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 Works and Days is contained in far more manuscripts than the other Hesiodic poems. Altogether there are something over 260, as against seventyodd for the Theogony and sixty-odd for the Shield. Over a hundred of them are later than 1480, the approximate date of the earliest printed edition of the poem; but even when these are subtracted, a formidable number remains, many of which have never been investigated. The present century has seen more done in the way of cataloguing them than the nineteenth, but less in the way of collating them. Since N. A. Livadaras published his list of Hesiod manuscripts in 1963, the disparity between what has been done and what might be done has become more apparent than ever before.
page 161 note 1 In his 
page 161 note 2 Symbolae Pragenses (Vienna, 1893), 165–94; Serta Hasteliana (Vienna, 1896), 209–23; Wien. St. xx (1898), 91–118.Google Scholar
page 161 note 3 Op. cit.
page 161 note 4 Cf. Gnomon xxxvii (1965), 650–5.Google Scholar
page 162 note 1 Add: Lond. Harl. 6323 (WD); Harvard Coll. Ms. Gr. 20 (WD, Sc., Th., all with scholia, S. xv/xvi); Marc. App. gr. IX 23 (numero di collocazione: 1041) (WD, Th., Sc., s. xv); Bonon. Univ. cod. 4238 (WD, Th., s. xv ex.).
page 162 note 2 I have photocopies of Gen. A at my disposal, but otherwise I am dependent on published sources, which are far from giving complete coverage.
page 162 note 3 See Reitzenstein, Geschichte der griechischen Etymologika, p. 50 n. 1, who gives examples that make the procedure clear.
page 163 note 1 See Alpers, K., R.E. xa 749f.Google Scholar
page 163 note 2 Alpers, Gnomon xlii (1970), 122, Contends that some of the excerpts in the Et Sym. are also independent of the Et. Gen But there is no case, as far as I know, when the Et. Sym. has an excerpt and the Et Gen. has not; and where Et. Sym. give more, it is almost always the case that the relevant part of Gen. A is lost. Alpers's claim that the agreement of B with Et. Magn. establishes the text of Gen. is certainly not valid in respect of the extent of the quotation. His claim that the author (expander) of the Et. Gen. could not have been so geistlos as to interpolate Hes. sch. before the words 
, (Et. Sym. s.v. 
) is weakened by Gen. s.v. 
where much the same thing happens, only with Orion's etymology after the scholia instead of before.Google Scholar
page 164 note 1 Bollettino del Comitato per la preparazione dell'Edizione Nazionale dei Classici Greci e Latini (hereafter abbreviated as Boll. Com.) vi (1958), 19ff.
page 164 note 2 Pertusi, A., Aevum xxiv (1950), 531–3. A photograph in Livadaras, plate 2. Collat ed by me.Google Scholar
page 164 note 3 Aevum XXV (1951), 147–59, 267–78.Google Scholar
page 165 note 1 On this subject see Allen, T. W., Homeri llias (1931), i. 216 ff.Google Scholar
page 165 note 2 They are listed by Pertusi, Aevum xxiv (1950), 543. The commonest is O marking a memorable passage. I presume that N at vv. 50, 101, 203 and 253 has stichometric significance (‘fifty’).
page 165 note 3 Cf. A. Turyn, Studies in the Manuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Sophocles, p. 159; Pertusi, , Aevum XXV (1951), 20–8. Collated by me from microfilm.Google Scholar
page 166 note 1 Mixed in with them are other scholia of Pertusi's class c. Possibly these came from the Ψ source. Scholia of this class appear in Athous Iviron 209, one of the more noteworthy Ψ manuscripts; though mostly the Ψ manuscripts contain Tzetzes without Proclus/sch. vet.
page 166 note 2 Pertusi, Scholia Vetera in Hesiodi Opera et Dies, p. xvi. But the scribe of 
seems to have made some of these additions in C himself.
page 167 note 1 Often the same reading is found in both Ψ and Φ manuscripts. But I believe that Φ is the common factor in the non-Ω readings of (
), as ψ is in those of cost.
page 167 note 2 Its relationship to C is repeated in the relationship of the fifteenth-century manuscript Paris. gr. 2708 to it. This copy has its scholia from 
but its text from Triclinius.
page 168 note 1 Colonna, Boll. Corn. ii (1953), 28, dates it to the early thirteenth century; Turyn, De codicibu.s Pirzdaricis, p. 39, to the early fourteenth, but on stemmatic rather than palaeographical grounds.
page 168 note 2 So C. Gallavotti, Theocritus quique feruntur Bucolici Graeci, p. 245.
page 173 note 1 It does not contain, and seems to antedate, Planudes' scholia, on which see Pertusi, Aevum xxv (1951), 342–52, and Atti del VIII. Congresso Internazionale di Studi Bizantini i (1951), 177–82. In WD 22 Planudes conjectures
but this does not appear in ψ4, which has
Google Scholar
page 173 note 2 p. 532 Gaisford (Oxford, 1820) 
Cf. 
in his prolegomena, line 60 Colonna (Boll. Corn. ii [1953] 35).
page 173 note 3 Rzach misreports ψ5 = his L. It has 
I disregard here ψ17, which follows Triclinius in both verses.
page 177 note 1 Colonna affirms this for E, φ2 φ8 φ10 I do not know if it is true of the rest, except that if it is true of φ8 it will be true of φ4.
page 182 note 1 We cannot tell whether the conjunction of the Scholia Vetera with Proclus in Ω, or the array of critical symbols in C, goes back to X or represents further enterprise in the same philological spirit.
page 183 note 1 Pertusi, , Aevum xxiv (1950), 13–17.Google Scholar On the dating cf. Gregorio, L. di, Aevum xlv (1971), 393 f.Google Scholar
page 183 note 2 This manuscript does not omit 358–82, as H. Hunger states in his catalogue: he has turned over two pages together.
