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.

the scholion of the “Commenta Bernensia” to Lucan 8, 824–826 about the Sibylline oracle concerning the prohibition for the Romans to send a military contingent to Egypt reveals both the influence of late antique commentaries cum notis variorum and the presence of allegedly genuine details about the history of the late Roman republic from sources now lost.

_ 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)

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.

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ancient greek sholarship constitutes a precious resource for classicists, but one that is underutilized because graduate students and even mature scholars lack familiarity with its conventions. The peculiarities of scholarly Greek and the lack of translations or scholarly aids often discourages readers from exploiting the large body of commentaries, scholia, lexica, and grammatical treatises that have been preserved on papyrus and via the manuscript tradition. Now, for the first time, there is an introduction to such scholarship that will enable (...) students and scholars unfamiliar with this material to use it in their work. Ancient Greek Scholarship includes detailed discussion of the individual ancient authors on whose works scholia, commentaries, or single-author lexica exist, together with explanations of the probable sources of that scholarship and the ways it is now used, as well as descriptions of extant grammatical works and general lexica. These discussions, and the annotated bibliography of more than 1200 works, also include evaluations of the different texts of each work and of a variety of electronic resources.This book not only introduces readers to ancient scholarship, but also teaches them how to read it. Here readers will find a detailed, step-by-step introduction to the language, a glossary of over 1500 grammatical terms, and a set of more than 200 passages for translation, each accompanied by commentary. The commentaries offer enough help to enable undergraduates with as little as two years of Greek to translate most passages with confidence; in addition, readers are given aids to handling the ancient numerical systems, understanding the references found in works of ancient scholarship, and using an apparatus criticus. Half the passages are accompanied by a key, so that the book is equally suitable for those studying on their own and for classes with graded homework. (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.