Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (Scholia Vetera) by Homer; H.

Erbse
Review by: M. M. Willcock
The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 91 (1971), pp. 144-146
Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/631384 .
Accessed: 10/12/2014 01:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 10 Dec 2014 01:16:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 NOTICES OF BOOKS
HOMER. Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem scholia at all contain the D Scholia only; these are
(Scholia Vetera). Ed. H. Erbse. I. Praefatio disregarded by Erbse, because it is not his intention
ct scholia ad libros A - A. Berlin: W. de Gruy- to edit this part of the material. Secondly, there is
ter. I969. Pp. ciii + 3 folding plates. the conflated tradition represented almost in isolation
545-
DM 200. by the splendid Venetus A, and called from it the A
The ancient scholia to the Iliad were most recently tradition. It contains the fullest information from
published in six volumes by Dindorf (Vols. i-iv) and VMK, but also a large number of 'exegetic' scholia,
Maass (Vols. v and vi) from 1875 to I888. Though and many D Scholia as well. Thirdly, there is the
of course of very great value, that edition is both so-called bT tradition. This too is a mixture, for it is
inconvenient to use and unfortunate in plan; and in- primarily exegetical, but includes also some quota-
evitably rather dated. We now have from Professor tions from VMK, and some D Scholia. Its manu-
Erbse the first volume of an intended five (plus index- scripts fall into two groups: the majority are of the b
volume), which will present the scholia far more family, named from its best-known representative
accurately and conveniently; it is greatly to be wel- Venetus B; balancing them, and on the whole a
comed. better source, is the single manuscript Townleyanus
The complications faced by an editor are almost in the British Museum (T). (In addition to the
insurmountable. The manuscripts that contain above three manuscript traditions there is a fourth,
scholia (and this is particularly true of the famous the 'h' tradition, which is even more contaminated
Venetus A) are likely to have a great mixture of notes than the others, and is represented by some nine
written in the margins and over the text, added at manuscripts, of which the best known in the past has
different times and by different hands. They range been the Genevensis (Ge). Most of the h Scholia are
from the simplest explanations of individual words unimportant, as they are represented more conven-
to learned discussions of the textual tradition, from a iently or accurately elsewhere, in the D and bT
running paraphrase in prose to voluminous quotations Scholia; but this group does also contain, in a few
from allegorising interpreters. From this mixture, cases, scholia of the A tradition, which supplement, or
whose ingredients appear in different proportions in improve, those provided by Venetus A. They can-
different manuscripts, three main 'classes' of scholia not therefore be disregarded.)
may be identified. The first, and commonest, The Dindorf/Maass edition printed the scholia from
consists of explanations at the simplest level, of in- the three manuscripts A, B and T, in two volumes
dividual words or mythological, geological, etc. each. It therefore gives the two main strands of
allusions. These are called the Scholia Minora ( = the tradition, but in a rather inconvenient way, in
D, the so-called ScholiaDidymi); and, as Erbse points that for any line one must look at three different books,
out, they are in origin earlier than those which we and one will commonly find that the scholia in B and
call the ScholiaVetera,because this type of explanation T are in any case identical. (The Scholia in Ge
goes back ultimately to the school texts used by Athen- were published by Nicole in 1891.)
ian children in the fifth and fourth centuries, before In addition to the three 'classes' of scholia (A, bT,
the Alexandrian scholars were born. Second are the D), many manuscripts contain other more trivial
scholia which are called 'critical', which present notes, excerpts from lexica, and quotations from
the tradition of Alexandrian textual scholarship; this relevant authors. All these are disregarded by
immensely valuable tradition had come down by Erbse. Finally, scholia have now been found in some
way of a summary of the work of four successors of of the hundreds of Homeric papyri, which have of
Aristarchus who lived in the Roman period-Aris- course come to light since the Dindorf/Maass edition.
tonicus, Didymus, Herodian and Nicanor, and is Once again, the majority of scholia on papyri are of
referred to nowadays by the abbreviation VMK the simplest ('D') type, and are thus of no interest to
(Viermannerkommentar). Thirdly, there are what Erbse. But there are also papyri, fourteen in num-
are called the 'exegetic' scholia. These are explana- ber in Erbse's list, which contain more learned
tory, like the D Scholia, but not so much of the mean- scholia, often direct from the school of Aristarchus.
ing of individual words as of all possible matters of These differ basically from A and bT in that they are
difficulty in sense or context. The 'exegetic' scholia simple, not in any way contaminated or mixed, as
also go back in origin to Alexandria, but have re- they have not gone through the long process of copy-
ceived constant accretions from the scholarship of late ing, summarising and rewriting, which has produced
antiquity and Byzantium. the present state of the scholia in our manuscripts.
The above three classes of scholia are related to, What lies behind the A and BT traditions, and how
but not coterminous with, three groups of manu- the scholia were passed down from the ancient world
scripts. The majority of manuscripts which contain to the Byzantines, constitutes a field of research of the

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 10 Dec 2014 01:16:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 NOTICES OF BOOKS 145
greatest difficulty, not to say obscurity. A key figure, pleasing Latin, indeed with frequent sympathetic
second only in importance to the scholia themselves, touches of humour. He manages to explain the com-
is Eustathius, the twelfth century archbishop of plexities of the subject, and never through callous
Thessalonica, whose running commentaries on the silence leaves the reader uncertain of his meaning or
Iliad and Odyssey were recently reprinted (Hildes- intentions. After a description of the various 'classes'
heim 1960) from the 1827-29 Stallbaum edition. of scholia, and the relevant manuscripts and papyri,
In the mass of Eustathius' material are included he discusses the relationships of the manuscripts to
scholia of both the A and the bT traditions. He each other and to the closest other sources, particu-
often mentions his sources, obscure grammarians and larly Eustathius; then describes in detail the secondary
lexicographers; and on over sixty occasions he refers sources used for the Testimonia; runs through the
to a particular source, which he calls Apion and history of modern printed editions of the scholia; and
Herodorus. From the study of Eustathius, it appears finally explains the aims and methods of his own
that ApH (as it is called) was his contact with the A edition. The Introduction is completed by five
tradition, including the 'critical' scholia of VMK. indexes.
Both ProfessorErbse and Dr van der Valk (of whom In the text itself, the scholia from the ancient papyri
more later) consider ApH to be of the greatest im- are properly treated as separate, and printed at
portance. Van der Valk thinks it was a collateral length at the beginnings of the books to which they
relation of Venetus A; Erbse Venetus A's direct refer. Photographs of the papyri themselves are
ancestor. In fact, for Erbse, it was ApH which con- attached at the end of the volume. In the first
flated scholia from the bT tradition with the summary volume, there are three, including the extraordinarily
of VMK to make the A tradition; and similarly it was interesting Pap. Ox. io86, with a commentary on II
from an ancestor of ApH that information about 751-827. It is not the least of the many benefits of
VMK was taken across into the bT tradition. this edition that it provides this evidence where we
Apart from the manuscripts, the papyri, and need it.
Eustathius, there exist numerous other sources for The rest of the book is divided on every page into
the Homeric scholia, in the relics of ancient learning three parts. The top half or so gives the text, as
to be found in various lexica, grammarians, and the established, of the A and bT traditions. The scholia
scholia to other authors. All these have been taken on each line are given in turn, with references to their
into account by the new editor, in the Testimonia sources. Thus this part summarises, and naturally
printed under his text. corrects, the evidence which was given in three
This is the field that Professor Erbse has worked in separate volumes by Dindorf and Maass. It should
for at least the last twenty years (apart from his other be realised, however, that in some respects it gives
occupations, such as the massive Lexikon des friih- less. Excerpts and quotations which are not really
griechischen Epos). After a series of foundation-laying scholia, but have got attached to the scholia, are not
articles, mostly published in 1952 and 1953, a list of reproduced by Erbse. This applies particularly
which may be found in C.R. xi (1961) lo9 n. I (it to the large excerpts from Porphyrius' Quaestiones
appears that he is too modest to have recorded them Homericae which are found in B (and one other manu-
in the bibliography of this book), he published a script of the same family). Some of these are ab-
major contribution in I960, Beitrdgezur Uiberlieferung surd allegorical interpretations of statements about
der Iliasscholien(Zetemata 24). This work was de- the gods, such as that on I 397-406; these are really
voted to the primary and secondary traditions of of no significance towards the elucidation of Homer,
the Iliad scholia, and ended (pp. 432-38) with some and can be dispensed with without regret. But
comments on the consequences of the conclusions he Porphyrius, in that particular work, included philolo-
had reached for a planned edition. At the same time, gical discussion as well as allegorical, and a note such
by the sort of coincidence which sometimes happens as that on the wound of Teukros at VIII 329 is a
in the world of scholarship, Dr van der Valk was pre- valuable part of Dindorf's edition of B. Erbse, who
paring his monumental Researcheson the Text and showed in Beitrdge ch. 2 that these excerpts were
Scholiaof the Iliad, which was published at Leiden in only added to the Scholia in mediaeval times, cuts
two volumes in 1963 and 1964, dedicated among this material out, normally not even mentioning it
others to Erbse, who reviewed the volumes in Gnomon among the secondary Testimonia below. From the
(XXXVI 1964 549-557 and XXXVII 1965 532- user's point of view, this is a loss, and he will either
539). Dr van der Valk is also engaged on a new still have to go to Dindorf, or to search for Schrader's
edition of Eustathius. When we have both that and edition of the remains of the QuaestionesHomericae
the complete edition of the Scholia Veteraby Erbse, (Leipzig, 1880-90), a book not commonly found in
Homeric critics will be well served. this country, even in University Libraries.
Erbse's aim has been, quite simply, to publish D Scholia which appear in the manuscripts that
the best text he can of the two classes of scholia, the offer the ScholiaVeteraare treated as follows: (I) those
'critical' and the 'exegetic', as they are found in the which merely happen to be found in these manu-
A and the bT traditions. He begins this first volume scripts written in another hand or at another part of
(containing the scholia of books I - IV) with about a the page from the A or bT Scholia are totally disre-
hundred pages of introduction, written in a clear and garded; (2) those which are an integral part of the

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 10 Dec 2014 01:16:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 146 NOTICES OF BOOKS
bT tradition are quoted in full; (3) those (often much If Broadhead had written nothing else, this little
longer) which are part of A, are quoted only to the book would be enough to reveal him as an excellent
extent of giving their first and last words. This, scholar with a lifelong interest in Attic tragedy.
according to Erbse, makes it 'easy for the reader to Here he discusses and emends some one hundred and
work out the length of such D Scholia'; in other words, twenty passages, some of them well-known cruces,
he must find one of the earlier printed texts of Homer others passages in which his fine feeling for Greek
which contain the 'Scholia Didymi', and can see there idiom and his sound common sense led him to doubt
whatwas the contentof the scholion of this kind in A- the accepted text. There is also an appendix dealing
or of course he could go back to Dindorf. Erbse has with another sixty-one passages by suggested emenda-
good reasons for this decision; but it will be still easier tions with little or no discussion, or by reference to
for the reader when the D Scholia find a new editor. the author's published articles.
The source of each scholion is given, wherever As regards the methods and principles adopted,
identifiable, in the margin to this top part of the text, Broadhead believes in a 'common-sense' approach, in
with the abbreviations Ariston.,Did., Hrd., Nic. for the asking what the sense should be and suggesting a
'Four Men'; ex. for the 'exegetic scholia; D for the reading that will give that sense. He also of course
Scholia Minora; and occasional other abbreviations aims at providing a plausible explanation of the cor-
as required. ruption, but, citing Kenyon's 'Scribes are capable of
The central section of the page is devoted to the anything', he argues in his preface, and more forcibly
Testimonia.These include everything outside A and on p. 18 and elsewhere, that in this respect the de-
bT. That means (i) the close connections of A in mands of many scholars are too exacting. He is no
Eustathius, the Etymologicum Genuinum, Suidas, doubt right that a conjecture should not be 'disdain-
and even the manuscript evidence from the h family, fully brushed aside' because no wholly convincing
(ii) the other secondary sources-grammarians, explanation of the corruption is offered; still, doubts
lexicographers, scholia in other authors, etc., (iii) on this score (and explanations need not be anything
references found in ancient authors prior to or separ- to do with the ductuslitterarum)are likely to reduce
ate from the Alexandrian scholars, such as Aristotle our confidence in an emendation; indeed Broadhead
or Strabo. himself recognises that a good many of his proposals
At the bottom is the apparatuscriticus as usual. may be regarded as exempli gratia. There are of
Apart from variant manuscript readings, this in- course others where the change involved is slight or
cludes conjectures and emendations by modern schol- very easily accounted for. Generally speaking I
ars, including the editor himself; he has wisely decided should say that more often than not I remain un-
that his task is to establish the Byzantine text of A and convinced by these conjectures, but others may well
bT, and that to introduce conjectural emendations judge differently, and in any case, as all scholars know,
into the text itself would be dangerous. the value and importance of such discussions do not
It is difficult to find words to praise this edition. depend on acceptance of the conclusions. The
The control and accuracy are alike breath-taking. author's modest hope that the elucidations will be
Erbse has had to exercise his judgement on every line, found helpful and thought-provoking is in my view
to decide how to present the evidence and what completely fulfilled, and this is a book that all editors
evidence to present. He is coordinating the two of these texts should consult. I append a few com-
streams of the ScholiaVeterainto one stream-a more ments, mostly critical, to which many more could be
accurate successor of Eustathius and the shadowy added; but these do not affect my gratitude to the
ApH. And all the time he shows where the evidence author, from whom I have learned much, and I am
comes from; and has himself collated the manuscripts, sure that others will share my deep regret that we
established their relations with each other, inspected cannot now learn yet more from discussion with him
the papyri, tracked down the secondary sources. He on points of disagreement.
modestly (or wryly) says, in his Preface, that he fears A. Ag. 352-3: Paley's aJ is too lightly dismissed (as
some scholars may wonder whether his work has been also in Denniston-Page); the corruption to e6 is
worth doing; one may reply by quoting Wilamowitz likely, and ai5 may not mean 'again' but 'in turn',
(who had assisted Maass in the editing of the T 'for our part' as in, e.g., S. Tr. I175. Ag. 494 and
Scholia)-'Ich kam damit tief in die antiken 96I: attractive suggestions, which might be right.
Erklarungsschriften hinein, ohne die sich niemandan Ag. 1653 Oeverydoes not seem to me to go well
Homerexegese wagensollte'. (Die Ilias undHomerp. I.) with dvaivoyuat.S. Ai. 1368-9: jg ev 'however' may
We shall eagerly await the further volumes. not occur in Sophocles, but in view of E. Hel. I253
M. M. WILLCOCKT this may be accidental, and I do not agree that
UniversityofLancaster this sense does not fit I368. Ant. 685-6: the position
of 5g (= ciatre)seems to be wrong for the sense pro-
BROADHEAD (H. D.) Tragica: elucidations of posed. Ant. 7033 fF.: I should take 7rdvregto refer
passages in Greek Tragedy. (University of to Antigone, Ismene, Haemon, and now Teiresias.
Canterbury publications, 8.) Christchurch: Ap7paicrogdoes not seem to give quite the right sense,
University of Canterbury. 1968. Pp. 179. and I am not so sure that Sophocles may not have
NZ $3.60. used kirpacrogin the sense 'unassailed'. Ant. 1228 ff.:

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 10 Dec 2014 01:16:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions