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 matterTwo interpretations of the text as it stands in the manuscripts are possible: (1) He 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 βάλλειν means to hit, not to throw. (2) avoids this difficulty; but it has been urged (e.g. by Blass, who favors emendation) that the words τὸν μὲν βαλόντα καὶ ἀποκτείναντα οὔτε τρῶσαι οὔτε ἀποκτείναί φησι in Antiph. 3.3.5 (cf. also Antiph. 3.3.6 sub fin.) prove that the speaker in the present passage had not admitted that X struck Y. The contradiction, however, is only apparent. The speaker here is saying in effect that the responsibility for the blow must rest with Y, although X dealt it; in Antiph. 3.3.5-6 his opponents argue that the responsibility must rest with X, because X dealt it.: he accidentallyFor ἀκουσίως cf. Antiph. 2.3.1, note 2. incurred the blame for the error of another which affected that other’s own person.

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.