greene chase william, the platonic scholia

The Platonic ScholiaAuthor(s): William Chase GreeneSource: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 68 (1937),pp. 184-196Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/283263Accessed: 07/10/2008 06:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toTransactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association.

http://www.jstor.org

William Chase Greene

XV.-The Platonic Scholia

WILLIAM CHASE GREENE HARVARD UNIVERSITY

The purpose of this paper is to present succinctly what is now known of the Platonic scholia, and to explain the various ways in which they are of value. For further details I may refer to the new edition of the Scholia which is about to appear as Monograph VIII of this Association.'

I For somewhat less than a century and a half, portions of

the Platonic scholia have been available in printed form. The earlier editors, Siebenkees,2 Ruhnken,3 Gaisford,4 and even Bekker,5 were content to print certain scholia with little attempt to designate precisely the manuscripts from which they were severally drawn, to distinguish hands, or even to collate them fully and accurately; nor was any attempt made to examine the sources of the scholia. The edition of the scholia which has been most widely used is that of C. F. Hermann, contained in the sixth volume of his edition of Plato; 6 this is chiefly a conflation of the work of his predecessors. Since this edition appeared, Schanz distinguished the hands in the scholia of the Bodleian Plato,7 and published the scholia in Venetus T; 8 moreover the sources of the scholia were investigated by

1 Scholia Platonica, contulerunt atque investigaverunt Fredericus de Forest Allen, Ioannes Burnet, Carolus Pomeroy Parker, omnia recognita, praefatione indicibusque instructa, edidit Guilielmus Chase Greene. In lucem protulit Societas Philologica Americana, Haverfordiae in Civitate Pennsylvaniae, MDCCCCXXXVIII.

2 I. Ph. Siebenkees, Anecdota Graeca (Niirnberg, 1798). 3 D. Ruhnken, Scholia in Platonem (Leyden, 1800). 4 T. Gaisford, Catalogus sive Notitia Manuscriptorum Clarkianorum, pars

prior (Oxford, 1812); Lectiones Platonicae (Oxford, 1820). 5 I. Bekker, Commentaria Critica in Platonem (Berlin, 1823), II 311-473. 6 C. F. Hermann, Platonis Dialogi (Leipzig, 1853, and several times re-

printed), VI 223-396. 7 M. Schanz, Novae Commentationes Platonicae (Wiirzburg, 1871). 8 M. Schanz, Uber den Platocodex der Markusbibliothek in Venedig, Append.

Class. 4, Nr. 1 (Leipzig, 1877), 5-36.

[1937 184

Vol. lxviii] The Platonic Scholia 185

Mettauer 9 and by Cohn 10 and others. A fair picture of the state of knowledge with regard to the Platonic scholia as it was a generation ago was drawn by Alline in his excellent work on the history of the Platonic text.1l

Meanwhile the foundation of a new edition of the scholia had been laid by F. D. Allen, of Harvard, who in 1891-1892 collated with great accuracy the scholia in the Bodleian and in the Paris manuscripts. Of his collations, J. Burnet, of St. Andrews, who took over the responsibility for the edition after his death, wrote as follows: "I do not suppose that anything has ever been collated so minutely." Burnet himself incorporated the scholia from Venetus T, as well as notes on the sources of the scholia, based largely on the work of Mettauer and Cohn. But since he could not find time to collate the scholia in Vindobonensis W, the importance of which he now appreciated, or of Vaticanus 0, which had just been rediscovered by Rabe 12 and discussed by Immisch,l3 the completion of the task was intrusted to C. P. Parker, of Har- vard. The necessary collations were made under Parker's supervision; but Parker himself died, in 1916, before he was able to deal as he had hoped with this new material. Nearly twenty years later I undertook to revise the material accumu- lated by Allen, Burnet, and Parker, and to prepare the edition for publication, adding a preface and indices.

II The five Platonic manuscripts whose scholia are of impor-

tance are: Bodleianus (Clarkianus) B, Venetus (MarcianuS) T, Vindobonensis W, Parisinus A, and Vaticanus 0.

From the subscription of B we know that the manuscript was written in the year 895 by John the Calligrapher for the

9 T. Mettauer, De Platonis Scholiorum Fontibus (Zurich, 1880). 10 L. Cohn, "Untersuchungen fiber die Quellen der Plato-Scholien," Jahrb.

f. cl. Philol., Suppb. 13 (1883), 773-864. H. Alline, Histoire du Texte de Platon (Paris, 1915), 246-280.

12 H. Rabe, "Die Platon-Handschrift Q", Rhein. Mus. N.F. 63 (1908), 235- 238. 0 Bekker = O Burnet = Vaticanus graecus 1 (olim 796).

13 0. Immisch, Philologische Studien zu Plato II (Leipzig, 1903), 48-54.


use of Arethas, later Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. It seems probable that it was Arethas himself who corrected the manuscript, added the titles and the subscription, and wrote those scholia which are in uncials, as well as certain scholia to the Gorgias in a slightly different and probably slightly later hand which agree in general with the scholia vetera to be found in T and W. All these, so far as B is concerned, will be here referred to as "Arethas scholia." Four later minuscule hands, of which the most important is of the thirteenth century, added numerous further scholia vetera.

The first of the three scribal hands in T, of the twelfth century or earlier, added in its portion of the manuscript the scholia, in minuscules, mostly at the same time that it wrote the text.

Similarly the two hands that wrote the Platonic text of W, of the tenth and the twelfth or thirteenth centuries respec- tively, added scholia in minuscules. The first of these scribes seems to have gained access to scholia, or at least to have used them, only when he began to copy the Philebus; but after finishing the text and scholia from the Philebus to the Menexe- nus he added the scholia also to the earlier part of his manuscript. The second scribe seems to have added the scholia to his portion of the manuscript.

The same scribe who in the ninth century wrote and corrected the text of A added scholia and marginalia, partly in uncials (A) and partly in minuscules (A2); two later scribes, probably of the tenth or eleventh century (both for conven- ience to be designated as A3), added marginal supplements and variant readings which generally agree with those of the third hand in O (03), but no scholia.

It is now generally recognized that Vaticanus 0, written in the late ninth or early tenth century, once contained the whole of the Platonic corpus that is not contained in Bodleianus B, and that the two manuscripts together thus comprised the whole Platonic text. It has been shown by L. A. Post 14 that

14 L. A. Post, The Vatican Plato and its Relations, Philological Monograph No. 4 of the A. P. A. (Middletown, Connecticut, 1934), 10-14.

186 [1937

The Platonic Scholia

O was copied from A from Laws 746b on, but not in the earlier portion. The third hand in O (which, with Post, I designate as 03) in the tenth or eleventh century added scholia and marginalia, and as far as Laws 746b the readings of the text of A, as A3 added the readings of the text of 0; after Laws 746b it proves to be the same scribe (A303) who added marginal supplements in both manuscripts.14a Slightly later, but still in the tenth or eleventh century, a learned scribe (04) added many variant readings, mostly designated as coming from "the book of the Patriarch," or as emendations contained in it, or as coming from other sources; also some emendations of his own, as well as a few scholia, mostly on grammatical and rhetorical points. It seems probable that "the Patriarch" is no one else than the learned Photius himself. At Laws 743b, moreover, 04 noted the "end of the recension of the Philosopher Leo" (the pupil of Photius). Indications of theological interests appear in his citations of Gregory of Nazianzus and of Origen, and his use of a special sign (r6 ?7\XaKOV) to mark scholia dealing with theological points, after the manner of contemporary Christian commentators on Christian authors; it should be added, however, that he, like scribes dealing with pagan authors, elsewhere uses the sign without any such significance. All this suggests that we have here the traces of a recension of Plato, made by or for Photius, which gives us access to an older text tradition than that represented by A and 0. Most of these readings recorded by 04 have never before been published;15 some of them deserve to be considered by future editors of the Platonic text.

III How far the tradition of the Platonic scholia throws light

on the relationships of the extant Platonic manuscripts is a 14a For examples of this identical hand see the supplements Kaic ftpa6vkpovs,

Legg. 773c (A fol. 211 recto; 0 fol. 59 verso); roXXicv, Legg. 779e (A fol. 214 recto; O fol. 62 verso). It must be remembered that "A3" represents two scribes, only one of whom, naturally, is to be identified with "03".

15 Rabe published the scholia to Laws I and v only; Burnet, in the fifth volume of his Oxford text of Plato, made some use of imperfect collations made by Bekker and Bast.

Vol. lxviii] 187


question of considerable interest, even though the answer must be somewhat inconclusive. Immisch, to be sure, printed in parallel columns the scholia and variant readings to the Euthyphro, as a sample, and confidently asserted that the common source of the whole tradition is to be detected in the scholia as well as in the text.16 But a more careful scrutiny of the scholia will show that some indeed are preserved in all the manuscripts, while others appear only in some manuscripts, or are reported differently by the several manuscripts. Certain scholia vetera, for example, appear in B (Arethas), T, and W alike, all of which manuscripts even exhibit the same lacuna in a scholium to Theaetetus 194e derived from Proclus. BTW also agree in reporting the same three syllogisms at Alcibiades I O10d, 112e, and 115a, though Olympiodorus men- tions ten such syllogisms. Elsewhere, however, they assert their several individualities. Now it is T that reports a complete scholium, while B retains but a single word of it, and W nothing at all.17 Of scholia of the same sort, derived for example from Diogenianus or Tarrhaeus or Timaeus, it is now T, now W, that alone preserves the tradition, or that preserves it the more fully. It is T that alone has a right reading, "Protagoras," in one scholium 18 in which B and W agree in reporting the impossible "Pythagoras"; and it is T that gives the most faithful report of the scholia to the Gorgias; yet W is sometimes alone in having the right reading.19 The scholia vetera to BTW therefore neither in their agreements nor in their discrepancies would warrant the conclusion that they all passed from a single archetype into the several manuscripts without contamination.

It was held by Burnet that the corrections made by Arethas in the text of B so often correspond with the readings of W 20

16 Immisch, Philol. Stud. II 97. 17 Schol. on Ale. I 120a; cf. scholl. on Euthyd. 293d; Euthyphro 3a arexvECS. 18 Schol. on Theaet. 159a. 19 E.g. scholl. on Gorg. 494e; 496e. 20For a good example, cf. schol. Areth. on Euthyphro 3b bLafaXcv (sic)

BTw: L&afalXXwv Wt; ev a&XXy ftaa&Xcwv B2.

188 [1937


that Arethas must have regarded the original of W as "in some sense the standard text, and in that case W represents for us an even older tradition than BT." 21 The original of W, at any rate, was provided with scholia vetera and variant readings and deserves to be called a recension. Burnet went further still: "I should not be surprised, indeed, if W should prove to be a direct copy of the Patriarch's book, nor even if that should prove to have come from the Academy." 22 However gratifying such an hypothesis may be, an hypothesis it must remain. If we confine our attention to the scholia in W itself, we must note that although W's variant readings are often good,23 W sometimes in a marginal variant reading shares the glaring error of manuscripts of other families, though its own text is sound.24

Attempts have been made to show that in the eighth tetral- ogy T was directly copied from A.25 Jordan in fact attempted to explain the errors in certain T scholia as arising from the forms of the letters in the corresponding A scholia. That T and A are closely related, no one will deny. Some of Jordan's examples, however, might as easily be explained if A and T were both copied from a common ancestor.26 The same may be said of a curious case, not cited by Jordan, at Republic 333e ELTE TrVKTLKU. Here the scholium standing in A on folio 5 verso refers the reader to a later scholium to be found "uera 4vXXa &vo," which indeed stands on folio 7 verso. The same phenomenon is also found in T, except that at Republic 333e the reader is quite incorrectly invited to look for his information "'eurpooOev"; there is no scholium previous to this point on the matter in question. On Republic 337a, however, there are

21 J. Burnet, "Vindiciae Platonicae I", Class. Quart. vIII (1914), 231; cf. J. Burnet, Phaedo (Oxford, 1911), lviii.

22 Burnet, "Vind. Plat. I," 232. 23 E.g. scholl. on Theaet. 148e JeAXeLt (yp. W); Rep. 334b KcKa'OaL (W m.

altera). 24 Theaet. 178a 10 #ueXXov W: ,taXXov BT and -yp. W; Symp. 213b 9 rovrl rT

jv TW Oxy.: roUT' eiTrev B, and yp. W. 25 Schanz, Platocodex 78; A. Jordan, Hermes xIII (1878), 480; Alline, 214-216. 26 E.g. scholl. on Rep. 373c avpwcrCv; 383b 7ratv' (sic A).

Vol. lxviii] 189


two scholia, one of which T preserves (with W for the most part agreeing), while A preserves the other, and is in close agreement for the most part with Photius. What we seem to have, therefore, is a case in which TW preserve the scholium vetus, while in A it has been crowded out by a note drawn from Photius. Moreover there are many cases in which T (often with W agreeing) reports a scholium correctly, while A reports it either erroneously or not at all.26a I conclude that the evidence, of the scholia at least, is against T having been copied from A.

It has been argued by F. Lenz that O not only is the com- plement of B but, like B, was written by John the Calligrapher for Arethas, who himself added scholia.27 But the hand of the text in O is quite different from that of B; T. W. Allen goes so far as to say: " No two hands in the world are so unlike as that of John the writer of the Clarke Plato and the divided Aristides and that of the unnamed writer of Vat. 1." 28 I may add that the hand that wrote most of the true scholia in O (03) is quite different from that which wrote the Arethas scholia in B, and never ends its notes with the leaflike flourish with which Arethas often ends his scholia; moreover that the true scholia of the Vaticanus (03) regularly correspond to those of the original scribe of the Parisinus (A and A2), and very seldom have anything of the nature of the Bodleian Arethas scholia, while its supplements and variant readings agree, as I have said, with the later scribe or scribes in the Parisinus (A3); furthermore that 03 has no scholia of his own, as Arethas has; and finally that whereas 03 and A2 together, and 04 alone, often copy words or phrases of the text in the margin, without any scholium (as does T occasionally, and W practically

26a E.g. scholl. on Rep. 329e; 347a; 357b; 360e rTrv 6e Kpiav; 362d; 379d fiovlSpwarLs .

27 F. Lenz, "Der Vaticanus Gr. 1, eine Handschrift des Arethas", Nach- richten von der k6niglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Philol.- Hist. K1. (1933), 192-218b, + 4 plates; cf. F. Lenz, Philol. Wochenschrift LIII (1933), coll. 1403-1408; Gnomon xII (1936), 128-134.

28 T. W. Allen, The Year's Work in Classical Studies (1934), 71.

190 [1937


never), this phenomenon is to be found only once in B, and then in a unique hand.29 I conclude that 0 cannot possibly have been written by John, and that its scholia owe nothing to Arethas.

IV The Platonic scholia are of many different kinds, from many

different sources, and they vary greatly in their value. For the analysis and interpretation of the Platonic thought the scholia vetera contribute much that is of considerable interest, derived chiefly from the commentaries of Proclus, Olympio- dorus, and other Neoplatonists. Terms are defined, argu- ments are neatly schematized,30 and random comments throw light on special points. However it cannot be maintained that the Platonic scholia are as helpful in this respect as they should be, or indeed that they are as important as are the commentaries and scholia on many other ancient authors, such as Aristotle. Other Platonic scholia, dealing with lexicography, are derived from ancient lexica, such as the Platonic lexicon of the sophist Timaeus, the works of the Atticists Aelius Dionysius and Pausanias, and the lexicon of Diogenianus, the latter appearing sometimes in a fuller form in the scholia than in Hesychius Alexandrinus and in the Byzantine lexica. All this material was supposed by Mettauer to have been compiled by a single scholiast, though not subjected to thorough recension, not long after the closing of the philosophic schools, and to have been entered in the archetype of all our manuscripts, which he believed to have been written possibly as late as 400.31 But Sauppe showed that certain scholia vetera had found their way into even earlier manuscripts.32 More- over the numerous paroemiographical scholia probably come from the complete work of Lucillus Tarrhaeus, of the first century, rather than from such second-century epitomators as

29 Schol. on Parm. 141d 6 X6yos aLpel. 30 The schemata, representing logical relationships and family trees of per-

sons, are now published in full for the first time. 31 Mettauer. 113. 32 H. Sauppe, Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen II (1881), 1626-1632.

191 Vol. Ixviii]


Zenobius and Diogenianus, and thus may have found their way into Platonic manuscripts as early as the first century.33 Some of the biographical scholia represent Hesychius Milesius in a fuller version than does Suidas; others come from earlier writers. On the other hand, Cohn proved that most of the scholia on grammatical points were compiled not earlier than the Byzantine renaissance in the ninth century; quite possibly these were the work of a single scholiast, who used materials which were later utilized also by the compilers of the extant Byzantine lexica.34 Some, at least, of the geographical scholia also seem to have received their present form in the Byzantine age, even if they are derived from much earlier sources.35

The scholia vetera therefore are a mosaic in which pieces of various ages were gathered at different times. Most of the scholia culled from ancient commentaries, lexica, and authors, were probably gathered by the sixth century; they were ampli- fied in the eighth or ninth century, possibly under the influence of Photius, by the addition of matter derived from Byzantine lexicographical, historical, and geographical works. But there are some scholia whose sources remain unknown, and some which may have been composed at any time between the second and the ninth century. Still later additions were made by Arethas, a few by the learned scribe in the Vaticanus (04), and a negligible number by even later scribes.

Though the scholia of Arethas are not of great importance for the Platonist, except as they draw, like the scholia vetera, from ancient commentaries, they reveal the mind and the interests of a well-read archbishop of the early tenth century. As in annotating other authors, so in dealing with Plato Arethas has a way of mingling his own comments with material from other sources. From time to time he quotes authors whom he has read: Strabo, Pollux, Suetonius, Callimachus. His citations from the comic poets may prove that he read them, or they may have been in the archetype of his manu-

33 Cohn, 836-852. 34 Cohn, 774-781; 813-836. 35Alline, 273-276.

192 [1937


script. His grammatical comments are partly borrowed and partly original, the latter unfortunately not always correct. Once he cites Diogenianus on an etymological point; once he seems to draw biographical matter from Hesychius Milesius that the scholia vetera omit.35a Only once does he explain a proverb, and here he is alone in explaining it.36 At times he rebukes Plato for pagan or for sophistic expressions; yet once he marks a noble passage to be memorized.7 Often he calls attention to admired passages by the abbreviated signs for cr7ELeiooLat or for dcpatov.

V The Platonic scholia are of further value as they provide

testimonia for the text of authors other than Plato. A few examples must suffice here; scholars with special interests will be able to cull much more. Interesting traces are to be found of really old Platonic commentaries which throw light on lexicography, music, mythology, and even philosophic thought.38 Frequently the scholia preserve traces of lost commentaries, or of lost portions of extant commentaries, of Proclus and Olympiodorus;39 sometimes they condense the extant comment of these authors.40 Often the scholia preserve lost portions of ancient lexica, such as those of Didymus,41 the Atticists,42 Diogenianus (preserved less fully, if at all, by Hesychius Alexandrinus),43 Boethus,44 or unknown lexicogra-

35a Schol. Areth. on Symp. 172a. 36 Schol. Areth. on Cratyl. 413a. 37 Schol. Areth. on Theaet. 172c. 38 E.g. scholl. on Apol. 19b avTcopuoalav; 27c ev rT avrLypaq^; Alc. II 147c

b0OovepoD; Rep. 388d elrtrXjretev; 392b OVKODV kad KTX.; 440b rod roLTOroV; 443d vearrs re KaZL vTrarrs7; 451a 7rpocaKvWvp 6 'A5pao'rLav; 453d 8EXcrva; Twva; 487b rp6s luev 7aOra; 498a rod 'HpaKXetreiOv ov o; 509c 'yeXolws (1).

39Scholl. on Theaet. 155b; Rep. 546a (two scholl.); 546b; 587d; Soph., at beginning; Legg. 629a Tbpratov; 630a eoyYOPv.

40 E.g. schol. on Phaed. 61d, on Philolaus. 41 Schol. on Euthyd. 303a 7rv?r7r&. 42 Scholl. on Parm. 127a IIavaOrOvaLa; 127b 7raL&Ka. 43 Scholl. on Symp. 190d a&KWXLa&oaovres; 191d cOrraL; 213e tVKTripa; Charm.

153c T-tLLKC,; Phileb. 66d ro rptrov rT owriTpt (cf. on Rep. 583b). 44 Scholl. on Polit. 307c /XacKL&a; Phileb. 56e revraCobvrcv.

Vol. lxviii] 193

194 William Chase Greene [1937

phers; 45 of the paroemiographical work of Tarrhaeus; 46 of the biographical work of Hesychius Milesius (unless some of these come from other sources); 47 and of unknown writers on mythology, among them the source of pseudo-Apollodorus.48 The scholia not infrequently furnish testimonia for the epic cycle 49 and for the lyric poets,50 for tragedy 5 and comedy,52 and, rarely, for other authors, such as Aristotle,53 Theophrastus,54

45 Schol. on Euthyphro 5a avroaxE&&taovTa. 46 Scholl. on Phileb. 45e /u77v &yav; 48c -yjpOt aavT6v; Cratyl. 384b aXeora Tar

KaXa; Phaed. 99c (also Polit. 300c and Phileb. 19c) bebrepov 7rXov; Phaed. 108d rXaLKovu Texv); Phaedr. 260c 7repL ovov aKLas; Charm. 165a ^7yyyl, 7r&pa 5' air1; Rep. 337a aapa&vLov.

47 Scholl. on Phaedr. 244b Zl3vXXav (1), a long and interesting scholium; Ale. I 118e TCr IIepK\Xivs e6; Menex. 235e 'Aaraoarav; Rep. 599d AvKOVpyov; 599e Xapcv5oav; 599e 26Xova; 600a OaXeco; 600a 'AvaxAp-ios; 600b Hveay6pas; 600b KpecovXos; 600c IIpcrayopas; 600c Ip6rKos; Epist. 320a Aicovl 2paKoaTo; scholl. Areth. on Euthyphro lic Aat&hXov; Apol. 18b 'AvuroV; 19c 'Ap&froaivovs; 20e XaLpe4c&va; 23e M(X7ros.

48 Scholl. on Rep. 399e 7rpb Mapabov; 590a 'EptcXb; 611d rTv aXaTrrLOv rXavKov; Tim. 23e ris re Kai 'Halo-rTov; 24e Ebpc&r7v; Min. 315c 'AO&jtavros.

49 Stasinus, Cypria, fr. xxiii Allen; but see Burnet's emendation of the text in his Oxford text of Plato, and in the new edition of the scholia. (Schol. on Euthyphro 12b.)

50 Tyrtaeus 4, 3 Diehl (schol. on Legg. 629a; cf. on Alc. I 122d); Alcaeus 66 Diehl (schol. on Symp. 217e oivos); Solon 21 Diehl (schol. on IIepi AtKalov 374a); Carm. Pop. 17 Diehl (schol. on Legg. 633a); Riddle of Clearchus (?), Diehl I 264 (schol. on Rep. 479c); Attic Scolia 7 Diehl (schol. on Gorg. 451e); Anth. Pal. ix 366 (schol. on Protag. 343a); ix 358 (Phaedo, before text); Orphic Hymn (O. Kern, Orphicorum Fragmenta, p. 91; schol. on Legg. 715e).

51 Sophocles, frag. 330 Pearson (schol. on Charm. 154b); frag. 425 Pearson (schol. on Phileb. 66d; cf. on Rep. 583b); Ion, frag. 55 T.G.F. (schol. on Alc. i 129a bohce 7ravros elvac); Euripides, frag. 183 T.G.F. (schol. on Gorg. 484e XajuArpbP re).

52 Cratinus, 231 Kock (schol. on Apol. 22a v7 rTbv KbVVa); Eupolis, Autolycus 49 Kock (schol. on Critias 116c; cf. on Rep. 461a; Legg. 879c); Maricas 180 Kock (schol. on Phaed. 60b arorov); Aristophanes, Babyl. 77 Kock (schol. on Phaed. 101d); Alexis, 268 Kock (schol. on Menex. 242e); Menander, 724 Kock (schol. on Cratyl. 384b). There is also a line from Xenophon Comicus, whom the editors ignore (scholion on Phaedrus 240c).

53 Aristotle, 'AO. IIoX., frag. 3 Kenyon (schol. on Ax. 371d; cf. on Phileb. 30e; Legg. 878d).

54 For Theophrastus, cf. schol. on Legg. 631c ob rvuXo6s. The matter is not in Wimmer's edition.


and Plotinus.55 Sometimes the scholia actually furnish the sole testimonium for a given text, or for identifying it.

VI The Platonic scholia may still be consulted with profit and

often with pleasure for the information that they give on a very wide range of subjects, quite apart from their bearing on Plato. The student of Greek religion will wish, for example, to consider the evidence of the scholium, apparently from a lost commentary of Proclus, on the Greater and the Lesser Mysteries of Eleusis,56 or those on the cults of Hestia 57 and Artemis Orthosia,58 and on the various divinities worshipped with the epithet Evo6tos.58a He may be interested in the oracu- lar distichs from Delphi on the involuntary homicide and on the man who would not die for his friend.59 The historian of Greek literature will find something worth reading in the scholia (again possibly from Proclus) on dithyramb, tragedy, and comedy; 60 the note, from an Attic lexicon, on the use at Athens of drinking songs or scolia; 61 the definition of irony; 62 or the remark about the term ,iopAuoXvKetov as applied to an actor's mask.63 The historian will welcome the biographical information that the scholia seem to have borrowed from Hesychius Milesius.64 Our knowledge of Greek mythology is here and there enriched by scholia derived from sources not elsewhere preserved; for example, with regard to the myth of the children of Athamas and the naming of the Hellespont,65

65 For Plotinus, cf. schol. on Rep. 498b jLELpaKLWSrl raL6elav. 66 Schol. on Gorg. 497c. 67 Scholl. on Euthyphro 3a; Cratyl. 401d. S8 Schol. on Legg. 633b. 68a Schol, on Legg. 914b. 69 Schol. on Legg. 865b. 60 Two scholl. on Rep. 394c. 61 Schol. on Gorg. 451e oKoXL6v. 62 Schol. on Rep. 337a. 63 Schol. on Ax. 364b. 64 See above, pp. 193f, notes 35a and 47. 66 Schol. on Menex. 243a; cf. on Min. 315c.

Vol. lxviii] 195


or as to Scylla and Charybdis,66 or as to the lore of the halcyon.67 Our knowledge of Greek games is enlarged by a scholium on TrerTrLa; 68 of some interest are the verses on the four great athletic festivals of Greece, the patrons, and the prizes; 69 and there is an interesting note on the Spartan Kpv7rrela and the training of Spartan boys.70

These varied examples I have noted in the course of casual browsing in the Platonic scholia; with the help of the new indices and the notes on sources it will be easy for specialists to find what they wish, and to determine how far the scholia throw new light on their special interests, and how far they are the gossip of irresponsible pedants. But perhaps I have cited enough to warrant the suggestion that among the minor uses of the Platonic scholia is the possibility of their being actually read. Possibly they deserve a place near the Noctes Atticae as a bedside book.

66 Schol. on Epist. 345e. 67 The long schol. preceding the Halcyon. 68 Schol. on Legg. 820c. 69 Schol. on Legg. 950e. 70 Schol. on Legg. 633b.

196 [1937

Article Contentsp.184p.185p.186p.187p.188p.189p.190p.191p.192p.193p.194p.195p.196

Issue Table of ContentsTransactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 68 (1937), pp. i-v+1-506+i-cviiFront Matter [pp.i-v]Suggestions for Guidance in the Preparation of a Critical Index Verborum for Latin and Greek Authors [pp.1-10]Homer's Gods: Prolegomena [pp.11-25]A Sixth-Century Epitome of Seneca, De Ira [pp.26-42]Two Curse Tablets from Beisan [pp.43-128]A Choragic Epigram from Athens [pp.78-83]Notes on the Text of Aristotle's Poetics [pp.84-87]Theognis and the Persian Wars [pp.88-111]The Smooth Breathing [pp.112-119]Initial Indo-European y in Greek [pp.120-122]Notes on the Apparatus of Leo's Edition of Persius [pp.123-128]A Prelude to Speech in Homer [pp.129-140]Malalas on the History of Antioch under Severus and Caracalla [pp.141-156]The Expiatory Rites of 207 B.C. [pp.157-171]The Basic Critical Doctrine of "Longinus," On the Sublime [pp.172-183]The Platonic Scholia [pp.184-196]The Erinys in Aischylos' Septem [pp.197-211]The Organization of Gilds in Greco-Roman Egypt [pp.212-220]The Continuatio Theophanis [pp.221-227]Horace's Influence upon American Criticism [pp.228-263]A Greek Hagiologic Manuscript in Philadelphia [pp.264-276]The Role of Eight Batavian Cohorts in the Events of 68-69 A.D. [pp.277-283]The Opportunities for Dramatic Performances in the Time of Plautus and Terence [pp.284-304]The Structure and Proportion of Catullus LXIV [pp.305-317]Contributions of the Herculanean Papyri to Our Knowledge of Epicurean Logic [pp.318-325]The Later Paideia of Epicurus [pp.326-333]Plato's Ideas in the Light of Early Scholasticism [pp.334-342]Heredis Institutio ex Re Certa and a New Will of the Roman Type [pp.343-356]A Referee's Hearing on Ownership [pp.357-387]Hittite kwis kwis [pp.388-402]The Early Greek Capacity for Viewing Things Separately [pp.403-427]The Shrine of the Lares Compitales [pp.428-441]The Iuvenes and Roman Education [pp.442-479]The Life of Juvenal [pp.480-506]Proceedings of the Sixty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the American Philological Association. Also of the Thirty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Philological Association of the Pacific Coast [pp.i-cvii]

greene chase william, the platonic scholia

Documents