Skip to main content

Two Manuscripts of Statius' Thebaid

  • R. D. Williams (a1)

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.

Hide All

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)suggested 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. 356; Notice sur Us manuscrits disparus de Tours, pp. 124–6 and p. 200. See also Wilkins A. (C.R. xiii, 1889, p. 65).

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?).

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. 8890).

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. liii.

page 111 note 2 See also Klotz , Praefatio, p. liv.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The Classical Quarterly
  • ISSN: 0009-8388
  • EISSN: 1471-6844
  • URL: /core/journals/classical-quarterly
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 3 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 55 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 24th January 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.