No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Two Manuscripts of Statius' Thebaid
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
Professor R. J. Getty has drawn attention (C.Q. xxvii, 1933, p. 139) to a tenth- or early eleventh-century manuscript of Statius’ Thebaid, hitherto examined only in Book I, namely Turonensis (T: codex Parisinus nouv. acqu. lat. 1627). Dr. Klotz, in his Teubner edition of 1908, gave citations from Book I, and wrote (Praefatio, p. xiv), ‘dolendum est sane de hoc codice primum tantum librum innotuisse, sed cum Roffensis libri maxime affinis accuratiorem notitiam haberemus, collatione quamvis -aegre careri posse nobis visum est.’ I have collated both T and Roffensis (r: codex Regius Mus. Brit. 15.C.X) in full, and find firstly that the citations of r by Klotz are far from accurate, especially in the last six books, and secondly that while it is indeed true thatT and r are very closely related, T is a much better representative than r of their common source.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1948
References
page 105 note 1 I base my lists and citations throughout on the edition of Klotz.
page 105 note 2 Wotke, C. (Eranos Vindobonensis, 1893, pp. 211–17)Google Scholarsuggested this from his knowledge of Book I only.
page 105 note 3 Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, 31, i (1884), PP. 280–2 and p. 356Google Scholar; Notice sur Us manuscrits disparus de Tours, pp. 124–6 and p. 200. See also Wilkins, A. (C.R. xiii, 1889, p. 65)Google Scholar.
page 105 note 4 T is No. 24 in A Catalogue of the MSS. at Ashburnham Place. Part I, comprising a collection formed by Professor Libri (London, 1845?)Google Scholar.
page 105 note 5 I am indebted to M. Porcher of the Bibliothèque Nationale and to M. Collon of the library at Tours for the resolution of queries in this connexion.
page 105 note 6 Papiers de Bréquigny, xxxv, fol. 100, preserved in the Bibliotheque Nationale.
page 105 note 7 Williams, R. D. (C.R. 1ri, 1947, pp. 88–90)Google Scholar.
page 107 note 1 The readings of the original hand of T in this. list go back to the common ancestor of T and r, for they are also the readings of the original hand of r (except only these minor differences:
page 108 note 1 Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King's Collections in the British Museum, vol. ii.
page 108 note 2 I have attempted to discover the source of these remarkable errors, and I find that many of them have arisen from a misunderstanding or misreading of Bentley's collation. Bentley himself is rarely in error, and Kinkel's collation of Books I–VI is very accurate.
page 108 note 3 See Getty, op. cit., pp. 131–3, for corrections to Klotz's citations of S.
page 109 note 1 In the list which follows, the readings which I indicate as r 1 are also those of T 1, with the two very minor exceptions of iv. 732
and vi. 674
page 110 note 1 The arguments of Klotz about the correcting hand of r (Rhein. Mtts. lix, 1904, p. 383 f.) are not valid, as he confuses variants written by the scribe with later corrections or variants. In fact only r T has that affinity with the later manuscripts which he attributes to the corrector of r: r 2 is related to the ω group (especially to D), and r1 of course also to the ω group.
page 110 note 2 See also the list of readings of T above.
page 111 note 1 See also Klotz, , Praefatio, p. liiiGoogle Scholar.
page 111 note 2 See also Klotz, , Praefatio, p. livGoogle Scholar.
- 1
- Cited by