Bryn Mawr Classical Review 1998.6.19
Word count: words
1. Still, the comment that "there has not been a commentary on all the speeches in any language since that of Maetzner in 1838" (ix), while strictly true, obscures the fact that much good work has been done on the speeches and the Tetralogies individually: notably J. H. Thiel, Antiphon's Erste Tetralogie (Groningen, 1932); A. Barigazzi, Antifonte: Prima orazione and Sesta orazione (Firenze, 1955); F. Decleva Caizzi, Antiphontis Tetralogiae (Milano, 1969); M. Edwards - S. Usher, Greek Orators I: Antiphon and Lysias (Warminster, 1985), 30-124 (by Edwards) on Ant. V. Gagarin makes good use of this prior work. For a recent English translation of the speeches, see M. Gagarin - D. M. MacDowell, tr., Antiphon and Andocides (Austin, 1998).
2. For justifiable homicide, see P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford, 1981), 644 f., who cites earlier bibliography; add K. Latte, RE 16.1, 1933, 285 (= Kl. Schrift., 387 f.).
3. See, e.g., H. C. Avery, [quot ]One Antiphon or Two?[quot ], Hermes 110, 1982, 155 n. 36. Even R. Sealey, [quot ]The Tetralogies Ascribed to Antiphon[quot ], TAPA 114, 1984, 75 f., who otherwise doubts the authenticity of the Tetralogies, is unsure of how to respond. In fact, both critics (Gernet, 10-12) and defenders (Decleva Caizzi, 21 ff., 31 ff.) of the Tetralogies have taken similar approaches, denying that O( NO/MOS here signifies an actual 'law'.
4. See A. Tulin, Dike Phonou: The Right of Prosecution and Attic Homicide Procedure, BzA 76 (Stuttgart/Leipzig, 1996), 85 f. n. 227. Full discussion of this passage must be reserved for another occasion.
5. See C. Eucken, Mus. Helv. 53, 1996, 73 n. 1; also Schmid-Stählin, Gesch. d. gr. Lit. (1959-61), 3:123 ff; D. C. Innes, [quot ]Gorgias, Antiphon and Sophistopolis,[quot ] Argumentation 5, 1991, 222-27.
6. For EI)KO/S in Antiphon, see Fr. Solmsen, Antiphonstudien (Berlin, 1931), 53 ff.; Kroll, RE, Suppl. VII, 1940, 1042; Barigazzi I, 27 f.; Schmid-Stählin, 3:113 n. 2, 121 f.; Decleva Caizzi, 46 ff.; Gagarin, MH, 47 ff.
7. E.g., 5.43; 63 OU) GA\R DH/POU KTL., 85, etc.; see G. Gebauer, De hypotacticis et paratacticis argumenti ex contrario formis (Zwiccaviae, 1877), index, s.v.; also Barigazzi I, 28 f.
8. Cp. Barigazzi I, 58f.; B. Due, Antiphon: A Study in Argumentation (Copenhagen, 1980), 72 ff.; Edwards ad 5.1 et passim.
9. See Th. Thalheim - Fr. Blass, Antiphontis orationes et fragmenta (Lipsiae, 1914), v: [quot ]Post V 84 vestigia manus A2 deficiunt[quot ]; W. Wyse, The Speeches of Isaeus (Cambridge, 1904), xxxiv-vi. A2 [quot ]offre lezioni ora eccellenti, tratte da un altro codice, ora sospette come congetture dotte[quot ] (Decleva Caizzi, 87).
10. On the other hand, what is one to make of the likes of 5.12 AU)=QIS (AU)TOI=S mss.; [quot ]ad judicas referas[quot ] Maetzner), printed in the text without any comment whatsoever? Is this the result of the (promised) new collation, Gagarin's own emendation, or simply an error? The paucity of information given elsewhere leaves the reader baffled; cp. 5.80 DEDIDAGME/NON (pro DEDIGME/NON); 81 GENOME/NOIS om. (see Maetzner ad loc.); 94 OU)/TE (pro OU)DE\) and 95 (!) OU)DE\ (pro OU)/TE). I have only compared (for this purpose) the text of Ant. 5; instances, presumably, will be found in the text of other speeches as well (as, e.g., 1.7 T) EI)DW\S). Gagarin also claims (ix) to have seen [quot ]three Teubner editions of Antiphon that Wilamowitz had annotated now in the Wilamowitz library in Berlin[quot ]; these annotations are utilized (so far as I can see) only ad 4.3.2, where Wilamowitz' note is actually of very little value.
11. Gagarin's refusal to [quot ]normalize[quot ] the text is most noticable in his retention of the first person H)=N (see p. 250 ad fr. 1a 1-9), which is reasonable (though he regularizes H)/|DEIN: 2.2.3, 9; 5.74), and in his insistence on accepting the occasional omission of A)/N (p. 27f. et pass.; add 6.19) -- this last, however, produces a very unpleasant effect at 2.1.4, where Gagarin prints (without any comment in the apparatus) OU) GA\R A)WRI/, which cannot be right. (On the restoration of A)/N, see further Decleva Caizzi, p. 219; would Gagarin also defend Crippsianus' [A's] omission of A)/N in, say, Andoc. 1.67, 102, etc.?). Gagarin's adherence to the readings of A and N, while admirable in theory (in fact, these mss. often appear quite careless is these matters), leads him to defend such peculiarities as TA/ TE E)N TH|= at 5.45.
12. See, e.g., 2.4.7 TW=N KURI/WN E)XQRW=N Gagarin (without comment), where Decleva Caizzi had correctly printed TW=N KURI/WS E)XQRW=N. See her app. crit. ad loc.: KURI/WN Apr: KURI/WS A1N. Clearly, KURI/WN was simply an error made by the scribe of A, which he himself (as A1) later corrected. Decleva Caizzi aptly comments: [quot ]stupisce che gli editori abbiano preferito la lectio facilior di Apr; cfr. un esempio analogo in Plat. Phaedo, 66B: TOI=S GNHSI/WS FILOSO/FOIS (codd.; GNHSI/OIS Jambl.)[quot ]. This should have been definitive.
13. I would prefer, e.g., to follow Decleva Caizzi at 2.1.9 and 2.4.10; also at 3.2.10 (which should not, I think, be part of the epilogue). At 1.8, we probably need to break after W|)H/QHSAN (with Barigazzi).
14. They derive, presumably, from two different traditions, since the titles certainly reflect an analysis of the Tetralogies according to the types of murder involved, rather than by stasis theory.