No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Ever since the work of Otto Miiller it has been generally agreed that the most important manuscript of the Thebaid is Puteaneus (P), a ninth-century manuscript in the Bibliothèque Nationale (Parisinus 8051). It is not only the earliest extant manuscript but it has a large number of readings not found elsewhere, many of which are obviously preferable to what is offered by the other tradition, normally referred to as ω. Both traditions are early, however, since Lactantius depends on inferior ω material while Priscian seems to have followed the P tradition.
page 333 note 1 P. Papini Stati Thebais et Achilleis I, ed. Miiller, O., Leipzig, 1870. Unfortunately this edition was never completed; it contains only the first six books of the Thebaid.Google Scholar
page 333 note 2 Dierschke, P., De Fide Prisciani in uersibus Statii, Diss. Griefswald, 1913, pp. 78–85.Google Scholar
page 333 note 3 Boussard, J., ‘Un manuscrit inédit de la Thebaide de Stace’, R.E.L. xiv (1936), 95–101Google Scholar and ‘Le classement des manuscrits de la Thébaide de Stace’, R.E.L. xxx (1952), 220–51. The latter article has a long, useful list of Statian manuscripts as well as detailed descriptions of 8054, t (p. 334, below), and 
.Google Scholar
page 333 note 4 The manuscript was thus mutilated at least as early as 1581, when it was examined by Andre Schott.
page 334 note 1 t also contains a copy of the Achilleid, and is discussed at some length by Mr. Dilke in the introduction to his edition of the Achilleid (Cambridge, 1954)Google Scholar and in ‘The Value of the Puteaneus of Statius’, Acta Classica v (1962), p-63.Google Scholar
page 334 note 2 In this, as in the other collations in this article, I have relied on the apparatus in the edition of Klotz (Leipzig, 1908), as corrected and expanded by various scholars, notably, Getty, R.J. (CQ, xxvii [1933], 129–39)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Williams, R. D. (CR lxi [1947], 88–90Google Scholar and CQ xlii [1948], 105–12).Google Scholar
page 335 note 1 
reads Cernitur haec autem species.
page 336 note 1 There is a much fuller list in the preface to Klotz's edition, pp. lxi-lxv.
page 337 note 1 In the introduction to his edition, pp. be and lxxii.
page 337 note 2 Garrod, H. W. (CR xviii [1904], 40). He believes that there developed a conscious effort to suppress π readings.Google Scholar
page 337 note 3 Williams, R. D., ‘Two Manuscripts of Statius' Thebaid’, CQ xlii (1948), 105–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 337 note 4 Cf. 2. 155, where PW offer domus, and 2. 156, where they read plebisque.
page 338 note 1 Legras, Léon, Étude sur la Thébaide de Stace, Paris, 1905, p. 319 [sic].Google Scholar
page 338 note 2 Cf. 2. 196 and Mulder's note. (Thebaidos Liber Secundus, Mulder, H. M., De Waal, 1954.)Google Scholar
page 338 note 3 In the preface to his edition, p. lxvii.
page 338 note 4 This is only an extension of what Klotz has already demonstrated, ibid., p. Ixvi.
page 338 note 5 Cf. 3. 508, 5. 308, 7. 298, 581, 8. 381, 9. 501, 552, 10. 370, 470, 788, 11. 505, 661, 12. 752.
page 339 note * Weber, C. F., De Codice Statii Cassellano, Progr. Marburg, 1853, p. 23.Google Scholar
page 346 note * In this passage and at 10. 112–17 I have noted only where the three manuscripts differ from P.