Ancient Greek orator Antiphon questioned how guilt should be determined in murder cases, examining whether responsibility depended on a person’s intentions, plans, or actions. A new study of his surviving speeches shows how he challenged the assumption that causing someone’s death necessarily meant intending to kill.
The research, conducted by Naomi T. Campa of the University of Texas at Austin, was published in the journal Dike. It examines how Antiphon, a fifth-century B.C. speechwriter, explored the distinction between deliberately harming someone and causing a death that was never intended.
The issue was important under ancient Athenian law, which distinguished between killings committed with and without “pronoia” (πρόνοια), a Greek term meaning “forethought.”
The distinction dated to laws attributed to Drako, a seventh-century B.C. lawgiver. However, the precise meaning of forethought was never clearly defined. Scholars still disagree on whether it referred to an intention to kill, an intention to cause harm, or an awareness that harmful consequences might follow.
Campa argues that Antiphon examined these uncertainties by separating what people wanted to happen from what they actually did and the consequences of their actions.
Ancient Greek orator Antiphon used murder cases to question guilt
One example comes from Antiphon’s “Tetralogies,” a collection of fictional courtroom arguments designed to examine difficult legal questions.
In one imagined case, a drunken fight ends with a man’s death. The accused admits taking part in the violence but argues that the victim attacked first, forcing him to defend himself.
The defense maintains that striking another person does not necessarily mean planning their death. The prosecution, however, argues that the person who delivered the fatal blows should be held responsible, even if the death went beyond what he wanted.
The opposing arguments raise a central question: Should responsibility depend on the harm a person intended or the result of their actions?
Another fictional case involves a young man practicing with a javelin when a younger boy runs into its path and is killed. The defense argues that the thrower was following instructions and practicing in the proper area. It claims the victim’s decision to run into the throwing area caused the accident. The prosecution counters that the thrower’s actions also contributed to the death.
Campa explains that these arguments allowed Antiphon to examine how mistakes, intentions, and circumstances could change judgments about responsibility.
Poisoning trial showed how planning could establish responsibility
Antiphon’s interest in these questions extended beyond fictional cases. In a courtroom speech known as “Against the Stepmother,” a man accuses his stepmother of arranging his father’s death through poisoning.
The prosecution claimed that the woman persuaded an enslaved woman to serve two men what she described as a love potion. The substance was actually poison. Both men died after drinking it.
The stepmother was not present when the poison was administered. Nevertheless, the prosecution argued that she was responsible because she had devised the plan and persuaded another person to carry it out.
The enslaved woman who served the poison was subsequently executed. Antiphon’s speech presented her as someone acting under another person’s direction, placing responsibility on the woman accused of planning the deaths.
Campa identifies the case as an example of how the Greek orator Antiphon linked intention and planning to questions of guilt in murder trials. His argument suggested that a person could be held responsible for a killing without personally carrying out the fatal act. The stepmother’s defense speech has not survived, and the trial’s outcome remains unknown.
Another trial raised questions about the responsibility of jurors
A different approach appears in “On the Murder of Herodes,” another surviving courtroom speech. The defendant, Euxitheos, denied responsibility for Herodes’ death and argued that the circumstances surrounding their journey did not support the accusation.
His defense maintained that the two men had boarded a ship for separate reasons. A storm unexpectedly interrupted their voyage, forcing them to stop at a harbor where the death occurred.
Euxitheos argued that these circumstances resulted from chance rather than a deliberate plan. He also denied having any motive to kill Herodes. Antiphon’s argument then turned toward the prosecutors and jurors themselves.
The defense accused the prosecution of deliberately seeking Euxitheos’ death and warned that jurors could become responsible for an unjust killing if they convicted him. The speech states that “killing someone unjustly with your hand or with your vote has the same effect.”
Campa argues that this reasoning extended questions of intention and planning beyond the accused. It suggested that people seeking or delivering a conviction could also face questions about their own decisions and responsibility.
Although the outcomes of these historical trials are unknown, the study concludes that Antiphon’s arguments formed part of wider debates about human choice, intention and legal responsibility that continued into the fourth century B.C.
See all the latest news from Greece and the world at Greekreporter.com. Contact our newsroom to report an update or send your story, photos and videos. Follow GR on Google News and subscribe here to our daily email!
