Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:30:38.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Manuscripts of Aristophanes Knights (II)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

D. Mervyn Jones
D. Mervyn Jones
Affiliation:
Exeter College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

IN the first part of this paper we discussed R and the y family, which divides into the two groups v (VE) and Φ (AT). Before leaving the y family, however, we may consider some of the recentiores, nearly all of which belong within it. They seem to contain no genuine tradition unknown to their elders and betters; so it is not proposed to inflict on the reader a detailed account of them all, but rather to study a representative selection.

These manuscripts consist of an uninterpolated and an interpolated group: the latter group includes also the Aldine edition.

Type
Articles
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 5 , Issue 1-2 , May 1955 , pp. 39 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1955

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 39 note 1 Jones, D. Mervyn, ‘The Manuscripts oi Aristophanes, Knights (I)’, C.Q. N.s. ii (1952), 168 ff., referred to hereafter as ‘codd. Eq. I.’ I should like to thank again Professor Robertson, Mr. Deas, and the librarians and photographers of the libraries containing Aristophanes manuscripts for their advice and help: and also to express my gratitude to Professor R. Pfeiffer for some most valuable discussions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 39 note 2 See Cary, E. in Harv. Stud, in Class. Phil. xviii (1907), 171 f.Google Scholar

page 39 note 3 See the collations of White, J. W. and Cary, E., Harv. Stud, in Class. Phil. xxx (1919), 1 ff.Google Scholar

page 39 note 4 The statement, found in Zacher's edition and in the Oxford text, that Vp3 reads 1273 and 1331 , is erroneous.

page 39 note 5 See Holzinger, C. R. von in Mélanges Chatelain (Paris, 1910), p. 15.Google Scholar

page 40 note 1 The text of Eq. in Vv5 contains the Triclinian sign for a scanned short , but not that for one scanned long , although the reading 162 seems to require it. (On the Triclinian for the see Triclinius' own prolegomena (No. XVII in Dübner, section ) and Fraenkel, Eduard, Aeschylus Agamemnon, i, pp. 18 f.) Vv5 also marks long a, ι, u and contains some elementary glosses on points of quantity.Google Scholar

page 41 note 1 The damage in Vesp. has been noted by Γ4, who has also filled up many smaller lacunae where the scribe of Γ could not read his original, Γ4 in Vesp. seems to have used B, and to be identical with the corrector in B, as is the case in Ach. (see Cary, E. in Harv. Stud. xviii. 187 ff.).Google Scholar

page 41 note 2 E in Ach. is a member of the Φ group (Cary, , loc. cit., pp. 168 ff.).Google Scholar

page 41 note 3 Two further illustrations of the alinement of  may be given, from the Arguments to Eq.: in Arg. I 1. 32–33 Coulon, the words are omitted by Φ (and not inserted by any of the correctors in Γ) but found in v Cf., on the other hand, the same Argument, line 27: , from

page 42 note 1 The statement (codd. Eq. I, pp. 178, 180) that Γ has the correct reading is erroneous: VEAΓ all read . av was added by Hermann.

page 43 note 1 On Triclinius's work on Aristophanes see Holzinger, Karl, Vorstudien zur Beurteilung der Erklärertätigkeit des Demetrios Triklinios zu dem Komödien des Aristophanes (Sitz. d. Ak. d. Wiss. in Wien, ccxvii. 4 (1939)).Google Scholar

page 45 note 1 This is the order given by Dübner: Γ ends at (p. 45, col. 2, 1. 12 Dübn.) Γ3 has put in from to the end. VE have these two sections in reverse order (The sentence (11. 9–10 Dübn.) makes nonsense here and may be an attempt to explain 771–2: the following sentence is a scholion on 358.)

page 45 note 3 Ald., by a misprint: corr. Gelenius.

page 45 note 3 Codd. Eq. I, pp. 170 f., 183.

page 46 note 1 Apparently a gloss on

page 46 note 2 M omits

page 48 note 1 Cf., besides the examples just quoted, readings at 517, 535, 542 quoted on p. 42 above. Very occasionally, on the other hand, S sides with R against Y M, cf. 357, 680, 761 quoted above, p. 47.

page 48 note 2 Cf. S s.v. ad fin. (= σM): S, M (fallitur Adler): Schnee.

page 48 note 3 This conclusion was reached by Bünger, G. (de Ar. Eq. Lys. Thesm. apud Suid. reliquiis, Diss. Argent. 1878, pp. 20Google Scholar fF.) and supported by Zacher, K. in his review of Bünger, Bursian, 1892, p. 34. The independent value of M had also been maintained by A. von Velsen, ed. Eq. (1869), praef. p. 8.Google Scholar