OUSEION - Memorial University's Digital Archives Initiative ...
OUSEION - Memorial University's Digital Archives Initiative ... 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
BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 201 relates Antiphon's thought to general Greek beliefs and values (e.g. 43-45.326.401-402.409-410). Antiphon's use of conventional wisdom is certainly noteworthy. but to view him predominantly in this way might suggest a certain banality in his thought. More importantly. it presents him as rather disconnected from the specific cultural context of his times. Yet everything we know of the Sophists suggests that intellectual exchange was central to the phenomenon. albeit often in the form of intellectual competition (consider Xenophon's depiction of the conflict between Antiphon and Socrates). However, I make these comments to note a difference in interpretive stance rather than to criticize Pendrick in his role as commentator. for he is extremely scrupulous in recounting the major interpretations presented by past scholars-all the more so given that he often disagrees with them. Secondly. the commentary engages less with the fragments of the Sophists than one might expect or desire. This could be a result of the point just made about Pendrick's generally conservative approach. but in fact he is quite good in giving references to the works of the Presocratics as well as others, such as the medical writers. Yet the Sophists themselves are referred to less often than they might be. Furthermore. this lack at times impinges upon matters of judgment and interpretation. For instance. in his commentary on T6. which relates the fascinating anecdote about Antiphon setting up shop in Corinth and practicing the oral TEXVT) O:AvTTiac which he is said to have discovered. Pendrick (241-242) cites Altwegg's reference to the boast of Plato's Gorgias that a rhetorician can more effectively persuade a patient to accept treatment than a doctor can (Grg. 456b). The reference is relevant. but of greater value are the words of Gorgias himself in the famous third argument about the persuasive power of logos in the Encomium of Helen. In section 8. one of logos' powers is to remove pain (AVTTT)V O:
- Page 51 and 52: FEMALE AND DWARF GLADIATORS 147 esp
- Page 53 and 54: FEMALE AND DWARFGLADIATORS 149 Unli
- Page 56 and 57: STEPHEN BRUNET dwarfs fight separat
- Page 58 and 59: [54 STEPHEN BRUNET I. Historical Re
- Page 60 and 61: STEPHEN BRUNET the women involved t
- Page 62 and 63: STEPHEN BRUNET in fact, if Manius w
- Page 64 and 65: 160 STEPHEN BRUNET Juvenal was not
- Page 66 and 67: 162 STEPHEN BRUNET debase themselve
- Page 68 and 69: STEPHEN BRUNET them as mockeries of
- Page 70 and 71: 166 STEPHEN BRUNET carnassus or som
- Page 72 and 73: 168 STEPHEN BRUNET pIe. did not dec
- Page 74: 170 STEPHEN BRUNET about the use of
- Page 78 and 79: 174 PASCALE HUMMEL voit egalement l
- Page 81 and 82: EN QUETE D'UNREEL LINGUISTIQUE 177
- Page 83 and 84: EN QUETE D'UN REEL LINGUISTIQUE I79
- Page 85: EN QUETE D'UN REEL LINGUISTIQUE IBI
- Page 88 and 89: PASCALE HUMMEL tique : la philologi
- Page 90 and 91: 186 PASCALE HUMMEL epistemologique
- Page 93 and 94: EN QUETE D'UN REEL LINGUIST/QUE 189
- Page 95 and 96: BOOKREVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS CLAUDE C
- Page 97 and 98: BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 193 the
- Page 99 and 100: BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 195 is
- Page 101: BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 197 oth
- Page 110 and 111: 206 BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS com
- Page 112 and 113: 208 BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS agg
- Page 114 and 115: BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS sumably
- Page 117 and 118: BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 213 Pla
- Page 119 and 120: BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 2I5 to
- Page 123 and 124: BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 219 of
- Page 126 and 127: BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS impreci
- Page 128 and 129: 224 BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES ENDUS A so
- Page 131 and 132: BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 227 tra
- Page 133 and 134: BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 229 the
- Page 135 and 136: BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 231 rea
BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 201<br />
relates Antiphon's thought to general Greek beliefs and values (e.g.<br />
43-45.326.401-402.409-410). Antiphon's use of conventional wisdom is<br />
certainly noteworthy. but to view him predominantly in this way might<br />
suggest a certain banality in his thought. More importantly. it presents<br />
him as rather disconnected from the specific cultural context of his<br />
times. Yet everything we know of the Sophists suggests that intellectual<br />
exchange was central to the phenomenon. albeit often in the form of<br />
intellectual competition (consider Xenophon's depiction of the conflict<br />
between Antiphon and Socrates). However, I make these comments to<br />
note a difference in interpretive stance rather than to criticize Pendrick<br />
in his role as commentator. for he is extremely scrupulous in recounting<br />
the major interpretations presented by past scholars-all the more<br />
so given that he often disagrees with them.<br />
Secondly. the commentary engages less with the fragments of the<br />
Sophists than one might expect or desire. This could be a result of the<br />
point just made about Pendrick's generally conservative approach. but<br />
in fact he is quite good in giving references to the works of the<br />
Presocratics as well as others, such as the medical writers. Yet the<br />
Sophists themselves are referred to less often than they might be. Furthermore.<br />
this lack at times impinges upon matters of judgment and<br />
interpretation. For instance. in his commentary on T6. which relates the<br />
fascinating anecdote about Antiphon setting up shop in Corinth and<br />
practicing the oral TEXVT) O:AvTTiac which he is said to have discovered.<br />
Pendrick (241-242) cites Altwegg's reference to the boast of Plato's Gorgias<br />
that a rhetorician can more effectively persuade a patient to accept<br />
treatment than a doctor can (Grg. 456b). The reference is relevant. but<br />
of greater value are the words of Gorgias himself in the famous third<br />
argument about the persuasive power of logos in the Encomium of<br />
Helen. In section 8. one of logos' powers is to remove pain (AVTTT)V<br />
O:
Change language