Page:Statius (Mozley 1928) v1.djvu/35

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

INTRODUCTION

suggests that the double tradition may be due to a revised edition made by the poet himself.[1]

On the whole the readings of P are to be preferred, and they deserve careful consideration even when they seem most difficult; but in many cases it is only judgement that can decide what Statius could or could not have written. Though the MSS. that form the ω-group hang very much together, D and N have perhaps more individuality than the others, see Garrod, Introd. pp. ix, x.

The Achilleid is found in P and in a number of the ω-group; also in a MS. denoted E, in the College Library at Eton.

  • P : codex Puteanus (Parisinus 8051), end of ninth century.
  • Q : codex Parisinus 10317, tenth century.
  • K : codex Gudianus 54, tenth to eleventh century.
    (These contain both Thebaid and Achilleid).
  • S : codex Parisinus 13046, tenth century.
  • D : MS. at St. John’s Coll. Camb., tenth century.
  • N : MS. at Cheltenham, tenth to eleventh century.
  • B : codex Bambergensis, eleventh century.
  • C : codex Cassellanus, 164, eleventh century.
  • L : codex Lipsiensis, i. 12, eleventh century.
    (These contain only the Thebaid).
  • E : codex Etonensis, tenth or eleventh century. (Achilleid only).
  • ω : consensus of MSS. other than P.
  1. ↑ P. viii: he quotes references in the letters to Stella and Marcellus (Silv. i. and iv.), where two editions seem to be implied; also Theb. xii. 812–13 (novam). Klotz dissents, but without giving any satisfactory reason (p. xx).

xxxi

This article is issued from Wikisource. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.