HESIOD.—The classification and numerations of MSS. here followed is that of Rzach (1913). It is only necessary to add that on the whole the recovery of Hesiodic papyri goes to confirm the authority of the mediaeval MSS. At the same time these fragments have produced much that is interesting and valuable, such as the new lines, Works and Days 169 a-d, and the improved readings ib. 278, Theogony 91, 93. Our chief gains from papyri are the numerous and excellent fragments of the Catalogues which have been recovered.

Works and Days:—

SOxyrhynchus Papyri 1090.

AVienna, Rainer Papyri L.P. 21-9 (4th cent.).

BGeneva, Naville Papyri Pap. 94 (6th cent.).

CParis, Bibl. Nat. 2771 (11th cent.).

DFlorence, Laur. xxxi 39 (12th cent.).

EMessina, Univ. Lib. Preexistens 11 (12th-13th cent.).

FRome, Vatican 38 (14th cent.).

GVenice, Marc. ix 6 (14th cent.).

HFlorence, Laur. xxxi 37 (14th cent.).

IFlorence, Laur. xxxii 16 (13th cent.).

KFlorence, Laur. xxxii 2 (14th cent.).

LMilan, Ambros. G 32 sup. (14th cent.).

MFlorence, Bibl. Riccardiana 71 (15th cent.).

NMilan, Ambros. J 15 sup. (15th cent.).

OParis, Bibl. Nat. 2773 (14th cent.).

PCambridge, Trinity College (Gale MS.), O.9.27 (13th-14th cent.).

QRome, Vatican 1332 (14th cent.).

These MSS. are divided by Rzach into the following families, issuing from a common original:—

Ωa = C

Ωb = F, G, H

Ψa = D

Ψb = I ,K, L, M

Φa = E

Φb = N, O, P, Q

Theogony:—

NManchester, Rylands GK. Papyri No. 54 (1st cent. B.C.—1st cent. A.D.).

OOxyrhynchus Papyri 873 (3rd cent.).

AParis, Bibl. Nat. Suppl. Graec. (papyrus) 1099 (4th-5th cent.).

BLondon, British Museam clix (4th cent.).

RVienna, Rainer Papyri L.P. 21-9 (4th cent.).

CParis, Bibl. Nat. Suppl. Graec. 663 (12th cent.).

DFlorence, Laur. xxxii 16 (13th cent.).

EFlorence, Laur., Conv. suppr. 158 (14th cent.).

FParis, Bibl. Nat. 2833 (15th cent.).

GRome, Vatican 915 (14th cent.).

HParis, Bibl. Nat. 2772 (14th cent.).

IFlorence, Laur. xxxi 32 (15th cent.).

KVenice, Marc. ix 6 (15th cent.).

LParis, Bibl. Nat. 2708 (15th cent.).

These MSS. are divided into two families:

Ωa = C,D

Ωb = E, F

Ωc = G, H, I

Ψ = K, L

Shield of Heracles:—

POxyrhynchus Papyri 689 (2nd cent.).

AVienna, Rainer Papyri L.P. 21-29 (4th cent.).

QBerlin Papyri, 9774 (1st cent.).

BParis, Bibl. Nat., Suppl. Graec. 663 (12th cent.).

CParis, Bibl. Nat., Suppl. Graec. 663 (12th cent.).

DMilan, Ambros. C 222 (13th cent.).

EFlorence, Laur. xxxii 16 (13th cent.).

FParis, Bibl. Nat. 2773 (14th cent.).

GParis, Bibl. Nat. 2772 (14th cent.).

HFlorence, Laur. xxxi 32 (15th cent.).

ILondon, British Museam Harleianus (14th cent.).

KRome, Bibl. Casanat. 356 (14th cent.)

LFlorence, Laur. Conv. suppr. 158 (14th cent.).

MParis, Bibl. Nat. 2833 (15th cent.).

These MSS. belong to two families:

Ωa = B, C, D, F

Ωb = G, H, I

Ψa = E

Ψb = K, L, M

To these must be added two MSS. of mixed family:

NVenice, Marc. ix 6 (14th cent.).

OParis, Bibl. Nat. 2708 (15th cent.).

Editions of Hesiod:—

Demetrius Chalcondyles, Milan (?) 1493 (?) (editio princeps, containing, however, only the Works and Days).

Aldus Manutius (Aldine edition), Venice, 1495 (complete works).

Juntine Editions, 1515 and 1540.

Trincavelli, Venice, 1537 (with scholia).

Of modern editions, the following may be noticed:—

Gaisford, Oxford, 1814-1820; Leipzig, 1823 (with scholia: in Poett. Graec. Minn II).

Goettling, Gotha, 1831 (3rd edition. Leipzig, 1878).

Didot Edition, Paris, 1840.

SchÖmann, 1869.

Koechly and Kinkel, Leipzig, 1870.

Flach, Leipzig, 1874-8.

Rzach, Leipzig, 1902 (larger edition), 1913 (smaller edition).

On the Hesiodic poems generally the ordinary Histories of Greek Literature may be consulted, but especially the Hist. de la LittÉrature Grecque I pp. 459 ff. of MM. Croiset. The summary account in Prof. Murray’s Anc. Gk. Lit. is written with a strong sceptical bias. Very valuable is the appendix to Mair’s translation (Oxford, 1908) on The Farmer’s Year in Hesiod. Recent work on the Hesiodic poems is reviewed in full by Rzach in Bursian’s Jahresberichte vols. 100 (1899) and 152 (1911).

For the Fragments of Hesiodic poems the work of Markscheffel, Hesiodi Fragmenta (Leipzig, 1840), is most valuable: important also is Kinkel’s Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta I (Leipzig, 1877) and the editions of Rzach noticed above. For recently discovered papyrus fragments see Wilamowitz, Neue BruchstÜcke d. Hesiod Katalog (Sitzungsb. der k. preuss. Akad. fur Wissenschaft, 1900, pp. 839-851). A list of papyri belonging to lost Hesiodic works may here be added: all are the Catalogues.

1) Berlin Papyri 7497 1201 (2nd cent.).—Frag. 7.

2) Oxyrhynchus Papyri 421 (2nd cent.).—Frag. 7.

3) Petrie Papyri iii 3.—Frag. 14.

4) Papiri greci e latine, No. 130 (2nd-3rd cent.).—Frag. 14.

5) Strassburg Papyri, 55 (2nd cent.).—Frag. 58.

6) Berlin Papyri 9739 (2nd cent.).—Frag. 58.

7) Berlin Papyri 10560 (3rd cent.).—Frag. 58.

8) Berlin Papyri 9777 (4th cent.).—Frag. 98.

9) Papiri greci e latine, No. 131 (2nd-3rd cent.).—Frag. 99.

10) Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1358-9.

The Homeric Hymns:—The text of the Homeric hymns is distinctly bad in condition, a fact which may be attributed to the general neglect under which they seem to have laboured at all periods previously to the Revival of Learning. Very many defects have been corrected by the various editions of the Hymns, but a considerable number still defy all efforts; and especially an abnormal number of undoubted lacuna disfigure the text. Unfortunately no papyrus fragment of the Hymns has yet emerged, though one such fragment (Berl. Klassikertexte v.1. pp. 7 ff.) contains a paraphrase of a poem very closely parallel to the Hymn to Demeter.

The mediaeval MSS. 1202 are thus enumerated by Dr. T.W. Allen:—

AParis, Bibl. Nat. 2763.

AtAthos, Vatopedi 587.

BParis, Bibl. Nat. 2765.

CParis, Bibl. Nat. 2833.

ΓBrussels, Bibl. Royale 11377-11380 (16th cent.).

DMilan, Amrbos. B 98 sup.

EModena, Estense iii E 11.

GRome, Vatican, Regina 91 (16th cent.).

HLondon, British Mus. Harley 1752.

JModena, Estense, ii B 14.

KFlorence, Laur. 31, 32.

LFlorence, Laur. 32, 45.

L2Florence, Laur. 70, 35.

L3Florence, Laur. 32, 4.

MLeyden (the Moscow MS.) 33 H (14th cent.).

Mon. Munich, Royal Lib. 333 c.

NLeyden, 74 c.

OMilan, Ambros. C 10 inf.

PRome, Vatican Pal. graec. 179.

ΠParis, Bibl. Nat. Suppl. graec. 1095.

QMilan, Ambros. S 31 sup.

R1Florence, Bibl. Riccard. 53 K ii 13.

R2Florence, Bibl. Riccard. 52 K ii 14.

SRome, Vatican, Vaticani graec. 1880.

TMadrid, Public Library 24.

VVenice, Marc. 456.

The same scholar has traced all the MSS. back to a common parent from which three main families are derived (M had a separate descent and is not included in any family):—

x¹ = E, T

x² = L, Π,(and more remotely) At, D, S, H, J, K.

y = E, L, Π, T (marginal readings).

p = A, B, C, Γ, G, L², L³, N, O, P, Q, R₁, R₂, V, Mon.

Editions of the Homeric Hymns, &c.

Demetrius Chalcondyles, Florence, 1488 (with the Epigrams and the Battle of the Frogs and Mice in the ed. pr. of Homer).

Aldine Edition, Venice, 1504.

Juntine Edition, 1537.

Stephanus, Paris, 1566 and 1588.

More modern editions or critical works of value are:

Martin (Variarum Lectionum libb. iv), Paris, 1605.

Barnes, Cambridge, 1711.

Ruhnken, Leyden, 1782 (Epist. Crit. and Hymn to Demeter).

Ilgen, Halle, 1796 (with Epigrams and the Battle of the Frogs and Mice).

Matthiae, Leipzig, 1806 (with the Battle of the Frogs and Mice).

Hermann, Berling, 1806 (with Epigrams).

Franke, Leipzig, 1828 (with Epigrams and the Battle of the Frogs and Mice).

Dindorff (Didot edition), Paris, 1837.

Baumeister (Battle of the Frogs and Mice), GÖttingen, 1852.

Baumeister (Hymns), Leipzig, 1860.

Gemoll, Leipzig, 1886.

Goodwin, Oxford, 1893.

Ludwich (Battle of the Frogs and Mice), 1896.

Allen and Sikes, London, 1904.

Allen (Homeri Opera v), Oxford, 1912.

Of these editions that of Messrs Allen and Sikes is by far the best: not only is the text purged of the load of conjectures for which the frequent obscurities of the Hymns offer a special opening, but the Introduction and the Notes throughout are of the highest value. For a full discussion of the MSS. and textual problems, reference must be made to this edition, as also to Dr. T.W. Allen’s series of articles in the Journal of Hellenic Studies vols. xv ff. Among translations those of J. Edgar (Edinburgh), 1891) and of Andrew Lang (London, 1899) may be mentioned.

The Epic Cycle.

The fragments of the Epic Cycle, being drawn from a variety of authors, no list of MSS. can be given. The following collections and editions may be mentioned:—

Muller, Leipzig, 1829.

Dindorff (Didot edition of Homer), Paris, 1837-56.

Kinkel (Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta i), Leipzig, 1877.

Allen (Homeri Opera v), Oxford, 1912.

The fullest discussion of the problems and fragments of the epic cycle is F.G. Welcker’s der epische Cyclus (Bonn, vol. i, 1835: vol. ii, 1849: vol. i, 2nd edition, 1865). The Appendix to Monro’s Homer’s Odyssey xii-xxiv (pp. 340 ff.) deals with the Cyclic poets in relation to Homer, and a clear and reasonable discussion of the subject is to be found in Croiset’s Hist. de la LittÉrature Grecque, vol. i.

On Hesiod, the Hesiodic poems and the problems which these offer see Rzach’s most important article “Hesiodos” in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-EncyclopÄdie xv (1912).

A discussion of the evidence for the date of Hesiod is to be found in Journ. Hell. Stud. xxxv, 85 ff. (T.W. Allen).

Of translations of Hesiod the following may be noticed:—The Georgicks of Hesiod, by George Chapman, London, 1618; The Works of Hesiod translated from the Greek, by Thomas Coocke, London, 1728; The Remains of Hesiod translated from the Greek into English Verse, by Charles Abraham Elton; The Works of Hesiod, Callimachus, and Theognis, by the Rev. J. Banks, M.A.; “Hesiod”, by Prof. James Mair, Oxford, 19081203.