The rich apparatus of scholia and marginalia transmitted in Lucian’s manuscripts can prove of vital help for the constitutio textus of his writings. On the one hand, their ancient and stratified origin makes it possible that they preserve traces of an earlier stage of Lucian’s text, both directly, through explicit quotations of lost variants, and indirectly, through hints given in the explanations of lemmas. On the other hand, they may allow us to recognise as problematic passages that otherwise would (...) go unnoticed, especially in the case of intruded glosses which convey a coherent and not suspect text. The Lexiphanes, with its deliberately absurd and confused vocabulary, represents a perfect case study for the peculiar situation where it is hard to state whether a text is corrupt or not. In the present article, three textual passages from this Lucianic dialogue (Lex. 1; 3; 6) will be analysed. In all three cases, hitherto unnoticed errors will be detected and new corrections will be proposed thanks to the direct or indirect help given by the scholia and marginalia found in manuscripts. (shrink)

Da tempo era vivamente sentita l’esigenza di una nuova edizione degli scoli a Platone, che sostituisse quella di Greene del 1938. Questo volume contiene una nuova edizione degli scoli relativi ai dialoghi delle prime sette tetralogie, fondata su una completa collazione dei testimoni principali, aumentati di due unità rispetto all’edizione precedente, e corredata da un apparato di fonti e paralleli, il cui rapporto con gli scoli è stato del tutto rimeditato alla luce delle recenti acquisizioni della critica.

Review of Carlo M. Lucarini et Claudio Moreschini, Hermias Alexandrinus, In Platonis Phaedrum scholia, Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter, 2012, lxiv+293 pp., ISBN 978-3-11-020115-4.

These two volumes consist of a critical edition and English translation of the two earliest known Armenian sets of scholia on the Heavenly Hierarchy of Dionysius the Areopagite. Composed in the monastic schools of Erznka in the late thirteenth century, these scholia provide significant insight into how the Heavenly Hierarchy in particular, and Armenian translations of Greek texts in general, were understood by Armenian scholars in the Middle Ages. This editio princeps of the scholia represents a rare (...) critical edition of a native Armenian composition from the medieval period. In addition to the text and translation, these volumes include a textual commentary as well as a critical collation and English translation of a number of scholia from the Armenian version of the Greek scholia on the Heavenly Hierarchy. (shrink)

These two volumes consist of a critical edition and English translation of the two earliest known Armenian sets of scholia on the Heavenly Hierarchy of Dionysius the Areopagite. Composed in the monastic schools of Erznka in the late thirteenth century, these scholia provide significant insight into how the Heavenly Hierarchy in particular, and Armenian translations of Greek texts in general, were understood by Armenian scholars in the Middle Ages. This editio princeps of the scholia represents a rare (...) critical edition of a native Armenian composition from the medieval period. In addition to the text and translation, these volumes include a textual commentary as well as a critical collation and English translation of a number of scholia from the Armenian version of the Greek scholia on the Heavenly Hierarchy. (shrink)

P. Papageorgiou was the last to edit the complete set of the scholia vetera to Sophocles in 1888. The narrow manuscript basis of the edition, the reluctance of the editor to use a sufficient amount of conjectural emendation and the lack of a methodology specific to editing scholia are responsible for a great number of corrupt passages in his text. This article is concerned with the critical restoration of eight such passages from the scholia to the Trachiniae: (...) schol. Trach. 7, 48, 56, 104b, 105b, 379, 434b and 556. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 63, Issue 4, pp 449 - 476 While we know that the interpretation of the ‘soul’s pilot’ found in Hermias’ _Scholia on Plato’s Phaedrus_ differs considerably from that of Syrianus and Proclus, this difference has not shifted the prevailing opinion that the _Scholia_ are a faithful transcript of Syrianus’ lectures on the _Phaedrus_. I argue, however, that the difference over the soul’s pilot is only the first in a series of elements which are difficult, if not impossible, (...) to ascribe to Syrianus. This, I believe, is compelling evidence that the _Scholia_ contain the ideas of both Syrianus and Hermias. (shrink)

The notice in the Scholia Bernensia about Vergil, Georgics 4.468 that links the name of Gallus to the katabasis of Orpheus can be read as a confirmation of the relation between Vergil’s short poem and the elegiac poet’s work. Significant in this sense is the term formido, very elegant as used by Vergil and maybe part of the poetic lexicon of Gallus, as is perhaps suggested by a passage of the Philae stele.

Parisinus suppl. gr. 256 was written, to judge from the hand, not long after 1300. As far as the end of book VI the writer copied both text and scholia from a descendant of M. At that point another MS. came into his hands. This was no other than that ancestor of J which, as we saw on p. 87, had received valuable readings from the source ω. From this MS. the scribe now corrected what he had already written, (...) copied the two remaining books, and added the two Lives before the text and the Epistula Dionysii ad Ammaeum after it. From 1—for so, after Dain , I shall style our MS.—was copied the MS. from which, after it had been perfunctorily corrected from another source, was copied X. (shrink)

John of Scythopolis, the first scholiast of the Corpus Dionysiacum, played a role in the debates that took place after the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and contributed in an original way to the development of Christological dogma in preparation for the Council of Constantinople II in 553. In particular, he uses the theopaschite formula both in its so-called “Alexandrian” version as well as in that attributed to the Scythian monks. Several instances of the formula occur in three of his (...) Scholia on Dionysius’s De divinis nominibus and show both his concentration upon the hypostasis of the Word as well as his identification of Christ with the Lovgoç. In this way, he looks for a new via media within Christological doctrine that truly can be called “Neo-chalcedonian.”. (shrink)

In the preface to their edition of the Imagines of Philostratus Minor Schenkl and Reisch mention scholia of Tzetzes on the Imagines of the elder Philostratus in Royal MS. 16 D XII of the British Museum. Their statement is repeated without comment in the histories of Greek literature of Schmid-Stählin and Sinko, as well as by Solmsen in his article on the Philostrati in Pauly-Wissowa, R.E. 20. 174. 59 ff. Wendel, on the other hand, in his recent exhaustive treatment (...) of Tzetzes in R.E. 2te Reihe 7. 1959–2012, knows nothing of the London manuscript, but says : ‘Nur in den jungen Hs. Ambr. D 213 inf. werden die Philostratos-Scholien T. zugeschrieben, die sonst anonym oder als Eigentum des Moschopulos und Planudes überliefert sind.’ It is perhaps worth looking into the matter a little more closely. (shrink)

The Homeric Scholia are not the most obvious source for literary criticism in the modern sense. And yet if one takes the trouble to read through them one will find many valuable observations about poetic technique and poetic qualities. Nowadays we tend to emphasize different aspects from those which preoccupied ancient critics, but that may be a good reason for looking again at what they have to say.

The question to be discussed in this paper can be put in simple terms: at what date were the collections of scholia on classical Greek authors compiled? Scholars have given two conflicting answers. The first was put forward by J. W. White in his edition of the scholia to Aristophanes' Birds. Developing an opinion of Dindorf, he suggested that the archetype of the scholia was a large parchment codex of the fourth or fifth century, which contained in (...) the margins a commentary drawn from several sources. A very similar view has been expressed about the scholia to Apollonius Rhodius and Pindar. (shrink)

Metrical scholia to the Agamemnon appear in the manuscripts commonly called F and Tr — also in G , but these are the same as some of those in F and are of interest only at one point . In the lyrical passages these scholia are of two types, which I shall call ‘long’ and ‘short’; Professor Eduard Fraenkel, who prints illustrative examples, has pointed out the distinction . ‘Long’ scholia give a comparatively full description of the (...) metre of the passage to which they refer: they state adequately the number and order of the cola, classified according to the metrical system which Demetrius Triclinius learnt from Hephaestion's work. (shrink)

The aim of the present study is to focus exclusively on the Basilica scholia of John Xiphilinos: to collect and record a list of his scholia and to analyse and evaluate specific lengthy scholia of his in detail. Scholia attributed to Xiphilinos have the heading “of the nomophylax”. We also encounter scholia under the heading “of Ioannes”, and it remains doubtful whether they can also be attributed to Xiphilinos. Based on the evidence some of the (...) scholia with the heading “of Ioannes” are certainly attributed to the antecessor Ioannes Kobidas. Xiphilinos takes into account older legal material including antecessorian writings, as well as works of Athanasius of Emesa and Theodorus of Hermoupolis. Xiphilinos’ references to the rheton raise the question whether he had actually consulted manuscripts of the Digest. Arguments are brought in favour of this hypothesis. (shrink)