Not only am I still too young to know anything of courts of law, gentlemen; but I am - also faced with a terrible dilemma. On the one hand, how can I disregard my father's - solemn injunction to bring his murderers to justice? On the other hand, if I obey it, I - shall inevitably find myself ranged against the last persons with whom I should quarrel, - my half-brothers and their mother.
-Circumstances for which the defence have only themselves to blame have made it necessary
- that my charge should be directed against them, and them alone. One would have expected
- them to seek vengeance for the dead and support the prosecution; but as it is, the
- opposite is the case; they are themselves my opponents and the murderers, as both I and my
- indictment
Gentlemen, I have one request. If I prove that my opponents' mother murdered our father
- by malice aforethought, after being caught not merely once, but repeatedly, in the act of
- seeking his life,
For you are my kin; those who should have avenged the dead and supported me are his - murderers and my opponents. So where is help to be sought, where is a refuge to be found, - save with you and with justice?
-I am at a loss indeed to understand the feelings which have led my brother to range - himself against me. Does he imagine that his duty as a son consists simply in loyalty to - his mother? To my mind, it is a far greater sin to neglect the avenging of the dead man; - and the more so since he met his doom as the involuntary victim of a plot, whereas she - sent him to it by deliberately forming that plot.
-Further, it is not for my brother to say that he is quite sure his mother did not murder - our father for when he had the chance of making sure, by torture, he refused it; he showed - readiness only for those modes of inquiry which could yield no certainty. Yet he ought to - have been ready to do what I in fact challenged him to do, so that an honest investigation - of the facts might have been possible;
-because then, if the slaves had admitted nothing, he would have confronted me with a
- vigorous defence based on certainty, and his mother would have been cleared of the present
- charge. But after refusing to inquire into the facts, how can he possibly be certain of
- what he refused to find out? [How, then, is it to be expected, gentlemen of the jury,
- that he should be sure of facts about which he has not learned the truth?
What reply does he mean to make to me? He was fully aware that once the slaves were
- examined under torture his mother was doomed; and he thought that her life depended upon
- the avoiding of such an examination, as he and his companions imagined that the truth
- would in that event be lost to sight. How, then, is he going to remain true to his oath as
- defendant,
In the first place, I was ready to torture the defendants' slaves, who knew that this - woman, my opponents' mother, had planned to poison our father on a previous occasion as - well, that our father had caught her in the act, and that she had admitted everything— - save that it was not to kill him, but to restore his love that she alleged herself to be - giving him the potion.
-Owing, then, to the nature of the slaves' evidence, I proposed to have their story tested - under torture after making a written note of my charges against this woman; and I told the - defence to conduct the examination themselves in my presence, so that the slaves might not - give forced answers to questions put by me. I was satisfied to have the written questions - used; and that in itself should afford a presumption in my favour that my search for my - father's murderer is honest and impartial. Should the slaves resort to denial or make - inconsistent statements, my intention was that the torture should force from them the - charges which the facts demanded: for torture will make even those prepared to lie confine - their charges to the truth.
-I am quite sure, though, that had the defence approached me with an offer of their slaves - directly they learned that I intended to proceed against my father's murderer, only to - meet with a refusal of the offer, they would have produced that refusal as affording the - strongest presumption of their innocence of the murder. As it is, it was I who in the - first place volunteered to conduct the examination personally, and in the second told the - defence to conduct it themselves in my stead. Surely, then, it is only logical that this - corresponding offer and refusal should afford a presumption in my favour that they are - guilty of the murder.
-Had I refused an offer of theirs to hand over their slaves for torture, the refusal would - have afforded a presumption in their favour. The presumption, then, should similarly be in - my favour, if I was ready to discover the truth of the matter, while they refused to allow - me to do so. In fact, it is amazing to me that they should try to persuade you not to find - them guilty, after refusing to decide their case for themselves by handing over their - slaves for torture.
-In the matter of the slaves, then, it is quite clear that the defence were themselves - anxious to avoid ascertaining the facts. The knowledge that the crime would prove to lie - at their own door made them desirous of leaving it wrapped in silence and uninvestigated. - But you will not do this, gentlemen, as I know full well; you will bring it into the - light. Enough, though; I will now try to give you a true statement of the facts: and may - justice guide me.
-There was an upper room in our house occupied by Philoneos, a highly respected friend of
- our father's, during his visits to
and on hearing of the wrong intended by Philoneos, she sends for her, informing her on - her arrival that she herself was also being wronged by our father. If the other would do - as she was told, she said, she herself knew how to restore Philoneos' love for her and our - father's for herself. She had discovered the means; the other's task was to carry out her - orders.
-She asked if she was prepared to follow her instructions, and, I imagine, received a - ready assent.
- Later, Philoneos happened to have a sacrifice to perform to Zeus Ctesius
Philoneos' mistress accompanied him to attend the sacrifice. On reaching Peiraeus,
- Philoneos of course carried out the ceremony. When the sacrifice was over, the woman
- considered how to administer the draught: should she give it before or after supper? Upon
- reflection, she decided that it would be better to give it afterwards, thereby carrying
- out the suggestion of this Clytemnestra here.
Now it would take too long for me to furnish or for you to listen to a detailed - description of the meal so I shall try to give you as brief an account as I can of the - administration of the poison which followed.
-After supper was over, the two naturally set about pouring libations and sprinkling some - frankincense to secure the favour of heaven, as the one was offering sacrifice to Zeus - Ctesius and entertaining the other, and his companion was supping with a friend and on the - point of putting out to sea.
-But Philoneos' mistress, who poured the wine for the libation, while they offered their - prayers—prayers never to be answered, gentlemen—poured in the poison with it. Thinking it - a happy inspiration, she gave Philoneos the larger draught; she imagined perhaps that if - she gave him more, Philoneos would love her the more: for only when the mischief was done - did she see that my stepmother had tricked her. She gave our father a smaller draught. -
-So they poured their libation, and, grasping their own slayer, drained their last drink
- on earth. Philoneos expired instantly; and my father was seized with an illness which
- resulted in his death twenty days later. In atonement, the subordinate who carried out the
- deed has been punished as she deserved, although the crime in no sense originated from
- her: she was broken on the wheel and handed over to the executioner; and the woman from
- whom it did originate, who was guilty of the design, shall receive her reward also, if you
- and heaven so will.
Now mark the justice of my request as compared with my brother's. I am bidding you avenge - once and for all time him who has been wrongfully done to death; but my brother will make - no plea for the dead man, although he has a right to your pity, your help, and your - vengeance, after having had his life cut short in so godless and so miserable a fashion by - those
-who should have been the last to commit such a deed. No, he will appeal for the - murderess; he will make an unlawful, a sinful, an impossible request, to which neither - heaven nor you can listen. He will ask you to refrain from punishing a crime which the - guilty woman could not bring herself to refrain from committing. But you are not here to - champion the murderers: you are here to champion the victims willfully murdered, murdered - moreover by those who should have been the last to commit such a deed. Thus it now rests - with you to reach a proper verdict; see that you do so.
-My brother will appeal to you in the name of his mother who is alive and who killed - her husband with out thought and without scruple; he hopes that if he is successful, she - will escape paying the penalty for her crime. I, on the other hand, am appealing to you in - the name of my father who is dead, that she may pay it in full; and it is in order that - judgement may come upon wrongdoers for their misdeeds that you are yourselves constituted - and called judges.
-I am prosecuting to ensure that she pays for her crime and to avenge our father and your - laws wherein you should support me one and all, if what I say is true. My brother, on the - contrary, is defending this woman to enable one who has broken the laws to avoid paying - for her misdeeds.
-Yet which is the more just: that a willful murderer should be punished, or that he should - not? Which has a better claim to pity, the murdered man or the murderess? To my mind, the - murdered man: because in pitying him you would be acting more justly and more righteously - in the eyes of gods and men. So now I ask that just as this woman put her husband to death - without pity and without mercy, so she may herself be put to death by you and by justice; -
-for she was the willful murderess who compassed his death: he was the victim who - involuntarily came to a violent end. I repeat, gentlemen, a violent end; for he was on the - point of sailing from this country and was dining under a friend's roof, when she, who had - sent the poison, with orders that a draught be given him, murdered our father. What pity, - then, what consideration, does a woman who refused to pity her own husband, who killed him - impiously and shamefully, deserve from you or anyone else?
-Involuntary accidents deserve such pity: not deliberately planned crimes and acts of - wickedness. Just as this woman put her husband to death without respecting or fearing god, - hero, or human being, so she would in her turn reap her justest reward were she herself - put to death by you and by justice, without finding consideration, sympathy, or respect. -
-I am astounded at the shameless spirit shown by my brother. To think that he swore in his - mother's defence that he was sure of her innocence! How could anyone be sure of what he - did not witness in person? Those who plot the death of their neighbors do not, I believe, - form their plans and make their preparations in front of witnessess; they act as secretly - as possible and in such a way that not a soul knows;
-while their victims are aware of nothing until they are already trapped and see the doom - which has descended upon them. Then, if they are able and have time before they die, they - summon their friends and relatives, call them to witness, tell them who the murderers are, - and charge them to take vengeance for the wrong;
-just as my father charged me, young as I was, during his last sad illness. Failing this, - they make a statement in writing, call their slaves to witness, and reveal their murderers - to them. My father told me, and laid his charge upon me, gentlemen, not upon his slaves, - young though I still was.
-I have stated my case; I have championed the dead man and the law. It is upon you that
- the rest depends; it is for you to weigh the matter and give a just decision. The gods of
- the world below are themselves, I think, mindful of those who have been wronged.
This pointer pattern extracts section.
+Not only am I still too young to know anything of courts of law, gentlemen; but I am also faced with a terrible dilemma. On the one hand, how can I disregard my father’s solemn injunction to bring his murderers to justice? On the other hand, if I obey it, I shall inevitably find myself ranged against the last persons with whom I should quarrel, my half-brothers and their mother.
+Circumstances for which the defence have only themselves to blame have made it necessary that my charge should be directed against them, and them alone. One would have expected them to seek vengeance for the dead and support the prosecution; but as it is, the opposite is the case; they are themselves my opponents and the murderers, as both I and my indictment
Gentlemen, I have one request. If I prove that my opponents’ mother murdered our father by malice aforethought, after being caught not merely once, but repeatedly, in the act of seeking his life,
For you are my kin; those who should have avenged the dead and supported me are his murderers and my opponents. So where is help to be sought, where is a refuge to be found, save with you and with justice?
+I am at a loss indeed to understand the feelings which have led my brother to range himself against me. Does he imagine that his duty as a son consists simply in loyalty to his mother? To my mind, it is a far greater sin to neglect the avenging of the dead man; and the more so since he met his doom as the involuntary victim of a plot, whereas she sent him to it by deliberately forming that plot.
+Further, it is not for my brother to say that he is quite sure his mother did not murder our father for when he had the chance of making sure, by torture, he refused it; he showed readiness only for those modes of inquiry which could yield no certainty. Yet he ought to have been ready to do what I in fact challenged him to do, so that an honest investigation of the facts might have been possible;
+because then, if the slaves had admitted nothing, he would have confronted me with a vigorous defence based on certainty, and his mother would have been cleared of the present charge. But after refusing to inquire into the facts, how can he possibly be certain of what he refused to find out? [How, then, is it to be expected, gentlemen of the jury, that he should be sure of facts about which he has not learned the truth?
What reply does he mean to make to me? He was fully aware that once the slaves were examined under torture his mother was doomed; and he thought that her life depended upon the avoiding of such an examination, as he and his companions imagined that the truth would in that event be lost to sight. How, then, is he going to remain true to his oath as defendant,
In the first place, I was ready to torture the defendants’ slaves, who knew that this woman, my opponents’ mother, had planned to poison our father on a previous occasion as well, that our father had caught her in the act, and that she had admitted everything— save that it was not to kill him, but to restore his love that she alleged herself to be giving him the potion.
+Owing, then, to the nature of the slaves’ evidence, I proposed to have their story tested under torture after making a written note of my charges against this woman; and I told the defence to conduct the examination themselves in my presence, so that the slaves might not give forced answers to questions put by me. I was satisfied to have the written questions used; and that in itself should afford a presumption in my favour that my search for my father’s murderer is honest and impartial. Should the slaves resort to denial or make inconsistent statements, my intention was that the torture should force from them the charges which the facts demanded: for torture will make even those prepared to lie confine their charges to the truth.
+I am quite sure, though, that had the defence approached me with an offer of their slaves directly they learned that I intended to proceed against my father’s murderer, only to meet with a refusal of the offer, they would have produced that refusal as affording the strongest presumption of their innocence of the murder. As it is, it was I who in the first place volunteered to conduct the examination personally, and in the second told the defence to conduct it themselves in my stead. Surely, then, it is only logical that this corresponding offer and refusal should afford a presumption in my favour that they are guilty of the murder.
+Had I refused an offer of theirs to hand over their slaves for torture, the refusal would have afforded a presumption in their favour. The presumption, then, should similarly be in my favour, if I was ready to discover the truth of the matter, while they refused to allow me to do so. In fact, it is amazing to me that they should try to persuade you not to find them guilty, after refusing to decide their case for themselves by handing over their slaves for torture.
+In the matter of the slaves, then, it is quite clear that the defence were themselves anxious to avoid ascertaining the facts. The knowledge that the crime would prove to lie at their own door made them desirous of leaving it wrapped in silence and uninvestigated. But you will not do this, gentlemen, as I know full well; you will bring it into the light. Enough, though; I will now try to give you a true statement of the facts: and may justice guide me.
+There was an upper room in our house occupied by Philoneos, a highly respected friend of our father’s, during his visits to
and on hearing of the wrong intended by Philoneos, she sends for her, informing her on her arrival that she herself was also being wronged by our father. If the other would do as she was told, she said, she herself knew how to restore Philoneos’ love for her and our father’s for herself. She had discovered the means; the other’s task was to carry out her orders.
+She asked if she was prepared to follow her instructions, and, I imagine, received a ready assent.
+ Later, Philoneos happened to have a sacrifice to perform to Zeus Ctesius
Philoneos’ mistress accompanied him to attend the sacrifice. On reaching Peiraeus, Philoneos of course carried out the ceremony. When the sacrifice was over, the woman considered how to administer the draught: should she give it before or after supper? Upon reflection, she decided that it would be better to give it afterwards, thereby carrying out the suggestion of this Clytemnestra here.
Now it would take too long for me to furnish or for you to listen to a detailed description of the meal so I shall try to give you as brief an account as I can of the administration of the poison which followed.
+After supper was over, the two naturally set about pouring libations and sprinkling some frankincense to secure the favour of heaven, as the one was offering sacrifice to Zeus Ctesius and entertaining the other, and his companion was supping with a friend and on the point of putting out to sea.
+But Philoneos’ mistress, who poured the wine for the libation, while they offered their prayers—prayers never to be answered, gentlemen—poured in the poison with it. Thinking it a happy inspiration, she gave Philoneos the larger draught; she imagined perhaps that if she gave him more, Philoneos would love her the more: for only when the mischief was done did she see that my stepmother had tricked her. She gave our father a smaller draught.
+So they poured their libation, and, grasping their own slayer, drained their last drink on earth. Philoneos expired instantly; and my father was seized with an illness which resulted in his death twenty days later. In atonement, the subordinate who carried out the deed has been punished as she deserved, although the crime in no sense originated from her: she was broken on the wheel and handed over to the executioner; and the woman from whom it did originate, who was guilty of the design, shall receive her reward also, if you and heaven so will.ultimately responsible
rather than guilty.
That the
Now mark the justice of my request as compared with my brother’s. I am bidding you avenge once and for all time him who has been wrongfully done to death; but my brother will make no plea for the dead man, although he has a right to your pity, your help, and your vengeance, after having had his life cut short in so godless and so miserable a fashion by those
+who should have been the last to commit such a deed. No, he will appeal for the murderess; he will make an unlawful, a sinful, an impossible request, to which neither heaven nor you can listen. He will ask you to refrain from punishing a crime which the guilty woman could not bring herself to refrain from committing. But you are not here to champion the murderers: you are here to champion the victims willfully murdered, murdered moreover by those who should have been the last to commit such a deed. Thus it now rests with you to reach a proper verdict; see that you do so.
+My brother will appeal to you in the name of his mother who is alive and who killed her husband with out thought and without scruple; he hopes that if he is successful, she will escape paying the penalty for her crime. I, on the other hand, am appealing to you in the name of my father who is dead, that she may pay it in full; and it is in order that judgement may come upon wrongdoers for their misdeeds that you are yourselves constituted and called judges.
+I am prosecuting to ensure that she pays for her crime and to avenge our father and your laws wherein you should support me one and all, if what I say is true. My brother, on the contrary, is defending this woman to enable one who has broken the laws to avoid paying for her misdeeds.
+Yet which is the more just: that a willful murderer should be punished, or that he should not? Which has a better claim to pity, the murdered man or the murderess? To my mind, the murdered man: because in pitying him you would be acting more justly and more righteously in the eyes of gods and men. So now I ask that just as this woman put her husband to death without pity and without mercy, so she may herself be put to death by you and by justice;
+for she was the willful murderess who compassed his death: he was the victim who involuntarily came to a violent end. I repeat, gentlemen, a violent end; for he was on the point of sailing from this country and was dining under a friend’s roof, when she, who had sent the poison, with orders that a draught be given him, murdered our father. What pity, then, what consideration, does a woman who refused to pity her own husband, who killed him impiously and shamefully, deserve from you or anyone else?
+Involuntary accidents deserve such pity: not deliberately planned crimes and acts of wickedness. Just as this woman put her husband to death without respecting or fearing god, hero, or human being, so she would in her turn reap her justest reward were she herself put to death by you and by justice, without finding consideration, sympathy, or respect.
+I am astounded at the shameless spirit shown by my brother. To think that he swore in his mother’s defence that he was sure of her innocence! How could anyone be sure of what he did not witness in person? Those who plot the death of their neighbors do not, I believe, form their plans and make their preparations in front of witnessess; they act as secretly as possible and in such a way that not a soul knows;
+while their victims are aware of nothing until they are already trapped and see the doom which has descended upon them. Then, if they are able and have time before they die, they summon their friends and relatives, call them to witness, tell them who the murderers are, and charge them to take vengeance for the wrong;
+just as my father charged me, young as I was, during his last sad illness. Failing this, they make a statement in writing, call their slaves to witness, and reveal their murderers to them. My father told me, and laid his charge upon me, gentlemen, not upon his slaves, young though I still was.
+I have stated my case; I have championed the dead man and the law. It is upon you that the rest depends; it is for you to weigh the matter and give a just decision. The gods of the world below are themselves, I think, mindful of those who have been wronged.
When a crime is planned by an ordinary person, it is not hard to expose; but to detect - and expose criminals who are naturally able, who are men of experience, and who have - reached an age when their faculties are at their best, is no easy matter.
-The enormous risk makes them devote a great deal of thought to the problem of executing
- the crime in safety, and they take no steps until they have completely secured
- themselves against suspicion. With these facts in mind, you must place implicit
- confidence in any and every indication from probability
We, on the other hand, who are seeking satisfaction for the murder, are not letting the - guilty escape and bringing the innocent into court; we know very well that as the whole - city is defiled by the criminal until he is brought to justice, the sin becomes ours and - the punishment for your error falls upon us, if our prosecution is misdirected. Thus, as - the entire defilement falls upon us, we shall try to show you as conclusively as our - knowledge allows that the defendant killed the dead man.
-As all grounds for suspecting that the crime was unpremeditated are removed, it is
- clear from the circumstances of death themselves that the victim was deliberately
- murdered.
On the other hand, he has himself been indicted on charges still more numerous and
- still more grave, and not once has he been acquitted, with the result that he has lost a
- good deal of his property. Further, he had recently been indicted by the dead man for
- embezzling sacred monies,
Thirst for revenge made him forget the risk, and the overpowering fear of the ruin
- which threatened him spurred him to all the more reckless an attack. In taking this step
- he hoped not only that his guilt would remain undiscovered, but that he would also
- escape the indictment;
nobody, he thought, would proceed with the suit, and judgement would go by default; - while in the event of his losing his case after all, he considered it better to have - revenged himself for his defeat than, like a coward, to be ruined by the indictment - without retaliating. And he knew very well that he would lose it, or he would not have - thought the present trial the safer alternative.
-Such are the motives which drove him to sin as he did. Had there been eyewitnesses in - large numbers, we should have produced them in large numbers; but as the dead man's - attendant was alone present, those who heard his statement will give evidence; for he - was still alive when picked up, and in reply to our questions stated that the only - assailant whom he had recognized was the defendant.
-Inferences from probability and eyewitnesses have alike proved the defendant's guilt: - so both justice and expediency absolutely forbid you to acquit him.
-Not only would it be impossible to convict deliberate criminals if they are not to be
- convicted by eyewitnesses and by such inferences; but it is against all your interests
- that this polluted wretch should profane the sanctity of the divine precincts by setting
- foot within them, or pass on his defilement to the innocent by sitting at the same
- tables as they.
And so you must hold the avenging of the dead a personal duty; you must visit the - defendant with retribution for the sin which was his alone; you must see that none but - he suffers, and that the stain of guilt is removed from the city.
-I am not far wrong, I think, in regarding myself as the most unlucky man alive. Others - meet with misfortune. They may be buffeted by a tempest; but calm weather returns and - they are buffeted no longer. They may fall ill; but they recover their health and are - saved. Or some other mishap may overtake them; but it is followed by its opposite which - brings relief.
-With me this is not so. Not only did this man make havoc of my house during his - lifetime; but he has caused me distress and anxiety in plenty since his death, even if I - escape sentence; for so luckless is my lot that a godfearing and an honest life is not - enough to save me. Unless I also find and convict the murderer, whom the dead man's - avengers cannot find, I shall myself be deemed guilty of murder and suffer an outrageous - sentence of death.
-Now the prosecution allege that it is very difficult to prove my guilt because of my
- astuteness. Yet in maintaining that my actions themselves prove me to be the criminal,
- they are assuming me to be a simpleton. For if the bitterness of my feud is a natural
- ground for your deeming me guilty today, it was still more natural for me to foresee
- before committing the crime that suspicion would settle upon me as it has done. I was
- more likely to go to the length of stopping anyone else whom I knew to be plotting the
- murder than deliberately to incur certain suspicion by committing it myself; for if, on
- the one hand, the crime in itself showed that I was the murderer,
My plight is indeed hapless; I am forced not only to defend myself, but to reveal the
- criminals as well. Still, I must attempt this further task; nothing, it seems, is more
- relentless than necessity. I can expose the criminals, I may say, only by following the
- principle used by my accuser, who establishes the innocence of every one else and then
- asserts that the circumstances of death in themselves show the murderer to be me.
It is not, as the prosecution maintain, unlikely that a man wandering about at the dead - of night should be murdered for his clothing; nothing is more likely. The fact that he - was not stripped indicates nothing. If the approach of passers-by startled his - assailants into quitting him before they had had time to strip him, they showed sense, - not madness, in preferring their lives to their spoils.
-Further, he may not in fact have been murdered for his clothing; he may have seen - others engaged in some quite different outrage and have been killed by them to prevent - his giving information of the crime; who knows? Again, were not those who hated him - almost as much as I did—and there were a great many—more likely to have murdered him - than I? It was plain to them that suspicion would fall on me; while I knew very well - that I should bear the blame for them.
-Why, moreover, should the evidence of the attendant be allowed any weight? In his
- terror at the peril in which he stood, there was no likelihood of his recognizing the
- murderers. On the other hand, it was likely enough that he would obediently confirm any
- suggestions made by his masters.
Further, whoever allows probability the force of fact when it testifies to my guilt - must on the same principle bear the following in mind as evidence of my innocence; it - was more likely that, with an eye to carrying out my plot in safety, I should take the - precaution of not being present at the scene of the crime than that the slave should - recognize me distinctly just as his throat was being cut.
-I will now show that, unless I was mad, I must have thought the danger in which I now
- stand far greater, instead of less, than the danger to be expected from the indictment.
- If I was convicted on the indictment, I knew that I should be stripped of my property;
- but I did not lose my life or civic rights. I should still have been alive, still left
- to enjoy those rights and even though I should have had to obtain a loan of money from
- my friends,
Thus not one of the charges brought against me has any foundation. But even if the
- probabilities, as distinct from the facts, point to me as the murderer, it is acquittal
- that I deserve from you far more than anything else; since first, it is clear that if I
- struck back, it was only because I was being deeply wronged; had that not been so, it
- would never have been thought likely that I was the murderer; and secondly, it is the
- murderers, not those accused of the murder, whom it is your duty to convict.
As I am completely cleared of the charge, it is not I who will profane the sanctity of - the gods when I set foot within their precincts, any more than it is I who am sinning - against them in urging you to acquit me. It is those who are prosecuting an innocent man - like myself, while they let the criminal escape, to whom dearth is due; it is they who - deserve in full the penalty which they say should be inflicted upon me, for urging you - to become guilty of impiety.
-If this is the treatment which the prosecution deserve, you must put no faith in them.
- I myself, on the other hand, as you will see by examining my past life, do not form
- plots or covet what does not belong to me. On the contrary, I have made several
- substantial payments to the Treasury,
Were my enemy alive and prosecuting me, I should not be resting content with a defense;
- I should have shown what a scoundrel he was himself and what scoundrels are those who,
- while professedly his champions, seek in fact to enrich themselves at my expense over
- the charge which I am facing.
It is an outrage to “misfortune” that he should use it to cloak his crime, in the hope
- of concealing his defilement. Neither does he deserve your “pity”
Assume that the murderers hurried off, leaving their victims before they had stripped - them, because they noticed the approach of passers-by. Then even if the persons who came - upon them found the master dead, they would have found the slave still conscious, as he - was picked up alive and gave evidence. They would have questioned him closely and have - informed us who the criminals were; so that the defendant would not have been accused. - Or assume, on the other hand, that others, who had been seen by the two committing some - similar outrage, had murdered them to keep the matter dark. Then news of that outrage - would have been published at the same time as the news of the present murder, and - suspicion would have fallen on those concerned in it.
-Again, how persons whose position was not so serious should have plotted against the - dead man sooner than persons who had more to fear, I fail to understand. The fears and - sense of injury of the second were enough to put an end to caution; whereas with the - first the risk and disgrace involved, to which their resentment could not blind them, - were sufficient to sober the anger in their hearts, even if they had intended to do the - deed.
-The defense are wrong when they say that the evidence of the slave is not to be
- trusted; where evidence of this sort is concerned, slaves are not tortured; they are
- given their freedom. It is when they deny a theft or conspire with their masters to keep
- silence that we believe them to tell the truth only under torture.
Again, the probabilities are not in favor of his having been absent from the scene of - the crime rather than present at it. In remaining absent he was going to run the same - risks as he would run if present, as any of his confederates if caught would have shown - that it was he who had originated the plot. And not only that; he was going to dispatch - the business on hand less satisfactorily, as not one of the criminals taking part would - have felt the same enthusiasm for the deed.
-Further, he did not believe the danger threatened by the indictment to be less serious
- than that in which he now stands, but much more so, as I will prove to you. Let us
- assume that his expectations of conviction or acquittal were the same in the one suit as
- in the other.
Again, in claiming an acquittal on the ground that he could foresee that he would be - suspected, he is arguing falsely. If the defendant, whose position was desperate could - be deterred from violence by the knowledge that suspicion would fall on himself, nobody - at all would have planned the crime. Every one who stood in less danger than he would - have been more frightened by the certainty of being suspected than by that danger, and - would therefore have been less ready than he to use violence.
-His contributions to the Treasury and his provision of choruses may be satisfactory - evidence of his wealth; but they are anything but evidence of his innocence. It was - precisely his fear of losing his wealth which drove him to commit the murder; though an - unscrupulous crime, it was to be expected of him. He objects that murderers are not - those who were to be expected to commit murder, but those who actually did so. Now he - would be quite right, provided that those who did commit it were known to us; but as - they are not, proof must be based on what was to be expected; and that shows that the - defendant, and the defendant alone, is the murderer. Crimes of this kind are committed - in secret, not in front of witnesses.
-As he has been proved guilty of the murder so conclusively from his own defense, he is - simply asking you to transfer his own defilement to yourselves. We make no requests; we - merely remind you that if neither inferences from probability nor the evidence of - witnesses prove the defendant guilty today, there remains no means of proving any - defendant guilty.
-As you see, there is no doubt about the circumstances of the murder; suspicion points
- plainly to the defendant;
So with this in mind come to the victim's aid, punish his murderer, and cleanse the - city. Do this, and you will do three beneficial things; you will reduce the number of - deliberate criminals; you will increase that of the godfearing; and you will yourselves - be rid of the defilement which rests upon you in the defendant's name.
-See, I have chosen to place myself at the mercy of the misfortune which you have been - told that I blame unfairly, and at the mercy of my enemies here; for much as I am - alarmed by their wholesale distortion of the facts, I have faith in your judgement and - in the true story of my conduct; though if the prosecution deny me even the right of - lamenting before you the misfortunes which have beset me, I do not know where to fly for - refuge,
-so utterly startling—or should I say villainous?—are the methods which are being used - to misrepresent me. They pretend that they are prosecuting to avenge a murder; yet they - defend all the true suspects, and then assert that I am a murderer because they cannot - find the criminal. The fact that they are flatly disregarding their appointed duty shows - that their object is not so much to punish the murderer as to have me wrongfully put to - death.
-I myself ought simply to be replying to the evidence of the attendant, for I am not - here to inform you of the murderers or prove them guilty; I am answering a charge which - has been brought against me. However, in order to make it completely clear that the - prosecution have designs upon my life and that no suspicion can attach itself to me, I - must, quite unnecessarily, go further.
-I ask only that my misfortune, which is being used to discredit me, may turn to good - fortune; and I call upon you to acquit and congratulate me rather than condemn and pity - me. According to the prosecution, those who came up during the assault were one and all - more likely to inquire exactly who the murderers were and carry the news to the victims' - home than to take to their heels and leave them to their fate.
-But I, for my part, do not believe that there exists a human being so reckless or so
- brave that, on coming upon men writhing in their death agony in the middle of the night,
- he would not turn round and run away rather than risk his life by inquiring after the
- malefactors responsible. Now since it is more likely that the passers-by behaved in a
- natural manner, you cannot logically continue to treat the footpads who murdered the
- pair for their clothing as innocent, any more than suspicion can still attach itself to
- me.
As to whether or not proclamation of some other outrage was made at the time of the - murder, who knows? Nobody felt called upon to inquire and as the question is an open - one, it is quite possible to suppose that the malefactors concerned in such an outrage - committed the murder.
-Why, moreover, should the evidence of the slave be thought more trustworthy than that
- of free men?
According to the prosecution, it is harder to believe that I was absent from the scene
- of the crime than that I was present at it. But I myself, by using not arguments from
- probability but facts, will prove that I was not present. All the slaves in my
- possession, male or female, I hand over to you for torture; and if you find that I was
- not at home in bed that night, or that I left the house, I agree that I am the murderer.
- The night can be identified, as the murder was committed during the Diipoleia.
As regards my wealth, my fears for which are said to have furnished a natural motive - for the murder, the facts are precisely the opposite. It is the unfortunate who gain by - arbitrary methods, as they expect changes to cause a change in their own sorry plight. - It pays the fortunate to safeguard their prosperity by living peaceably, as change turns - their good fortune into bad.
-Again, although the prosecution pretend to base their proof of my guilt on inferences
- from probability, they assert not that I am the probable, but that I am the actual
- murderer. Moreover, those inferences
You see how unjustifiably my accusers are attacking me. Yet notwithstanding the fact - that it is they who are endeavoring to have me put to death in so impious a fashion, - they maintain that they themselves are guiltless; according to them, it is I who am - acting impiously—I, who am urging you to show yourselves godfearing men. But as I am - innocent of all their charges, I adjure you on my own behalf to respect the - righteousness of the guiltless, just as on the dead man's behalf I remind you of his - right to vengeance and urge you not to let the guilty escape by punishing the innocent; - once I am put to death, no one will continue the search for the criminal.
-Respect these considerations, and satisfy heaven and justice by acquitting me. Do not - wait until remorse proves to you your mistake; remorse in cases such as this has no - remedy.
-This pointer pattern extracts tetralogy and section.
This pointer pattern extracts tetralogy.
When a crime is planned by an ordinary person, it is not hard to expose; but to detect and expose criminals who are naturally able, who are men of experience, and who have reached an age when their faculties are at their best, is no easy matter.
+The enormous risk makes them devote a great deal of thought to the problem of executing the crime in safety, and they take no steps until they have completely secured themselves against suspicion. With these facts in mind, you must place implicit confidence in any and every indication from probabilitynatural,
logical,
probable,
to be expected,
etc., according to the requirements of the context.
We, on the other hand, who are seeking satisfaction for the murder, are not letting the guilty escape and bringing the innocent into court; we know very well that as the whole city is defiled by the criminal until he is brought to justice, the sin becomes ours and the punishment for your error falls upon us, if our prosecution is misdirected. Thus, as the entire defilement falls upon us, we shall try to show you as conclusively as our knowledge allows that the defendant killed the dead man.
+malefactors
her referred to are doubtless footpads
. For a further discussion of
As all grounds for suspecting that the crime was unpremeditated are removed, it is clear from the circumstances of death themselves that the victim was deliberately murdered.circumstances of death
see
On the other hand, he has himself been indicted on charges still more numerous and still more grave, and not once has he been acquitted, with the result that he has lost a good deal of his property. Further, he had recently been indicted by the dead man for embezzling sacred monies,
Thirst for revenge made him forget the risk, and the overpowering fear of the ruin which threatened him spurred him to all the more reckless an attack. In taking this step he hoped not only that his guilt would remain undiscovered, but that he would also escape the indictment;be acquitted on the indictment.
nobody, he thought, would proceed with the suit, and judgement would go by default; while in the event of his losing his case after all, he considered it better to have revenged himself for his defeat than, like a coward, to be ruined by the indictment without retaliating. And he knew very well that he would lose it, or he would not have thought the present trial the safer alternative.
+Such are the motives which drove him to sin as he did. Had there been eyewitnesses in large numbers, we should have produced them in large numbers; but as the dead man’s attendant was alone present, those who heard his statement will give evidence; for he was still alive when picked up, and in reply to our questions stated that the only assailant whom he had recognized was the defendant.
+Inferences from probability and eyewitnesses have alike proved the defendant’s guilt: so both justice and expediency absolutely forbid you to acquit him.
+Not only would it be impossible to convict deliberate criminals if they are not to be convicted by eyewitnesses and by such inferences; but it is against all your interests that this polluted wretch should profane the sanctity of the divine precincts by setting foot within them, or pass on his defilement to the innocent by sitting at the same tables as they.
And so you must hold the avenging of the dead a personal duty; you must visit the defendant with retribution for the sin which was his alone; you must see that none but he suffers, and that the stain of guilt is removed from the city.
+I am not far wrong, I think, in regarding myself as the most unlucky man alive. Others meet with misfortune. They may be buffeted by a tempest; but calm weather returns and they are buffeted no longer. They may fall ill; but they recover their health and are saved. Or some other mishap may overtake them; but it is followed by its opposite which brings relief.
+With me this is not so. Not only did this man make havoc of my house during his lifetime; but he has caused me distress and anxiety in plenty since his death, even if I escape sentence; for so luckless is my lot that a godfearing and an honest life is not enough to save me. Unless I also find and convict the murderer, whom the dead man’s avengers cannot find, I shall myself be deemed guilty of murder and suffer an outrageous sentence of death.
+Now the prosecution allege that it is very difficult to prove my guilt because of my astuteness. Yet in maintaining that my actions themselves prove me to be the criminal, they are assuming me to be a simpleton. For if the bitterness of my feud is a natural ground for your deeming me guilty today, it was still more natural for me to foresee before committing the crime that suspicion would settle upon me as it has done. I was more likely to go to the length of stopping anyone else whom I knew to be plotting the murder than deliberately to incur certain suspicion by committing it myself; for if, on the one hand, the crime in itself showed that I was the murderer,If on the one hand I was detected in the act of committing the crime. . .
The speaker is endeavoring to prove that he did not commit the murder by showing that his knowledge of the consequences to himself, even in the event of his escaping detection, must necessarily have deterred him. The sentence must therefore be regarded as explaining not the whole of that preceding, but only
My plight is indeed hapless; I am forced not only to defend myself, but to reveal the criminals as well. Still, I must attempt this further task; nothing, it seems, is more relentless than necessity. I can expose the criminals, I may say, only by following the principle used by my accuser, who establishes the innocence of every one else and then asserts that the circumstances of death in themselves show the murderer to be me.
It is not, as the prosecution maintain, unlikely that a man wandering about at the dead of night should be murdered for his clothing; nothing is more likely. The fact that he was not stripped indicates nothing. If the approach of passers-by startled his assailants into quitting him before they had had time to strip him, they showed sense, not madness, in preferring their lives to their spoils.
+Further, he may not in fact have been murdered for his clothing; he may have seen others engaged in some quite different outrage and have been killed by them to prevent his giving information of the crime; who knows? Again, were not those who hated him almost as much as I did—and there were a great many—more likely to have murdered him than I? It was plain to them that suspicion would fall on me; while I knew very well that I should bear the blame for them.
+Why, moreover, should the evidence of the attendant be allowed any weight? In his terror at the peril in which he stood, there was no likelihood of his recognizing the murderers. On the other hand, it was likely enough that he would obediently confirm any suggestions made by his masters.persuade,
which it must bear here, is found elsewhere only in Herodotus. Masters
implies that the passers-by who found the slave were members of the dead man’s own family, although this fact is nowhere explicitly mentioned by the prosecution.
Further, whoever allows probability the force of fact when it testifies to my guilt must on the same principle bear the following in mind as evidence of my innocence; it was more likely that, with an eye to carrying out my plot in safety, I should take the precaution of not being present at the scene of the crime than that the slave should recognize me distinctly just as his throat was being cut.
+I will now show that, unless I was mad, I must have thought the danger in which I now stand far greater, instead of less, than the danger to be expected from the indictment. If I was convicted on the indictment, I knew that I should be stripped of my property; but I did not lose my life or civic rights. I should still have been alive, still left to enjoy those rights and even though I should have had to obtain a loan of money from my friends,
Thus not one of the charges brought against me has any foundation. But even if the probabilities, as distinct from the facts, point to me as the murderer, it is acquittal that I deserve from you far more than anything else; since first, it is clear that if I struck back, it was only because I was being deeply wronged; had that not been so, it would never have been thought likely that I was the murderer; and secondly, it is the murderers, not those accused of the murder, whom it is your duty to convict.
As I am completely cleared of the charge, it is not I who will profane the sanctity of the gods when I set foot within their precincts, any more than it is I who am sinning against them in urging you to acquit me. It is those who are prosecuting an innocent man like myself, while they let the criminal escape, to whom dearth is due; it is they who deserve in full the penalty which they say should be inflicted upon me, for urging you to become guilty of impiety.
+If this is the treatment which the prosecution deserve, you must put no faith in them. I myself, on the other hand, as you will see by examining my past life, do not form plots or covet what does not belong to me. On the contrary, I have made several substantial payments to the Treasury,. . . not from litigation, but from application
might serve.
Were my enemy alive and prosecuting me, I should not be resting content with a defense; I should have shown what a scoundrel he was himself and what scoundrels are those who, while professedly his champions, seek in fact to enrich themselves at my expense over the charge which I am facing.
It is an outrage to misfortune
that he should use it to cloak his crime, in the hope of concealing his defilement. Neither does he deserve your pity
willing
or voluntary
, unwilling,
(b) accidental
or involuntary,
(c) non-voluntary.
In (a) I do or suffer something against my will; in (b) I do or suffer something voluntarily, but the consequences are other than I willed them to be; in (c) I do or suffer something unconsciously or in entire ignorance (e.g. I may be hypnotized and unknowingly commit murder, or I may be the unsuspecting victim of sudden death, as here); my will does not enter into the matter at all.
Assume that the murderers hurried off, leaving their victims before they had stripped them, because they noticed the approach of passers-by. Then even if the persons who came upon them found the master dead, they would have found the slave still conscious, as he was picked up alive and gave evidence. They would have questioned him closely and have informed us who the criminals were; so that the defendant would not have been accused. Or assume, on the other hand, that others, who had been seen by the two committing some similar outrage, had murdered them to keep the matter dark. Then news of that outrage would have been published at the same time as the news of the present murder, and suspicion would have fallen on those concerned in it.
+Again, how persons whose position was not so serious should have plotted against the dead man sooner than persons who had more to fear, I fail to understand. The fears and sense of injury of the second were enough to put an end to caution; whereas with the first the risk and disgrace involved, to which their resentment could not blind them, were sufficient to sober the anger in their hearts, even if they had intended to do the deed.
+The defense are wrong when they say that the evidence of the slave is not to be trusted; where evidence of this sort is concerned, slaves are not tortured; they are given their freedom. It is when they deny a theft or conspire with their masters to keep silence that we believe them to tell the truth only under torture.
Again, the probabilities are not in favor of his having been absent from the scene of the crime rather than present at it. In remaining absent he was going to run the same risks as he would run if present, as any of his confederates if caught would have shown that it was he who had originated the plot. And not only that; he was going to dispatch the business on hand less satisfactorily, as not one of the criminals taking part would have felt the same enthusiasm for the deed.
+Further, he did not believe the danger threatened by the indictment to be less serious than that in which he now stands, but much more so, as I will prove to you. Let us assume that his expectations of conviction or acquittal were the same in the one suit as in the other.
Again, in claiming an acquittal on the ground that he could foresee that he would be suspected, he is arguing falsely. If the defendant, whose position was desperate could be deterred from violence by the knowledge that suspicion would fall on himself, nobody at all would have planned the crime. Every one who stood in less danger than he would have been more frightened by the certainty of being suspected than by that danger, and would therefore have been less ready than he to use violence.
+His contributions to the Treasury and his provision of choruses may be satisfactory evidence of his wealth; but they are anything but evidence of his innocence. It was precisely his fear of losing his wealth which drove him to commit the murder; though an unscrupulous crime, it was to be expected of him. He objects that murderers are not those who were to be expected to commit murder, but those who actually did so. Now he would be quite right, provided that those who did commit it were known to us; but as they are not, proof must be based on what was to be expected; and that shows that the defendant, and the defendant alone, is the murderer. Crimes of this kind are committed in secret, not in front of witnesses.
+As he has been proved guilty of the murder so conclusively from his own defense, he is simply asking you to transfer his own defilement to yourselves. We make no requests; we merely remind you that if neither inferences from probability nor the evidence of witnesses prove the defendant guilty today, there remains no means of proving any defendant guilty.
+As you see, there is no doubt about the circumstances of the murder; suspicion points plainly to the defendant;the tracks left by suspicion lead in the direction of the defendant.
So with this in mind come to the victim’s aid, punish his murderer, and cleanse the city. Do this, and you will do three beneficial things; you will reduce the number of deliberate criminals; you will increase that of the godfearing; and you will yourselves be rid of the defilement which rests upon you in the defendant’s name.
+See, I have chosen to place myself at the mercy of the misfortune which you have been told that I blame unfairly, and at the mercy of my enemies here; for much as I am alarmed by their wholesale distortion of the facts, I have faith in your judgement and in the true story of my conduct; though if the prosecution deny me even the right of lamenting before you the misfortunes which have beset me, I do not know where to fly for refuge,
+so utterly startling—or should I say villainous?—are the methods which are being used to misrepresent me. They pretend that they are prosecuting to avenge a murder; yet they defend all the true suspects, and then assert that I am a murderer because they cannot find the criminal. The fact that they are flatly disregarding their appointed duty shows that their object is not so much to punish the murderer as to have me wrongfully put to death.
+I myself ought simply to be replying to the evidence of the attendant, for I am not here to inform you of the murderers or prove them guilty; I am answering a charge which has been brought against me. However, in order to make it completely clear that the prosecution have designs upon my life and that no suspicion can attach itself to me, I must, quite unnecessarily, go further.
+I ask only that my misfortune, which is being used to discredit me, may turn to good fortune; and I call upon you to acquit and congratulate me rather than condemn and pity me. According to the prosecution, those who came up during the assault were one and all more likely to inquire exactly who the murderers were and carry the news to the victims’ home than to take to their heels and leave them to their fate.
+But I, for my part, do not believe that there exists a human being so reckless or so brave that, on coming upon men writhing in their death agony in the middle of the night, he would not turn round and run away rather than risk his life by inquiring after the malefactors responsible. Now since it is more likely that the passers-by behaved in a natural manner, you cannot logically continue to treat the footpads who murdered the pair for their clothing as innocent, any more than suspicion can still attach itself to me.
As to whether or not proclamation of some other outrage was made at the time of the murder, who knows? Nobody felt called upon to inquire and as the question is an open one, it is quite possible to suppose that the malefactors concerned in such an outrage committed the murder.
+Why, moreover, should the evidence of the slave be thought more trustworthy than that of free men?of the free men.
A puzzling sentence which has been treated by some as evidence of the incompleteness of this tetralogy in its present form. No free men
have given evidence in favor of the defense, and we can hardly suppose that the speaker is referring to himself. I have taken the words in a purely general sense, although I feel it to be unsatisfactory.
According to the prosecution, it is harder to believe that I was absent from the scene of the crime than that I was present at it. But I myself, by using not arguments from probability but facts, will prove that I was not present. All the slaves in my possession, male or female, I hand over to you for torture; and if you find that I was not at home in bed that night, or that I left the house, I agree that I am the murderer. The night can be identified, as the murder was committed during the Diipoleia.
As regards my wealth, my fears for which are said to have furnished a natural motive for the murder, the facts are precisely the opposite. It is the unfortunate who gain by arbitrary methods, as they expect changes to cause a change in their own sorry plight. It pays the fortunate to safeguard their prosperity by living peaceably, as change turns their good fortune into bad.
+Again, although the prosecution pretend to base their proof of my guilt on inferences from probability, they assert not that I am the probable, but that I am the actual murderer. Moreover, those inferencesThe inferences are all in my favor; and, after all, it is only inferences that we have to consider in this case. There can be no question of evidence of fact, as the one possible witness has been proved prejudiced.
The construction is thus elliptical.
You see how unjustifiably my accusers are attacking me. Yet notwithstanding the fact that it is they who are endeavoring to have me put to death in so impious a fashion, they maintain that they themselves are guiltless; according to them, it is I who am acting impiously—I, who am urging you to show yourselves godfearing men. But as I am innocent of all their charges, I adjure you on my own behalf to respect the righteousness of the guiltless, just as on the dead man’s behalf I remind you of his right to vengeance and urge you not to let the guilty escape by punishing the innocent; once I am put to death, no one will continue the search for the criminal.
+Respect these considerations, and satisfy heaven and justice by acquitting me. Do not wait until remorse proves to you your mistake; remorse in cases such as this has no remedy.
+Cases in which the facts are agreed upon are settled in advance either by the law or - by the statutes of the Assembly, which between them control every branch of civic life. - But should matter for dispute occur, it is your task, gentlemen, to give a decision. - However, I do not imagine that any dispute will in fact arise between the defendant and - myself. My son was struck in the side by a javelin thrown by yonder lad in the - gymnasium, and died instantly.
-I accuse him not of killing my son deliberately, but of killing him by accident—though
- the loss which I have suffered is not thereby lessened. But if he has not caused the
- dead boy himself disquiet, he has caused disquiet to the living
I now see that sheer misfortune and necessity can force those who hate litigation to
- appear in court and those who love peace to show boldness
I am driven by pitiless necessity: and I, like my opponents, gentlemen of the jury,
- seek refuge in your sympathy. I beg of you: if my arguments appear more subtle than
- those generally presented to you, do not allow the circumstances already mentioned
In training my son in those pursuits from which the state derives most benefit I
- imagined that both of us would be rewarded; but the result has sadly belied my hopes.
- For the lad—not from insolence or wantonness, but while at javelin-practice in the
- gymnasium with his fellows—made a hit, it is true, but killed no one, if one considers
- his true part in the matter
Had the boy been wounded because the javelin had traveled in his direction outside the - area appointed for its flight, we should be left unable to show that we had not caused - his death. But he ran into the path of the javelin and placed his person in its way. - Hence my son was prevented from hitting the target: while the boy, who moved into the - javelin's path, was struck, thereby causing us to be blamed for what we did not do.
-It was because he ran in front of the javelin that the boy was struck. The lad is - therefore accused without just cause, as he did not strike anyone standing clear of the - target. At the same time, since it is plain to you that the boy was not struck while - standing still, but was struck only after deliberately moving into the path of the - javelin, you have still clearer proof that his death was due to an error on his own - part. Had he stood still and not run across, he would not have been struck.
-Both sides are agreed, as you see, that the boy's death was accidental; so by
- discovering which of the two was guilty of error, we should prove still more
- conclusively who killed him. For it is those guilty of error in carrying out an intended
- act who are responsible for accidents
Now the lad, on his side, was not guilty of error in respect of anyone: in practising - he was not doing what he was forbidden but what he had been told to do, and he was not - standing among those engaged in gymnastics when he threw the javelin, but in his place - among the other throwers: nor did he hit the boy because he missed the target and sent - his javelin instead at those standing clear. He did everything correctly, as he - intended; and thus he was not the cause of any accident, but the victim of one, in that - he was prevented from hitting the target.
-The boy, on the other hand, who wished to run forward, missed the moment at which he - could have crossed without being hit, with results which he by no means desired. He was - accidentally guilty of an error which affected his own person, and has thus met with a - disaster for which he had himself alone to thank. He has punished himself for his error, - and is therefore duly requited; not that we rejoice at or approve of it—far from it: we - feel both sympathy and sorrow.
-It is thus the dead boy who proves to have been guilty of error; so the act which - caused his death is to be attributed not to us, but to him, the party guilty of error: - just as the recoiling of its effects upon the agent not only absolves us from blame, but - has caused the agent to be punished as he deserved directly his error was committed. -
-Furthermore, our innocence is attested by the law upon which my accuser relies in - charging me with the boy's death, the law which forbids the taking of life whether - wrongfully or otherwise. For the fact that the victim himself was guilty of error clears - the defendant here of having killed him by accident: while his accuser does not even - suggest that he killed him deliberately. Thus he is cleared of both charges, of killing - the boy by accident and of killing him deliberately.
-Not only do the true facts of the case and the law under which he is being prosecuted - attest my son's innocence; but our manner of life is equally far from justifying such - harsh treatment of us. Not only will it be an outrage, if my son is to bear the blame - for errors which he did not commit; but I myself, who am equally innocent, though - assuredly not more so, will be visited with woes many times more bitter. Once my son is - lost, I shall pass the rest of my days longing for death: once I am left childless, mine - will be a life within the tomb.
-Have pity, then, on this child, the victim of calamity, though guilty of no error: and - have pity on me, an old man in distress, stricken thus suddenly with sorrow. Do not - bring a miserable fate upon us by condemning us: but show that you fear God by - acquitting us. The dead boy is not unavenged for the calamity which befell him: nor - ought we ourselves to share the responsibility for errors due to our accusers.
-So respect the righteousness which the facts before you have revealed: respect justice: - and acquit us as godly and just men should. Do not bring upon a father and a son, two of - the most wretched of beings, sorrows which the years of neither can well bear.
-That sheer necessity can force all men to belie their nature in both word and deed is - a fact of which the defendant seems to me to be giving very real proof. Whereas in the - past he was the last to show impudence or audacity, his very misfortune has today forced - him to say things which I for one would never have expected of him.
-I, in my great folly, imagined that he would not reply; otherwise I would not have
- deprived myself of half of my opportunities as prosecutor by making only one speech
- instead of two; and he, but for his audacity, would not have had the twofold advantage
- over me of using one speech to answer the one speech for the prosecution and making his
- accusations when they could not be answered.
With his great advantage over us in the matter of the speeches, and with the far
- greater one which his methods have given him in addition,
for such subtleties result in a tale more plausible than true, whereas the truth, when - told, will be less guileful and therefore less convincing.
-My faith in justice, then, enables me to despise his defence. Yet my distrust of the - pitiless will of fate makes me fear that I may not only lose the benefit of my child, - but that I may see him convicted by you of taking his own life in addition.
-For the defendant has had the audacity and shamelessness to say that he who struck and - killed neither wounded nor killed, whereas he who neither touched the javelin nor had - any intention of throwing it missed every other point on earth and every other person, - and pierced his own side with the javelin. Why, I should myself sound more convincing, I - think, were I accusing the lad of willful murder, than does the defendant in claiming - that the lad neither struck nor killed.
-My son was bidden at that moment by the master in charge, who was taking the javelins - of the throwers into his keeping, to pick them up; but thanks to the wantonness of him - who cast it, he was greeted by yonder lad's cruel weapon; though guilty of error in - respect of no single person, he died a piteous death. The lad, on the other hand, who - mistook the moment at which the javelins were being picked up, was not prevented from - making a hit. To my bitter sorrow, he struck a target; and although he did not kill my - son deliberately, there are better grounds for maintaining that he did than for - asserting that he neither struck nor killed.
-Although it was by accident that they killed my son, the effects were the same as those - of willful murder. Yet they deny that they killed him at all, and even maintain that - they are not amenable to the law which forbids the taking of life whether wrongfully or - otherwise. Then who did throw the javelin? To whom is the boy's death in fact to be - attributed? To the spectators or the masters in charge—whom no one accuses at all? The - circumstances of my son's death are no mystery: to me, for one, they are only too clear; - and I maintain that the law is right when it orders the punishment of those who have - taken life; not only is it just that he who killed without meaning to kill should suffer - punishment which he did not mean to incur; but it would also be an injustice to the - victim, whose injury is not lessened by being accidental, were he deprived of vengeance. -
-Nor does he deserve acquittal because of his misfortune in committing the error which
- he did. If, on the one hand, the misfortune is not due to any dispensation of heaven,
- then, as an error pure and simple, it is right that it should prove disastrous to him
- who was guilty of it; and if, on the other hand, a defilement from heaven has fallen
- upon the slayer by reason of some act of sin, then it is wrong for us to impede the
- visitation of God.
They also maintained that it is wrong for those who have lived as honorably as they to - be treated with severity. But what of us? Should we be treated aright, if we are - punished with death when our life has been as praiseworthy as theirs?
-When he argues that he is not guilty of error and claims that the consequences must be - borne by those who are, instead of being diverted to the innocent, he is pleading our - case for us. Not only would it be an injustice to my son, who was killed by yonder lad, - though guilty of error in respect of no one, were he deprived of vengeance; but it will - be an outrage, if I myself, who am even more guiltless than he, fail to obtain from you - the recompense which the law assigns me.
-Further, the defence's own statements show that the accused cannot be acquitted either
- of error or of accidentally taking life, but that he and my son are equally guilty of
- both; I will prove this.
The accused have themselves proved by their defence that the lad had a share in the
- slaying. So, as just and god-fearing men, you cannot acquit him. If we, who have lost
- our life through the defendants' error, were found guilty of having taken it ourselves,
- it would be an act not of righteousness but of wickedness on your part: and if those
- responsible for our death were not prohibited from setting foot where they should not,
- [;it would be an outrage against heaven:];
As the whole of the defilement, upon whomsoever it rests, is extended to you, you must - take the greatest care. If you find him guilty and prohibit him from setting foot where - the law forbids him to set foot, you will be free of the charges brought today; but if - you acquit him, you become liable to them.
-So satisfy the claims of heaven and the laws by taking him and punishing him. Do not - share his blood-guilt yourselves: but let me, the parent whom he has sent to a living - death, at least appear to have had my sorrow lightened.
-While it is only to be expected that the preoccupation of my opponent with his speech
- for the prosecution should prevent his understanding my defence, the same is not true of
- yourselves. You should bear in mind that while we, the interested parties, take a
- biassed view of the case, each naturally thinking that his own version of it is fair,
- your duty is to consider the facts conscientiously; and so you must give your attention
- to me as much as you did to him
as it is in what is said that the true facts are to be sought. For my part, if I have - told any falsehoods, I am content that you should treat the truth which I have spoken as - itself a piece of equally dishonest pleading. On the other hand, if my arguments have - been honest, but close and subtle, it is not I who used them, but he whose conduct made - them necessary, upon whom the displeasure which they have caused should properly fall. -
-I would have you understand to begin with that it requires not mere assertion, but - proof, to show that someone has killed someone else. Now our accuser agrees with us as - to how the accident happened, but disagrees as to the person responsible; yet it is only - from what happened that that person can be determined.
-He complains bitterly, because, according to him, it is a slur upon his son's memory
- that he should have been proved a slayer when he neither threw the javelin nor had any
- intention of doing so. That complaint is not an answer to my arguments. I am not
- maintaining that his son threw the javelin or struck himself. I am maintaining that
- since he moved within range of the javelin, his death was due not to the lad, but to
- himself; for he was not killed standing in his place. As this running across was his
- undoing, it follows that if it was at his master's summons that he ran across, the
- master would be the person responsible for his death
Before proceeding to any further argument, I wish to show still more clearly which of
- the two was responsible for the accident. The lad no more missed the target than any of
- those practising with him
Further, my son was not more concerned in the boy's death than any one of those - throwing javelins with him, as I will show. If it was owing to the fact that my son was - throwing a javelin that the boy was killed, then all those practising with him must - share in the guilt of the deed, as it was not owing to their failure to throw that they - did not strike him, but owing to the fact that he did not move into the path of the - javelin of any one of them. Similarly the young man, who was no more guilty of error - than they, would not have hit the boy any more than they did, had the boy stood still - with the onlookers.
-Again, not only was the boy guilty of the error committed; he was also to blame for the - failure to take due precautions. My son saw no one running across, so how could he have - taken precautions against striking anyone? The boy, on the other hand, upon seeing the - throwers, might easily have guarded against running across, as he was quite at liberty - to remain standing still.
-The law which they quote is a praiseworthy one; it is right and fair that it should - visit those who have killed without meaning to do so with chastisement which they did - not mean to incur. But the lad is not guilty of error; and it would therefore be unjust - that he should suffer for him who is. It is enough that he should bear the consequences - of his own errors. On the other hand, the boy, who perished through his own error, - punished himself as soon as he had committed that error. And as the slayer has been - punished, the slaying has not gone unavenged.
-The slayer has paid the penalty; so it is not by acquitting us, but by condemning us - that you will leave a burden upon your consciences. The boy, who is bearing the - consequence of his own error, will leave behind him nothing that calls for atonement - from anyone; but if my son, who is innocent, is put to death, the conscience of those - who have condemned him will be more heavily burdened than ever.
-If the arguments put forward prove the dead boy his own slayer, it is not we who have - stated them whom he has to thank, but the fact that the accident happened as it did. -
-Since examination proves beyond doubt that the boy was his own slayer, the law absolves - us from blame, and condemns him who was guilty. See, then, that we are not plunged into - woes which we do not deserve, and that you yourselves do not defy the powers above by a - verdict succoring my opponents in their misfortunes. Remember, as righteousness and - justice require you to do, that the accident was caused by him who moved into the - javelin's path. Remember, and acquit us; for we are not guilty of his death.
-This pointer pattern extracts tetralogy and section.
This pointer pattern extracts tetralogy.
Cases in which the facts are agreed upon are settled in advance either by the law or by the statutes of the Assembly, which between them control every branch of civic life. But should matter for dispute occur, it is your task, gentlemen, to give a decision. However, I do not imagine that any dispute will in fact arise between the defendant and myself. My son was struck in the side by a javelin thrown by yonder lad in the gymnasium, and died instantly.
I accuse him not of killing my son deliberately, but of killing him by accident—though the loss which I have suffered is not thereby lessened. But if he has not caused the dead boy himself disquiet, he has caused disquiet to the living
I now see that sheer misfortune and necessity can force those who hate litigation to appear in court and those who love peace to show boldness
I am driven by pitiless necessity: and I, like my opponents, gentlemen of the jury, seek refuge in your sympathy. I beg of you: if my arguments appear more subtle than those generally presented to you, do not allow the circumstances already mentioned
In training my son in those pursuits from which the state derives most benefit I imagined that both of us would be rewarded; but the result has sadly belied my hopes. For the lad—not from insolence or wantonness, but while at javelin-practice in the gymnasium with his fellows—made a hit, it is true, but killed no one, if one considers his true part in the matterHe threw (his spear), it is true, but killed no one
; (2) He struck (someone), it is true, but did not kill him.
(1) gives good sense; but elsewhere in the tetralogy to hit,
not to throw.
(2) avoids this difficulty; but it has been urged (e.g. by Blass, who favors emendation) that the words
Had the boy been wounded because the javelin had traveled in his direction outside the area appointed for its flight, we should be left unable to show that we had not caused his death. But he ran into the path of the javelin and placed his person in its way. Hence my son was prevented from hitting the target: while the boy, who moved into the javelin’s path, was struck, thereby causing us to be blamed for what we did not do.
It was because he ran in front of the javelin that the boy was struck. The lad is therefore accused without just cause, as he did not strike anyone standing clear of the target. At the same time, since it is plain to you that the boy was not struck while standing still, but was struck only after deliberately moving into the path of the javelin, you have still clearer proof that his death was due to an error on his own part. Had he stood still and not run across, he would not have been struck.
Both sides are agreed, as you see, that the boy’s death was accidental; so by discovering which of the two was guilty of error, we should prove still more conclusively who killed him. For it is those guilty of error in carrying out an intended act who are responsible for accidents
Now the lad, on his side, was not guilty of error in respect of anyone: in practising he was not doing what he was forbidden but what he had been told to do, and he was not standing among those engaged in gymnastics when he threw the javelin, but in his place among the other throwers: nor did he hit the boy because he missed the target and sent his javelin instead at those standing clear. He did everything correctly, as he intended; and thus he was not the cause of any accident, but the victim of one, in that he was prevented from hitting the target.
The boy, on the other hand, who wished to run forward, missed the moment at which he could have crossed without being hit, with results which he by no means desired. He was accidentally guilty of an error which affected his own person, and has thus met with a disaster for which he had himself alone to thank. He has punished himself for his error, and is therefore duly requited; not that we rejoice at or approve of it—far from it: we feel both sympathy and sorrow.
+It is thus the dead boy who proves to have been guilty of error; so the act which caused his death is to be attributed not to us, but to him, the party guilty of error: just as the recoiling of its effects upon the agent not only absolves us from blame, but has caused the agent to be punished as he deserved directly his error was committed.
Furthermore, our innocence is attested by the law upon which my accuser relies in charging me with the boy’s death, the law which forbids the taking of life whether wrongfully or otherwise. For the fact that the victim himself was guilty of error clears the defendant here of having killed him by accident: while his accuser does not even suggest that he killed him deliberately. Thus he is cleared of both charges, of killing the boy by accident and of killing him deliberately.
Not only do the true facts of the case and the law under which he is being prosecuted attest my son’s innocence; but our manner of life is equally far from justifying such harsh treatment of us. Not only will it be an outrage, if my son is to bear the blame for errors which he did not commit; but I myself, who am equally innocent, though assuredly not more so, will be visited with woes many times more bitter. Once my son is lost, I shall pass the rest of my days longing for death: once I am left childless, mine will be a life within the tomb.
Have pity, then, on this child, the victim of calamity, though guilty of no error: and have pity on me, an old man in distress, stricken thus suddenly with sorrow. Do not bring a miserable fate upon us by condemning us: but show that you fear God by acquitting us. The dead boy is not unavenged for the calamity which befell him: nor ought we ourselves to share the responsibility for errors due to our accusers.
So respect the righteousness which the facts before you have revealed: respect justice: and acquit us as godly and just men should. Do not bring upon a father and a son, two of the most wretched of beings, sorrows which the years of neither can well bear.
That sheer necessity can force all men to belie their nature in both word and deed is a fact of which the defendant seems to me to be giving very real proof. Whereas in the past he was the last to show impudence or audacity, his very misfortune has today forced him to say things which I for one would never have expected of him.
I, in my great folly, imagined that he would not reply; otherwise I would not have deprived myself of half of my opportunities as prosecutor by making only one speech instead of two; and he, but for his audacity, would not have had the twofold advantage over me of using one speech to answer the one speech for the prosecution and making his accusations when they could not be answered.The case seemed so simple that instead of developing any argument in my first speech for the prosecution, I merely stated the bare facts. The defendant, however, has made an elaborate reply, and will doubtless do the same again in his second speech; this is equivalent to his making two speeches to my one. Further, he will be able to use his second speech to answer my one serious speech for the prosecution (
With his great advantage over us in the matter of the speeches, and with the far greater one which his methods have given him in addition,
for such subtleties result in a tale more plausible than true, whereas the truth, when told, will be less guileful and therefore less convincing.
+My faith in justice, then, enables me to despise his defence. Yet my distrust of the pitiless will of fate makes me fear that I may not only lose the benefit of my child, but that I may see him convicted by you of taking his own life in addition.
For the defendant has had the audacity and shamelessness to say that he who struck and killed neither wounded nor killed, whereas he who neither touched the javelin nor had any intention of throwing it missed every other point on earth and every other person, and pierced his own side with the javelin. Why, I should myself sound more convincing, I think, were I accusing the lad of willful murder, than does the defendant in claiming that the lad neither struck nor killed.
My son was bidden at that moment by the master in charge, who was taking the javelins of the throwers into his keeping, to pick them up; but thanks to the wantonness of him who cast it, he was greeted by yonder lad’s cruel weapon; though guilty of error in respect of no single person, he died a piteous death. The lad, on the other hand, who mistook the moment at which the javelins were being picked up, was not prevented from making a hit. To my bitter sorrow, he struck a target; and although he did not kill my son deliberately, there are better grounds for maintaining that he did than for asserting that he neither struck nor killed.
Although it was by accident that they killed my son, the effects were the same as those of willful murder. Yet they deny that they killed him at all, and even maintain that they are not amenable to the law which forbids the taking of life whether wrongfully or otherwise. Then who did throw the javelin? To whom is the boy’s death in fact to be attributed? To the spectators or the masters in charge—whom no one accuses at all? The circumstances of my son’s death are no mystery: to me, for one, they are only too clear; and I maintain that the law is right when it orders the punishment of those who have taken life; not only is it just that he who killed without meaning to kill should suffer punishment which he did not mean to incur; but it would also be an injustice to the victim, whose injury is not lessened by being accidental, were he deprived of vengeance.
Nor does he deserve acquittal because of his misfortune in committing the error which he did. If, on the one hand, the misfortune is not due to any dispensation of heaven, then, as an error pure and simple, it is right that it should prove disastrous to him who was guilty of it; and if, on the other hand, a defilement from heaven has fallen upon the slayer by reason of some act of sin, then it is wrong for us to impede the visitation of God.
They also maintained that it is wrong for those who have lived as honorably as they to be treated with severity. But what of us? Should we be treated aright, if we are punished with death when our life has been as praiseworthy as theirs?
+When he argues that he is not guilty of error and claims that the consequences must be borne by those who are, instead of being diverted to the innocent, he is pleading our case for us. Not only would it be an injustice to my son, who was killed by yonder lad, though guilty of error in respect of no one, were he deprived of vengeance; but it will be an outrage, if I myself, who am even more guiltless than he, fail to obtain from you the recompense which the law assigns me.
Further, the defence’s own statements show that the accused cannot be acquitted either of error or of accidentally taking life, but that he and my son are equally guilty of both; I will prove this.If,
say the prosecution, the dead boy has been proved guilty by the defence, then eo ipso the lad has been proved guilty too.
The accused have themselves proved by their defence that the lad had a share in the slaying. So, as just and god-fearing men, you cannot acquit him. If we, who have lost our life through the defendants’ error, were found guilty of having taken it ourselves, it would be an act not of righteousness but of wickedness on your part: and if those responsible for our death were not prohibited from setting foot where they should not, [;it would be an outrage against heaven:];would be reverenced
; and that clearly gives an impossible sense to the passage, which requires something like would be rendered
or would be treated as
if it is to be intelligible. Conceivably there is a lacuna before
As the whole of the defilement, upon whomsoever it rests, is extended to you, you must take the greatest care. If you find him guilty and prohibit him from setting foot where the law forbids him to set foot, you will be free of the charges brought today; but if you acquit him, you become liable to them.
So satisfy the claims of heaven and the laws by taking him and punishing him. Do not share his blood-guilt yourselves: but let me, the parent whom he has sent to a living death, at least appear to have had my sorrow lightened.
While it is only to be expected that the preoccupation of my opponent with his speech for the prosecution should prevent his understanding my defence, the same is not true of yourselves. You should bear in mind that while we, the interested parties, take a biassed view of the case, each naturally thinking that his own version of it is fair, your duty is to consider the facts conscientiously; and so you must give your attention to me as much as you did to him
as it is in what is said that the true facts are to be sought. For my part, if I have told any falsehoods, I am content that you should treat the truth which I have spoken as itself a piece of equally dishonest pleading. On the other hand, if my arguments have been honest, but close and subtle, it is not I who used them, but he whose conduct made them necessary, upon whom the displeasure which they have caused should properly fall.
I would have you understand to begin with that it requires not mere assertion, but proof, to show that someone has killed someone else. Now our accuser agrees with us as to how the accident happened, but disagrees as to the person responsible; yet it is only from what happened that that person can be determined.
He complains bitterly, because, according to him, it is a slur upon his son’s memory that he should have been proved a slayer when he neither threw the javelin nor had any intention of doing so. That complaint is not an answer to my arguments. I am not maintaining that his son threw the javelin or struck himself. I am maintaining that since he moved within range of the javelin, his death was due not to the lad, but to himself; for he was not killed standing in his place. As this running across was his undoing, it follows that if it was at his master’s summons that he ran across, the master would be the person responsible for his death
Before proceeding to any further argument, I wish to show still more clearly which of the two was responsible for the accident. The lad no more missed the target than any of those practising with him
Further, my son was not more concerned in the boy’s death than any one of those throwing javelins with him, as I will show. If it was owing to the fact that my son was throwing a javelin that the boy was killed, then all those practising with him must share in the guilt of the deed, as it was not owing to their failure to throw that they did not strike him, but owing to the fact that he did not move into the path of the javelin of any one of them. Similarly the young man, who was no more guilty of error than they, would not have hit the boy any more than they did, had the boy stood still with the onlookers.
Again, not only was the boy guilty of the error committed; he was also to blame for the failure to take due precautions. My son saw no one running across, so how could he have taken precautions against striking anyone? The boy, on the other hand, upon seeing the throwers, might easily have guarded against running across, as he was quite at liberty to remain standing still.
The law which they quote is a praiseworthy one; it is right and fair that it should visit those who have killed without meaning to do so with chastisement which they did not mean to incur. But the lad is not guilty of error; and it would therefore be unjust that he should suffer for him who is. It is enough that he should bear the consequences of his own errors. On the other hand, the boy, who perished through his own error, punished himself as soon as he had committed that error. And as the slayer has been punished, the slaying has not gone unavenged.
The slayer has paid the penalty; so it is not by acquitting us, but by condemning us that you will leave a burden upon your consciences. The boy, who is bearing the consequence of his own error, will leave behind him nothing that calls for atonement from anyone; but if my son, who is innocent, is put to death, the conscience of those who have condemned him will be more heavily burdened than ever.
+If the arguments put forward prove the dead boy his own slayer, it is not we who have stated them whom he has to thank, but the fact that the accident happened as it did.
Since examination proves beyond doubt that the boy was his own slayer, the law absolves us from blame, and condemns him who was guilty. See, then, that we are not plunged into woes which we do not deserve, and that you yourselves do not defy the powers above by a verdict succoring my opponents in their misfortunes. Remember, as righteousness and justice require you to do, that the accident was caused by him who moved into the javelin’s path. Remember, and acquit us; for we are not guilty of his death.
It is very rightly laid down that in cases of murder prosecutors must take especial - care to observe justice in making their charge and presenting their evidence: they must - neither let the guilty escape nor bring the innocent to trial.
-For when God was minded to create the human race and brought the first of us into - being, he gave us the earth and sea to sustain and serve us, in order that we might not - die for want of the necessaries of life before old age brought us our end. Such being - the value placed upon our life by God, whoever unlawfully slays his fellow both sins - against the gods and confounds the ordinances of man.
-For the victim, robbed of the gifts bestowed by God upon him, naturally leaves behind
- him the angry spirits of vengeance,
And similarly, should we, the avengers of the dead, accuse innocent persons because of - some private grudge, not only will our failure to avenge the murdered man cause us to be - haunted by dread demons to whom the dead will turn for justice, but by wrongfully - causing the death of the innocent we are liable to the penalties prescribed for murder, - and because we have persuaded you to break the law, the responsibility for your mistake - also becomes ours.
-For my part, my fear of such consequences has led me to bring the true sinner before - you, and thus the stain of none of the charges which I am making rests upon me; and if - you yourselves give that attention to the trial which the considerations I have put - before you demand, and inflict upon the criminal a punishment proportionate to the - injury which he has done, you will cleanse the entire city of its defilement.
-Had he killed his victim accidentally, he would have deserved some measure of mercy. - But he wantonly committed a brutal assault upon an old man when in his cups; he struck - him and throttled him until he robbed him of life. So for killing him he is liable to - penalties prescribed for murder: and for violating every right to respect enjoyed by the - aged he deserves to suffer in full the punishment usual in such cases.
-Thus the law rightly hands him over to you for punishment; and you have listened to the - witnesses who were present during his drunken assault. It is your duty to take vengeance - for the injury which he so lawlessly inflicted: to punish such brutal violence as - harshly as the harm which it has caused requires: to deprive him in his turn of a life - which was used to plot another's death.
-The fact that their speech was brief does not surprise me: because for them the danger - is, not that they may come to some harm, but that they may fail to gratify their - animosity by sending me to a death which I do not deserve. On the other hand, that they - should want to treat the present matter, in which the victim had himself to blame more - than me, as a case of the greatest gravity, gives me, I think, some excuse for - indignation. By resorting to violence as he did and making a drunken assault upon a man - far more in control of himself than he, he was responsible not only for the disaster - which befell himself, but for the accusation which has been brought against me.
-In my opinion, the prosecution are setting both God and man at defiance in accusing me. - He was the aggressor; and even if I had used steel or stone or wood to beat him off, I - was acting within my rights; an aggressor deserves to be answered with, not the same, - but more and worse than he gave. Actually, when he struck me with his fists, I used my - own to retaliate for the blows which I received. Was that unjustified?
-Well and good. “But,” he will object, “the law which forbids the taking of life whether - justifiably or not shows you to be liable to the penalty prescribed for murder; for the - man is dead.” I repeat for a second and a third time that I did not kill him. Had the - man died on the spot from the blows which he received, his death would have been due to - me, not but what I would have been justified—an aggressor deserves to be answered with - not the same, but more and worse than he gave;
-—but in fact he died several days later, after being placed under an incompetent - physician. His death was due to the incompetence of the physician, and not to the blows - which he received. The other physicians warned him that though he was not beyond cure, - he would die if he followed this particular treatment. Thanks to your advice, he did - die, and thereby caused an outrageous charge to be brought against myself.
-Further, the very law under which I am being accused attests my innocence; it lays down - that the guilt of a murder shall rest upon that party which acted from design. Now what - designs could I have on his life which he did not also have on mine? I resisted him with - his own weapons, and returned blow for blow; so it is clear that I only had the designs - upon his life which he had on mine.
-Furthermore, if anyone thinks that his death was the result of the blows which he - received and that therefore I am his murderer, let him set against that fact that it was - the aggressor who was the cause of those blows, and that they therefore point to him, - not to me, as the person responsible for his death; I would not have defended myself - unless I had been struck by him.
-Thus my innocence is attested both by the law and by the fact that my opponent was the
- aggressor; in no way am I his murderer. As to the dead man, if his death was due to
- mischance, he had himself to thank for that mischance: for it consisted in his taking
- the offensive.
I have now proved that I am unjustly accused. But I wish to prove also that my accusers
- are themselves exposed to all the charges which they are bringing against me. By
- accusing me of murder when I am free from guilt, and by robbing me of the life which God
- bestowed upon me, they are sinning against God by seeking to compass my death
- wrongfully, they are confounding the laws of man and becoming my murderers; and by
- urging you to commit the sin of taking my life, [they are murdering your consciences
- also].
May God visit them with the punishment which they deserve. You on your side must look - to your own interests and be more disposed to acquit than to condemn me. If I am - acquitted unjustly, if I escape because you have not been properly informed of the - facts, then it is he who failed to inform you, not you, whom I shall cause to be visited - by the spirit who is seeking vengeance for the dead. But if I am wrongfully condemned by - you, then it is upon you, and not upon my accuser, that I shall turn the wrath of the - avenging demons.
-In this knowledge, make the prosecution bear the consequences of their sin; cleanse - yourselves of guilt: and acquit me as righteousness and justice require you to do. Thus - may all of us citizens best avoid defilement.
-I am not surprised that the defendant, who has committed so outrageous a crime, should - speak as he has acted; just as I pardon you, who are desirous of discovering the facts - exactly, for tolerating such utterances from his lips as deserve to be greeted with - derision. Thus, he admits that he gave the man the blows which caused his death; yet he - not only denies that he himself is the dead man's murderer, but asserts, alive and well - though he is, that we, who are seeking vengeance for the victim, are his own murderers. - And I wish to show that the remainder of his defense is of a similar character.
-To begin with, he said that even if the man did die as a result of the blows, he did
- not kill him: because it is the aggressor who is to blame for what happens: it is he
- whom the law condemns; and the aggressor was the dead man. First, let me tell you that
- young men are more likely to be the aggressors and make a drunken assault than old. The
- young are incited by their natural arrogance,
Further, it was not with the same, but with vastly different weapons that the accused - withstood him, as the facts themselves show. The one used hands which were in the - fullness of their strength, and with them he slew; whereas the other defended himself - but feebly against a stronger man, and died without leaving any mark of that defense - behind him. Moreover, if it was with his hands and not with steel that the defendant - slew, then the fact that his hands are more a part of himself than is steel makes him so - much the more a murderer.
-He further dared to assert that he who struck the first blow, even though he did not - slay, is more truly the murderer than he who killed; for it is to the aggressor's wilful - act that the death was due, he says. But I maintain the very opposite. If our hands - carry out the intentions of each of us, he who struck without killing was the wilful - author of the blow alone: the willfull author of the death was he who struck and killed: - for it was as the result of an intentional act on the part of the defendant that the man - was killed.
-Again, while the victim suffered the ill-effect of the mischance, it is the striker who
- suffered the mischance itself; for the one met his death as the result of the other's
- act, so that it was not through his own mistake, but through the mistake of the man who
- struck him, that he was killed; whereas the other did more than he meant to do, and he
- had only himself to blame for the mischance whereby he killed a man whom he did not mean
- to slay.
I am surprised that, in alleging the man's death to have been due to the
- physician,
Although it has been proved so clearly and so completely that he killed the dead man, - his impudence and shamelessness are such that he is not content with defending his own - act of wickedness: he actually accuses us, who are seeking expiation of the defilement - which rests upon him, of acting like unscrupulous scoundrels.
-Assertions as outrageous as this, or even more so, befit one guilty of such a crime as - he. We, on our side, have clearly established how the death took place: we have shown - that there are no doubts about the blow which caused it: and we have proved that the law - fixes the guilt of the murder upon him who gave that blow. So in the name of the victim - we charge you to appease the wrath of the spirits of vengeance by putting the defendant - to death, and thereby cleanse the whole city of its defilement.
-The defendant, not because he has judged himself guilty, but because he was alarmed by
- the vehemence the prosecution, has withdrawn.
To my mind, it is with the aggressor that the blame for the deed rests. Now the - presumptions from which the prosecution argues that the defendant was the aggressor are - unreasonable. If brutal violence on the part of the young and self-control on the part - of the old were as natural as seeing with the eyes and hearing with the ears, then there - would be no need for you to sit in judgement; the young would stand condemned by their - mere age. In fact, however, many young men are self-controlled, and many old men are - violent in their cups; and so the presumption which they furnish favors the defense no - less than the prosecution.
-As the presumption supports us as much as it does the dead man, the balance is in our
- favor; for according to the witnesses, it was he who was the aggressor. This being so,
- the defendant is cleared of all the other charges brought against him as well. For once
- it is argued that, because it was only the blow given by the striker which obliged you
- to seek medical attention at all, the murderer is the striker rather than the person
- immediately responsible for the man's death,
Nor again is the intention to kill to be attributed to the accused rather than to his - accuser. If it had been the case that, whereas he who struck the first blow had meant - not to kill, but to strike, he who was defending himself had meant to kill, then it - would have been this last who was guilty of the intention to kill. As it was, he who was - defending himself likewise intended to strike, not to kill; but he committed an error, - and struck where he did not mean to strike.
-He was thus admittedly the wilful author of the blow; how can he have killed - willfully,when he struck otherwise than he intended?
-Further, it is with the aggressor rather than with him who was defending himself that - the responsibility for the error itself rests. The one was seeking to retaliate for the - blows which he was receiving, when he committed his error: he was being forced to act by - his attacker; whereas with the other, it was his own lack of self-control which caused - him to give and receive the blows which he did: and so, since he is responsible both for - his own error and for his victim's, he deserves the name of murderer.
-Again, his defense was not more vigorous than the attack made upon him, but much less - so: as I will show. The one was truculent, drunken, and violent; he took the offensive - throughout, and was never on the defensive at all. The other was seeking to avoid blows - and repel him; the blows which he received, he received from no choice of his own and - the blows which he gave were given in defense of himself against the aggressor, and much - less vigorously than that aggressor deserved, because his only object was to avoid the - hurt which was being done to him; he did not take the offensive at all.
-Even supposing that his defense was more vigorous than the attack made upon him, - because there was more vigor in his hands, you cannot justly condemn him. Heavy - penalties are invariably provided for the aggressor: whereas no penalty is ever - prescribed for him who defends himself.
-The objection that the taking of life, whether justifiably or not, is forbidden, has - been answered; it was not to the blows, but to the physician, that the man's death was - due, as the witnesses state in their evidence. Further, it is the aggressor, and not he - who was defending himself, who was responsible for the accident. The one gave and - received the blows which he did from no choice of his own, and therefore the accident in - which he had a part was not of his own causing. The other did what he did of his own - free will, and it was by his own actions that he brought the accident upon himself; - hence he had himself to blame for the mischance whereby he committed his error.
-It has been shown, then, that not one of the charges made concerns the defendant; and - even if both parties are thought equally responsible alike for the actual crime and for - the mischance which led to it, and it is decided from the arguments put forward that - there is no more reason for acquitting the defendant than for condemning him, he still - has a right to be acquitted rather than condemned. Not only is it unjust that his - accuser should secure his conviction without clearly showing that he has been wronged: - but it is a sin that the accused should be sentenced, if the charges made against him - have not been proved conclusively.
-As the defendant has been cleared so completely of the charges made, we lay upon you in
- his name a more righteous behest than did our opponents: in seeking to punish the
- murderer, do not put him who is blameless to death. If you do, [;the slayer no less than
- the slain will bring the wrath of heaven upon the guilty:];
Hold that defilement in fear: and consider your duty to absolve him who is guiltless. - Him upon whom the stain of blood rests you may let time reveal, even as you may leave - his punishment to his victim's kin. It is thus that you will best serve justice and the - will of heaven.
-This pointer pattern extracts tetralogy and section.
This pointer pattern extracts tetralogy.
It is very rightly laid down that in cases of murder prosecutors must take especial care to observe justice in making their charge and presenting their evidence: they must neither let the guilty escape nor bring the innocent to trial.
For when God was minded to create the human race and brought the first of us into being, he gave us the earth and sea to sustain and serve us, in order that we might not die for want of the necessaries of life before old age brought us our end. Such being the value placed upon our life by God, whoever unlawfully slays his fellow both sins against the gods and confounds the ordinances of man.
For the victim, robbed of the gifts bestowed by God upon him, naturally leaves behind him the angry spirits of vengeance,
And similarly, should we, the avengers of the dead, accuse innocent persons because of some private grudge, not only will our failure to avenge the murdered man cause us to be haunted by dread demons to whom the dead will turn for justice, but by wrongfully causing the death of the innocent we are liable to the penalties prescribed for murder, and because we have persuaded you to break the law, the responsibility for your mistake also becomes ours.
For my part, my fear of such consequences has led me to bring the true sinner before you, and thus the stain of none of the charges which I am making rests upon me; and if you yourselves give that attention to the trial which the considerations I have put before you demand, and inflict upon the criminal a punishment proportionate to the injury which he has done, you will cleanse the entire city of its defilement.
Had he killed his victim accidentally, he would have deserved some measure of mercy. But he wantonly committed a brutal assault upon an old man when in his cups; he struck him and throttled him until he robbed him of life. So for killing him he is liable to penalties prescribed for murder: and for violating every right to respect enjoyed by the aged he deserves to suffer in full the punishment usual in such cases.
Thus the law rightly hands him over to you for punishment; and you have listened to the witnesses who were present during his drunken assault. It is your duty to take vengeance for the injury which he so lawlessly inflicted: to punish such brutal violence as harshly as the harm which it has caused requires: to deprive him in his turn of a life which was used to plot another’s death.
The fact that their speech was brief does not surprise me: because for them the danger is, not that they may come to some harm, but that they may fail to gratify their animosity by sending me to a death which I do not deserve. On the other hand, that they should want to treat the present matter, in which the victim had himself to blame more than me, as a case of the greatest gravity, gives me, I think, some excuse for indignation. By resorting to violence as he did and making a drunken assault upon a man far more in control of himself than he, he was responsible not only for the disaster which befell himself, but for the accusation which has been brought against me.
In my opinion, the prosecution are setting both God and man at defiance in accusing me. He was the aggressor; and even if I had used steel or stone or wood to beat him off, I was acting within my rights; an aggressor deserves to be answered with, not the same, but more and worse than he gave. Actually, when he struck me with his fists, I used my own to retaliate for the blows which I received. Was that unjustified?
Well and good. But,
he will object, the law which forbids the taking of life whether justifiably or not shows you to be liable to the penalty prescribed for murder; for the man is dead.
I repeat for a second and a third time that I did not kill him. Had the man died on the spot from the blows which he received, his death would have been due to me, not but what I would have been justified—an aggressor deserves to be answered with not the same, but more and worse than he gave;
—but in fact he died several days later, after being placed under an incompetent physician. His death was due to the incompetence of the physician, and not to the blows which he received. The other physicians warned him that though he was not beyond cure, he would die if he followed this particular treatment. Thanks to your advice, he did die, and thereby caused an outrageous charge to be brought against myself.
Further, the very law under which I am being accused attests my innocence; it lays down that the guilt of a murder shall rest upon that party which acted from design. Now what designs could I have on his life which he did not also have on mine? I resisted him with his own weapons, and returned blow for blow; so it is clear that I only had the designs upon his life which he had on mine.
Furthermore, if anyone thinks that his death was the result of the blows which he received and that therefore I am his murderer, let him set against that fact that it was the aggressor who was the cause of those blows, and that they therefore point to him, not to me, as the person responsible for his death; I would not have defended myself unless I had been struck by him.
+Thus my innocence is attested both by the law and by the fact that my opponent was the aggressor; in no way am I his murderer. As to the dead man, if his death was due to mischance, he had himself to thank for that mischance: for it consisted in his taking the offensive.
I have now proved that I am unjustly accused. But I wish to prove also that my accusers are themselves exposed to all the charges which they are bringing against me. By accusing me of murder when I am free from guilt, and by robbing me of the life which God bestowed upon me, they are sinning against God by seeking to compass my death wrongfully, they are confounding the laws of man and becoming my murderers; and by urging you to commit the sin of taking my life, [they are murdering your consciences also].
May God visit them with the punishment which they deserve. You on your side must look to your own interests and be more disposed to acquit than to condemn me. If I am acquitted unjustly, if I escape because you have not been properly informed of the facts, then it is he who failed to inform you, not you, whom I shall cause to be visited by the spirit who is seeking vengeance for the dead. But if I am wrongfully condemned by you, then it is upon you, and not upon my accuser, that I shall turn the wrath of the avenging demons.
In this knowledge, make the prosecution bear the consequences of their sin; cleanse yourselves of guilt: and acquit me as righteousness and justice require you to do. Thus may all of us citizens best avoid defilement.
I am not surprised that the defendant, who has committed so outrageous a crime, should speak as he has acted; just as I pardon you, who are desirous of discovering the facts exactly, for tolerating such utterances from his lips as deserve to be greeted with derision. Thus, he admits that he gave the man the blows which caused his death; yet he not only denies that he himself is the dead man’s murderer, but asserts, alive and well though he is, that we, who are seeking vengeance for the victim, are his own murderers. And I wish to show that the remainder of his defense is of a similar character.
To begin with, he said that even if the man did die as a result of the blows, he did not kill him: because it is the aggressor who is to blame for what happens: it is he whom the law condemns; and the aggressor was the dead man. First, let me tell you that young men are more likely to be the aggressors and make a drunken assault than old. The young are incited by their natural arrogance,pride of birth
: but the speaker is not limiting his remarks to young aristocrats. class
or type.
Further, it was not with the same, but with vastly different weapons that the accused withstood him, as the facts themselves show. The one used hands which were in the fullness of their strength, and with them he slew; whereas the other defended himself but feebly against a stronger man, and died without leaving any mark of that defense behind him. Moreover, if it was with his hands and not with steel that the defendant slew, then the fact that his hands are more a part of himself than is steel makes him so much the more a murderer.
He further dared to assert that he who struck the first blow, even though he did not slay, is more truly the murderer than he who killed; for it is to the aggressor’s wilful act that the death was due, he says. But I maintain the very opposite. If our hands carry out the intentions of each of us, he who struck without killing was the wilful author of the blow alone: the willfull author of the death was he who struck and killed: for it was as the result of an intentional act on the part of the defendant that the man was killed.
+Again, while the victim suffered the ill-effect of the mischance, it is the striker who suffered the mischance itself; for the one met his death as the result of the other’s act, so that it was not through his own mistake, but through the mistake of the man who struck him, that he was killed; whereas the other did more than he meant to do, and he had only himself to blame for the mischance whereby he killed a man whom he did not mean to slay.unfortunate accident.
Owing to
I am surprised that, in alleging the man’s death to have been due to the physician,The defendant accuses the physician; but he ought logically to accuse us instead. He would undoubtedly have accused us of having been responsible for the man’s death through neglect, had we not sought medical aid at all; so he should similarly accuse us of murder, if we sent the patient to a bad physician instead of a good one.
If the
Although it has been proved so clearly and so completely that he killed the dead man, his impudence and shamelessness are such that he is not content with defending his own act of wickedness: he actually accuses us, who are seeking expiation of the defilement which rests upon him, of acting like unscrupulous scoundrels.
Assertions as outrageous as this, or even more so, befit one guilty of such a crime as he. We, on our side, have clearly established how the death took place: we have shown that there are no doubts about the blow which caused it: and we have proved that the law fixes the guilt of the murder upon him who gave that blow. So in the name of the victim we charge you to appease the wrath of the spirits of vengeance by putting the defendant to death, and thereby cleanse the whole city of its defilement.
The defendant, not because he has judged himself guilty, but because he was alarmed by the vehemence the prosecution, has withdrawn.
To my mind, it is with the aggressor that the blame for the deed rests. Now the presumptions from which the prosecution argues that the defendant was the aggressor are unreasonable. If brutal violence on the part of the young and self-control on the part of the old were as natural as seeing with the eyes and hearing with the ears, then there would be no need for you to sit in judgement; the young would stand condemned by their mere age. In fact, however, many young men are self-controlled, and many old men are violent in their cups; and so the presumption which they furnish favors the defense no less than the prosecution.
As the presumption supports us as much as it does the dead man, the balance is in our favor; for according to the witnesses, it was he who was the aggressor. This being so, the defendant is cleared of all the other charges brought against him as well. For once it is argued that, because it was only the blow given by the striker which obliged you to seek medical attention at all, the murderer is the striker rather than the person immediately responsible for the man’s death,
Nor again is the intention to kill to be attributed to the accused rather than to his accuser. If it had been the case that, whereas he who struck the first blow had meant not to kill, but to strike, he who was defending himself had meant to kill, then it would have been this last who was guilty of the intention to kill. As it was, he who was defending himself likewise intended to strike, not to kill; but he committed an error, and struck where he did not mean to strike.
He was thus admittedly the wilful author of the blow; how can he have killed willfully,when he struck otherwise than he intended?
+Further, it is with the aggressor rather than with him who was defending himself that the responsibility for the error itself rests. The one was seeking to retaliate for the blows which he was receiving, when he committed his error: he was being forced to act by his attacker; whereas with the other, it was his own lack of self-control which caused him to give and receive the blows which he did: and so, since he is responsible both for his own error and for his victim’s, he deserves the name of murderer.
Again, his defense was not more vigorous than the attack made upon him, but much less so: as I will show. The one was truculent, drunken, and violent; he took the offensive throughout, and was never on the defensive at all. The other was seeking to avoid blows and repel him; the blows which he received, he received from no choice of his own and the blows which he gave were given in defense of himself against the aggressor, and much less vigorously than that aggressor deserved, because his only object was to avoid the hurt which was being done to him; he did not take the offensive at all.
Even supposing that his defense was more vigorous than the attack made upon him, because there was more vigor in his hands, you cannot justly condemn him. Heavy penalties are invariably provided for the aggressor: whereas no penalty is ever prescribed for him who defends himself.
The objection that the taking of life, whether justifiably or not, is forbidden, has been answered; it was not to the blows, but to the physician, that the man’s death was due, as the witnesses state in their evidence. Further, it is the aggressor, and not he who was defending himself, who was responsible for the accident. The one gave and received the blows which he did from no choice of his own, and therefore the accident in which he had a part was not of his own causing. The other did what he did of his own free will, and it was by his own actions that he brought the accident upon himself; hence he had himself to blame for the mischance whereby he committed his error.
It has been shown, then, that not one of the charges made concerns the defendant; and even if both parties are thought equally responsible alike for the actual crime and for the mischance which led to it, and it is decided from the arguments put forward that there is no more reason for acquitting the defendant than for condemning him, he still has a right to be acquitted rather than condemned. Not only is it unjust that his accuser should secure his conviction without clearly showing that he has been wronged: but it is a sin that the accused should be sentenced, if the charges made against him have not been proved conclusively.
As the defendant has been cleared so completely of the charges made, we lay upon you in his name a more righteous behest than did our opponents: in seeking to punish the murderer, do not put him who is blameless to death. If you do, [;the slayer no less than the slain will bring the wrath of heaven upon the guilty:];pollution to which the spirits of vengeance give expression.
Hold that defilement in fear: and consider your duty to absolve him who is guiltless. Him upon whom the stain of blood rests you may let time reveal, even as you may leave his punishment to his victim’s kin. It is thus that you will best serve justice and the will of heaven.
I could have wished, gentlemen, that my powers of speech and my experience of the
- world
When I had to submit to the bodily suffering which this unwarranted charge brought with - it, experience afforded me no help; while now that my life depends upon my giving a - truthful account of the facts, my case is being prejudiced by my inability to speak.
-Poor speakers have often before now been disbelieved because they spoke the truth, and - the truth itself has been their undoing because they could not make it convincing: just as - clever speakers have often gained credit with lies, and have owed their lives to the very - fact that they lied. Thus the fate of one who is not a practised pleader inevitably - depends less upon the true facts and his actual conduct than upon the version of them - given by his accusers.
-I shall therefore ask you, gentlemen, not indeed for a hearing, as do the majority of - those on trial, who lack confidence in themselves and presume you to be biassed; for with - an honest jury the defence is naturally assured of a hearing even without appealing for - it, seeing that that same jury accorded the prosecution a hearing unasked—
-no, my request of you is this. If, on the one hand, I make any mistake in speaking, - pardon me and treat it as due to inexperience rather than dishonesty; and if, on the other - hand, I express a point well, treat it as due to truthfulness rather than skill. For it is - no more right that mere words should be the undoing of a man who is in fact innocent than - that they should be the salvation of a man who is in fact guilty; the tongue is to blame - for a word whereas the will is to blame for an act.
-Moreover, a man in personal danger is sure to make some mistake; he cannot help thinking - of his fate as well as of his argument, as the decision of an issue which is still in - doubt always depends more upon chance than upon human effort. Hence a man in danger is - bound to be not a little distraught.
-Even speakers with a long experience of the courts are far from being at their best, I - notice, when in any danger; they are more successful when conducting a case in safety. -
-So much for my request, gentlemen; it breaks no law, human or divine: and it takes into - account what you have a right to expect from me as much as what I have a right to expect - from you. And now for the charges made, which I will answer one at a time. To begin with, I - shall prove to you that the methods used to involve me in today's proceedings were - entirely illegal and arbitrary. Not that I wish to evade trial before a popular court; as - far as my belief in my innocence of the present charge and in the justice of your verdict - is concerned, I would place my life in your hands even if you were not on oath and I were - being tried under no particular law. No, my object is to let the arbitrary and illegal - behavior of the prosecution furnish you with a presumption as to the character of the rest - of their case against me.
-First,
They object, however, that murder is a malefaction, and a grave one. I agree, a very
- grave one; so is sacrilege; so is treason; but the laws which apply to each of them
- differ. In my case the prosecution have first of all caused the trial to be held in the
- one place from which those charged with murder are always debarred by proclamation, the
- Agora: and secondly, although it is laid down by law that a murderer shall pay with his
- life, they have entered a claim for damages
Secondly, as of course you all know, every court judges cases of murder in the open air,
- and for good reasons: first, that the jurors may avoid entering the same building as those
- whose hands are unclean: and secondly, that he who is conducting the prosecution for
- murder may avoid being under the same roof as the murderer. No one but yourself has ever
- dreamed of evading this law. And not only that you should, as a preliminary, have taken
- the most solemn and binding oath known,
This requirement you have evaded. You have invented laws to suit yourself. You, the - prosecutor, are not on oath; nor are the witnesses, who are giving evidence against me - which they should have given only after taking the same preliminary oath as yourself, - their hands on the sacrifice as they did so. You bid the court, moreover, believe your - witnesses, in spite of their not being on oath, and pass sentence for murder—when your own - evasion of the laws of the land has destroyed the trustworthiness of those witnesses. Yes, - you imagine that, in the eyes of the court, the laws themselves should have less authority - than your own actions in defiance of them.
-You reply that if I had been allowed my freedom, I should have made off without awaiting
- my trial—as though you had forced me to enter this country against my will. Yet if I
- attached no importance to being debarred from
Yet it would be unanimously agreed, I think, that the laws which deal with cases such as
- the present are the most admirable and righteous of all laws. Not only have they the
- distinction of being the oldest in this country, but they have changed no more than the
- crime with which they are concerned; and that is the surest token of good laws, as time
- and experience show mankind what is imperfect. Hence you must not use the speech for the
- prosecution to discover whether your laws are good or bad: you must use the laws to
- discover whether or not the speech for the prosecution is giving you a correct and lawful
- interpretation of the case.
The laws concerned with the taking of life are thus excellent, and no one has ever before - ventured to interfere with them. You alone have had the audacity to turn legislator and - substitute worse for better; and the object of this arbitrary behavior of yours is to have - me put to death without just cause. In fact, your infringement of the law is itself - decisive evidence in my favor, because you well knew that you would find no one to testify - to my guilt once he had taken that preliminary oath.
-Furthermore, instead of acting like a man confident of his case and arranging that it - should be tried once and indisputably, you have left yourself grounds for dispute and - argument, as though you proposed to show your distrust of even the present court. The - result is that even if I am acquitted today, I am no better off; you can say that it was - as a malefactor that I was acquitted, not on a charge of murder. On the other hand, if you - win your case, you will claim my life, on the ground that it is on a charge of murder that - I have been tried and found guilty. Could any thing more unfair be devised? You and your - associates have only to convince this court once, and your object is gained; whereas I, if - I am acquitted once, am left in the same peril as before.
-Then again, gentlemen, my imprisonment was an act of illegality quite without parallel. I
- was ready to furnish the three sureties required by law; yet the prosecution took steps to
- ensure that I should be prevented from doing so. Hitherto no alien willing to furnish
- sureties has ever been imprisoned; and, moreover, the law concerned applies to the
- custodians of malefactors
The reason was that it was to the prosecution's advantage, first, that I should be
- prevented from looking after my interests in person, and so be quite unable to prepare for
- my trial: and secondly, that I should undergo bodily suffering, and by reason of that
- bodily suffering find my friends readier to tell lies as witnesses for the prosecution
- than the truth as witnesses for the defence.
Such are the manifold respects in which I have had to submit to a loss
I sailed from
-
Such were our respective reasons for making the voyage. In the course of it, we happened
- to meet with a storm which forced us to put in at a place within the territory of
-
Nor again, as is clear, was I making my voyage to
-
After crossing into the other boat, we fell to drinking. Now whereas it is established
- that Herodes quitted the boat and did not board it again, I did not leave the boat at all
- that night. Next day, when Herodes was missing, I joined in the search as anxiously as
- any; if anyone considered the matter serious, I did. Not only was I responsible for the
- dispatch of a messenger to
but when none of the passengers or the personal companions of Herodes volunteered to go,
- I offered to send my own attendant; and I hardly imagine that I was deliberately proposing
- to send someone who would inform against me. Finally, when the search had failed to reveal
- any trace of Herodes either at
-
Those are the facts; now draw the logical conclusions. First, in the interval before I
- put to sea for
Their story is that it was on the shore that Herodes was killed, and that I, who did not - leave the boat at all, struck him upon the head with a stone. Yet while they have detailed - information of this, they cannot give any plausible account of how the man came to - disappear. Clearly, the probabilities suggest that the crime was committed somewhere in - the neighborhood of the harbor. On the one hand, Herodes was drunk; and on the other hand, - it was at night that he left the boat. He probably would not have been in a condition to - control his own movements, nor could anyone who wished to take him a long way off by night - have found any plausible excuse for doing so.
-Yet in spite of a two days' search both in the harbor and at a distance from it, no
- eyewitness, no bloodstain, and no clue of any other description was found. But I will go
- further. I accept the prosecution's story. I can indeed produce witnesses to prove that I
- did not quit the boat.
However, we are told that he was thrown into the sea. From what boat? Clearly, the boat
- came from the harbor itself; and in that case, why should it not have been identified? For
- that matter, we should also have expected to find some traces in the boat, seeing that a
- dead man had been placed in it and thrown overboard in the dark. The prosecution claim,
- indeed, to have found traces—but only in the boat on board of which he was drinking and
- which he quitted, the one boat on which they themselves agree that he was not murdered.
- The boat from which he was thrown into the sea they have not discovered; they have found
- neither it itself nor any trace of it. I will produce witnesses to prove these statements
- to you. Witnesses
-
After I had departed for
The first, who was tortured there and then, said nothing to damage me. The second was
- tortured several days later, after being in the prosecution's company throughout the
- interval. It was he who was induced by them to incriminate me falsely. I will produce
- witnesses to confirm these facts. Witnesses
-
You have listened to evidence for the length of the delay before the man's examination - under torture; now notice the actual character of that examination. The slave was - doubtless promised his freedom: it was certainly to the prosecution alone that he could - look for release from his sufferings. Probably both of these considerations induced him to - make the false charges against me which he did; he hoped to gain his freedom, and his one - immediate wish was to end the torture.
-I need not remind you, I think, that witnesses under torture are biassed in favor of - those who do most of the torturing; they will say anything likely to gratify them. It is - their one chance of salvation, especially when the victims of their lies happen not to be - present. Had I myself proceeded to give orders that the slave should be racked for not - telling the truth, that step in itself would doubtless have been enough to make him stop - incriminating me falsely. As it was, the examination was conducted by men who also knew - what their own interests required.
-Now as long as he believed that he had something to gain by falsely incriminating me, he - firmly adhered to that course; but on finding that he was doomed, he at once reverted to - the truth and admitted that it was our friends here who had induced him to lie about me. - However, neither his persevering attempts at falsehood nor his subsequent confession of - the truth helped him.
-They took him, took the man upon whose disclosures they are resting their case against
- me, and put him to death,
Clearly, it was not his person, but his evidence, which they required; had the man
- remained alive, he would have been tortured by me in the same way, and the prosecution
- would be confronted with their plot: but once he was dead, not only did the loss of his
- person mean that I was deprived of my opportunity of establishing the truth, but his false
- statements are assumed to be true and are proving my undoing. Call me witnesses to confirm
- these facts. <Witnesses>
-
In my opinion, they should have produced the informer himself in court, if they wished to - prove me guilty. That was the issue to which they should have brought the case. Instead of - putting the man to death, they ought to have produced him in the flesh and challenged me - to examine him under torture. As it is, which of his statements will they use, may I ask: - his first or his second? And which is true: the statement that I committed the murder or - the statement that I did not?
-If we are to judge from probability, it is obviously the second which is the truer; he - was lying to benefit himself, but on finding that those lies were proving fatal, he - thought that he would be saved by telling the truth. However, he had no one to stand up - for the truth, as I, who was vindicated by his second, true statement, was unfortunately - not present; while there were those who were ready to put his first, his false one, beyond - all reach of future correction. As a rule, it is the victim who quietly seizes an informer - and then makes away with him. In this case, it is the very persons who arrested the slave - in order to discover the truth who have done so;
-and it is the very person who had supplied information against myself with whom they have
- made away. Had I myself been responsible for his disappearance, had I refused to surrender
- him to the prosecution or declined to establish the truth in some other way, they would
- have treated that very fact as most significant: it would have furnished the strongest
- presumption in their favor that I was guilty. So now that they themselves have declined to
- submit to an inquiry, in spite of a challenge from my friends to do so, that fact should
- in the same way furnish a presumption in my favor that the charge which they are bringing
- is a false one.
They further allege that the slave admitted under torture that he had been my accomplice - in the murder. I maintain that he did not say this; what he said was that he conducted - Herodes and myself off the boat, and that after I had murdered him, he helped me pick him - up and put him in the boat; then he threw him into the sea.
-Also let me point out to you that at the start, before being placed on the wheel, in - fact, until extreme pressure was brought to bear, the man adhered to the truth and - declared me innocent. It was only when on the wheel, and when driven to it, that he - falsely incriminated me, in order to put an end to the torture.
-When it was over, he ceased affirming that I had had any part in the crime; indeed, at - the end he bemoaned the injustice with which both I and he were being sent to our doom: - not that he was trying to do me a kindness—hardly that, after falsely accusing me as he - had done; no, the truth left him no choice: he was confirming as true the declaration - which he had made to begin with.
-Then there was the second man.
And indeed, the probabilities are in my favor; I hardly imagine myself to have been so - benighted that after planning the murder on my own to ensure that no one was privy to - it—for there lay my one great danger—I proceeded to furnish myself with witnesses and - confederates once the crime had been committed.
-Furthermore, Herodes was murdered very close to the sea and the boats, or so we are told
- by the prosecution. Was a man who was struck down by but one assailant not going to shout
- out or attract the attention of those on shore or on board? Moreover, sounds can be
- heard
Again, he was murdered on shore and placed in the boat; yet no trace or bloodstain was - found either on shore or in the boat, in spite of the fact that it was at night that he - was picked up and at night that he was placed in the boat. Do you think that any human - being in such circumstances would have been able to smooth out the traces on shore and - wipe away the marks on the boat, clues which a calm and collected man could not have - removed successfully even by daylight? What probability is there in such a suggestion, - gentlemen?
-One thing above all you must remember, and I hope that you will forgive me for repeatedly - stressing the same point; but my danger is great, and only if you form a right judgement, - am I safe; if you are misled, I am doomed. I repeat, let no one cause you to forget that - the prosecution put the informer to death, that they used every effort to prevent his - appearance in court and to make it impossible for me to take him and examine him under - torture on my return;
-although to allow me to do so was to their own advantage.
Why, even slaves who have murdered their masters and been caught red-handed are not put
- to death by the victim's own relatives; they are handed over to the authorities as the
- ancient laws of your country ordain. If it is a fact that a slave is allowed to give
- evidence that a free man is guilty of murder, if a master can seek vengeance for the
- murder of his slave, should he see fit, and if a court can sentence the murderer of a
- slave as effectively as it can the murderer of a free man,
And now, gentlemen, consider further the statements of the two witnesses tortured. What - are the fair and reasonable conclusions to be drawn from them? The slave gave two - accounts: at one time he maintained that I was guilty, at another that I was not.
-On the other hand, in spite of similar torture, the free man has not even yet said - anything to damage me. He could not be influenced by offers of freedom, as his companion - had been; and at the same time he was determined to cling to the truth, cost what it - might. Of course, as far as his own advantage was concerned, he knew, like the other, that - the torture would be over as soon as he corroborated the prosecution. Which, then, have we - more reason to believe: the witness who firmly adhered to the same statement throughout, - or the witness who affirmed a thing at one moment, and denied it at the next? Why, quite - apart from the torture employed, those who consistently keep to one statement about one - set of facts are more to be trusted than those who contradict themselves.
-Then again, of the slave's statements half are in favor of one side, half in favor of the
- other: his affirmations support my accusers, and his denials support me. [;Similarly with
- the combined statements of both the witnesses examined: the one affirmed, and the other
- consistently denied.];
Such was the examination under torture on which the prosecution rely, gentlemen, when
- they say that they are convinced that I am the murderer of Herodes. Yet if I had had
- anything whatsoever on my conscience, if I had committed a crime of this kind, I should
- have got rid of both witnesses while I had the opportunity, either by taking them with me
- to
The prosecution further allege that they discovered on board a note stating that I had - killed Herodes, which I had intended to send to Lycinus. But what need had I to send a - note, when the bearer himself was my accomplice? Not only would he, as one of the - murderers, have told the story more clearly in his own words, but it would have been quite - unnecessary to conceal the message from him, and it is essentially messages which cannot - be disclosed to the bearer that are sent in writing.
-Then again, an extensive message would have had to be written down, as its length would
- have prevented the bearer remembering it. But this one was brief enough to deliver—“The
- man is dead.” Moreover, bear in mind that the note contradicted the slave tortured, and
- the slave the note. The slave stated under torture that he had committed the murder
- himself,
Which are we to believe? The prosecution discovered the note on board only during a - second search, not during their first one; they had not hit on the idea at the time. It - was not until the first witness had said nothing to incriminate me when tortured that they - dropped the note in the boat, in order to have that, if nothing else, as a ground for - accusing me.
-Then, once the note had been read and the second witness, when tortured, persisted in
- disagreeing with the note, it was impossible to spirit away the message read from it.
- Needless to say, had the prosecution supposed that they would induce the slave to lie
- about me immediately, they would never have devised the message contained in the note.
- Call me witnesses to confirm these facts. Witnesses
-
Now what was my motive in murdering Herodes? For there was not even any bad feeling - between us. The prosecution have the audacity to suggest that I murdered him as a favor. - But who has ever turned murderer to oblige a friend? No one, I am sure. The bitterest - feeling has to exist before murder is committed, while the growth of the design is always - abundantly manifest. And, as I said, between Herodes and myself there was no bad feeling. -
-Well and good. Then was it that I was afraid of being murdered by him myself? A motive of - that kind might well drive a man to the deed. No, I had no such fears with regard to him. - Then was I going to enrich myself by the murder? No, he had no money.
-Indeed, it would be more intelligible and nearer the truth for me to maintain that money - was at the bottom of your own attempt to secure my death than it is for you to suggest it - as my motive in murdering Herodes. You yourself deserve to be convicted of murder by my - relatives for killing me far more than I by you and the family of Herodes. Of your designs - on my life I have clear proof: whereas you, in seeking to make an end of me, produce only - a tale of which proof is impossible.
-I assure you that I personally can have had no motive for murdering Herodes; but I must - apparently clear Lycinus as well as myself by showing the absurdity of the charge in his - case also. I assure you that his position with regard to Herodes was the same as my own. - He had no means of enriching himself by the murder; and there was no danger from which the - death of Herodes released him.
-Further, the following consideration indicates most strikingly that he did not desire his
- death: had redress for some old injury been owing to Lycinus, he could have brought
- Herodes into court on a charge which endangered his life, and have enlisted the help of
- your laws in making an end of him. By proving him a criminal he could have gained both his
- own object and your city's gratitude. This he did not trouble to do: he did not even
- attempt to institute proceedings against him, in spite of the fact that he was running a
- more honorable risk <by bringing Herodes into court than by engaging me to murder him.
- Call me witnesses to confirm these facts.>Witnesses
-
So we are to understand that Lycinus left Herodes in peace as far as an action at law was - concerned, and instead chose the one course which was bound to endanger both himself and - me, that of plotting his death, notwithstanding the fact that, if discovered, he would - have deprived me of my country and himself of his rights before heaven and mankind, and of - all that men hold most sacred and most precious. I will go further: I will adopt the - standpoint of the prosecution: I will admit as readily as you like that Lycinus did desire - the death of Herodes. Does it follow that I should ever have been induced to perform in - his stead a deed which he refused to commit with his own hand?
-Was I, for instance, in a position to risk my life, and he in a position to hire me to do - so? No, I had money, and he had none. On the contrary, the probabilities show that he - would have been induced to commit the crime by me sooner than I by him; for even after - suffering an execution for a debt of seven minae, he could not release himself from - prison: his friends had to purchase his release. In fact, this affords the clearest - indication of the relations between Lycinus and myself; it shows that my friendship with - him was hardly close enough to make me willing to satisfy his every wish. I cannot suppose - that I braved the enormous risk which murder involved to oblige him, after refusing to pay - off seven minae for him when he was suffering the hardships of imprisonment.
-I have proved, then, to the best of my ability that both Lycinus and I are innocent. - However, the prosecution make endless play with the argument that Herodes has disappeared; - and doubtless it is a fact which you want explained. Now if it is conjecture which is - expected of me, you are just as capable of it as I am—we are both alike innocent of the - crime; on the other hand, if it is the truth, the prosecution must ask one of the - criminals: he would best be able to satisfy them.
-The utmost that I who am not guilty can reply is that I am not guilty; whereas the
- criminal can easily reveal the facts, or at least make a good guess. Criminals no sooner
- commit a crime than they invent an explanation to suit it
So do not present me with a difficulty which you yourselves would not find easy of - solution. Furthermore, do not make my acquittal depend on my making plausible conjectures. - Let it be enough for me to prove my innocence of the crime; and that depends not upon my - discovering how Herodes disappeared or met his end, but upon my possessing no motive - whatever for murdering him.
-As I know from report, there have been similar cases in the past, when sometimes the - victim, sometimes the murderer, has not been traced; it would be unfair, were those who - had been in their company held responsible. Many, again, have been accused before now of - the crimes of others, and have lost their lives before the truth became known.
-For instance, the murderers of one of your own citizens, Ephialtes,
Once more, a slave, not twelve years old, recently attempted to murder his master. Had he
- had the courage to stay where he was, instead of taking to his heels in terror at his
- victim's cries, leaving the knife in the wound, the entire household
Then again, your Hellenotamiae
This one, whose name is said to have been Sosias, though under sentence of death, had not
- yet been executed. Meanwhile it was shown how the money had disappeared. The Athenian
- people rescued him from the very hands of the Eleven
You older ones remember this yourselves, I expect, and the younger have heard of it like - myself.
-Thus it is wise to let time help us in testing the truth of a matter. Perhaps the - circumstances of Herodes' death will similarly come to light hereafter; so do not discover - that you have put an innocent man to death when it is too late. Weigh the matter carefully - while there is yet time, without anger and without prejudice: for they are the worst of - counsellors;
-it is impossible for an angry man to make a right decision, as anger destroys his one - instrument of decision, his judgement. The lapse of one day after another, gentlemen, has - a wondrous power of liberating the judgement from the sway of passion and of bringing the - truth to light.
-Remember too that it is pity which I deserve from you, not punishment. Wrongdoers should - be punished: those wrongfully imperilled should be pitied. You must never let your power - to satisfy justice by saving my life be overridden by my enemies' desire to outrage it by - putting me to death. A delay will still allow you to take the awful step which the - prosecution urge upon you; whereas haste will make a fair consideration of the case quite - impossible.
-I must also defend my father although, as my father, it would have been far more natural - for him to be defending me. He is far older than I, and knows what my life has been - whereas I am far younger than he, and cannot know what his has been. If my accuser were on - trial, and I were giving evidence against him based on hearsay instead of certain - knowledge, he would protest that he was being treated monstrously;
-yet he sees nothing monstrous in forcing me to explain occurrences with which I am far - too young to be acquainted save from hearsay. However, as a loyal son, I will use what - knowledge I have to defend my father against the unwarranted abuse to which you have been - listening. Possibly indeed I may fail. I may describe but faultily a life which was - without fault. But none the less, I will accept that risk.
-Before the revolt of
But from the moment that you punished the authors of the revolt—of whom my father was not
- found to be one—and granted the other citizens of
If
The act which my father joined his whole city in committing, which he committed not from
- choice but under compulsion, affords no just ground for punishing him individually. The
- mistake then made will live in the memory of every citizen of
You must help me: you must refuse to reach those who make a trade of prosecution to - become more powerful than yourselves. If they achieve their purpose when they appear - before you, it will be a lesson to their victims to compromise with them and avoid open - court; but if by appearing before you they succeed only in gaining an evil reputation for - themselves, you will enjoy the honor and the power which it is right that you should. So - give me and give justice your support.
-Proof as complete as the presumptions and the evidence supplied by things human could
- make it has now been presented to you. But in cases of this nature the indications
- furnished by heaven must also have no small influence on your verdict.
I hardly think I need remind you that many a man with unclean hands or some other form of
- defilement who has embarked on shipboard with the righteous has involved them in his own
- destruction.
With me the opposite has happened in every case. Not only have fellow-passengers of mine
- enjoyed the calmest of voyages: but whenever I have attended a sacrifice, that sacrifice
- has invariably been successful. I claim that these facts furnish the strongest presumption
- in my favor that the charge brought against me by the prosecution is unfounded; I have
- witnesses to confirm them.Witnesses
-
I know furthermore, gentlemen of the jury, that if the witnesses were testifying against - me that my presence on shipboard or at a sacrifice had been the occasion of some unholy - manifestation, the prosecution would be treating that fact as supremely significant; they - would be showing that here, in the signs from heaven, was to be found the clearest - confirmation of their charge. As, however, the signs have contradicted their assertions - and the witnesses testify that what I say is true and that what the prosecution say is - not, they urge you to put no credence in the evidence of those witnesses; according to - them, it is their own statements which you should believe. Whereas every one else uses the - facts to prove the worth of mere assertion, they use mere assertion for the purpose of - discrediting the facts.
-All the charges which I can remember, gentlemen, I have answered; and for your own sakes
- I think that you should acquit me. A verdict saving my life will alone enable you to
- comply with the law and your oath; for you have sworn to return a lawful verdict; and
- while the crime with which I am charged can still be tried legally, the laws under which I
- was arrested do not concern my case.
Beware of such haste, gentlemen; give time its opportunity; it is time which enables - those who seek the truth to find it with certainty. In fact, gentlemen, I for one have - always maintained that, while a case of this kind should certainly be tried according to - law, the rights of the matter should be established as many times as the law will permit, - since they would thus be the better understood; the repeated trial of a case is a good - friend of the truth and the deadly foe of misrepresentation.
-In a trial for murder,
The laws, the oaths, the sacrifices, the proclamations, in fact the entire proceeding in - connection with trials for murder differ as profoundly as they do from the proceedings - elsewhere simply because it is of supreme importance that the facts at issue, upon which - so much turns, should themselves be rightly interpreted. Such a right interpretation means - vengeance for him who has been wronged; whereas to find an innocent man guilty of murder - is a mistake, and a sinful mistake, which offends both gods and laws.
-Nor is it as serious for the prosecutor to accuse the wrong person as it is for you - jurors to reach a wrong verdict. The charge brought by the prosecutor is not in itself - effective; whether it becomes so, depends upon you, sitting in judgement. On the other - hand if you yourselves, when actually sitting in judgement, return a wrong verdict, you - cannot rid yourselves of the responsibility for the mistake by blaming someone else for - that verdict.
-Then how can you decide the case aright? By allowing the prosecution to bring their
- charge only after taking the customary oath, and by allowing me to confine my defence to
- the question before the court. And how will you do this? By acquitting me today. For I do
- not escape your sentence even so: you will be the judges at the second hearing also.
Indeed, supposing that you were bound to make some mistake, it would be less of an - outrage to acquit me unfairly than to put me to death without just cause; for the one - thing is a mistake and nothing more: the other is a sin in addition. You must exercise the - greatest caution in what you do, because you will not be able to reconsider your action. - In a matter which admits of reconsideration a mistake, whether made through giving rein to - the feelings or through accepting a distorted account of the facts, is not so serious; it - is still possible to change one's mind and come to a right decision. But when - reconsideration is impossible, the wrong done is only increased by altering one's mind and - acknowledging one's mistake. Some of you yourselves have in fact repented before now of - having sent men to their death; but when you, who had been misled, felt repentance, most - assuredly did those who had misled you deserve death.
-Moreover, whereas involuntary mistakes are excusable, voluntary mistakes are not; for an - involuntary mistake is due to chance, gentlemen, a voluntary one to the will. And what - could be more voluntary than the immediate putting into effect of a carefully considered - course of action? Furthermore, the wrongful taking of life by one's vote is just as - criminal as the wrongful taking of life by one's hand.
-Rest assured that I should never have come to
There is nothing remarkable in the fact that the prosecution are misrepresenting me. It
- is expected of them just as it is expected of you not to consent to do what is wrong. I
- say this because if you follow my advice, it is still open to you to regret your action,
- and that regret can be remedied by punishing me at the second trial: whereas if you
- obediently carry out the prosecution's wishes, the situation cannot be righted again. Nor
- is there a question of a long interval before the law will allow you to take the step to
- which the prosecution are today urging you to consent in defiance of it. It is not haste,
- but discretion which triumphs; so take cognizance of the case today: pass judgement on it
- later
It is very easy, remember, to give false evidence against a man on a capital charge. If - you are persuaded only for an instant to put him to death, he has lost his chance of - redress with his life. A man's very friends will refuse to seek redress for him once he is - dead; and even if they are prepared to do so, what good is it to one who has lost his - life?
-Acquit me, then, today and at the trial for murder the prosecution shall take the - traditional oath before accusing me: you shall decide my case by the laws of the land: and - I, if I am unlucky, shall have no grounds left for complaining that I was sentenced to - death illegally. That is my request; and in making it I am not forgetting your duty as - godfearing men or depriving myself of my rights, as my life is bound up with your oath. - Respect which you will, and acquit me.
-This pointer pattern extracts section.
+ I could have wished, gentlemen, that my powers of speech and my experience of the world
When I had to submit to the bodily suffering which this unwarranted charge brought with it, experience afforded me no help; while now that my life depends upon my giving a truthful account of the facts, my case is being prejudiced by my inability to speak.
Poor speakers have often before now been disbelieved because they spoke the truth, and the truth itself has been their undoing because they could not make it convincing: just as clever speakers have often gained credit with lies, and have owed their lives to the very fact that they lied. Thus the fate of one who is not a practised pleader inevitably depends less upon the true facts and his actual conduct than upon the version of them given by his accusers.
I shall therefore ask you, gentlemen, not indeed for a hearing, as do the majority of those on trial, who lack confidence in themselves and presume you to be biassed; for with an honest jury the defence is naturally assured of a hearing even without appealing for it, seeing that that same jury accorded the prosecution a hearing unasked—
no, my request of you is this. If, on the one hand, I make any mistake in speaking, pardon me and treat it as due to inexperience rather than dishonesty; and if, on the other hand, I express a point well, treat it as due to truthfulness rather than skill. For it is no more right that mere words should be the undoing of a man who is in fact innocent than that they should be the salvation of a man who is in fact guilty; the tongue is to blame for a word whereas the will is to blame for an act.
Moreover, a man in personal danger is sure to make some mistake; he cannot help thinking of his fate as well as of his argument, as the decision of an issue which is still in doubt always depends more upon chance than upon human effort. Hence a man in danger is bound to be not a little distraught.
Even speakers with a long experience of the courts are far from being at their best, I notice, when in any danger; they are more successful when conducting a case in safety.
So much for my request, gentlemen; it breaks no law, human or divine: and it takes into account what you have a right to expect from me as much as what I have a right to expect from you. And now for the charges made, which I will answer one at a time. To begin with, I shall prove to you that the methods used to involve me in today’s proceedings were entirely illegal and arbitrary. Not that I wish to evade trial before a popular court; as far as my belief in my innocence of the present charge and in the justice of your verdict is concerned, I would place my life in your hands even if you were not on oath and I were being tried under no particular law. No, my object is to let the arbitrary and illegal behavior of the prosecution furnish you with a presumption as to the character of the rest of their case against me.
First,
They object, however, that murder is a malefaction, and a grave one. I agree, a very grave one; so is sacrilege; so is treason; but the laws which apply to each of them differ. In my case the prosecution have first of all caused the trial to be held in the one place from which those charged with murder are always debarred by proclamation, the Agora: and secondly, although it is laid down by law that a murderer shall pay with his life, they have entered a claim for damages
Secondly, as of course you all know, every court judges cases of murder in the open air, and for good reasons: first, that the jurors may avoid entering the same building as those whose hands are unclean: and secondly, that he who is conducting the prosecution for murder may avoid being under the same roof as the murderer. No one but yourself has ever dreamed of evading this law. And not only that you should, as a preliminary, have taken the most solemn and binding oath known,
This requirement you have evaded. You have invented laws to suit yourself. You, the prosecutor, are not on oath; nor are the witnesses, who are giving evidence against me which they should have given only after taking the same preliminary oath as yourself, their hands on the sacrifice as they did so. You bid the court, moreover, believe your witnesses, in spite of their not being on oath, and pass sentence for murder—when your own evasion of the laws of the land has destroyed the trustworthiness of those witnesses. Yes, you imagine that, in the eyes of the court, the laws themselves should have less authority than your own actions in defiance of them.
You reply that if I had been allowed my freedom, I should have made off without awaiting my trial—as though you had forced me to enter this country against my will. Yet if I attached no importance to being debarred from
Yet it would be unanimously agreed, I think, that the laws which deal with cases such as the present are the most admirable and righteous of all laws. Not only have they the distinction of being the oldest in this country, but they have changed no more than the crime with which they are concerned; and that is the surest token of good laws, as time and experience show mankind what is imperfect. Hence you must not use the speech for the prosecution to discover whether your laws are good or bad: you must use the laws to discover whether or not the speech for the prosecution is giving you a correct and lawful interpretation of the case.
The laws concerned with the taking of life are thus excellent, and no one has ever before ventured to interfere with them. You alone have had the audacity to turn legislator and substitute worse for better; and the object of this arbitrary behavior of yours is to have me put to death without just cause. In fact, your infringement of the law is itself decisive evidence in my favor, because you well knew that you would find no one to testify to my guilt once he had taken that preliminary oath.
Furthermore, instead of acting like a man confident of his case and arranging that it should be tried once and indisputably, you have left yourself grounds for dispute and argument, as though you proposed to show your distrust of even the present court. The result is that even if I am acquitted today, I am no better off; you can say that it was as a malefactor that I was acquitted, not on a charge of murder. On the other hand, if you win your case, you will claim my life, on the ground that it is on a charge of murder that I have been tried and found guilty. Could any thing more unfair be devised? You and your associates have only to convince this court once, and your object is gained; whereas I, if I am acquitted once, am left in the same peril as before.
Then again, gentlemen, my imprisonment was an act of illegality quite without parallel. I was ready to furnish the three sureties required by law; yet the prosecution took steps to ensure that I should be prevented from doing so. Hitherto no alien willing to furnish sureties has ever been imprisoned; and, moreover, the law concerned applies to the custodians of malefactors
The reason was that it was to the prosecution’s advantage, first, that I should be prevented from looking after my interests in person, and so be quite unable to prepare for my trial: and secondly, that I should undergo bodily suffering, and by reason of that bodily suffering find my friends readier to tell lies as witnesses for the prosecution than the truth as witnesses for the defence.
Such are the manifold respects in which I have had to submit to a loss
I sailed from
+
Such were our respective reasons for making the voyage. In the course of it, we happened to meet with a storm which forced us to put in at a place within the territory of
Nor again, as is clear, was I making my voyage to
After crossing into the other boat, we fell to drinking. Now whereas it is established that Herodes quitted the boat and did not board it again, I did not leave the boat at all that night. Next day, when Herodes was missing, I joined in the search as anxiously as any; if anyone considered the matter serious, I did. Not only was I responsible for the dispatch of a messenger to
but when none of the passengers or the personal companions of Herodes volunteered to go, I offered to send my own attendant; and I hardly imagine that I was deliberately proposing to send someone who would inform against me. Finally, when the search had failed to reveal any trace of Herodes either at
Those are the facts; now draw the logical conclusions. First, in the interval before I put to sea for
Their story is that it was on the shore that Herodes was killed, and that I, who did not leave the boat at all, struck him upon the head with a stone. Yet while they have detailed information of this, they cannot give any plausible account of how the man came to disappear. Clearly, the probabilities suggest that the crime was committed somewhere in the neighborhood of the harbor. On the one hand, Herodes was drunk; and on the other hand, it was at night that he left the boat. He probably would not have been in a condition to control his own movements, nor could anyone who wished to take him a long way off by night have found any plausible excuse for doing so.
Yet in spite of a two days’ search both in the harbor and at a distance from it, no eyewitness, no bloodstain, and no clue of any other description was found. But I will go further. I accept the prosecution’s story. I can indeed produce witnesses to prove that I did not quit the boat.witnesses
are not specifically referred to again. If they are included in those cited at the end of the paragraph, it is strange that nothing more is made of their evidence. In all probability the speaker is alluding to the witness for the prosecution who sturdily maintained that Euxitheus remained on board all night. See
However, we are told that he was thrown into the sea. From what boat? Clearly, the boat came from the harbor itself; and in that case, why should it not have been identified? For that matter, we should also have expected to find some traces in the boat, seeing that a dead man had been placed in it and thrown overboard in the dark. The prosecution claim, indeed, to have found traces—but only in the boat on board of which he was drinking and which he quitted, the one boat on which they themselves agree that he was not murdered. The boat from which he was thrown into the sea they have not discovered; they have found neither it itself nor any trace of it. I will produce witnesses to prove these statements to you.
After I had departed for he sailed in the same boat as myself, and was present and in my company throughout,
a statement which on the face of it should mean that he travelled with Euxitheus from
The first, who was tortured there and then, said nothing to damage me. The second was tortured several days later, after being in the prosecution’s company throughout the interval. It was he who was induced by them to incriminate me falsely. I will produce witnesses to confirm these facts.
You have listened to evidence for the length of the delay before the man’s examination under torture; now notice the actual character of that examination. The slave was doubtless promised his freedom: it was certainly to the prosecution alone that he could look for release from his sufferings. Probably both of these considerations induced him to make the false charges against me which he did; he hoped to gain his freedom, and his one immediate wish was to end the torture.
I need not remind you, I think, that witnesses under torture are biassed in favor of those who do most of the torturing; they will say anything likely to gratify them. It is their one chance of salvation, especially when the victims of their lies happen not to be present. Had I myself proceeded to give orders that the slave should be racked for not telling the truth, that step in itself would doubtless have been enough to make him stop incriminating me falsely. As it was, the examination was conducted by men who also knew what their own interests required.
Now as long as he believed that he had something to gain by falsely incriminating me, he firmly adhered to that course; but on finding that he was doomed, he at once reverted to the truth and admitted that it was our friends here who had induced him to lie about me. However, neither his persevering attempts at falsehood nor his subsequent confession of the truth helped him.
They took him, took the man upon whose disclosures they are resting their case against me, and put him to death,
Clearly, it was not his person, but his evidence, which they required; had the man remained alive, he would have been tortured by me in the same way, and the prosecution would be confronted with their plot: but once he was dead, not only did the loss of his person mean that I was deprived of my opportunity of establishing the truth, but his false statements are assumed to be true and are proving my undoing. Call me witnesses to confirm these facts.
In my opinion, they should have produced the informer himself in court, if they wished to prove me guilty. That was the issue to which they should have brought the case. Instead of putting the man to death, they ought to have produced him in the flesh and challenged me to examine him under torture. As it is, which of his statements will they use, may I ask: his first or his second? And which is true: the statement that I committed the murder or the statement that I did not?
If we are to judge from probability, it is obviously the second which is the truer; he was lying to benefit himself, but on finding that those lies were proving fatal, he thought that he would be saved by telling the truth. However, he had no one to stand up for the truth, as I, who was vindicated by his second, true statement, was unfortunately not present; while there were those who were ready to put his first, his false one, beyond all reach of future correction. As a rule, it is the victim who quietly seizes an informer and then makes away with him. In this case, it is the very persons who arrested the slave in order to discover the truth who have done so;
and it is the very person who had supplied information against myself with whom they have made away. Had I myself been responsible for his disappearance, had I refused to surrender him to the prosecution or declined to establish the truth in some other way, they would have treated that very fact as most significant: it would have furnished the strongest presumption in their favor that I was guilty. So now that they themselves have declined to submit to an inquiry, in spite of a challenge from my friends to do so, that fact should in the same way furnish a presumption in my favor that the charge which they are bringing is a false one.
They further allege that the slave admitted under torture that he had been my accomplice in the murder. I maintain that he did not say this; what he said was that he conducted Herodes and myself off the boat, and that after I had murdered him, he helped me pick him up and put him in the boat; then he threw him into the sea.
Also let me point out to you that at the start, before being placed on the wheel, in fact, until extreme pressure was brought to bear, the man adhered to the truth and declared me innocent. It was only when on the wheel, and when driven to it, that he falsely incriminated me, in order to put an end to the torture.
When it was over, he ceased affirming that I had had any part in the crime; indeed, at the end he bemoaned the injustice with which both I and he were being sent to our doom: not that he was trying to do me a kindness—hardly that, after falsely accusing me as he had done; no, the truth left him no choice: he was confirming as true the declaration which he had made to begin with.
Then there was the second man.
And indeed, the probabilities are in my favor; I hardly imagine myself to have been so benighted that after planning the murder on my own to ensure that no one was privy to it—for there lay my one great danger—I proceeded to furnish myself with witnesses and confederates once the crime had been committed.
Furthermore, Herodes was murdered very close to the sea and the boats, or so we are told by the prosecution. Was a man who was struck down by but one assailant not going to shout out or attract the attention of those on shore or on board? Moreover, sounds can be heard
Again, he was murdered on shore and placed in the boat; yet no trace or bloodstain was found either on shore or in the boat, in spite of the fact that it was at night that he was picked up and at night that he was placed in the boat. Do you think that any human being in such circumstances would have been able to smooth out the traces on shore and wipe away the marks on the boat, clues which a calm and collected man could not have removed successfully even by daylight? What probability is there in such a suggestion, gentlemen?
One thing above all you must remember, and I hope that you will forgive me for repeatedly stressing the same point; but my danger is great, and only if you form a right judgement, am I safe; if you are misled, I am doomed. I repeat, let no one cause you to forget that the prosecution put the informer to death, that they used every effort to prevent his appearance in court and to make it impossible for me to take him and examine him under torture on my return;
although to allow me to do so was to their own advantage.
Why, even slaves who have murdered their masters and been caught red-handed are not put to death by the victim’s own relatives; they are handed over to the authorities as the ancient laws of your country ordain. If it is a fact that a slave is allowed to give evidence that a free man is guilty of murder, if a master can seek vengeance for the murder of his slave, should he see fit, and if a court can sentence the murderer of a slave as effectively as it can the murderer of a free man,
And now, gentlemen, consider further the statements of the two witnesses tortured. What are the fair and reasonable conclusions to be drawn from them? The slave gave two accounts: at one time he maintained that I was guilty, at another that I was not.
On the other hand, in spite of similar torture, the free man has not even yet said anything to damage me. He could not be influenced by offers of freedom, as his companion had been; and at the same time he was determined to cling to the truth, cost what it might. Of course, as far as his own advantage was concerned, he knew, like the other, that the torture would be over as soon as he corroborated the prosecution. Which, then, have we more reason to believe: the witness who firmly adhered to the same statement throughout, or the witness who affirmed a thing at one moment, and denied it at the next? Why, quite apart from the torture employed, those who consistently keep to one statement about one set of facts are more to be trusted than those who contradict themselves.
Then again, of the slave’s statements half are in favor of one side, half in favor of the other: his affirmations support my accusers, and his denials support me. [;Similarly with the combined statements of both the witnesses examined: the one affirmed, and the other consistently denied.];
Such was the examination under torture on which the prosecution rely, gentlemen, when they say that they are convinced that I am the murderer of Herodes. Yet if I had had anything whatsoever on my conscience, if I had committed a crime of this kind, I should have got rid of both witnesses while I had the opportunity, either by taking them with me to
The prosecution further allege that they discovered on board a note stating that I had killed Herodes, which I had intended to send to Lycinus. But what need had I to send a note, when the bearer himself was my accomplice? Not only would he, as one of the murderers, have told the story more clearly in his own words, but it would have been quite unnecessary to conceal the message from him, and it is essentially messages which cannot be disclosed to the bearer that are sent in writing.
Then again, an extensive message would have had to be written down, as its length would have prevented the bearer remembering it. But this one was brief enough to deliver—The man is dead.
Moreover, bear in mind that the note contradicted the slave tortured, and the slave the note. The slave stated under torture that he had committed the murder himself,
Which are we to believe? The prosecution discovered the note on board only during a second search, not during their first one; they had not hit on the idea at the time. It was not until the first witness had said nothing to incriminate me when tortured that they dropped the note in the boat, in order to have that, if nothing else, as a ground for accusing me.
Then, once the note had been read and the second witness, when tortured, persisted in disagreeing with the note, it was impossible to spirit away the message read from it. Needless to say, had the prosecution supposed that they would induce the slave to lie about me immediately, they would never have devised the message contained in the note. Call me witnesses to confirm these facts.
+
Now what was my motive in murdering Herodes? For there was not even any bad feeling between us. The prosecution have the audacity to suggest that I murdered him as a favor. But who has ever turned murderer to oblige a friend? No one, I am sure. The bitterest feeling has to exist before murder is committed, while the growth of the design is always abundantly manifest. And, as I said, between Herodes and myself there was no bad feeling.
Well and good. Then was it that I was afraid of being murdered by him myself? A motive of that kind might well drive a man to the deed. No, I had no such fears with regard to him. Then was I going to enrich myself by the murder? No, he had no money.
Indeed, it would be more intelligible and nearer the truth for me to maintain that money was at the bottom of your own attempt to secure my death than it is for you to suggest it as my motive in murdering Herodes. You yourself deserve to be convicted of murder by my relatives for killing me far more than I by you and the family of Herodes. Of your designs on my life I have clear proof: whereas you, in seeking to make an end of me, produce only a tale of which proof is impossible.
I assure you that I personally can have had no motive for murdering Herodes; but I must apparently clear Lycinus as well as myself by showing the absurdity of the charge in his case also. I assure you that his position with regard to Herodes was the same as my own. He had no means of enriching himself by the murder; and there was no danger from which the death of Herodes released him.
Further, the following consideration indicates most strikingly that he did not desire his death: had redress for some old injury been owing to Lycinus, he could have brought Herodes into court on a charge which endangered his life, and have enlisted the help of your laws in making an end of him. By proving him a criminal he could have gained both his own object and your city’s gratitude. This he did not trouble to do: he did not even attempt to institute proceedings against him, in spite of the fact that he was running a more honorable risk the danger into which L. would bring H. by prosecuting him.
The gist of the sentence would then be to endanger H.’s life by legal methods was a more creditable course for L. than to murder him.
On the other hand, it might refer (b) to the risk (of failing to gain a verdict and so being fined) run by L. himself in prosecuting H. The speaker would then be saying in effect it was more creditable for L. to risk losing a case at law against H. than to risk murdering him.
Of the two alternatives (b) is the more probable. But Antiphon is not in the habit of being terse to the point of obscurity; and it is hard to believe that the sentence as he wrote it ended at
So we are to understand that Lycinus left Herodes in peace as far as an action at law was concerned, and instead chose the one course which was bound to endanger both himself and me, that of plotting his death, notwithstanding the fact that, if discovered, he would have deprived me of my country and himself of his rights before heaven and mankind, and of all that men hold most sacred and most precious. I will go further: I will adopt the standpoint of the prosecution: I will admit as readily as you like that Lycinus did desire the death of Herodes. Does it follow that I should ever have been induced to perform in his stead a deed which he refused to commit with his own hand?
Was I, for instance, in a position to risk my life, and he in a position to hire me to do so? No, I had money, and he had none. On the contrary, the probabilities show that he would have been induced to commit the crime by me sooner than I by him; for even after suffering an execution for a debt of seven minae, he could not release himself from prison: his friends had to purchase his release. In fact, this affords the clearest indication of the relations between Lycinus and myself; it shows that my friendship with him was hardly close enough to make me willing to satisfy his every wish. I cannot suppose that I braved the enormous risk which murder involved to oblige him, after refusing to pay off seven minae for him when he was suffering the hardships of imprisonment.
I have proved, then, to the best of my ability that both Lycinus and I are innocent. However, the prosecution make endless play with the argument that Herodes has disappeared; and doubtless it is a fact which you want explained. Now if it is conjecture which is expected of me, you are just as capable of it as I am—we are both alike innocent of the crime; on the other hand, if it is the truth, the prosecution must ask one of the criminals: he would best be able to satisfy them.
The utmost that I who am not guilty can reply is that I am not guilty; whereas the criminal can easily reveal the facts, or at least make a good guess. Criminals no sooner commit a crime than they invent an explanation to suit it
So do not present me with a difficulty which you yourselves would not find easy of solution. Furthermore, do not make my acquittal depend on my making plausible conjectures. Let it be enough for me to prove my innocence of the crime; and that depends not upon my discovering how Herodes disappeared or met his end, but upon my possessing no motive whatever for murdering him.
As I know from report, there have been similar cases in the past, when sometimes the victim, sometimes the murderer, has not been traced; it would be unfair, were those who had been in their company held responsible. Many, again, have been accused before now of the crimes of others, and have lost their lives before the truth became known.
For instance, the murderers of one of your own citizens, Ephialtes,
Once more, a slave, not twelve years old, recently attempted to murder his master. Had he had the courage to stay where he was, instead of taking to his heels in terror at his victim’s cries, leaving the knife in the wound, the entire household
Then again, your Hellenotamiae
This one, whose name is said to have been Sosias, though under sentence of death, had not yet been executed. Meanwhile it was shown how the money had disappeared. The Athenian people rescued him from the very hands of the Eleven
You older ones remember this yourselves, I expect, and the younger have heard of it like myself.
+Thus it is wise to let time help us in testing the truth of a matter. Perhaps the circumstances of Herodes’ death will similarly come to light hereafter; so do not discover that you have put an innocent man to death when it is too late. Weigh the matter carefully while there is yet time, without anger and without prejudice: for they are the worst of counsellors;
it is impossible for an angry man to make a right decision, as anger destroys his one instrument of decision, his judgement. The lapse of one day after another, gentlemen, has a wondrous power of liberating the judgement from the sway of passion and of bringing the truth to light.
Remember too that it is pity which I deserve from you, not punishment. Wrongdoers should be punished: those wrongfully imperilled should be pitied. You must never let your power to satisfy justice by saving my life be overridden by my enemies’ desire to outrage it by putting me to death. A delay will still allow you to take the awful step which the prosecution urge upon you; whereas haste will make a fair consideration of the case quite impossible.
I must also defend my father although, as my father, it would have been far more natural for him to be defending me. He is far older than I, and knows what my life has been whereas I am far younger than he, and cannot know what his has been. If my accuser were on trial, and I were giving evidence against him based on hearsay instead of certain knowledge, he would protest that he was being treated monstrously;
yet he sees nothing monstrous in forcing me to explain occurrences with which I am far too young to be acquainted save from hearsay. However, as a loyal son, I will use what knowledge I have to defend my father against the unwarranted abuse to which you have been listening. Possibly indeed I may fail. I may describe but faultily a life which was without fault. But none the less, I will accept that risk.
Before the revolt of failed in what you expected of them,
an expression for which there are parallels,
But from the moment that you punished the authors of the revolt—of whom my father was not found to be one—and granted the other citizens of services to
amount to nothing more than the payment of
If
The act which my father joined his whole city in committing, which he committed not from choice but under compulsion, affords no just ground for punishing him individually. The mistake then made will live in the memory of every citizen of
You must help me: you must refuse to reach those who make a trade of prosecution to become more powerful than yourselves. If they achieve their purpose when they appear before you, it will be a lesson to their victims to compromise with them and avoid open court; but if by appearing before you they succeed only in gaining an evil reputation for themselves, you will enjoy the honor and the power which it is right that you should. So give me and give justice your support.
Proof as complete as the presumptions and the evidence supplied by things human could make it has now been presented to you. But in cases of this nature the indications furnished by heaven must also have no small influence on your verdict.
I hardly think I need remind you that many a man with unclean hands or some other form of defilement who has embarked on shipboard with the righteous has involved them in his own destruction.
With me the opposite has happened in every case. Not only have fellow-passengers of mine enjoyed the calmest of voyages: but whenever I have attended a sacrifice, that sacrifice has invariably been successful. I claim that these facts furnish the strongest presumption in my favor that the charge brought against me by the prosecution is unfounded; I have witnesses to confirm them.
I know furthermore, gentlemen of the jury, that if the witnesses were testifying against me that my presence on shipboard or at a sacrifice had been the occasion of some unholy manifestation, the prosecution would be treating that fact as supremely significant; they would be showing that here, in the signs from heaven, was to be found the clearest confirmation of their charge. As, however, the signs have contradicted their assertions and the witnesses testify that what I say is true and that what the prosecution say is not, they urge you to put no credence in the evidence of those witnesses; according to them, it is their own statements which you should believe. Whereas every one else uses the facts to prove the worth of mere assertion, they use mere assertion for the purpose of discrediting the facts.
All the charges which I can remember, gentlemen, I have answered; and for your own sakes I think that you should acquit me. A verdict saving my life will alone enable you to comply with the law and your oath; for you have sworn to return a lawful verdict; and while the crime with which I am charged can still be tried legally, the laws under which I was arrested do not concern my case.laws under which I was arrested
are of course the
Beware of such haste, gentlemen; give time its opportunity; it is time which enables those who seek the truth to find it with certainty. In fact, gentlemen, I for one have always maintained that, while a case of this kind should certainly be tried according to law, the rights of the matter should be established as many times as the law will permit, since they would thus be the better understood; the repeated trial of a case is a good friend of the truth and the deadly foe of misrepresentation.
In a trial for murder,disregarding the sentence imposed.
The laws, the oaths, the sacrifices, the proclamations, in fact the entire proceeding in connection with trials for murder differ as profoundly as they do from the proceedings elsewhere simply because it is of supreme importance that the facts at issue, upon which so much turns, should themselves be rightly interpreted. Such a right interpretation means vengeance for him who has been wronged; whereas to find an innocent man guilty of murder is a mistake, and a sinful mistake, which offends both gods and laws.
Nor is it as serious for the prosecutor to accuse the wrong person as it is for you jurors to reach a wrong verdict. The charge brought by the prosecutor is not in itself effective; whether it becomes so, depends upon you, sitting in judgement. On the other hand if you yourselves, when actually sitting in judgement, return a wrong verdict, you cannot rid yourselves of the responsibility for the mistake by blaming someone else for that verdict.
Then how can you decide the case aright? By allowing the prosecution to bring their charge only after taking the customary oath, and by allowing me to confine my defence to the question before the court. And how will you do this? By acquitting me today. For I do not escape your sentence even so: you will be the judges at the second hearing also.you Athenians.
Indeed, supposing that you were bound to make some mistake, it would be less of an outrage to acquit me unfairly than to put me to death without just cause; for the one thing is a mistake and nothing more: the other is a sin in addition. You must exercise the greatest caution in what you do, because you will not be able to reconsider your action. In a matter which admits of reconsideration a mistake, whether made through giving rein to the feelings or through accepting a distorted account of the facts, is not so serious; it is still possible to change one’s mind and come to a right decision. But when reconsideration is impossible, the wrong done is only increased by altering one’s mind and acknowledging one’s mistake. Some of you yourselves have in fact repented before now of having sent men to their death; but when you, who had been misled, felt repentance, most assuredly did those who had misled you deserve death.
Moreover, whereas involuntary mistakes are excusable, voluntary mistakes are not; for an involuntary mistake is due to chance, gentlemen, a voluntary one to the will. And what could be more voluntary than the immediate putting into effect of a carefully considered course of action? Furthermore, the wrongful taking of life by one’s vote is just as criminal as the wrongful taking of life by one’s hand.
Rest assured that I should never have come to
There is nothing remarkable in the fact that the prosecution are misrepresenting me. It is expected of them just as it is expected of you not to consent to do what is wrong. I say this because if you follow my advice, it is still open to you to regret your action, and that regret can be remedied by punishing me at the second trial: whereas if you obediently carry out the prosecution’s wishes, the situation cannot be righted again. Nor is there a question of a long interval before the law will allow you to take the step to which the prosecution are today urging you to consent in defiance of it. It is not haste, but discretion which triumphs; so take cognizance of the case today: pass judgement on it later
It is very easy, remember, to give false evidence against a man on a capital charge. If you are persuaded only for an instant to put him to death, he has lost his chance of redress with his life. A man’s very friends will refuse to seek redress for him once he is dead; and even if they are prepared to do so, what good is it to one who has lost his life?
Acquit me, then, today and at the trial for murder the prosecution shall take the traditional oath before accusing me: you shall decide my case by the laws of the land: and I, if I am unlucky, shall have no grounds left for complaining that I was sentenced to death illegally. That is my request; and in making it I am not forgetting your duty as godfearing men or depriving myself of my rights, as my life is bound up with your oath. Respect which you will, and acquit me.
True happiness for one who is but human, gentlemen, would mean a life in which his person - is threatened by no peril: and well might that be the burden of our prayers. But well too - might we pray that if we must perforce face danger, we may have at least the one - consolation which is to my mind the greatest of blessings at such an hour, a clear - conscience; so that if disaster should after all befall us, it will be due to no iniquity - of ours and bring no shame; it will be the result of chance rather than of wrongdoing. -
-It would be unanimously agreed, I think, that the laws which deal with cases such as the
- present are the most admirable and righteous of laws. Not only have they the distinction
- of being the oldest in this country, but they have changed no more than the crime with
- which they are concerned; and that is the surest token of good laws, as time and
- experience show mankind what is imperfect. Hence you must not use the speech for the
- prosecution to discover whether your laws are good or bad: you must use laws to discover
- whether or not the speech for the prosecution is giving you a correct and lawful
- interpretation of the case.
The person whom today's proceedings concern most of all is myself, because I am the
- defendant and in danger. Nevertheless, it is also, I think, of great importance to you who
- are my judges that you should reach a correct verdict in trials for murder, first and
- foremost because of the gods and your duty towards them, and secondly for your own sakes.
- A case of this kind can be tried only once
Once you condemn him, a defendant must perforce accept your verdict, even if he was not - the murderer or concerned in the crime. The law banishes him from his city, its temples, - its games, and its sacrifices, the greatest and the most ancient of human institutions; - and he must acquiesce. So powerful is the compulsion of the law, that even if a man slays - one who is his own chattel and who has none to avenge him, his fear of the ordinances of - god and of man causes him to purify himself and withhold himself from those places - prescribed by law, in the hope that by so doing he will best avoid disaster.
-Most of the life of man rests upon hope; and by defying the gods and committing - transgressions against them, he would rob himself even of hope, the greatest of human - blessings. No one would venture either to disregard the sentence passed upon him because - he was sure that he had had no part in the crime, or to disobey the law if he knew in his - heart that he was guilty of such a deed. He has to submit to the verdict in defiance of - the facts, or submit to the facts themselves, as the case may be, even if his victim has - none to avenge him.
-The laws, the oaths, the sacrifices, the proclamations, in fact the whole of the - proceedings in connection with trials for murder differ as profoundly as they do from the - proceedings elsewhere simply because it is of supreme importance that the facts at issue, - upon which so much turns, should themselves be rightly interpreted. Such a right - interpretation means vengeance for him who has been wronged; whereas to find an innocent - man guilty of murder is a mistake, and a sinful mistake, which offends both gods and laws. - Nor is it as serious for the prosecutor to accuse the wrong person as it is for you judges - to reach a wrong verdict. The charge brought by the prosecutor is not in itself effective; - whether it becomes so, depends upon you, sitting in judgement. On the other hand, if you - yourselves arrive at a wrong verdict, you cannot rid yourselves of the responsibility for - so doing by blaming someone else for that verdict.
-My own attitude to my defence, gentlemen, is very different from that of my accusers to - their prosecution. They, on their side, allege that their object in bringing this action - is to discharge a sacred duty and to satisfy justice; whereas they have in fact treated - their speech for the prosecution as nothing but an opportunity for malicious falsehood, and - such behavior is the worst travesty of justice humanly possible. Their aim is not to - expose any crime I may have committed in order to exact the penalty which it deserves, but - to blacken me, even though I am entirely innocent, in order to have me punished with exile - from this country.
-I, on the other hand, consider that my first duty is to reply to the charge before the
- court by giving you a complete account of the facts. Afterwards, if you so desire, I shall
- be pleased to answer the remaining accusations made,
when they had the opportunity of avenging themselves on an enemy and doing the state a
- service by exposing and bringing home to me any public offence of which I had been guilty,
- as Choregus or otherwise, not one of them was able to prove that I had done your people
- any wrong, great or small.
Indeed, they deserve to win neither gratitude nor credence with these charges of theirs. - The circumstances in which they are prosecuting are not such as to allow the state to - obtain satisfaction if really wronged, and only so would they be entitled to its - gratitude; while the prosecutor who refuses to confine himself to the charge before the - court in an action such as the present does not so much deserve to be believed as to be - disbelieved. I myself know well enough what your own feelings are; nothing save the facts - immediately at issue would lead you either to condemn or to acquit, because only thus can - the claims of heaven and of justice be satisfied. So with those facts I will begin.
-When I was appointed Choregus for the Thargelia,
For a while after the arrival of the boys I had no time to look after them in person, as
- I happened to be engaged in suits against Aristion and Philinus,
Besides Phanostratus I appointed two others. The first, Ameinias, whom I thought a - trustworthy man, belonged to the Erechtheid tribe and had been officially chosen by it to - recruit and supervise its choruses at the various festivals; while the second, . . ., - regularly recruited the choruses of the Cecropid tribe, to which he belonged, in the same - way. There was yet a fourth, Philippus, whose duty it was to purchase or spend whatever - the poet or any of the other three told him. Thus I ensured that the boys should receive - every attention and lack nothing owing to my own preoccupation.
-Such were my arrangements as Choregus. If I am lying as regards any of them in order to - exonerate myself, my accuser is at liberty to refute me on any point he likes in his - second speech. For this is how it is, gentlemen: many of the spectators here present are - perfectly familiar with every one of these facts, the voice of the officer who - administered the oath is in their ears, and they are giving my defence their close - attention; I would like them to feel that I am respecting that oath, and that if I - persuade you to acquit me, it was by telling the truth that I did so.
-In the first place, then, I will prove to you that I did not tell the boy to drink the
- poison, compel him to drink it, give it to him to drink, or even witness him drinking it.
- And I am not insisting on these facts in order to incriminate someone else once I have
- cleared myself; no indeed—unless that someone else be Fortune; and this is not the first
- time, I imagine, that she has caused a man's death. Fortune neither I nor any other could
- prevent from fulfilling her destined part in the life of each of us. . . .Witnesses
-
The facts have been confirmed by evidence as I promised, gentlemen; and you must let that
- evidence help you to decide which of the two sworn statements made,
Further, in making their charge, the prosecution invoke the principle that the - responsibility rests with whoever told the boy to drink the poison, forced him to drink - it, or gave it to him to drink. By that very principle, however, I will myself prove that - I am innocent: for I neither told the boy to drink the poison, nor forced him to drink it, - nor gave it to him to drink. I will even go a step further than they and add that I did - not witness him drink it. If the prosecution say that it was a criminal act to tell him to - drink it, I am no criminal: I did not tell him to drink it. If they say that it was a - criminal act to force him to drink it, I am no criminal: I did not force him to drink it. - And if they say that the responsibility rests with the person who gave him the poison, I - am not responsible: I did not give it to him.
-Now accusations and lies can be indulged in at will, as they are at the command of each - one of us. But that what never happened should be transformed into fact, that an innocent - man should be transformed into a criminal is not, I feel, a matter which depends upon the - eloquence of the prosecution; it is a question of what is right and what is true. - Admittedly, with a deliberately planned murder, carried out in secret and with none to - witness it, the truth can only be determined from the accounts given by the prosecutor and - the defendant, and from them alone; their statements must be followed up with care and - suspected on the slightest grounds and the final verdict must necessarily be the result of - conjecture rather than certain knowledge.
-But in the present instance, the prosecution themselves admit to begin with that the
- boy's death was not due to premeditation or design: and secondly, everything which
- happened happened publicly and before numerous witnesses, men and boys, free men and
- slaves, who would have ensured the complete exposure of the criminal, had there been one,
- and the instant refutation of anyone who accused an innocent person.
Both the spirit shown by my opponents and the way in which they set to work are worth - noticing, gentlemen; for their behavior towards me has been very different from mine - towards them from the outset.
-Philocrates yonder presented himself before the Heliaea of the Thesmothetae
However, I said, there would be no difficulty in proving his monstrous accusation a lie, - as there were plenty of witnesses, slave and free, young and old, in fact, over fifty in - all, who knew how the drinking of the poison had been accounted for and were in complete - possession of the facts and circumstances.
-Not only did I make this declaration before the court, but I offered Philocrates a - challenge there and then, and repeated it the following day in the presence of the same - jury. Let him take with him as many witnesses as he liked: let him go to the persons who - had been present at the accident (I specified them by name): and let him interrogate and - cross-examine them. Let him question the free men as befitted free men; for their own - sakes and in the interests of justice, they would give a faithful account of what had - occurred. As to the slaves, if he considered that they were answering his questions - truthfully, well and good; if he did not, I was ready to place all my own at his disposal - for examination under torture, and should he demand any that did not belong to me, I - agreed to obtain the consent of their owner and hand them over to him to examine as he - liked.
-That was the challenge which I addressed to him before the court; and not only the jurors - themselves but numbers of private persons also were there to witness it. Yet the - prosecution refused to bring the case to this issue at the time, and have persistently - refused ever since. They knew very well that instead of supplying them with proof of my - guilt, such an inquiry would supply me with proof that their own charge was totally unjust - and unfounded.
-You do not need to be reminded, gentlemen, that the one occasion when compulsion is as
- absolute and as effective as is humanly possible, and when the rights of a case are
- ascertained thereby most surely and most certainly, arises when there is an abundance of
- witnesses, both slave and free, and it is possible to put pressure upon the free men by
- exacting an oath or word of honor, the most solemn and the most awful form of compulsion
- known to freemen, and upon the slaves by other devices, which will force them to tell the
- truth even if their revelations are bound to cost them their lives, as the compulsion of
- the moment has a stronger influence over each than the fate which he will suffer by
- compulsion afterwards.
It was to this, then, and nothing less that I challenged the prosecution. Every means - which mortal man finds it necessary to use in order to discover the true rights of a - matter, they had the opportunity of using; not the vestige of an excuse was left them. I, - the defendant, the alleged criminal, was ready to give them the chance of proving my guilt - in the fairest possible way; it was they, the prosecutors, the professedly injured party, - who refused to obtain proof of such injury as they had sustained.
-Suppose that the offer had come from them. Then had I refused to disclose who the - eyewitnesses were: had I refused to hand over my servants at their request: or had I been - afraid to accept some other challenge, they would be claiming that those facts in - themselves afforded to my detriment the strongest presumption of the truth of their - charge. Instead, it was I who issued the challenge, and the prosecution who evaded the - test. So it was surely only fair that this same fact should afford me a presumption to - their detriment that the charge which they have made against me is untrue.
-Further, I am certain, gentlemen, that if the witnesses present at the accident were - testifying in the prosecution's favor and against me, the prosecution would be treating - them as supremely important: they would be showing that such unfavourable evidence was - proof conclusive. As, however, these same witnesses are testifying that what I say is true - and that what the prosecution say is not, they urge that the evidence of those witnesses - in my favor is untrustworthy; according to them, it is their own statements which you - should believe, statements which they would be attacking as false, were I making them - myself without witnesses to support me.
-Yet it is strange that the witnesses who would be trustworthy, were their evidence - favorable to the prosecution, are to be untrustworthy when it is favorable to me. Were I - producing eyewitnesses when there had been none, or were I not producing the true - eyewitnesses, there would be some ground for treating the statements of the prosecution as - more trustworthy than my witnesses. But the prosecution admit that witnesses were actually - present: I am producing those witnesses: and both I and all my witnesses are well known to - have maintained from the very first day what we are repeating to you now. So what other - means than these are to be employed to confirm what is true and to disprove what is not? -
-If a bare statement of the facts were made, but not supported by the evidence of - witnesses, it might well be criticized for the absence of that support; and if witnesses - were forthcoming, only to conflict with the presumptions furnished by the pleader, his - opponent might well pass a corresponding criticism, should he so wish.
-Now in my own case, you are being presented with an account which is reasonable, with - evidence which is consistent with that account, with facts which are consistent with that - evidence, with presumptions drawn immediately from those facts, and with two arguments of - the greatest significance and weight in addition:
-the first, the circumstance that the prosecution have been proved impostors both by - themselves and by me: and the second, the circumstance that I have been proved innocent - both by the prosecution and by myself; for in refusing to obtain proof of such injury as - they had sustained when I was ready for an inquiry into the crime with which they were - charging me, they were clearly acknowledging my innocence and testifying to the injustice - and falsity of their own accusation. If I supplement the evidence of my own witnesses with - that of my opponents in person, what other expedients, what other proofs are necessary to - establish my entire freedom from the charge?
-I feel that both the arguments and proofs which I have put before you, gentlemen, would - justify you in acquitting me; you all know that the charge before the court does not - concern me. However, to confirm you in that knowledge, I will go further. I will prove - that my accusers here are the most reckless perjurors and the most godless scoundrels - alive: that they have earned not only my own hatred, but the hatred of every one of you - and of your fellow-citizens besides, by instituting this trial.
-On the first day, the day of the boy's death, and on the second, when the body was laid
- out, not even the prosecution themselves thought of accusing me of having played any kind
- of criminal part in the accident: on the contrary, they avoided neither meeting me nor
- speaking to me.
I was about to prosecute Aristion, Philinus, Ampelinus, and the secretary to the - Thesmothetae, with whose embezzlements they had been associated, on charges which I had - presented to the Council in the form of an impeachment. As far as the facts of the case - were concerned, they had no hope of acquittal: their offences were too serious. On the - other hand, could they but induce my accusers here to register a charge and proclaim that - I was under the statutory ban, they would, they thought, be safely rid of the whole - business.
-The law runs that the ban comes into force as soon as anyone has a charge of murder
- registered against him; and if placed under it, not only should I myself have been unable
- to proeeed with my case, but once the party responsible for the impeachment and in
- possession of the facts failed to proceed, the four would gain an acquittal without
- difficulty, and the wrong which they had done you would go unpunished. I was not, I may
- say, the first against whom Philinus and his companions had employed this device; they had
- already done the same to Lysistratus, as you have heard for yourselves.
The prosecution started by doing their utmost to register a charge at once, on the day - after the burial, before the house had been purified or the proper rites performed; they - had taken care to choose the very day on which the first of the other four was to be - tried, to make it impossible for me to proceed against a single one of them or present the - court with any of their offences.
-However, the Basileus read them the law, and showed that there was not sufficient time to
- register a charge or issue the necessary writs
I took my friends' advice, and was formally reconciled to them on the Acropolis
The crowning point was reached in the Council-chamber in front of the Council—heavens, to
- think of it! —when Philocrates here himself joined me on the tribune and conversed with
- me, his hand on my arm, addressing me by my name as I addressed him by his. No wonder that
- the Council was astounded to learn that I had been proclaimed under the ban by the very
- persons whom they had seen in my company chatting to me on the previous day.
And now I want your attention, gentlemen: I want you to cast your minds back; for I shall - not use witnesses alone to prove the facts to which I am now coming; your own knowledge of - how the prosecution have acted will itself show you at once that I am telling the truth. - To begin with, they complain of the Basileus and attribute his refusal to register their - charge to activities of mine.
-That complaint, however, will serve merely to damage their case by suggesting that their
- statements in general are untrue; for after registering the action, the Basileus was
- obliged to hold three preliminary inquiries in the course of the three months following,
- only bringing the case into court during the fourth—as he has done today. Yet only two
- months of office remained to him, Thargelion and Scirophorion.
There is, indeed, one very striking indication that he did not rob the prosecution of
- their rights: whereas Philocrates yonder tormented other magistrates who had to render
- account of their office
Moreover, after the present Basileus had come into office, there were thirty clear days
- from the first of Hecatombaeon onwards,
Ordinarily, anyone who has not time enough under one archon <registers his charge as
- soon as he can under the next>. But the prosecution, who were perfectly familiar with
- the laws concerned and could see that I was a member of the Council and used the
- Council-chamber —why, in that very chamber itself stands a shrine of Zeus the Councillor
- and Athena the Councillor, where members offer prayers as they enter; and I was one of
- those members: I did as they did: in their company I entered all our other sanctuaries: I
- offered sacrifices and prayers on behalf of this city: nay more, I acted as a Prytanis for
- the whole of the first Prytany save two days
And the prosecution were in
Where indeed could one find fewer scruples or a greater contempt for law? Here are men - who expect to persuade you to believe what they have failed to persuade themselves to - believe, who bid you declare guilty the man whom they have themselves in fact declared - innocent; whereas everyone else uses the facts to prove the worth of mere assertion, they - use mere assertion for the purpose of discrediting the facts.
-Indeed, if I had said nothing, established nothing, and produced evidence of nothing, but - had proved to you the one fact that, whereas when paid to attack me the prosecution - produced charges and proclamations, they frequented my society and were on speaking terms - with me when there was no one to finance them, you would have heard enough to acquit me - and treat the prosecution as the worst perjurors and the most impious scoundrels alive. -
-What accusation would they hesitate to bring, what court would they hesitate to mislead,
- what oaths would they feel any compunction in breaking, after taking thirty minae, as they
- have, from the Poristae, the Poletae, the Practores, and the clerks attached to them, to
- bring me into court,
As it is, they themselves, those who struck the bargain with them, and the parties with
- whom the money was deposited are paying the price of their misdeeds
What court, then, would they hesitate to invade with their lies, what oaths would they
- feel the slightest compunction in breaking? The impious scoundrels! They knew that you are
- the most conscientious and the fairest judges in this nation; yet they come before you
- intent on deceiving even you, if they can, in spite of the solemn oaths which they have
- sworn.
This pointer pattern extracts section.
+True happiness for one who is but human, gentlemen, would mean a life in which his person is threatened by no peril: and well might that be the burden of our prayers. But well too might we pray that if we must perforce face danger, we may have at least the one consolation which is to my mind the greatest of blessings at such an hour, a clear conscience; so that if disaster should after all befall us, it will be due to no iniquity of ours and bring no shame; it will be the result of chance rather than of wrongdoing.
+It would be unanimously agreed, I think, that the laws which deal with cases such as the present are the most admirable and righteous of laws. Not only have they the distinction of being the oldest in this country, but they have changed no more than the crime with which they are concerned; and that is the surest token of good laws, as time and experience show mankind what is imperfect. Hence you must not use the speech for the prosecution to discover whether your laws are good or bad: you must use laws to discover whether or not the speech for the prosecution is giving you a correct and lawful interpretation of the case.
The person whom today’s proceedings concern most of all is myself, because I am the defendant and in danger. Nevertheless, it is also, I think, of great importance to you who are my judges that you should reach a correct verdict in trials for murder, first and foremost because of the gods and your duty towards them, and secondly for your own sakes. A case of this kind can be tried only once
Once you condemn him, a defendant must perforce accept your verdict, even if he was not the murderer or concerned in the crime. The law banishes him from his city, its temples, its games, and its sacrifices, the greatest and the most ancient of human institutions; and he must acquiesce. So powerful is the compulsion of the law, that even if a man slays one who is his own chattel and who has none to avenge him, his fear of the ordinances of god and of man causes him to purify himself and withhold himself from those places prescribed by law, in the hope that by so doing he will best avoid disaster.
+Most of the life of man rests upon hope; and by defying the gods and committing transgressions against them, he would rob himself even of hope, the greatest of human blessings. No one would venture either to disregard the sentence passed upon him because he was sure that he had had no part in the crime, or to disobey the law if he knew in his heart that he was guilty of such a deed. He has to submit to the verdict in defiance of the facts, or submit to the facts themselves, as the case may be, even if his victim has none to avenge him.
+The laws, the oaths, the sacrifices, the proclamations, in fact the whole of the proceedings in connection with trials for murder differ as profoundly as they do from the proceedings elsewhere simply because it is of supreme importance that the facts at issue, upon which so much turns, should themselves be rightly interpreted. Such a right interpretation means vengeance for him who has been wronged; whereas to find an innocent man guilty of murder is a mistake, and a sinful mistake, which offends both gods and laws. Nor is it as serious for the prosecutor to accuse the wrong person as it is for you judges to reach a wrong verdict. The charge brought by the prosecutor is not in itself effective; whether it becomes so, depends upon you, sitting in judgement. On the other hand, if you yourselves arrive at a wrong verdict, you cannot rid yourselves of the responsibility for so doing by blaming someone else for that verdict.
+My own attitude to my defence, gentlemen, is very different from that of my accusers to their prosecution. They, on their side, allege that their object in bringing this action is to discharge a sacred duty and to satisfy justice; whereas they have in fact treated their speech for the prosecution as nothing but an opportunity for malicious falsehood, and such behavior is the worst travesty of justice humanly possible. Their aim is not to expose any crime I may have committed in order to exact the penalty which it deserves, but to blacken me, even though I am entirely innocent, in order to have me punished with exile from this country.
+I, on the other hand, consider that my first duty is to reply to the charge before the court by giving you a complete account of the facts. Afterwards, if you so desire, I shall be pleased to answer the remaining accusations made,
when they had the opportunity of avenging themselves on an enemy and doing the state a service by exposing and bringing home to me any public offence of which I had been guilty, as Choregus or otherwise, not one of them was able to prove that I had done your people any wrong, great or small.
Indeed, they deserve to win neither gratitude nor credence with these charges of theirs. The circumstances in which they are prosecuting are not such as to allow the state to obtain satisfaction if really wronged, and only so would they be entitled to its gratitude; while the prosecutor who refuses to confine himself to the charge before the court in an action such as the present does not so much deserve to be believed as to be disbelieved. I myself know well enough what your own feelings are; nothing save the facts immediately at issue would lead you either to condemn or to acquit, because only thus can the claims of heaven and of justice be satisfied. So with those facts I will begin.
+When I was appointed Choregus for the Thargelia,pledges
mentioned would presumably be exacted from parents who did proffer some excuse. If the excuse proved unsatisfactory, they would forfeit their money.
For a while after the arrival of the boys I had no time to look after them in person, as I happened to be engaged in suits against Aristion and Philinus,
Besides Phanostratus I appointed two others. The first, Ameinias, whom I thought a trustworthy man, belonged to the Erechtheid tribe and had been officially chosen by it to recruit and supervise its choruses at the various festivals; while the second, . . ., regularly recruited the choruses of the Cecropid tribe, to which he belonged, in the same way. There was yet a fourth, Philippus, whose duty it was to purchase or spend whatever the poet or any of the other three told him. Thus I ensured that the boys should receive every attention and lack nothing owing to my own preoccupation.
+Such were my arrangements as Choregus. If I am lying as regards any of them in order to exonerate myself, my accuser is at liberty to refute me on any point he likes in his second speech. For this is how it is, gentlemen: many of the spectators here present are perfectly familiar with every one of these facts, the voice of the officer who administered the oath is in their ears, and they are giving my defence their close attention; I would like them to feel that I am respecting that oath, and that if I persuade you to acquit me, it was by telling the truth that I did so.
+In the first place, then, I will prove to you that I did not tell the boy to drink the poison, compel him to drink it, give it to him to drink, or even witness him drinking it. And I am not insisting on these facts in order to incriminate someone else once I have cleared myself; no indeed—unless that someone else be Fortune; and this is not the first time, I imagine, that she has caused a man’s death. Fortune neither I nor any other could prevent from fulfilling her destined part in the life of each of us. . . .
The facts have been confirmed by evidence as I promised, gentlemen; and you must let that evidence help you to decide which of the two sworn statements made,wilfully caused his death
is clear from
Further, in making their charge, the prosecution invoke the principle that the responsibility rests with whoever told the boy to drink the poison, forced him to drink it, or gave it to him to drink. By that very principle, however, I will myself prove that I am innocent: for I neither told the boy to drink the poison, nor forced him to drink it, nor gave it to him to drink. I will even go a step further than they and add that I did not witness him drink it. If the prosecution say that it was a criminal act to tell him to drink it, I am no criminal: I did not tell him to drink it. If they say that it was a criminal act to force him to drink it, I am no criminal: I did not force him to drink it. And if they say that the responsibility rests with the person who gave him the poison, I am not responsible: I did not give it to him.
+Now accusations and lies can be indulged in at will, as they are at the command of each one of us. But that what never happened should be transformed into fact, that an innocent man should be transformed into a criminal is not, I feel, a matter which depends upon the eloquence of the prosecution; it is a question of what is right and what is true. Admittedly, with a deliberately planned murder, carried out in secret and with none to witness it, the truth can only be determined from the accounts given by the prosecutor and the defendant, and from them alone; their statements must be followed up with care and suspected on the slightest grounds and the final verdict must necessarily be the result of conjecture rather than certain knowledge.
+But in the present instance, the prosecution themselves admit to begin with that the boy’s death was not due to premeditation or design: and secondly, everything which happened happened publicly and before numerous witnesses, men and boys, free men and slaves, who would have ensured the complete exposure of the criminal, had there been one, and the instant refutation of anyone who accused an innocent person.
Both the spirit shown by my opponents and the way in which they set to work are worth noticing, gentlemen; for their behavior towards me has been very different from mine towards them from the outset.
+Philocrates yonder presented himself before the Heliaea of the Thesmothetae
However, I said, there would be no difficulty in proving his monstrous accusation a lie, as there were plenty of witnesses, slave and free, young and old, in fact, over fifty in all, who knew how the drinking of the poison had been accounted for and were in complete possession of the facts and circumstances.
+Not only did I make this declaration before the court, but I offered Philocrates a challenge there and then, and repeated it the following day in the presence of the same jury. Let him take with him as many witnesses as he liked: let him go to the persons who had been present at the accident (I specified them by name): and let him interrogate and cross-examine them. Let him question the free men as befitted free men; for their own sakes and in the interests of justice, they would give a faithful account of what had occurred. As to the slaves, if he considered that they were answering his questions truthfully, well and good; if he did not, I was ready to place all my own at his disposal for examination under torture, and should he demand any that did not belong to me, I agreed to obtain the consent of their owner and hand them over to him to examine as he liked.
+That was the challenge which I addressed to him before the court; and not only the jurors themselves but numbers of private persons also were there to witness it. Yet the prosecution refused to bring the case to this issue at the time, and have persistently refused ever since. They knew very well that instead of supplying them with proof of my guilt, such an inquiry would supply me with proof that their own charge was totally unjust and unfounded.
+You do not need to be reminded, gentlemen, that the one occasion when compulsion is as absolute and as effective as is humanly possible, and when the rights of a case are ascertained thereby most surely and most certainly, arises when there is an abundance of witnesses, both slave and free, and it is possible to put pressure upon the free men by exacting an oath or word of honor, the most solemn and the most awful form of compulsion known to freemen, and upon the slaves by other devices, which will force them to tell the truth even if their revelations are bound to cost them their lives, as the compulsion of the moment has a stronger influence over each than the fate which he will suffer by compulsion afterwards.The compulsion which is present has more influence over each than that which is to come.
The meaning seems to be: the torture which they are suffering at the moment (
It was to this, then, and nothing less that I challenged the prosecution. Every means which mortal man finds it necessary to use in order to discover the true rights of a matter, they had the opportunity of using; not the vestige of an excuse was left them. I, the defendant, the alleged criminal, was ready to give them the chance of proving my guilt in the fairest possible way; it was they, the prosecutors, the professedly injured party, who refused to obtain proof of such injury as they had sustained.
+Suppose that the offer had come from them. Then had I refused to disclose who the eyewitnesses were: had I refused to hand over my servants at their request: or had I been afraid to accept some other challenge, they would be claiming that those facts in themselves afforded to my detriment the strongest presumption of the truth of their charge. Instead, it was I who issued the challenge, and the prosecution who evaded the test. So it was surely only fair that this same fact should afford me a presumption to their detriment that the charge which they have made against me is untrue.
+Further, I am certain, gentlemen, that if the witnesses present at the accident were testifying in the prosecution’s favor and against me, the prosecution would be treating them as supremely important: they would be showing that such unfavourable evidence was proof conclusive. As, however, these same witnesses are testifying that what I say is true and that what the prosecution say is not, they urge that the evidence of those witnesses in my favor is untrustworthy; according to them, it is their own statements which you should believe, statements which they would be attacking as false, were I making them myself without witnesses to support me.
+Yet it is strange that the witnesses who would be trustworthy, were their evidence favorable to the prosecution, are to be untrustworthy when it is favorable to me. Were I producing eyewitnesses when there had been none, or were I not producing the true eyewitnesses, there would be some ground for treating the statements of the prosecution as more trustworthy than my witnesses. But the prosecution admit that witnesses were actually present: I am producing those witnesses: and both I and all my witnesses are well known to have maintained from the very first day what we are repeating to you now. So what other means than these are to be employed to confirm what is true and to disprove what is not?
+If a bare statement of the facts were made, but not supported by the evidence of witnesses, it might well be criticized for the absence of that support; and if witnesses were forthcoming, only to conflict with the presumptions furnished by the pleader, his opponent might well pass a corresponding criticism, should he so wish.
+Now in my own case, you are being presented with an account which is reasonable, with evidence which is consistent with that account, with facts which are consistent with that evidence, with presumptions drawn immediately from those facts, and with two arguments of the greatest significance and weight in addition:
+the first, the circumstance that the prosecution have been proved impostors both by themselves and by me: and the second, the circumstance that I have been proved innocent both by the prosecution and by myself; for in refusing to obtain proof of such injury as they had sustained when I was ready for an inquiry into the crime with which they were charging me, they were clearly acknowledging my innocence and testifying to the injustice and falsity of their own accusation. If I supplement the evidence of my own witnesses with that of my opponents in person, what other expedients, what other proofs are necessary to establish my entire freedom from the charge?
+I feel that both the arguments and proofs which I have put before you, gentlemen, would justify you in acquitting me; you all know that the charge before the court does not concern me. However, to confirm you in that knowledge, I will go further. I will prove that my accusers here are the most reckless perjurors and the most godless scoundrels alive: that they have earned not only my own hatred, but the hatred of every one of you and of your fellow-citizens besides, by instituting this trial.
+On the first day, the day of the boy’s death, and on the second, when the body was laid out, not even the prosecution themselves thought of accusing me of having played any kind of criminal part in the accident: on the contrary, they avoided neither meeting me nor speaking to me.
I was about to prosecute Aristion, Philinus, Ampelinus, and the secretary to the Thesmothetae, with whose embezzlements they had been associated, on charges which I had presented to the Council in the form of an impeachment. As far as the facts of the case were concerned, they had no hope of acquittal: their offences were too serious. On the other hand, could they but induce my accusers here to register a charge and proclaim that I was under the statutory ban, they would, they thought, be safely rid of the whole business.
+The law runs that the ban comes into force as soon as anyone has a charge of murder registered against him; and if placed under it, not only should I myself have been unable to proeeed with my case, but once the party responsible for the impeachment and in possession of the facts failed to proceed, the four would gain an acquittal without difficulty, and the wrong which they had done you would go unpunished. I was not, I may say, the first against whom Philinus and his companions had employed this device; they had already done the same to Lysistratus, as you have heard for yourselves.
The prosecution started by doing their utmost to register a charge at once, on the day after the burial, before the house had been purified or the proper rites performed; they had taken care to choose the very day on which the first of the other four was to be tried, to make it impossible for me to proceed against a single one of them or present the court with any of their offences.
+However, the Basileus read them the law, and showed that there was not sufficient time to register a charge or issue the necessary writs
I took my friends’ advice, and was formally reconciled to them on the Acropolis
The crowning point was reached in the Council-chamber in front of the Council—heavens, to think of it! —when Philocrates here himself joined me on the tribune and conversed with me, his hand on my arm, addressing me by my name as I addressed him by his. No wonder that the Council was astounded to learn that I had been proclaimed under the ban by the very persons whom they had seen in my company chatting to me on the previous day.
And now I want your attention, gentlemen: I want you to cast your minds back; for I shall not use witnesses alone to prove the facts to which I am now coming; your own knowledge of how the prosecution have acted will itself show you at once that I am telling the truth. To begin with, they complain of the Basileus and attribute his refusal to register their charge to activities of mine.
+That complaint, however, will serve merely to damage their case by suggesting that their statements in general are untrue; for after registering the action, the Basileus was obliged to hold three preliminary inquiries in the course of the three months following, only bringing the case into court during the fourth—as he has done today. Yet only two months of office remained to him, Thargelion and Scirophorion.
There is, indeed, one very striking indication that he did not rob the prosecution of their rights: whereas Philocrates yonder tormented other magistrates who had to render account of their office
Moreover, after the present Basileus had come into office, there were thirty clear days from the first of Hecatombaeon onwards,over fifty
look like a rhetorical exaggeration. For the bearing of this and the following section on the date of the speech, see Introduction.
Ordinarily, anyone who has not time enough under one archon
And the prosecution were in
Where indeed could one find fewer scruples or a greater contempt for law? Here are men who expect to persuade you to believe what they have failed to persuade themselves to believe, who bid you declare guilty the man whom they have themselves in fact declared innocent; whereas everyone else uses the facts to prove the worth of mere assertion, they use mere assertion for the purpose of discrediting the facts.
+Indeed, if I had said nothing, established nothing, and produced evidence of nothing, but had proved to you the one fact that, whereas when paid to attack me the prosecution produced charges and proclamations, they frequented my society and were on speaking terms with me when there was no one to finance them, you would have heard enough to acquit me and treat the prosecution as the worst perjurors and the most impious scoundrels alive.
+What accusation would they hesitate to bring, what court would they hesitate to mislead, what oaths would they feel any compunction in breaking, after taking thirty minae, as they have, from the Poristae, the Poletae, the Practores, and the clerks attached to them, to bring me into court,
As it is, they themselves, those who struck the bargain with them, and the parties with whom the money was deposited are paying the price of their misdeeds
What court, then, would they hesitate to invade with their lies, what oaths would they feel the slightest compunction in breaking? The impious scoundrels! They knew that you are the most conscientious and the fairest judges in this nation; yet they come before you intent on deceiving even you, if they can, in spite of the solemn oaths which they have sworn.
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)
+This pointer pattern extracts book and chapter and section.
+This pointer pattern extracts book and chapter.
+This pointer pattern extracts book.
+1. Aufgrund des zuvor über die Leber Gesagten ist es nicht mehr schwer für euch herauszufinden, an welchen Zeichen man eine Erkrankung der Milz erkennt, über die Tatsache hinaus, dass auch die Entzündungen der Milz wegen ihrer Verhärtung denjenigen, die sie abtasten, leicht auffallen. Während die Milz die meisten von diesen Zeichen mit der Leber gemeinsam hat, unterscheidet sie sich darin, dass sie mehr oder weniger davon hat. Denn die Farbe des ganzen Körpers wird schwärzlicher, bedingt durch das Leiden der fehlenden Spannung der Milz. Da sie nun von Natur aus die Funktion hat, das schwarzgallige Blut aus der Leber an sich zu ziehen – denn es wurde gezeigt, dass sie davon ernährt wird – wenn also ihre anziehende Kraft ihre Spannung verloren hat, wird das von der Leber kommende Blut ungereinigt durch den ganzen Körper transportiert, und demgemäß wird die Farbe bei diesen Personen schwärzlicher.
+Und tatsächlich scheidet auch die Milz oft Rückstände aus sich aus wie die Leber, sodass auch mal durch Erbrechen zusammen mit Übelkeit schwarzgalliges Blut ausgeschieden wird und anderes derartiges (Blut) nach unten abgeht. Aber auch ohne derartige Entleerung bewirkt sie Niedergeschlagenheit und Mutlosigkeit wie bei den Melancholikern, manchmal auch sehr großen Appetit auf Speisen, vor allem wenn der in den Magen geführte Rückstand ganz sauer ist, oft aber bewirkt sie das Gefühl, dass sich der Magen dreht und sich zurückbeugt, wenn er (der Rückstand) eine andere Verderbnis aufweist.
+Wie aber die Verhärtung der Milz Wassersucht verursacht, da die Leber in Mitleidenschaft gezogen wird, ist auch zuvor dargelegt worden. Aber auch wenn mal beide Organe erkranken, haben wir gesehen, dass Gelbsucht entsteht, die zu einer schwärzlicheren Farbe neigt als die üblichen (Arten von Gelbsucht), sodass man meinen könnte, die gelbe Galle sei mit Ruß vermischt. Da manche Ärzte annehmen, dass bei solchen
Aber man wird es ihnen nachsehen müssen, dass sie so denken, da nach ihrer Meinung keine Krankheit aufgrund einer schlechten Mischung entsteht. Alle diejenigen Ärzte aber, die den deutlichen Erscheinungen folgen und annehmen, dass einige Symptome aufgrund der Abkühlung eines Körperteils entstehen – über diese kann man sich wundern, weil sie glauben, dass die Wassersucht entsteht, ohne dass ein einziger Körperteil erkrankt. Denn wenn sie deswegen dieses Organ als nicht krank ansehen, weil die Leber keine widernatürliche Geschwulst aufweist, so wird auch kein anderer Körperteil bei denjenigen krank sein, die zur Unzeit schädliches kaltes Wasser in großer Menge trinken, woraufhin sie von der Wassersucht erfasst werden. Das so getrunkene kalte Wasser schadet mal dem einen, mal dem anderen inneren Körperteil, entweder mehr als den anderen, oder als ersten, je nachdem welcher zu diesem Zeitpunkt gerade schwächer ist. Diese Abkühlung wird von dort notwendigerweise auf die Leber übertragen, wenn der Zustand der Wassersucht folgen soll. So kommt es manchmal auch wegen der Milz zur Wassersucht, entweder wenn sie eine Geschwulst hat und gekühlt wird, wie bei den Verhärtungen, oder auch ohne Geschwulst, wie infolge des Trinkens von schädlichem kalten Wasser in großen Mengen zur Unzeit.
+Dass auch melancholische Niedergeschlagenheit entsteht, wenn sie (die Milz) einen derartigen Rückstand zum Magenmund hin sendet, ist in der ihn (den Magenmund) betreffenden Darlegung zuvor gesagt worden. Folglich ist es nicht mehr nötig, Weiteres darüber zu sagen, da die organischen Leiden der Milz einerseits nicht des theoretischen Erkennens bedürfen, diejenigen andererseits, die durch die schlechte Mischung bedingt sind, aus den jetzigen und den vorherigen Ausführungen in der Lehre über die
2. Ich habe schon zuvor etwas über die Leiden des Magens gesagt, wobei ich ihn in meiner Darlegung in zwei sehr große Teile eingeteilt habe, den ersten oberen (Teil), der mit der Speiseröhre zusammenhängt und mit einem Geflecht aus vielen wahrnehmungsfähigen Nerven durchzogen ist, und den anderen, der diesen bis zum Darmaustritt fortsetzt.
+Wie bei den Lebewesen jedem dieser beiden Teile ein eigentümlicher Nutzen inhärent ist und sich entsprechend dem Nutzen auch die Symptome unterscheiden, auf dieselbe Weise sind auch alle Leiden, die den homoiomeren und den organischen Körperteilen gemeinsam sind, diesen miteinander gemeinsam und mit dem gesamten Darm. Die Ähnlichkeit der Symptome besteht nicht nur bei diesen (zwei Magenteilen) zueinander, sondern auch bei denen, die sie berühren, wie bei den Nieren zum Dickdarm. Einige (Leiden) lassen nun den erkrankten Körperteil leicht erkennen, wie die Ruhr und der schmerzhafte Stuhldrang.
+In der vorliegenden Darlegung aber müsst ihr über die im eigentlichen Sinn genannte Ruhr hören, da diese Bezeichnung ein Geschwür der Därme anzeigt. Dieses Leiden tritt nämlich nicht auf einmal ein wie das andere, bei dem, wie wir sagten, die Leber leidet, und eigene Kennzeichen gehen mit ihm einher. Am Anfang nun kommt es bei ihm reichlich zur Ausscheidung von beißender Galle, nach dieser folgen abgeschabte Fetzen der Därme. Dann wird eine kleine Menge Blut mitausgeschieden, wenn das Leiden bereits eine Ruhr ist.
+Wenn nun diese abgeschabten Fetzen allein abgehen, muss man darauf achten, ob etwas Fettiges mit ihnen zusammen ausgeschieden wird; denn so dürfte es sich um ein Geschwür des Dickdarms handeln. Wenn aber das Blut bereits mitausgeschieden wird, muss man untersuchen, ob es mit allem anderen vollständig vermischt ist oder ob es sich auf einem Teil der Exkremente befindet. Denn das vermischte Blut weist darauf hin, dass das Geschwür im Bereich der höheren Därme ist, das Blut an der Oberfläche aber (deutet auf ein Geschwür) in den niedrigeren Därmen. Man sieht, dass dies auch bei den Ausscheidungen geschieht, die abgeschabte Fetzen enthalten, jedoch weniger
Es macht keinen geringen Unterschied in der Therapie, ob erkannt worden ist, in welchem Teil der Därme das Geschwür ist. Die (Geschwüre) in den höheren (Därmen) haben Nutzen von Heilmitteln, die heruntergeschluckt werden, die in den niedrigeren (Därmen) haben Nutzen von eingeführten (Heilmitteln).
+Solche Arten von Ruhr werden von den Ausscheidungen, die von der Leber herrühren, dadurch abgegrenzt, dass bei den von der Leber herrührenden am Anfang eine dünne Blutflüssigkeit ausgeschieden wird, danach mit zunehmendem Leiden ein dickflüssiger Saft, ähnlich dem Bodensatz beim Wein; und (sie unterscheiden sich) noch dadurch, dass bei ihnen keine abgeschabten Fetzen mit ausgeschieden werden, sondern es manchmal sogar zu einer Pause von zwei oder auch drei Tagen bei den Ausscheidungen der Leber kommt; dann kommt das Übel wieder, wobei sie viel schlimmer ausscheiden als zuvor. Allerdings geschieht dies offensichtlich nicht so bei den Geschwüren der Därme; denn die Ausscheidungen kommen weder auf einmal noch in langen Zeitabständen vor.
+Die Geschwüre im Bereich des Mastdarms, die man Tenesmen nennt, bringen zwar heftige Spannungen und starken (Stuhl-)Drang mit sich, die Ausscheidungen sind aber wenige, am Anfang schleimig und fettig, im Laufe der Zeit aber enthalten sie abgeschabte Fetzen. Alles dieses scheint die ganze Zeit unvermischt mit den Substanzen, die von oben kommen. Einige haben aber geschrieben, dass bei äußerst heftigem Drang nach Ausscheidungen, wenn starke Schmerzen vorangegangen sind, manche (Patienten) tuffsteinartige Steine ausscheiden, ähnlich denjenigen, die sich in der Harnblase bilden, etwas, was ich weder selbst gesehen noch von irgendeinem anderen, der es gesehen hatte, gehört habe.
+Oft habe ich einen (Patienten mit einem) heftigen Schmerz im Dickdarm gesehen, von dem die Ärzte meinten, er würde nicht vom Dickdarm, sondern von den Nieren kommen, so wie ja auch die Nieren zum Dickdarm aufsteigen. Einige von ihnen aber glaubten, dass der Zustand einer Kolik niemals in den linken Teilen entsteht. Nun sind die Leiden am Anfang etwas schwer zu differenzieren, und in dieser Zeit bedarf es auch nicht einer großen Differenzierung der Heilmittel. Freilich muss man auch dann die vorherrschenden Symptome betrachten.
+
+
Wenn bei den Koliken vom Magen einmal etwas abgeht, wird der Stuhl irgendwie mit Blähungen ausgeschieden und oft im Wasser transportiert, in der Konsistenz dem Rinderdung ähnlich. Aber die Kolikanfälle werden auch durch entspannende Einläufe eher beruhigt als die Nierenkoliken. Bisweilen aber, wenn irgendein kalter Saft zusammen mit ihnen ausgegossen wird, hören sie sofort auf, weil das beruhigende Mittel nicht nur beruhigend wirkt, sondern sich auch als therapeutisch und geeignet für das Erkennen (des erkrankten Körperteils) erwiesen hat. Wie ein kalter Saft, der bei diesen (Leiden) ausgeschieden wird, so befreit auch bei den Nierenleiden der beim Harnlassen ausgeschiedene Stein sowohl vom Schmerz als auch zeigt er den erkrankten Körperteil an, sodass man künftig Vorsorge treffen kann, dass sie (die Körperteile) schwerlich von diesen Leiden befallen werden.
+Denn so wie beide Körperteile bei den Schmerzen derselben therapeutischen Maßnahmen bedürfen, so (bedürfen sie) in der Zeit danach unterschiedlicher Maßnahmen. Deswegen müssen wir auch annehmen, dass wir bezüglich der Therapie keinen Schaden davon haben, dass ihr (erstes) Einsetzen schwer zu differenzieren ist. Denn sie brauchen zu diesem Zeitpunkt keine unterschiedlichen therapeutischen Maßnahmen, weder von außen noch von innen, sondern die beruhigenden (Maßnahmen) genügen.
+Da alle Därme nach dem Magen angeordnet sind – der Leerdarm ist an höchster Stelle, an ihn schließt der sogenannte „Dünndarm“ an, nach welchem sich einerseits
Denn es ist nicht so wie bei den starken Schmerzen, die in den Nieren und Harnleitern beim Durchgang (des Urins) entstehen, wenn Steine sie (wie Keile) verschließen, dass man so mit guten Grund annehmen könnte, dass die enthaltenen kalten Winde und die ihnen ähnlichen Säfte den Schmerz bewirken. Die Körpersubstanz nämlich der Dünndarmwände, die dünn und fein ist, vermag derartige Ursachen nicht länger zurückzuhalten. Es liegt also nahe, dass ein kalter und dickflüssiger oder klebriger Saft, der in irgendeinem dichten und dicken Körper entstanden ist, oder blähende Luft, die keinen Ausgang hat, Schmerz verursacht, einerseits heftig aus beiden Gründen, wegen der schlechten Mischung und Spannung der Körper, in denen sie eingeschlossen wird, andererseits langanhaltend, weil sie nicht leicht entleert werden kann, da sie durch die Dicke und Dichte der Körper, die sie enthalten, (daran) gehindert wird.
+Auch andere äußerst heftige Schmerzen entstehen in den oberen Partien der Därme, ziemlich reißende mit Erbrechen, sodass einige am Ende Kot erbrechen, ein Leiden, dem sehr selten jemand entkommen ist; manche nennen es Darmverschluss, wie es andere „Chardapsos“ (nennen), immer wenn eine Schwellung in der Gegend des Dünndarms vorspringt, sodass es scheint, der Darm sei herumgedreht wie irgendeine Saite (Chorde).
+Den Ärzten vor uns schien naheliegend, dass derartige Leiden des Dünndarms entweder wegen einer Entzündung oder Verstopfung durch trockenen Kot entstehen. Wenn alles zugleich betroffen ist, Därme und Magen, hat man jedoch verständlicherweise geglaubt, dass andere Symptome auftreten, wie die Lienterie und die sogenann
Die Ursachen, die das Leiden der Lienterie bewirken, sind an anderer Stelle dargelegt, und ihr habt sie gesondert, zudem habe ich sie in den Abhandlungen Über die therapeutische Methode, Über die natürlichen Kräfte und noch in den Ursachen der Symptome genannt. Denn jetzt handelt dieses Buch nicht von den Ursachen, die die Krankheiten bewirken, sondern von den erkrankten Körperteilen, (alle) die sich der Kenntnis durch den Tast- und den Sehsinn entziehen. Da ich mich aber für deren genaues Erkennen bisweilen genötigt sah, auch etwas über ihre Zustände zu sagen, deshalb erwähnte ich auch die Ursachen, die sie bewirken. Folglich ist es an dieser Stelle angemessen, die Ausführungen über die Därme zu beenden. Denn alle Leiden, die sich in ihnen bilden und die man deutlich erkennen kann, werden auch gemeinsam mit den vorhergenannten erkannt. Denn die Kennzeichen von Abszessen, Entzündungen, Verhärtungen, Blähungen oder Rosen sind allen bekannt, wenn man sie in der Bauchgegend sieht, und ermöglichen das Erkennen sowohl des Leidens als auch des erkrankten Körperteils. Auch darüber habe ich in den früheren Büchern ausreichend gesprochen.
+3. Wenn eine Nierenentzündung plötzlich einsetzt, weil ein nennenswerter Stein in einer der Nieren oder den Harnleitern (diese) versperrt, entsteht ein ähnlicher Schmerz wie bei den Koliken; sie lassen sich aber (voneinander) abgrenzen durch die Menge und die Stärke der Übelkeit, wobei das Erbrochene zugleich gallig und schleimhaltig ist und ihm auch etwas von der gegessenen Nahrung beigemischt ist; oft auch durch den Körperteil, wenn der obere Teil des Dickdarms leidet; bisweilen auch dadurch, dass der Schmerz nicht an einem Körperteil fest sitzt, sondern sich dreht und sich auf
Wenn (diese Sachverhalte) aber deutlich abgegrenzt werden, aufgrund dessen, was sich im Urin absetzt, oder auch wenn ein Stein mit dem Urin ausgeschieden ist, dann bleibt keine Frage mehr übrig. Viele Patienten nehmen von Beginn an tief in der Weichengegend einen mäßigen Schmerz wahr, wobei noch nichts Sandiges deutlich ausgeschieden wird. In diesen Fällen gebe ich, wie ihr wisst, Heilmittel, welche die Nierensteine zerkleinern, gewinne genaue Erkenntnisse sowohl über das Leiden als auch über den erkrankten Körperteil und gestalte den Anfang der Therapie auf dieselbe Weise.
+Wenn nämlich nach dem Trinken des Heilmittels etwas Sandiges im Urin gefunden wird, dann habe ich erkannt, dass ein Nierenleiden vorliegt, und anschließend verabreiche ich dieselben Heilmittel zusammen mit der übrigen Therapie. Wenn aber erkannt ist, dass eine Niere auf diese Weise erkrankt ist, wenn Schmerzen zusammen mit Frösteln offenbar intermittierend und ungleichmäßig auftreten und unregelmäßige Fieberanfälle auf sie folgen, dann legt den Patienten auf den Bauch, und manchmal auch auf die andere Seite, sodass der erkrankte Körperteil hoch liegt, und fragt, ob er an der schmerzenden Niere das Gefühl hat, als ob irgendeine Last an ihr hängen würde. Wenn es ihm nämlich so ergeht, muss man annehmen, dass sich ein Abszess bildet, nach dessen Verdauung der Eiter, der mit dem Urin ausgeschieden wird, den Patienten vom Schmerz befreit und zugleich für die Niere die Gefahr eines Geschwürs mit sich bringt. Deswegen muss man auf jede Art und Weise versuchen, dafür zu sorgen, dass er vernarbt. Wenn nämlich (der Abszess) nicht schnell zu einer Narbe gebracht wird, kann man ihn noch schwerer heilen.
+Deutliche Zeichen dafür, dass das Geschwür noch erhalten bleibt, finden sich im Urin, und der Patient empfindet oft Schmerz im Bereich der erkrankten Niere. Mit dem Urin wird bisweilen auch ein wenig Eiter ausgeschieden, wie von einem Geschwür. Ähnlich wird Schorf ausgeschieden, manchmal auch Blut, das anzeigt, dass das Geschwür arrodiert wird. Aber auch wenn einmal ein Gefäß wegen der (großen) Menge platzt oder infolge eines Sturzes oder einer starken Prellung, haben einige reichlich Blut mit dem Urin ausgeschieden. Manchmal geschieht das aber auch, wenn sich eine Vene geöffnet hat.
+
+
Selbst jedoch wenn irgendwelche anderen schädlichen Säfte aus den Venen ausgeschieden werden, habe ich nicht gesehen, dass durch sie die Nieren oder die Harnblase oder die Harnleiter betroffen waren, so wie es auch nicht der Fall ist, wenn man mit dem Harn sehr viel Eiter ausscheidet, sondern in dieser Hinsicht ist die Lage ähnlich, wie bei den Därmen: Denn auch jene erkranken nicht bei den (krankhaften) Zuständen der Leber, obwohl sie von der unvermischten Galle geschädigt werden, wie die Harnblase wiederum durch den langanhaltenden Durchgang des scharfen Harns ein Geschwür bekommt.
+
+
Über die Lienterie habe ich gesondert geschrieben, wobei ich zeigte, dass nicht nur der Magen, sondern auch der ganze Darm schnell die Ausscheidung der verzehrten Speisen und Getränke betreiben, weil sie nicht einmal für kurze Zeit beschwerdefrei ihre Last oder ihre Beschaffenheit ertragen können. Aber für den reichlichen und schnellen Drang zur Harnblase ist es nicht möglich, die fehlende Spannung des Magens verantwortlich zu machen oder des Leerdarms oder des Dünndarms. Wenn sie nämlich das Getrunkene ausscheiden, weil sie nicht imstande sind, es zurückzuhalten, was hindert sie daran, es durch den After auszuscheiden, wie man es bei den an Lienterie Erkrankten geschehen sieht? Denn es werden nicht nur die Speisen schnell ausgeschieden, indem sie durch so viele Windungen der Därme durchgehen, sondern auch die Getränke. Wir haben aber gelernt, dass ihre Verteilung auf die Leber von allen Gegenden des Magens weder aufgrund der fehlenden Spannung der Leber noch der Venen im Bereich des Mesenteriums noch (der Venen) der Leber stattfindet, wie auch nicht (die Verteilung stattfindet) von den (Venen) der Leber zu den Nieren.
+
+
Folglich könnte man die fehlende Spannung der Nieren (dafür) verantwortlich machen, wenn sie den Urin nicht mehr in sich festhalten können, aber wahrhaftig nicht (die fehlende Spannung) der anderen Teile, durch die das Getrunkene hindurchgeht. Aber wenn man wiederum den Nieren die Schuld gäbe, weil ihnen (angeblich) die Spannung fehle, wie sollen sie schnell den Urin in sich hineinziehen? Oder ist es möglich zu sagen, dass, wie bei einigen an Lienterie Erkrankten sehr heftiger Appetit entsteht, auf dieselbe Weise entsteht zugleich bei den Nieren ein heftiges Begehren und deswegen ziehen sie den Urin durch die hohle Vene in sich hinein, werden jedoch sofort beschwert durch das Ungestüm des Ziehens?
+Wie wir auch bei dem sogenannten „Hundsappetit“ einige sehen, die sich zwar voll essen, aber wenig später erbrechen oder Durchfall bekommen. Dies sieht man nämlich nicht nur bei (Menschen), die in einem widernatürlichen Zustand sind, sondern auch bei einigen Tieren, die tadellos gesund sind, wie bei den Vögeln, die man bei uns in Asien Seleukiden nennt. Diese nämlich essen den ganzen Tag unersättlich Heuschrecken und scheiden sie schnell wieder aus. Aber auch bei anderen Tieren scheint das derartige Symptom natürlich zu sein.
+So wie nun am Magenmund der Hundsappetit entsteht, in Verbindung mit der Tatsache, dass der Magen die Last der heruntergeschluckten (Speisen) nicht erträgt, und jemanden zwingt, zwar viel und gierig zu essen, aber schnell (das Gegessene) (wieder) auszuscheiden, auf dieselbe Weise zwingt das Begehren nach der molkenartigen Feuchtigkeit in den Nieren, zusammen mit der fehlenden Spannung ihrer Kraft, sie sowohl die Flüssigkeit reichlich in sich hineinzuziehen, als auch sie sofort in die Blase hinein abzugeben.
+
+
Es liegt nun nahe, dass die Krankheit nach und nach beginnt, und wenn sie dann stärker wird, zieht sie zuerst aus den Venen den wässrigen Bestandteil (Serum) des Blutes, ohne dass wir es merken, und wenn sie ihn ganz an sich gezogen hat und das Blut in den Venen trocken und frei von derartiger Feuchtigkeit gemacht hat, (dann) ziehen die ausgetrockneten Gefäße die Feuchtigkeit aus der Leber, und diese zieht dann die Feuchtigkeit aus den Därmen und dem Magen. Sobald aber die Venen im Bereich des Magenmundes ausgetrocknet sind, (dann) verlangt der Mensch nach Trank, weil er den Zustand wahrnimmt. Nachdem er dann den Trank zu sich genommen hat, ergreifen ihn sofort die trockenen Venen ganz, die von der Leber kommen und in den Magen führen, und von jenen (ergreifen ihn) die anschließenden (Venen), bis die Weitergabe zu den Nieren gelangt.
+In den Büchern Über die natürlichen Kräfte ist nämlich gezeigt worden, dass nicht nur der Trank, sondern auch die Nahrung den Impuls auf alle Stellen des Körpers übertragen. Gemäß der Schnelligkeit des Durchgangs ist dieses Leiden der Lienterie ähnlich, und in der Tat auch soweit der Zustand im Bereich der Nieren derselbe ist wie im Bereich des Magens. Dass der Prozess des Transports vor den Nieren eine Abfolge von natürlichen Funktionen ist, wobei die anziehende Kraft tätig ist, insofern unterscheiden sie sich voneinander; gleichwohl gibt es auch innerhalb von diesen (Funktionen) etwas ähnliches, (nämlich) das Ziehen aus der Hohlvene in die Nieren beim ersten Hinunterschlucken dessen, was aus dem Mund in den Magen transportiert wird, aber die Funktionen vor diesem (Hinunterschlucken) sind eigentümlich für die Fälle von Harnruhr. Dass aber einige zu Unrecht meinen, dass die Krankheit Diabetes dem Hundsappetit ähnlich ist, kann man an denen sehen, die wegen heftigen Durstes ihren Magen füllen, aber das Getrunkene am meisten in ihm (Magen) bleibt.
+
+
Es gibt ein anderes Leiden, das diesem Diabetes genau ähnelt und wegen der großen Menge der Speisen auftritt, wenn sie weder verdaut werden noch abgehen noch Fülle oder Wohlgenährtsein bewirken, sondern sich offensichtlich schnell zerstreuen (verteilen). Aber es ist weder so selten wie der unmäßige Durst (Dipsakos) noch so unheilbar, da es nicht schwer behandelt werden kann, wenn es erkannt wird, bevor es ganz stark (schwer) wird. Wenn man nämlich bis zum Doppelten des Gewöhnlichen isst und der Körper ohne Durchfall abmagert, wird die Krankheit nicht nur von den Laien, sondern auch von den Ärzten übersehen. Wenn dies bei der dreifachen Menge passiert, wird einem geholfen, bevor es zur vier- oder fünffachen Menge kommt. Dieses Leiden wiederum beginnt logischerweise mit schnellem Schwitzen wobei alle Körperteile die anziehende Kraft zusammen mit der mit ihr gekoppelten Kraft bewahren, welche die spezielle Bezeichnung „begehrende (appetitive) Kraft“ trägt.
+Die Ursache jedoch für heftigen Durst ohne Diabetes ist der Magen, wenn er an einer warmen oder trockenen schlechten Mischung leidet oder auch an beiden zugleich, und zwar besonders der Magenmund. Die zweite (Ursache) nach dem Magen ist die Leber, insbesondere ihre konkaven Teile, weil mit ihnen offensichtlich die Teile im Bereich des Mesenteriums und des Leerdarms mit erhitzt werden, auch der Magen selbst, und der Bereich der Speiseröhre und der Lunge. Gleichsam die Wurzel des derartigen Symptoms entsteht bisweilen wegen eines rosenartigen Zustands, wenn (die Teile) erhitzt werden, auf die im Allgemeinen bald dieser, bald ein anderer Kräfteschwund (Marasmus) folgt, wie in der Rede über ihn dargelegt worden ist.
+Diese (Leiden) sind nun wegen der Gemeinsamkeit der Symptome zusammen mit den Nierenleiden dargelegt worden.
+Der Diabetes aber ist ein eigentümliches Leiden der Nieren selbst, er ist dem Hundsappetit im Bereich des Magenmundes analog und geht mit der fehlenden Spannung der festhaltenden Kraft einher. Wenn wir nämlich behaupten, dass es ohne hefti
4. Es gibt Symptome im Bereich der Blase, die mit den anderen gemeinsam sind, alle widernatürlichen Geschwülste der Blase, Schmerzen und die Krankheiten, die diese verursachen. Die anderen (Symptome) sind ihr allein eigentümlich, Harnverhaltung und tropfenweise Harnausscheidung und auf eine andere Weise die übermäßigen Ausscheidungen von Urin. Aber diese (Letzteren), wie zuvor im Buch Über die Nieren gesagt worden ist, benutzen die Blase als Durchgang, wobei sie selbst nicht erkrankt ist. Von der tropfenweise Harnausscheidung entsteht die eine (Form) infolge von scharfem Urin und ist ein Symptom der Blase, keine Krankheit. Die andere Form entsteht wegen eines Geschwürs oder wegen der fehlenden Spannung infolge eines Blasenleidens – wie diejenige (Form), die wegen der Schärfe entsteht – bald wegen eines Nierenleidens, bald aber wegen eines anderen von den Körperteilen, die ihre eigenen schlechten Säfte in den Urin senden können oder den Eiter, wenn sie an einem Abszess leiden.
+Manchmal entsteht (dieses Leiden) auch wegen der Säfte in den Venen, die durch die Nieren und die Blase ausgeschieden werden. Wenn die Blase aber infolge einer schlechten Mischung schwach ist, wird sie geschädigt in ihrer eigenen Funktion, die darin besteht, den Urin auszuscheiden, zu der das Lebewesen getrieben wird, wenn es entweder durch die große Menge der enthaltenen Substanz beschwert wird oder wenn sie belastet wird, weil die Substanz beißt. Beide Umstände verursachen bei den schwachen (Blasen) mehr Schmerzen als bei den starken.
+Die Schwäche aber entsteht manchmal sowohl wegen organischer Leiden als auch wegen der anderen schlechten Mischungen, die vielen kontinuierlich zustoßen, wenn sie abgekühlt sind. Denn die Blase wird dann offensichtlich beschwert, auch wenn in ihr wenig Flüssigkeit enthalten ist. Da die Blase ein Organ der Harnausscheidung ist, folgt auch das Symptom der Harnverhaltung, bald, wie gesagt worden ist, wenn sie mit der enthaltenen Flüssigkeit nicht stark genug zusammengezogen werden kann, um sie herauszudrücken, bald, wenn der untere Gang durch dicke Flüssigkeiten verstopft ist oder weil ein Stein ihn versperrt; bisweilen aber auch wegen einer Entzündung oder einer anderen derartigen Geschwulst, die den Gang verengt oder sogar vollkommen versperrt hat.
+In der Tat liegt es nicht an einer Erkrankung der vom Rückenmark ausgehenden Nerven oder des Rückenmarks selbst, dass die fehlende Spannung der Blase entsteht, wegen der die Harnverhaltung folgt, wie manche glauben, die die Meinung vertreten, die Funktion der Blase sei willentlich, da wir den Urin zurückhalten, solange wir wol
Wie aber bei den anderen Muskeln das, was die Lähmung unwillentlich bewirkt, das bewirkt unser Wille willentlich, aus demselben Grund hören wir auf, die Aktivität auszuüben bei diesen Dingen, wenn wir Stuhl oder Urin ausscheiden wollen. Wie einige geglaubt haben, dass es sich bei der Ausscheidung des Urins und der Nahrungsrückstände um eine gänzlich willentliche Funktion handelt, wobei sie nicht die richtige Meinung vertraten, so treffen einige wiederum nicht die Wahrheit, wenn sie meinen, ganz im Gegenteil zu diesen hier, dass dies eine gänzlich natürliche Funktion ist. Denn zwar ist das Herausdrücken der Nahrung aus dem Magen in den Leerdarm eine gänzlich natürliche Funktion, eine gänzlich wiederum willentliche Funktion ist die Streckung und Beugung von beiden Gliedmaßen, und von jedem der Finger.
+Die Bewegung nämlich aus dem Magen in Richtung Leerdarm sowie freilich auch die (Bewegung) durch jenen (Leerdarm) zum Dünndarm geschieht aufgrund allein einer natürlichen Kraft. Die Abgabe von Stuhl und Harn wird ausgeführt, wenn beide Organe zusammen mit den (ihnen) eigenen Kräften ihre Funktion ausüben. Bei dem Mastdarm und der Blase (wird es ausgeführt) von den natürlichen Kräften, bei den Muskeln aber von den so bezeichneten seelischen und willentlichen (Kräften)
+Denn die den Ausfluss verhindernden Muskeln üben nicht mehr ihre Funktion aus, die aber im Unterleib üben ihre Funktion aus, insbesondere die mittleren von ihnen. Manchmal legen einige von denen, die Schwierigkeiten mit dem Stuhlgang haben, Hand an und üben mit den Händen Druck aus, sowie sie es bei schwieriger Harnausscheidung und vollständiger Verhaltung (des Harns) zu tun pflegen. Wenn
Wenn aber dieses Leiden geschieht und der Gang der Blase versperrt wird, ist es schwierig, beide Zustände zu erkennen. Nicht nur für das Erkennen dieser (Leiden), sondern auch für das Erkennen sämtlicher anderer Blasenleiden, ist es äußerst notwendig, die vorangegangenen äußeren Ursachen im Voraus zu kennen, die die Ärzte mit einer eigenen Bezeichnung „veranlassend“ nennen. Vielmehr aber als diese (ist es notwendig zu kennen), die vorangegangenen Erkrankungen im Körper des Lebewesens selbst.
+Bei der rückwärtigen Krümmung der Wirbelsäule beim Herunterfallen ist es zur Harnverhaltung gekommen, die gewöhnlich so auftritt, wie auch von Hippokrates dargelegt worden ist: Es kam aber nicht sofort zu Harnverhaltung, sondern um den dritten Tag herum, durch den Druck der inneren verschobenen Wirbel, nachdem sich die Blase entzündet hatte. (Der Patient) hatte nun Schmerzen in der Blasengegend, auch ohne Berührung, aber vielmehr, wenn man mit den Händen Druck ausübte. Wir haben ihn behandelt, wie wenn wir vor einer Entzündung stünden. Nachdem bei einem anderen (Patienten) die Wirbel nach hinten verschoben wurden, wurde der Urin unfreiwillig und ohne Blasenschmerz ausgeschieden. Bei ihm sind wir zu dem Schluss gekommen, dass der Nerv des Muskels, der die Blase verschließt, betroffen war, und aus diesem Grund haben wir eine Behandlung für das Rückenmark angewendet.
+
+
Es geschieht nämlich manchmal, dass auch dies eine Ursache für die Harnverhaltung wird, wie freilich auch bei anderen Gesunden, die entweder wegen dringender Geschäfte oder bei Versammlungen oder bei Ratssitzungen oder in Gerichtsverhandlungen oder auch wenn sie nur bei jemandem dinieren, längere Zeit ihren Urin zurückhalten, und nachdem die Blase überdehnt worden war, Harnverhaltung folgte, da ihre zusammenziehende Kraft durch die unmäßige (Muskel-)Spannung gelitten hatte.
+Als bei einem anderen nach einem Sturz die Wirbelsäule unversehrt blieb, kam es sofort zu einem häufigen Urinieren von Blut. Danach aber (folgte) vollkommene Harnverhaltung. Bei ihm schlussfolgerten wir, dass ein Teil des Bluts verklumpt war; und als wir deshalb einen Katheter angewendet haben, hat er zwar wenig Urin ausgeschieden, als aber der Katheter entfernt wurde, zeigte sich an seiner Öffnung ein Kennzeichen der Bildung eines Blutgerinnsels.
+Bei anderen chronischen Schmerzen aber, zusammen mit den Zeichen für die Entstehung von Abszessen, wurde, als diese beendet waren, eine dünnflüssige eitrige Substanz mit dem Urin ausgeschieden; es folgte aber Harnverhaltung, sodass man schlussfolgern konnte, dass dickflüssiger Eiter den Gang verschlossen hatte.
+Bei den Kindern aber, die einen Stein in der Blase haben, haben wir oft beobachtet, dass es zur Harnverhaltung kommt, bei der wir, nachdem wir sie in umgekehrte Körperstellung gebracht und geschüttelt hatten, bewirkten, dass der Stein vom Gang wegrollte. Nachdem ihr auch dies gesehen habt, was ich sagen werde, verlange ich, dass ihr es immer in Erinnerung behaltet. Bei den sogenannten „Thrombosen“, nicht nur bei denjenigen in der Blase, sondern noch mehr als bei diesen, wenn sie (Thrombosen) in den Därmen, im Magen und im Brustkorb entstehen, kommt es vor, dass man in Ohnmacht fällt und blass wird; der Puls ist kurz, schwach und häufig und man ist aufgeregt und ermattet. Genau dasselbe kommt häufig als Folge bei den großen Wunden an den Muskeln vor, sodass man sich über die Ursache des Vorkommnisses wundert, wenn das Blut, was uns vertrautesten von allen ist, die Ursache von so großen Übeln
Dass die Symptome in der gegenwärtigen Zeit nicht ausreichend sind, um uns über den erkrankten Körperteil zu (be)lehren, sondern dass oft die Abgrenzung aus dem, was vorher passiert ist, erfolgt, werdet ihr erkennen, wenn ihr euch an das von euch zuvor Gesehene erinnert. Nachdem viele nun oft mit dem Urin Eiter ausgeschieden hatten, wies uns die Erinnerung an die vorangegangenen Symptome auf den erkrankten Körperteil hin und zeigte den Zustand in ihm.
+Der eine nämlich hatte früher oft Schmerzen in der Nierengegend, mal stellten sich unregelmäßiges Frösteln, mal kleine Schüttelfrostattacken mit Fieber(anfällen) ein, bei dem anderen aber waren gemäß der Lage der Blase zusammen mit dem Frösteln und den Fieber(anfällen) Schmerzen vorangegangen, bei manchen aber (Schmerzen) im Zwerchfell und im Brustkorbbereich, wie bei anderen im rechten Hypochondrium. Bei allen diesen sind wir zu dem Schluss gekommen, nachdem an dem schmerzenden Körperteil ein Abszess vorangegangen war, dass der Eiter durch die Nieren ausgeschieden wurde. Darauf weist neben dem Gesagten sowohl die Menge des Eiters als auch die Tatsache hin, dass er (der Eiter) ganz mit dem Urin vermischt war, wie geschüttelt, oder dass dies (die Vermischung) noch nicht geschehen war, wie bei den Därmen zuvor gesagt worden ist.
+Wie nämlich bei jenen (Därmen), wenn das Transportierte von den höheren Därmen kommt, ist es mit den Nahrungsrückständen vermischt, gleich den Wiedervermischten, wenn es aber von den niederen (Därmen) kommt, wird jedes einzelne Teil von ihnen mit ausgeschieden. Auf dieselbe Weise ist der gesamte Urin getrübt durch die eitrigen Teile, die mit ihm ausgeschieden werden, oder zerteilt in einzelne Teile,
In gleicher Weise, auch wenn sich nach dem Platzen des Abszesses irgendein Kennzeichen des Geschwürs zeigt zusammen mit dem Erkennen des erkrankten Körperteils, und auch dieses erscheint bald genau vermischt, bald mäßig oder ohne jegliche Mischung oder es wird irgendwie transportiert oder geht nur durch. Der sogenannte „Schorf“ (Ephelkis) ist einerseits ein eigentümliches Kennzeichen des Geschwürs, die Eigentümlichkeit in der Substanz ist andererseits ein Kennzeichen des erkrankten Körperteils. Die Teilchen nämlich, die von der Blase ausgeschieden werden, sind flockenartig, fleischartig aber sind die von den Nieren (ausgeschiedenen Teilchen). So aber, selbst wenn etwas von den oberen (Teilen) erkrankt ist, muss man das, was zusammen mit dem Urin ausgeschieden wird, untersuchen und es mit der Substanz der Vermutungen vergleichen. Durch den Urin werden nun sowohl die konvexen Teile der Leber als auch sämtliche Körperteile, die oberhalb von ihr angeordnet sind, durch den After aber die konkaven Teile der Leber, die Därme, der Magen und die Milz gereinigt.
+Außerhalb aber von diesen sind alle die, die selten vorkommen, wie z. B. wenn die Bereiche im Brustkorb und der Lunge durch den Magen gereinigt werden, und manchmal durch den Urin, die Teile unterhalb des Zwerchfells; da manche die Ursachen dafür nicht kennen und dann auch nicht gesehen haben, dass sie (Dinge) bei Kranken geschehen, misstrauen sie den Menschen, die sie gesehen haben. Aber wir haben freilich beobachtet, dass sowohl ein Abszess der Lunge durch den Urin ausgeschieden wurde, als auch ein Abszess des Brustkorbs durch die Därme und den After. Die räumliche Bewegung von der Lunge zu den Nieren bereitet uns in Wahrheit gar keine Schwierigkeiten, so wie nämlich Ausläufer aus der Hohlvene in die Nieren einmünden, so auch aus der großen Arterie.
+
+
5. Auch nicht in diesem Punkt soll man sich streiten, ob man den Körperteil, der von der Natur den Frauen zur Schwangerschaft gegeben wurde, Hystera oder Metra nennen soll, so wie (man sich) auch nicht (streiten soll), ob man es im Plural Hysteras oder Metras nennen soll, oder ob man es im Singular Hysteran und Metran nennen will. Es ist nämlich besser, die Zeit für nützliche Dinge zu brauchen, aus denen wir irgendeinen Nutzen im Hinblick auf das Erkennen oder die Prognose oder die Behandlung ziehen werden. Wie im allgemeinen auch bei dem von einigen so genannten hysterischen Ersticken, von anderen aber hysterische Apnoe genannten. Es ist nämlich möglich, Ärzte zu hören, die mit jeder der beiden Bezeichnungen ein einziges Leiden bezeichnen.
+Ich aber, nachdem ich viele hysterische Frauen gesehen habe, wie sie sich sowohl selbst bezeichnen als auch die früheren Ärztinnen, – von denen ist es wahrscheinlich, dass auch jene den Namen gehört hatten –, einige zwar bewusstlos und zugleich ohne
Die erste genannte unterschiedliche Ausprägung, gemäß dem von Herakleides Pontikos geschriebenen Buch, wirft viele Fragen auf, wie sie entsteht. Jene Frau, sagt man, sei atemlos und ohne Puls gewesen, wobei sie sich in einem einzigen Punkt von den Toten unterschied, dass sie kurze Wärme in den mittleren Teilen ihres Körpers hatte. Das Buch trägt den Titel „Atemlos von Herakleides“. Und er sagte, dass bei den anwesenden Ärzten die Frage aufgekommen sei, ob sie noch nicht tot war, einige aber, die sofort nach Herakleides gelebt haben, weil sie wollten, dass etwas vom dem Atem bewahrt wird, selbst wenn es nicht erscheine, behaupten, dass man vor die Nase Fasern von auseinandergerissener Wolle aufhängen soll, um genau zu erkennen, ob irgendein Hauch durch den Atem rein- und wieder herausgetragen wird. Einige aber empfehlen, eine kleine Schüssel voller Wasser im Bereich des Magenmundes aufzulegen, denn (sie sagen), dass die Flüssigkeit vollständig unbewegt bleiben wird, wenn gar nichts von dem Atem bewahrt sein sollte.
+Wenn nun alle Frauen, die in diesem Zustand sind, starben, wäre die Frage einfach. Da aber einige gerettet werden, gibt es eine zweifache Frage, da wir sowohl nach dem Zustand suchen, durch den die Funktion der Atmung zugrunde geht, und noch mehr, wie diejenigen, die gar nicht atmen, noch leben. Es gibt nämlich die Überzeugung, dass das Leben untrennbar von dem Atmen ist, und das Atmen untrennbar von dem Leben, sodass sowohl der Lebende gänzlich atmet als auch der Atmende gänzlich lebt. Oder ist dies schwieriger? Es ist in der Tat nicht schwieriger, sondern man kann es leichter ermitteln als das andere, wenn freilich auch die Tiere, die Winterschlaf halten,
Da dies erkannt ist und man deutlich sieht, dass jene Tiere deutlich kalt sind, (da) aber auch bewiesen ist, dass der größte Nutzen der Atmung die Bewahrung der eingepflanzten Wärme ist – die (Bewahrung) entsteht durch Abkühlung–, ist es nicht mehr schwer zu überlegen, dass die geringe übrig bleibende Wärme bei ihnen durch die Funktion der Arterien und des Herzens bewahrt wird, die von einigen Ärzten Diapnoe genannt wird, so wie die Funktion durch den Brustkorb und die Atmung Anapnoe genannt wird.
+Es ist nun möglich bei der hysterischen Apnoe, da der ganze Körper abgekühlt ist: Dies zeigt sich nämlich deutlich, dass die Atmung durch den Mund überhaupt nicht, aber diejenige durch die Arterien stattfindet. Es ist aber auch möglich, weil sie minimal ist, dass sie der Wahrnehmung entgeht. Anschließend nun, damit wir in nichts, was dieses Leiden betrifft, ratlos sind, wird die Fragestellung folgen, aus welchem Grund der Körper abkühlt. Vielleicht könnte auch dies herausgefunden werden, nachdem wir die vorangegangenen Ursachen untersucht haben, die derartig sind. Es besteht Übereinkunft (darüber), dass dieses Leiden meistens bei den Witwen auftritt, insbesondere wenn sie, die zuvor einen guten Regelfluss hatten und schwanger wurden und Geschlechtsverkehr mit den Männern hatten, alle dieser Dinge beraubt werden.
+Welche Überlegung könnte man nun daraus wahrscheinlicher anstellen als dass diese so benannten hysterischen Zustände die Frauen befallen wegen der Verhaltung der Monatsblutung oder des Samens, ob das zufällig irgendwelche Apnoen oder Erstickung oder auch Kontraktionen sind? Und vielleicht mehr wegen der Verhaltung des Samens, weil dieser sowohl eine große Kraft hat und für die Frauen flüssiger und kälter ist und ausgeschieden werden muss bei denjenigen, die von Natur aus viel Samen haben, wie auch bei den Männern.
+Denn auch bei ihnen haben wir nicht wenige Unterschiede erkannt, da einige sofort von Jugend an infolge des Geschlechtsverkehrs schwach werden, einige aber, wenn sie nicht kontinuierlich Geschlechtsverkehr haben, sind beschwert im Kopf, empfinden Ekel und werden fiebrig, sie haben einen schlechteren Appetit und eine geringere Verdauung. Deren Körper verglich Platon mit Bäumen, die viel mehr Früchte tragen als es angemessen ist.
+
+
Mir schien es nun, als ich bei mir über derartige Dinge nachdachte, dass die Verhaltung des Samens eine größere Kraft hat im Hinblick auf die Schädigung des Körpers als die Verhaltung der Monatsblutung bei jenen Körpern, bei denen er selbst (der Samen) von Natur aus ein schlechterer Saft ist und reichlicher und das Leben träger, die Liebesgenüsse früher zwar sehr ausreichend, danach aber eine reichliche Enthaltung von den früheren (Genüssen) (erfuhr). Ich habe aber verstanden, dass bei diesen (Menschen) noch das natürliche Verlangen nach Ausscheidung die Ursache dafür darstellt. Sie zwingt nämlich alle Menschen, immer wenn er derartig ist und reichlich, zu seiner Ausscheidung.
+Diogenes der Kyniker nun ist nach allgemeiner Übereinstimmung der am meisten im Erdulden geübte von allen Menschen in Hinblick auf sämtliche Tätigkeiten, die der Enthaltsamkeit und des Ausharrens bedürfen, aber dennoch hat auch dieser Gebrauch vom Geschlechtsverkehr gemacht, weil er die Belästigung ablegen wollte, die vom zurückgehaltenen Samen herrührt, nicht weil er zu der Lust ging, die mit der Entleerung des Samens verbunden ist, wie zu etwas Gutem. Als er einmal nun mit einer Hetäre abgemacht hat, wie man sagt, dass sie zu ihm kommt, sie sich aber verspätete, hat er den Samen ausgerieben, indem er sein Genital mit der Hand berührte, und als sie danach kam, schickte er sie weg und sagte zu ihr: „Die Hand ist dir zuvorgekommen im Singen des Hochzeitsliedes“. Und es ist deutlich klar, dass die Besonnenen nicht wegen der Lust zum Geschlechtsverkehr kommen, sondern weil sie die Belästigung heilen wollen, wie wenn es auch ohne Lust geschähe. Dementsprechend glaube ich, dass auch die anderen Lebewesen zum Geschlechtsverkehr getrieben werden, nicht weil sie den Beschluss gefasst haben, dass die Lust gut ist, sondern weil sie
Als ich einmal bei diesen Überlegungen war, zeigt sich folgender Vorfall bei einer Frau, die seit langer Zeit Witwe war: Da sie nämlich irgendwelche anderen lästigen und die Nerven betreffenden Spannungen befielen und die Hebamme gesagt hatte, dass sich die Gebärmutter zurückgezogen hatte, beschlossen sie, Hilfsmittel anzuwenden, die man gewöhnlich bei derartigen Leiden benutzt. Während die Frau diese (Mittel) anwendete, kam es durch ihre Wärme und durch die Berührung der weiblichen Körperteile bei der Behandlung zu Kontraktionen mit Schmerz und Lust zugleich, ähnlich denen beim Geschlechtsverkehr, infolge derer, nachdem viel und dickflüssiger Samen ausgeschieden worden war, die Frau von den lästigen Symptomen, die sie befielen, befreit wurde.
+Aus diesem Grund nun schien mir, dass der Samen von schlechter Saftqualität eine größere Kraft zur Schädigung des gesamten Körpers hat als die Monatsblutung, sodass dennoch, selbst wenn sie einmal den Witwen kommt, die Zurückhaltung des Samens belastend und zugleich schädlich für sie ist. Alle diejenigen aber, die glauben, dass es, wenn große Symptome im gesamten Körper vorkommen, nicht überzeugend ist, einer kleinen Menge Saft, die in einem einzigen Körperteil enthalten ist, die Schuld zu geben (an diesen Symptomen), scheinen mir vergesslich zu sein in Bezug auf die Dinge, die Tag für Tag geschehen.
+Bei den Bissen der Phalangien sieht man, dass der ganze Körper leidet, obwohl nur eine kleine Menge Gift durch eine sehr kleine Öffnung injiziert wird. Der Biss der Skorpione ist noch bewundernswerter, weil sie sowohl sehr heftige Symptome in kurzer Zeit verursachen als auch das, was sie nach ihrem Stich hinabwerfen, entweder eine sehr geringe Menge oder gar nichts ist, wobei ihr Stachel ohne Öffnung erscheint. Tatsächlich ist es notwendig, nicht weil jemand schlechthin wie von einer Nadel gestochen worden ist, dass man sofort den Eindruck hat, der ganze Körper sei von Hagel getroffen, und zugleich ohnmächtig wird, sondern entweder weil irgendein Hauch oder eine dünne Flüssigkeit injiziert wird, liegt es nahe, dass es zu diesen Erscheinungen kommt.
+Manche glauben aber, dass einige Substanzen nur durch die Berührung imstande sind, das, was sich ihnen nähert, zu verändern, allein durch die Kraft ihrer Beschaffenheit; diese Naturanlage sei nämlich auch bei den Zitterrochen zu sehen, und sie habe
Da sich nun deutlich zeigt, dass einige Substanzen eine äußerst starke Kraft haben, bliebe noch übrig zu untersuchen, ob irgendeine Verderbnis in den Lebewesen eine solche Größe erreichen kann, dass sie eine ähnliche Qualität und Stärke hat wie das Gift eines wilden Tieres. Oder ist auch dies von den Ärzten selbst entschieden worden, die sich mit dieser einen Fragestellung befasst haben, ob es eigentümliche Anzeichen für eine Vergiftung gebe oder nicht?
+Und diejenigen freilich, die am besten darüber gesprochen zu haben scheinen, gestehen, dass dieselben Leiden sowohl bei den Gaben von tödlichen Heilmitteln auftreten als auch bei den Verderbnissen, die von unserem Körper ausgehen; freilich kann man diejenigen, die Heilmittel zu sich genommen haben, von denen unterscheiden, die sie nicht nahmen. Wenn nämlich ein Mensch, der von seiner Naturanlage aus gute Säfte hatte und in jeder Weise gesund gelebt hatte, plötzlich stirbt, wie infolge von einigen giftigen Heilmitteln, dann (ist) sein Körper schwärzlich blau oder schwarz oder bunt oder dahinfließend oder riecht unangenehm nach Fäulnis. Und dann sagt man, dass dieser ein Gift zu sich genommen hatte. Wenn nun zugestanden wird, dass uns derartige Leiden erfassen, wobei sie den Ausgangspunkt ihrer Entstehung in uns selbst haben, wie es z. B. geschieht, wenn ein giftiges Heilmittel eingenommen wird, ist es nicht verwunderlich, wenn ein Samen mit schlechter Saftbeschaffenheit oder das Monatsblut, was einen ähnlichen Zustand hat, wenn sie zurückgehalten werden und verfaulen (durchfaulen), schlimme Symptome bei denjenigen Körpern hervorbringen, die eine passende Anlage für solche Leiden haben.
+Auch bei den Hunden ist es nämlich möglich zu lernen, wie viel Kraft die geeignete Anlage, irgendetwas zu erleiden, hat: Obwohl kein anderes Tier von Tollwut erfasst wird, wird dieses allein davon (befallen), und es kommt in ihm zu einer so großen Ver
Dafür aber, dass man für die sogenannten „hysterischen Symptome“ naheliegender Weise von Alters her überzeugt ist, dass im Bereich der Gebärmutter quasi ihre Wurzel ist, ist kein geringer Beweis die Tatsache, dass allein den Verwitweten und den Frauen, bei denen die reinigenden Monatsblutungen zurückgehalten werden, die derartigen Leiden entstehen. Dass aber der Samen, wenn er zurückgehalten wird, eine größere Kraft als diese selbst zur Entstehung der hysterischen Symptome hat, eine geringere aber das Monatsblut, ist möglich zu lernen aufgrund derjenigen, die nicht im Witwenstand sind und bei denen aber, bei denen die Reinigung zurückgehalten wird, die zwar andere Dinge erleiden, die wenig später ausgeführt werden, die aber weder von Apnoen befallen sind noch von heftigen Ohnmachtsanfällen noch von den anderen (Symptomen), die kurz zuvor gesagt worden sind, noch mehr aber (ist es möglich zu lernen) auch daraus, dass einige der Witwen, die tadellos gereinigt werden, oder nicht viel schlechter als vorher (gereinigt werden), in gleicher Weise von diesen Symptomen befallen sind.
+Mit diesen stimmen auch überein die Zeichen im Bereich der Gebärmutter, die sich den Ärztinnen zeigen, die sie genau abtasten. Denn manchmal nämlich, wie wenn sie (die Gebärmutter) ganz zurückgezogen wäre, manchmal aber, wie wenn sie sich zur Seite weggezogen hätte, erscheint der (Gebärmutter-)Hals denjenigen geneigt, die ihn abtasten. Deswegen sagen auch einige, die annehmen, dass die Gebärmutter gleichsam ein Lebewesen sei, das nach Kinderzeugung verlangt, wenn es nicht das bekommt, wonach es verlangt, dass es den ganzen Körper schädigt. Platon schreibt nun so: „Die sogenannten Metrai und Hysterai in den Frauen (sind) ein Lebewesen, was nach Kinderzeugung verlangt; wenn es über lange Zeit fruchtlos entgegen seiner Reife bleibt, empört es sich und wird zornig und irrt umher überall im Körper, wobei es die Ausgänge der Luft versperrt und nicht die Atmung zulässt, macht es äußerst ratlos und verursacht auch andere vielfältige Krankheiten.“
+Nachdem Platon dies gesagt hatte, fügten einige hinzu, das die Gebärmutter, wenn sie im Körper umherirrt, sobald (sie) auf das Zwerchfell stößt, die Atmung behindert. Einige aber sagen zwar, dass sie nicht wie ein Lebewesen umherirrt, dass aber, wenn sie austrocknet, weil die Monatsblutung zurückgehalten wird, sie zu den Eingeweiden emporkommt, da sie den Wunsch hat, befeuchtet zu werden, und sobald sie einmal bei ihrem Aufstieg Kontakt mit dem Zwerchfell hat, würde das Lebewesen der Atmung beraubt.
+
+
Denn auch wenn irgendein Teil der Gebärmutter zurückgezogen zu sein scheint, ist dies kurz und es ist kein hinreichender Hinweis darauf, dass ihre gesamte Wölbung nicht einmal bis zum Magen zurückgezogen ist, geschweige denn, dass sie über diesen (Magen) hinwegsteigt und an irgendeiner Stelle das Zwerchfell berührt. Selbst wenn sie es freilich berührte, was könnte dies mit der Apnoe oder der Ohnmacht oder der Versteifung der Gliedmaßen oder der vollständigen Bewusstlosigkeit zu tun haben? Bei denjenigen nun jedenfalls, die sich vollessen, zeigt sich deutlich, dass das Volumen des Magens das Zwerchfell drückt. Und aus diesem Grund wird zwar die Atmung häufiger, aber kein anderes Symptom befällt das Lebewesen. Aber auch bei den Schwangerschaften bewirkt die Gebärmutter, die sich über den Fötus ausstreckt, dass die Atmung häufiger wird, aber auch diese (Gebärmutter) bewirkt keinen anderen Schaden.
+Dass sie (Gebärmutter), weil sie austrocknet, zu den Eingeweiden emporkommt, weil sie befeuchtet zu werden begehrt, das ist gänzlich absurd. Wenn nämlich die Gebärmutter einmal schlechthin der Feuchtigkeit bedarf, dann hat sie die Blase in ihrer Nähe und den gesamten unteren Teil des Dickdarms. Wenn sie aber nicht der Feuchtigkeit schlechthin, sondern der Feuchtigkeit des Blutes bedarf, dann hätte sie zur Leber, nicht zum Zwerchfell ziehen müssen. Warum sollen sie auch von außen auf andere Körperteile stoßen, wenn sie doch eine dichte Schutzhülle haben, die sie umgibt, eine hautähnliche Umkleidung? Alle Körperteile nämlich, die die Feuchtigkeit aus den Därmen an sich ziehen, tun dies durch zahlreiche Mündungen. Aber unzählige Mündungen von Venen führen in die Gebärmutter hinein, durch die es ihr möglich wäre, das Blut aus der hohlen Vene zu ziehen, die das Blut enthält, welches von der Leber kommend zu ihr fließt. Welchen wichtigeren Kanal könnte man finden für das Blut, welches von der Leber in die Gebärmutter transportiert wird? Durch welchen anderen (Weg) wäre es überhaupt möglich für sie (die Gebärmutter), aus der Leber irgendetwas (an sich) zu ziehen? Selbst wenn der Kanal der hohlen Vene nicht der größte wäre, gibt es freilich keinen anderen. Denn diese eine Vene leitet als einzige das Blut von der Leber zu allen Teilen, die sich unterhalb des Zwerchfells befinden.
+Deren Argumentation ist also vollkommen absurd, noch zusätzlich zu ihrem Argument, dass die Gebärmutter als Lebewesen tätig ist. Aber selbst wenn dies zugestanden würde, wird sie zwar geschädigt werden, wenn sie der Gegenstände der eigenen Begierde beraubt wird, vielleicht wird sie aber auch abmagern, wie einige behaup
Vielleicht wird uns nun einer nach der Ursache fragen, wegen der die Gebärmutter oft zurückgezogen und zur Seite gezogen erscheint. Das sagen nämlich die Hebammen, so wie freilich auch, dass, auch wenn sie (die Gebärmutter) oft an ihrem eigenen Platz bleibt, die hysterischen Symptome nicht weniger die Frauen befallen. Ich werde also versuchen, diesen die Ursache zu nennen, indem ich den Ausführungen des Hippokrates folge. Ich behaupte nämlich, dass die Anspannungen der Gebärmütter die Ursache dafür sind, dass es den abtastenden Hebammen scheint, als würde sich auch der Hals zurückziehen und danebenziehen. Denn es ist notwendig, dass der (Gebärmutter-)Hals zusammen mit der Gebärmutter abgehandelt wird.
+Welche Ursache gibt es also dafür, dass sich die Gebärmutter zurückzieht oder zur Seite zieht? Dies nämlich fehlt noch unserer Argumentation: Die Anfüllung der Gefäße, die zu ihnen gelangen zusammen mit ihren Anhängseln. Es wurde nämlich von uns gezeigt, als wir den Aphorsimus erklärten, gemäß dem er behauptet, dass die Kontraktion durch Entleerung und Anfüllung entsteht, dass sich die Körper der angefüllten (Gefäße) in die Breite und die Tiefe ausdehnen, die Länge aber kürzer machen; je kürzer sie werden, desto mehr werden sie zum Anfang zurückgezogen.
+Erasistratos nun sagt, dass auch die Muskeln aufgrund ihrer Anfüllung mit Pneuma an Breite zunehmen und etwas an Länge verlieren und sie sich aus diesem Grund zurückziehen. Woher kommt nun die Anfüllung der Venen und ihrer Anhängsel? Es ist offensichtlich, dass es von der Verhaltung des Monatsbluts kommt, denn das Blut kommt bis zur Gebärmutter, geht aber nicht in sie hinein, bald weil es selbst dick(flüssig)er geworden ist als in der Mündung der Gefäße, manchmal aber, weil sich jene geschlossen haben. Folglich wird das Blut in den Venen vermehrt und dehnt sie aus und befeuchtet die ihnen benachbarten Anhängsel. Durch deren Anspannung aber wird die Gebärmutter kontinuierlich zusammengezogen. Wenn sie nun von allen Seiten gleichmäßig gezogen wird, dann findet ihr Versatz ohne Seitwärtsbiegung statt, wenn aber ungleichmäßig (zu einer Seite hin), dann dehnen sie sich zu dem Teil aus, der sie mehr anzieht. Es ist also nicht so, dass die Gebärmutter bei den Frauen wie ein umherirrendes Lebewesen, mal zu dem einen, mal zu dem anderen Ort wandert, sondern weil sie angezogen wird durch die Anspannung.
+
+
Auch dies lehrt Hippokrates in seinem Buch über die Gelenke, und er erwähnte die sogenannte „Wanderung der Gebärmutter“, indem er irgendwie folgendermaßen schrieb: „Diejenigen, bei denen der Oberschenkelkopf nach hinten ausgerenkt ist, er ist aber bei wenigen ausgerenkt, diese können das Glied nicht ausstrecken, weder im Bereich des ausgerenkten Gelenks, noch gar sehr im Bereich der Kniekehle. Aber am wenigsten diese, denen von Alters her dasselbe geschehen ist; (sie) strecken sowohl das Gelenk im Bereich der Schamgegend als auch das Gelenk im Bereich der Kniekehle aus.“
+In dieser Abhandlung sagt er, obwohl das Gelenk im Bereich der Kniekehle nichts erlitten hat, dass es nicht im Stande ist, sich auszustrecken, in Folge der Nähe zur Schamgegend. Dann wird er im Folgenden hinzufügen und sagen: „Man muss freilich auch dieses darüber hinaus verstehen, denn es ist ja leicht zu gebrauchen und sehr nennenswert und entgeht den Meisten, dass nicht einmal gesunde Menschen im Stande sind, ihr Gelenk im Bereich der Kniekehle auszustrecken, wenn sie nicht auch noch das Gelenk im Bereich der Schamgegend mitausstrecken, es sei denn, sie heben ihren
Nachdem er dies vorher gesagt hat, sagt er im Folgenden: „Viele andere Vorgänge im Körper haben solche Ähnlichkeit sowohl bei den Versteifungen der Nerven als auch bei den Stellungen der Muskeln, und sie verdienen es sehr und am meinsten, erkannt zu werden, oder wie jemand meint, auch bei der Naturanlage des Darms und bei der des gesamten Bauchs und bei den Umherirrungen und Versteifungen der Gebärmutter“.
+Mit diesen Worten hatte sich Hippokrates vorgenommen, über das Gelenk der Kniekehle zu sprechen, nicht weil es etwa von Natur aus bewegt werden kann, und nicht weil es ein eigenes Leiden erlitten hat, sondern wegen der Gemeinschaft mit dem Hüftgelenk. Er erwähnte aber auch die Versteifungen im Bereich der Gebärmutter, wenn diese, soweit es an ihr liegt, nicht wandert, wenn sie aber von anderen Körperteilen gedehnt wird, dann folgt sie denjenigen, die sie mit sich fortziehen.
+Die Verdrehungen nun der Gebärmutter gemäß der genannten Weise folgen den Verhaltungen des Monatsbluts, weil sie selbst nicht die Ursachen der Symptome des Lebewesens sind, sie haben aber als gemeinsame Ursache dafür die große Menge der zurückgehaltenen Monatsreinigung. Die Schädigungen, die bei den Witwen ohne Verdrehungen oder auch Verhaltung des Monatsbluts vorkommen, geschehen wegen der Verhaltung des Samens. Entsprechend der Quantität und der Qualität des Monatsbluts und des Samens kommt bei ihnen mal die eine, mal die andere Art von Symptomen vor. Wenn die Beschwerden verursachende Ursache den ganzen Körper nämlich (ab)kühlen kann, werden sie stark abgekühlt, sodass sie weder wahrnehmbar atmen noch Puls haben. Wenn die (Beschwerden verursachende) Ursache dick oder scharf ist, dann kommt es zu Zuckungen, Missmut aber wenn es etwas schwarzgalliger als angemessen ist. So wie freilich wiederum die Ohnmachtsanfälle auf die Heftigkeit der
Alle Symptome aber, die auf die Verhaltung des Monatsbluts folgen, denn ich habe versprochen, auch darüber etwas zu sagen, will ich nun schon abhandeln, wobei ich bei dem anfange, was Hippokrates in den Aphorismen geschrieben hat; eins davon ist aber das Folgende: „Wenn eine Frau, die nicht schwanger ist und auch nicht geboren hat, Milch hat, ist ihre Monatsblutung ausgeblieben“.
+Aber auch ohne dass Milch an der Brust erscheint, gibt es auch folgende Ζeichen für die Verhaltung des Monatsblutes: Das Gefühl der Schwere im ganzen Körper, Ekelempfinden und Appetitlosigkeit und unregelmäßiges Frösteln einerseits, wenn es andererseits eine Unregelmäßigkeit ohne Frösteln ist, ferner Ekelempfinden und Verlangen nach irgendwelchen ungewöhnlichen Dingen. Fordere dann die Hebamme auf, den Gebärmutterhals durch Abtasten zu untersuchen. Wenn er nämlich geschlossen ist ohne Verhärtung, ist das ein Zeichen von Schwangerschaft. Einige von ihnen erbrechen auch die Nahrung, essen Erde oder erloschene Glut oder ähnliche Dinge.
+Der geschlossene Mund des Gebärmutterhalses, der mit Verhärtung einhergeht, zeigt jedoch an, dass irgendeine Krankheit in der Gebärmutter vorliegt, und die Hebamme muss prüfen, in welchen Teil sie (die Gebärmutter) sich zur Seite gezogen und zurückgezogen hat, denn bei jenem befindet sich auch der erkrankte Teil der Gebärmutter. Bei einigen Frauen aber zeigt auch ein Schmerz mit Schweregefühl in jenem Teil (ein Leiden) an, und der Schmerz kommt auch zur Hüfte, und das Bein selbst, was gerade ist, hinkt beim Laufen.
+Und wenn über längere Zeit die Monatsblutung ausbleibt und der Arzt bei der Frau keine Entleerung herbeiführt, erscheint manchmal irgendeine widernatürliche Geschwulst in den Weichen, der auf eine tieferliegende Entzündung hinweist. Bei einigen aber erhebt sich eine eitrige Geschwulst wie ein Berg am Ende der Weichen, so wie sie auch bei den Männern in dieser Gegend entstehen, und bei manchem eitert sie und bedarf des Schnitts. In dieser Region nun jedenfalls haben wir auch ein Glied gesehen,
Solche Symptome nun folgen auf die Verhaltungen des Monatsbluts, und auch ohne diese (Symptome) (gibt es) Schmerzen in den Lenden und dem Vorderkopf und an der Augenbasis und brennende Fieber und schwärzlicher Urin mit einer roten Blutflüssigkeit, wie wenn du dem Spülwasser von frisch geschlachtetem Fleisch Ruß beimischen würdest. Manche haben auch Störungen bei der Harnausscheidung oder Harnverhaltung. Wenn Du nun etwas derartiges bei den Frauen siehst, solltest du den Verdacht haben, dass gleichsam die Wurzel dieser Beschwerden in der Gebärmutter liegt. Wenn es aber auch an einem anderen Körperteil zur Blutausscheidung oder irgendeiner Entzündung kommt oder wenn die Rose entsteht, muss man sich nach der Monatsblutung erkundigen. Denn nichts davon kommt bei Frauen vor, die eine tadellose Monatsblutung haben. In Folge der Verhaltung des Monatsbluts nun kommt es im allgemeinen zu derartigen Symptomen. Den unmäßigen Entleerungen folgen Blässe und Schwellungen der Füße und der ganze Körper ist leicht geschwollen und (der Körper) verdaut die Speisen schlecht und hat auch einen schlechten Appetit und (zeigt) alle Symptome, die wegen der unmäßigen Entleerung von Blut gewöhnlich folgen, selbst wenn die Entleerung in Folge von Hämorrhoiden oder einer anderen Blutung entsteht.
+Und auch ohne dass die Gebärmutter erkrankt ist, kommt der sogenannte „weibliche Fluss“ bei den Frauen vor, wobei der gesamte Körper dadurch gereinigt und entleert wird, sowie es manchmal auch durch die Nieren zu einer Entleerung kommt. Dies kommt insbesondere bei den Zartfleischigen und Phlegmatischen vor, die wir auch ohne die Gebärmutter abzutasten durch die Heilmittel für den ganzen Körper geheilt haben. Manchmal ist das Produkt der Entleerung eine rote Blutflüssigkeit, manchmal auch eine wässrige oder etwas blass. Wenn aber reines Blut wie beim Aderlass erscheinen würde, muss man genau aufpassen, dass es nicht zu einer Zerfressung in der Gebärmutter gekommen ist. Meistens kommt dieses Zerfressen bei ihnen eher im Bereich des Halses als anderswo vor. Das tiefere (Zerfressen) wird durch die transportierten Blutflüssigkeiten erkannt, das aber im Bereich der (Gebärmutter-)Halsmündung wird nicht nur dadurch erkannt, sondern durch das Abtasten. Bei manchen Schwangeren wird auch Blut ausgeschieden, wenn sich die Venen im Bereich des (Gebärmutter-)Halses öffnen.
+Wenn aber die Brüste einer schwangeren Frau plötzlich dünn werden würden, erwarte, dass sie einen Abort erleiden wird. Wenn sie mit Zwillingen schwanger ist
Wenn aber die Frau zwar rasch schwanger wird, aber im zweiten, dritten oder vierten Monat einen Abort erleidet, sammelt sich in den Saugwarzen eine schleimartige Flüssigkeit, wegen der das Zusammenwachsen der in dieser Region vorhandenen Venen und Arterien mit den Mündungen der in die Gebärmutter gelangenden Gefäße ohne Spannung ist, sodass sie (Gebärmutter) nicht die Last des Fötus tragen kann, sondern sich der Fötus leicht loslöst.
+6. So wie nur wenige der Stoffe, die durch den After ausgeschieden werden, Anzeichen für eine Erkrankung der mit ihm benachbarten Körperteile sind, die meisten von ihnen aber auf eine Erkrankung der Därme, des Magens, der Milz und der Leber hinweisen und sie in nicht wenigen Fällen sogar Kennzeichen der Säfte des gesamten Körpers sind, auf dieselbe Weise weisen nur wenige der Stoffe, die in der Schamgegend ausgeschieden werden, auf eine ihr eigene Erkrankung hin; die meisten sind hingegen Anzeichen (von Erkrankungen) der Harnblase und der Nieren, der Leber und der Milz, der Lunge und des Brustkorbs, und des Zustands der Säfte im ganzen Körper. Sie unterscheiden sich aber mit Hilfe der anderen (Umstände), die wir als Begleitsymptome bei jedem erkrankten Körperteil bezeichneten.
+Dass die Scham selbst erkrankt ist, wirst du freilich an folgenden Zeichen erkennen: Ein deutliches Kennzeichen für ein Geschwür ist der Schmerz, der in der Schamgegend entsteht zusammen mit der Tatsache, dass beim Harnlassen etwas von dem, was mit dem Geschwür zusammenhängt, ausgeschieden wird. Diese (Ausscheidungen) unterscheiden sich insofern von denen, die aus der Harnblase kommen, als sie sich früher, beim ersten Austritt, zeigen, während die Ausscheidungen aus der Harnblase mit Urin vermischt sind. Beim Urinieren werden die Geschwüre der Scham verletzt, mehr wenn sie sauber werden, nachdem sich eine Kruste oder Schmutz abgelöst hat. Viel
Die Gonorrhö ist eine unfreiwillige Samenausscheidung; man kann aber die Samenausscheidung, die ständig und ohne Anspannung des Schamteils stattfindet, auch unbeabsichtigt nennen, wie es auch deutlicher ist. Der Priapismus aber ist eine Vergrößerung des ganzen Schamteils in der Länge und im Umfang ohne sexuelles Verlangen oder eine fremde Wärme, so wie es bei einigen passiert, die auf dem Rücken schlafen. So nämlich haben ihn einige beschrieben. Es geht aber auch kürzer: Eine dauerhafte Vergrößerung oder dauerhafte Anschwellung des Schamteils. Sie wurde freilich nach Priapos so benannt. Jenen nämlich bilden die Menschen ab und malen ihn so, als hätte er von Natur aus ein solches Schamteil.
+Der Name Gonorrhö ist offensichtlich zusammengesetzt aus Gone (Samen) und rheein (fließen). Der Samen wird nämlich sowohl Gone als auch Gonos genannt. So wie dies auch bei allen anderen Stoffen, die aus dem Körper entleert werden, auf zweifache Weise passiert – bald werden nämlich die Stoffe aus den Körpern, die sie enthalten, ausgeschieden, bald fließen sie auch von selbst aus, weil sie wegen der Schwäche derselben Körper nicht zurückgehalten werden –, so ist es auch mit dem Samen. In allen diesen Fällen besteht die Aufgabe der Natur sowohl im Ausscheiden bei geeigneten Gelegenheiten als auch im Zurückhalten. Zur Ausscheidung kommt es, wenn sich einerseits der Gang des Ausflusses öffnet, andererseits sich die übrige Höhlung zusammenzieht und den ganzen Inhalt der Höhlung in den geöffneten Gang stößt; zur Zurückhaltung aber kommt es, wenn der Gang im geschlossenen Zustand bleibt und kein Stoß von der enthaltenden Höhlung zu ihrem Inhalt kommt, sondern ganz im Gegenteil nur ein Zusammenziehen und Zurückhalten.
+So geschieht bei den natürlichen Zuständen die Ausscheidung und Zurückhaltung der Flüssigkeiten, die in den hohlen Organen enthalten sind. Bei den widernatürlichen Zuständen aber kommt es zur Zurückhaltung wegen der Schwäche der ausscheidenden Kraft, zur Ausscheidung kommt es hingegen wegen der Schwäche der zurückhaltenden Kraft oder wegen eines Zustands, der in gleicher Weise wie die ausscheidende Kraft die Körperteile bewegt, ähnlich wie es in den Samenorganen selbst passiert bei
Der Priapismus zeigt sich deutlich als ein Symptom des Schamteils; es ist aber möglich, auch wenn Letzteres keine besondere und spezielle Erkrankung hat, dass es nur eine Erkrankung der Arterien ist, die manchmal einen solchen widernatürlichen Zustand aufweisen, wie er ihnen zustößt, (immer) wenn eine natürliche Anspannung des ganzen Schamteils geschieht. Dass es nämlich vom Pneuma anschwillt, ist offensichtlich für die, die aus der Schnelligkeit der Vergrößerung und der Zusammenziehung Schlüsse ziehen. Denn keine Flüssigkeit ist in der Lage, eine so schnelle Veränderung in jede der beiden Richtungen zu bewirken.
+Da es sich so verhält und sich bei den anatomischen Sektionen große Arterien zeigen, die in diesen kleinen Körperteil, die Scham, münden, sich andererseits das Wesen des Schamteils zeigt, wie es kein anderer Körperteil hat – es ist nämlich ein im Aussehen sehniger Körper, im ganzen röhrenförmig, außer der sogenannten „Eichel“ (Balanos) –, was sonst könnte jemand verstehen, dass es bei den Anspannungen an Größe zunimmt im Vergleich zu dem mit dampfartiger Luft gefüllten Körperteil, die ihm von den Arterien her zufließt, und aus diesem Grund hat die Eichel immer dieselbe Größe, weil in ihr die röhrenartige Sehne nicht vorhanden ist.
+Was ist nun die Ursache dafür, dass sich beim sexuellen Trieb das Schamteil anfüllt? Und warum (geschieht das) auch bei denjenigen, die auf dem Rücken liegend schlafen, wenn sie in der Leistengegend erwärmt werden? Wenn die Ursache gefunden wird, dann gibt es auch Hoffnung, dass wir auch den Zustand des Priapismus herausfinden werden. Dass die Hauptursache in den Arterien oder den röhrenförmigen Sehnen liegt oder auch weil beides sich verändert hat im Vergleich zum vorherigen Zustand und dass es deswegen notgedrungen zur Anfüllung (des Körperteils) kommt, ist unmittelbar deutlich. Aus welcher Ursache von den beiden eher oder ob aus beiden, (das) lasst uns im Folgenden prüfen, nachdem wir folgenden Anfang unserer Argumentation machen.
+
+
So haben wir auch jenes Zicklein aufgezogen und wir haben gesehen, dass es später nicht nur die Milch zu sich nahm, sondern auch einiges andere von den Sachen, die da lagen. Da der Zeitpunkt, zu dem der junge Bock seiner Mutter entrissen wurde, zeitnah zur Frühlingstag- und Nachtgleiche war, brachte ich ihm nach ungefähr zwei Monaten zarte Zweige von Büschen und Pflanzen; nachdem er wieder an allen diesen geschnuppert hatte, hielt er sich von einigen sofort fern, andere aber hielt er für würdig zu kosten, und nachdem er gekostet hatte, machte er sich auf zum Verzehr von Speisen, die auch den großen Ziegen vertraut sind. Nachdem er die Blätter und die zarten Zweige abgefressen hatte, schluckte er sie runter, und wenig später ging er zum Wiederkäuen über; alle diejenigen, die dies wieder sahen, schrieen auf, erstaunt über die natürlichen Kräfte der Lebewesen. Ein großer (Beweis) war nämlich auch die Tatsache, dass er, als er Hunger hatte, die Nahrung mit dem Mund und den Zähnen zu sich nahm; aber (die Erkenntnis), dass es angemessen war, das in den Magen Heruntergeschluckte zunächst einmal in den Mund wiederzubringen, es dann darin lange Zeit kauend zu zermalmen und es danach herunterzuschlucken, aber nicht in Richtung dessel
Denn wie kann es uns nicht verwundern, dass die am meisten anatomisch interessierten Ärzte untersuchen, durch welchen Muskel dieses Gelenk ausgestreckt wird, wie z. B. das Hüftgelenk, durch welchen es gebeugt wird, welche die Muskeln sind, die es zu jeder der beiden Seiten wegführen, und welche diejenigen (sind), die es nach beiden Seiten hin drehen.
+Das Zicklein aber führt sofort eine jede beliebige Gelenkbewegung willentlich aus, wie freilich auch die Menschen selbst, obwohl sie nicht wissen, durch welchen Muskel jede einzelne Bewegung zustande kommt. Wie könnte man sich bei der Bewegung der Zunge nun, um ein Beispiel zu erwähnen, nicht wundern, wenn man herausfindet, dass diese Männer sich zwar untereinander uneinig sind, nicht nur, was die Anzahl der Muskeln betrifft, sondern auch was ihre Funktionen angeht, dass die Natur aber die kleinen Kinder belehrt hat, wie sie einerseits diese Stimme hier nachahmen sollen, oder irgendeine andere, wie sie andererseits ihre Zunge bewegen sollen, und durch welche Muskeln sie dieselbe Stimme bewirken sollen? So verhält es sich aber auch mit der ganzen Stimme der anderen und der Atmung, und man kann zusammenfassend sagen, dass man an den willkürlichen Funktionen am meisten bewundern könnte, dass die Organe durch sich selbst belehrt sind. Obwohl nun auch über diese Funktionen große Uneinigkeit unter den anatomisch interessierten Männern herrscht, wie sie zustande kommen und durch welche Organe, dennoch atmen und sprechen alle Lebewesen gleich nach ihrer Geburt.
+Es ist also nicht verwunderlich, dass auch die Fortpflanzungsorgane die Funktionen, für die sie von der Natur geschaffen wurden, sofort von Anfang an kennen. Denn nachdem die Gebärmutter den Samen empfangen hat, schließt sie sich genau, bis der Embryo vollendet ist, und öffnet sich meistens, nachdem er vollendet wurde, und wenn sie sich aus eben diesem Grund öffnet, scheidet sie den Embryo aus. Diese Sachverhalte werden aber gering geachtet, weil man sie ständig sieht, und (sie) werden von den meisten übersehen, weil sie, wie mir scheint, Dinge bewundern, die nicht wahrhaftig bewundernswert sind, sondern die sie selten sehen. Was könnte nämlich in der Natur erstaunlicher sein als die Tatsache, dass die Öffnung der Gebärmutter ganze neun Monate lang so genau geschlossen ist, dass sie nicht einmal die Nadel einer Sonde aufnehmen kann, wenn aber der Keimling vollendet wurde, hat sie solche Ausmaße, dass das ganze Lebewesen herauskommt.
+
+
Zu einem passenden Zeitpunkt erweitern sich also die Arterien im ganzen Lebewesen in einer einander ähnlichen Weise. Folglich ist es nicht wahrscheinlich, dass die in das Geschlechtsteil einwachsenden Arterien eine andere Kraft noch dazu gewinnen neben der bereits in ihnen vorhandenen im ganzen Körper, sondern es ist denkbar, dass sie breitere Öffnungen haben als die anderen Arterien, da sie so eingerichtet sind, schnell aufzufüllen, was sich entleert hat; die Natur erfüllt nämlich immer das für jede Funktion Nützliche von überall her, scheint aber keine andere besondere Kraft der Funktion zu haben, wenn (die Arterien) zum Geschlechtsteil gelangen. Wenn jedoch die Lenden gewärmt werden, kann man sich gut vorstellen, dass die Arterien wärmer werden und sich ihre Mündungen weiter öffnen, sodass sie auch in diesem Bereich eine nicht geringe Menge Luft herausströmen lassen in den röhrenartigen Nerv, wodurch das Geschlechtsteil, das sich ein bisschen davon anfüllt, sich anspannt, wie wenn sich seine gesamte Substanz im Bereich des röhrenartigen Nervs befände.
+
+
Und ich meine, diesen Zustand im Bereich des Nervs zwar nur einmal gesehen zu haben, den (Zustand) der Arterien aber mehrmals. Diese Schlussfolgerung habe ich sowohl aufgrund der vorangegangenen Symptome gezogen als auch aufgrund der Art der Behandlung. Bei demjenigen nämlich, bei dem kontinuierliche Pulsschläge vorangegangen waren, war die Ursache eine blähende Luft; diesem Umstand habe ich die ganze Behandlung angepasst und den Menschen geheilt. Bei denjenigen aber, bei denen die Mündungen der Arterien erweitert worden waren, ging zwar kein derartiges Symptom voran, aber bei dem einem kam es zu einer langanhaltenden Enthaltung vom Geschlechtsverkehr entgegen seiner Gewohnheit, bei dem anderen war der Verzehr von scharfen und schlechten Säften enthaltenden Speisen (vorangegangen), bei dem dritten, dass er bei einer zweimonatigen Wanderung einen Gürtel trug, obwohl er es nicht gewohnt war. Dass es zu einer Öffnung der Mündungen der Arterien gekommen war, haben wir bei den einen wegen der Schärfe infolge der schlechten Säfte erschlossen, bei den anderen wegen der Entstehung einer blähenden Luft, die sich ungeordnet und gewaltsam bewegt.
+Denn auch die Heilmittel, die die Geschlechtsteile anspannen, sowohl die zur Einnahme (bestimmten) als auch diejenigen, die man in der Bauchfell- und Lendengegend appliziert, sind alle warm und blähend, wie alle gegenteiligen (Heilmittel) nicht blähen und eher kühlen als wärmen.
+Man muss aber auf meine Worte aufpassen und nicht achtlos an ihnen vorbeigehen. Ich sagte nämlich „Heilmittel“, nicht Speisen, weil einige Speisen die Entstehung von viel Samen fördern und aus diesem Grund den Trieb zur Wollust verschärfen. Dies bestätigt meine Rede, in der eben ausgeführt wurde, dass sogar diejenigen, die sich dem Geschlechtsverkehr enthalten, manchmal vom Priapismus befallen werden. Das kommt bei denjenigen vor, die viel Samen haben und sich entgegen ihrer Gewohnheit vom Geschlechtsverkehr fernhalten, immer wenn sie nicht mit Anstrengung durch die Menge an körperlichen Übungen den Überschuss an Blut verwalten, und am meisten
Der Zustand dieser Menschen im Geschlechtsteil ist dem Zustand derjenigen genau entgegengesetzt, die überhaupt keinen Gedanken an Geschlechtsverkehr verschwenden. Bei einem Freund, der sich entgegen seiner früheren Gewohnheit dazu entschieden hatte, vollkommen auf Geschlechtsverkehr zu verzichten, wurde das Geschlechtsteil so aufgeblasen und nahm an Volumen zu, dass er gezwungen war, mir das Symptom mitzuteilen. Er sagte nämlich, dass er sich wunderte, dass bei diesem Sportler das Geschlechtsteil infolge der Manneszucht zusammengeschrumpft und fest anliegend war, ihm selbst aber widerfuhr das Gegenteil, seit dieses (Leiden) aufgetreten war. Dann gab ich ihm den Rat, den angesammelten Samen einerseits auszuscheiden, sich andererseits von da an von Anblicken oder Erzählungen oder Erinnerungen, die zum Geschlechtsverkehr anregen könnten, gänzlich fernzuhalten.
+Alle diejenigen aber, die von Anfang an, sei es weil sie Wettkämpfe bestritten oder weil sie sich im Gesang übten, unerfahren im Geschlechtsverkehr blieben, da sie sich gänzlich von allen Gedanken und derartigen Vorstellungen fern halten, werden ihre Geschlechtsteile mager und runzlig, gleich wie bei alten Männern. Neben den anderen Dingen nämlich passiert auch dies denjenigen, die während ihrer Jugend am Anfang viel Geschlechtsverkehr hatten: Da sich die Gefäße in diesen Partien erweitern, fließt das Blut reichlich dahin und die Kraft, die nach Geschlechtsverkehr verlangt, wächst; im gemeinsamen Buch über alle Kräfte, das Platon geschrieben hat, sagt er, dass die Ruhe zwar die Kraft auflöse, die Beschäftigung mit eigenen Sachen aber die Kraft erhöhe.
+So bleiben auch die Brüste schlicht bei den Frauen, die nie schwanger geworden sind; bei den Frauen aber, die nach der Schwangerschaft stillen, werden sie sehr groß und geben stets Milch, solange sie stillen. Wenn sie aber mit dem Stillen der Kinder aufhören, hört auch die Milchbildung in den Brüsten nicht lange danach auf.
+Alle diese Dinge, die wir zuvor untersucht haben, werden uns Anhaltspunkte für die Behandlung geben, wenn wir die Ursachen unterscheiden, durch die in jedem Patienten dieses Leiden entstand. Jetzt ist aber nicht mehr der richtige Zeitpunkt dafür, da die vorliegende Abhandlung schon zum Ende gekommen ist. Ich werde das Buch hier beenden.
+Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)
+This pointer pattern extracts book and chapter and section.
+This pointer pattern extracts book and chapter.
+This pointer pattern extracts book.
+
+
Καὶ μέντοι καὶ ἀποκρίνει πολλάκις ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ περιττώματα καθάπερ τὸ ἧπαρ, ὥστε καὶ δι’ ἐμέτων ἅμα ναυτίαις ἐκκριθῆναί ποθ’ αἷμα μελαγχολικόν, ὑπελθεῖν τε κάτω τοιοῦτον ἄλλο· καὶ χωρὶς δὲ τῆς τοιαύτης κενώσεως, ἀθυμίας τε μελαγχολικὰς ἐργάζεται, καὶ σιτίων ἐνίοτε μὲν ὀρέξεις σφοδροτάτας, καὶ μάλισθ’ ὅταν ἀκριβῶς ὀξῶδες ᾖ τὸ φερόμενον εἰς τὴν γαστέρα περίττωμα, πολλάκις δ’ ἀνατροπήν τε καὶ ὑπτιασμόν, ὅταν ἑτέραν τινὰ ἔχῃ διαφθοράν.
+Σκιρούμενος δ’ ὅπως ὑδέρους ἐπιφέρει, συμπαθοῦντος αὐτῷ τοῦ ἥπατος, ἔμπροσθεν εἴρηται. καὶ μέντοι καὶ παθόντων ποτ’ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν σπλάγχνων, ἰκτέρους γιγνομένους ἐθεασάμεθα πρὸς τὸ μελάντερον τῶν συνηθῶν ῥέποντας, ὡς νομίζειν τὴν ξανθὴν χολὴν ἀσβόλῃ μεμίχθαι· καί τινες τῶν ἰατρῶν, ἀπαθὲς
Ἀλλ’ ἐκείνοις μὲν συγχωρητέον ἔσται οὕτως ὑπολαμβάνειν, οὐδὲν ἡγουμένοις νόσημα γίγνεσθαι κατὰ δυσκρασίαν· ὅσοι δὲ τῶν ἰατρῶν ἑπόμενοι τοῖς ἐναργῶς φαινομένοις, ἐπὶ τῷ ψυχθῆναί τι μόριον ὑπολαμβάνουσι γίγνεσθαί τινα συμπτώματα, θαυμάσαι τούτων ἔστι τοὺς ὑδέρους οὐδ’ ἐφ’ ἑνὶ τόπῳ πεπονθότι συνίστασθαι νομιζόντων· εἰ γὰρ ὅτι μηδεὶς ὄγκος ἐστὶ παρὰ φύσιν ἐν ἥπατι, διὰ τοῦτ’ ἀπαθὲς ὑπάρχειν ἡγοῦνται τὸ σπλάγχνον, οὐδ’ ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἔσται∣
Ὅτι δὲ καὶ μελαγχολικαὶ γίγνονται δυσθυμίαι, διαπέμποντος αὐτοῦ τοιοῦτον περίττωμα τῷ στόματι τῆς γαστρός, ἐν τῷ κατ’ ἐκεῖνο λόγῳ πρόσθεν εἴρηται· ὥστ’ οὐδὲν ἔτι δεῖ πλείω λέγειν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ, τῶν μὲν ὀργανικῶν ἐν αὐτῷ παθῶν οὐ δεομένων λογικῆς διαγνώσεως, τῶν δὲ κατὰ τὴν δυσκρασίαν ἔκ τε τῶν νῦν εἰρημένων καὶ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν ἐν τῇ περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸ ἧπαρ παθῶν
2. Ἤδη καὶ πρόσθεν εἶπόν τι περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν γαστέρα παθῶν, εἰς μέγιστα μόρια δύο διελὼν αὐτὴν τῷ λόγῳ, τό τε πρῶτον ἄνωθεν, ὃ συνεχές ἐστι τῷ στομάχῳ, πολλοῖς νεύροις αἰσθητικοῖς διαπεπλεγμένον, ἕτερον δὲ τούτῳ συνεχὲς ἄχρι τῆς κατὰ τὸ ἔντερον ἐκφύσεως.
+Ἔστι δ’ ὥσπερ ἑκατέρου χρεία τοῖς ζῴοις ἴδιος, ἀνάλογόν τε τῇ χρείᾳ τὰ συμπτώματα διαφέροντα, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὅσα κοινὰ πάθη τῶν ὁμοιομερῶν ἐστι καὶ τῶν ὀργανικῶν, ὑπάρχει δήπου καὶ τούτοις κοινὰ πρὸς ἄλληλά τε καὶ σύμπαν τὸ ἔντερον. ἡ δὲ τῶν συμπτωμάτων ὁμοιότης οὐ μόνον τούτοις πρὸς ἄλληλά ἐστι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ψαύουσιν αὐτῶν, ὥσπερ τοῖς νεφροῖς πρὸς τὸ κῶλον. ἔνια μὲν οὖν εὔγνωστον ἔχει τὸν πεπονθότα τόπον, ὥσπερ αἱ δυσεντερίαι καὶ οἱ τεινεσμοί.
+Χρὴ δ’ ὑμᾶς ἐν τῷ παρόντι λόγῳ τὰς κυρίως ὀνομαζομένας δυσεντερίας ἀκούειν, ὡς σημαινούσης τῆς προσηγορίας ἐντέρων ἕλκωσιν. Οὔτε γὰρ ἀθρόως γίγνεται τὸ πάθος∣
Ὁπότε μὲν οὖν μόνα ταῦτα τὰ ξύσματα διαχωρεῖται, προσέχειν χρή, μή τι πιμελῶδες αὐτοῖς συνεκκρίνεται· τῶν παχέων γὰρ ἂν οὕτως ἐντέρων ἡ ἕλκωσις εἴη· τοῦ δ’ αἵματος ἤδη συνεκκρινομένου, σκοπεῖσθαι χρή, πότερον ἀναμέμικται τοῦτο τοῖς ἄλλοις ὅλον ὅλοις ἢ καθ’ ἕν τι μέρος αὐτῶν ἐποχεῖται. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀναμεμιγμένον ἐν τοῖς ὑψηλοτέροις ἐντέροις ἐνδείκνυται τὴν ἕλκωσιν εἶναι, τὸ δ’ ἐποχούμενον ἐν τοῖς ταπεινοτέροις· ὁρᾶται δὲ τοῦτο κἀπὶ τῶν ξυσματωδῶν ἐκκρί
Διαφέρει δ’ οὐ σμικρὸν εἰς τὴν θεραπείαν∣
Διορίζονται δὲ τῶν ἀφ’ ἥπατος ἐκκρίσεων αἱ τοιαῦται δυσεντερίαι τῷ τε λεπτὸν αἵματος ἰχῶρα κατ’ ἀρχὰς ἐκκρίνεσθαι ταῖς ἀφ’ ἥπατος, εἶτα τοῦ πάθους αὐξανομένου παχὺν χυμὸν οἴνου τρυγὶ παραπλήσιον· ἔτι τε τῷ μηδὲν ἐπ’ αὐτῶν συνεκκρίνεσθαι ξυσματῶδες, ἀλλὰ καὶ διάλειμμα δυοῖν ἡμερῶν ἢ καὶ τριῶν ἐνίοτε γίγνεσθαι ταῖς ἡπατικαῖς ἐκκρίσεσιν, εἶτ’ αὖθις ἐπανέρχεσθαι τὸ κακόν, ἐκκρινόντων αὐτῶν πολὺ χείρω τῶν ἔμπροσθεν. Οὐ μὴν ἐπί γε τῶν κατ’ ἔντερον ἑλκώσεων οὕτω φαίνεται γιγνόμενον· οὔτε γὰρ ἀθρόον οὔτ’ ἐκ διαστημάτων χρόνου μακρῶν ἐκκρίνουσιν.
+Αἱ μέν τοι κατὰ τὸ ἀπευθυσμένον ἑλκώσεις, ἃς τεινεσμοὺς ὀνομάζουσι, σφοδρὰς μὲν ἐντάσεις καὶ προθυμίας ἰσχυρὰς ἐπιφέρουσι, ἐκκρίνουσι δ’ ὀλίγα, κατ’ ἀρχὰς μὲν φλεγματώδη τε καὶ πιμελώδη, προϊόντος δὲ τοῦ χρόνου καὶ ξυσματώδη· πάντα γε μὴν ταῦτα κατὰ πάντα τὸν χρόνον∣
Κώλου δ’ ἄλγημα σφοδρὸν εἶδον πολλάκις, ὑπὸ τῶν ἰατρῶν οὐ κώλου νομιζόμενον, ἀλλὰ νεφρῶν εἶναι, καθάπερ γε καὶ τὸ τῶν νεφρῶν εἰς κῶλον ἀναφερόντων. ἔνιοι δ’ αὐτῶν ᾤοντο, μηδὲ γενέσθαι ποτὲ κωλικὴν διάθεσιν ἐν τοῖς ἀριστεροῖς μέρεσιν. ἔχει μὲν οὖν τι δυσδιόριστον ἐν ἀρχῇ τὰ πάθη, καθ’ ὃν χρόνον οὐδὲ μεγάλης διαφορᾶς βοηθημάτων χρῄζει· σκοπεῖσθαι μέν τοι χρὴ καὶ τότε τὰ πλεονάζοντα συμπτώματα.
+
+
Κἂν διαχωρήσῃ δέ ποθ’ ἡ γαστὴρ ἐπὶ τῶν κωλικῶν, πνευματωδέστερά πως ἐκκρίνεται, καὶ πολλάκις γ’ ἐποχεῖται τῷ ὕδατι, τῇ συστάσει παραπλήσια βολβίτοις. ἀλλὰ καὶ παρηγοροῦνται τοῖς χαλαστικοῖς ἐνέμασιν οἱ κωλικοὶ παροξυσμοὶ μᾶλλον τῶν νεφριτικῶν· ἔστι δ’ ὅτε καὶ χυμοῦ τινος ψυχροῦ συνεκχυθέντος αὐτοῖς, παραχρῆμα παύονται, τοῦ παρηγορικοῦ βοηθήματος οὐ παρηγορικοῦ μόνου, ἀλλὰ καὶ θεραπευτικοῦ καὶ διαγνωστικοῦ γενομένου. καθάπερ δὲ χυμὸς ψυχρὸς ἐπὶ τούτων ἐκκριθείς, οὕτως ὁ λίθος ἐπὶ τῶν∣
Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς ὀδύναις ἀμφότερα τὰ μόρια τῶν αὐτῶν δεῖται βοηθημάτων, οὕτως ἐν τῷ μετὰ ταῦτα χρόνῳ διαφερόντων. διὸ καὶ νομίζειν χρὴ βλάβην οὐδεμίαν ἔχειν ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν θεραπείαν ἐκ τοῦ δυσδιάκριτον εἶναι τὴν πρώτην εἰσβολὴν αὐτῶν· οὔτε γὰρ δέονται τηνικαῦτα διαφόρων βοηθημάτων, οὔτ’ ἔξωθεν οὔτ’ ἔσωθεν, ἀλλ’ ἀρκεῖ τὰ παρηγορικὰ μόνον.
+Τεταγμένων δὲ τῶν ἐντέρων ἁπάντων μετὰ τὴν γαστέρα, τῆς μὲν νήστεως ὑψηλοτάτης, ἐφεξῆς δὲ αὐτῇ τοῦ λεπτοῦ καλουμένου, μεθ’ ὃ τοῦ μὲν τυφλοῦ
Οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐν νεφροῖς καὶ οὐρητῆρσι λίθων ἐσφηνωμένων ἀλγήματα γίγνεται σφοδρὰ κατὰ τὴν δίοδον, οὕτω κἀπὶ τῶν λεπτῶν ἐντέρων εὐλόγως ἄν τις ὑπολάβοι τὰ περιεχόμενα πνεύματα ψυχρὰ καὶ χυμοὺς ὁμοίους αὐτοῖς ἐργάζεσθαι τὴν ὀδύνην· ἡ γὰρ τοῦ σώματος οὐσία τῶν ἐν τοῖς λεπτοῖς ἐντέροις χιτώνων ἀραιά τέ τις οὖσα καὶ λεπτή, κατέχειν ἐπὶ πλέον οὐ δύναται τὰ τοιαῦτα τῶν αἰτίων. εὔλογον οὖν ἐστιν ἔν τινι πυκνῷ καὶ παχεῖ σώματι γεννηθέντα ψυχρὸν καὶ παχὺν ἢ γλίσχρον χυμὸν ἢ πνεῦμα φυσῶδες οὐκ ἔχον διέξοδον, ὀδύνην ἐργάζεσθαι, σφοδρὰν μὲν κατ’ ἄμφω, διά τε δυσκρασίαν καὶ τάσιν τῶν σωμάτων ἐν οἷς στέγεται, μακρὰν δέ, τῷ μὴ δύνασθαι κενωθῆναι ῥᾳδίως, εἰργόμενον ὑπό τε τοῦ πάχους καὶ τῆς πυκνότητος τῶν περιεχόντων αὐτὸ σωμάτων.
+Γίγνονται δέ ποτε καὶ ἄλλοι πόνοι σφοδρότατοι κατὰ τὰ μετέωρα μέρη τῶν ἐντέρων, ἱκανῶς σπαράσσοντες ἐμέτοις, ὡς ἐπὶ τέλει κόπρον ἐμέσαι τινάς, ἐξ οὗ πάθους∣
Εὔλογον οὖν ἔδοξε τοῖς πρὸ ἡμῶν ἰατροῖς, ἤτοι διὰ φλεγμονὴν ἢ ἔμφραξιν κόπρου ξηρᾶς τὰ τοιαῦτα γίγνεσθαι πάθη τῶν λεπτῶν ἐντέρων. ἕτερα μέντοι συμπτώματα πάντων ἅμα πεπονθότων εὐλόγως ἐπιστεύθη γίγνεσθαι, τῶν ἐντέρων τε καὶ τῆς γαστρός, ὥσπερ αἵ τε λειεντερίαι καὶ αἱ κοιλιακαὶ καλούμεναι
Τὰς δ’ ἐργαζομένας αἰτίας τὸ λειεντερικὸν πάθος ἑτέρωθι γεγραμμένας ἔχετε κατὰ μόνας, πρὸς τῷ κἀν τοῖς Τῆς θεραπευτικῆς μεθόδου καὶ τοῖς Τῶν φυσικῶν δυνάμεων ὑπομνήμασιν, ἔτι τε τοῖς Τῶν συμπτωμάτων αἰτίοις εἰρῆσθαι. νῦν γὰρ οὐ περὶ τῶν τὰς νόσους ἐργαζομένων αἰτίων ὁ λόγος ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῶν πεπονθότων τόπων, ὅσοι τὴν διὰ τῆς ἁφῆς τε καὶ τῆς ὄψεως ἐκφεύγουσι γνῶσιν. ἐπεὶ δ’ εἰς τὴν τούτων ἀκριβῆ διάγνωσιν ἐνίοτε καὶ περὶ τῶν διαθέσεων αὐτῶν ἠναγκάσθην εἰπεῖν τι, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ περὶ τῶν ἐργαζομένων αὐτὰς αἰτίων ἐπεμνήσθην. ὥστε καταπαύειν ἐνταῦθα προσήκει τὸν περὶ τῶν ἐντέρων λόγον· ὅσα γὰρ ἐναργῶς ἔστι πάθη γνῶναι συνιστάμενα κατ’ αὐτά, καὶ ταῦτα κοινὰς ἔχει τὰς διαγνώσεις τοῖς προειρημένοις· τὰ γὰρ τῶν ἀποστημάτων ἢ φλεγμονῶν ἢ σκίρων ἢ ἐμπνευματώσεων ἢ ἐρυσιπελάτων γνωρίσματα γιγνωσκόμενα πᾶσιν, ὅταν ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὴν κοιλίαν τόποις ὀφθῇ, καὶ τοῦ πάθους ἅμα καὶ τοῦ πεπονθότος τόπου τὴν διάγνωσιν ἐνδείκνυται, καὶ λέλεκται καὶ περὶ τούτων ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν λόγοις αὐτάρκως.∣
3. Ἐὰν μὲν εἰσβάλλῃ ἐξαίφνης νεφρῖτις, ἀξιολόγου λίθου σφηνωθέντος, ἤτοι κατά τινα τῶν νεφρῶν ἢ κατὰ τὸν οὐρητῆρα, παραπλήσιον ἄλγημα γίγνεται τοῖς κωλικοῖς· διορίζεται δὲ τῷ τε πλήθει καὶ μεγέθει τῶν ναυτιῶν, ἅμα τοῖς ἐμουμένοις χολώδεσί τε καὶ φλεγματώδεσιν οὖσιν, καί τι καὶ τῆς ἐδηδεσμένης τροφῆς μεμιγμένον ἔχουσι· πολλάκις καὶ τῷ τόπῳ, τῶν ὑψηλῶν μερῶν τοῦ κώλου πασχόντων· ἔστι δ’ ὅτε καὶ τῷ μὴ καθ’ ἕνα τόπον ἐρηρεῖσθαι τὴν ὀδύνην,
Ὅταν δ’ ἐκ τῶν ὑφισταμένων τοῖς οὔροις ἢ καί τινος οὐρηθέντος λίθου σαφῶς διορισθῇ, ζήτημα οὐκέτ’ οὐδὲν ὑπολείπεται. πολλοὶ δὲ τῶν πασχόντων, ὀδύνης μετρίας αἰσθάνονται διὰ βάθος κατὰ τὰς λαγόνας ὑπαρχούσης ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, οὐδέπω ψαμμώδους οὐδενὸς ἐκκρινομένου σαφῶς· ἐφ’ ὧν, ὡς ἴστε, διδοὺς τῶν φαρμάκων ὅσα θρύπτει τοὺς ἐν τοῖς νεφροῖς λίθους, ἅμα τε διάγνωσιν ἀκριβῆ ποιούμενος τοῦ τε πάθους∣
Ἐὰν γὰρ εὑρεθῇ τι ψαμμῶδες ἐν τοῖς οὔροις ἐπὶ τῇ πόσει τοῦ φαρμάκου, νεφριτικὸν τότε πάθος ἔγνων ὑπάρχειν, ἐφεξῆς τε δίδωμι τῶν αὐτῶν φαρμάκων, ἅμα τῇ λοιπῇ θεραπείᾳ. διεγνωσμένου δέ, ὅτι πάσχει τις οὕτω νεφρός, ἐὰν ἀλγήματα μετὰ φρίκης ἐκ διαλειμμάτων ἀνωμάλως φαίνηται γιγνόμενα, καὶ πυρετοί τινες ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς ἄτακτοι, τηνικαῦτα κατακλίνοντες ἐπὶ τὴν γαστέρα τὸν κάμνοντα, καί ποτε καὶ κατὰ θάτερον πλευρόν, ὡς ὑψηλὸν εἶναι τὸ πεπονθὸς μέρος, ἐρωτᾶτε μή τινος βάρους ὥσπερ κρεμαμένου κατὰ τὸν ἀλγοῦντα νεφρὸν αἰσθάνεται· τούτων γὰρ αὐτῷ συμβαινόντων, ἀπόστημα χρὴ προσδέχεσθαι συνιστάμενον, ἐφ’ ᾧ πεφθέντι πύον οὐρηθὲν ἅμα τε τῆς ὀδύνης ἀπαλλάττει τὸν κάμνοντα καὶ κίνδυνον ἑλκώσεως ἐπιφέρει τῷ νεφρῷ, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πειρᾶσθαι χρὴ παντὶ τρόπῳ τῆς ἐπουλώσεως αὐτοῦ φροντίζειν· ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ διὰ ταχέων εἰς οὐλὴν ἀχθῇ, δυσθεραπευτότερον γίγνεται.
+Σημεῖα δὲ τοῦ διαμένειν τὴν ἕλκωσιν ἔν τε τοῖς οὐρουμένοις οὐκ ἀσαφῆ καὶ τῷ κάμνοντι πολλάκις∣
+
Ἀλλὰ κἂν ἄλλη τις ἐκκαθαίρηται τῶν φλεβῶν δι’ οὐρήσεως μοχθηρία χυμῶν, οὐδὲν ὑπ’ αὐτῆς εἶδον οὔτε νεφροὺς οὔτε κύστιν οὔτε τοὺς οὐρητικοὺς πόρους παθόντας, ὥσπερ οὐδ’ εἰ πύον ἐκκρίνειέ τις πάμπολυ δι’ οὔρων, ἀλλὰ κατά γε τοῦτο, παραπλησίως ἔχει ταῦτα τοῖς κατὰ τὰ ἔντερα, πάσχει γὰρ οὐδ’ ἐκεῖνά τι κατὰ τὰς ἡπατικὰς διαθέσεις,∣
+
Περὶ∣
+
Ὥστε τῶν μὲν νεφρῶν ἀτονίαν ἄν τις αἰτιάσαιτο, κατέχειν ἐπὶ πλέον ἐν ἑαυτοῖς μὴ δυναμένων τὸ οὖρον· οὐ μὴν τῶν γ’ ἄλλων μορίων, ὅσα διεξέρχεται τὸ ποθέν. ἀλλὰ πάλιν εἰ μέμφοιτό τις ὡς ἀτόνους τοὺς νεφρούς, πῶς ἕλξουσιν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ταχέως τὸ οὖρον; ἢ δυνατὸν λέγειν, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῆς κοιλίας ἐνίοις τῶν λειεντερικῶν ὀρέξεις γίνονται σφοδρόταται, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐπὶ νεφρῶν ὄρεξίν τε ἅμα γίγνεσθαι σφοδράν, καὶ διὰ τοῦθ’ ἕλκειν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τῆς κοίλης φλεβὸς τὸ οὖρον, αὐτίκα μέν τοι βαρύνεσθαι διὰ τὸ τῆς ὁλκῆς λάβρον;
+Ὥσπερ γε καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ὀνομαζομένων ὀρέξεων κυνωδῶν ἐνίους ὁρῶμεν ἐμπιπλαμένους μὲν ἀθρόως,∣
Ὥσπερ οὖν ἐν τῷ στόματι τῆς γαστρὸς ἡ κυνώδης ὄρεξις γιγνομένη, μετὰ τοῦ μὴ φέρειν αὐτὴν τῶν καταποθέντων τὸ βάρος, ἀναγκάζει πολλὰ μὲν καὶ λάβρως προσφέρεσθαι, ταχέως δὲ ἀποκρίνειν αὐτά, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐν τοῖς νεφροῖς ἡ τῆς ὀρώδους ὑγρότητος ὄρεξις, ἅμα τῇ τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτῶν ἀτονίᾳ, τό θ’ ὑγρὸν ἕλκειν ἀθρόως ἀναγκάζει τήν τ’ εἰς τὴν κύστιν αὐτῶν ἔκκρισιν αὐτίκα ποιεῖσθαι.
+
+
Εὔλογον οὖν ἐστιν ἄρχεσθαι μὲν αὐτὸ κατὰ βραχύ, μεῖζόν τε γιγνόμενον ἕλκειν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον ἐκ τῶν φλεβῶν τὸν ὀρὸν τοῦ αἵματος οὐκ αἰσθανομένων ἡμῶν, ὁπόταν δὲ τοῦτον ἑλκύσῃ πάντα, καὶ ξηρὸν ἰκμάδος τοιαύτης ἀποφήνῃ τὸ κατὰ τὰς φλέβας αἷμα, τὰ ξηρανθέντα τῶν ἀγγείων ἕλκειν ἐκ τοῦ ἥπατος τὴν ἰκμάδα, κἄπειτ’ ἐκεῖνο τὴν ἐκ τῶν ἐντέρων τε καὶ κοιλίας· ἐπειδὰν δὲ ξηρανθῶσιν αἱ κατὰ τὸ στόμα τῆς γαστρὸς φλέβες, ὀρέγεσθαι τηνικαῦτα ποτοῦ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, αἰσθανόμενον τῆς διαθέσεως· εἶτα προσενεγκαμένου τὸ ποτὸν αὐτοῦ, τὰς καθηκούσας εἰς τὴν γαστέρα φλέβας ἐξ ἥπατος, αὐχμώσας ἀναρπάζειν εὐθέως αὐτὸ πᾶν, ἐξ ἐκείνων τε τὰς ἐφεξῆς, ἄχρις ἂν ἡ μετάληψις ἐπὶ τοὺς νεφροὺς ἀφίκηται.
+Δέδεικται γὰρ ἐν τοῖς Τῶν φυσικῶν δυνάμεων ὑπομνήμασιν οὐ μόνον τὸ πόμα πανταχόσε τοῦ σώματος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ τροφὴ κατὰ τὴν τῆς ὁλκῆς μετάληψιν φέρεσθαι.∣
+
Ἕτερον δ’ ἀκριβῶς ὅμοιον τῷ διαβήτῃ τούτῳ γίγνεται πάθος, ἐπὶ σιτίων πλήθει, μήτ’ ἀπεπτουμένων, μήθ’ ὑποχωρούντων, μήτε πληθώραν ἐργαζομένων μήτ’ εὐτροφίαν, ἀλλὰ δῆλον ὅτι διαφορουμένων ταχέως· οὔτε δ’ οὕτω σπάνιόν ἐστιν, ὡς ὁ δίψακος, οὔθ’ οὕτως ἀνίατον, ἐπειδὴ πρὸ τοῦ μέγιστον γενέσθαι γνωριζόμενον οὐ χαλεπῶς θεραπεύεται. ὅταν μὲν γὰρ ἄχρι τοῦ διπλασίου τῶν εἰθισμένων ἐσθίοντός τινος ἀτροφῇ τὸ σῶμα χωρὶς διαρροίας, παρορᾶται τὸ πάθος οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἰδιώταις, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἰατροῖς· ὅταν δ’ ἐπὶ τριπλασίοις τοῦτο συμβαίνῃ, βοηθεῖται πρὶν ἐπὶ τὸ τετραπλάσιον ἢ πενταπλάσιον ἀφικέσθαι· τοῦτο δ’ αὖ πάλιν τὸ πάθος εὔλογον ἀπὸ ταχείας διαφορήσεως ἄρχεσθαι, σωζόντων ἁπάντων τῶν μορίων τὴν ἑλκτικὴν δύναμιν ἅμα τῇ συνεζευγμένῃ μὲν αὐτῇ, καλουμένῃ δ’ ἰδίως ὀρεκτικῇ.∣
Τοῦ μέντοι σφοδροῦ δίψους ἄνευ τοῦ διαβήτου ἡ γαστήρ ἐστιν αἰτία, πάσχουσα δυσκρασίαν θερμὴν ἢ ξηράν ἢ ἀμφοτέρας ἅμα, καὶ μάλιστ’ αὐτῆς τὸ στόμα· δεύτερον δ’ ἐπὶ τῇ γαστρὶ τὸ ἧπαρ, καὶ μάλιστ’ αὐτοῦ τὰ σιμά, συνεκπυρουμένων αὐτοῖς δηλονότι τῶν κατὰ μεσεντέριόν τε καὶ νῆστιν, αὐτήν τε τὴν γαστέρα, καὶ κατὰ τὸν στόμαχον δὲ καὶ πνεύμονα. τοῦ τοιούτου συμπτώματος ἡ οἷον ῥίζα γίγνεταί ποτε δι’ ἐρυσιπελατώδη διάθεσιν ἐκπυρωθέντων, οἷς εἰς τοὐπίπαν ἕπεται μαρασμὸς ἄλλοτ’ ἄλλος, ὡς ἐν τῷ περὶ αὐτοῦ λόγῳ δεδήλωται.
+Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν τῇ κοινωνίᾳ τῶν συμπτωμάτων ἅμα τοῖς κατὰ νεφροὺς εἴρηται πάθεσιν.
+Αὐτῶν δὲ τῶν νεφρῶν ἴδιον πάθος ἐστὶν ὁ διαβήτης, ἀνάλογον τῇ κατὰ τὸ στόμα τῆς κοιλίας ὀρέξει κυνώδει, σὺν ἀτονίᾳ τῆς καθεκτικῆς δυνάμεως· ἐάν τε γὰρ ἄνευ σφοδρᾶς ὀρέξεως γίγνεσθαι φῶμεν αὐτό, τὴν ἀρχὴν οὐδ’ ἀφίξεταί
4. Συμπτώματα κατὰ τὴν κύστιν γίγνεται κοινὰ μὲν τοῖς ἄλλοις οἵ τε παρὰ φύσιν αὐτῆς ὄγκοι πάντες, ὀδύναι τε καὶ τὰ ταύτας ἐργαζόμενα πάθη· τὰ δ’ ἴδια μόνης αὐτῆς, ἰσχουρίαι τε καὶ στραγγουρίαι, καὶ κατ’ ἄλλον τρόπον αἱ ἄμετροι τῶν οὔρων ἐκκρίσεις. ἀλλ’ αὗται μέν, ὡς ἐν τῷ περὶ τῶν νεφρῶν λόγῳ προείρηται, διόδῳ χρῶνται τῇ κύστει, μηδὲν αὐτῆς πεπονθυίας· τῆς στραγγουρίας δ’ ἡ μὲν ἐπὶ δριμέσιν οὔροις γιγνομένη σύμπτωμα μέν ἐστι κύστεως, πάθος δ’ οὐκ ἔστιν· ἡ δὲ δι’ ἕλκωσιν ἢ ἀτονίαν ἐπὶ πάθει κύστεως γίγνεται καθάπερ ἡ διὰ τὴν δριμύτητα, ποτὲ μὲν ἐπὶ νεφρῶν πάθει, ποτὲ δ’ ἐπ’ ἄλλῳ τινὶ τῶν εἰς οὖρα τὴν ἑαυτῶν κακοχυμίαν ἢ τὸ πύον, ὅταν ἀποστήματι κάμνῃ, διαπέμψαι δυναμένων.
+Γίγνεται δέ ποτε καὶ διὰ τοὺς ἐν ταῖς φλεψὶ χυμούς, ἐκκαθαιρομένους διὰ νεφρῶν τε καὶ κύστεως. ἀρρωστοῦσα δὲ κύστις ἐπὶ δυσκρασίᾳ βλάπτεται τὴν οἰκείαν ἐνέργειαν, ἥ τίς ἐστιν ἐκκριτικὴ τῶν οὔρων, ἐφ’ ἣν ὁρμᾷ τὸ ζῷον, ὅταν ἤτοι βαρύνηται τῷ πλήθει τῆς περιεχομένης οὐσίας ἡ κύστις ἢ δακνούσης ἀνιαθῇ. ταῦτα δ’ ἀμφότερα∣
Ἡ δ’ ἀσθένεια γίγνεται καὶ δι’ ὀργανικὰ μὲν ἐνίοτε πάθη, καὶ διὰ δυσκρασίας τάς τ’ ἄλλας καὶ τὰς συνεχέστατα πολλοῖς συμβαινούσας, ὁπότ’ ἂν ψυγῶσιν· ἐναργῶς γὰρ φαίνεται βαρυνομένη τηνικαῦτα, κἂν ὀλίγον ἐν αὐτῇ περιέχηται τὸ ὑγρόν. ὡς οὐρήσεως δὲ ὀργάνῳ τῇ κύστει καὶ τὸ τῆς ἰσχουρίας ἕπεται σύμπτωμα, ποτὲ μέν, ὡς εἴρηται, μὴ δυναμένης περιστέλλεσθαι σφοδρῶς τοῖς ἐν αὐτῇ περιεχομένοις, ὡς ἐκθλίβειν αὐτά, ποτὲ δὲ τοῦ κάτω πόρου φραχθέντος ὑπὸ παχέων ὑγρῶν ἢ λίθου σφηνωθέντος· ἔστι δ’ ὅτε καὶ διὰ φλεγμονὴν ἤ τινα τοιοῦτον ἕτερον ὄγκον, εἰς στενοχωρίαν ἀγαγόντα τὸν πόρον ἢ καὶ τελέως ἐμφράξαντα.
+Οὐ μὴν ἐπί γε τοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ νωτιαίου μυελοῦ νεύροις παθοῦσιν ἢ αὐτῷ τῷ νωτιαίῳ γίγνεταί τις ἀτονία τῆς κύστεως, δι’ ἣν οὔρων ἐπίσχεσις ἀκολουθεῖ, καθάπερ ἔνιοι νομίζουσιν, οἰόμενοι προαιρετικὸν ἔργον εἶναι τὸ τῆς κύστεως, ἐπειδὴ κατέχομέν τε τὸ οὖρον ἄχρι περ ἂν βουληθῶμεν, ἐκκρίνομέν τε προελόμε
Ὥσπερ δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων μυῶν ὅπερ ἡ παράλυσις ἀκουσίως, τοῦθ’ ἡ προαίρεσις ἡμῶν ἑκουσίως ἐργάζεται, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον ἐπὶ τούτων ἐνεργοῦντες παυόμεθα, βουληθέντες ἐκκρῖναι κόπρον ἢ οὖρον. ὥσπερ δ’ ἔνιοι προαιρετικὸν ἔργον ὅλον ᾠήθησαν εἶναι τὸ περὶ τὴν τῶν οὔρων τε καὶ τῆς τροφῆς περιττωμάτων ἀπόκρισιν, οὐκ ὀρθῶς γιγνώσκοντες, οὕτως ἔνιοι πάλιν ἐξ ὑπεναντίου τοῖσδε σύμπαν αὐτὸ φυσικὸν ἔργον εἶναι νομίζοντες∣
Γίγνεται γὰρ ἡ μὲν ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας εἰς τὴν νῆστιν φορά, καθάπερ γε καὶ ἡ δι’ ἐκείνης εἰς τὸ λεπτὸν ἔντερον, ὑπὸ φυσικῆς δυνάμεως μόνης· ἡ δ’ ἀποπάτησίς τε καὶ οὔρησις ἀμφοτέρων τῶν ὀργάνων ἅμα ταῖς οἰκείαις δυνάμεσιν ἐνεργούντων ἐπιτελεῖται· κατὰ μὲν τὸ ἀπευθυσμένον καὶ τὴν κύστιν ὑπὸ τῶν φυσικῶν, κατὰ δὲ τοὺς μῦς ὑπὸ τῶν ψυχικῶν τε καὶ προαιρετικῶν ὀνομαζομένων.
+Οἱ μὲν γὰρ σφίγγοντες τὰς ἐκροὰς μύες οὐκέτ’ ἐνεργοῦσιν, οἱ δὲ καθ’ ὑπογάστριον ἐνεργοῦσιν, καὶ μάλιστ’ αὐτῶν οἱ μέσοι· συνεπιλαμβάνουσι δ’ ἔστιν ὅτε τοῖς μυσὶ τούτοις ἔνιοι τῶν δυσκόλως ἀποπατούντων, καὶ τὴν διὰ τῶν χειρῶν θλίψιν, καθάπερ γε κἀπὶ τῆς δυσχεροῦς οὐρήσεως καὶ τελέας ἐπισχέσεως
Ὅταν δὲ τοῦτο γένηται τὸ πάθος, ὅ τε πόρος αὐτῆς φραχθῇ, χαλεπόν ἐστι διαγνῶναι τὰς διαθέσεις ἀμφοτέρας. οὐ μόνον δὲ εἰς τὴν τούτων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων τῶν κατὰ τὴν κύστιν ἀκριβῆ διάγνωσιν ἀναγκαιότατόν ἐστι προεπίστασθαι τὰ προκατάρχοντα τῶν ἔξωθεν αἰτίων, ἃ καλοῦσιν ἰδίως οἱ ἰατροὶ προκαταρκτικά· πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον αὐτῶν τὰ προηγούμενα κατ’ αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ ζῴου παθήματα.
+Λορδωθείσης γοῦν ποτε τῆς ῥάχεως ἐπὶ καταπτώσει, συνέβη τῶν οὔρων ἐπίσχεσις,∣
+
Συμβαίνει γάρ ποτε καὶ τοῦτο τῆς ἰσχουρίας αἴτιον γενέσθαι καθάπερ γε καὶ ἄλλοις ὑγιαίνουσιν ἤτοι διὰ περίστασίν τινα πραγμάτων ἢ ἐν ἐκκλησίαις ἢ βουλαῖς ἢ ἐν δικαστηρίοις ἢ καὶ δειπνοῦσι παρά τινι, κατασχοῦσιν ἐπὶ πλέον τὸ οὖρον, ὑπερδιαταθείσης τῆς κύστεως,∣
Ἑτέρου δὲ ἐπὶ καταπτώσει τῆς ῥάχεως ἀπαθοῦς διαμενούσης ἐν μὲν τῷ παραχρῆμα συνέβη συχνὴν οὔρησιν αἵματος γενέσθαι, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τελείαν ἰσχουρίαν· ἐφ’ οὗ τεθρομβῶσθαί τι τοῦ αἵματος ἐτεκμηράμεθα, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καθετῆρι χρησαμένων ἡμῶν, ὀλίγον μὲν οὔρησεν, ἐξαιρεθέντος δὲ τοῦ καθετῆρος, ἐφάνη κατὰ τὸ στόμιον αὐτοῦ γνώρισμα τῆς θρομβώσεως.
+Ἐπ’ ἄλλων δὲ χρονίων ἀλγημάτων, ἅμα σημείοις ἀποστημάτων γενομένων, ἐπὶ τῷ λῆξαι ταῦτα συνεξουρήθη τι πυῶδες λεπτόν, ἐπηκολούθησεν δ’ ἐπίσχεσις οὔρων, ὡς τεκμήρασθαι παχὺ πύον ἐμφράξαι τὸν πόρον.
+Ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν παιδίων λιθιώντων κατὰ κύστιν ἐθεασάμεθα πολλάκις ἰσχουρίαν γενομένην, ἐφ’ ᾗ σχηματίσαντες ἀνάρροπον τὸ σῶμα μετὰ κατασείσεως, ἀποκυλισθῆναι τὸν λίθον τοῦ πόρου ἐποιήσαμεν. ἑωρακότας δὲ καὶ τοῦθ’ ὑμᾶς, ὃ μέλλω λέγειν, ἀξιῶ μεμνῆσθαι διὰ παντός· ἐπὶ ταῖς καλουμέναις θρομβώσεσιν, οὐ μόνον ταῖς κατὰ κύστιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτων ἔτι μᾶλλον εἰ κατ’ ἔντερά τε καὶ∣
Ὅτι δ’ οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτάρκη τὰ κατὰ τὸν ἐνεστῶτα χρόνον συμπτώματα διδάξαι τὸν πεπονθότα τόπον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πολλάκις ἐκ τῶν προγεγονότων ὁ διορισμὸς γίγνεται, τῶν προεωραμένων ὑμῖν ἀναμιμνῃσκόμενοι γνώσεσθε· πύον γοῦν οὐρησάντων∣
Ὁ μὲν γάρ τις ἠλγήκει πρότερον τὰ κατὰ τὸ χωρίον τῶν νεφρῶν πολλάκις, ἄτακτοί τε φρῖκαι ποτὲ καὶ ῥίγη σμικρὰ σὺν πυρετοῖς ἐγεγόνει· τῷ δὲ κατὰ τὴν τῆς κύστεως θέσιν, ἅμα ταῖς τε φρίκαις καὶ τοῖς πυρετοῖς ἀλγήματα προεγεγόνει· τισὶ δὲ κατὰ διάφραγμα καὶ θώρακα, καθάπερ ἑτέροις κατὰ τὸ δεξιὸν ὑποχόνδριον· ἐφ’ ὧν ἁπάντων ἐτεκμηράμεθα, κατὰ τὸν ἀλγήσαντα τόπον ἀποστήματος προγενομένου, διὰ νεφρῶν ἐκκαθαρθῆναι τὸ πύον. συνενδείκνυται δὲ τοῖς εἰρημένοις καὶ τὸ ποσὸν τοῦ πύου καὶ τὸ μεμίχθαι τοῖς οὔροις αὐτὸ πᾶν, ὥσπερ ἀνατεταραγμένον ἢ μήπω τοῦτο γεγονέναι, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐντέρων εἴρηται πρόσθεν.
+Ὡς γὰρ ἐν ἐκείνοις, ἐὰν μὲν ἐκ τῶν ὑψηλοτέρων ἐντέρων ᾖ τὰ φερόμενα, μέμικται τοῖς τῆς τροφῆς περιττώμασιν ὁμοίως τοῖς ἀναπεφυραμένοις, ἐὰν δ’ ἐκ τῶν κατωτέρω, καθ’ ἕν τι μέρος αὐτῶν συνεκκρίνεται, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἤτοι τεθόλωται τὸ οὖρον ἅπαν ὑπὸ τῶν συνεκκρινομένων αὐτῷ∣
Ὁμοίως δὲ κἂν μετὰ τὸ συρραγῆναι τὸ ἀπόστημα φαίνηταί τι γνώρισμα τῆς ἑλκώσεως ἅμα τῇ τοῦ πεπονθότος τόπου διαγνώσει, καὶ τοῦτο ποτὲ μὲν ἀναμεμιγμένον ἀκριβῶς φαίνεται, ποτὲ δὲ μετρίως ἢ μηδεμίαν ἐσχηκὸς μίξιν ἢ ἐποχούμενόν πως ἢ μόνον διεξερχόμενον· τοῦ μὲν ἕλκους γνώρισμά ἐστιν ἴδιον ἡ ἐφελκὶς ὀνομαζομένη, τοῦ πεπονθότος δὲ μέρους ἡ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ἰδιότης· πεταλώδη μὲν γάρ ἐστι τὰ τῆς κύστεως ἀπορρυπτόμενα μόρια, σαρκοειδῆ δὲ τὰ τῶν νεφρῶν. οὕτως δὲ κἂν τῶν ἀνωτέρω τι πεπόνθῃ, τὰ συνεκκρινόμενα τοῖς οὔροις ἐπισκέπτεσθαι χρή, παραβάλλοντας αὐτὰ τῇ τῶν ὑπονοουμένων οὐσίᾳ. δι’ οὔρων μὲν οὖν ἐκκαθαίρεται τά τε κυρτὰ μέρη τοῦ ἥπατος ὅσα τε ἀνωτέρω τοῦδε τέτακται μόρια∣
Ἔξωθεν δὲ τούτων ἐστὶν ὅσα σπανίως γίγνεται, οἷον διὰ γαστρὸς ἐκκαθαρθέντων τῶν κατὰ θώρακα καὶ πνεύμονα, καὶ δι’ οὔρων ἐνίοτε τῶν κάτω τοῦ διαφράγματος, ὧν ἀγνοοῦντες ἔνιοι τὰς αἰτίας, εἶτ’ οὐχ ἑωρακότες ἐπ’ ἀρρώστων αὐτὰ γιγνόμενα, τοῖς ἑωρακόσιν ἀπιστοῦσιν· ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς γε καὶ πνεύμονος ἀπόστημα δι’ οὔρων ἐκκαθαρθὲν ἐθεασάμεθα, καὶ θώρακος διά τε τῶν ἐντέρων καὶ τῆς ἕδρας. ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκ τοῦ πνεύμονος εἰς τοὺς νεφροὺς φορὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν οὐδ’ ἀπορίαν ἔχει κατά γε τὴν ἀλήθειαν. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς κοίλης φλεβὸς ἀποφύσεις εἰς τοὺς νεφροὺς ἐμβάλλουσιν, οὕτω καὶ τῆς μεγάλης ἀρτηρίας.
+
+
5. Οὐδ’ ἐνταῦθα χρὴ διαφέρεσθαι, πότερον ὑστέραν ἢ μήτραν κλητέον ἐστὶ τὸ πρὸς τὴν κύησιν ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως δοθὲν ταῖς γυναιξὶ μόριον, ὥσπερ οὐδ’ εἰ κατὰ τὸν πληθυντικὸν ὀνομαζόμενον ἀριθμὸν ὑστέρας ἢ μήτρας ἢ κατὰ τὸν ἑνικὸν ἐθέλοι τις ὀνομάζειν ὑστέραν καὶ μήτραν.∣
Ἐγὼ δὲ θεασάμενος πολλὰς γυναῖκας ὑστερικάς, ὡς αὐταί τε σφᾶς αὐτὰς ὀνομάζουσιν αἵ τ’ ἰατρίναι πρότεραι, παρ’ ὧν εἰκός ἐστι κἀκείνας ἀκηκοέναι τοὔνομα, τινὰς μὲν ἀναισθήτους τε ἅμα καὶ ἀκινήτους κειμένας, ἀμυδρότατόν τε
Ἡ μὲν οὖν πρώτη λελεγμένη διαφορὰ κατὰ τὸ τῷ Ποντικῷ Ἡρακλείδῃ γεγραμμένον βιβλίον ἀπορίαν ἔχει πολλὴν ὅπως γίγνεται.∣
Εἰ μὲν οὖν ἀπέθνησκον αἱ οὕτως ἔχουσαι πᾶσαι γυναῖκες, ἁπλοῦν ἂν ἦν τὸ ζήτημα· σωζομένων δὲ ἐνίων, διπλοῦν γίγνεται, τήν τε διάθεσιν ἡμῶν ζητούντων, ὑφ’ ἧς ἀπόλλυται τὸ τῆς ἀναπνοῆς ἔργον, ἔτι τε μᾶλλον ὅπως ἔτι ζῶσιν αἱ μηδ’ ὅλως ἀναπνέουσαι· πεπίστευται γὰρ ἀχώριστον εἶναι τοῦ ἀναπνεῖν τὸ ζῇν, τοῦ τε ζῇν τὸ ἀναπνεῖν,∣
Τούτου γὰρ ἐγνωσμένου καὶ σαφῶς ὁρωμένων ἐκείνων τῶν ζῴων ψυχρῶν, ἀποδεδειγμένου δὲ καὶ τοῦ τὴν μεγίστην χρείαν τῆς ἀναπνοῆς εἶναι σωτηρίαν τῆς ἐμφύτου θερμασίας, δι’ ἐμψύξεώς τε καὶ ῥιπίσεως γιγνομένην, οὐδὲν ἔτι δύσκολόν ἐστιν ἐπιλογίσασθαι, τὴν ὑπολειπομένην αὐτοῖς ὀλίγην θερμασίαν φυλάττεσθαι διὰ τοῦ τῶν ἀρτηριῶν τε καὶ τῆς καρδίας ἔργου, καλουμένου δ’ ὑπό τινων ἰατρῶν διαπνοῆς, ὥσπερ τοῦ διὰ θώρακός τε καὶ πνεύμονος ἀναπνοῆς.
+Ἐγχωρεῖ τοίνυν ἐπὶ τῆς ὑστερικῆς ἀπνοίας, ἐπειδὴ κατέψυκται τὸ πᾶν σῶμα, φαίνεται γὰρ ἐναργῶς τοῦτο, τὴν μὲν διὰ τοῦ στόματος ἀναπνοὴν μηδόλως γίγνεσθαι, τὴν δὲ διὰ τῶν ἀρτηριῶν γίγνεσθαι· δυνατὸν δὲ καὶ γιγνομένην αὐτὴν ἐλαχίστην λανθάνειν τὴν αἴσθησιν. ἐφεξῆς γοῦν ἡμᾶς διαδέξεται ζήτημα πρὸς τὸ μηδὲν ἔτι τῶν∣
Τί ἂν οὖν τις ἐκ τούτων ἔχοι συλλογίσασθαι πιθανώτερον τοῦ διὰ τὴν ἐπίσχεσιν τῶν καταμηνίων ἢ τοῦ σπέρματος ἐπιγίγνεσθαι ταῖς γυναιξὶ ταύτας τὰς ὑστερικὰς ὀνομαζομένας διαθέσεις, εἴτ’ ἄπνοιαί τινες, εἴτε πνίγες, εἴτε καὶ συνολκαί τινες τύχοιεν οὖσαι; καὶ μᾶλλον ἴσως διὰ τὴν τοῦ σπέρματος, ἐπειδὴ τοῦτο μεγάλην τε δύναμιν ἔχει καὶ ταῖς γυναιξὶν ὑγρότερόν τε καὶ ψυχρότερόν ἐστιν, ἀποκρίνεσθαί τε δεῖται ταῖς φύσει πολυσπέρμοις, ὥσπερ καὶ τοῖς ἄρρεσι.
+Καὶ γὰρ καὶ τούτων ἔγνωμεν οὐκ ὀλίγην διαφοράν, ἐνίων μὲν εὐθέως ἀπὸ νεότητος ἐπὶ ταῖς συνουσίαις ἀσθενῶν γιγνομένων, τινῶν δ’, εἰ μὴ συνεχῶς χρῷντο, βαρυνομένων τε τὴν κεφαλήν,∣
+
Τὰ τοιαῦτα γοῦν ἀναλογιζομένῳ μοι κατ’ ἐμαυτὸν ἐφαίνετο μείζονα δύναμιν ἔχειν εἰς βλάβην σώματος ἡ τοῦ σπέρματος ἐπίσχεσις τῆς τῶν καταμηνίων, ἐπ’ ἐκείνων τῶν σωμάτων, ἐφ’ ὧν αὐτό τε φύσει κακοχυμότερόν ἐστι∣
Διογένης οὖν ὁ κυνικὸς ὡμολόγηται μὲν ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων καρτερικώτατος γεγονέναι, πρὸς ἅπαν ἔργον ἐγκρατείας τε καὶ καρτερίας δεόμενον· ἀλλ’ ὅμως καὶ οὗτος ἀφροδισίοις ἐχρῆτο, τὴν ὄχλησιν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ κατεχομένου σπέρματος ἀποθέσθαι βουλόμενος, οὐχ ὡς ἐπ’ ἀγαθόν τι τὴν ἐζευγμένην αὐτοῦ τῇ κενώσει παραγιγνόμενος ἡδονήν. ἑταίρᾳ γοῦν ποτε συνθέμενος, ὥς φασιν, ὅπως ὡς αὐτὸν ἀφίκηται, βραδυνούσης αὐτῆς, ἀπετρίψατο τὸ σπέρμα προσαπτόμενος τῇ χειρὶ τοῦ αἰδοίου, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα παραγενομένην ἀπέπεμψεν, εἰπὼν «τὴν χεῖρα φθάσαι τὸν ὑμέναιον ᾆσαι». καὶ δῆλον ἐναργῶς ἐστιν, οὐ διὰ τὴν ἡδονὴν ἔρχεσθαι τοὺς σώφρονας ἐπὶ συνουσίαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ὄχλησιν ἰάσασθαι βουλομένους, ὡς εἰ καὶ χωρὶς ἡδονῆς ἐγίγνετο. κατὰ τοῦτο δ’ ἡγοῦμαι∣
Ἐν ταύταις μού ποτε ταῖς ἐννοίαις ὄντος ἐφάνη τοιόνδε συμβὰν ἐκ πολλοῦ χρόνου χηρευούσῃ γυναικί. κατεχόντων γὰρ αὐτὴν καὶ ἄλλων μέν τινων ὀχληρῶν καὶ νευρικῶν διατάσεων, εἰπούσης δὲ τῆς μαίας ἀνεσπάσθαι τὴν μήτραν, ἔδοξε χρήσασθαι βοηθήμασιν οἷς εἰώθασιν εἰς τὰ τοιαῦτα χρῆσθαι· χρωμένης δ’ αὐτῆς, ὑπό τε τῆς ἐξ αὐτῶν θερμασίας καὶ τῆς κατὰ τὴν θεραπείαν ψαύσεως τῶν γυναικείων τόπων, ἐγένοντο συνολκαὶ μετὰ πόνου τε ἅμα καὶ ἡδονῆς ὅμοιαι ταῖς κατὰ τὰς συνουσίας, ἐφ’ αἷς ἐκκριθέντος παχέος τε καὶ πολλοῦ σπέρματος, ἀπηλλάγη τῶν κατεχόντων αὐτὴν ὀχληρῶν ἡ γυνή.
+Διὰ ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἐφάνη μοι μείζονα δύναμιν ἔχειν εἰς βλάβην τοῦ σώματος ὅλου τὸ κακοχυμότερον σπέρμα τῶν καταμηνίων, ὥστε κἂν ἐκεῖνά ποτε γίγνηται ταῖς χηρευούσαις, ἀλλὰ τήν γε τοῦ σπέρματος ἐποχὴν ἀνιαράν τε ἅμα καὶ βλαβερὰν∣
Ἐπὶ γοῦν τοῖς τῶν φαλαγγίων δήγμασιν ὅλον ὁρᾶται πάσχον τὸ σῶμα, μικροῦ τινος ἰοῦ κατὰ βραχυτάτην ὀπὴν ἐνιεμένου. τὸ δὲ τῶν σκορπίων ἐστὶ θαυμασιώτερον, ὅτι καὶ τὰ συμπτώματα διὰ συντόμων ἐπιφέρουσι σφοδρότατα, καὶ τὸ καταβαλλόμενον ἐγχριμψάντων αὐτῶν ἤτοι παντάπασιν ὀλίγιστον ἢ ὅλως οὐδέν ἐστιν, ἀτρήτου γε τοῦ κέντρου φαινομένου. καὶ μὴν ἀναγκαῖον, οὐχ ἁπλῶς ὅτι νένυκταί τις ὥσπερ ὑπὸ βελόνης, εὐθέως ὅλον τὸ σῶμα χαλάζαις βάλλεσθαι δοκεῖν, ἅμα λειποθυμίαις, ἀλλ’ ἤτοι γε πνεύματός τινος ἢ λεπτῆς ὑγρότητος ἐνιεμένης, εὔλογον γίγνεσθαι ταῦτα.
+Τινὲς δ’ ἡγοῦνται καὶ τῷ ψαῦσαι μόνον ἐνίας τῶν οὐσιῶν ἀλλοιοῦν δύνασθαι τὰ πλησιάζοντα, μόνῃ τῇ κατὰ τὴν ποιότητα δυνάμει· ταύτην γὰρ φασὶν κἀπὶ
Φαινομένου δὴ σαφῶς, ἰσχυροτάτην ἔχειν τὴν δύναμιν ἐνίας τῶν οὐσιῶν, ὑπόλοιπον ἂν εἴη ζητεῖν, εἰ διαφθορά τις ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις δύναται γενέσθαι τηλικαύτη τὸ μέγεθος, ὡς ἰῷ θηρίου παραπλησίαν ἔχειν ποιότητά τε καὶ δύναμιν. ἢ καὶ τοῦτο κέκριται πρὸς αὐτῶν τῶν ἰατρῶν, οἵ γε τῶν προβλημάτων ἕν τι πεποίηνται, πότερον ἴδια φαρμακείας ἐστὶ σημεῖα ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν;
+Καὶ οἵ γε κάλλιστα δοκοῦντες εἰρηκέναι περὶ αὐτοῦ τὰ μὲν αὐτὰ γίγνεσθαι πάθη συγχωροῦσι κατά τε τὰς τῶν θανασίμων φαρμάκων δόσεις καὶ τὰς ἐκ τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν ὁρμωμένας διαφθοράς· οὐ μὴν ἀδιακρίτους γε τοὺς εἰληφότας φάρμακον ἀπὸ τῶν μὴ λαβόντων ὑπάρχειν·∣
Μαθεῖν γὰρ ἔστι κἀπὶ τῶν κυνῶν, ὅσην ἔχει δύναμιν ἡ πρὸς τὸ παθεῖν ὁτιοῦν ἐπιτηδειότης· οὐδενὸς γοῦν τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ἁλισκομένου λύττῃ, μόνον ἁλίσκεται τοῦτο, καὶ τοσαύτη γε κατ’ αὐτὸ γίγνεται διαφθορὰ τῶν χυμῶν, ὥστε τὸ
+
+
Ὅτι δὲ τῶν ὑστερικῶν λεγομένων συμπτωμάτων εἰκότως ἐκ παλαιοῦ πεπίστευται κατὰ τὰς μήτρας ἡ οἷον ῥίζωσις εἶναι, τεκμήριον οὐ σμικρόν ἐστι τὸ μόναις ταῖς χηρευούσαις τε καὶ ταῖς τὰς ἐμμήνους καθάρσεις ἐπεχομέναις τὰ τοιαῦτα γίγνεσθαι παθήματα. ὅτι δὲ τούτων αὐτῶν μείζονα δύναμιν εἰς τὴν τῶν ὑστερικῶν συμπτωμάτων γένεσιν ἔχει τὸ σπέρμα κατεχόμενον, ἐλάττονα δὲ τὸ καταμήνιον, ἐκ τῶν ἄνευ χηρείας ἐπεχομένων τὴν κάθαρσιν ἔνεστι μαθεῖν, ἄλλα μέν τινα πασχουσῶν, ἃ μικρὸν ὕστερον εἰρήσεται, μήτε δ’ ἀπνοίαις ἐχομένων μήτε σφοδραῖς λειποψυχίαις μήτε τοῖς ἄλλοις ἃ λέλεκται μικρὸν ἔμπροσθεν, ἔτι δὲ κἀκ τοῦ τινὰς τῶν χηρευουσῶν ἀμέμπτως καθαιρομένας ἢ μὴ πολλῷ ἧττον τοῦ πρόσθεν, ὁμοίως ἁλίσκεσθαι συμπτώμασιν.
+Ὁμολογεῖ δὲ τούτοις καὶ∣
Ταῦτα τοῦ Πλάτωνος εἰπόντος, ἔνιοι προσέθεσαν, ὡς ἐπειδὰν αἱ μῆτραι πλανώμεναι κατὰ τὸ σῶμα τῷ διαφράγματι προσπέσωσιν, ἐμποδίζουσι τὴν ἀναπνοήν· ἔνιοι δὲ πλανᾶσθαι μὲν αὐτὴν ὥσπερ ζῷον οὔ φασιν, ἐπισχεθέντων δὲ τῶν καταμηνίων ξηραινομένην ἀνατρέχειν εἰς τὰ σπλάγχνα, ποθοῦσαν ὑγρανθῆναι,∣
+
Εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἀνεσπάσθαι τι φαίνοιτο μέρος τῆς μήτρας, βραχὺ τοῦτ’ ἐστὶ καὶ οὐχ ἱκανὸν ἐνδείξασθαι τὸ κύτος ὅλον αὐτῆς οὐδ’ ἄχρι τῆς γαστρὸς ἀνεσπάσθαι, μή τι γε καὶ ταύτην ὑπερβᾶσαν ἅψασθαι τῶν φρενῶν που· εἰ δέ περ καὶ ἥπτετο, τί ἂν εἴη τοῦτο πρὸς ἄπνοιαν ἢ λειποψυχίαν ἢ τὰς τῶν κώλων συντάσεις ἢ κάρον παντελῆ; τοῖς γοῦν ὑπερεμπλησθεῖσιν ὁ τῆς γαστρὸς ὄγκος ἐναργῶς φαίνεται θλίβων τὸ διάφραγμα· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μὲν ἡ ἀναπνοὴ πυκνοῦται, σύμπτωμα δ’ οὐδὲν ἄλλο καταλαμβάνει τὸ ζῷον. ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὰς κυήσεις ἐπεκτεινόμεναι τοῖς κυουμένοις αἱ μῆτραι∣
Τὸ δὲ καὶ ξηραινομένας αὐτὰς ἀνατρέχειν ἐπὶ τὰ σπλάγχνα ποθούσας ὑγρανθῆναι, παντάπασιν ἄτοπον· εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἁπλῶς ὑγρότητος αἱ μῆτραι δέονταί ποτε, τὴν κύστιν ὁμιλοῦσαν ἔχουσι καὶ τὸ κάτω μέρος ἅπαν τοῦ παχέος ἐντέρου· εἰ δ’ οὐχ ἁπλῶς ὑγρότητος, ἀλλ’ αἱματικῆς ὑγρότητος, ἐπὶ τὸ ἧπαρ ἐχρῆν αὐτάς, οὐκ ἐπὶ τὰς φρένας φέρεσθαι. τί δὲ καὶ δέονται προσπίπτειν ἔξωθεν ἄλλοις μορίοις, ἔχουσαι περικείμενον ἑαυταῖς στέγασμα πυκνόν, ὑμενῶδες ἀμφίεσμα; τὰ γὰρ ἕλκοντα πάντα τὰς ἐξ ἐντέρων ὑγρότητας εἰς ἑαυτὰ διὰ στομάτων παμπόλλων τοῦτο πράττει· πάμπολλα δ’ εἰς τὰς μήτρας καθήκει στόματα φλεβῶν, δι’ ὧν ἕλκειν ἐκ τῆς κοίλης φλεβὸς αἷμα δυνατὸν ἦν αὐταῖς, ἐκ τοῦ ἥπατος ἐχούσης ἐπιρρέον αὐτῇ τὸ αἷμα. τίνα δ’ ἂν ὀχετὸν ἕτερον εὕροι τις αἵματος ἐξ ἥπατος εἰς μήτρας φερόμενον ἀξιολογώτερον τοῦδε; διὰ τίνος δ’ ὅλως ἄλλου δυνατὸν αὐταῖς ἐξ ἥπατος ἑλκύσαι τι; κἂν εἰ μὴ μέγιστος δ’ ἦν ὁ τῆς κοίλης φλεβὸς ὀχετός, ἀλλά τοί γ’ ἄλλος οὐκ ἔστιν· αὕτη γὰρ∣
Παντελῶς οὖν ἄτοπος ὁ λόγος αὐτῶν ἐστι, πρὸς τῷ καὶ ζῷον ἐργάζεσθαι τῷ λόγῳ τὴν μήτραν. ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ τοῦτο συγχωρηθείη, λυπηθήσεται μὲν ἀποστερουμένη τῶν ἰδίων ὀρεκτῶν, ἴσως δὲ καὶ ἀτροφήσει, καθάπερ ἔνιοί φασι τοὺς
Ἴσως οὖν τις ἡμᾶς ἐρήσεται τὴν αἰτίαν, δι’ ἣν ἀνεσπασμένη τε καὶ παρεσπασμένη πολλάκις ἡ μήτρα φαίνεται· τοῦτο γὰρ αἱ μαιεύτριαι λέγουσιν, ὥσπερ γε καὶ ὅτι πολλάκις ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκείας ἕδρας μενούσης αὐτῆς, οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐπιλαμβάνει τὰς γυναῖκας ὑστερικὰ συμπτώματα. πειράσομαι δὴ τούτοις εἰπεῖν τὴν αἰτίαν, ἑπόμενος τοῖς ὑφ’ Ἱπποκράτους εἰρημένοις. τὰς γάρ τοι τῶν ὑστερῶν ἐντάσεις αἰτίας γίγνεσθαί φημι τοῦ καὶ τὸν αὐχένα ταῖς ἁπτομέναις μαίαις ἀνεσπάσθαί τε καὶ παρεσπάσθαι φαίνεσθαι·∣
Τίς οὖν αἰτία τοῦ τὰς μήτρας ἀνεσπάσθαι τε καὶ παρεσπάσθαι; τοῦτο γὰρ ἔτι λείπει τῷ λόγῳ· τῶν πρὸς αὐτὰς καθηκόντων ἀγγείων ἡ πλήρωσις ἅμα τοῖς ἀρτήμασιν αὐτῶν· ἀπεδείχθη γὰρ ἡμῖν, ἡνίκα τὸν Ἀφορισμὸν ἐξηγούμεθα, καθ’ ὅν φησι τὸν σπασμὸν ὑπὸ κενώσεώς τε καὶ πληρώσεως γίγνεσθαι, εἰς μὲν τὸ πλάτος τε καὶ τὸ βάθος ἐκτείνειν τὰ τῶν πληρουμένων σώματα, βραχύτερον δ’ ἐργάζεσθαι τὸ μῆκος· ὅσον οὖν βραχύτερον γίγνεται, τοσοῦτον ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀνασπᾶται.
+Καὶ γὰρ οὖν καὶ τοὺς μῦς ὁ Ἐρασίστρατος ἐκ τοῦ πληροῦσθαι πνεύματος εἰς εὖρος ἐπιδιδόντας ἀφαιρεῖν φησι τοῦ μήκους, καὶ διὰ τοῦτ’ ἀνεσπάσθαι. πόθεν οὖν ἡ πλήρωσις γίγνεται τῶν τε φλεβῶν καὶ τῶν ἀρτημάτων; ἐκ τῆς ἐπισχέσεως δηλονότι τῶν καταμηνίων. ἀφικνεῖται γὰρ ἄχρι τῆς μήτρας, εἴσω δ’ οὐκ εἰσέρχεται τὸ αἷμα, ποτὲ μὲν αὐτὸ παχύτερον ἢ κατὰ τὸ στόμα τῶν ἀγγείων γεγονός, ἔστι δὲ ὅτε μυσάντων ἐκείνων· ὥστε ἐν ταῖς φλεψὶ πληθῦνον ἐκείνας τε διατείνειν, διαβρέχειν τε τὰ πλησίον αὐτῶν ἀρτήματα·∣
+
Καὶ τοῦτο διδάσκων ὁ Ἱπποκράτης ἐν τῷ Περὶ ἄρθρων βιβλίῳ καὶ τῆς κατὰ τὰς μήτρας λεγομένης πλάνης ἐμνημόνευσεν ὧδέ πως γράψας· «οἷσι δ’ ἂν εἰς τοὐπίσω κεφαλὴ μηροῦ ἐκπέσῃ, ὀλίγοισι δ’ ἐκπίπτει, οὗτοι ἐκτανύειν οὐ δύνανται τὸ σκέλος, οὔτε κατὰ τὸ ἄρθρον τὸ ἐκπεσὸν οὔτε τι κάρτα κατὰ τὴν ἰγνύην· ἀλλ’ ἥκιστα τῶν ἐκπαλέων∣
Ἐν τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ, καίτοι μηδέν τι πεπονθὸς τὸ κατὰ τὴν ἰγνύην ἄρθρον, ἐκ τῆς πρὸς τὸ κατὰ τὸν βουβῶνα κοινωνίας ἀδυνατεῖν ἐκτείνεσθαί φησιν. εἶθ’ ἑξῆς ἐπιφέρων ἐρεῖ· «προσξυνιέναι μὴν καὶ τόδε χρή, εὔχρηστον γὰρ καὶ πολλοῦ λόγου ἄξιον καὶ τοὺς πλείστους λήθει, ὅτι οὐδ’ ὑγιαίνοντες δύνανται κατὰ τὴν ἰγνύην ἐκτανύειν τὸ ἄρθρον, ἢν μὴ συνεκτανύσωσι καὶ τὸ κατὰ τὸν βουβῶνα ἄρθρον, πλὴν εἰ μὴ πάνυ ἄνω αἴρουσιν τὸν πόδα· οὕτως δ’ ἂν δύναιντο. οὐ τοί
Ταῦτα προειπὼν ἐφεξῆς φησιν· «πολλὰ δὲ καὶ ἄλλα κατὰ τὸ σῶμα τοιαύτας ἀδελφίξιας ἔχει, καὶ κατὰ νεύρων ξυντάσιας, καὶ κατὰ μυῶν σχήματα, καὶ πλεῖστά τε καὶ πλείστου ἄξια γιγνώσκεσθαι ἢ ὥς τις οἴεται, καὶ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ἐντέρου φύσιν καὶ τὴν τῆς ξυμπάσης κοιλίης καὶ τὰς τῶν ὑστερῶν πλάνας τε καὶ συντάσιας.»
+Ἐν ταύταις ταῖς λέξεσι προὔθετο∣
Αἱ μὲν οὖν διαστροφαὶ τῆς μήτρας κατὰ τὸν εἰρημένον τρόπον ἀκολουθοῦσι ταῖς τῶν ἐμμήνων ἐπισχέσεσιν, οὐκ αὐταὶ τῶν περὶ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ ζῴου συμπτωμάτων αἰτίαι γιγνόμεναι, κοινὴν δὲ αἰτίαν αὐτῶν κτώμεναι τὸ πλῆθος τῆς ἐπεσχημένης ἐμμήνου καθάρσεως· αἱ δ’ ἄνευ τῶν διαστροφῶν ἢ καὶ τῆς ἐπισχέσεως τῶν καταμηνίων ταῖς χηρευούσαις γιγνόμεναι βλάβαι διὰ τὴν ἐπίσχεσιν τοῦ σπέρματος συμβαίνουσι. παρὰ δὲ τὴν ποσότητά τε καὶ ποιότητα τοῦ τε καταμηνίου καὶ τοῦ σπέρματος ἄλλοτ’ ἄλλο συμπτώματος εἶδος αὐταῖς γίγνεται. ψύχειν μὲν γὰρ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα δυναμένου τοῦ λυποῦντος αἰτίου, καταψύχονται σφοδρῶς, ὡς μήτ’ ἀναπνεῖν αἰσθητῶς μήτε σφύζειν· παχέος δ’ ὄντος ἢ δριμέος, οἱ σπασμοὶ γίγνονται·∣
Ὅσα δὲ ταῖς ἐμμήνοις καθάρσεσιν ἐπεχομέναις ἀκολουθεῖ συμπτώματα, καὶ γὰρ καὶ περὶ τούτων ὑπεσχόμην εἰπεῖν τι, νῦν ἤδη δίειμι, τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀφ’ ὧν Ἱπποκράτης ἐν Ἀφορισμοῖς ἔγραψεν ποιησάμενος, ὧν ἓν καὶ τόδε ἐστίν· «ἢν γυνὴ μὴ κύουσα μηδὲ τετοκυῖα γάλα ἔχῃ, τὰ καταμήνια αὐτῆς ἐκλέλοιπεν.»
+Ἄνευ δὲ τοῦ γάλα κατὰ τοὺς τιτθοὺς φαίνεσθαι, τῶν καταμηνίων ἐπεσχημένων καὶ τάδε σημεῖα· βάρους μὲν αἴσθησις ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ σώματι, καὶ ἄση καὶ ἀνορεξία καὶ ἀνωμαλία φρικώδης· ἐὰν δὲ χωρὶς φρίκης ἀνωμαλία τις ᾖ καὶ ἄση καί τινων ἀλλοκότων ἐπιθυμία, σκέψασθαι κέλευσον τὴν μαῖαν ἁψαμένην τοῦ τῆς μήτρας αὐχένος· εἰ γὰρ ἄνευ σκληρότητος μεμυκὼς ᾖ, κυήσεως ταῦτ’ ἐστὶ σημεῖα.∣
Τὸ μέντοι μετὰ σκληρότητος μεμυκὸς στόμα τοῦ τῆς μήτρας αὐχένος πάθος εἶναί τι κατὰ τὴν μήτραν σημαίνει, καὶ χρὴ σκοπεῖσθαι τὴν μαιεύτριαν, ἐς ὅ τι μέρος παρέσπασταί τε καὶ ἀνέσπασται, κατ’ ἐκεῖνο γάρ ἐστιν ὁ πεπονθὼς τόπος τῆς ὑστέρας· ἐνίαις δὲ καὶ διασημαίνει τι κατ’ ἐκεῖνο τὸ μέρος ἄλγημα μετὰ βάρους, ἔρχεται δὲ καὶ εἰς ἰσχίον τὸ ἄλγημα, καὶ τὸ κατ’ εὐθὺ σκέλος αὐτὸ χωλεύει κατὰ τὴν ὁδοιπορίαν.
+Κἂν ἐν πολλῷ χρόνῳ τὰ καταμήνια κρυφθῇ, καὶ μηδεμίαν κένωσιν ὁ ἰατρὸς τῇ γυναικὶ προσαγάγῃ, φαίνεταί τις ἐνίοτε κατὰ τὸν κενεῶνα παρὰ φύσιν ὄγκος, ἐνδεικνύμενος διὰ βάθους εἶναί τι φλεγμαῖνον· ἐνίαις δὲ καὶ φυματώδης ὄγκος ἐγείρεται κατὰ τὸ πέρας τοῦ κενεῶνος, οἷοι καὶ τοῖς ἀνδράσι γίγνονται κατὰ τὸ χωρίον τοῦτο, καί τινι διεπύησε καὶ τομῆς ἐδεήθη. κατὰ τοῦτο γοῦν τὸ μέρος καὶ
Τοιαῦτα μὲν οὖν ἕπεται συμπτώματα ταῖς τῶν καταμηνίων ἐπισχέσεσι, καὶ χωρὶς τούτων ἀλγήματα κατ’ ὀσφῦν καὶ τράχηλον καὶ βρέγμα καὶ τὰς τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν βάσεις, πυρετοί τε καυσώδεις καὶ οὖρα μελαινόμενα μετ’ ἐρυθροῦ τινος ἰχῶρος, ὥσπερ εἰ κρεῶν νεοσφαγῶν πλύματι μίξαις ἀσβόλην· ἔνιαι δὲ καὶ δυσουροῦσι καὶ ἰσχουροῦσι. ὅταν οὖν τι τοιοῦτον ἴδῃς ἐπὶ γυναικῶν, ὑπόπτευε κατὰ τὰς μήτρας εἶναι τὴν οἷον ῥίζαν αὐτῶν. ἐὰν δὲ καὶ κατ’ ἄλλον τινὰ τόπον τοῦ σώματος ἔκκρισις αἵματος ἢ φλεγμονή τις ᾖ ἢ ἐρυσίπελας γένηται, πυνθάνεσθαι χρὴ περὶ τῆς ἐμμήνου καθάρσεως· οὐδὲν γὰρ τούτων γίγνεται ταῖς ἀμέμπτως καθαιρομέναις. ταῖς μὲν οὖν ἐπισχέσεσι τῆς ἐμμήνου καθάρσεως τοιαῦτα τοὐπίπαν ἐπιγίγνεται συμπτώματα· ταῖς δ’ ἀμέτροις κενώσεσιν ἄχροιαι καὶ ποδῶν οἰδήματα καὶ ὅλον ὕποιδον τὸ σῶμα, καὶ μοχθηρῶς πέττειν τὰ σιτία καὶ φαύλως ὀρέγεσθαι, καὶ πάνθ’ ὅσα δι’ αἵματος ἄμετρον κένωσιν εἴωθεν∣
Καὶ χωρὶς δὲ τοῦ πεπονθέναι τὰς μήτρας ὁ καλούμενος ῥοῦς γυναικεῖος ἔστιν ὅτε συμβαίνει ταῖς γυναιξίν, ὅλου τοῦ σώματος ἐκκαθαιρομένου τε καὶ κενουμένου δι’ αὐτῆς, ὥσπερ ἐνίοτε καὶ διὰ νεφρῶν ἐκκενοῦται· καὶ γίγνεται τοῦτο μάλιστα ταῖς ἁπαλοσάρκοις τε καὶ φλεγματώδεσιν, ἃς καὶ χωρὶς τοῦ ψαῦσαι τῆς μήτρας ἰασάμεθα διὰ τῶν τοῦ παντὸς σώματος βοηθημάτων. ἔστι δὲ τὸ κενούμενον ἐνίοτε μὲν ἐρυθρὸς ἰχώρ, ἔστιν ὅτε δ’ ὑδατώδης ἢ ὕπωχρος· εἰ δ’ αἷμα καθαρὸν ὡς ἐν φλεβοτομίᾳ φαίνοιτο, προσέχειν ἀκριβῶς, μή τις ἀνάβρωσις γέγονεν ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ· συμβαίνει δ’ ὡς τὸ πολὺ κατὰ τὸν αὐχένα μᾶλλον ἢ ἀλλαχόθι τὰς ἀναβρώσεις αὐταῖς γίγνεσθαι. διαγιγνώσκονται δὲ τοῖς φερομένοις ἰχῶρσιν αἱ βυθιώτεραι, κατὰ δὲ τὸ στόμιον τοῦ αὐχένος οὐ τούτοις μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁφῆς. ἐκκρίνεται δ’ αἷμα καὶ τῶν κυουσῶν ἐνίαις, ἀναστομουμένων τῶν κατὰ τὸν αὐχένα φλεβῶν.
+Εἰ δὲ κυούσης γυναικὸς ἐξαίφνης ἰσχνοὶ γενηθεῖεν οἱ τιτθοί, προσδόκα∣
Εἰ δὲ κυΐσκοιτο μὲν ἑτοίμως ἡ γυνή, δίμηνον δὲ καὶ τρίμηνον ἢ τετράμηνον ἐκβάλλῃ τὸ κύημα, περὶ τὰς κοτυληδόνας αὐτῇ τῶν μητρῶν ὑγρότης φλεγματώδης ἀθροίζεται, δι’ ἣν ἡ τῶν γενομένων ἐν τῷ χωρίῳ φλεβῶν τε καὶ ἀρτηριῶν σύμφυσις τοῖς στόμασι τῶν καθηκόντων εἰς τὴν μήτραν ἀγγείων ἄτονός ἐστιν, ὡς μὴ φέρειν τὸ τοῦ κυουμένου βάρος, ἀλλ’ ἀπορρήγνυσθαι ῥᾳδίως.
+6. Ὥσπερ ὀλίγα τῶν διὰ τῆς ἕδρας ἐκκρινομένων σημεῖα τῶν πλησίων αὐτῆς ἐστι τόπων πεπονθότων, τὰ πλεῖστα δ’ αὐτῶν τῶν ἐντέρων καὶ τῆς γαστρὸς καὶ τοῦ∣
Τό γε μὴν αἰδοῖον αὐτὸ πεπονθέναι γνωρίσεις ἐκ τῶνδε. τῆς μὲν ἑλκώσεως αὐτοῦ γνώρισμα σαφὲς ἡ ὀδύνη κατ’ αὐτὸ γενομένη, μετὰ τοῦ κατὰ τὰς οὐρήσεις ἐκκρίνεσθαί τι τῶν συνεδρευόντων τῷ ἕλκει. καὶ διακρίνεταί γε ταῦτα τῶν ἐκ κύστεως φερομένων τῷ φθάνειν αὐτὰ κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἔξοδον ἐπιφαίνεσθαι, τὰ δ’ ἐκ τῆς κύστεως ἀναμεμίχθαι τοῖς οὔροις· ἀλλὰ καὶ δάκνεται κατὰ τὰς οὐρήσεις συνεχῶς τὰ ἐν τοῖς αἰδοίοις ἕλκη, καὶ μᾶλλον ὅταν ἀπολυθείσης ἐφελκίδος ἢ ῥύπου, καθαρὰ γένηται· πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον αἵ τε φλεγμοναὶ καὶ τἆλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα
Ἡ μὲν οὖν γονόρροια∣
Τὸ δὲ τῆς γονορροίας ὄνομα προφανῶς ἐστι σύνθετον ἔκ τε τῆς γονῆς καὶ τοῦ ῥεῖν· ὀνομάζεται γὰρ τὸ σπέρμα καὶ γονὴ καὶ γόνος. ὥσπερ δὲ καὶ τἆλλα πάντα τὰ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν ἐκκενούμενα κατὰ διττὸν τρόπον τοῦτο πάσχει, ποτὲ μὲν ἐκ τῶν περιεχόντων αὐτὰ σωμάτων ἐκκρινόμενα, ποτὲ δὲ αὐτομάτως ἐκρέοντα δι’ ἀρρωστίαν τῶν αὐτῶν σωμάτων οὐ κατεχόμενα, οὕτως καὶ τὸ σπέρμα. τῆς μὲν γὰρ φύσεως ἔργον ἐστὶν ἐπὶ∣
Οὕτως μὲν ἐπὶ τῶν κατὰ φύσιν ἐχόντων αἵ τε ἐκκρίσεις καὶ αἱ κατοχαὶ γίγνονται τῶν περιεχομένων ὑγρῶν ἐν τοῖς κοίλοις ὀργάνοις· ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν παρὰ φύσιν αἱ μὲν ἐποχαὶ δι’ ἀρρωστίαν τῆς ἐκκριτικῆς δυνάμεως, αἱ δὲ ἐκκρίσεις διὰ τὴν τῆς καθεκτικῆς ἀσθένειαν ἤ τινα διάθεσιν ὁμοίως τῇ κατὰ φύσιν ἐκκριτικῇ κινοῦσαν τὰ μόρια, καθάπερ ἐπ’ αὐτῶν τῶν σπερματικῶν ἐν ἐπιληψίαις τε συμβαίνει καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις σπασμοῖς, ὁπόταν βιαίως γενηθῶσιν. ὁρῶμεν δὲ καὶ καθ’ ἕτερα
Ὁ πριαπισμὸς δὲ σαφῶς τοῦ αἰδοίου φαίνεται σύμπτωμα, δυνατὸν δ’ ἐστὶ καὶ μηδὲν αὐτοῦ πεπονθότος ἴδιον ἐξαίρετον πάθημα, τῶν ἀρτηριῶν εἶναι μόνον, τοιαύτην ἰσχουσῶν διάθεσιν ἐνίοτε παρὰ φύσιν, ὁποία αὐταῖς συμβαίνει, ὅτε ἡ κατὰ φύσιν ἔντασις γίνεται τοῦ παντὸς αἰδοίου. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἐξοιδίσκεται, πρόδηλόν ἐστι τεκμαιρομένοις τῷ τάχει τῆς ὀγκώσεώς τε καὶ συστολῆς· ὑγρὸν γὰρ οὐδὲν οὕτω ταχεῖαν ἐφ’ ἑκάτερα τὴν μεταβολὴν οἷόν τέ ἐστι ποιεῖσθαι.
+Τούτου δ’ οὕτως ἔχοντος, καὶ φαινομένων ἐν ταῖς ἀνατομαῖς ἀρτηριῶν μεγάλων εἰς μικρὸν μόριον τὸ αἰδοῖον ἐμβαλουσῶν, φαινομένης δὲ καὶ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ αἰδοίου τοιαύτης, ὁποίαν∣
Τίς οὖν αἰτία τοῦ κατὰ τὰς ἀφροδισίους ὁρμὰς ἐντείνεσθαι τὸ αἰδοῖον; ἢ τίς καὶ κοιμωμένοις, ὅταν ὕπτιοι κατακείμενοι θερμανθῶσι τὴν ὀσφῦν; εὑρεθείσης γὰρ αὐτῆς, ἐλπίς ἐστι καὶ τὴν τοῦ πριαπισμοῦ διάθεσιν εὑρήσειν ἡμᾶς. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ ἤτοι ἐκ τῶν ἀρτηριῶν ἢ ἐκ τοῦ σηραγγώδους νεύρου, τὴν ἀρχηγὸν αἰτίαν ἢ καὶ συναμφοτέρου μεταβολήν τινα σχόντος ἐκ τῆς ἔμπροσθεν καταστάσεως, ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι γίγνεσθαι τὴν πλήρωσιν, ἄντικρυς δῆλον· ἐξ ὁποτέρου δ’ αὐτῶν μᾶλλον ἢ εἰ καὶ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων, ἐφεξῆς σκοπῶμεν, ἀρχὴν τῷ λόγῳ τήνδε θέμενοι.
+
+
Καὶ τοίνυν καὶ ἀνεθρέψαμεν ἐκεῖνο τὸ ἐρίφιον, εἴδομέν τε προσφερόμενον ὕστερον οὐ τὸ∣
+
Τὸ δ’ ἐρίφιον ἣν ἂν ἐθελήσῃ κίνησιν ἑκάστης διαρθρώσεως εὐθέως ἐργάζεσθαι, καθάπερ γε καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους αὐτούς, καίτοι γ’ ἀγνοοῦντας ὑπὸ τίνος μυὸς ἑκάστη γίνεται κίνησις; ἐπὶ γοῦν τῆς κατὰ τὴν γλῶτταν κινήσεως, ἵν’ ὡς ἐν παραδείγματι ταύτης μνημονεύσω, πῶς οὐκ ἄν τις θαυμάσειεν τοὺς μὲν ἀνατομικοὺς διαφωνοῦντας ἀλλήλοις εὑρὼν οὐ μόνον περὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν μυῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τὰς ἐνεργείας αὐτῶν, τὴν δὲ φύσιν τὰ παιδία δεδιδαχυῖαν, ὅπως μὲν μιμήσηται τήνδε τὴν φωνὴν ἤ τινα τῶν ἄλλων, ὅπως δὲ τὴν γλῶτταν κινήσηται, καὶ διὰ τίνων μυῶν ἐργάσηται τὴν αὐτὴν φωνήν; οὕτω δὲ καὶ περὶ πάσης τῆς ἄλλων φωνῆς τε καὶ ἀναπνοῆς, καὶ συνελόντι φάναι τῶν προαιρετικῶν ἐνεργειῶν θαυμάσειεν ἄν τις τὸ τῶν ὀργάνων αὐτοδίδακτον. οὐ μικρᾶς οὖν οὐδὲ∣
Οὐδὲν οὖν θαυμαστόν ἐστι καὶ τὰ γεννητικὰ μόρια τὰς ἐνεργείας ὧν χάριν ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως ἐγένετο γιγνώσκειν εὐθέως ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ἐπεὶ κατὰ τί συλλαβοῦσα μὲν ἡ μήτρα τὸ σπέρμα μέμυκεν ἀκριβῶς ἄχρι τοῦ τελειωθῆναι τὸ ἔμβρυον, ἀνοίγνυσι δὲ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον, αὐτοῦ τελειωθέντος, ἀνοίξασά τε δι’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ ἔμβρυον ἐκκρίνει; καταφρονεῖται δὲ καὶ ταῦτα τῷ συνεχεῖ τῆς θέας, καὶ παρορᾶται τοῖς πολλοῖς, ὡς τὸ μηδὲν εἰθικόσι θαυμάζειν, οὐ τὰ θαυμαστὰ κατ’ ἀλήθειαν, ἀλλὰ τὰ σπανίως αὐτοῖς ὁρώμενα. τί γὰρ ἂν εἴη τῇ φύσει θαυμασιώτερον τοῦ μησὶν μὲν ὅλοις ἐννέα μεμυκέναι τὸ τῆς μήτρας στόμιον οὕτως ἀκριβῶς, ὡς μηδὲ πυρῆνα μήλης παραδέχεσθαι, τελειωθέντος δὲ τοῦ κυϊσκομένου διάστασιν ἴσχειν τηλικαύτην, ὡς ὅλον τὸ ζῷον ἐξέρχεσθαι δι’ αὐτοῦ;
+
+
Καθ’ ἕνα γέ τοι καιρὸν αἱ καθ’ ὅλον τὸ ζῷον ἀρτηρίαι διαστέλλονται παραπλησίως ἀλλήλαις· ὥστ’ οὐκ εἰκός ἐστι,∣
+
Καί μοι δοκῶ τὴν μὲν κατὰ τὸ νεῦρον διάθεσιν ἅπαξ ἑωρακέναι, τὴν δὲ τῶν ἀρτηριῶν πολλάκις· ἐτεκμηράμην δὲ τοῦτο τοῖς προηγησαμένοις συμπτώμασι καὶ τῷ τρόπῳ τῆς θεραπείας. ᾧ μὲν γὰρ οἱ παλμοὶ τοῦ αἰδοίου συνεχεῖς προηγοῦντο, πνεῦμα φυσῶδες ἦν αἴτιον, καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο τὴν θεραπείαν ἅπασαν ἁρμοσάμενος ἰασάμην τὸν ἄνθρωπον· οἷς δὲ τὰ στόματα τῶν ἀρτηριῶν ηὐρύνθη, τοιοῦτον μὲν οὐδὲν προηγεῖτο σύμπτωμα, συμβεβήκει δὲ τῷ μέν τινι πολλῷ χρόνῳ παρὰ τὸ ἔθος ἀφροδισίων ἀπέχεσθαι, τῷ δὲ κακοχύμων ἐδεσμάτων καὶ δριμέων ἐδωδῇ κεχρῆσθαι, τῷ δέ τινι ζώνῃ καθ’ ὁδοιπορίαν δυοῖν μηνῶν, ἀήθει ζώνης ὄντι. τὴν οὖν ἀναστόμωσιν τῶν ἀρτηριῶν ἐτεκμηράμεθα τοῖς μὲν διὰ τὴν ἐκ τῆς κακοχυμίας δριμύτητα γεγονέναι, τοῖς δὲ διὰ πνεύματος φυσώδους γένεσιν ἀτάκτως τε καὶ βιαίως κινουμένου.
+Καὶ γάρ τοι καὶ τὰ φάρμακα τὰ τῶν αἰδοίων ἐντατικά, τά τε πινόμενα καὶ τὰ κατὰ τοῦ περιτοναίου καὶ τῆς ὀσφύος ἐπιβαλλόμενα∣
Προσέχειν δὲ χρὴ τῷ λόγῳ μὴ παρατρέχοντα· φάρμακα γὰρ εἶπον, οὐκ ἐδέσματα, διότι τῶν ἐδεσμάτων ἔνια μὲν γεννητικὰ πολλοῦ σπέρματος ὄντα, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὰς εἰς τὴν λαγνείαν ὁρμὰς παροξύνει. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν μαρτυρεῖ τῷ λόγῳ, καθ’ ὃν ἀρτίως ἐλέγετο καὶ τοὺς τῶν ἀφροδισίων ἀποσχομένους ἐνίοτε τοῖς πριαπισμοῖς ἁλίσκεσθαι· συμβαίνει γὰρ τοῦτο τοῖς πολυσπέρμοις τε ἅμα καὶ παρὰ τὸ ἔθος ἀποσχομένοις, ὅταν μὴ διαπονῶσι πλήθει γυμνασίων τὴν περιουσίαν τοῦ αἵματος, καὶ μάλιστα ἐξ αὐτῶν ὅσοι τῆς μὲν τῶν ἀφροδισίων
Ἐναντιωτάτη γὰρ ἡ τούτων τῶν ἀνθρώπων διάθεσις ἐν τοῖς αἰδοίοις γίγνεται τῇ τῶν οὐδ’ ὅλως εἰς ἔννοιαν ἀφροδισίων ἐρχομένων. καί τινι∣
Ὅσοι δ’ εὐθὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἢ ἀθλοῦντες ἢ φωνασκοῦντες ἄπειροι τῶν ἀφροδισίων διετέλεσαν, εἴρξαντες παντάπασιν ἑαυτοὺς ἁπάσης ἐννοίας τε καὶ φαντασίας τοιαύτης, ἰσχνὰ καὶ ῥυσὰ τοῖς τῶν γερόντων ὁμοίως αὐτοῖς γίνεται τὰ αἰδοῖα. πρὸς γὰρ τοῖς ἄλλοις κἀκεῖνο συμβαίνει τοῖς ἐν νεότητι κατὰ τὸν πρῶτον χρόνον ἀφροδισίοις πολλοῖς χρησαμένοις, εὐρυνομένων τῶν ἐν τούτοις τοῖς τόποις ἀγγείων, εὔρουν τε γίγνεσθαι πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ αἷμα καὶ τὴν ὀρεκτικὴν δύναμιν τῶν ἀφροδισίων αὐξάνεσθαι, κατὰ τὸν κοινὸν λόγον ἁπασῶν τῶν δυνάμεων,∣
Οὕτως μὲν οὖν καὶ οἱ τιτθοὶ ταῖς μὲν μηδέποτε κυησάσαις προσεσταλμένοι διαμένουσι, ταῖς δὲ μετὰ τὸ κυῆσαι θηλαζούσαις παιδία μέγιστοι γίγνονται, καὶ διαμένουσί γε γάλα παρέχοντες, ἄχρις ἂν θηλάζωσιν, παυομέναις δὲ τοῦ θηλάζειν τὰ παιδία καὶ ἡ τοῦ γάλακτος ἐν τοῖς τιτθοῖς γένεσις οὐ μετὰ πολὺ παύεται.
+Ταῦτ’ οὖν ἡμῖν ἅπαντα προδιεσκεμμένοις καὶ πρὸς τὴν θεραπείαν ἀφορμὰς παρέξει, διοριζομένοις τὰς αἰτίας, ὑφ’ ὧν ἑκάστῳ τῶν πασχόντων τὸ πάθος ἐγένετο· νῦν δ’ οὔπω καιρὸς αὐτῶν, ἀλλ’ ἤδη τέλος ἐχούσης τῆς προκειμένης πραγματείας, καταπαύσω τὸν λόγον ἐνταῦθα.
+