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.];Clearly an addition by a reader who thought that the argument ought to be pushed still further. The syntax is harsh and the reasoning itself unsound; B had denied throughout, it is true; but A, as we have just heard, spent half his time denying, and the other half affirming; so he cannot be set against B. But I need not point out that any equal division is to the advantage of the defence rather than the prosecution, in view of the fact that an equal division of the votes of the jury similarly benefits the defence rather than the prosecution.

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 Aenus or by shipping them to the mainland.i.e., to Asia Minor. I should not have left the men who knew the truth behind to inform against me.

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,The speaker forgets that he denied this in Antiph. 5.39. whereas the note when opened revealed the fact that I was the murderer.

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.