Minor Attic Orators : with an English Translation by K. J. Maidment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY FOUNDED BY JAMES LOEB, LL.D. EDITED BY fT. E. PAGE, C.H., LITT.D. t E. CAPPS, PH.D., LLD. t W. H. D. ROUSE, litt.d. L. A. POST, L.H.D. E. H. WARMINGTON, m.a., f.b.hist.soc. MINOR ATTIC ORATORS I MINOE ATTIC ORATORS IN TWO VOLUMES ANTIPHON ANDOCIDES WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY K. J. MAIDMENT, M.A. FELLOW AND CLASSICAL TDTOB OF MERTON COLLCOK, OXFOBB LONDON WILLIAM HEINEMANN LTD CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS MCMLX Oi i FirU prin/ed 1941 Reprinted 1953, 1960 1117316 f I ]\7 Printed in Oreat Britain fOfiLtn.; CONTENTS OF VOLUME I PAOS Preface .•,.... ix The Manuscripts ..... xi ANTIPHON— Life of Antiphov ..... 2 I. Prosecution of the Stepmother for Poisoning— Introduction ..... 8 Analysis ...... 13 Text and Translation . 14 II, III, IV. The Tetralogies— General Introduction .... 34 II. The First Tetralogy— Introductory Note .... 50 Text and Translation . IHT kQ .I^g ^"^aiioiial III. The Second Tetralogy— <ii?^^.r«n '. • A Introductory Note ^ g^ '"^ /''^ ' Text and Translation ':^''''"'T . 88 MINOR ATTIC ORATORS, I PASB IV. The Third Tetralogy— Introductory Note . * .118 Text and Translation ... 120 V. On the Murder of Herodes— Introduction . • . .148 Analysis ...... 158 Text and Translation .160 VI. On the Choreutes— Introduction ..... 234 Analysis ...... 244 Text and Translation .... 246 Fragments— Note 289 Text and Translation .... 290 Appendix— Note 318 Text and Translation .... 314 ANDOCIDRS— Life of Andocides . 320 |. On the Mysteries— Introduction Si5 Analysis 835 Text and Translation 338 vi PREFACE The text upon which the present translation is based is that of I. Bekker (1822) ; but I have not hesitated to introduce such alterations and corrections as the fresh manuscript evidence and detailed linguistic study of the last hundred years have made necessary or probable. The critical apparatus, while by no means exhaustive, will, I hope, prove full enough to enable the reader to appreciate for himself the rela- tive value of the principal sources from which the text of Antiphon and Andocides derives. Of the surviving fragments all those are printed which possess any historical or literary importance. It appeared beyond the scope of the present volume to include isolated words quoted by the ancient lexico- graphers as grammatical rarities. These are readily accessible in existing editions of the two authors and are of no interest to the general reader. In regard to the translation itself I need say only that I have aimed at being both accurate and readable, but am fully conscious that I have too often failed to be either. I should, however, like to take this oppor- tunity of thanking many friends for their sugges- tions and advice, particularly the present Warden of Merton, Sir John Miles, whose critical acumen and long experience of comparative law have re- peatedly saved me from error; Mr. R. G. C. Levens, MINOR ATTIC ORATORS, I my former tutor, who has put me still further in his debt by reading much of the translation in proof and offering valuable criticisms ; and Professor H. T. Wade-Gery, who has always been ready with advice upon the many historical problems presented by Antiphon. I must also express my gratitude to the proprietors of the Bibliotheca Teubneriana for their courteous permission to reprint, as it stands, Thal- heim's text of the first four columns of the papyrus fragments of Antiphon's Uepl t^s /leTao-Tao-ews, to- gether with his critical apparatus. K. J. Maidmeni August 1940 THE MANUSCRIPTS ANTIPHON.—When Bekker published his edition of the Attic Orators in 1822, he relied upon four manuscripts for the reconstruction of the text of Antiphon. These manuscripts were : (1) Crippsianus (Brit. Mus. Bumeianus 95), thirteenth century . .A (2) Laurentianus, fifteenth century . B (3) Marcianus, fifteenth century . L (4) Vratislaviensis, sixteenth century . Z The contents of all four were the same, viz. : Andocides, Isaeus, Dinarchus, Antiphon, and Lycur- gus, together with a number of short pieces attributed to Gorgias, Alcidamas, and others. WTiile regarding A, the earhest, as of the first importance, Bekker held that B, L, and Z represented an independent, if inferior, tradition, and they consequently occupy a prominent place in his critical apparatus. In 1829 Dobson collated yet another ms. from the British Museum, the fifteenth century Burneianus 96 (M), and attempted to show that it must rank at least as high as Bekker's B, L, and Z. It has since been con- clusively proved, however, that B, L, Z, and M derive from one another in the oi'der B L M Z, and that B itself is wholly dependent upon A.<* All four there- » Cf. Jahrb.f. Phil. 1877, p. 673, Hermes, xvii., p. 385. and i2/t«mk ^iM.xL, p. 387. , ^liniiwnou jqn-jeuiiBiti i^j-jsq XT ; MINOR A'lTIC ORATORS, I fore lose their claim to the resj>ect shown them by their early editors. But the supremacy of A itself has been seriously challenged since attention was drawn by Maetzner in 1838 to an Oxford ms. of the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century, now known as N (Bodl. Misc. 208). N, it is clear, is independent of A, though closely related to it—both, in factj may be descended directly from a common archetype—and is of equal importance for the deter- mination of the text. In the present edition the evidence of both mss. has been allowed full weight neither shows a marked superiority over the other, and the choice, not infrequently offered, between two equally acceptable variants, must depend less upon the ms. in which each occurs than upon the intuition of the editor and his conception of what Antiphon could or could not have written. Both MSS. have been corrected by more than one hand. A contains corrections both by the copyist himself (A corr.), which generally find confirmation in N and are clearly derived from a common archetype, and also by a second hand (A corr.*). These last are not so certainly based upon ms. authority and cease abruptly at § 84 of the De Caede Herodis. In N the correctioas are of the same twofold character. The copyist has himself revised his work from the original (N corr.), while here and there a later hand or hands can also be detected at work (N corr.*) ; these later correc- tions in N, however, are the merest conjectures and can be of little use in the reconstruction of the text. ANDOCIDES.—Here again the edition of Bekker rested upon A, B, L, and Z, with the addition of Ambrosii^nus D 42 sup. (Q), a fourteenth century paper manuscript containing the last two speeches THE MANUSCRIPTS of Andocides and the first two of Isaeus. Q, while independent of A, must be ranked below it. It is occasionally of use in supplying an omission in A, and is valuable as in the main confirming A's readings ; but it has suffered from well meant attempts to smooth out the roughness of Andocides' style at the cost of accuracy and contains frequent lacunae. In effect, then, A remains our principal authority for the De Pace and In Alcibiadem, and our sole authority for the De Mysteriis and the De Reditu. Once again it seems possible to distinguish the work of two cor- rectors. The first is clearly the copyist himself. The second, who uses a slightly darker ink, but is other- wise almost identical with the first, differs from the A corr.2 of Antiphon in that he is clearly making his corrections from the same original as the copyist. In view of the close correspondence between the two hands, both will be referred to without distinction as A corr. Tiii ANTIPHON LIFE OF ANTIPHON Antiphon was born either shortly before or shortly after the year 480." He died at about the age of seventy in 411. Thus, like his younger contem- poraries, Thucydides and Socrates, he saw the swift gro^vth of the Athenian empire, its brief brilliance, its inevitable decline ; and, like them, he was in- fluenced profoundly by the release of those energies of the spirit and the intellect which, even in his lifetime, made Athens the focus of Hellenic culture. Of his family little is known ; but the fact that his grandfather had been a devoted supporter of the Peisistratidae ^ is significant of the political traditions which he was brought up to respect. The state- ment that his father, Sophilus, was a sophist " can hardly be more than an unlucky guess, as he must have been an old man before the full force of the " Sources for life of Antiphon : Thucyd. viii. 68, [Plutarch], Vit. X Or., Philostratus, Vit. i. 15, Photius, cod. 259. Of these the two last are derived from the Pseudo- Plutarch, who drew in his turn upon Caecilius of Calactfi writing in the Augustan period. Many of the statements of the Pseudo-Plutarch, PhUostratus, and Photius are vitiated by the confusion which existed in ancient times between Antiphon the orator, Antiphon the sophist, Antiphon the tragic poet, and a fourth Antiphon put to death by the Thirty Tyrants. * Tlepl TTJs ixeTaardaeciys, fragment 1. ' [Plutarch], § 2. 2 ; LIFE OF ANTIPHON sophistic movement was felt at Athens ; and when we are told in addition that Alcibiades was among his pupils, it is hard not to believe that he has been confused with Socrates. Antiphon himself, however, must early have become interested in the new culture which made its first appearance with the visit of Protagoras of Abdera to Athens c. 450 and thrust its roots ever deeper during the succeeding generation. But his gifts were not those of a Hippias or Prodicus he was no encyclopaedist.