Google Scholar
17 See Maidment, op. cit. (above n. 6), 181–182Google Scholar
18 Palau, Cataldi, art. cit. (above n. 7), 202.Google Scholar
19 See Weil, H., ‘Antiphon, Meurtre d'hérode, 29, 5. et 49’, RPh 4 (1880), 150. I am grateful to Michael Haslam for making a number of useful suggestions after reading a first draft of this note.Google Scholar
