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
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.
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.
