Hesiodic and Milesian Cosmogonies- III

Abstract

'H -rot [Lsv 7rpW'statoc Xiocv yeve-r, ouTOap 7rvrot 116 Fat' eU'piCaTepVO, 7tv either (i) one accepts both lines, or (2) one rejects both lines, or (3) one rejects i18 alone, or (4.) one rejects 1i9 alone. The fourth and last named view is represented by only one possible ancient source, to wit Chalcidiusz, is adopted in no recent work, and will therefore be ignored here: the justification for this high-handedness is that the question of most importance for present purposes is whether Tartarus is or is not a separate entity in this cosmogonical passage, and it is obvious that if solution (4) be adopted then Tartarus is not even mentioned. If both lines are to be rejected (solution (2) above), then the same conclusion follows. If one adopts solution (3), then Tartarus is, ,tuX6 xOov6q, manifestly subordinate to Earth, and, whatever the force of the particle -' of I I9, should not be taken as a separate entity on a par with Earth and Eros. It is probable that the same conclusion should be drawn from solution (i), the acceptance of both the disputed lines; but not all critics would necessarily agree with this view, and it may therefore be useful to give the question another airing. The indirect tradition for the text is instructive, but not probative.3 Schwabl4 has recently pointed out that the older ancient authorities differ from the younger, except their followers, not certainly in text, but either in text or in interpretation. Acusilaus, Platos and Zeno of Citium6 may either have adopted the rendering of Schoe-

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 36 citations exist upstream.