previous next

VI. 4. Defence Against Simon, Or. III

4. Defence Against Simon. [Or. III.]—The accused, an elderly Athenian of good family and fortune (§§ 4, 47), is accused by one Simon of having wounded him in a quarrel about one Theodotos, a young Plataean. The indictment was for Wounding with Intent (τραύματος ἐκ προνοίας), a charge which, in this case, seems to have been made merely in the sense of ‘wounding deliberately1.’ But, as the accused justly says, the ‘intent’ to which the law referred was not merely intent to wound, but intent to kill (§§ 40—43). It was for this reason that the Areiopagos had jurisdiction in such cases, as well as in those of actual murder2. The present trial took place before that court (§§ 1, 3); the penalty was banishment (§ 47), and further (as appears from Or. IV. § 18) confiscation
of property. The battles of Corinth and of Koroneia had already been fought (§ 45); the speech is therefore later than 394 B. C.

After observing that Simon ought to be defendant rather than prosecutor, and requesting the indulgence of the court for the weakness which had involved him in so unpleasant a dispute (§§ 1—4), the accused gives his own account of the quarrel between himself and the prosecutor (§§ 5—20). He then refutes the account given by Simon (§§ 21—39). The formula, ‘wounding with intent,’ does not, he says, apply to this case (§§ 41—43). He wishes that he was at liberty to give illustrations of Simon's character [the Areiopagos not allowing the introduction of irrelevant matter]. As it is, he will mention only one fact—that Simon was dismissed from the Athenian army at Corinth (§§ 44, 45). Simon, he concludes, is one of those informers ‘who force their way into our houses, who persecute us, who snatch us by force out of the street.’ He appeals to the services of his ancestors, and to his own; and says that compassion is due to him, not only in the event of being condemned, but for the very fact of having been brought to trial (§§ 46—48).

1 The τραύματος γραφή seems to have been notorious as an instrument of false accusation. Cf. Dem. adv. Boeot. II. § 32 ἐπιτεμὼν τὴν κεφαλὴν αὑτοῦ τραύματος εἰσ᾽́ Αρειον πάγον με προσεκαλέσατο, ὡς φυγαδεύσων ἐκ τῆς πόλεως. Aeschines charges Demosthencs with having brought a false γραφή of the same kind against one Demomeles (De F. L. § 93, in Ctes. § 51); indeed, he says, this was one of his habitual villanies—τὴν μιαρὰν ταύτην κεφαλὴν καὶ ὑπεύθυνον . . . μυριάκις κατατέτμηκε καὶ τούτων μισφοὺς εἴληφε τραύματος ἐκ προνοίας γραφὰς γραφόμενος (in Ctes. § 212). Compare Lucian Timon § 46 ΓΝΑΘΩΝΙΔΗΣ. τί τοῦτο; παίξις, Τίμων: μαρτύρομαι. Ἡράκλεις, ἰοὺ ἰού. προσκαλοῦμαί σε τραύματος ἐς Ἄρειον πάγον.

2 For the law see Dem. in Aristocr. § 22. In [Lys.] in Andoc. § 15 it is loosely said that ‘according to the laws of the Areiopagos’ the penalty was banishment ἄν...τις ἀνδρος σῶμα τρώσῃ κεφαλὴν πρόσωπον χεῖρας πόδας—the mention of the πρόνοια being omitted.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: