OUSEION - Memorial University's Digital Archives Initiative ...

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS
ticular P.Oxy. 3647 (which has invalidated some previous textual conjectures)
and the new text of Diogenes of Oenoanda, as well as new passages
pertaining to Antiphon's quadrature of the circle, his buried-bed
argument, and his activity as a dream-interpreter. For the papyri he
suggests a few new supplements and assesses the various restorations.
These supplements are not listed. but I note the following: F44(a)II.5.
F44(a)llI.25. F44(a)IlI.29. F44(a)VI.30, and 44(b)ll,r. These are generally
sound. if minor in import. The translations are serviceable and accurate.
The commentary is excellent. Pendrick is extremely well-versed in
the history of the scholarship. He is always careful to trace an argument
back to its earliest proponent and to discuss the major accounts in the
history of a problem. Moreover, he typically gives (often quite detailed)
critical assessments of this past scholarship rather than bare citations.
The result is that the commentary is fully successful in its task of
quickly and efficiently orientating its reader within any given issue.
Pendrick is also careful to explain matters of context when necessary, as
seen in his fine discussion (276-285) on the beginning of the second book
of Aristotle's Physics where we find our most important reference to
Antiphon's argument about the buried bed. Here Pendrick is careful to
explicate Aristotle's own views, as well as the philosopher's purposes in
citing Antiphon, before attempting to extract Antiphon's own argument.
freed of Aristotelian concepts and terminology, Another good
example is his discussion of Hermogenes' principles of stylistic criticism
in relation to his judgment of Antiphon as a writer (230-233). Finally.
the commentary is also good on matters of the text. and Pendrick is
careful to explain and discuss different readings or translations of a
vexed passage before presenting his own position.
I have two substantive points to make by way of disagreement and
criticism. First. a certain judicious conservatism in matters of interpretation
is the hallmark of a good editor. Moreover, there can be little
doubt that the fragments of the Presocratics and the Sophists have produced
in the history of scholarship a number of speculative theories
that go beyond what the evidence will bear. And indeed. an obvious
subtext of Pendrick's book is that the fragments of Antiphon have been
over-interpreted (d. 259: "In the circumstances. the attempts ... to relate
the fragment [Fro] to the doctrines of the Eleatics. Empedocles,
Anaxagoras. Protagoras. etc. seem even more dubious than usual").
This said. I still found the book at times to be overly reductive. Time and
again the reader is told that the connections scholars have detected between
Antiphon and his predecessors and contemporaries are unsupported
or fanciful (Untersteiner. perhaps not surprisingly, comes in for
particular criticism. e.g. at 56-57. 248. 317, etc.). Pendrick more often