Antiphon of Rhamnus
Greek · Rhetoric · Oration · Declamation
5 works · 2,256 aligned sentences
Against the Stepmother for Poisoning
This work is a courtroom oration delivered by a young man prosecuting his stepmother for the premeditated poisoning of his father. The speaker begins by expressing his anguish over the family dispute and argues for the justice of his cause, pointing out that the defense refused to allow the examination of household slaves under torture (basanos) to reveal the truth. He then narrates the tragic events of the crime: the stepmother conspired with the concubine of his father's friend, Philoneus, convincing her to administer a lethal poison under the guise of a love potion, which resulted in the deaths of both men. The prosecutor sharply criticizes his half-brothers for defending their mother and asserts that this refusal to test the slave testimony is decisive proof of guilt. Finally, he reveals that his dying father personally charged him with avenging his murder, and he concludes with an urgent appeal to the jury to deliver a just verdict of conviction.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-8–§24-31384 aligned sentencesRead →First Tetralogy
This work is a collection of mock speeches (a tetralogy) representing the prosecution and the defense in an imaginary murder case from classical Greece. In the opening speech, the prosecution argues for the defendant's guilt based on motive and circumstantial probability (eikos), warning that failing to punish the killer will bring pollution (miasma) upon the entire city. In response, the defendant asserts his innocence, offering alternative possibilities such as a robbery gone wrong, and highlights his past civic contributions to appeal to the jury. As the debate intensifies, the prosecution refutes these claims one by one, urging a guilty verdict by warning of the anger of the deceased. Finally, the defendant counters the remaining suspicions, offering his own slaves for torture to prove his alibi and pleading for a just acquittal. No final verdict is reached, leaving the focus on the intricate logical and rhetorical battle between the two sides.
Rhetoric5 chunks · §1.1-1.11–§4.1-4.12544 aligned sentencesRead →On the Choreutes
This oration is a defense speech delivered by a defendant who served as a chorus director (choregos) for the Thargelia festival in Athens, following the tragic death of a young choir member (choreutes) who drank a fatal potion. The speaker argues his innocence by demonstrating that he was not present when the potion was administered and had no involvement in the boy's death, emphasizing the lack of premeditation. He points out that the prosecutors repeatedly refused a formal judicial test via the torture of slave witnesses (basanos), which exposes their dishonesty. Furthermore, the defendant reveals that the charge is a politically motivated conspiracy orchestrated by his enemies to exclude him from public affairs and block his prosecution of their own corruption. By highlighting the prosecutors' procedural inconsistencies and delays, the speech seeks to prove that the accusation is nothing but a malicious fabrication and political retaliation.
Rhetoric7 chunks · §1-6–§44-51546 aligned sentencesRead →Second Tetralogy
This work is an imaginary courtroom debate, structured as a tetralogy of four speeches, concerning a fatal accident that occurred during javelin practice in a gymnasium. The prosecutor, the father of the deceased boy, and the defendant, the father of the youth who threw the javelin, take turns delivering two speeches each to argue where the responsibility for the tragedy lies. The prosecution emphasizes the physical fact that the defendant's javelin caused the death, demanding a guilty verdict to cleanse the community of religious pollution (miasma). In response, the defense argues that the youth was practicing in accordance with the rules, and that the true cause of the accident was the victim's own carelessness in running into the javelin's path. The debate between the prosecutor, who focuses on the physical outcome of the action, and the defendant, who focuses on the cause of the event, runs parallel on the definitions of legal negligence and religious responsibility. Ending without a final verdict, this text demonstrates the sophisticated logical and rhetorical techniques of ancient Athenian forensic practice.
Rhetoric5 chunks · §1.1-1.2–§4.1-4.10400 aligned sentencesRead →Third Tetralogy
This work is a model debate (Tetralogy) structured around a hypothetical murder trial arising from a fatal brawl between a young man and an elderly man. It consists of four speeches in total, with two presented by the prosecution and two by the defense. The prosecution begins by detailing the brutal assault committed by the young defendant on the defenseless old man under the influence of alcohol, demanding a guilty verdict. In response, the defendant argues that the victim initiated the violence and that the actual cause of death was medical malpractice by the treating physician. In the second round of speeches, the prosecution counters by emphasizing that the younger and stronger defendant is more likely to have started the fight, and that the physical blows were indeed fatal. Finally, after the defendant flees the trial, his friends deliver the final defense, arguing his innocence while warning of the religious pollution that an unjust verdict would bring upon the community. The work masterfully illustrates the complexities of determining primary responsibility and causal relations in ancient Athenian legal rhetoric.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1.1-1.7–§4.1-4.11382 aligned sentencesRead →