Antiphon, Andocides, Minor Attic Orators, Volume I: Antiphon. Andocides

LCL 308: viii-ix

Go To Section
Go To Section

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, Thalheim’s text of the first four columns of the papyrus fragments of Antiphon’s Περὶ τῆς μεταστάσεως, together with his critical apparatus.

K. J. Maidment

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. Burneianus 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 Lycurgus, together with a number of short pieces attributed to Gorgias, Alcidamas, and others. While regarding A, the earliest, 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 conclusively proved, however, that B, L, Z, and M derive from one another in the order B L M Z, and that B itself is wholly dependent upon A.a All four therefore