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: 23 December 2013
This article is a sequel to the text of the Homeric Hymns published by the Clarendon Press in the year 1893. For that edition it was my duty to write a preface, which under the circumstances did no more than enumerate the manuscripts and summarize the views as to their relations held by the principal writers. Since that time I have studied the subject of the tradition of these Hymns at greater leisure, and I now present such conclusions as I have been able to attain.
The reviewers of Mr. Goodwin's edition, while indulgent to the book as a whole, took exception to our neglect of modern criticism, the few conjectures that had been inserted in the text, and the scanty record of others, usually accepted, in the notes. As this circumstance, so far as it depended on myself, was the fruit of conviction, and since I have followed out the principle upon which I then acted more at length in this article, I may be allowed to spend a few words in explanation of the position which in these matters I take.
1 Which will be found in Matthaei, 's words in Geel's Catalogue of the Leiden Library, p. 9Google Scholar.
2 The former of these two signs is planted exactly in the centre of the lower margin of f. 40r, so that the number ιϵ which was written afterwards had to be put somewhat to the right. The sign ς is an equivalent of the somewhat more frequent 5, and ivhen applied to a quire denotes 6. There can be no doubt that it was marked on f. 40r with the purpose of signing the gather before it was filled. It might therefore be supposed that it was part of another system of signatures, and this of course would be of great importance in determining the original state of the MS. As however there is no trace of any other such figure, before or after, and the figures ια, ιβ, etc., in the gathers that precede occupy exactly the middle of the margin, I cannot think that ·ς· has anything to do with the composition of our MS. Possibly the gather had been numbered to form part of some other book, but from some accident was left over, and used up for the MS. of Homer. Such an explanation at least is suggested to me by the juxtaposition of the two numerals.
3 Thiele by some error makes the number 2080. I am glad to find that my view agrees more nearly with that of Professor Bücheler (ed. 1869, praef. p. 2).
4 Journal of Philology xxii. p. 157 sq.
5 This is made comparatively certain by the metre and the context.
6 Cf. Apoll. Rhod. iii. 651 τήσιοι ‘L’ for τηύσιοτ.
7 
arrives apparently through 
8 Similarly 
seems a correction of 
9 Intended for 
10 These three examples seem uncial: 
it has been suggested to me = 
i.e. 
Hollander plausibly explains 
as = 
Matthiae's conjecture, and 
as = 
11 I.e. out of Κϵῖνș, the accent being mistaken for the abbreviation of ον.
12 The minuscule ligature ην resembles the minuscule letters ηυ.
13 Possibly from the omission of the insignificant symbol for 
14 The ligature ϵν mistaken for the minus cule η.
15 Cf. χ 411, 481 γρῆν ‘P’ for γρηῦ. The ligature for ηυ was copied as ην, then itacistically πρην became πρην.
16 Cf. 
445 
where ‘W’ has 
It is probably a semi-conscious correction to make metre after one λ had fallen out.
16a I use ρ to denote the Paris family and its archetype (Hollander's π).
17 The same correction seems to be found in T. Bethe l.c. p. 524 says 
verbessert zu 
17a By y I designate the marginalia of x.
18 The unfortunate son of Lorenzo, killed in 1503 near the mouth of theGarigliano, and whose tomb is at Monte Cassino. The Anthology also was dedicated to him (1494).
19 Errata in the readings of E and J given in Mr. Goodwin's edition.
20 Accidentally, owing to 
260 and 289; cf. 506, 7; 8 where 
in 505 and 508 has caused the omission.
21 See however Tiraboschi, , Storia della Letteratura Italiana, 1823, p. 1564Google Scholarsq., and Gabotto, , ‘Giorgio Valla e il suo processo in Venezia nel 1496,’ Nuovo Archivio Veneto 1891, p. 201Google Scholarsq. Valla unfortunately rarely dated his MSS., and therefore we do not know to what period of his life they are to be assigned. The only exception appears to be Estense ii. F 9, written in Venice in 1488.
22 For the authorities see Notes on Greek MSS. in Italian Libraries, 1890, p. 3.
23 The ‘hooks’ which are written before these lines in II are not necessarily signs of omission, since E and T exhibit them in their margins, but imply that the vv. to which they are prefixed are to change their place from text to margin or vice versa, e.g. in the Iliad Ven. 454, ff. 106v. and 108v., omitted lines are added in the margin with, prefixed.
24 The superiority of E over L was maintained by Gemoll in his Hom, Blätter, and reasserted in his edition (1886).
25 Cf. the readings of D 
and of EK 
In all the cause is the same; the first letter of the Hymn was left by the scribe to be added in colour. DV have reproduced their archetype. B and EK have given the headless word the first beginning that occurred to them.