Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:17:51.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts of Hesiod's Theogony

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

M. L. West
M. L. West
Affiliation:
University College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The manuscript tradition of the Theogony is not as good as that of the Erga, a poem which has always been more popular. The earliest complete manuscripts of the Theogony date only from the end of the thirteenth century, while those upon which the recensio must chiefly be based are of the fourteenth and fifteenth. The number of extant manuscripts, however, especially of the fifteenth century, is not inconsiderable, and knowledge of them has hitherto been far from complete. What is known is known largely in consequence of the labours of Alois Rzach. Rzach collated many of the manuscripts, and tried, with some success, to establish the relationships between them. He published his conclusions in Wiener Studien xix (1897), 15–70, and used them as the basis for his great edition of 1902.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , December 1964 , pp. 165 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 165 note 1 See in particular Aly, W., Hesiods Theo-gonie (Heidelberg 1913),Google Scholar pp. xi-xiii, and Jacoby, F., Hesiodi Carmina, pars prior (Berlin, 1930), PP. 50–79.Google Scholar

page 165 note 2 Based on the system proposed in C.Q. N.s. xii (1962), 177,Google Scholar though I have added some and suppressed others.

page 166 note 1 This is one of the circumstances that makes K one of the most important of all Theogony manuscripts. It is amusing to find a note at the end of it: ‘II Dr. Hermann Schultz, privato docente <per> la Filosofia Classica [sic] all'Universita di Göttingen, venuto a Ravenna 1'8 Mag. a studiare i due codici di Esiodo N. 120 e 183, li giudicò di nessun pregio.’ It is fair to point out that Schultz was more interested in the scholia than in the text. His visit took place after 1910; cf. Abh. Gött. Ak. 1912 (4), 23.Google Scholar

page 166 note 2 Rzach records only as Hermann's conjecture, though in his early edition of 1884 he had rightly reported it (after Robinson) as the reading of a Bodleian manuscript (an apograph of U).

page 170 note 1 Cf. Krumbacher, , Gesch. d. Byz. Literatur, 557f. He is perhaps referred to by Eust. In Il. p. 989. 38, , , (leg. ) , . Cf. Diac. p. 359. 8 , . But the reference may be to some earlier work that Diaconus here followed.Google Scholar

page 170 note 2 The editions (Gaisford and Flach) print , but I find in the Con-stantinopolitanus 31 (below, no. 16), which is the only manuscript of Diaconus that I am at present able to check, and it fits his interpretation much better.

page 173 note 1 Not 1481 (Fränkel, H., N.G.G. 1929, 173).Google Scholar

page 177 note 1 So perhaps in 480, and for in 491; the same manuscript has for at [Opp.] Cyn. 3. 518, and . for . ibid. 2. 437.