Classical Quarterly 35 (02):466- (1985)
AbstractMost of the commentaries on Greek authors which circulated in the towns of Egypt during the late Ptolemaic and early Imperial periods ignored the critical and colometrical problems which had engaged the attention of the great Alexandrian grammarians. A few, however, based themselves on texts equipped with signs, included the signs in their lemmata and offered explanations. Such commentaries must be the source of the scattered references to signs in the older marginal scholia in Byzantine manuscripts of Homer, Hesiod, Pindar and the Attic dramatists. The only Byzantine manuscript to transmit a pagan text still equipped with a large number and a variety of signs, namely cod. Venice, Bibl. Marc. gr. 454, is also the only one to transmit scholia with lemmata retaining prefixed signs. Just as texts and scholium-lemmata lost their signs in the course of transmission, so too did references to signs within scholia either disappear or become garbled. At best, a statement about the reasons for affixing a sign would turn into one about the content or style of the verse in question. The few mentions made of the great Alexandrians give no cause for thinking that we ever have a verbatim quotation of an πόμνημα written by one of them in order to explain his own signs. Time and again it is demonstrable that an explanation of a sign's presence against a particular verse goes back to some writer like Aristonicus. What survives of the ancient discussion of Latin literature is exiguous in comparison with the Greek material
Similar books and articles
Scholia Bembina J. F. Mountford : The Scholia Bembina edited with annotations. Pp.vii + 131. London: Hodder and Stoughton (University Press of Liverpool), 1934. Cloth, 10s. 6d. [REVIEW]J. D. Craig - 1935 - The Classical Review 49 (04):137-138.
Scholia Vetera in Pindari Carmina. III. Scholia in Nemeonicas et Isthmionicas; Epimetrum; Indices. By A. B. Drachmann. Pp. xii + 402. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1927. Geh. 12 RM.; geb. 14 RM. [REVIEW]H. T. Deas - 1929 - The Classical Review 43 (04):151-.
Homeric Scholia Hartmut Erbse: Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (Scholia Vetera). Volumen primum praefationem et scholia ad libros Α–Δ continens. Pp. ciii+545; 3 plates. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969. Cloth, DM.200. [REVIEW]Stephanie West - 1971 - The Classical Review 21 (01):65-67.
The Scholia on the Knights D. Mervyn Jones and Nigel G. Wilson: Scholia Vetera in Aristophanis Equites et Scholia Tricliniana in Aristophanis Equites. (Scholia in Aristophanem, pars i, fasc. ii.) Pp. xxvii + 280; 2 plates. Groningen: Wolters–Noordhoff, 1969. Cloth, fl. 70.20. [REVIEW]K. J. Dover - 1972 - The Classical Review 22 (01):21-24.
Platonic Scholia (D.) Cufalo (ed.) Scholia graeca in Platonem. I. Scholia ad dialogos tetralogiarum I–VII continens. (Pleiadi 5.1.) Pp. cliv + 331. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2007. Paper, €66. ISBN: 978-88-8498-353-. [REVIEW]Gerard J. Boter - 2009 - The Classical Review 59 (2):383-.
The Virgilian Tradition Ziolkowski, Putnam The Virgilian Tradition. The First Fifteen Hundred Years. Pp. xl + 1082, ills, colour pls. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008. Cased, £60, US$100 . ISBN: 978-0-300-10822-4. [REVIEW]Fiachra mac Góráin - 2012 - The Classical Review 62 (1):147-149.
Scholia in Euripidem. Ed. E. Schwartz. Vol. I. Scholia in Hecubam Orestem Phoenissas. (Reimner: Berlin. Price, 9 Mark.).John B. Bury - 1887 - The Classical Review 1 (09):272-273.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
No citations found.
References found in this work
C. Lucilii Carminum Reliquiae.Charles Knapp, Fridericus Marx & Conrad Cichorius - 1908 - American Journal of Philology 29 (4):467.