TC 2013; 6(1): 15–23

Renzo Tosi
The history of corpora scholiastica:
a series of unfortunate events
Abstract: It would be misleading to treat the scholiastic corpora as fixed and
unchangeable commentaries. A few examples are produced, drawn from the
scholia to Aristophanes’ comedies and constituting a source of information on
the plots of now lost Euripidean plays. In the scholiastic tradition concerning
the plot of Euripides’ Stheneboea, the context of the commented passage may
have insinuated an element of ambiguity. However, this cannot be considered as
a general rule: another scholium, mentioning the plot of Euripides’ Palamedes,
has suffered a corruption that causes ambiguity, but whose origin is independent
of the connection between the commented and the quoted passage.

Keywords: Greek scholia, scholarship, Aristophanes, Euripides.

DOI 10.1515/tc-2014-0003

In my book Studi sulla tradizione indiretta dei classici greci (Bologna 1988) I argued
that the relationship between quoted and commented passages is central to an
appreciation of the indirect tradition of ancient texts delivered by the scholia. In
particular, an inquiry into the scholiasts’ quotation procedures proves enlighte-
ning for an educated understanding of what the scholia themselves are, and why
scholiasts at times adopted an “intertextual” method of explanation. It is also
challenging to examine whether the link between quoted and commented passage
is on all occasions preserved from corruption or if the opposite case is admissible.
In this article I wish to delve into this relationship in greater depth, adducing some
examples of Euripidean quotations in the scholia on Aristophanes.

1. The scholia on Aristophanes quote Euripidean passages mainly to show that

some lines or expressions have a parodic purpose (many fragments of Telephus,
for example, are Aristophanic lines that had been excerpted from the play – a fact
we are made aware of by the scholia). Sometimes the scholiast quotes the scholar
who noticed the parody, at times even disagreeing with him. For instance, two
ancient scholia to Ar., Av. 348 (348a+348b Holwerda), both traceable back to the

Renzo Tosi: University of Bologna, E-Mail: [email protected].

Brought to you by | Universita di Bologna

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy
Download Date | 10/28/14 4:32 PM
16   Renzo Tosi

same exegetic source, quote Asclepiades’¹ statement, which holds that the Aris-
tophanic line was taken from Euripides’ Andromeda (fr. 115a Kannicht) as well as
l. 423 of the same comedy derives from l. 273 of Phoenissae:

(348a) καὶ δοῦναι ῥύγχει: Ἀσκληπιάδης φησὶν ἀπὸ Ἀνδρομέδας εἶναι, ὡς καὶ τὸ “σὰ γὰρ ταῦτα
πάντα καὶ ἐκεῖσε καὶ δεῦρο”. ΓM γράφεται καὶ “ῥάμφει”, ὅπερ καὶ βέλτιον. ῥάμφος γὰρ ἐπὶ
ὀρνέου, ῥύγχος δὲ ἐπὶ χοίρου. VΓM (348b) παρὰ τὸ Εὐριπίδου ἐξ Ἀνδρομέδας “ἐκθεῖναι κήτεϊ
φορβάν”, ὡς Ἀσκληπιάδης τὰ μηδέπω διδαχθείσης VM9Γ3 τῆς τραγῳδίας παρατιθέμενος·
ὡς καὶ τὸ (l. 423) “σὰ γὰρ ταῦτα πάντα καὶ τὸ τῇδε καὶ τὸ κεῖσε” παρὰ τὰ ἐκ τῶν μηδέπω
διδαχθεισῶν Φοινισσῶν (l. 273) φησίν “καὶ ἐκεῖσε καὶ δεῦρο, μὴ δόλος τις ᾖ”. καὶ ὅλως πολὺ
παρὰ πᾶσι τὸ τοιοῦτον. VΓ3

However, as we read in the second scholium, both of these intertextual rela-

tions established by Asclepiades would have been impossible, since neither of
the Euripidean plays had yet been staged at the times of Aves. Thus Asclepiades
was deceived by the similarity of expressions, while this scholiast was well aware
at once of Euripides’ plays and of their chronological order. His remark is con-
firmed by sch. Ra. 53a Chantry, which supplies information on the chronology
of Andromeda, plausibly staged in 412, seven years before the Frogs. As a conse-
quence, Asclepiades’ comment proves inconsistent with both scholia. Neverthe-
less, even if wrong, the comment provides us with a fragment of a lost Euripidean
play². In the present case, there is no contradiction between the two scholia,
whereas on other occasions two scholia may supply different information on the
same topic, and I believe that these very cases may be of particular interest to our
purposes.

2. Sch. Ar., Th. 770a+770b.α Regtuit explains the behaviour of the Inlaw who,
a prisoner of the women, writes (or carves) his call for help on panels (ἀγάλματα)
and throws them away. It is a parodic situation, since the Inlaw imitates the trick
used by the prisoner Palamedes (or by Oiax, his brother) in Euripides’ Pala-
medes. The scholium which explains the parody, relating it to the Euripidean
expedient, appears essential for a reconstruction of the plot of the lost Palamedes.

1 This scholar is also quoted by sch. Ra. 1269b, 1276b, 1331b, 1344b Chantry (Ra. 1269 and 1331
were also identified by Asclepiades as lines from Euripides). According to Wentzel 1896, this
commentator of Aristophanes is the same as the one quoted in Hsch. κ 3309 Latte (“es ist gleich-
falls Komikerglosse, betrifft eine historische Anspielung, und seine Unverlässigkeit wird aus-
drücklich hervorgehoben”).
2 Cf. also Pagano 2010, 120–121. It is striking that he accepts and quotes the scholium on the
Frogs, but does not mention that the scholiast of Birds is not in agreement with Asclepiades’
chronology.

Brought to you by | Universita di Bologna

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy
Download Date | 10/28/14 4:32 PM
 The history of corpora scholiastica   17

Unfortunately, it is by no means easy to understand it³. The complete text of the

scholium is

(770a) ὁ γὰρ Εὐριπίδης ἐν τῷ Παλαμήδει ἐποίησε τὸν Οἴακα τὸν ἀδελφὸν Παλαμήδους
ἐπιγράψαι εἰς τὰς πλάτας (Enger; ναῦς R) τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ, ἵνα φερόμεναι ἑαυταῖς
ἔλθωσιν εἰς τὸν Ναύπλιον τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀπαγγείλωσι τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ. (770b.α)
ὥσπερ Οἴαξ τῷ Ναυπλίῳ γράφει ἐν τῷ Παλαμήδει Εὐριπίδου. ὁ γὰρ Οἴαξ ἐγχαράττει πολλαῖς
πλάταις τὰ περὶ τὸν Παλαμήδην καὶ ἀφίησιν εἰς θάλασσαν, ὥστε μιᾷ γέ τινι τὸν Ναύπλιον
περιπεσεῖν (R; προσπεσεῖν Bekker).

To reach an understanding it is necessary to divide this scholium in two parts

(from ὁ γὰρ Εὐριπίδης to ἀπαγγείλωσι τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ and from ὥσπερ Οἴαξ
τῷ Ναυπλίῳ to τὸν Ναύπλιον περιπεσεῖν). Admittedly, the two sections tell quite
different stories. In the second one Oiax, brother of Palamedes, writes on the oars
what has happened to his brother and then throws them into the sea hoping that
Nauplius, his father, will finally find at least one of them. The expedient is odd
indeed: nevertheless the writings on the oars of Oiax can be imagined as if they
were the “messages in a bottle” of castaways. It is not far-fetched to assume that
Euripides, with his lively imagination, may have inserted such a device into his
play: on the other hand, it is plausible to assume that Aristophanes could have
been making fun of such an odd call for help. The first section of the scholium is
more obscure: Oiax writes that Palamedes is going to die on – according to the
Ravenna’s manuscript – the ships (εἰς τὰς ναῦς) so that they can reach Nauplius
(φερόμεναι ἑαυταῖς ἔλθωσιν εἰς τὸν Ναύπλιον) and reveal to him the death of his
son (ἀπαγγείλωσι τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ). It is clearly impossible that both stories
were present in Euripides’ play. I believe that Aristophanes’ parody demonstrates
that Oiax wrote on the oars, with the Inlaw’s panels acting as a reductio ad absur-
dum of Palamedes’ odd “shipwrecked-bottles”. Besides, it is tricky to decide what
φερόμεναι ἑαυταῖς means in the first section of the scholium. Bekker corrected
it into φερόμεναι αὗται. I, in my aforementioned article, translated “da se stesse
portate [quindi, non necessariamente andando alla deriva, quanto piuttosto se-
guendo la loro rotta]”, but the expression is definitely awkward, and I could not
find any convincing comparison. It appears that the first section stems from a
severe corruption, probably from a text having εἰς τὰς πλάτας⁴ instead of πολλαῖς

3 I do not agree with the Richard Kannicht’s reconstruction (fr. 588a): cf. Tosi 2006a. The scho-
lium to the passage of Thesmophoriazousae is neglected by Falcetto 2002; nevertheless, accord-
ing to her reconstruction of the plot, Oiax informs his father by writing on some oars.
4 As directly restored by R. Enger (teste Rutherford). The correction is accepted by Kannicht and
Regtuit.

Brought to you by | Universita di Bologna

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy
Download Date | 10/28/14 4:32 PM
18   Renzo Tosi

πλάταις. Such a vague expression deceived someone (who evidently was no

longer familiar with the work of Euripides) into reading πλάται as a methonymic
word for ναῦς/νῆες. This interpretation was probably favored by the fact that this
specific meaning was already attested in the last line of the Troades (1332) and
was subsequently taken into account by other scholiastic annotations⁵. Another
scholiast decided to provide a more exhaustive commentary, and inserted both
texts in his note, without bothering to divide the two sections or to make them
coherent. Thus, in our scholium Oiax writes his call for avenge both on the ships
and on the oars.
If I have reconstructed this tradition correctly, the connection between
quoted and commented passage was unable to prevent a corruption in the most
important element: πλάτας – the oars that Aristophanes ridiculously turned into
panels – became ναῦς and the link between the two passages became obscure.

3. The scholia on two passages of Aristophanes relate to the plot of Stheneboea.

The first one explains Pax 140  f., where the Daughter appears skeptical with
regard to the enterprise proposed by Trygaeus, who wishes to fly up to the gods
by riding on a beetle. After saying that it would be more “tragic” to ride Pegasus,
she asks: Τί δ᾽, ἢν ἐς ὑγρὸν πόντιον πέσῃ βάθος; / Πῶς ἐξολισθεῖν πτηνὸς ὢν
δυνήσεται; According to the scholium 141b Holwerda (ms. V), Aristophanes hints
at a mythological tale, where a flying person falls into the sea. Such a character
is presumed to be Icarus

ἢ ἐπεὶ δοκεῖ ὁ Βελλεροφόντης τὴν τοῦ Προίτου γυναῖκα μετὰ τὴν τῆς Χιμαίρας ἀναίρεσιν
ἐπανελθὼν εἰς Κόρινθον ἀπατῆσαι ὡς ἕξων γυναῖκα, καὶ ἐπιβιβάσας τοῦ Πηγάσου εἰς μέσην
ῥῖψαι τὴν θάλασσαν.

The second scholium explains Ra. 1050–1051, where Aeschylus blames Euripi-
des ὅτι γενναίας καὶ γενναίων ἀνδρῶν ἀλόχους ἀνέπεισας / κώνεια πίνειν
αἰσχυνθείσας διὰ τοὺς σοὺς Βελλεροφόντας. It is not easy to understand exactly
what Aristophanes means in this passage⁶. The scholium 1051a.α+1051b Chantry
attempts an explanation of κώνεια πίνειν by means of a reference to Stheneboea:

5 In this line of Troades, Hec. 39, Or. 54.

6 It is evident that the poet hints at some sensational episode (of suicides of women) that we are
not acquainted with: Euripides’ plays foster loose morals by showing examples of immorality.
This is, in my opinion, the more logical explanation: it is absurd to wonder whether the plays of
Euripides really had “any part in bringing about the catastrophe” (cf. Rogers 1919, 161). Modern
scholars have conjectured that “some highborn lady had taken hemlock, in disgust at the calum-
nies lavished on her sex” (Rogers) or have translated “because the people like your Bellerophon”

Brought to you by | Universita di Bologna

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy
Download Date | 10/28/14 4:32 PM
 The history of corpora scholiastica   19

(1051a.α) ὅτι πληθυντικῶς εἶπε “κώνεια”, ἕνεκα τοῦ πολλὰς εἶναι. ἦν καὶ ἑνικῶς εἰπεῖν. τάχα
μέντοι μᾶλλον πρὸς τὸ περὶ γυναικῶν ἱστορούμενον. RVEΘBarbV57 (Ald) (1051b) πολλαὶ τὴν
Σθενέβοιαν μιμησάμεναι πιοῦσαι κώνειον ἐτελεύτησαν. RVMEΘBarbV57 (Ald)

Tzetzes’ commentary on the passage proves valuable as well:

πολλαὶ γὰρ τῶν ὑπερόχων γυναῖκες ὡς ἡ Σθενέβοια ἐρασθεῖσαί τινων καὶ τῶν ἐρωμένων
οὐχὶ τυχοῦσαι φαρμάκοις αὑτὰς διεχρήσαντο. ἡ δὲ Σθενέβοια μετὰ τὰ τρόπαια τὰ κατὰ
Λυκίαν νικητοῦ Βελλεροφόντου ὑποστραφέντος καὶ Προῖτον αἰτιωμένου, ὡς κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ
μελετήσαντος ἄδικον θάνατον, ἀναιρεῖται τρόπῳ τοιούτῳ. προσποιεῖται Βελλεροφόντης
ταύτης ἐρᾶν· ἡ δὲ νικωμένη τῷ ἔρωτι, ἀφεῖσα τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Προίτου, ἔξεισι λάθρᾳ, καὶ κατὰ
νώτου Πηγάσου συνεποχεῖται Βελλεροφόντῃ, ὃς διαέριος μέσῳ πελάγους φερόμενος τῶν
νώτων τοῦ ἵππου ἀποσφαιρίσας αὐτὴν τοῖς ὕδασιν ἀπέπνιξεν).

The plot of Stheneboea  – as well as that of Hippolytus  – is a variation on the

theme of “(the wife of) Putifar’s tale”. Stheneboea, the wife of Proitus, falls in
love with the young Bellerophontes, who rebuffs her proposals: resentful, the
woman falsely accuses Bellerophontes of trying to seduce her. The most signifi-
cant variant, according to the scholium on the passage of Peace and also accord-
ing to other witnesses⁷, is that Bellerophontes finally obtains revenge on Proitus
and Stheneboea by killing the woman. The murder of Stheneboea is based on a
deceit: Bellerophontes pretends to be in love with her, persuades her to elope
with him on his winged horse and during the flight throws her down into the sea.
In Pax 135–143 the Daughter speaks of a winged person falling into the sea, even
making an explicit reference to Pegasus. Subsequently, the ancient commenta-
tors explained this passage by quoting Stheneboea. The context of Ra. 1050–1051
is completely different: Euripides is accused of persuading many women to kill
themselves, with a reference to Bellerophontes. I believe that Aristophanes’ ref-
erence here does not strictly relate to Stheneboea but, more in general, to the
Euripidean habit of staging infatuated women who become entangled in adulter-
ous relationships. As a consequence, if the explicit reference to Bellerophontes

(Stanford 1958, 165) or have strangely remarked “non è la tragedia Bellerofonte di Euripide ad
avere causato quelle morti ma ‘gente come quel Bellerofonte’ – anche qui, non nella specifica
manifestazione del rifiuto d’amore (improbabile da parte dei bellimbusti) ma come oggetto
d’incontrollata passione delle donne innamorate” (Del Corno 1985, 220). Sommerstein 1999, 250,
wrote that “the Greek could also mean ‛because they had been put to shame’ or even ‛after they
had been seduced’” and preferred the first interpretation, as the harm to the community would
consist in the suicides themselves, and not in an epidemic of adultery.
7 Cf. in particular P.Oxy. 27.2455 (on which see now Meccariello 2014, 296–298) and John Malalas,
Chron. 4.84.16 Thurn.

Brought to you by | Universita di Bologna

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy
Download Date | 10/28/14 4:32 PM
20   Renzo Tosi

was an allusion to Stheneboea, the suicide hinted at Phaedra. This interpretation

is confirmed by the fact that the expression is introduced by the question καὶ
τί βλάπτουσ᾽, ὦ σχέτλι᾽ ἀνδρῶν, τὴν πόλιν ἁμαὶ Σθενέβοιαι; and is followed by
πότερον δ᾽ οὐκ ὄντα λόγον τοῦτον περὶ τῆς Φαίδρας ξυνέθηκα; (the two women
are depicted together in l. 1043 too, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ μὰ Δί᾽ οὐ Φαίδρας ἐποίουν πόρνας οὐδὲ
Σθενεβοίας). The scholium explains the passage by τὴν Σθενέβοιαν μιμησάμεναι
πιοῦσαι κώνειον ἐτελεύτησαν which seems to imply that Stheneboea died by
drinking hemlock or by killing herself in some manner. The allusion to Sthen-
eboea is probably to be sought in the adulterous affair more than in the type of
death. Be that as it may, the text of the scholium is ambiguous and its interpreta-
tion involves an equation between the behavior of Athenian ladies and Sthen-
eboea. It would be erroneous to believe that the scholiasts knew the plot of Sthen-
eboea: not rarely they were groping in the dark, and their interpretations came
from the commented text itself, without exterior evidence⁸. As usual, the scholi-
asts did not understand the complexity of the text: it was the same attitude that
hampered them from understanding the “polysemic” language of tragedy⁹. The
beginning of the comment by Tzetzes (πολλαὶ γὰρ τῶν ὑπερόχων γυναῖκες ὡς ἡ
Σθενέβοια ἐρασθεῖσαί τινων καὶ τῶν ἐρωμένων οὐχὶ τυχοῦσαι φαρμάκοις αὑτὰς
διεχρήσαντο) gives no clear indication on whether the imitation is limited to the
infatuation or also involves the suicide. The following lines are, however, clarify-
ing, as Tzetzes recalls the correct plot of the Euripidean Stheneboea (probably
from another source). It is also conceivable that the scholiast did not (any longer)
have knowledge of the true plot of Stheneboea, and may therefore have tried to
explain the passage by conjecturing her suicide.
Another issue concerns whether the tradition of Stheneboea’s suicide (cf.
Hyg., Fab. 57.7, 243; Nic.Dam., FGrHist 90 F 9) arises from the passage of Frogs and
its interpretations¹⁰, from another play (for instance, Euripides’ Bellerophontes)¹¹
or from neither of these. In order to answer this question it is essential to under-
stand the relationship between the Fabulae of Hyginus and the Euripidean

8 Many strange scholiographical and lexicographical interpretations can be explained by this

attitude: cf. Marzullo 1968, 70–87 (= 1969, 85–105), Degani 1977–1978, 135–146, Bossi/Tosi 1979–
1980, 7–20 and my book on the indirect tradition (Tosi 1988, 127–134).
9 I collected many examples in Tosi 1989.
10 So Robert 19204, 183, and Kannicht 2004, 647.
11 So Welcker 1839–1841, 784, who assumes that the difference between the two plays is not
amazing, because “würde die traurige List und Rache in blosser Erzählung, entblosst von allen
dramatischen Effecten, zu denen sie Anlass gab, dort unschlicklich gewesen sehn”. Blaydes
1899, 417, wrote that Stheneboea “prae pudore cicutam bibit”.

Brought to you by | Universita di Bologna

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy
Download Date | 10/28/14 4:32 PM
 The history of corpora scholiastica   21

plots¹². If Hyginus’ tradition derives from the suicide of Stheneboea present in

Bellerophontes, it cannot be ruled out that the passage in Frogs hints at the death
of this character in this second play. As a consequence, Tzetzes could have gath-
ered two independent sources that belonged to two different plays. However, I am
convinced that the link between Hyginus and the Euripidean plots is not close:
therefore, it is admissible to assume that the Stheneboea’s suicide is independ-
ent of Euripides, or that it has arisen from a misunderstanding of the passage of
Frogs and of the interpretations. This view is, in my opinion, confirmed by what
we know about the plot of Bellerophontes: in this play Megapenthes, the son of
Stheneboea, tries to avenge his mother by killing Bellerophontes, who has been
condemned by the court of Argos. I believe that this feature is more understand-
able in the light of the murder of Stheneboea by Bellerophontes.
The trait d’union, the link between the commented and the quoted passage
is paramount in this case as well. It is plausible that in the corpus scholiasticum
some material was taken from the hypotheseis in order to explain the Aristophanic
passages; moreover, the context of the commented passage may have added an
element of ambiguity to the tradition, the uncertainty of meaning being favored
by the fact that two Euripidean plays dealt with the very same myth but with
diverse outcomes (at the end of Stheneboea the woman was murdered, while Bel-
lerophontes began after her death). It can also be suggested that the commentator
of the passage of the Frogs might have been unaware of the original Euripidean
plot. In Palamedes the corruption of the text of the scholium, which contributes
to inconsistencies in knowledge of the plot, has occurred regardless of the con-
nection between the quoted (Euripidean) and the commented (Aristophanean)
passage. In Stheneboea there is no corruption: the ambiguity stems from an
attempt to explain a controversial passage.
These few examples show that it would be misleading to treat the scholiastic
corpora as a fixed and unchangeable commentary. Each annotation has its own
history and the text of the scholia was adjustable and resilient. A. Garzya¹³ high-
lighted this peculiar aspect of the tradition of “tools”; more recently, J. Gerlach (in
his important book on Byzantine Gnomologia) distinguished the open tradition of
“tools” from “konservierenden Tradition der ‛Hohen Literatur’”¹⁴. Eagerness in
inserting, cutting and changing materials is a basic element for an understand-
ing of the history of scholia as well. It appears symptomatic that the compilers of

12 According to Wilamowitz 1917, 250–254, it is right to assume a similar situation in Cres-

phontes’ tale.
13 Garzya 1983, 35–71.
14 Gerlach 2008, 6.

Brought to you by | Universita di Bologna

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy
Download Date | 10/28/14 4:32 PM
22   Renzo Tosi

the Suda had in their hands some manuscripts of classical authors equipped with
scholia quite similar but not identical to those in our possession. Thus modern
editors must take into account the commentaries of the Suda even though they
originated in the scholiastic tradition. Two attitudes must be banned: witnesses
of scholia and the Suda should not be viewed as completely independent, and by
the same token the Suda witnesses should not be neglected. Accordingly, the text
of Suda π 45 Adler

Παλαμήδης· οἶδα δ᾽ ἐγὼ καὶ δὴ πότερον ἐκ τοῦ Παλαμήδους. ὡς ἐκεῖνος τὰς πλάτας ῥίψω
γράφων. ὥσπερ Οἴαξ τῷ Ναυπλίῳ γράφει τῷ πατρὶ τὸν Παλαμήδη ἐν διαφόροις πλάταις καὶ
ῥιπτεῖ εἰς θάλασσαν, ὥστε μιᾷ γέ τινι Ναυπλίῳ περιπεσεῖν. πόθεν οὖν γ᾽ ἔκειντό μοι πλάται;
ταδὶ τἀγάλματα ἀντὶ πλατῶν γράφων διαρρίπτοιμι. βέλτιον πολύ. ξύλον γέ τοι καὶ ταῦτα,
κἀκεῖν᾽ ἦν ξύλον.

is similar to sch. Ar., Th. 770b.α and for this very reason part of it is printed as sch.
770b.β in Regtuit’s edition of these scholia. It bears evident and trivial mistakes
(τὸν Παλαμήδη instead of τὰ περὶ τὸν Παλαμήδην, and γ᾽ ἔκειντο for γένοιντο,
while ῥιπτεῖ εἰς θάλασσαν is surely influenced by the Aristophanean ῥίψω
γράφων), yet it demonstrates that its source possessed only the second section,
the right one. Evidently, the source of Suda was unaware of the transformation of
πλάτας into ναῦς.
Another valuable instance is offered by Suda ε 1897 Adler, which depends on
sch. Pac. 76b Holwerda, the source of Eur. fr. 306 Kannicht. The text of the frag-
ment preserved by the Suda (ἄγ’ ὦ φίλον μοι Πηγάσου ταχύπτερον) allows us to
correct the text given by the scholium (VLh: ἄγ’ ὦ φίλον μοι Πηγάσου πτερόν)
into ἄγ’ ὦ φίλον μοι Πηγάσου ταχὺ πτερόν (thus in Kannicht), which appears
certainly preferable. This situation is not peculiar to Aristophanean scholia: it
is common to all the corpora that are recovered by the Suda. For instance, Suda
κ 260 Adler quotes Th. 1.5.2 with its scholium: the Suda text (οὔτε γὰρ βοῦν
ἀροτῆρα ἐλεηλάτουν ἢ ἔκλεπτον νυκτὸς οὔτε μετὰ φόνων ἐποίουν τὴν λῃστείαν)
is quite different and better than that of the scholium (οὔτε γὰρ βοῦν ἀροτῆρα
ἐλεηλάτουν ἢ ἔκλεπτον, οὔτε νυκτὸς οὔτε μετὰ φόνων ἐποίουν τὴν λῃστείαν);
Suda κ 1295 Adler (κελεύω· δοτικῇ καὶ αἰτιατικῇ. οὐκ ἐπὶ μειζόνων μόνον κεῖται
παρὰ Θουκυδίδῃ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπ᾽ ἐλαττόνων) completes sch. Th. 1.42.2 Hude, which
is lacking in the final ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπ᾽ ἐλαττόνων.
The presence of “lexicographic” scholia (i.e. scholia that derive from the
lexica) in the scholiastic corpora is itself to be explained by the eagerness in
ceaselessly adding new materials. Thus the lexica, born originally from exegeti-
cal activity, became a handy reservoir of materials for the newly inserted inter-
pretations. I believe that understanding this variability is essential in studying
scholia, although a mildly skeptical attitude is an obvious consequence of this

Brought to you by | Universita di Bologna

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy
Download Date | 10/28/14 4:32 PM
 The history of corpora scholiastica   23

assumption. Such a perspective does not impede our inquiry into the history and
development of the scholiastic tradition; it does, however, prevent us from iden-
tifying the birth of the scholiastic tradition with the corpora we have: rather,
scholars must inquire into the history of each corpus (or, perhaps, of each anno-
tation) without any general presumption. Even more, it excludes the easy (and
deceptive) equation that would acknowledge all scholia in the optimi codices as
ancient and good and, accordingly, classify all scholia in recentiores as late.

Brought to you by | Universita di Bologna

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy
Download Date | 10/28/14 4:32 PM