Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T21:25:37.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nochmals the Authenticity of Odyssey 10.475–9

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

M. J. Apthorp
M. J. Apthorp
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is gratifying to see the authenticity of Od. 10.475–9 defended anew by the late, Professor Alfred Heubeck; in 1974 I put forward a rather similar defence of the lines myself. However, Heubeck's correct conclusion – that the passage is genuine – stands in startling contrast to some gross exaggerations, in both the Italian and the English versions of his work, about the extent of the manuscript evidence against the passage.

Information

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , May 1992, pp. 270 - 271
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1992

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Omero, Odissea iii (Milan, 1983), p. 251Google Scholar (commentary), cf. p. 86 (text and app. crit.); Heubeck, A. and Hoekstra, A., A Commentary on Homer's Odyssey ii (Oxford, 1989), p. 68.Google Scholar

2 Pp. 23–34 of ‘Some Textual Problems in Odyssey 10’, Acta Classica 17 (1974), 11–34Google Scholar; see also my Manuscript Evidence for Interpolation in Homer (Heidelberg, 1980), p. 30 n. 4.Google Scholar

3 For the use of ‘mehrere’ in this context cf. Beck, G., Philologus 109 (1965), 17 n. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ‘Diese Verse fehlen…in mehreren Hss.’: Heubeck's own note on 475–9 directs the reader to Beck, pp. 17–18. Moreover, the same mistake has evidently occurred in the translation of Heubeck's comment on Od. 10.482: ‘mancante in molti Mss.’ (1983 edn.), ‘missing from most MSS’ (1989 edn.): in fact omitted by only a few.

4 ‘Nee est vestigium horum versuum apud Eustathium’: Clarke, S. and Ernesti, J. A. (edd.), Homeri opera omnia, iii (Leipzig, 1760)Google Scholar, ad loc

5 In 1974 (‘Textual Problems’ [above, n. 2], 26 n. 56) I listed six places where this error is to be found. I can now add that it is also to be found in the editions of Hayman, H. (ii, London, 1873)Google Scholar, Hinrichs, J. U. Faesi–G. (ii8, Berlin, 1884)Google Scholar and van, J.Mendes da Costa, Leeuwen–M. B. (3, Leiden, 1908)Google Scholar, and also in Beck (above, n. 3) and van Thiel, H., Odysseen (Basle, 1988), p. 142.Google Scholar

6 ‘Textual Problems’ (above, n. 2), 26–7.

7 Allen, T. W. (ed.), O.C.T. Od.2 (1917–1919), ad loc.Google Scholar; but the lines have been added in the margin – see e.g. Ludwich's, A. edition (Leipzig, 1889–1891)Google Scholar, ad loc.

8 Not stated explicitly by Allen but reported by Ludwich (above, n. 7).

9 Given Allen's procedure in citing his families we are still unable to be more precise than this: see e.g. MS. Evidence (above, n. 2), p. xxiv.

10 This fact is not stated by Allen, although he implies that he has collated the MS. (PBSR 5 [1910], 16; Od.2 [above, n. 7], i. iii, xii); but Professor Otto Mazal of the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, who has kindly inspected the MS. for me, confirms the statement of some earlier editors that it omits the lines.

11 For parallels see ‘Textual Problems’ (above, n. 2), 30–1; also my discussions of Il. 3.235, Od. 17.432 and Od. 16.50 at ZPE 82 (1990), 18–24.Google Scholar

12 See ‘Textual Problems’ (above, n. 2), 28–30.