The Attic orators have long been missing from the OCT series, with the exception of Demosthenes (ed. S.H. Butcher and W. Rennie, 1903–1921) and Lysias (ed. C. Hude, 1912), the only two of a group of authors – Aeschines, Isocrates and the so-called ‘minor Attic orators’ (Antiphon, Andocides, Isaeus, Hyperides, Lycurgus, Dinarchus) – active in Athens between the fifth and the beginning of the third centuries bce not to be unjustly neglected. Encouragingly, in recent years new editions, by Dilts and C. Carey respectively, have been devoted to Demosthenes and Lysias, and editions are also being prepared for the remaining representatives of the ancient canon. The speeches of Antiphon and Andocides, the oldest orators on that traditional list, have now been added to the series thanks to the edition produced by Dilts and Murphy (part of the work was done by Dilts and revised or checked by Murphy, the rest is by Murphy alone). The English preface, by Murphy, deals with the textual tradition, previous editions and the principles of this one (pp. v–xvii); as in the rest of the series, an overview of earlier editions (pp. xix–xx), a well-selected bibliography in different languages (pp. xxi–xxix) and a list of sigla (p. xxxi–xxxii) enrich the introductory material. The texts of the two orators follow, along with an inclusive apparatus criticus (Antiphon, pp. 1–112; Andocides, pp. 113–206; fragments are not included). The indirect tradition is usefully inserted above the apparatus. The indexes of names at the end of the book are extremely useful.

Antiphon, who was executed in 411 bce as punishment for masterminding the coup of the Four Hundreds and who is most probably identifiable with the sophist of the same name, rarely spoke in public and was renowned mainly as a writer of judicial speeches for others to deliver. Sixty speeches were attributed to him still in the first century bce, although 25 of them were recognised as spurious. Today, apart from titles and fragments of c. 20 works, only six speeches are extant, all dealing with homicide cases (the phoinikoi logoi, probably the opening section of the corpus at some stage of its transmission in the form of a codex): Against the Stepmother (1), On the Murder of Herodes (5), On the Chorus Boy (6), plus the so-called Tetralogies (2, 3, 4), three sets of four short speeches (α, β, γ, δ) for hypothetical cases, two on each side. The Tetralogies were probably model speeches and are to be regarded as peculiar examples of early Attic prose.

Andocides, scion of an ancient family of the Athenian aristocracy, who, as far as we know, was neither a logographer nor a professional orator, is best known for his involvement in the mutilation of the Herms and the profanation of the Eleusinian mysteries that took place in Athens in spring 415 bce, on the eve of the Sicilian expedition. As a consequence, he had to leave the city and spent the rest of his life trying, unsuccessfully, to restore his reputation in Athens; he returned in the very last years of the fifth century to perform some diplomatic services for the city, as a result of which he found himself in trouble once again. Three of the four speeches that have survived under his name are connected with the occasions on which he had to speak in his own defence or was pleading to be able to return: On the Mysteries (1), On His Return (2), On the Peace with Sparta (3); on the other hand, a fourth one, Against Alcibiades, is generally (and by the new editors) considered spurious.

The texts of Antiphon and Andocides (1) and (2) (like those of Lycurgus and Dinarchus) rely primarily on A, a parchment manuscript from the first half of the fourteenth century, today in the British Library (Burney MS 95): the famous ‘Crippsianus’, which takes its name from one of its owners, actually the one who was least interested in it; the person in fact responsible for bringing the manuscript to London was the energetic Edward Daniel Clarke, tutor to the young J.M. Cripps during a long series of journeys abroad, who procured it from the personal library of a notable Phanariot in Constantinople, Alexander Handjeri (there are countless spellings of this Turkish surname), at the very beginning of the nineteenth century. The book had been produced in Constantinople, probably in the library of Chora, and by the fourteenth century had already been transferred to Mount Athos. While there, it was copied by Janus Lascaris at the end of the fifteenth century, and this copy (Laur. Plut. 11.4 = B) in turn begat a group of descendants (LMZP, see p. xxxi). In the case of Antiphon, editors also have to take into account another primary witness, N, a paper codex from the beginning of the fourteenth century (Oxford, Bodl. Libr. Auct. T.2.8 – not T.2.4, as at p. xxxi). In the case of Andocides (3) and (4) too, editors have to resort to a second primary manuscript, Q, a paper codex written between the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century, and today conserved in Milan (Ambros. D 42 sup. – missing on account of an oversight in the Sigla at p. xxxi). These late medieval manuscripts seem to extend a more ancient line of good textual tradition that survived Late Antiquity and that ultimately has its origin in the posthumous arrangement of Antiphon's and Andocides’ written legacies, in political-intellectual and family circles respectively.

Given the scant papyrological remains and poor indirect tradition, the medieval manuscripts provide the only sound basis for any attempt to restore the texts of the two authors in question. From this perspective, one cannot but agree with the decision to include in the edition the biographical and exegetical paraphernalia that travelled with the text in the MSS, i.e. a short anonymous life of Antiphon (conveying some of the information that can be found in ps.-Plutarch's Vitae decem oratorum, but with different wording) and the hypotheses for all of Antiphon's speeches as well as for Andocides (3) and (4). As far as the constitutio textus is concerned, Dilts and Murphy do not pursue an abstract idea of ancient Attic prose, thus avoiding the standardisation of the language of texts written for different occasions and with different functions. On the other hand, they openly adhere to manuscripts more closely than previous editors (p. xiv: ‘as long as our manuscripts present an intelligible reading that is not obviously ungrammatical, we retain it’). As a consequence, the apparatus testifies to a balanced assessment of the manuscript tradition, which includes a careful review of the different levels of correction in MS A and does not disregard the readings, sometimes to be preferred, of the recentiores (see e.g. for B: Ant. 1.30, And. 1.111, 1.130; for L: Ant. 1.10, 5.42, 6.44, And. 1.7, 1.10, 1.19, 1.51, 1.84, 1.90, 1.146, 2.23, 2.25, 2.27, 3.4, 3.20; for M: Ant. 1.30, 2.α.3, 5.41, And. 1.18, 3.24, 3.26; for Z: Ant. 2.α.3). In addition, the apparatus accounts for a number of modern emendations and corrections (cf. pp. xii–xiii for the sources; however, in the apparatus on p. 156, as on p. xxii, ‘Cominis’ should be corrected to ‘Conomis’).

The work of Dilts and Murphy constitutes a reliable and accurate edition for reading the texts of two important representatives of Attic oratory and prose.