Tools
Analysis
  • §§ 1–7. Preliminary request for a fair hearing.
  • §§ 8–19. Objections to the procedure adopted by the prosecution.
    • (i) The defendant cannot legally be tried as a κακοῦργος.
    • (ii) The trial is being held in the wrong place.
    • (iii) The trial has been made an ἀγὼν τιμητός.
    • (iv) The διωμοσία has been omitted.
    • (v) The defendant has been deprived of the right of throwing up his case and going into exile.
    • (vi) Bail has been refused.
  • §§ 20–24. Brief account of the circumstances of Herodes’ disappearance.
  • §§ 25–28. A priori conclusions to be drawn from that account as to the innocence of the defendant.
  • §§ 29. The attempt of the prosecution to collect evidence by a personal investigation.
  • §§ 30–41. Examination of the value of the evidence of the first witness tortured by the prosecution, a slave who had admitted that he had helped the defendant to commit the murder.
158
  • §§ 42–52. Examination of the value of the evidence of the second witness tortured by the prosecution, a free man who had not incriminated the defendant. Arguments establishing the comparative trustworthiness of the two witnesses.
  • §§ 53–56. Discussion of a letter from the defendant to Lycinus admitting his guilt, which had been produced in evidence by the prosecution.
  • §§ 57–59. Proof that no adequate motive for committing the murder has been or can be suggested.
  • §§ 60–63. Examination of the case against Lycinus.
  • §§ 64–73. Unfairness of expecting the defendant to explain the mystery of Herodes’ disappearance. Historical parallels.
  • §§ 74–80. Defence of the defendant’s father, who had been violently attacked by the prosecution for his anti-Athenian activities.
  • §§ 81–84. Proof of the defendant’s innocence drawn from the “signs from heaven.”
  • §§ 85–96. Final appeal for acquittal on the ground that the case can be properly tried only by means of a δίκη φόνου.
159
DOI: 10.4159/DLCL.antiphon-murder_herodes.1941