No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
These notes are a supplement to those which formed the second part of my ‘Hesiodea’. In part they result from re-examination of manuscripts and papyri undertaken for a projected commentary on the Theogony.
In discussing the text of Hesiod a prime necessity is a new system of sigla. Rzach's system has the grave disadvantage that in the three extant poems the same manuscript is denoted by different letters, and conversely the same letter denotes different manuscripts.
page 177 note 1 C.Q. N.S. xi (1961), 130 ff.Google Scholar
page 178 note 1 In this case the first ϊ must either be changed to δ with Rzach (following Pepp-müller, , Philologus xxxix [1880], 388)Google Scholar or deleted (Bergk). Lennep's information that it is absent in cod. Par. 2678 is false.
page 178 note 2 is in fact a marginal variant in L; L and Q, have [sic] in the text.
page 180 note 1 See now Arrighetti, G., Athenaeum N.s. xxxix (1961), 246.Google Scholar