Публикации автора

In Antiphon’s speech “Prosecution of the Stepmother for Poisoning”, one of emphasized motives is the opposition between, on the one hand, the author of the criminal plan and organizer of the murder, and on the other hand, the immediate executor. The accuser claims that his stepmother plotted to kill her husband and deceived a female slave into adding poison to his wine. The slave was executed as the murderer, but the accuser seeks to prove that the true guilt lies with the stepmother, as she conceived the crime. The manuscript text (20) reads a participle χειρουργήσασα, ‘the one who enacted’, attributed to the stepmother. Friedrich Blass, in his 1871 edition, transposed the words καὶ χειρουργήσασα, referring them to the slave who poured the poison into the wine, believing, as she was told by the accused, that it was a love potion. By doing this, Blass emphasized the distinction between the plan and its execution. Almost all editors accepted this rearrangement. At the same time, some scholars prefer the manuscript reading. Reiske, supported by Maetzner, suggested a literal understanding of the participle, ‘the one who prepared the poison’. Wilamowitz considered χειρουργήσασα a rhetorical exaggeration. Adelmo Barigazzi and Ernst Heitsch understood the participle attributed to the stepmother in the manuscripts as a way to shift the entire responsibility for the murder — both the criminal idea and its execution — onto the stepmother. Here I present arguments in favor of the manuscript reading and variants of interpreting its meaning