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. These 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 Antiph. 5.42 . But suppose as much as you please that I did quit it; it is still utterly improbable that the man should have remained undiscovered after his disappearance, if he did not go very far from the sea. 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 Aenus and the boat on which Herodes and I had been drinking Weil’s emendation is certain. Herodes and Euxitheus took shelter for the night on a boat bound for Mytilene . After the storm was over, the passengers returned to their own vessel. had reached Mytilene , the prosecution first of all went on board and conducted a search. On finding the bloodstains, τὸ αἷμα (cf. τῶν προβάτων ), because it had already been mentioned in the preceding evidence. Similarly with τοὺς ἀνθρώπους (infr); they had been referred to in the speech for the presecution. they claimed that this was where Herodes had met his end. But the suggestion proved an unfortunate one, as the blood turned out to be that of the animals sacrificed. So they abandoned that line, and instead seized the two men and examined them under torture. The references in the course of the speech to the two witnesses for the prosecution are confusing. The relevant passages are 29, 42, 49, and 52. From 49 it is clear that one was a slave and the other a free man, although he cannot have been a Greek, as he was subjected to torture by the prosecution (ibid). 29 suggests that the two were members of the crew of the homeward bound vessel on which Euxitheus and Herodes sheltered form the rain, and that after the storm they continued their voyage to Mytilene , where the relatives of Herodes immediately came aboard and took them into custody. This is supported by 52, which implies that Euxitheus parted from the men after the storm, he proceeding the Aenus , and they to Mytilene . 42, however, offers a difficulty. Euxitheus there says with reference to the free man: 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 Mytilene to Aenus . There seems to be only one explanation of the inconsistency. Euxitheus must have been intentionally misrepresenting the facts in 42, as it was important to show that the favorable evidence of this witness was based upon a personal acquaintance with his movements and general behavior. If so, it seems not unlikely that the man was actually in the pay of Euxitheus. Can he have been the ἀκόλουθος of 24, sent back to Mytilene by E. and there detained by the family of Herodes? 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.