ANTIPHON THE SOPHIST THE FRAGMENTS

EDITED WITH INTRODUCTION, TRANSLATION, AND COMMENTARY

BY GERARD J. PENDRICK published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom

cambridge university press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb22ru,UK 40 West 20th Street, New York ny 10011-4211, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, vic 3207, Australia Ruiz de AlarcoÂn 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org

Cambridge University Press 2002

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2002 Reprinted 2003

Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

Typeset in Baskerville and New Hellenic Greek [ao]

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data Antiphon, of Athens. The fragments / Antiphon the Sophist ; edited with introduction, translation and commentary by Gerard J. Pendrick. p. cm. Ð DCambridge classical texts and commentaries ; 39) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. isbn 0521651611 1. Sophists DGreek philosophy) 2. Philosophy, Ancient. i.Title: Antiphon the Sophist. ii. Pendrick, Gerard J. iii. Title. iv. Series. pa3870. a22001 1830.1Ðdc21 2001035690 isbn 0521651611 CONTENTS

Preface page ix

INTRODUCTION 1 I The identity of Antiphon 1 II Division of works 26 III On Truth 32 IV On Concord 39 V Politicus 47 VI Dream-book 49 VII Antiphon's thought in its ®fth-century context 53

TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS 69

COMMENTARY 225

WORKS CITED 431

INDEXES 458

vii INTRODUCTION

I THE IDENTITY OF ANTIPHON Among the plethora of Antiphons known from the later ®fth andthe fourth centuries bc, particularly at Athens, are several who have often been confused, in antiquity as well as in modern scholarship. These include Antiphon son of Sophilus, of the deme Rhamnus, the famous Athenian logographer andpolitician who was an originator of the oligarchic coup of 411;1 Antiphon oÈ sofisth w, who dis- putes with Socrates in Xenophon's Memorabilia;2 andAnti- phon the tragic poet, who is citedseveral times by Aris- totle. The poet Antiphon is certainly to be distinguished from Antiphon of Rhamnus. For while the latter was tried andexecutedat Athens in 411 on a charge of treason, a widespread ancient tradition puts the former's death in Syracuse, at the hands of the elder Dionysius. Cf. Aris- totle, Rhetoric 1385a9±10; Plutarch, De Stoicorum repugnantiis 1051c±d, Quomodo adulator 68a±b; [Plut.], Vitae X or. 833b± c; Philostratus, Vitae sophistarum 499±500.3 JoeÈl<1893± 1901), 2.649 with n. 1 rejectedthis ancient traditionand identi®edall the above-mentionedAntiphons, as doesthe author of the pseudo-Plutarchan Vit. X or.4

1 PA 1304; Fraser andMatthews <1994), s.v. AÉ ntifvÄ n <57); Thucydides, 8.68. 2 PA 1278; Fraser andMatthews <1994), s.v. AÉ ntifvÄ n <4); Memorabilia 1.6.1±15 ˆ T1. 3 Cf. Narcy <1989), 225, 240. 4 To the confusion of Antiphons [Plut.] adds the ®gure of Antiphon son of Lysonides

information he considered dubious. These arguments amount to spe- cial pleading. 5 On the unreliability of [Plut.] cf. Taylor <1772), 268±73; van Spaan <1773), 825; Sauppe <1896), 512±13; Andrewes in Gomme et al. <1981), 170; Cuvigny <1981), 27±31. 6 Cf. van Spaan <1773), 827; Sauppe <1896), 513; Nestle <1942), 389±90; Schmid<1940), 99; Untersteiner <1954), 228 n. 7 ˆ <1967),2.45n.7. 7 Cf. Luria <1924b), 330, <1927b), 1065; JoeÈl

9 Cf. van Spaan <1773), 824±27; Blass <1887±98), 1.93±94; Bignone <1938), 161±215; Schmid<1940), 98±100; Untersteiner <1954), 228± 30 ˆ <1967), 2.45±47; Pendrick <1987), <1993). 10 Cf. below, andcommentary on T1, l. 1; T3, ll. 1±2. 11 On the importance of Xenophon's evidence cf. Seeliger <1924), 15; Schmid<1940), 100. SchmidcontendedthatXenophon's Antiphon couldnot be the Rhamnusian because all datable conversations in the Memorabilia fall in the last decade of the ®fth century Thucydides the pupil of Anti- phon of Rhamnus rests on mere inference andcan be dis- missedAspasia andConnus, the sup- posedteachers of Socrates. 13 Plutarch, De gloria Atheniensium 350c speaks of the Rhamnusian as the headof a school: touÁ weÉ n taiÄw sxolaiÄw taÁ meira kia prodida skontaw touÁ w ÉIsokra teiw kaiÁ AÉ ntifvÄ ntaw kaiÁ ÉIsai ouw. But such evi- dence

12 On Lamprus cf. Abert <1924), 586±87. 13 On the Menexenus passage cf. Pohlenz <1913), 262 n. 1; MeÂridier <1931), 79; de Vries <1949), 257, and especially Clavaud <1982), 76, 263±77. 4 I THE IDENTITY OF ANTIPHON eÉ ke rdainon aÉ poÁ tou tou

14 Cf. Bignone <1938), 166 n. 1; Nestle <1942), 391 with n. 89; Morrison <1961), 49 n. 3; Avery <1982), 156 with n. 39; Gagarin <1990), 30 n. 13. 15 Cf. Gomperz <1912), 58; Croiset <1917), 15±16; Bignone <1938), 162; von der MuÈhll <1948), 1; Morrison <1961), 51 with n. 3; Guthrie <1971a), 286; Avery <1982), 151 n. 26; Gagarin <1990), 31±33. 5 INTRODUCTION far from compelling. The epithet sofisth w couldcertainly be appliedto a logographer like Antiphon, particularly in a hostile context. Cf. Aeschines, or. 1.175; Demosthenes, or. 59.21; von der MuÈhll <1948), 1 n. 3; Gagarin <1990), 31±32. But the real issue is not whether Xenophon could have referredto the Rhamnusian as a sophist, but whether he wouldhave doneso, andwhy. As Gagarin <1990) has shown, Antiphon of Rhamnus is usually identi®ed in an- cient texts by name alone, or by name anddemotic,or by name together with the epithet rÈ h tvr, which in this con- text means ``politician''

16 On Xenophon's Antiphon as a ``type'' of the sophist hostile to Soc- rates cf. Wilamowitz <1931±32), 2.217 n. 1; Gigon <1953), 152, 165. 17 Cf. Whitehead<1988), 145±47. But examples such as Callistratus oÈ dhmhgo row

18 Cf. Croiset <1917), 16; Aly <1929), 110; von der MuÈhll <1948), 1; Morrison <1961), 57; Avery <1982), 152±55.

8 I THE IDENTITY OF ANTIPHON of Rhamnus.19

19 So Croiset <1917), 16; Aly <1929), 110; Morrison <1961), 58; Avery <1982), 151. 20 Cf. TaraÂn <1981), 4 n. 11. Nestle <1940), 47 with n. 45 arguedthat Memorabilia 1.6.15 is derived from Plato

9 INTRODUCTION teratosko pow seems not to have identi®ed Xenophon's Antiphon with the Rhamnusian, to whom he wouldhardly have referredwith this epithet. 21 On the other hand, the author of the pseudo-Plutarchan Vitae X or.

21 The epithet is usually ascribedto Aristotle; but cf. commentary on T5. Gagarin <1990), 41 n. 50 rejectedthe inference, on the grounds that we do not know who added the epithet or why it was added. But our ignorance on these points does not really a¨ect the issue. 22 On the unreliability of [Plut.] cf. nn. 4±5 above. 23 Similarly Photius, Bibliotheca 486a <8.42) andthe anonymous Vita Antiphontis 7. According to Blass <1887±98), 1.93, these depend on [Plut.]; but others disagree

24 Gagarin <1990), 41 arguedthat the title of Hephaestion's work does not suggest that it concernedthe question of identity.But still less does it suggest the contents Gagarin proposed for it. 25 On Adrastus' philological interests and knowledge generally cf. Moraux <1973±84), 2.314±17, 323±32. 26 On the division of works between the two Antiphons cf. section ii below. 11 INTRODUCTION these conclusions. Despite this, many commentators have inferredthat Didymusbasedhis distinctionbetween the Rhamnusian and``the other'' Antiphon on perceivedsty- listic di¨erences within the corpus Antiphonteum. Hence these commentators have felt free to reject Didymus' distinction, in the belief

27 Cf. Drerup <1901), 301±6 orator,'' andphilosophical works to a ``sophist''

29 Cf. Aly <1929), 114; Hommel <1941), 1±2; Gagarin <1990), 43±44 and passim. 13 INTRODUCTION ``Antiphon'' show no awareness of the problem of identity anddonot attempt to distinguisha sophist from Antiphon of Rhamnus. In the works of Aristotle, for example, the name Antiphon appears eleven times. In Physics 185a17 <ˆ F13

30 Cf. JoeÈl <1893±1901), 663 n. 3; Morrison <1961), 51±55; Gagarin <1990), 33. For a di¨erent analysis of Aristotle's testimony on Anti- phon cf. Narcy <1989), 225±27, 240±41. 14 I THE IDENTITY OF ANTIPHON nysius, Aristotle adds the tag ``poet,'' presumably because he did not think it immediately obvious from the context which Antiphon was meant orators. Harpocration quotes by title from the sophist Antiphon's PeriÁ aÉ lhyei aw, PeriÁ oÈ monoi aw, and Politiko w, as well as from numerous speeches of An- tiphon of Rhamnus. Yet he never indicates any awareness that these various works might belong to di¨erent authors. Gagarin inferredthat Harpocration must have known, and rejected, Didymus' rationale for distinguishing the Anti- phons. Not only this, Harpocration

31 Compare how Aristotle refers to ``Plato,'' without a distinguishing epithet, in Topics 140a3±5 in connection with the rare words oÉ fruo - skiow

32 On Harpocration's use of Didymus cf. Cohn <1903), 458±59 and commentary on T2

35 Harpocration

38 On Apollodorus and the corpus Demosthenicum cf.

39 So Altwegg <1908), 6±12; Aly <1929), 109±13; Morrison <1961); Narcy <1989), 225±30; Gagarin <1990). 40 Cf. Bignone <1938), 175±215; Luria <1926c); Gomperz <1912), 59. 41 Cf. Aly <1929); Hommel <1941); Morrison <1961), 55±56. 19