Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:16:13.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Chapter In The History of Scholia1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

N. G. Wilson
N. G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Lincoln College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , December 1967 , pp. 244 - 256
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 244 note 2 London-Boston, 1914, pp. Ixiiff.

page 244 note 3 In Dübner's Didot edition (Paris, 1855), p. 6, col. ii.

page 244 note 4 Wendel, C., Scholia Vetera in Apollonium Rhodium (Berlin 1935), p. xviiiGoogle Scholar; Deas, H. T., H.S.C.P. xlii (1931), 47 f.Google Scholar

page 244 note 5 Byzantion xiii (1938), 631–90Google Scholar, xiv (1939), 545–614; An Inquiry into the Transmission of the Plays of Euripides (Cambridge, 1965), 273–5.Google Scholar

page 245 note 1 c. 425, according to Reitzenstein, R., Geschichte der griechischen Etymologika, p. 348.Google Scholar

page 245 note 2 Byzantion xiv (1939), 572 n. 1.Google Scholar

page 245 note 3 Gr. Rom. Byz. Stud. viii (1967), 53–80.Google Scholar

page 245 note 4 As Mr. Barrett is inclined to do in the introduction to his Hippolytos, pp. 50 n. 1, 78 n. 1.Google Scholar

page 246 note 1 See Leo's paper on the papyrus of the Demosthenes commentary by Didymus, , N.G.G. 1904, 254–61Google Scholar = Kleine Schriften, ii 387–94.Google Scholar

page 246 note 2 The belief of Scheer, E., Rh. Mus. xxxiv (1879), 272Google Scholar ff., followed by Wilamowitz, , Einleitung, p. 191, that the scribe is to be identified with the important Byzantine cleric of the eleventh century Nicetas of Serrae, should be treated with reserve; the scribe tells us no more than that he is Nicetas the deacon, and this is simply not enough evidence, even if Nicetas of Serrae was interested in Aratus.Google Scholar

page 246 note 3 For the date and the texts in question see Martin, J., Histoire du texte des Phénomènes d'Arate, pp. 46, 140–1.Google Scholar

page 247 note 1 Since he cites with approval Th. Barthold's Bonn dissertation of 1864, de scholiorum in Euripidem veterum fontibus, defending it against the condemnation of Wilamowitz, (‘sonst unbrauchbar’, Einleitung, p. 155 n. 68), perhaps I may add a further word in its favour: on p. 29 Barthold anticipates in several essential points the famous theory now linked with the name of Wilamowitz, that the survival of dramatic texts depended on selections by a schoolmaster.Google Scholar

page 248 note 1 ‘The Homeric Scholia’, Proc. Brit. Acad. xvii (1931), 179–207.Google Scholar

page 248 note 2 Not ignored by Zuntz, ; cf. An Inquiry …, p. 274 n. 2.Google Scholar

page 248 note 3 E. Lobel in the editio princeps; Irigoin, J., Jahrbuch der Oesterreichischen byzantinischm Gesellschaft viii (1959), 40.Google Scholar

page 248 note 4 Callimachi opera, ii. xxvii.Google Scholar

page 249 note 1 Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Nationalbibliothek in Wien, i. 145 f., iii. 96.Google Scholar

page 250 note 1 J.R.S. xxxix (1949), 151–3Google Scholar = Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie, ii. 381–7.Google Scholar

page 250 note 2 Funaioli, G., Esegesi Vergiliana antica, pp. 398–9.Google Scholar

page 251 note 1 Cf. Thilo's edition, vol. iii, p. xiv, and TLL s.v. aliter, on its use in scholia.

page 251 note 2 The Scholia Bembina, p. 119.Google Scholar

page 251 note 3 Corpus Christianorum 72. 1959.Google Scholar

page 251 note 4 On the date see Cavallera, F., St. Jérome, sa vie et son æuvre, i. 149, ii. 157.Google Scholar

page 252 note 1 Zuntz, , An Inquiry …, p. 274 n. 2.Google Scholar

page 252 note 2 R. Devreesse, Dictionnaire de la Bible, art. Chaines, B. Altaner, Patrology, tr. Graef, H., pp. 622–3Google Scholar, Bardenhewer, O., Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, iv (1924), p. 13.Google Scholar

page 252 note 3 Hohelied-, Proverbien- und Prediger-Catenen, Wien, (1902), p. 6.Google Scholar

page 253 note 1 Quantulacumque, pp. 333 ff.Google Scholar

page 253 note 2 On Vat. gr. 749 see the description by Devreesse, R. in Codices Valicani graeci 604–866Google Scholar (Vatican catalogue). The codex Zacynthius was edited by Tregelles, S. P., London, 1861Google Scholar; see also an article by Greenlee, J. H., Biblica xl (1959), 992 ff.Google Scholar

page 253 note 3 Cf. schol. Theocr. 1. 110, and see Wendel, C., Abh. Göttingen 1921, 77–78, 166–8.Google Scholar

page 254 note 1 W. Aly, R.-E. s.v. Prokopios, no. 20.

page 254 note 2 On the school see Downey, G., Harvard Library Bulletin xii (1958), 297–319, an interesting article which perhaps fails to stress sufficiently the importance of Procopius' work on the catena.Google Scholar

page 254 note 3 Op. cit., p. 580.

page 254 note 4 Strack, H. L., Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, pp. 65, 71.Google Scholar

page 254 note 5 Lenz, F. W., Aristidesstudien, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

page 254 note 6 Ibid., pp. 83–84, 89–91.