TC 2013 6(1) 24ndash38

Fausto MontanaAnything but a marginal questionOn the meaning of παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαι

Abstract A reappraisal is proposed of the meaning of Late Antique and early Byzantine attestations where the word σχόλιον is linked with participial forms like παρακείμενον (ldquoextracted noterdquo ldquoexplanatory excerptumrdquo) and of the verb παραγράφεσθαι as used in subscriptions of Greek Medieval manuscripts provided with scholia (ldquoto be extracted adduced quotedrdquo)

Keywords Greek scholia manuscript subscriptions

DOI 101515tc-2014-0004

1enspΠαρακείμενον σχόλιον et simThe term σχόλιον ndash the diminutive of σχολή ndash is found in ancient texts with the meaning of ldquoshort lecturerdquo ldquobrief explanationrdquo ldquonoterdquo but without any implica-tion concerning its mise en page or its mise en textesup1 In Cicerorsquos letters (ad Att 1673) the word designates something akin to a philosophical lecture on a moral topic Later between the imperial age and the early Byzantine age it indicates comments in commatic form that is to say consisting of sequences of concise annotations At times such materials were gathered together in an independent book separate from the work being commented on as had been the case for the ancient Alexandrian hypomnemata on rolls and was at a later date for the bibli-cal catenae on codices set up as Breitkatenensup2 On other occasions these comments could be jotted down in the margin of the text that formed the object of the discus-sion or explanation in the manner of the biblical Randkatenensup3 Therefore the ancient meaning of σχόλιον in its own right was not ldquomarginal annotationrdquo The

enspEnlarged and updated English version of Montana 20101enspLundon 1997 whose title is intentionally echoed by that of the present article2enspZuntz 1975 64ndash73 (= 1939 548ndash557) sees in the term ldquoscholiardquo an implicit opposition to the more complex and erudite character of hypomnemata cf Lundon 1997 Dickey 2007 11 n 253enspOn the catenae Devreesse 1928 Geerard 1980 185ndash259 Dorival 1986

Fausto Montana University of Pavia E-Mail faustomontanaunipvit

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp25

same seems to be inferable from evidence where the word is accompanied by a determination (for instance παρακείμενον) which would otherwise be pleonastic⁴

Taking this well established circumstance as our starting point it may be useful to make an overview as well as a comparative assessment of some attesta-tions of the word σχόλιον datable between the VIth and VIIIth century that have already been brought to attention in individual studies as these attestations are sometimes invoked as witnesses supporting the claim that the origin of the scho-liographic technique can be traced back as far as the Late Antique age⁵

1)enspEutocius of Ascalon Commentary on the Conics of Apollonius of Perga 217617ndash22 Heiberg

πλειόνων δὲ oὐσῶν ἐκδόσεων ὡς καὶ αὐτός φησιν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ (1218thinspff Heiberg) ἄμεινον ἡγησάμην συναγαγεῖν αὐτὰς ἐκ τῶν ἐμπιπτόντων τὰ σαφέστερα παρατιθέμενος ἐν τῷ ῥητῷ διὰ τὴν τῶν εἰσαγομένων εὐμάρειαν ἔξωθεν δὲ ἐν τοῖς συντεταγμένοις σχολίοις ἐπισημαίνεσθαι τοὺς διαφόρους ὡς εἰκὸς τρόπους τῶν ἀποδείξεων⁶

In the expression ἔξωθεν hellip ἐν τοῖς συντεταγμένοις σχολίοις used by Eutocius (approx 500 CE) the adverb should be taken as meaning ldquoin the marginrdquo⁷ according to a usage attested in Eusebius of Caesarea and Cyril of Jerusalem with regard respectively to a variant and a paragraphe both written in the margin of a

4enspLundon 1997 86 and below In contrast modern philology on classical authors adopts a dif-ferent perspective taking ldquoscholionrdquo to indicate any explanation placed in the margin of the text thus both exegetic marginalia in papyri and medieval scholiographic corpora are referred to as ldquoscholiardquo without any differentiation in the description Consider for instance Luppe 2002 55ndash57 notwithstanding his conviction that these represent two distinct types of annotation the inadequacy of the terminology makes itself felt in the assertion (57) that in describing the mar-ginalia of papyri one can speak of ldquoscholiardquo but not of ldquoscholiastsrdquo (the sentence harks back to the conclusion of the Nachwort in Zuntz 1975 133) The modern terminological shortcomings and incoherent vocabulary concerning the marginalia are lamented by Maniaci 2002 3ndash4 n 1 cf Montana 2005 4ndash5 n 205enspI use the term ldquoscholiographyrdquo in a clear-cut and meaningful sense taking a corpus of scholia as an exegetical editio variorum ie a compilation of materials systematically drawn from differ-ent commentaries Exegetic collections of such a type were designed to be carefully organized in the margin of the texts commented on and therefore they took shape in the framework of an organic book production and editorial project cf Montana 2011a 105ndash1106enspHeiberg 1891ndash1893 2177 translates ldquoSed cum complures exstent editiones ut ipse in epistula dicit eas in unum cogere malui clariora ex iis quae mihi sese obtulerant in verba scriptoris recipiens ut institutio facilior esset varios autem demonstrandi modos ut par erat extra in scholiis a me compositis indicarerdquo On this passage see Decorps-Foulquier 1998 99ndash1017enspThus among others Cameron 1990 117 Irigoin 1994 79 (= 2003 168) Nagy 2009 26

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

26emsp emspFausto Montana

text⁸ (see also the second of two passages taken from Maximus the Confessor reproduced below) Eutociusrsquo σχόλια consist of further mathematical demonstra-tions forming an adjunct to the main text thus they can more properly be consid-ered as a complement or an expansion of Apolloniusrsquo text itself rather than as a commentary having the form we are accustomed to finding when literary works are involved Accordingly the example from Eutocius would appear to reflect the activity by an individual and recognizable ldquoauthorrdquo rather than an editorial com-pilation put together from a number of different exegetic sources ndash in contrast to the corpora of scholia attested in medieval manuscripts

A different view is put forward by Fabio Acerbi in his recent important study on Late Antique mathematical commentaries Acerbi argues that the operation performed by Eutocius is not strictly speaking an ldquoauthorial actrdquo but rather a ldquoredactional actrdquo that can be assimilated to the scholiastic type of compila-tions albeit carried out in accordance with the manner of proceeding that was characteristic of mathematical exegesis namely the (often tacit) rewriting and transmission of earlier hermeneutic contributions⁹ However the demarca-tion line between this type of exegetic operation and that performed by the pure redactor-scholiast is brought into sharper focus if appropriate emphasis is placed specifically on the original character of the mathematician-scholiastrsquos contributions and his objectives In the field of ancient mathematics the process of ldquorewritingrdquo undertaken by a commentator who was also a specialist on the subject not only represented a chance to refresh and metabolize the exegetic tradition but it was also the customary and shared mode of further developing of thought and engaging in original speculation within an area of knowledge designed for utilitarian purposes The commentator was professionally involved and competent in the subject-matter on which he was rewriting a text further-more the hermeneutic operation offered the opportunity to pursue a particu-lar target of special interest to him namely improving and expanding the text that formed the object of the commentary and engaging in a sort of emulative competition with it in the spheres of content advancement of knowledge and

8enspEus Comm in Ps 452 Cyr Hier ad Gen 424 (PG 66 1108b) both quoted and discussed by Irigoin 1994 137ndash1389enspAcerbi 2012 140ndash142 and particularly concerning Eutocius 152ndash155 The same opinion was ex-pressed though en passant by Cameron 1990 118 according to which Eutociusrsquo commentary on Apolloniusrsquo Conica is ldquoan indisputable examplerdquo of marginal compilatory exegesis and Eutociusrsquo ldquocommentaries clearly represent an abridgment of the work of innumerable predecessorsrdquo This statement however does not take into account the substantially different approaches between commenting on literary and mathematical texts see below in the text and the next note

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp27

theoretical elaborationsup1⁰ Accordingly it was most definitely in the commenta-torrsquos interest to ensure that his identity remained explicit and recognizable on an authorial plane and to present in a completely assimilated form the estab-lished contribution of previous exegesis (so that the latter was no longer sepa-rable but amalgamated and anonymous) while at the same time disseminating meta-exegetic signals throughout the text This authorial attitude represented a continuation and an extention to the speculative field of mathematical herme-neutics of the long-lasting experience also displayed from the Hellenistic age to Late Antiquity by commentators of literary works such as the Alexandrian scholars Aristarchus of Samothrace Theon (the son of Artemidorus living in the Augustan age) or Didymus Chalcenterus and others whose names are care-fully handed down in the erudite traditionsup1sup1 By contrast the redactor-scholiast would appear to adopt a different manner of proceeding the decidedly redac-tional anonymous and detached character of his copy-and-paste work emerges above all from the tendency towards an impersonal style of writing and from the lack of any flaunted authorial identity that would seek to enter into a personal emulative relationship with the exegetic tradition Thus the generalized absence of marked authorial profiles in the scholia and the lack within them of prescrip-tions concerning conservation of the literal integrity of the exegetic text should not be attributed exclusively to cases of mechanical trimming even though these did occur fairly systematically during transmission The very facts of the physi-ological anonymity and textual fluctuation of scholiastic material show that the zeal for exact conservation was alien and indifferent to the genre In short such authoritative scholars as Aristarchus Didymus and Eutocius had a good reason for putting their signature on their commentaries and trying to fix the content in a way bearing their own imprint as authors Scholiasts on the other hand

10enspCf Cameron 1990 126 ldquoIn the writings of the mathematicians an altogether different crite-rion [ie rather than ldquoto establish what their author wrote and what he meantrdquo] was paramount mathematical correctness Was the proof right The mathematicians were read quite simply to learn mathematics To this end mistakes were naturally corrected If a demonstration could be improved it was Not even the language was sacrosanct hellip The point was to produce a text that the professorrsquos students could read and understand The purpose of their studies was utilitarian Some of them would go on to become architects Practical considerations were understandably predominantrdquo11enspAs an example we can refer to the IIIrd century CE renown papyrus fragment (PAmh 212 MP3 483) of Aristarchusrsquo hypomnema to Herodotusrsquo Book 1 a final portion of this commentary is pre-served and albeit heavily reshaped (or so it would seem cf recently Montana 2012c Montanari 2013) is nonetheless followed by the title and authorrsquos name as late as four centuries after the composition of the original work Other examples below in the text (subscriptions to medieval scholia displaying ancient commentatorsrsquo names)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

28emsp emspFausto Montana

do not appear to have had either the right or the ambition to put their autho-rial signature on show or to ensure that the materials they assembled remained absolutely intactsup1sup2

Let us momentarily return to the passage from Eutocius to point out that here παρατιθέμενος unequivocally means ldquodrawing (from)rdquo ldquomentioningrdquo and there can be no doubt that the term is used in reference not to marginal paratext but to the critical constitution of Apolloniusrsquo textsup1sup3

2)enspAnonymous marginal note to Hippocrates Aphorisms 324 in PAnt 3183 (MP3 5433 VIth century) fr 2(a) (mg dx)

thinspthinspthinspthinspthinspthinsp σχό(λιον) thinsp τελέσας ὁ θlsaquoεrsaquoιότατο[ς thinsp Ἱπποκράτης τὸν π[ε ρὶ τῶν ὡρῶν καὶ κατασ[τά σεων λόγον ἄρχετα[ι τοῦπερ]ὶ τῶν ἡλικιῶν τ[μή ματος

The reading σχό(λιον) is by Isabella Andorlini who has recognized close to the uppermost rip in the fragment the sequence of letters ϹΧΟ with omicron written over chisup1⁴ The annotation occupies a small portion of what was the right-hand margin and fulfills a service function helpful for the readability of the main text it indicates the end of one content section and the beginning of another in Apho-risms 324

12enspAs mentioned exegetic (re)writing constituted the habitual mode of Late Antique theoretical reflection in the field of mathematics as also in other fields strongly characterized by profes-sional training and learning such as philosophy law medicine Holy Scripture and theology For philosophy see Hadot 1997 Hoffmann 2006 for theology see some examples from Maximus the Confessor and Anastasius of Sinai below in the text This should discourage from automati-cally assuming that objectives methods and tools employed by ancient readers exegetes and specialists in the different fields of culture were fully interchangeable Montana 2011a 112ndash115 and 131ndash132 For the opposite point of view see Acerbi 2012 139ndash14013enspOn this Acerbi 2012 162 with n 79 is in agreement cf Cameron 1990 117 who translates τὰ σαφέστερα παρατιθέμενος ἐν τῷ ῥητῷ ldquo(to) place the clearer version in the textrdquo On the con-trary Nagy 2009 26 renders ldquoto juxtapose in the text the clearer thingsrdquo (my emphasis)14enspAndorlini 2000 42ndash43 51 (Pl 6) Andorlini 2003 25ndash26 (Tav VI) A new commented edition of this annotation is being prepared by Daniela Manetti for the Commentaria et lexica Graeca in papyris reperta (CLGP)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp29

31)enspMaximus the Confessor Quaestions to Thalassius 91ndash2 LagaSteel (= 1081ndash3 Larchet) Prologue to the scholia inscriptio

Μαξίμου μοναχοῦ πρόλογος τῶν παρακειμένων ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις σχολίων

32)enspibidem 1163ndash1378 LagaSteel (= 11262ndash11476 Larchet)

τοῦτο καθάπερ ἔφην εἰδώς δεῖν ὠῄθην ἑτέραν τινὰ τῷ παρόντι λόγῳ τῆσδε τῆς συγγραφῆς δοῦναι βοήθειαν τὴν τῶν παρατεθέντων ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις σχολίων γραφήν hellip διὸ παρακαλῶ πάντας τοὺς ἐντευξομένους ἢ καὶ μεταγράψοντας καὶ τὴν τῶν σχολίων ἔξωθεν ἀναγνῶναι καὶ παραθέσθαι γραφὴν κατὰ τὴν ἑκάστου σημείωσιν hellip

After composing the Quaestions to Thalassius dated to the years 630ndash633 Maximus annotated his own worksup1⁵ with explanations (σχόλια) that he copied (παρακείμενα παρατεθέντα)sup1⁶ in the margins of the page (ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις ἔξωθεν)sup1⁷ He considered the σχόλια to be an integral part of his text and pre-cisely for this reason he expressly urged his readers and copyists not to neglect them but to utilize them and reproduce them (ἀναγνῶναι καὶ παραθέσθαι) in the subsequent copies of the work with due respect for their position on the page vis-agrave-vis the main text

15enspThe attribution to Maximus of the prologue to the scholia testified by the inscriptio and also of the greater part of the scholia themselves is generally held to be reliable LagaSteel 1980 XIIndashXIII J-C Larchet in LarchetVinel 2010 21ndash2216enspThe summary which in two manuscripts precedes the Quaestions likewise has the wording (33 LagaSteel = 1023 Larchet) πρόλογος εἰς τὰ παρατεθέντα σχόλια translated as ldquoprologue aux scholies ajouteacuteesrdquo by F Vinel in LarchetVinel 2010 10317enspThe translation by F Vinel in LarchetVinel 2010 109 and 113 ldquoscholies situeacutees disposeacutees dans les margesrdquo is fairly neutral The rendering of the two passages of Maximus in the Latin translation made before the year 866 by John Scotus Eriugena (81ndash2 LagaSteel de appositis in frontibus scholiis 1059ndash1260 LagaSteel additorum in frontibus scholiorum on the dating see LagaSteel 1980 XCVIII by the same token in the Latin translation of the Greek summary of the work 23 LagaSteel the wording is Prologus in apposita scholia) is the result of a misun-derstanding on the one hand Eriugena wrongly interprets the prologue to the scholia as the prologue to the Questions and takes the term σχόλια itself to refer to the individual biblical quaes-tions around which the work is constructed and which precede Maximusrsquo answers on the other he shows that he has in mind the acceptation of σχόλια indicating marginal biblical catenae Cf LagaSteel 1980 XCIXndashC and see Eriugenarsquos own scholium to Maximusrsquo prologue (121ndash4 LagaSteel) Scholia dicuntur que quasi extra librum in frontibus capitulorum ex sancta scriptura su-muntur quorum expositio interius continetur Proprie autem dicuntur scholia semnologia hoc est insignes sermones

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

30emsp emspFausto Montana

41) Anastasius of Sinai Guide along the right path 311ndash3 76 Uthemann

σχόλιον παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας τῇ βίβλῳ ἐκ παντὸς τρόπου ἀναγινώσκειν καὶ τὰ κατὰ τοὺς τόπους παρακείμενα σχόλια εἰ δὲ καί ὡς εἰκός καὶ βραχέα τινὰ σόλοικα ἔχει ἡ βίβλος συγγνώμην αἰτοῦμεν ὁ γὰρ αὐτοσχεδίως ἐκτιθέμενος πολλάκις ἔχων τὸν νοῦν αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς νοήμασι καὶ σπεύδων ταῦτα σημειοῦσθαι περιφρονεῖ τῶν σολοίκων καὶ τῆς στίξεως

42)enspibidem 24134ndash136 320 Uthemann (explicit of the work)

πρὸς τούτοις πᾶσι δυσωποῦμεν τὸν μεταγράφειν μέλλοντα παραθέσθαι καὶ τὰ σχόλια σημειώσασθαι δὲ ἐπιμελῶς καὶ τοὺς τόνους καὶ τὰς στιγμὰς καὶ ὑποστιγμὰς καὶ τὰ σόλοικα καὶ γὰρ ἄλλοτέ τινες ἰδιῶται μεταγράψαντες ἡμῶν δογματικὸν τόμον ἐξ ἀγνοίας βλασφημιῶν αὐτὸν ἐπλήρωσανsup1⁸

The monk Anastasius in very much the same manner as Maximus his elder contemporary was the author of the explanations ndash which he himself termed σχόλιαsup1⁹ ndash that abound in the margins of his dogmatic text in the medieval manu-scripts Anastasius intended these marginal jottings to serve the purpose of eluci-dating passages of the main text whose content or form he had penned unclearly and this also prompted him to certify that the σχόλια were an integral part of his work Moreover he clarified the nature of the meaning that should be attrib-uted to this term (2880 70ndash71 Uthemann in the section περὶ ἐτυμολογίας)sup2⁰ σχόλιον εἴρηται διὰ τὸ κατὰ σχολὴν παρατίθεσθαι πρὸς σαφεστέραν ἑρμηνείαν τῶν δυσνοήτων νοημάτων ἢ ῥημάτων (~ EtGud 51928 Sturz sv σχόλιον EtM 74115 Gaisford sv σχόλιον)

5)enspTheognostus Orthography can 581 2994 Cramer

οὕτως εὗρονsup2sup1 παρακείμενον σχόλιον εἰς τὰ Ἔργα Ἡσιόδου (cf sch Hes Op 115b Pertusi)

With these words Theognostus in his Περὶ ὀρθογραφίας (roughly 800 CE) makes a reference to a scholium to Hesiod concerning the graphic and lexical difference

18enspWilson 1984 108 adduces this passage as evidence that the origin of scholiography dates to before the VIIIthndashIXth century cf Glock 2001 20919enspOn the Anastasian authorship of the scholia see Uthemann 1981 CCXVIndashCCXVIII20enspDoubts have been cast on the genuineness of this part of the text but the most recent editor believes it to be authentic and in any case it is congruent with Anastasiusrsquo manner of proceed-ing21enspεὑροι ms Oxon Barocc 50 corr Cramer

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp31

that distinguishes θάλια from θάλεια The passage is quoted by Klaus Alpers in his monograph on Orusrsquo Lexicon in connection with the hypothetical dating of the compilation of the scholia to Cyrilrsquos Lexicon (between 550 and 900 roughly)sup2sup2 Alpers inclined towards an early time frame and tended to agree with claim that scholiography originated in Late Antiquity adducing the passage from Theog-nostus as evidence for this assumptionsup2sup3 By the same token in a later contri-bution Alpers concluded that the redactors of the Etymologicum Genuinum in which one finds the same expression εὗρον παρακείμενον σχόλιον or similar phrases drew on editions that featured ldquoRandscholienrdquo ldquoEs muszlig damit gerech-net werden daszlig viele der vom Etymologicum Genuinum benutzten Handschriften wie die Hesiodhandschrift Theognosts mit Randscholien ausgestattet waren und dem siebenten achten oder fruumlhen neunten Jahrhundert entstammenrdquosup2⁴

However one could legitimately wonder whether in Theognostusrsquo passage as well as in the parallel occurrences in the Genuinum ndash and not unlike other cases mentioned above ndash παρακείμενον does not mean ldquosituated next (to)rdquo but rather ldquo(being) excerptedrdquo ldquoextractedrdquo ldquocitedrdquo I would argue that this wording labels an isolated explanation (without implying per se how and where it has been found namely as a quotation by an author or in a lexicum or alternatively as a marginal note in a copy of the literary work) distinguished from explanations read in a continuous commentary (hypomnema) For the characterization relevant to this second type we have meaningful evidence thanks to the Etymologica EtGen α 117 LasserreLivadaras sv Ἀζεΐδαο (Il 2513) εὗρον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Βοιωτίας σχόλιον (= EtM α 345 LasserreLivadaras cf EtSym α 182 LasserreLivadaras where ἐν dagger ὑποθήσει should be corrected to ἐν ὑπομνήματι) would appear to imply that rather than being taken from the margin of an edition of the Iliadic text the explanation was drawn from a ὑπόμνημα The latter word as is known literally identifies a commentary contained in a book (namely in a codex at this stage of the tradi-tion more presumably than a volumen) that was independent of the literary textsup2⁵

22enspAlpers 1981 85 n 1223enspCf Wilson 1984 108 Alpers 1991 242ndash244 252ndash254 Irigoin 1994 79 Cufalo 2007 LXXXII Klaus Alpers offers a partial disavowal of this general point of view in his detailed monograph on John of Sardis in which he subscribes to the view that some scholiographic corpora conserved in the medieval manuscripts may have been composed in the mid-Byzantine age (VIIIthndashIXth cen-tury) by scholars who had copies of ancient hypomnemata at their disposal (an argument first put forward by Zuntz 1975 cf Maehler 1994 Montana 2006 2011a and 2013) Alpers 2013 eg 81ndash86 (Aristophanesrsquo scholia) and 97ndash99 (Thucydidesrsquo scholia)24enspAlpers 1991 243ndash24425enspWas it the commentary by ldquoApion-Heliodorusrdquo (or ldquoApion-Herodorusrdquo) See Erbse 1960 133 Ercoles and Pagani this volume for further bibliography

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

32emsp emspFausto Montana

Thus it is unlikely that in this case σχόλιον means ldquomarginal noterdquo The repetition of the expression in other entries of the Etymologicum Magnum (α 224 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀγών οὕτως εὗρον σχόλια ἐν ὑπομνήμασιν Ἰλιάδος α 589 LasserreLivadaras sv ἄϊδρις οὕτως εὗρον σχόλιον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Ἰλιάδος) leads to the sus-picion that the indication ἐν ὑπομνήματι μασιν may have been lost in some paral-lel occurrences of the Genuinum For this reason in EtGen α 273 sv ἄϊδρις the editors restore οὕτως εὗρον lsaquoσχόλιον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Ἰλιάδοςrsaquo on the basis of the Magnum cf EtSym α 337 LasserreLivadaras where as in α 182 ἐν dagger ὑποθήσει is rightly emended to ἐν ὑπομνήματι in the apparatus criticussup2⁶

Let us make a brief comparison among these pieces of evidence The note in PAnt 3183 ndash if the reading σχό(λιον) is to be accepted ndash and the first of the two pas-sages cited from Anastasius both document the signaling of an explanatory inter-vention by means of the word σχόλιον placed just before the intervention itself This circumstance makes it unlikely that the word embodies an intrinsic refer-ence to the position in the margin as this would result in a pleonastic and curi-ously meta-exegetic sense (ldquoMarginal note Since the most divine Hippocrates has terminated his speech helliprdquo) regardless of whether the term was utilized by the original annotator or whether it was introduced by someone who was copying the note from a model Therefore independently of their position on the page these attestations do not express a meaning that differs from the generic ldquonoterdquo ldquobrief explanationrdquo such a meaning characterizes the intervention as a paratext

26enspConcerning ἄϊδρις the Etymologica repeat the same grammatical observations also present in sch Il 3219b1 Erbse from Herodian But other entries in the Etymologica are more directly indebted to the scholiastic exegesis to Hesiodrsquos Works that has come down to us through the medieval manuscripts Here sometimes a first explanation introduced by σχόλιον is followed by a second one (and in some cases a third) preceded by ἄλλως eg EtSym α 396 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀκίνητον (cf Hes Op 750) EtGen α 434 ~ EtSym α 502 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀλεύω (cf Hes Op 760 ὑπαλεύω) EtGen α 604 LasserreLivadaras sv ἄμαξα (cf Hes Op 455 vd Reitzenstein 1897 19) These scholiastic excerpts are missing in the Gudianum and therefore must have been incorporated into an edition of the Genuinum that was later than the original (on which the compiler of the Gudianum drew as his source) ldquothe Hesiod excerpts hellip are a second-ary accretion to the Genuinum and the manuscript from which they were taken need not have been much older than A and B that is to say than the tenth centuryrdquo (West 1974 163 stemma at 183 siglum e cf West 1978 79 more cautious Alpers 1991 241 n 19 cf Ercoles this volume) Thus in these cases the term σχόλιον stands for an ldquoexplanationrdquo at times subdivided into two or more opinions separated by ἄλλως derived from an edition of the Works that was supplied with the same collection of scholia as those attested in the medieval Hesiodic manuscripts that have come down to us This conclusion is also reached by Martano 2006 with reference to the use of scholiastic tradition on [Hesiod]rsquos Shield by the compiler(s) of the Genuinum

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp33

and may conceivably have been intended to prevent the misunderstading of the intervention itself as an integration or correction of the main text To this should be added that the only thing the term in its respective contexts identifies with any certainty is a single explanatory annotation an individual intervention by a reader and not the fruit of a broad-ranging book production project or a redac-tional compilation

In the other cases invoked as evidence and again in the first passage from Anastasius the term σχόλιον is accompanied by determinations which seem to make explicit reference to the position of the note However I would argue that only the adverb ἔξωθεν (in Eutocius and in Maximus) and the words ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις (in Maximus twice) express the position in the margin whereas ndash on the basis of what was stated above ndash no such position is expressed either by the term σχόλιον in itself or by the verbal forms of παρατίθεσθαι and παρακεῖσθαι For if we were to interpret these two verbs in the sense of ldquobeing by the side ofrdquo in the two passages from Maximussup2⁷ where the participles are present together with ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις then the expression would sound awkwardly pleonastic Thus it is preferable to take the two verbs in the sense of  ldquob e i n g e x t r a c t e d p r o -d u c e d q u o t e d c i t e d rdquo a meaning that is incontrovertibly widespread in ancient eruditionsup2⁸

Accordingly in the attestations examined here syntagms as παρακείμενον σχόλιον appear not to embody a reference to the position in the margin (neither the noun nor the verb would support such an interpretation) rather they more plausibly highlight an e x p l a n a t i o n (σχόλιον) that has been e x t r a c t e d or a d d u c e d or q u o t e d (παρακείμενον) an e x p l a n a t o r y excerptum That they are placed in the margin is a contingent and accessory occurrence linked to the independent evolution of the book format and the standardization of the codex and undeniably favored and incentivized by these factors In effect as the codex became more widely used the free margins of the page not only continued to be available for extemporaneous clarifications or scholia in the ancient sense

27enspThus Leanza 1995 221ndash22228enspEg sch Ar Ve 1310a Koster ὁ δὲ ἄχυρος παρ᾽ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει ὅπου καὶ τὸ Πλάτωνος παράκειται ἐξ Ἀδώνιδος (VΓLhAld) List of ancient passages by Valckenaer 1809 303ndash306 (quot-ing among others Hemsterhuys 1744 244 ldquoverba et testimonia scriptorum ad probandum citata qui profert et in medium adducit dicitur illa Παρατίθεσθαιrdquo) cf Rutherford 1905 22 n 23 LSJ svv παράκειμαι II1 παρατίθημι B5 Lundon 1997 76 and 86 Dickey 2007 251 As underscored by Lara Pagani this volume Erbse 1969 XV translates παράκειται of the Iliadic subscriptions as com-posita esse in my opinion implicitly but intentionally excluding the locative acceptation of the Greek verb G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 60 appears to concede this semantic possibil-ity on the contrary Mazzucchi this volume dissents (though quite apodictically)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

34emsp emspFausto Montana

(for instance in the Hippocratic papyrus and in the first of Anastasiusrsquo passages) as was already possible and had genuinely been the case in many volumina but at the same time they also offered the opportunity for copying the whole of an authorrsquos commentary or hypomnema by the side of the main work (Eutocius)sup2⁹ Indeed they even prompted some writers to devise a project whereby the com-position as well as the editorial layout of the main text and its exegetic apparatus would be presented jointly as an organic whole (Maximus Anastasius) The dis-tinctive feature of this latter type of systematic annotation which differentiates it from scholiography resides in the fact that authors such as Maximus and Anasta-sius brought to bear the force of their own explicitly evoked personal identity and related authority in order to constrain readers and copyists to show respect not only for the texts but also for the respective paratexts At least as far as the cases examined here are concerned these precautionary measures were successful and preserved the exegetic products from the destiny of drastic pruning and thinning manipulation and jumbling that inexorably and massively befell the commentar-ies on literary works as a result of the heavy hand of the scholiasts

The solution adopted by Eutocius Maximus and Anastasius was it would seem the same as that elected by the Neoplatonic Proclus for putting forward his own opinions (παραγράφειν τὰ ἀρέσκοντα) concerning the commentary by Syrianus on the orphic hymns according to the testimony of Marinus Vita Procli 27sup3⁰ As is the case with the acceptation of παρακεῖσθαι in the exegetic and erudite context the meaning to be attributed to παραγράφειν the verb used by Marinus now calls for closer examinationsup3sup1

29enspA similar type of editorial operation seems to be reflected in the celebrated POxy 202258 the VIth century fragmentary codex of Callimachus containing densely written exegetic marginal annotations derived in all probability from a single hypomnema Porro 1985 208ndash215 especially 212 Montana 2011a 136ndash144 Porro 201130enspThe result of this editorial performance is characterized by Marinus as σχόλια καὶ ὑπομνήματα an expression in which ldquoi due termini o saranno sinonimi o rimanderanno a una differenza che non sia perograve quella della posizionerdquo or ldquonon si sono ancora specializzati in una diversificazione significativardquo (ldquothe two terms will either be synonymous or will pertain to a difference which however does not involve positionrdquo or else they ldquohave not yet become specialized as the outcome of a significant diversificationrdquo) according to Lundon 1997 7931enspAs in the case of the other compound verbs with παρα- the modern interpretation of the literal meaning of παραγράφειν in this passage has been generalized as ldquoannotating in the marginsrdquo moreover the assumption has been made that Syrianusrsquo manuscript annotated by Proclus can be seen as a formal antecedent of authentic scholiography eg Hoffmann 2000 625 SaffreySe-gonds 2001 150ndash151 Pontani 2005 99 Acerbi 2012 163 with n 85 But as insightfully suggested by Porro 1985 213ndash214 that manuscript may rather have represented the type of composite and stratified sources later excerpted by the medieval scholiasts for their compilations

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp35

2enspΠαραγράφεσθαιSome medieval manuscripts that are witnesses of Greek scholiastic corpora are as is known supplied with subscriptions that list the exegetic sources These colophons appear at the end of the scholia to the Iliad for almost all the books except Ρ and Ω in ms Ven Marc gr 454 of the Xth centurysup3sup2 after the scholia to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds Peace and Birds in ms Ven Marc gr 474 of the XIth centurysup3sup3 in the Euripidean witness Paris gr 2713 of the XIth century after the scholia to Orestes (the same subscriptio can also be read in Ven Marc gr 471 of the XIIth century) and to Medeasup3⁴ and finally at the end of the scholia to Apol-lonius of Rhodesrsquo Argonautics in ms Laur Plut 329 of the Xth centurysup3⁵ The verb forms παράκειται or παραγέγραπται run as a common denominator throughout these subscriptions to indicate the compilation from sources These are forms that scholars customarily have no qualms in taking to mean ldquostands by the side ofrdquo ldquois written in the marginsrdquo with reference to the positioning of the exegesis as a frame surrounding the poetic textsup3⁶ However as was pointed out long ago and documented for παρακεῖσθαι (and παρατίθεσθαι)sup3⁷ even for παραγράφεσθαι some acceptations are widely attested in Late Antique and Byzantine Greek with reference to textual passages which involve no explicit reference or implicit allu-sion to the position on the page

32enspEg f 100v (end of Η) παράκειται τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα καὶ τὰ Διδύμου Περὶ τῆς Ἀρισταρχείου διορθώσεως τινὰ δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς Ἰλιακῆς προσῳδίας Ἡρωδιανοῦ καὶ Νικάνορος Περὶ στιγμῆς Beyond doubt the title τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα is brachylogic for Ἀριστονίκου περὶ τῶν σημείων namely for Aristonicusrsquo explanations of Aristarchusrsquo semeia see eg Lehrs 18823 2ndash3 at the beginning of a chapter entitled Aristonici liber de notis Aristarchi West 2001a 65 van Thiel 2014 122 Pagani this volume On the other hand Mazzucchi this volume quite oddly assumes though referring to the core of Lehrsrsquo opinion the meaning ldquosemeia of (ie apposed by) Aristonicusrdquo33enspF 43r (Clouds) κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται δὲ ἐκ τῶν Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν F 122v (Birds) παραγέγραπται ἐκ τῶν Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων σχολίων F 146v (Peace) κεκώλισται πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται ἐκ Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου34enspF 56r (Orestes) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα παραγέγραπται ἐκ τοῦ Διονυσίου ὑπομνήματος ὁλοσχερῶς καὶ τῶν μικτῶν (cf Marc gr 471 f 75r) F 129r (Medea) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα Διονυσίου ὁλοσχερὲς καί τινα τῶν Διδύμου35enspF 263v παράκειται τὰ σχόλια ἐκ τῶν Λουκίλλου Ταρραίου καὶ Σοφοκλείου καὶ Θέωνος The expression παράκειται τὰ σχόλια is perfectly analogous to the forms discussed in the first part of this article According to Haslam 1978 71 however here ldquoπαράκειται cannot refer to an inde-pendently existing hypomnema [as it was first stated by Carl Wendel] it must refer to marginal annotationrdquo36enspEg Hense 1870 13ndash14 ending with van Thiel 2014 12737enspAbove n 28

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

36emsp emspFausto Montana

In the scholia themselves belonging to the medieval tradition παραγράφειν is used in the meaning of  ldquo i m i t a t e rdquo ldquo d r a w o n rdquo ldquo a d a p t rdquo as a techni-cal verb to express the intertextual (language- or content-based) relation under-lying a literary passage s t a r t i n g f r o m or i n c o m p a r i s o n t o a given modelsup3⁸ The following examples are of interest

a) sch Soph Ai 731a Christodoulou λήγει δ᾽ ἔρις δραμοῦσα ἡ ἔρις εἰς πολὺ δραμοῦσα καὶ προκόψασα ἔστη τῇ συναντήσει τοῦ λόγου τῶν γερόντων ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως δὲ πρὸς Ἀγαμέμνονα μάχης παραγέγραπται καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ Νέστωρ ἐκεῖ (Il 1247  ff) διαλλάσσει οὕτως καὶ νῦν οἱ γέροντες κτλ LFONVGMRm

b) sch Ar Ach 540b Wilson ἐρεῖ τις οὐ χρῆν] καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Τηλέφου Εὐριπίδου (fr 708 Kannicht) παραγέγραπται EΓ3

c) sch Ar Pac 1012 Holwerda ἐκ Μηδείας Γ μήποτε ἐκ τῆς Εὐριπίδου Μηδείας (96ndash97) παραγράφει ἐκεῖνα ldquoὢ δύστηνος ἐγὼ μελέα τε πόνων lsaquohelliprsaquo πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμανrdquo RVΓ κτλ

d) sch ApRh 11026 Wendel σὺν δ᾽ ἔλασαν τὸ Ὁμηρικὸν παραγράφει (Il 4447) ldquoσύν ῥ᾽ ἔβαλον ῥινούς σὺν δ᾽ ἔγχεα καὶ μένε᾽ ἀνδρῶνrdquo LP

At least between the imperial age and the mid-Byzantine era the verb also came to admit the meaning of ldquo e x c e r p t i n g rdquo ldquo e x t r a c t i n g rdquo ldquo c i t i n g rdquo a text explicitly and extensively similarly to the case of appealing to an auctoritas in the framework of a linguistic or philosophical discussion or when excerpta of a work are transcribed within the body of another work For example

e) Harp Lex ο 25 Keaney sv ὀξυθύμια Δίδυμος ( Schmidt 1854 39) δὲ Αὐτοκλείδου (FGrHist 353 F 2) λέξιν παραγράψας ἐκ τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν φησιν ldquoὀξυθύμια τὰ καθάρματα λέγεται καὶ ἀπολύματαrdquo ταῦτα γὰρ ἀποφέρεσθαι εἰς τὰς τριόδους ὅταν τὰς οἰκίας καθαίρωσιν κτλ

f) Iul ad Them 5 ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος τὴν τύχην ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἐν τοῖς πρακτέοις κρατεῖν νενόμικα λέγοιμ᾽ ἂν ἤδη σοι τὰ τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἐκ τῶν θαυμασίων Νόμων εἰδότι μὲν καὶ διδάξαντί με ἀπόδειξιν δὲ ὥσπερ τοῦ μὴ ῥᾳθυμεῖν ποιούμενος παραγέγραφά σοι τὴν ῥῆσιν ὧδέ πως ἔχουσαν ldquoθεὸς μὲν πάντα καὶ μετὰ θεοῦ τύχη καὶ καιρὸς τὰ ἀνθρώπινα διακυβερνῶσι ξύμπαντα κτλ (Plat Leg 709b)rdquo

g) ibidem 10 τούτους δὲ αὐτὸς μὲν εἶναι φὴς τοὺς βασιλέας Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ (Pol 73 1325b) εἴρηκεν οὐδαμοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ προστεθεῖσαν λέξιν πλέον δὲ θάτερον ἐξ ὧν παραγέγραφας ἄν τις νοήσειε

38enspCf LSJ sv παραγράφειν I4 This acceptation can be ascribed to the comparative meaning of the preverb SchwyzerDebrunner 1950 493

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp37

h) Phot Bibl 273 (507b 18) ἀνεγνώσθη ἐκ τῶν τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοδωρήτου λόγων οὓς εἰς τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστομον συνετάξατο ὧν ἡμεῖς πέντε τέως εἴδομεν ἐξ ὧν καί τινας ἐκλογὰς τὰς ὑποτεταγμένας παρεγραψάμεθα

The passage by Photius is particularly significant for the semantic definition of παραγράφειν in the meaning of ldquo c o p y i n g o u t rdquo or ldquo t r a n s c r i b i n g f r o m (a model)rdquo as the verb is constructed with the object ἐκλογάς Also worthy of note is the construction of the predicate with ἐκ + genitive in much of the evi-dence cited (a c e g h) and likewise in the scholiastic subscriptions to indicate the source starting from which a text has been imitated or adapted or extractedsup3⁹

Finally from Harp Lex π 17 Keaney (~ Suda π 320 Adler) one can infer the semantic affinity of παραγράφειν and παρατίθεσθαι with medial value In explain-ing an idiosyncratic use by Isocrates of the term παραγραφή the lexicographer makes use of παραγράφειν with the meaning of ldquomarking with the paragraphos (or paragraphe)rdquo⁴⁰ a text in a roll in order to highlight it for the purpose of the citation This on the one hand documents the virtually synonymous acceptation of the two verbs and on the other it provides a possible and plausible explana-tion of the genesis of this semantic quasi-equivalence

39enspThe same consideration can be extended to the sentence κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου present in the subscriptions to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds and Peace (above n 33) Here starting with Hense 1870 12ndash16 frequently ldquothe poetic textrdquo is implied as a grammatical subject of κεκώλισται and this verbal form is interpreted in reference to the arrangement of the lyric kola of the Aristophanean text on the pages of the medieval manuscripts as a consequence the ex-pression πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου is assumed to take for granted the word ἀντίγραφα and refer to the Aristophanic colometry displayed by Heliodorus in his ekdosis of the comedies I would rather on the one hand argue that κεκώλισται should be understood in an absolute sense (no less than παραγέγραπται in the same contexts) namely as meaning ldquothe colometry is given described quotedrdquo and on the other hand agree with White 1912 384ndash395 who (after Thiemann 1869 116ndash123) stated that the whole sentence is referring to the metrical descriptions obtained from (ἐκ τῶν) or based on (πρὸς τά for the wording cf πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα in the Euripidean subscriptions mentioned above n 34) Heliodorusrsquo colometric commentaries and amalgamated with annotation of other types see Holwerda 1964 114 and 1967 256ndash258 To be sure it is not imputable to chance that the scholia to Clouds and Peace ndash whose subscriptions in ms Ven Marc gr 474 hand down the name of Heliodorus ndash are the richest in fragments drawn from his metrical commentaries Holwerda 1964 114 with n 4 Be that as it may even if one allows that κεκώλισται refers to the layout of the Aristophanean text adopted in the manuscripts this nei-ther contradicts the statement that παράκειται παραγέγραπται etc refer to nothing more than to the presence of exegetic excerpts resulting from compilation (independently of their position on the page) nor on the other hand does it increase our chance of establishing the chronology of (each of) the operations described in the subscriptions40enspCf Heph Poeumlm 1 κατὰ δύο παραγεγραμμένον ᾆσμα (LSJ sv παραγράφειν I5)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

38emsp emspFausto Montana

i) παραγραφή οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ καὶ γνωρίμου τίθεται παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἰδίως ᾽Ισοκράτης ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς ἀντιδόσεώς (1559) φησιν ldquoλέγε ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς παραγραφῆςrdquo ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τῆς γραμμῆς ἣν μέχρι νῦν παράγραφον καλοῦμεν καὶ ἔστι τὸ λεγόμενον ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρέγραψα τοῦτο δ᾽ ἂν εἴη ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρεθέμην κτλ

παραγραφή it is used not only according to the common acceptation well known in the writings of rhetors (ie ldquoprocedure of exceptionrdquo) but Isocrates in the Antidosis says as is typical of his manner ldquoread aloud starting from the παραγραφήrdquo ie from the line that we still call paragraphos even today the expression means ldquostarting from where I marked the paragraphosrdquo in other words ldquostarting from where I citedrdquo

These semantic observations are not devoid of relevance for interpretation of the subscriptions of the scholiastic corpora and their meaning in relation to the char-acteristics and origin of the scholiographic technique What has been regarded as universally established should be revised to the status of doubtful namely the concept that in exegetic and erudite contexts the preverb παρα- of the compounds παρακεῖσθαι παρατίθεσθαι and παραγράφεσθαι has something to do with where the explanatory excerpta were placed on the page Consequently these verb forms and the subscriptions that contain them should be awarded lesser importance in the quest to discover the times and modes of the origin of scholiography⁴sup1

41enspFor linguistic and paleographic arguments employed in the debate on the meaning and dat-ing of the subscriptions see most recently Montana 2011a 151ndash152 G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 58ndash60 and Lara Pagani this volume

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp25

same seems to be inferable from evidence where the word is accompanied by a determination (for instance παρακείμενον) which would otherwise be pleonastic⁴

Taking this well established circumstance as our starting point it may be useful to make an overview as well as a comparative assessment of some attesta-tions of the word σχόλιον datable between the VIth and VIIIth century that have already been brought to attention in individual studies as these attestations are sometimes invoked as witnesses supporting the claim that the origin of the scho-liographic technique can be traced back as far as the Late Antique age⁵

1)enspEutocius of Ascalon Commentary on the Conics of Apollonius of Perga 217617ndash22 Heiberg

πλειόνων δὲ oὐσῶν ἐκδόσεων ὡς καὶ αὐτός φησιν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ (1218thinspff Heiberg) ἄμεινον ἡγησάμην συναγαγεῖν αὐτὰς ἐκ τῶν ἐμπιπτόντων τὰ σαφέστερα παρατιθέμενος ἐν τῷ ῥητῷ διὰ τὴν τῶν εἰσαγομένων εὐμάρειαν ἔξωθεν δὲ ἐν τοῖς συντεταγμένοις σχολίοις ἐπισημαίνεσθαι τοὺς διαφόρους ὡς εἰκὸς τρόπους τῶν ἀποδείξεων⁶

In the expression ἔξωθεν hellip ἐν τοῖς συντεταγμένοις σχολίοις used by Eutocius (approx 500 CE) the adverb should be taken as meaning ldquoin the marginrdquo⁷ according to a usage attested in Eusebius of Caesarea and Cyril of Jerusalem with regard respectively to a variant and a paragraphe both written in the margin of a

4enspLundon 1997 86 and below In contrast modern philology on classical authors adopts a dif-ferent perspective taking ldquoscholionrdquo to indicate any explanation placed in the margin of the text thus both exegetic marginalia in papyri and medieval scholiographic corpora are referred to as ldquoscholiardquo without any differentiation in the description Consider for instance Luppe 2002 55ndash57 notwithstanding his conviction that these represent two distinct types of annotation the inadequacy of the terminology makes itself felt in the assertion (57) that in describing the mar-ginalia of papyri one can speak of ldquoscholiardquo but not of ldquoscholiastsrdquo (the sentence harks back to the conclusion of the Nachwort in Zuntz 1975 133) The modern terminological shortcomings and incoherent vocabulary concerning the marginalia are lamented by Maniaci 2002 3ndash4 n 1 cf Montana 2005 4ndash5 n 205enspI use the term ldquoscholiographyrdquo in a clear-cut and meaningful sense taking a corpus of scholia as an exegetical editio variorum ie a compilation of materials systematically drawn from differ-ent commentaries Exegetic collections of such a type were designed to be carefully organized in the margin of the texts commented on and therefore they took shape in the framework of an organic book production and editorial project cf Montana 2011a 105ndash1106enspHeiberg 1891ndash1893 2177 translates ldquoSed cum complures exstent editiones ut ipse in epistula dicit eas in unum cogere malui clariora ex iis quae mihi sese obtulerant in verba scriptoris recipiens ut institutio facilior esset varios autem demonstrandi modos ut par erat extra in scholiis a me compositis indicarerdquo On this passage see Decorps-Foulquier 1998 99ndash1017enspThus among others Cameron 1990 117 Irigoin 1994 79 (= 2003 168) Nagy 2009 26

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

26emsp emspFausto Montana

text⁸ (see also the second of two passages taken from Maximus the Confessor reproduced below) Eutociusrsquo σχόλια consist of further mathematical demonstra-tions forming an adjunct to the main text thus they can more properly be consid-ered as a complement or an expansion of Apolloniusrsquo text itself rather than as a commentary having the form we are accustomed to finding when literary works are involved Accordingly the example from Eutocius would appear to reflect the activity by an individual and recognizable ldquoauthorrdquo rather than an editorial com-pilation put together from a number of different exegetic sources ndash in contrast to the corpora of scholia attested in medieval manuscripts

A different view is put forward by Fabio Acerbi in his recent important study on Late Antique mathematical commentaries Acerbi argues that the operation performed by Eutocius is not strictly speaking an ldquoauthorial actrdquo but rather a ldquoredactional actrdquo that can be assimilated to the scholiastic type of compila-tions albeit carried out in accordance with the manner of proceeding that was characteristic of mathematical exegesis namely the (often tacit) rewriting and transmission of earlier hermeneutic contributions⁹ However the demarca-tion line between this type of exegetic operation and that performed by the pure redactor-scholiast is brought into sharper focus if appropriate emphasis is placed specifically on the original character of the mathematician-scholiastrsquos contributions and his objectives In the field of ancient mathematics the process of ldquorewritingrdquo undertaken by a commentator who was also a specialist on the subject not only represented a chance to refresh and metabolize the exegetic tradition but it was also the customary and shared mode of further developing of thought and engaging in original speculation within an area of knowledge designed for utilitarian purposes The commentator was professionally involved and competent in the subject-matter on which he was rewriting a text further-more the hermeneutic operation offered the opportunity to pursue a particu-lar target of special interest to him namely improving and expanding the text that formed the object of the commentary and engaging in a sort of emulative competition with it in the spheres of content advancement of knowledge and

8enspEus Comm in Ps 452 Cyr Hier ad Gen 424 (PG 66 1108b) both quoted and discussed by Irigoin 1994 137ndash1389enspAcerbi 2012 140ndash142 and particularly concerning Eutocius 152ndash155 The same opinion was ex-pressed though en passant by Cameron 1990 118 according to which Eutociusrsquo commentary on Apolloniusrsquo Conica is ldquoan indisputable examplerdquo of marginal compilatory exegesis and Eutociusrsquo ldquocommentaries clearly represent an abridgment of the work of innumerable predecessorsrdquo This statement however does not take into account the substantially different approaches between commenting on literary and mathematical texts see below in the text and the next note

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp27

theoretical elaborationsup1⁰ Accordingly it was most definitely in the commenta-torrsquos interest to ensure that his identity remained explicit and recognizable on an authorial plane and to present in a completely assimilated form the estab-lished contribution of previous exegesis (so that the latter was no longer sepa-rable but amalgamated and anonymous) while at the same time disseminating meta-exegetic signals throughout the text This authorial attitude represented a continuation and an extention to the speculative field of mathematical herme-neutics of the long-lasting experience also displayed from the Hellenistic age to Late Antiquity by commentators of literary works such as the Alexandrian scholars Aristarchus of Samothrace Theon (the son of Artemidorus living in the Augustan age) or Didymus Chalcenterus and others whose names are care-fully handed down in the erudite traditionsup1sup1 By contrast the redactor-scholiast would appear to adopt a different manner of proceeding the decidedly redac-tional anonymous and detached character of his copy-and-paste work emerges above all from the tendency towards an impersonal style of writing and from the lack of any flaunted authorial identity that would seek to enter into a personal emulative relationship with the exegetic tradition Thus the generalized absence of marked authorial profiles in the scholia and the lack within them of prescrip-tions concerning conservation of the literal integrity of the exegetic text should not be attributed exclusively to cases of mechanical trimming even though these did occur fairly systematically during transmission The very facts of the physi-ological anonymity and textual fluctuation of scholiastic material show that the zeal for exact conservation was alien and indifferent to the genre In short such authoritative scholars as Aristarchus Didymus and Eutocius had a good reason for putting their signature on their commentaries and trying to fix the content in a way bearing their own imprint as authors Scholiasts on the other hand

10enspCf Cameron 1990 126 ldquoIn the writings of the mathematicians an altogether different crite-rion [ie rather than ldquoto establish what their author wrote and what he meantrdquo] was paramount mathematical correctness Was the proof right The mathematicians were read quite simply to learn mathematics To this end mistakes were naturally corrected If a demonstration could be improved it was Not even the language was sacrosanct hellip The point was to produce a text that the professorrsquos students could read and understand The purpose of their studies was utilitarian Some of them would go on to become architects Practical considerations were understandably predominantrdquo11enspAs an example we can refer to the IIIrd century CE renown papyrus fragment (PAmh 212 MP3 483) of Aristarchusrsquo hypomnema to Herodotusrsquo Book 1 a final portion of this commentary is pre-served and albeit heavily reshaped (or so it would seem cf recently Montana 2012c Montanari 2013) is nonetheless followed by the title and authorrsquos name as late as four centuries after the composition of the original work Other examples below in the text (subscriptions to medieval scholia displaying ancient commentatorsrsquo names)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

28emsp emspFausto Montana

do not appear to have had either the right or the ambition to put their autho-rial signature on show or to ensure that the materials they assembled remained absolutely intactsup1sup2

Let us momentarily return to the passage from Eutocius to point out that here παρατιθέμενος unequivocally means ldquodrawing (from)rdquo ldquomentioningrdquo and there can be no doubt that the term is used in reference not to marginal paratext but to the critical constitution of Apolloniusrsquo textsup1sup3

2)enspAnonymous marginal note to Hippocrates Aphorisms 324 in PAnt 3183 (MP3 5433 VIth century) fr 2(a) (mg dx)

thinspthinspthinspthinspthinspthinsp σχό(λιον) thinsp τελέσας ὁ θlsaquoεrsaquoιότατο[ς thinsp Ἱπποκράτης τὸν π[ε ρὶ τῶν ὡρῶν καὶ κατασ[τά σεων λόγον ἄρχετα[ι τοῦπερ]ὶ τῶν ἡλικιῶν τ[μή ματος

The reading σχό(λιον) is by Isabella Andorlini who has recognized close to the uppermost rip in the fragment the sequence of letters ϹΧΟ with omicron written over chisup1⁴ The annotation occupies a small portion of what was the right-hand margin and fulfills a service function helpful for the readability of the main text it indicates the end of one content section and the beginning of another in Apho-risms 324

12enspAs mentioned exegetic (re)writing constituted the habitual mode of Late Antique theoretical reflection in the field of mathematics as also in other fields strongly characterized by profes-sional training and learning such as philosophy law medicine Holy Scripture and theology For philosophy see Hadot 1997 Hoffmann 2006 for theology see some examples from Maximus the Confessor and Anastasius of Sinai below in the text This should discourage from automati-cally assuming that objectives methods and tools employed by ancient readers exegetes and specialists in the different fields of culture were fully interchangeable Montana 2011a 112ndash115 and 131ndash132 For the opposite point of view see Acerbi 2012 139ndash14013enspOn this Acerbi 2012 162 with n 79 is in agreement cf Cameron 1990 117 who translates τὰ σαφέστερα παρατιθέμενος ἐν τῷ ῥητῷ ldquo(to) place the clearer version in the textrdquo On the con-trary Nagy 2009 26 renders ldquoto juxtapose in the text the clearer thingsrdquo (my emphasis)14enspAndorlini 2000 42ndash43 51 (Pl 6) Andorlini 2003 25ndash26 (Tav VI) A new commented edition of this annotation is being prepared by Daniela Manetti for the Commentaria et lexica Graeca in papyris reperta (CLGP)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp29

31)enspMaximus the Confessor Quaestions to Thalassius 91ndash2 LagaSteel (= 1081ndash3 Larchet) Prologue to the scholia inscriptio

Μαξίμου μοναχοῦ πρόλογος τῶν παρακειμένων ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις σχολίων

32)enspibidem 1163ndash1378 LagaSteel (= 11262ndash11476 Larchet)

τοῦτο καθάπερ ἔφην εἰδώς δεῖν ὠῄθην ἑτέραν τινὰ τῷ παρόντι λόγῳ τῆσδε τῆς συγγραφῆς δοῦναι βοήθειαν τὴν τῶν παρατεθέντων ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις σχολίων γραφήν hellip διὸ παρακαλῶ πάντας τοὺς ἐντευξομένους ἢ καὶ μεταγράψοντας καὶ τὴν τῶν σχολίων ἔξωθεν ἀναγνῶναι καὶ παραθέσθαι γραφὴν κατὰ τὴν ἑκάστου σημείωσιν hellip

After composing the Quaestions to Thalassius dated to the years 630ndash633 Maximus annotated his own worksup1⁵ with explanations (σχόλια) that he copied (παρακείμενα παρατεθέντα)sup1⁶ in the margins of the page (ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις ἔξωθεν)sup1⁷ He considered the σχόλια to be an integral part of his text and pre-cisely for this reason he expressly urged his readers and copyists not to neglect them but to utilize them and reproduce them (ἀναγνῶναι καὶ παραθέσθαι) in the subsequent copies of the work with due respect for their position on the page vis-agrave-vis the main text

15enspThe attribution to Maximus of the prologue to the scholia testified by the inscriptio and also of the greater part of the scholia themselves is generally held to be reliable LagaSteel 1980 XIIndashXIII J-C Larchet in LarchetVinel 2010 21ndash2216enspThe summary which in two manuscripts precedes the Quaestions likewise has the wording (33 LagaSteel = 1023 Larchet) πρόλογος εἰς τὰ παρατεθέντα σχόλια translated as ldquoprologue aux scholies ajouteacuteesrdquo by F Vinel in LarchetVinel 2010 10317enspThe translation by F Vinel in LarchetVinel 2010 109 and 113 ldquoscholies situeacutees disposeacutees dans les margesrdquo is fairly neutral The rendering of the two passages of Maximus in the Latin translation made before the year 866 by John Scotus Eriugena (81ndash2 LagaSteel de appositis in frontibus scholiis 1059ndash1260 LagaSteel additorum in frontibus scholiorum on the dating see LagaSteel 1980 XCVIII by the same token in the Latin translation of the Greek summary of the work 23 LagaSteel the wording is Prologus in apposita scholia) is the result of a misun-derstanding on the one hand Eriugena wrongly interprets the prologue to the scholia as the prologue to the Questions and takes the term σχόλια itself to refer to the individual biblical quaes-tions around which the work is constructed and which precede Maximusrsquo answers on the other he shows that he has in mind the acceptation of σχόλια indicating marginal biblical catenae Cf LagaSteel 1980 XCIXndashC and see Eriugenarsquos own scholium to Maximusrsquo prologue (121ndash4 LagaSteel) Scholia dicuntur que quasi extra librum in frontibus capitulorum ex sancta scriptura su-muntur quorum expositio interius continetur Proprie autem dicuntur scholia semnologia hoc est insignes sermones

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

30emsp emspFausto Montana

41) Anastasius of Sinai Guide along the right path 311ndash3 76 Uthemann

σχόλιον παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας τῇ βίβλῳ ἐκ παντὸς τρόπου ἀναγινώσκειν καὶ τὰ κατὰ τοὺς τόπους παρακείμενα σχόλια εἰ δὲ καί ὡς εἰκός καὶ βραχέα τινὰ σόλοικα ἔχει ἡ βίβλος συγγνώμην αἰτοῦμεν ὁ γὰρ αὐτοσχεδίως ἐκτιθέμενος πολλάκις ἔχων τὸν νοῦν αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς νοήμασι καὶ σπεύδων ταῦτα σημειοῦσθαι περιφρονεῖ τῶν σολοίκων καὶ τῆς στίξεως

42)enspibidem 24134ndash136 320 Uthemann (explicit of the work)

πρὸς τούτοις πᾶσι δυσωποῦμεν τὸν μεταγράφειν μέλλοντα παραθέσθαι καὶ τὰ σχόλια σημειώσασθαι δὲ ἐπιμελῶς καὶ τοὺς τόνους καὶ τὰς στιγμὰς καὶ ὑποστιγμὰς καὶ τὰ σόλοικα καὶ γὰρ ἄλλοτέ τινες ἰδιῶται μεταγράψαντες ἡμῶν δογματικὸν τόμον ἐξ ἀγνοίας βλασφημιῶν αὐτὸν ἐπλήρωσανsup1⁸

The monk Anastasius in very much the same manner as Maximus his elder contemporary was the author of the explanations ndash which he himself termed σχόλιαsup1⁹ ndash that abound in the margins of his dogmatic text in the medieval manu-scripts Anastasius intended these marginal jottings to serve the purpose of eluci-dating passages of the main text whose content or form he had penned unclearly and this also prompted him to certify that the σχόλια were an integral part of his work Moreover he clarified the nature of the meaning that should be attrib-uted to this term (2880 70ndash71 Uthemann in the section περὶ ἐτυμολογίας)sup2⁰ σχόλιον εἴρηται διὰ τὸ κατὰ σχολὴν παρατίθεσθαι πρὸς σαφεστέραν ἑρμηνείαν τῶν δυσνοήτων νοημάτων ἢ ῥημάτων (~ EtGud 51928 Sturz sv σχόλιον EtM 74115 Gaisford sv σχόλιον)

5)enspTheognostus Orthography can 581 2994 Cramer

οὕτως εὗρονsup2sup1 παρακείμενον σχόλιον εἰς τὰ Ἔργα Ἡσιόδου (cf sch Hes Op 115b Pertusi)

With these words Theognostus in his Περὶ ὀρθογραφίας (roughly 800 CE) makes a reference to a scholium to Hesiod concerning the graphic and lexical difference

18enspWilson 1984 108 adduces this passage as evidence that the origin of scholiography dates to before the VIIIthndashIXth century cf Glock 2001 20919enspOn the Anastasian authorship of the scholia see Uthemann 1981 CCXVIndashCCXVIII20enspDoubts have been cast on the genuineness of this part of the text but the most recent editor believes it to be authentic and in any case it is congruent with Anastasiusrsquo manner of proceed-ing21enspεὑροι ms Oxon Barocc 50 corr Cramer

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp31

that distinguishes θάλια from θάλεια The passage is quoted by Klaus Alpers in his monograph on Orusrsquo Lexicon in connection with the hypothetical dating of the compilation of the scholia to Cyrilrsquos Lexicon (between 550 and 900 roughly)sup2sup2 Alpers inclined towards an early time frame and tended to agree with claim that scholiography originated in Late Antiquity adducing the passage from Theog-nostus as evidence for this assumptionsup2sup3 By the same token in a later contri-bution Alpers concluded that the redactors of the Etymologicum Genuinum in which one finds the same expression εὗρον παρακείμενον σχόλιον or similar phrases drew on editions that featured ldquoRandscholienrdquo ldquoEs muszlig damit gerech-net werden daszlig viele der vom Etymologicum Genuinum benutzten Handschriften wie die Hesiodhandschrift Theognosts mit Randscholien ausgestattet waren und dem siebenten achten oder fruumlhen neunten Jahrhundert entstammenrdquosup2⁴

However one could legitimately wonder whether in Theognostusrsquo passage as well as in the parallel occurrences in the Genuinum ndash and not unlike other cases mentioned above ndash παρακείμενον does not mean ldquosituated next (to)rdquo but rather ldquo(being) excerptedrdquo ldquoextractedrdquo ldquocitedrdquo I would argue that this wording labels an isolated explanation (without implying per se how and where it has been found namely as a quotation by an author or in a lexicum or alternatively as a marginal note in a copy of the literary work) distinguished from explanations read in a continuous commentary (hypomnema) For the characterization relevant to this second type we have meaningful evidence thanks to the Etymologica EtGen α 117 LasserreLivadaras sv Ἀζεΐδαο (Il 2513) εὗρον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Βοιωτίας σχόλιον (= EtM α 345 LasserreLivadaras cf EtSym α 182 LasserreLivadaras where ἐν dagger ὑποθήσει should be corrected to ἐν ὑπομνήματι) would appear to imply that rather than being taken from the margin of an edition of the Iliadic text the explanation was drawn from a ὑπόμνημα The latter word as is known literally identifies a commentary contained in a book (namely in a codex at this stage of the tradi-tion more presumably than a volumen) that was independent of the literary textsup2⁵

22enspAlpers 1981 85 n 1223enspCf Wilson 1984 108 Alpers 1991 242ndash244 252ndash254 Irigoin 1994 79 Cufalo 2007 LXXXII Klaus Alpers offers a partial disavowal of this general point of view in his detailed monograph on John of Sardis in which he subscribes to the view that some scholiographic corpora conserved in the medieval manuscripts may have been composed in the mid-Byzantine age (VIIIthndashIXth cen-tury) by scholars who had copies of ancient hypomnemata at their disposal (an argument first put forward by Zuntz 1975 cf Maehler 1994 Montana 2006 2011a and 2013) Alpers 2013 eg 81ndash86 (Aristophanesrsquo scholia) and 97ndash99 (Thucydidesrsquo scholia)24enspAlpers 1991 243ndash24425enspWas it the commentary by ldquoApion-Heliodorusrdquo (or ldquoApion-Herodorusrdquo) See Erbse 1960 133 Ercoles and Pagani this volume for further bibliography

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

32emsp emspFausto Montana

Thus it is unlikely that in this case σχόλιον means ldquomarginal noterdquo The repetition of the expression in other entries of the Etymologicum Magnum (α 224 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀγών οὕτως εὗρον σχόλια ἐν ὑπομνήμασιν Ἰλιάδος α 589 LasserreLivadaras sv ἄϊδρις οὕτως εὗρον σχόλιον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Ἰλιάδος) leads to the sus-picion that the indication ἐν ὑπομνήματι μασιν may have been lost in some paral-lel occurrences of the Genuinum For this reason in EtGen α 273 sv ἄϊδρις the editors restore οὕτως εὗρον lsaquoσχόλιον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Ἰλιάδοςrsaquo on the basis of the Magnum cf EtSym α 337 LasserreLivadaras where as in α 182 ἐν dagger ὑποθήσει is rightly emended to ἐν ὑπομνήματι in the apparatus criticussup2⁶

Let us make a brief comparison among these pieces of evidence The note in PAnt 3183 ndash if the reading σχό(λιον) is to be accepted ndash and the first of the two pas-sages cited from Anastasius both document the signaling of an explanatory inter-vention by means of the word σχόλιον placed just before the intervention itself This circumstance makes it unlikely that the word embodies an intrinsic refer-ence to the position in the margin as this would result in a pleonastic and curi-ously meta-exegetic sense (ldquoMarginal note Since the most divine Hippocrates has terminated his speech helliprdquo) regardless of whether the term was utilized by the original annotator or whether it was introduced by someone who was copying the note from a model Therefore independently of their position on the page these attestations do not express a meaning that differs from the generic ldquonoterdquo ldquobrief explanationrdquo such a meaning characterizes the intervention as a paratext

26enspConcerning ἄϊδρις the Etymologica repeat the same grammatical observations also present in sch Il 3219b1 Erbse from Herodian But other entries in the Etymologica are more directly indebted to the scholiastic exegesis to Hesiodrsquos Works that has come down to us through the medieval manuscripts Here sometimes a first explanation introduced by σχόλιον is followed by a second one (and in some cases a third) preceded by ἄλλως eg EtSym α 396 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀκίνητον (cf Hes Op 750) EtGen α 434 ~ EtSym α 502 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀλεύω (cf Hes Op 760 ὑπαλεύω) EtGen α 604 LasserreLivadaras sv ἄμαξα (cf Hes Op 455 vd Reitzenstein 1897 19) These scholiastic excerpts are missing in the Gudianum and therefore must have been incorporated into an edition of the Genuinum that was later than the original (on which the compiler of the Gudianum drew as his source) ldquothe Hesiod excerpts hellip are a second-ary accretion to the Genuinum and the manuscript from which they were taken need not have been much older than A and B that is to say than the tenth centuryrdquo (West 1974 163 stemma at 183 siglum e cf West 1978 79 more cautious Alpers 1991 241 n 19 cf Ercoles this volume) Thus in these cases the term σχόλιον stands for an ldquoexplanationrdquo at times subdivided into two or more opinions separated by ἄλλως derived from an edition of the Works that was supplied with the same collection of scholia as those attested in the medieval Hesiodic manuscripts that have come down to us This conclusion is also reached by Martano 2006 with reference to the use of scholiastic tradition on [Hesiod]rsquos Shield by the compiler(s) of the Genuinum

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp33

and may conceivably have been intended to prevent the misunderstading of the intervention itself as an integration or correction of the main text To this should be added that the only thing the term in its respective contexts identifies with any certainty is a single explanatory annotation an individual intervention by a reader and not the fruit of a broad-ranging book production project or a redac-tional compilation

In the other cases invoked as evidence and again in the first passage from Anastasius the term σχόλιον is accompanied by determinations which seem to make explicit reference to the position of the note However I would argue that only the adverb ἔξωθεν (in Eutocius and in Maximus) and the words ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις (in Maximus twice) express the position in the margin whereas ndash on the basis of what was stated above ndash no such position is expressed either by the term σχόλιον in itself or by the verbal forms of παρατίθεσθαι and παρακεῖσθαι For if we were to interpret these two verbs in the sense of ldquobeing by the side ofrdquo in the two passages from Maximussup2⁷ where the participles are present together with ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις then the expression would sound awkwardly pleonastic Thus it is preferable to take the two verbs in the sense of  ldquob e i n g e x t r a c t e d p r o -d u c e d q u o t e d c i t e d rdquo a meaning that is incontrovertibly widespread in ancient eruditionsup2⁸

Accordingly in the attestations examined here syntagms as παρακείμενον σχόλιον appear not to embody a reference to the position in the margin (neither the noun nor the verb would support such an interpretation) rather they more plausibly highlight an e x p l a n a t i o n (σχόλιον) that has been e x t r a c t e d or a d d u c e d or q u o t e d (παρακείμενον) an e x p l a n a t o r y excerptum That they are placed in the margin is a contingent and accessory occurrence linked to the independent evolution of the book format and the standardization of the codex and undeniably favored and incentivized by these factors In effect as the codex became more widely used the free margins of the page not only continued to be available for extemporaneous clarifications or scholia in the ancient sense

27enspThus Leanza 1995 221ndash22228enspEg sch Ar Ve 1310a Koster ὁ δὲ ἄχυρος παρ᾽ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει ὅπου καὶ τὸ Πλάτωνος παράκειται ἐξ Ἀδώνιδος (VΓLhAld) List of ancient passages by Valckenaer 1809 303ndash306 (quot-ing among others Hemsterhuys 1744 244 ldquoverba et testimonia scriptorum ad probandum citata qui profert et in medium adducit dicitur illa Παρατίθεσθαιrdquo) cf Rutherford 1905 22 n 23 LSJ svv παράκειμαι II1 παρατίθημι B5 Lundon 1997 76 and 86 Dickey 2007 251 As underscored by Lara Pagani this volume Erbse 1969 XV translates παράκειται of the Iliadic subscriptions as com-posita esse in my opinion implicitly but intentionally excluding the locative acceptation of the Greek verb G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 60 appears to concede this semantic possibil-ity on the contrary Mazzucchi this volume dissents (though quite apodictically)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

34emsp emspFausto Montana

(for instance in the Hippocratic papyrus and in the first of Anastasiusrsquo passages) as was already possible and had genuinely been the case in many volumina but at the same time they also offered the opportunity for copying the whole of an authorrsquos commentary or hypomnema by the side of the main work (Eutocius)sup2⁹ Indeed they even prompted some writers to devise a project whereby the com-position as well as the editorial layout of the main text and its exegetic apparatus would be presented jointly as an organic whole (Maximus Anastasius) The dis-tinctive feature of this latter type of systematic annotation which differentiates it from scholiography resides in the fact that authors such as Maximus and Anasta-sius brought to bear the force of their own explicitly evoked personal identity and related authority in order to constrain readers and copyists to show respect not only for the texts but also for the respective paratexts At least as far as the cases examined here are concerned these precautionary measures were successful and preserved the exegetic products from the destiny of drastic pruning and thinning manipulation and jumbling that inexorably and massively befell the commentar-ies on literary works as a result of the heavy hand of the scholiasts

The solution adopted by Eutocius Maximus and Anastasius was it would seem the same as that elected by the Neoplatonic Proclus for putting forward his own opinions (παραγράφειν τὰ ἀρέσκοντα) concerning the commentary by Syrianus on the orphic hymns according to the testimony of Marinus Vita Procli 27sup3⁰ As is the case with the acceptation of παρακεῖσθαι in the exegetic and erudite context the meaning to be attributed to παραγράφειν the verb used by Marinus now calls for closer examinationsup3sup1

29enspA similar type of editorial operation seems to be reflected in the celebrated POxy 202258 the VIth century fragmentary codex of Callimachus containing densely written exegetic marginal annotations derived in all probability from a single hypomnema Porro 1985 208ndash215 especially 212 Montana 2011a 136ndash144 Porro 201130enspThe result of this editorial performance is characterized by Marinus as σχόλια καὶ ὑπομνήματα an expression in which ldquoi due termini o saranno sinonimi o rimanderanno a una differenza che non sia perograve quella della posizionerdquo or ldquonon si sono ancora specializzati in una diversificazione significativardquo (ldquothe two terms will either be synonymous or will pertain to a difference which however does not involve positionrdquo or else they ldquohave not yet become specialized as the outcome of a significant diversificationrdquo) according to Lundon 1997 7931enspAs in the case of the other compound verbs with παρα- the modern interpretation of the literal meaning of παραγράφειν in this passage has been generalized as ldquoannotating in the marginsrdquo moreover the assumption has been made that Syrianusrsquo manuscript annotated by Proclus can be seen as a formal antecedent of authentic scholiography eg Hoffmann 2000 625 SaffreySe-gonds 2001 150ndash151 Pontani 2005 99 Acerbi 2012 163 with n 85 But as insightfully suggested by Porro 1985 213ndash214 that manuscript may rather have represented the type of composite and stratified sources later excerpted by the medieval scholiasts for their compilations

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp35

2enspΠαραγράφεσθαιSome medieval manuscripts that are witnesses of Greek scholiastic corpora are as is known supplied with subscriptions that list the exegetic sources These colophons appear at the end of the scholia to the Iliad for almost all the books except Ρ and Ω in ms Ven Marc gr 454 of the Xth centurysup3sup2 after the scholia to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds Peace and Birds in ms Ven Marc gr 474 of the XIth centurysup3sup3 in the Euripidean witness Paris gr 2713 of the XIth century after the scholia to Orestes (the same subscriptio can also be read in Ven Marc gr 471 of the XIIth century) and to Medeasup3⁴ and finally at the end of the scholia to Apol-lonius of Rhodesrsquo Argonautics in ms Laur Plut 329 of the Xth centurysup3⁵ The verb forms παράκειται or παραγέγραπται run as a common denominator throughout these subscriptions to indicate the compilation from sources These are forms that scholars customarily have no qualms in taking to mean ldquostands by the side ofrdquo ldquois written in the marginsrdquo with reference to the positioning of the exegesis as a frame surrounding the poetic textsup3⁶ However as was pointed out long ago and documented for παρακεῖσθαι (and παρατίθεσθαι)sup3⁷ even for παραγράφεσθαι some acceptations are widely attested in Late Antique and Byzantine Greek with reference to textual passages which involve no explicit reference or implicit allu-sion to the position on the page

32enspEg f 100v (end of Η) παράκειται τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα καὶ τὰ Διδύμου Περὶ τῆς Ἀρισταρχείου διορθώσεως τινὰ δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς Ἰλιακῆς προσῳδίας Ἡρωδιανοῦ καὶ Νικάνορος Περὶ στιγμῆς Beyond doubt the title τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα is brachylogic for Ἀριστονίκου περὶ τῶν σημείων namely for Aristonicusrsquo explanations of Aristarchusrsquo semeia see eg Lehrs 18823 2ndash3 at the beginning of a chapter entitled Aristonici liber de notis Aristarchi West 2001a 65 van Thiel 2014 122 Pagani this volume On the other hand Mazzucchi this volume quite oddly assumes though referring to the core of Lehrsrsquo opinion the meaning ldquosemeia of (ie apposed by) Aristonicusrdquo33enspF 43r (Clouds) κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται δὲ ἐκ τῶν Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν F 122v (Birds) παραγέγραπται ἐκ τῶν Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων σχολίων F 146v (Peace) κεκώλισται πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται ἐκ Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου34enspF 56r (Orestes) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα παραγέγραπται ἐκ τοῦ Διονυσίου ὑπομνήματος ὁλοσχερῶς καὶ τῶν μικτῶν (cf Marc gr 471 f 75r) F 129r (Medea) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα Διονυσίου ὁλοσχερὲς καί τινα τῶν Διδύμου35enspF 263v παράκειται τὰ σχόλια ἐκ τῶν Λουκίλλου Ταρραίου καὶ Σοφοκλείου καὶ Θέωνος The expression παράκειται τὰ σχόλια is perfectly analogous to the forms discussed in the first part of this article According to Haslam 1978 71 however here ldquoπαράκειται cannot refer to an inde-pendently existing hypomnema [as it was first stated by Carl Wendel] it must refer to marginal annotationrdquo36enspEg Hense 1870 13ndash14 ending with van Thiel 2014 12737enspAbove n 28

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

36emsp emspFausto Montana

In the scholia themselves belonging to the medieval tradition παραγράφειν is used in the meaning of  ldquo i m i t a t e rdquo ldquo d r a w o n rdquo ldquo a d a p t rdquo as a techni-cal verb to express the intertextual (language- or content-based) relation under-lying a literary passage s t a r t i n g f r o m or i n c o m p a r i s o n t o a given modelsup3⁸ The following examples are of interest

a) sch Soph Ai 731a Christodoulou λήγει δ᾽ ἔρις δραμοῦσα ἡ ἔρις εἰς πολὺ δραμοῦσα καὶ προκόψασα ἔστη τῇ συναντήσει τοῦ λόγου τῶν γερόντων ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως δὲ πρὸς Ἀγαμέμνονα μάχης παραγέγραπται καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ Νέστωρ ἐκεῖ (Il 1247  ff) διαλλάσσει οὕτως καὶ νῦν οἱ γέροντες κτλ LFONVGMRm

b) sch Ar Ach 540b Wilson ἐρεῖ τις οὐ χρῆν] καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Τηλέφου Εὐριπίδου (fr 708 Kannicht) παραγέγραπται EΓ3

c) sch Ar Pac 1012 Holwerda ἐκ Μηδείας Γ μήποτε ἐκ τῆς Εὐριπίδου Μηδείας (96ndash97) παραγράφει ἐκεῖνα ldquoὢ δύστηνος ἐγὼ μελέα τε πόνων lsaquohelliprsaquo πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμανrdquo RVΓ κτλ

d) sch ApRh 11026 Wendel σὺν δ᾽ ἔλασαν τὸ Ὁμηρικὸν παραγράφει (Il 4447) ldquoσύν ῥ᾽ ἔβαλον ῥινούς σὺν δ᾽ ἔγχεα καὶ μένε᾽ ἀνδρῶνrdquo LP

At least between the imperial age and the mid-Byzantine era the verb also came to admit the meaning of ldquo e x c e r p t i n g rdquo ldquo e x t r a c t i n g rdquo ldquo c i t i n g rdquo a text explicitly and extensively similarly to the case of appealing to an auctoritas in the framework of a linguistic or philosophical discussion or when excerpta of a work are transcribed within the body of another work For example

e) Harp Lex ο 25 Keaney sv ὀξυθύμια Δίδυμος ( Schmidt 1854 39) δὲ Αὐτοκλείδου (FGrHist 353 F 2) λέξιν παραγράψας ἐκ τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν φησιν ldquoὀξυθύμια τὰ καθάρματα λέγεται καὶ ἀπολύματαrdquo ταῦτα γὰρ ἀποφέρεσθαι εἰς τὰς τριόδους ὅταν τὰς οἰκίας καθαίρωσιν κτλ

f) Iul ad Them 5 ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος τὴν τύχην ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἐν τοῖς πρακτέοις κρατεῖν νενόμικα λέγοιμ᾽ ἂν ἤδη σοι τὰ τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἐκ τῶν θαυμασίων Νόμων εἰδότι μὲν καὶ διδάξαντί με ἀπόδειξιν δὲ ὥσπερ τοῦ μὴ ῥᾳθυμεῖν ποιούμενος παραγέγραφά σοι τὴν ῥῆσιν ὧδέ πως ἔχουσαν ldquoθεὸς μὲν πάντα καὶ μετὰ θεοῦ τύχη καὶ καιρὸς τὰ ἀνθρώπινα διακυβερνῶσι ξύμπαντα κτλ (Plat Leg 709b)rdquo

g) ibidem 10 τούτους δὲ αὐτὸς μὲν εἶναι φὴς τοὺς βασιλέας Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ (Pol 73 1325b) εἴρηκεν οὐδαμοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ προστεθεῖσαν λέξιν πλέον δὲ θάτερον ἐξ ὧν παραγέγραφας ἄν τις νοήσειε

38enspCf LSJ sv παραγράφειν I4 This acceptation can be ascribed to the comparative meaning of the preverb SchwyzerDebrunner 1950 493

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp37

h) Phot Bibl 273 (507b 18) ἀνεγνώσθη ἐκ τῶν τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοδωρήτου λόγων οὓς εἰς τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστομον συνετάξατο ὧν ἡμεῖς πέντε τέως εἴδομεν ἐξ ὧν καί τινας ἐκλογὰς τὰς ὑποτεταγμένας παρεγραψάμεθα

The passage by Photius is particularly significant for the semantic definition of παραγράφειν in the meaning of ldquo c o p y i n g o u t rdquo or ldquo t r a n s c r i b i n g f r o m (a model)rdquo as the verb is constructed with the object ἐκλογάς Also worthy of note is the construction of the predicate with ἐκ + genitive in much of the evi-dence cited (a c e g h) and likewise in the scholiastic subscriptions to indicate the source starting from which a text has been imitated or adapted or extractedsup3⁹

Finally from Harp Lex π 17 Keaney (~ Suda π 320 Adler) one can infer the semantic affinity of παραγράφειν and παρατίθεσθαι with medial value In explain-ing an idiosyncratic use by Isocrates of the term παραγραφή the lexicographer makes use of παραγράφειν with the meaning of ldquomarking with the paragraphos (or paragraphe)rdquo⁴⁰ a text in a roll in order to highlight it for the purpose of the citation This on the one hand documents the virtually synonymous acceptation of the two verbs and on the other it provides a possible and plausible explana-tion of the genesis of this semantic quasi-equivalence

39enspThe same consideration can be extended to the sentence κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου present in the subscriptions to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds and Peace (above n 33) Here starting with Hense 1870 12ndash16 frequently ldquothe poetic textrdquo is implied as a grammatical subject of κεκώλισται and this verbal form is interpreted in reference to the arrangement of the lyric kola of the Aristophanean text on the pages of the medieval manuscripts as a consequence the ex-pression πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου is assumed to take for granted the word ἀντίγραφα and refer to the Aristophanic colometry displayed by Heliodorus in his ekdosis of the comedies I would rather on the one hand argue that κεκώλισται should be understood in an absolute sense (no less than παραγέγραπται in the same contexts) namely as meaning ldquothe colometry is given described quotedrdquo and on the other hand agree with White 1912 384ndash395 who (after Thiemann 1869 116ndash123) stated that the whole sentence is referring to the metrical descriptions obtained from (ἐκ τῶν) or based on (πρὸς τά for the wording cf πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα in the Euripidean subscriptions mentioned above n 34) Heliodorusrsquo colometric commentaries and amalgamated with annotation of other types see Holwerda 1964 114 and 1967 256ndash258 To be sure it is not imputable to chance that the scholia to Clouds and Peace ndash whose subscriptions in ms Ven Marc gr 474 hand down the name of Heliodorus ndash are the richest in fragments drawn from his metrical commentaries Holwerda 1964 114 with n 4 Be that as it may even if one allows that κεκώλισται refers to the layout of the Aristophanean text adopted in the manuscripts this nei-ther contradicts the statement that παράκειται παραγέγραπται etc refer to nothing more than to the presence of exegetic excerpts resulting from compilation (independently of their position on the page) nor on the other hand does it increase our chance of establishing the chronology of (each of) the operations described in the subscriptions40enspCf Heph Poeumlm 1 κατὰ δύο παραγεγραμμένον ᾆσμα (LSJ sv παραγράφειν I5)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

38emsp emspFausto Montana

i) παραγραφή οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ καὶ γνωρίμου τίθεται παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἰδίως ᾽Ισοκράτης ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς ἀντιδόσεώς (1559) φησιν ldquoλέγε ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς παραγραφῆςrdquo ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τῆς γραμμῆς ἣν μέχρι νῦν παράγραφον καλοῦμεν καὶ ἔστι τὸ λεγόμενον ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρέγραψα τοῦτο δ᾽ ἂν εἴη ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρεθέμην κτλ

παραγραφή it is used not only according to the common acceptation well known in the writings of rhetors (ie ldquoprocedure of exceptionrdquo) but Isocrates in the Antidosis says as is typical of his manner ldquoread aloud starting from the παραγραφήrdquo ie from the line that we still call paragraphos even today the expression means ldquostarting from where I marked the paragraphosrdquo in other words ldquostarting from where I citedrdquo

These semantic observations are not devoid of relevance for interpretation of the subscriptions of the scholiastic corpora and their meaning in relation to the char-acteristics and origin of the scholiographic technique What has been regarded as universally established should be revised to the status of doubtful namely the concept that in exegetic and erudite contexts the preverb παρα- of the compounds παρακεῖσθαι παρατίθεσθαι and παραγράφεσθαι has something to do with where the explanatory excerpta were placed on the page Consequently these verb forms and the subscriptions that contain them should be awarded lesser importance in the quest to discover the times and modes of the origin of scholiography⁴sup1

41enspFor linguistic and paleographic arguments employed in the debate on the meaning and dat-ing of the subscriptions see most recently Montana 2011a 151ndash152 G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 58ndash60 and Lara Pagani this volume

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

26emsp emspFausto Montana

text⁸ (see also the second of two passages taken from Maximus the Confessor reproduced below) Eutociusrsquo σχόλια consist of further mathematical demonstra-tions forming an adjunct to the main text thus they can more properly be consid-ered as a complement or an expansion of Apolloniusrsquo text itself rather than as a commentary having the form we are accustomed to finding when literary works are involved Accordingly the example from Eutocius would appear to reflect the activity by an individual and recognizable ldquoauthorrdquo rather than an editorial com-pilation put together from a number of different exegetic sources ndash in contrast to the corpora of scholia attested in medieval manuscripts

A different view is put forward by Fabio Acerbi in his recent important study on Late Antique mathematical commentaries Acerbi argues that the operation performed by Eutocius is not strictly speaking an ldquoauthorial actrdquo but rather a ldquoredactional actrdquo that can be assimilated to the scholiastic type of compila-tions albeit carried out in accordance with the manner of proceeding that was characteristic of mathematical exegesis namely the (often tacit) rewriting and transmission of earlier hermeneutic contributions⁹ However the demarca-tion line between this type of exegetic operation and that performed by the pure redactor-scholiast is brought into sharper focus if appropriate emphasis is placed specifically on the original character of the mathematician-scholiastrsquos contributions and his objectives In the field of ancient mathematics the process of ldquorewritingrdquo undertaken by a commentator who was also a specialist on the subject not only represented a chance to refresh and metabolize the exegetic tradition but it was also the customary and shared mode of further developing of thought and engaging in original speculation within an area of knowledge designed for utilitarian purposes The commentator was professionally involved and competent in the subject-matter on which he was rewriting a text further-more the hermeneutic operation offered the opportunity to pursue a particu-lar target of special interest to him namely improving and expanding the text that formed the object of the commentary and engaging in a sort of emulative competition with it in the spheres of content advancement of knowledge and

8enspEus Comm in Ps 452 Cyr Hier ad Gen 424 (PG 66 1108b) both quoted and discussed by Irigoin 1994 137ndash1389enspAcerbi 2012 140ndash142 and particularly concerning Eutocius 152ndash155 The same opinion was ex-pressed though en passant by Cameron 1990 118 according to which Eutociusrsquo commentary on Apolloniusrsquo Conica is ldquoan indisputable examplerdquo of marginal compilatory exegesis and Eutociusrsquo ldquocommentaries clearly represent an abridgment of the work of innumerable predecessorsrdquo This statement however does not take into account the substantially different approaches between commenting on literary and mathematical texts see below in the text and the next note

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp27

theoretical elaborationsup1⁰ Accordingly it was most definitely in the commenta-torrsquos interest to ensure that his identity remained explicit and recognizable on an authorial plane and to present in a completely assimilated form the estab-lished contribution of previous exegesis (so that the latter was no longer sepa-rable but amalgamated and anonymous) while at the same time disseminating meta-exegetic signals throughout the text This authorial attitude represented a continuation and an extention to the speculative field of mathematical herme-neutics of the long-lasting experience also displayed from the Hellenistic age to Late Antiquity by commentators of literary works such as the Alexandrian scholars Aristarchus of Samothrace Theon (the son of Artemidorus living in the Augustan age) or Didymus Chalcenterus and others whose names are care-fully handed down in the erudite traditionsup1sup1 By contrast the redactor-scholiast would appear to adopt a different manner of proceeding the decidedly redac-tional anonymous and detached character of his copy-and-paste work emerges above all from the tendency towards an impersonal style of writing and from the lack of any flaunted authorial identity that would seek to enter into a personal emulative relationship with the exegetic tradition Thus the generalized absence of marked authorial profiles in the scholia and the lack within them of prescrip-tions concerning conservation of the literal integrity of the exegetic text should not be attributed exclusively to cases of mechanical trimming even though these did occur fairly systematically during transmission The very facts of the physi-ological anonymity and textual fluctuation of scholiastic material show that the zeal for exact conservation was alien and indifferent to the genre In short such authoritative scholars as Aristarchus Didymus and Eutocius had a good reason for putting their signature on their commentaries and trying to fix the content in a way bearing their own imprint as authors Scholiasts on the other hand

10enspCf Cameron 1990 126 ldquoIn the writings of the mathematicians an altogether different crite-rion [ie rather than ldquoto establish what their author wrote and what he meantrdquo] was paramount mathematical correctness Was the proof right The mathematicians were read quite simply to learn mathematics To this end mistakes were naturally corrected If a demonstration could be improved it was Not even the language was sacrosanct hellip The point was to produce a text that the professorrsquos students could read and understand The purpose of their studies was utilitarian Some of them would go on to become architects Practical considerations were understandably predominantrdquo11enspAs an example we can refer to the IIIrd century CE renown papyrus fragment (PAmh 212 MP3 483) of Aristarchusrsquo hypomnema to Herodotusrsquo Book 1 a final portion of this commentary is pre-served and albeit heavily reshaped (or so it would seem cf recently Montana 2012c Montanari 2013) is nonetheless followed by the title and authorrsquos name as late as four centuries after the composition of the original work Other examples below in the text (subscriptions to medieval scholia displaying ancient commentatorsrsquo names)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

28emsp emspFausto Montana

do not appear to have had either the right or the ambition to put their autho-rial signature on show or to ensure that the materials they assembled remained absolutely intactsup1sup2

Let us momentarily return to the passage from Eutocius to point out that here παρατιθέμενος unequivocally means ldquodrawing (from)rdquo ldquomentioningrdquo and there can be no doubt that the term is used in reference not to marginal paratext but to the critical constitution of Apolloniusrsquo textsup1sup3

2)enspAnonymous marginal note to Hippocrates Aphorisms 324 in PAnt 3183 (MP3 5433 VIth century) fr 2(a) (mg dx)

thinspthinspthinspthinspthinspthinsp σχό(λιον) thinsp τελέσας ὁ θlsaquoεrsaquoιότατο[ς thinsp Ἱπποκράτης τὸν π[ε ρὶ τῶν ὡρῶν καὶ κατασ[τά σεων λόγον ἄρχετα[ι τοῦπερ]ὶ τῶν ἡλικιῶν τ[μή ματος

The reading σχό(λιον) is by Isabella Andorlini who has recognized close to the uppermost rip in the fragment the sequence of letters ϹΧΟ with omicron written over chisup1⁴ The annotation occupies a small portion of what was the right-hand margin and fulfills a service function helpful for the readability of the main text it indicates the end of one content section and the beginning of another in Apho-risms 324

12enspAs mentioned exegetic (re)writing constituted the habitual mode of Late Antique theoretical reflection in the field of mathematics as also in other fields strongly characterized by profes-sional training and learning such as philosophy law medicine Holy Scripture and theology For philosophy see Hadot 1997 Hoffmann 2006 for theology see some examples from Maximus the Confessor and Anastasius of Sinai below in the text This should discourage from automati-cally assuming that objectives methods and tools employed by ancient readers exegetes and specialists in the different fields of culture were fully interchangeable Montana 2011a 112ndash115 and 131ndash132 For the opposite point of view see Acerbi 2012 139ndash14013enspOn this Acerbi 2012 162 with n 79 is in agreement cf Cameron 1990 117 who translates τὰ σαφέστερα παρατιθέμενος ἐν τῷ ῥητῷ ldquo(to) place the clearer version in the textrdquo On the con-trary Nagy 2009 26 renders ldquoto juxtapose in the text the clearer thingsrdquo (my emphasis)14enspAndorlini 2000 42ndash43 51 (Pl 6) Andorlini 2003 25ndash26 (Tav VI) A new commented edition of this annotation is being prepared by Daniela Manetti for the Commentaria et lexica Graeca in papyris reperta (CLGP)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp29

31)enspMaximus the Confessor Quaestions to Thalassius 91ndash2 LagaSteel (= 1081ndash3 Larchet) Prologue to the scholia inscriptio

Μαξίμου μοναχοῦ πρόλογος τῶν παρακειμένων ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις σχολίων

32)enspibidem 1163ndash1378 LagaSteel (= 11262ndash11476 Larchet)

τοῦτο καθάπερ ἔφην εἰδώς δεῖν ὠῄθην ἑτέραν τινὰ τῷ παρόντι λόγῳ τῆσδε τῆς συγγραφῆς δοῦναι βοήθειαν τὴν τῶν παρατεθέντων ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις σχολίων γραφήν hellip διὸ παρακαλῶ πάντας τοὺς ἐντευξομένους ἢ καὶ μεταγράψοντας καὶ τὴν τῶν σχολίων ἔξωθεν ἀναγνῶναι καὶ παραθέσθαι γραφὴν κατὰ τὴν ἑκάστου σημείωσιν hellip

After composing the Quaestions to Thalassius dated to the years 630ndash633 Maximus annotated his own worksup1⁵ with explanations (σχόλια) that he copied (παρακείμενα παρατεθέντα)sup1⁶ in the margins of the page (ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις ἔξωθεν)sup1⁷ He considered the σχόλια to be an integral part of his text and pre-cisely for this reason he expressly urged his readers and copyists not to neglect them but to utilize them and reproduce them (ἀναγνῶναι καὶ παραθέσθαι) in the subsequent copies of the work with due respect for their position on the page vis-agrave-vis the main text

15enspThe attribution to Maximus of the prologue to the scholia testified by the inscriptio and also of the greater part of the scholia themselves is generally held to be reliable LagaSteel 1980 XIIndashXIII J-C Larchet in LarchetVinel 2010 21ndash2216enspThe summary which in two manuscripts precedes the Quaestions likewise has the wording (33 LagaSteel = 1023 Larchet) πρόλογος εἰς τὰ παρατεθέντα σχόλια translated as ldquoprologue aux scholies ajouteacuteesrdquo by F Vinel in LarchetVinel 2010 10317enspThe translation by F Vinel in LarchetVinel 2010 109 and 113 ldquoscholies situeacutees disposeacutees dans les margesrdquo is fairly neutral The rendering of the two passages of Maximus in the Latin translation made before the year 866 by John Scotus Eriugena (81ndash2 LagaSteel de appositis in frontibus scholiis 1059ndash1260 LagaSteel additorum in frontibus scholiorum on the dating see LagaSteel 1980 XCVIII by the same token in the Latin translation of the Greek summary of the work 23 LagaSteel the wording is Prologus in apposita scholia) is the result of a misun-derstanding on the one hand Eriugena wrongly interprets the prologue to the scholia as the prologue to the Questions and takes the term σχόλια itself to refer to the individual biblical quaes-tions around which the work is constructed and which precede Maximusrsquo answers on the other he shows that he has in mind the acceptation of σχόλια indicating marginal biblical catenae Cf LagaSteel 1980 XCIXndashC and see Eriugenarsquos own scholium to Maximusrsquo prologue (121ndash4 LagaSteel) Scholia dicuntur que quasi extra librum in frontibus capitulorum ex sancta scriptura su-muntur quorum expositio interius continetur Proprie autem dicuntur scholia semnologia hoc est insignes sermones

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

30emsp emspFausto Montana

41) Anastasius of Sinai Guide along the right path 311ndash3 76 Uthemann

σχόλιον παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας τῇ βίβλῳ ἐκ παντὸς τρόπου ἀναγινώσκειν καὶ τὰ κατὰ τοὺς τόπους παρακείμενα σχόλια εἰ δὲ καί ὡς εἰκός καὶ βραχέα τινὰ σόλοικα ἔχει ἡ βίβλος συγγνώμην αἰτοῦμεν ὁ γὰρ αὐτοσχεδίως ἐκτιθέμενος πολλάκις ἔχων τὸν νοῦν αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς νοήμασι καὶ σπεύδων ταῦτα σημειοῦσθαι περιφρονεῖ τῶν σολοίκων καὶ τῆς στίξεως

42)enspibidem 24134ndash136 320 Uthemann (explicit of the work)

πρὸς τούτοις πᾶσι δυσωποῦμεν τὸν μεταγράφειν μέλλοντα παραθέσθαι καὶ τὰ σχόλια σημειώσασθαι δὲ ἐπιμελῶς καὶ τοὺς τόνους καὶ τὰς στιγμὰς καὶ ὑποστιγμὰς καὶ τὰ σόλοικα καὶ γὰρ ἄλλοτέ τινες ἰδιῶται μεταγράψαντες ἡμῶν δογματικὸν τόμον ἐξ ἀγνοίας βλασφημιῶν αὐτὸν ἐπλήρωσανsup1⁸

The monk Anastasius in very much the same manner as Maximus his elder contemporary was the author of the explanations ndash which he himself termed σχόλιαsup1⁹ ndash that abound in the margins of his dogmatic text in the medieval manu-scripts Anastasius intended these marginal jottings to serve the purpose of eluci-dating passages of the main text whose content or form he had penned unclearly and this also prompted him to certify that the σχόλια were an integral part of his work Moreover he clarified the nature of the meaning that should be attrib-uted to this term (2880 70ndash71 Uthemann in the section περὶ ἐτυμολογίας)sup2⁰ σχόλιον εἴρηται διὰ τὸ κατὰ σχολὴν παρατίθεσθαι πρὸς σαφεστέραν ἑρμηνείαν τῶν δυσνοήτων νοημάτων ἢ ῥημάτων (~ EtGud 51928 Sturz sv σχόλιον EtM 74115 Gaisford sv σχόλιον)

5)enspTheognostus Orthography can 581 2994 Cramer

οὕτως εὗρονsup2sup1 παρακείμενον σχόλιον εἰς τὰ Ἔργα Ἡσιόδου (cf sch Hes Op 115b Pertusi)

With these words Theognostus in his Περὶ ὀρθογραφίας (roughly 800 CE) makes a reference to a scholium to Hesiod concerning the graphic and lexical difference

18enspWilson 1984 108 adduces this passage as evidence that the origin of scholiography dates to before the VIIIthndashIXth century cf Glock 2001 20919enspOn the Anastasian authorship of the scholia see Uthemann 1981 CCXVIndashCCXVIII20enspDoubts have been cast on the genuineness of this part of the text but the most recent editor believes it to be authentic and in any case it is congruent with Anastasiusrsquo manner of proceed-ing21enspεὑροι ms Oxon Barocc 50 corr Cramer

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp31

that distinguishes θάλια from θάλεια The passage is quoted by Klaus Alpers in his monograph on Orusrsquo Lexicon in connection with the hypothetical dating of the compilation of the scholia to Cyrilrsquos Lexicon (between 550 and 900 roughly)sup2sup2 Alpers inclined towards an early time frame and tended to agree with claim that scholiography originated in Late Antiquity adducing the passage from Theog-nostus as evidence for this assumptionsup2sup3 By the same token in a later contri-bution Alpers concluded that the redactors of the Etymologicum Genuinum in which one finds the same expression εὗρον παρακείμενον σχόλιον or similar phrases drew on editions that featured ldquoRandscholienrdquo ldquoEs muszlig damit gerech-net werden daszlig viele der vom Etymologicum Genuinum benutzten Handschriften wie die Hesiodhandschrift Theognosts mit Randscholien ausgestattet waren und dem siebenten achten oder fruumlhen neunten Jahrhundert entstammenrdquosup2⁴

However one could legitimately wonder whether in Theognostusrsquo passage as well as in the parallel occurrences in the Genuinum ndash and not unlike other cases mentioned above ndash παρακείμενον does not mean ldquosituated next (to)rdquo but rather ldquo(being) excerptedrdquo ldquoextractedrdquo ldquocitedrdquo I would argue that this wording labels an isolated explanation (without implying per se how and where it has been found namely as a quotation by an author or in a lexicum or alternatively as a marginal note in a copy of the literary work) distinguished from explanations read in a continuous commentary (hypomnema) For the characterization relevant to this second type we have meaningful evidence thanks to the Etymologica EtGen α 117 LasserreLivadaras sv Ἀζεΐδαο (Il 2513) εὗρον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Βοιωτίας σχόλιον (= EtM α 345 LasserreLivadaras cf EtSym α 182 LasserreLivadaras where ἐν dagger ὑποθήσει should be corrected to ἐν ὑπομνήματι) would appear to imply that rather than being taken from the margin of an edition of the Iliadic text the explanation was drawn from a ὑπόμνημα The latter word as is known literally identifies a commentary contained in a book (namely in a codex at this stage of the tradi-tion more presumably than a volumen) that was independent of the literary textsup2⁵

22enspAlpers 1981 85 n 1223enspCf Wilson 1984 108 Alpers 1991 242ndash244 252ndash254 Irigoin 1994 79 Cufalo 2007 LXXXII Klaus Alpers offers a partial disavowal of this general point of view in his detailed monograph on John of Sardis in which he subscribes to the view that some scholiographic corpora conserved in the medieval manuscripts may have been composed in the mid-Byzantine age (VIIIthndashIXth cen-tury) by scholars who had copies of ancient hypomnemata at their disposal (an argument first put forward by Zuntz 1975 cf Maehler 1994 Montana 2006 2011a and 2013) Alpers 2013 eg 81ndash86 (Aristophanesrsquo scholia) and 97ndash99 (Thucydidesrsquo scholia)24enspAlpers 1991 243ndash24425enspWas it the commentary by ldquoApion-Heliodorusrdquo (or ldquoApion-Herodorusrdquo) See Erbse 1960 133 Ercoles and Pagani this volume for further bibliography

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

32emsp emspFausto Montana

Thus it is unlikely that in this case σχόλιον means ldquomarginal noterdquo The repetition of the expression in other entries of the Etymologicum Magnum (α 224 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀγών οὕτως εὗρον σχόλια ἐν ὑπομνήμασιν Ἰλιάδος α 589 LasserreLivadaras sv ἄϊδρις οὕτως εὗρον σχόλιον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Ἰλιάδος) leads to the sus-picion that the indication ἐν ὑπομνήματι μασιν may have been lost in some paral-lel occurrences of the Genuinum For this reason in EtGen α 273 sv ἄϊδρις the editors restore οὕτως εὗρον lsaquoσχόλιον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Ἰλιάδοςrsaquo on the basis of the Magnum cf EtSym α 337 LasserreLivadaras where as in α 182 ἐν dagger ὑποθήσει is rightly emended to ἐν ὑπομνήματι in the apparatus criticussup2⁶

Let us make a brief comparison among these pieces of evidence The note in PAnt 3183 ndash if the reading σχό(λιον) is to be accepted ndash and the first of the two pas-sages cited from Anastasius both document the signaling of an explanatory inter-vention by means of the word σχόλιον placed just before the intervention itself This circumstance makes it unlikely that the word embodies an intrinsic refer-ence to the position in the margin as this would result in a pleonastic and curi-ously meta-exegetic sense (ldquoMarginal note Since the most divine Hippocrates has terminated his speech helliprdquo) regardless of whether the term was utilized by the original annotator or whether it was introduced by someone who was copying the note from a model Therefore independently of their position on the page these attestations do not express a meaning that differs from the generic ldquonoterdquo ldquobrief explanationrdquo such a meaning characterizes the intervention as a paratext

26enspConcerning ἄϊδρις the Etymologica repeat the same grammatical observations also present in sch Il 3219b1 Erbse from Herodian But other entries in the Etymologica are more directly indebted to the scholiastic exegesis to Hesiodrsquos Works that has come down to us through the medieval manuscripts Here sometimes a first explanation introduced by σχόλιον is followed by a second one (and in some cases a third) preceded by ἄλλως eg EtSym α 396 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀκίνητον (cf Hes Op 750) EtGen α 434 ~ EtSym α 502 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀλεύω (cf Hes Op 760 ὑπαλεύω) EtGen α 604 LasserreLivadaras sv ἄμαξα (cf Hes Op 455 vd Reitzenstein 1897 19) These scholiastic excerpts are missing in the Gudianum and therefore must have been incorporated into an edition of the Genuinum that was later than the original (on which the compiler of the Gudianum drew as his source) ldquothe Hesiod excerpts hellip are a second-ary accretion to the Genuinum and the manuscript from which they were taken need not have been much older than A and B that is to say than the tenth centuryrdquo (West 1974 163 stemma at 183 siglum e cf West 1978 79 more cautious Alpers 1991 241 n 19 cf Ercoles this volume) Thus in these cases the term σχόλιον stands for an ldquoexplanationrdquo at times subdivided into two or more opinions separated by ἄλλως derived from an edition of the Works that was supplied with the same collection of scholia as those attested in the medieval Hesiodic manuscripts that have come down to us This conclusion is also reached by Martano 2006 with reference to the use of scholiastic tradition on [Hesiod]rsquos Shield by the compiler(s) of the Genuinum

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp33

and may conceivably have been intended to prevent the misunderstading of the intervention itself as an integration or correction of the main text To this should be added that the only thing the term in its respective contexts identifies with any certainty is a single explanatory annotation an individual intervention by a reader and not the fruit of a broad-ranging book production project or a redac-tional compilation

In the other cases invoked as evidence and again in the first passage from Anastasius the term σχόλιον is accompanied by determinations which seem to make explicit reference to the position of the note However I would argue that only the adverb ἔξωθεν (in Eutocius and in Maximus) and the words ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις (in Maximus twice) express the position in the margin whereas ndash on the basis of what was stated above ndash no such position is expressed either by the term σχόλιον in itself or by the verbal forms of παρατίθεσθαι and παρακεῖσθαι For if we were to interpret these two verbs in the sense of ldquobeing by the side ofrdquo in the two passages from Maximussup2⁷ where the participles are present together with ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις then the expression would sound awkwardly pleonastic Thus it is preferable to take the two verbs in the sense of  ldquob e i n g e x t r a c t e d p r o -d u c e d q u o t e d c i t e d rdquo a meaning that is incontrovertibly widespread in ancient eruditionsup2⁸

Accordingly in the attestations examined here syntagms as παρακείμενον σχόλιον appear not to embody a reference to the position in the margin (neither the noun nor the verb would support such an interpretation) rather they more plausibly highlight an e x p l a n a t i o n (σχόλιον) that has been e x t r a c t e d or a d d u c e d or q u o t e d (παρακείμενον) an e x p l a n a t o r y excerptum That they are placed in the margin is a contingent and accessory occurrence linked to the independent evolution of the book format and the standardization of the codex and undeniably favored and incentivized by these factors In effect as the codex became more widely used the free margins of the page not only continued to be available for extemporaneous clarifications or scholia in the ancient sense

27enspThus Leanza 1995 221ndash22228enspEg sch Ar Ve 1310a Koster ὁ δὲ ἄχυρος παρ᾽ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει ὅπου καὶ τὸ Πλάτωνος παράκειται ἐξ Ἀδώνιδος (VΓLhAld) List of ancient passages by Valckenaer 1809 303ndash306 (quot-ing among others Hemsterhuys 1744 244 ldquoverba et testimonia scriptorum ad probandum citata qui profert et in medium adducit dicitur illa Παρατίθεσθαιrdquo) cf Rutherford 1905 22 n 23 LSJ svv παράκειμαι II1 παρατίθημι B5 Lundon 1997 76 and 86 Dickey 2007 251 As underscored by Lara Pagani this volume Erbse 1969 XV translates παράκειται of the Iliadic subscriptions as com-posita esse in my opinion implicitly but intentionally excluding the locative acceptation of the Greek verb G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 60 appears to concede this semantic possibil-ity on the contrary Mazzucchi this volume dissents (though quite apodictically)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

34emsp emspFausto Montana

(for instance in the Hippocratic papyrus and in the first of Anastasiusrsquo passages) as was already possible and had genuinely been the case in many volumina but at the same time they also offered the opportunity for copying the whole of an authorrsquos commentary or hypomnema by the side of the main work (Eutocius)sup2⁹ Indeed they even prompted some writers to devise a project whereby the com-position as well as the editorial layout of the main text and its exegetic apparatus would be presented jointly as an organic whole (Maximus Anastasius) The dis-tinctive feature of this latter type of systematic annotation which differentiates it from scholiography resides in the fact that authors such as Maximus and Anasta-sius brought to bear the force of their own explicitly evoked personal identity and related authority in order to constrain readers and copyists to show respect not only for the texts but also for the respective paratexts At least as far as the cases examined here are concerned these precautionary measures were successful and preserved the exegetic products from the destiny of drastic pruning and thinning manipulation and jumbling that inexorably and massively befell the commentar-ies on literary works as a result of the heavy hand of the scholiasts

The solution adopted by Eutocius Maximus and Anastasius was it would seem the same as that elected by the Neoplatonic Proclus for putting forward his own opinions (παραγράφειν τὰ ἀρέσκοντα) concerning the commentary by Syrianus on the orphic hymns according to the testimony of Marinus Vita Procli 27sup3⁰ As is the case with the acceptation of παρακεῖσθαι in the exegetic and erudite context the meaning to be attributed to παραγράφειν the verb used by Marinus now calls for closer examinationsup3sup1

29enspA similar type of editorial operation seems to be reflected in the celebrated POxy 202258 the VIth century fragmentary codex of Callimachus containing densely written exegetic marginal annotations derived in all probability from a single hypomnema Porro 1985 208ndash215 especially 212 Montana 2011a 136ndash144 Porro 201130enspThe result of this editorial performance is characterized by Marinus as σχόλια καὶ ὑπομνήματα an expression in which ldquoi due termini o saranno sinonimi o rimanderanno a una differenza che non sia perograve quella della posizionerdquo or ldquonon si sono ancora specializzati in una diversificazione significativardquo (ldquothe two terms will either be synonymous or will pertain to a difference which however does not involve positionrdquo or else they ldquohave not yet become specialized as the outcome of a significant diversificationrdquo) according to Lundon 1997 7931enspAs in the case of the other compound verbs with παρα- the modern interpretation of the literal meaning of παραγράφειν in this passage has been generalized as ldquoannotating in the marginsrdquo moreover the assumption has been made that Syrianusrsquo manuscript annotated by Proclus can be seen as a formal antecedent of authentic scholiography eg Hoffmann 2000 625 SaffreySe-gonds 2001 150ndash151 Pontani 2005 99 Acerbi 2012 163 with n 85 But as insightfully suggested by Porro 1985 213ndash214 that manuscript may rather have represented the type of composite and stratified sources later excerpted by the medieval scholiasts for their compilations

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp35

2enspΠαραγράφεσθαιSome medieval manuscripts that are witnesses of Greek scholiastic corpora are as is known supplied with subscriptions that list the exegetic sources These colophons appear at the end of the scholia to the Iliad for almost all the books except Ρ and Ω in ms Ven Marc gr 454 of the Xth centurysup3sup2 after the scholia to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds Peace and Birds in ms Ven Marc gr 474 of the XIth centurysup3sup3 in the Euripidean witness Paris gr 2713 of the XIth century after the scholia to Orestes (the same subscriptio can also be read in Ven Marc gr 471 of the XIIth century) and to Medeasup3⁴ and finally at the end of the scholia to Apol-lonius of Rhodesrsquo Argonautics in ms Laur Plut 329 of the Xth centurysup3⁵ The verb forms παράκειται or παραγέγραπται run as a common denominator throughout these subscriptions to indicate the compilation from sources These are forms that scholars customarily have no qualms in taking to mean ldquostands by the side ofrdquo ldquois written in the marginsrdquo with reference to the positioning of the exegesis as a frame surrounding the poetic textsup3⁶ However as was pointed out long ago and documented for παρακεῖσθαι (and παρατίθεσθαι)sup3⁷ even for παραγράφεσθαι some acceptations are widely attested in Late Antique and Byzantine Greek with reference to textual passages which involve no explicit reference or implicit allu-sion to the position on the page

32enspEg f 100v (end of Η) παράκειται τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα καὶ τὰ Διδύμου Περὶ τῆς Ἀρισταρχείου διορθώσεως τινὰ δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς Ἰλιακῆς προσῳδίας Ἡρωδιανοῦ καὶ Νικάνορος Περὶ στιγμῆς Beyond doubt the title τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα is brachylogic for Ἀριστονίκου περὶ τῶν σημείων namely for Aristonicusrsquo explanations of Aristarchusrsquo semeia see eg Lehrs 18823 2ndash3 at the beginning of a chapter entitled Aristonici liber de notis Aristarchi West 2001a 65 van Thiel 2014 122 Pagani this volume On the other hand Mazzucchi this volume quite oddly assumes though referring to the core of Lehrsrsquo opinion the meaning ldquosemeia of (ie apposed by) Aristonicusrdquo33enspF 43r (Clouds) κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται δὲ ἐκ τῶν Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν F 122v (Birds) παραγέγραπται ἐκ τῶν Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων σχολίων F 146v (Peace) κεκώλισται πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται ἐκ Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου34enspF 56r (Orestes) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα παραγέγραπται ἐκ τοῦ Διονυσίου ὑπομνήματος ὁλοσχερῶς καὶ τῶν μικτῶν (cf Marc gr 471 f 75r) F 129r (Medea) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα Διονυσίου ὁλοσχερὲς καί τινα τῶν Διδύμου35enspF 263v παράκειται τὰ σχόλια ἐκ τῶν Λουκίλλου Ταρραίου καὶ Σοφοκλείου καὶ Θέωνος The expression παράκειται τὰ σχόλια is perfectly analogous to the forms discussed in the first part of this article According to Haslam 1978 71 however here ldquoπαράκειται cannot refer to an inde-pendently existing hypomnema [as it was first stated by Carl Wendel] it must refer to marginal annotationrdquo36enspEg Hense 1870 13ndash14 ending with van Thiel 2014 12737enspAbove n 28

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

36emsp emspFausto Montana

In the scholia themselves belonging to the medieval tradition παραγράφειν is used in the meaning of  ldquo i m i t a t e rdquo ldquo d r a w o n rdquo ldquo a d a p t rdquo as a techni-cal verb to express the intertextual (language- or content-based) relation under-lying a literary passage s t a r t i n g f r o m or i n c o m p a r i s o n t o a given modelsup3⁸ The following examples are of interest

a) sch Soph Ai 731a Christodoulou λήγει δ᾽ ἔρις δραμοῦσα ἡ ἔρις εἰς πολὺ δραμοῦσα καὶ προκόψασα ἔστη τῇ συναντήσει τοῦ λόγου τῶν γερόντων ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως δὲ πρὸς Ἀγαμέμνονα μάχης παραγέγραπται καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ Νέστωρ ἐκεῖ (Il 1247  ff) διαλλάσσει οὕτως καὶ νῦν οἱ γέροντες κτλ LFONVGMRm

b) sch Ar Ach 540b Wilson ἐρεῖ τις οὐ χρῆν] καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Τηλέφου Εὐριπίδου (fr 708 Kannicht) παραγέγραπται EΓ3

c) sch Ar Pac 1012 Holwerda ἐκ Μηδείας Γ μήποτε ἐκ τῆς Εὐριπίδου Μηδείας (96ndash97) παραγράφει ἐκεῖνα ldquoὢ δύστηνος ἐγὼ μελέα τε πόνων lsaquohelliprsaquo πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμανrdquo RVΓ κτλ

d) sch ApRh 11026 Wendel σὺν δ᾽ ἔλασαν τὸ Ὁμηρικὸν παραγράφει (Il 4447) ldquoσύν ῥ᾽ ἔβαλον ῥινούς σὺν δ᾽ ἔγχεα καὶ μένε᾽ ἀνδρῶνrdquo LP

At least between the imperial age and the mid-Byzantine era the verb also came to admit the meaning of ldquo e x c e r p t i n g rdquo ldquo e x t r a c t i n g rdquo ldquo c i t i n g rdquo a text explicitly and extensively similarly to the case of appealing to an auctoritas in the framework of a linguistic or philosophical discussion or when excerpta of a work are transcribed within the body of another work For example

e) Harp Lex ο 25 Keaney sv ὀξυθύμια Δίδυμος ( Schmidt 1854 39) δὲ Αὐτοκλείδου (FGrHist 353 F 2) λέξιν παραγράψας ἐκ τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν φησιν ldquoὀξυθύμια τὰ καθάρματα λέγεται καὶ ἀπολύματαrdquo ταῦτα γὰρ ἀποφέρεσθαι εἰς τὰς τριόδους ὅταν τὰς οἰκίας καθαίρωσιν κτλ

f) Iul ad Them 5 ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος τὴν τύχην ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἐν τοῖς πρακτέοις κρατεῖν νενόμικα λέγοιμ᾽ ἂν ἤδη σοι τὰ τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἐκ τῶν θαυμασίων Νόμων εἰδότι μὲν καὶ διδάξαντί με ἀπόδειξιν δὲ ὥσπερ τοῦ μὴ ῥᾳθυμεῖν ποιούμενος παραγέγραφά σοι τὴν ῥῆσιν ὧδέ πως ἔχουσαν ldquoθεὸς μὲν πάντα καὶ μετὰ θεοῦ τύχη καὶ καιρὸς τὰ ἀνθρώπινα διακυβερνῶσι ξύμπαντα κτλ (Plat Leg 709b)rdquo

g) ibidem 10 τούτους δὲ αὐτὸς μὲν εἶναι φὴς τοὺς βασιλέας Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ (Pol 73 1325b) εἴρηκεν οὐδαμοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ προστεθεῖσαν λέξιν πλέον δὲ θάτερον ἐξ ὧν παραγέγραφας ἄν τις νοήσειε

38enspCf LSJ sv παραγράφειν I4 This acceptation can be ascribed to the comparative meaning of the preverb SchwyzerDebrunner 1950 493

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp37

h) Phot Bibl 273 (507b 18) ἀνεγνώσθη ἐκ τῶν τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοδωρήτου λόγων οὓς εἰς τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστομον συνετάξατο ὧν ἡμεῖς πέντε τέως εἴδομεν ἐξ ὧν καί τινας ἐκλογὰς τὰς ὑποτεταγμένας παρεγραψάμεθα

The passage by Photius is particularly significant for the semantic definition of παραγράφειν in the meaning of ldquo c o p y i n g o u t rdquo or ldquo t r a n s c r i b i n g f r o m (a model)rdquo as the verb is constructed with the object ἐκλογάς Also worthy of note is the construction of the predicate with ἐκ + genitive in much of the evi-dence cited (a c e g h) and likewise in the scholiastic subscriptions to indicate the source starting from which a text has been imitated or adapted or extractedsup3⁹

Finally from Harp Lex π 17 Keaney (~ Suda π 320 Adler) one can infer the semantic affinity of παραγράφειν and παρατίθεσθαι with medial value In explain-ing an idiosyncratic use by Isocrates of the term παραγραφή the lexicographer makes use of παραγράφειν with the meaning of ldquomarking with the paragraphos (or paragraphe)rdquo⁴⁰ a text in a roll in order to highlight it for the purpose of the citation This on the one hand documents the virtually synonymous acceptation of the two verbs and on the other it provides a possible and plausible explana-tion of the genesis of this semantic quasi-equivalence

39enspThe same consideration can be extended to the sentence κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου present in the subscriptions to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds and Peace (above n 33) Here starting with Hense 1870 12ndash16 frequently ldquothe poetic textrdquo is implied as a grammatical subject of κεκώλισται and this verbal form is interpreted in reference to the arrangement of the lyric kola of the Aristophanean text on the pages of the medieval manuscripts as a consequence the ex-pression πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου is assumed to take for granted the word ἀντίγραφα and refer to the Aristophanic colometry displayed by Heliodorus in his ekdosis of the comedies I would rather on the one hand argue that κεκώλισται should be understood in an absolute sense (no less than παραγέγραπται in the same contexts) namely as meaning ldquothe colometry is given described quotedrdquo and on the other hand agree with White 1912 384ndash395 who (after Thiemann 1869 116ndash123) stated that the whole sentence is referring to the metrical descriptions obtained from (ἐκ τῶν) or based on (πρὸς τά for the wording cf πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα in the Euripidean subscriptions mentioned above n 34) Heliodorusrsquo colometric commentaries and amalgamated with annotation of other types see Holwerda 1964 114 and 1967 256ndash258 To be sure it is not imputable to chance that the scholia to Clouds and Peace ndash whose subscriptions in ms Ven Marc gr 474 hand down the name of Heliodorus ndash are the richest in fragments drawn from his metrical commentaries Holwerda 1964 114 with n 4 Be that as it may even if one allows that κεκώλισται refers to the layout of the Aristophanean text adopted in the manuscripts this nei-ther contradicts the statement that παράκειται παραγέγραπται etc refer to nothing more than to the presence of exegetic excerpts resulting from compilation (independently of their position on the page) nor on the other hand does it increase our chance of establishing the chronology of (each of) the operations described in the subscriptions40enspCf Heph Poeumlm 1 κατὰ δύο παραγεγραμμένον ᾆσμα (LSJ sv παραγράφειν I5)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

38emsp emspFausto Montana

i) παραγραφή οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ καὶ γνωρίμου τίθεται παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἰδίως ᾽Ισοκράτης ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς ἀντιδόσεώς (1559) φησιν ldquoλέγε ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς παραγραφῆςrdquo ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τῆς γραμμῆς ἣν μέχρι νῦν παράγραφον καλοῦμεν καὶ ἔστι τὸ λεγόμενον ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρέγραψα τοῦτο δ᾽ ἂν εἴη ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρεθέμην κτλ

παραγραφή it is used not only according to the common acceptation well known in the writings of rhetors (ie ldquoprocedure of exceptionrdquo) but Isocrates in the Antidosis says as is typical of his manner ldquoread aloud starting from the παραγραφήrdquo ie from the line that we still call paragraphos even today the expression means ldquostarting from where I marked the paragraphosrdquo in other words ldquostarting from where I citedrdquo

These semantic observations are not devoid of relevance for interpretation of the subscriptions of the scholiastic corpora and their meaning in relation to the char-acteristics and origin of the scholiographic technique What has been regarded as universally established should be revised to the status of doubtful namely the concept that in exegetic and erudite contexts the preverb παρα- of the compounds παρακεῖσθαι παρατίθεσθαι and παραγράφεσθαι has something to do with where the explanatory excerpta were placed on the page Consequently these verb forms and the subscriptions that contain them should be awarded lesser importance in the quest to discover the times and modes of the origin of scholiography⁴sup1

41enspFor linguistic and paleographic arguments employed in the debate on the meaning and dat-ing of the subscriptions see most recently Montana 2011a 151ndash152 G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 58ndash60 and Lara Pagani this volume

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp27

theoretical elaborationsup1⁰ Accordingly it was most definitely in the commenta-torrsquos interest to ensure that his identity remained explicit and recognizable on an authorial plane and to present in a completely assimilated form the estab-lished contribution of previous exegesis (so that the latter was no longer sepa-rable but amalgamated and anonymous) while at the same time disseminating meta-exegetic signals throughout the text This authorial attitude represented a continuation and an extention to the speculative field of mathematical herme-neutics of the long-lasting experience also displayed from the Hellenistic age to Late Antiquity by commentators of literary works such as the Alexandrian scholars Aristarchus of Samothrace Theon (the son of Artemidorus living in the Augustan age) or Didymus Chalcenterus and others whose names are care-fully handed down in the erudite traditionsup1sup1 By contrast the redactor-scholiast would appear to adopt a different manner of proceeding the decidedly redac-tional anonymous and detached character of his copy-and-paste work emerges above all from the tendency towards an impersonal style of writing and from the lack of any flaunted authorial identity that would seek to enter into a personal emulative relationship with the exegetic tradition Thus the generalized absence of marked authorial profiles in the scholia and the lack within them of prescrip-tions concerning conservation of the literal integrity of the exegetic text should not be attributed exclusively to cases of mechanical trimming even though these did occur fairly systematically during transmission The very facts of the physi-ological anonymity and textual fluctuation of scholiastic material show that the zeal for exact conservation was alien and indifferent to the genre In short such authoritative scholars as Aristarchus Didymus and Eutocius had a good reason for putting their signature on their commentaries and trying to fix the content in a way bearing their own imprint as authors Scholiasts on the other hand

10enspCf Cameron 1990 126 ldquoIn the writings of the mathematicians an altogether different crite-rion [ie rather than ldquoto establish what their author wrote and what he meantrdquo] was paramount mathematical correctness Was the proof right The mathematicians were read quite simply to learn mathematics To this end mistakes were naturally corrected If a demonstration could be improved it was Not even the language was sacrosanct hellip The point was to produce a text that the professorrsquos students could read and understand The purpose of their studies was utilitarian Some of them would go on to become architects Practical considerations were understandably predominantrdquo11enspAs an example we can refer to the IIIrd century CE renown papyrus fragment (PAmh 212 MP3 483) of Aristarchusrsquo hypomnema to Herodotusrsquo Book 1 a final portion of this commentary is pre-served and albeit heavily reshaped (or so it would seem cf recently Montana 2012c Montanari 2013) is nonetheless followed by the title and authorrsquos name as late as four centuries after the composition of the original work Other examples below in the text (subscriptions to medieval scholia displaying ancient commentatorsrsquo names)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

28emsp emspFausto Montana

do not appear to have had either the right or the ambition to put their autho-rial signature on show or to ensure that the materials they assembled remained absolutely intactsup1sup2

Let us momentarily return to the passage from Eutocius to point out that here παρατιθέμενος unequivocally means ldquodrawing (from)rdquo ldquomentioningrdquo and there can be no doubt that the term is used in reference not to marginal paratext but to the critical constitution of Apolloniusrsquo textsup1sup3

2)enspAnonymous marginal note to Hippocrates Aphorisms 324 in PAnt 3183 (MP3 5433 VIth century) fr 2(a) (mg dx)

thinspthinspthinspthinspthinspthinsp σχό(λιον) thinsp τελέσας ὁ θlsaquoεrsaquoιότατο[ς thinsp Ἱπποκράτης τὸν π[ε ρὶ τῶν ὡρῶν καὶ κατασ[τά σεων λόγον ἄρχετα[ι τοῦπερ]ὶ τῶν ἡλικιῶν τ[μή ματος

The reading σχό(λιον) is by Isabella Andorlini who has recognized close to the uppermost rip in the fragment the sequence of letters ϹΧΟ with omicron written over chisup1⁴ The annotation occupies a small portion of what was the right-hand margin and fulfills a service function helpful for the readability of the main text it indicates the end of one content section and the beginning of another in Apho-risms 324

12enspAs mentioned exegetic (re)writing constituted the habitual mode of Late Antique theoretical reflection in the field of mathematics as also in other fields strongly characterized by profes-sional training and learning such as philosophy law medicine Holy Scripture and theology For philosophy see Hadot 1997 Hoffmann 2006 for theology see some examples from Maximus the Confessor and Anastasius of Sinai below in the text This should discourage from automati-cally assuming that objectives methods and tools employed by ancient readers exegetes and specialists in the different fields of culture were fully interchangeable Montana 2011a 112ndash115 and 131ndash132 For the opposite point of view see Acerbi 2012 139ndash14013enspOn this Acerbi 2012 162 with n 79 is in agreement cf Cameron 1990 117 who translates τὰ σαφέστερα παρατιθέμενος ἐν τῷ ῥητῷ ldquo(to) place the clearer version in the textrdquo On the con-trary Nagy 2009 26 renders ldquoto juxtapose in the text the clearer thingsrdquo (my emphasis)14enspAndorlini 2000 42ndash43 51 (Pl 6) Andorlini 2003 25ndash26 (Tav VI) A new commented edition of this annotation is being prepared by Daniela Manetti for the Commentaria et lexica Graeca in papyris reperta (CLGP)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp29

31)enspMaximus the Confessor Quaestions to Thalassius 91ndash2 LagaSteel (= 1081ndash3 Larchet) Prologue to the scholia inscriptio

Μαξίμου μοναχοῦ πρόλογος τῶν παρακειμένων ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις σχολίων

32)enspibidem 1163ndash1378 LagaSteel (= 11262ndash11476 Larchet)

τοῦτο καθάπερ ἔφην εἰδώς δεῖν ὠῄθην ἑτέραν τινὰ τῷ παρόντι λόγῳ τῆσδε τῆς συγγραφῆς δοῦναι βοήθειαν τὴν τῶν παρατεθέντων ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις σχολίων γραφήν hellip διὸ παρακαλῶ πάντας τοὺς ἐντευξομένους ἢ καὶ μεταγράψοντας καὶ τὴν τῶν σχολίων ἔξωθεν ἀναγνῶναι καὶ παραθέσθαι γραφὴν κατὰ τὴν ἑκάστου σημείωσιν hellip

After composing the Quaestions to Thalassius dated to the years 630ndash633 Maximus annotated his own worksup1⁵ with explanations (σχόλια) that he copied (παρακείμενα παρατεθέντα)sup1⁶ in the margins of the page (ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις ἔξωθεν)sup1⁷ He considered the σχόλια to be an integral part of his text and pre-cisely for this reason he expressly urged his readers and copyists not to neglect them but to utilize them and reproduce them (ἀναγνῶναι καὶ παραθέσθαι) in the subsequent copies of the work with due respect for their position on the page vis-agrave-vis the main text

15enspThe attribution to Maximus of the prologue to the scholia testified by the inscriptio and also of the greater part of the scholia themselves is generally held to be reliable LagaSteel 1980 XIIndashXIII J-C Larchet in LarchetVinel 2010 21ndash2216enspThe summary which in two manuscripts precedes the Quaestions likewise has the wording (33 LagaSteel = 1023 Larchet) πρόλογος εἰς τὰ παρατεθέντα σχόλια translated as ldquoprologue aux scholies ajouteacuteesrdquo by F Vinel in LarchetVinel 2010 10317enspThe translation by F Vinel in LarchetVinel 2010 109 and 113 ldquoscholies situeacutees disposeacutees dans les margesrdquo is fairly neutral The rendering of the two passages of Maximus in the Latin translation made before the year 866 by John Scotus Eriugena (81ndash2 LagaSteel de appositis in frontibus scholiis 1059ndash1260 LagaSteel additorum in frontibus scholiorum on the dating see LagaSteel 1980 XCVIII by the same token in the Latin translation of the Greek summary of the work 23 LagaSteel the wording is Prologus in apposita scholia) is the result of a misun-derstanding on the one hand Eriugena wrongly interprets the prologue to the scholia as the prologue to the Questions and takes the term σχόλια itself to refer to the individual biblical quaes-tions around which the work is constructed and which precede Maximusrsquo answers on the other he shows that he has in mind the acceptation of σχόλια indicating marginal biblical catenae Cf LagaSteel 1980 XCIXndashC and see Eriugenarsquos own scholium to Maximusrsquo prologue (121ndash4 LagaSteel) Scholia dicuntur que quasi extra librum in frontibus capitulorum ex sancta scriptura su-muntur quorum expositio interius continetur Proprie autem dicuntur scholia semnologia hoc est insignes sermones

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

30emsp emspFausto Montana

41) Anastasius of Sinai Guide along the right path 311ndash3 76 Uthemann

σχόλιον παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας τῇ βίβλῳ ἐκ παντὸς τρόπου ἀναγινώσκειν καὶ τὰ κατὰ τοὺς τόπους παρακείμενα σχόλια εἰ δὲ καί ὡς εἰκός καὶ βραχέα τινὰ σόλοικα ἔχει ἡ βίβλος συγγνώμην αἰτοῦμεν ὁ γὰρ αὐτοσχεδίως ἐκτιθέμενος πολλάκις ἔχων τὸν νοῦν αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς νοήμασι καὶ σπεύδων ταῦτα σημειοῦσθαι περιφρονεῖ τῶν σολοίκων καὶ τῆς στίξεως

42)enspibidem 24134ndash136 320 Uthemann (explicit of the work)

πρὸς τούτοις πᾶσι δυσωποῦμεν τὸν μεταγράφειν μέλλοντα παραθέσθαι καὶ τὰ σχόλια σημειώσασθαι δὲ ἐπιμελῶς καὶ τοὺς τόνους καὶ τὰς στιγμὰς καὶ ὑποστιγμὰς καὶ τὰ σόλοικα καὶ γὰρ ἄλλοτέ τινες ἰδιῶται μεταγράψαντες ἡμῶν δογματικὸν τόμον ἐξ ἀγνοίας βλασφημιῶν αὐτὸν ἐπλήρωσανsup1⁸

The monk Anastasius in very much the same manner as Maximus his elder contemporary was the author of the explanations ndash which he himself termed σχόλιαsup1⁹ ndash that abound in the margins of his dogmatic text in the medieval manu-scripts Anastasius intended these marginal jottings to serve the purpose of eluci-dating passages of the main text whose content or form he had penned unclearly and this also prompted him to certify that the σχόλια were an integral part of his work Moreover he clarified the nature of the meaning that should be attrib-uted to this term (2880 70ndash71 Uthemann in the section περὶ ἐτυμολογίας)sup2⁰ σχόλιον εἴρηται διὰ τὸ κατὰ σχολὴν παρατίθεσθαι πρὸς σαφεστέραν ἑρμηνείαν τῶν δυσνοήτων νοημάτων ἢ ῥημάτων (~ EtGud 51928 Sturz sv σχόλιον EtM 74115 Gaisford sv σχόλιον)

5)enspTheognostus Orthography can 581 2994 Cramer

οὕτως εὗρονsup2sup1 παρακείμενον σχόλιον εἰς τὰ Ἔργα Ἡσιόδου (cf sch Hes Op 115b Pertusi)

With these words Theognostus in his Περὶ ὀρθογραφίας (roughly 800 CE) makes a reference to a scholium to Hesiod concerning the graphic and lexical difference

18enspWilson 1984 108 adduces this passage as evidence that the origin of scholiography dates to before the VIIIthndashIXth century cf Glock 2001 20919enspOn the Anastasian authorship of the scholia see Uthemann 1981 CCXVIndashCCXVIII20enspDoubts have been cast on the genuineness of this part of the text but the most recent editor believes it to be authentic and in any case it is congruent with Anastasiusrsquo manner of proceed-ing21enspεὑροι ms Oxon Barocc 50 corr Cramer

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp31

that distinguishes θάλια from θάλεια The passage is quoted by Klaus Alpers in his monograph on Orusrsquo Lexicon in connection with the hypothetical dating of the compilation of the scholia to Cyrilrsquos Lexicon (between 550 and 900 roughly)sup2sup2 Alpers inclined towards an early time frame and tended to agree with claim that scholiography originated in Late Antiquity adducing the passage from Theog-nostus as evidence for this assumptionsup2sup3 By the same token in a later contri-bution Alpers concluded that the redactors of the Etymologicum Genuinum in which one finds the same expression εὗρον παρακείμενον σχόλιον or similar phrases drew on editions that featured ldquoRandscholienrdquo ldquoEs muszlig damit gerech-net werden daszlig viele der vom Etymologicum Genuinum benutzten Handschriften wie die Hesiodhandschrift Theognosts mit Randscholien ausgestattet waren und dem siebenten achten oder fruumlhen neunten Jahrhundert entstammenrdquosup2⁴

However one could legitimately wonder whether in Theognostusrsquo passage as well as in the parallel occurrences in the Genuinum ndash and not unlike other cases mentioned above ndash παρακείμενον does not mean ldquosituated next (to)rdquo but rather ldquo(being) excerptedrdquo ldquoextractedrdquo ldquocitedrdquo I would argue that this wording labels an isolated explanation (without implying per se how and where it has been found namely as a quotation by an author or in a lexicum or alternatively as a marginal note in a copy of the literary work) distinguished from explanations read in a continuous commentary (hypomnema) For the characterization relevant to this second type we have meaningful evidence thanks to the Etymologica EtGen α 117 LasserreLivadaras sv Ἀζεΐδαο (Il 2513) εὗρον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Βοιωτίας σχόλιον (= EtM α 345 LasserreLivadaras cf EtSym α 182 LasserreLivadaras where ἐν dagger ὑποθήσει should be corrected to ἐν ὑπομνήματι) would appear to imply that rather than being taken from the margin of an edition of the Iliadic text the explanation was drawn from a ὑπόμνημα The latter word as is known literally identifies a commentary contained in a book (namely in a codex at this stage of the tradi-tion more presumably than a volumen) that was independent of the literary textsup2⁵

22enspAlpers 1981 85 n 1223enspCf Wilson 1984 108 Alpers 1991 242ndash244 252ndash254 Irigoin 1994 79 Cufalo 2007 LXXXII Klaus Alpers offers a partial disavowal of this general point of view in his detailed monograph on John of Sardis in which he subscribes to the view that some scholiographic corpora conserved in the medieval manuscripts may have been composed in the mid-Byzantine age (VIIIthndashIXth cen-tury) by scholars who had copies of ancient hypomnemata at their disposal (an argument first put forward by Zuntz 1975 cf Maehler 1994 Montana 2006 2011a and 2013) Alpers 2013 eg 81ndash86 (Aristophanesrsquo scholia) and 97ndash99 (Thucydidesrsquo scholia)24enspAlpers 1991 243ndash24425enspWas it the commentary by ldquoApion-Heliodorusrdquo (or ldquoApion-Herodorusrdquo) See Erbse 1960 133 Ercoles and Pagani this volume for further bibliography

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

32emsp emspFausto Montana

Thus it is unlikely that in this case σχόλιον means ldquomarginal noterdquo The repetition of the expression in other entries of the Etymologicum Magnum (α 224 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀγών οὕτως εὗρον σχόλια ἐν ὑπομνήμασιν Ἰλιάδος α 589 LasserreLivadaras sv ἄϊδρις οὕτως εὗρον σχόλιον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Ἰλιάδος) leads to the sus-picion that the indication ἐν ὑπομνήματι μασιν may have been lost in some paral-lel occurrences of the Genuinum For this reason in EtGen α 273 sv ἄϊδρις the editors restore οὕτως εὗρον lsaquoσχόλιον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Ἰλιάδοςrsaquo on the basis of the Magnum cf EtSym α 337 LasserreLivadaras where as in α 182 ἐν dagger ὑποθήσει is rightly emended to ἐν ὑπομνήματι in the apparatus criticussup2⁶

Let us make a brief comparison among these pieces of evidence The note in PAnt 3183 ndash if the reading σχό(λιον) is to be accepted ndash and the first of the two pas-sages cited from Anastasius both document the signaling of an explanatory inter-vention by means of the word σχόλιον placed just before the intervention itself This circumstance makes it unlikely that the word embodies an intrinsic refer-ence to the position in the margin as this would result in a pleonastic and curi-ously meta-exegetic sense (ldquoMarginal note Since the most divine Hippocrates has terminated his speech helliprdquo) regardless of whether the term was utilized by the original annotator or whether it was introduced by someone who was copying the note from a model Therefore independently of their position on the page these attestations do not express a meaning that differs from the generic ldquonoterdquo ldquobrief explanationrdquo such a meaning characterizes the intervention as a paratext

26enspConcerning ἄϊδρις the Etymologica repeat the same grammatical observations also present in sch Il 3219b1 Erbse from Herodian But other entries in the Etymologica are more directly indebted to the scholiastic exegesis to Hesiodrsquos Works that has come down to us through the medieval manuscripts Here sometimes a first explanation introduced by σχόλιον is followed by a second one (and in some cases a third) preceded by ἄλλως eg EtSym α 396 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀκίνητον (cf Hes Op 750) EtGen α 434 ~ EtSym α 502 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀλεύω (cf Hes Op 760 ὑπαλεύω) EtGen α 604 LasserreLivadaras sv ἄμαξα (cf Hes Op 455 vd Reitzenstein 1897 19) These scholiastic excerpts are missing in the Gudianum and therefore must have been incorporated into an edition of the Genuinum that was later than the original (on which the compiler of the Gudianum drew as his source) ldquothe Hesiod excerpts hellip are a second-ary accretion to the Genuinum and the manuscript from which they were taken need not have been much older than A and B that is to say than the tenth centuryrdquo (West 1974 163 stemma at 183 siglum e cf West 1978 79 more cautious Alpers 1991 241 n 19 cf Ercoles this volume) Thus in these cases the term σχόλιον stands for an ldquoexplanationrdquo at times subdivided into two or more opinions separated by ἄλλως derived from an edition of the Works that was supplied with the same collection of scholia as those attested in the medieval Hesiodic manuscripts that have come down to us This conclusion is also reached by Martano 2006 with reference to the use of scholiastic tradition on [Hesiod]rsquos Shield by the compiler(s) of the Genuinum

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp33

and may conceivably have been intended to prevent the misunderstading of the intervention itself as an integration or correction of the main text To this should be added that the only thing the term in its respective contexts identifies with any certainty is a single explanatory annotation an individual intervention by a reader and not the fruit of a broad-ranging book production project or a redac-tional compilation

In the other cases invoked as evidence and again in the first passage from Anastasius the term σχόλιον is accompanied by determinations which seem to make explicit reference to the position of the note However I would argue that only the adverb ἔξωθεν (in Eutocius and in Maximus) and the words ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις (in Maximus twice) express the position in the margin whereas ndash on the basis of what was stated above ndash no such position is expressed either by the term σχόλιον in itself or by the verbal forms of παρατίθεσθαι and παρακεῖσθαι For if we were to interpret these two verbs in the sense of ldquobeing by the side ofrdquo in the two passages from Maximussup2⁷ where the participles are present together with ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις then the expression would sound awkwardly pleonastic Thus it is preferable to take the two verbs in the sense of  ldquob e i n g e x t r a c t e d p r o -d u c e d q u o t e d c i t e d rdquo a meaning that is incontrovertibly widespread in ancient eruditionsup2⁸

Accordingly in the attestations examined here syntagms as παρακείμενον σχόλιον appear not to embody a reference to the position in the margin (neither the noun nor the verb would support such an interpretation) rather they more plausibly highlight an e x p l a n a t i o n (σχόλιον) that has been e x t r a c t e d or a d d u c e d or q u o t e d (παρακείμενον) an e x p l a n a t o r y excerptum That they are placed in the margin is a contingent and accessory occurrence linked to the independent evolution of the book format and the standardization of the codex and undeniably favored and incentivized by these factors In effect as the codex became more widely used the free margins of the page not only continued to be available for extemporaneous clarifications or scholia in the ancient sense

27enspThus Leanza 1995 221ndash22228enspEg sch Ar Ve 1310a Koster ὁ δὲ ἄχυρος παρ᾽ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει ὅπου καὶ τὸ Πλάτωνος παράκειται ἐξ Ἀδώνιδος (VΓLhAld) List of ancient passages by Valckenaer 1809 303ndash306 (quot-ing among others Hemsterhuys 1744 244 ldquoverba et testimonia scriptorum ad probandum citata qui profert et in medium adducit dicitur illa Παρατίθεσθαιrdquo) cf Rutherford 1905 22 n 23 LSJ svv παράκειμαι II1 παρατίθημι B5 Lundon 1997 76 and 86 Dickey 2007 251 As underscored by Lara Pagani this volume Erbse 1969 XV translates παράκειται of the Iliadic subscriptions as com-posita esse in my opinion implicitly but intentionally excluding the locative acceptation of the Greek verb G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 60 appears to concede this semantic possibil-ity on the contrary Mazzucchi this volume dissents (though quite apodictically)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

34emsp emspFausto Montana

(for instance in the Hippocratic papyrus and in the first of Anastasiusrsquo passages) as was already possible and had genuinely been the case in many volumina but at the same time they also offered the opportunity for copying the whole of an authorrsquos commentary or hypomnema by the side of the main work (Eutocius)sup2⁹ Indeed they even prompted some writers to devise a project whereby the com-position as well as the editorial layout of the main text and its exegetic apparatus would be presented jointly as an organic whole (Maximus Anastasius) The dis-tinctive feature of this latter type of systematic annotation which differentiates it from scholiography resides in the fact that authors such as Maximus and Anasta-sius brought to bear the force of their own explicitly evoked personal identity and related authority in order to constrain readers and copyists to show respect not only for the texts but also for the respective paratexts At least as far as the cases examined here are concerned these precautionary measures were successful and preserved the exegetic products from the destiny of drastic pruning and thinning manipulation and jumbling that inexorably and massively befell the commentar-ies on literary works as a result of the heavy hand of the scholiasts

The solution adopted by Eutocius Maximus and Anastasius was it would seem the same as that elected by the Neoplatonic Proclus for putting forward his own opinions (παραγράφειν τὰ ἀρέσκοντα) concerning the commentary by Syrianus on the orphic hymns according to the testimony of Marinus Vita Procli 27sup3⁰ As is the case with the acceptation of παρακεῖσθαι in the exegetic and erudite context the meaning to be attributed to παραγράφειν the verb used by Marinus now calls for closer examinationsup3sup1

29enspA similar type of editorial operation seems to be reflected in the celebrated POxy 202258 the VIth century fragmentary codex of Callimachus containing densely written exegetic marginal annotations derived in all probability from a single hypomnema Porro 1985 208ndash215 especially 212 Montana 2011a 136ndash144 Porro 201130enspThe result of this editorial performance is characterized by Marinus as σχόλια καὶ ὑπομνήματα an expression in which ldquoi due termini o saranno sinonimi o rimanderanno a una differenza che non sia perograve quella della posizionerdquo or ldquonon si sono ancora specializzati in una diversificazione significativardquo (ldquothe two terms will either be synonymous or will pertain to a difference which however does not involve positionrdquo or else they ldquohave not yet become specialized as the outcome of a significant diversificationrdquo) according to Lundon 1997 7931enspAs in the case of the other compound verbs with παρα- the modern interpretation of the literal meaning of παραγράφειν in this passage has been generalized as ldquoannotating in the marginsrdquo moreover the assumption has been made that Syrianusrsquo manuscript annotated by Proclus can be seen as a formal antecedent of authentic scholiography eg Hoffmann 2000 625 SaffreySe-gonds 2001 150ndash151 Pontani 2005 99 Acerbi 2012 163 with n 85 But as insightfully suggested by Porro 1985 213ndash214 that manuscript may rather have represented the type of composite and stratified sources later excerpted by the medieval scholiasts for their compilations

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp35

2enspΠαραγράφεσθαιSome medieval manuscripts that are witnesses of Greek scholiastic corpora are as is known supplied with subscriptions that list the exegetic sources These colophons appear at the end of the scholia to the Iliad for almost all the books except Ρ and Ω in ms Ven Marc gr 454 of the Xth centurysup3sup2 after the scholia to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds Peace and Birds in ms Ven Marc gr 474 of the XIth centurysup3sup3 in the Euripidean witness Paris gr 2713 of the XIth century after the scholia to Orestes (the same subscriptio can also be read in Ven Marc gr 471 of the XIIth century) and to Medeasup3⁴ and finally at the end of the scholia to Apol-lonius of Rhodesrsquo Argonautics in ms Laur Plut 329 of the Xth centurysup3⁵ The verb forms παράκειται or παραγέγραπται run as a common denominator throughout these subscriptions to indicate the compilation from sources These are forms that scholars customarily have no qualms in taking to mean ldquostands by the side ofrdquo ldquois written in the marginsrdquo with reference to the positioning of the exegesis as a frame surrounding the poetic textsup3⁶ However as was pointed out long ago and documented for παρακεῖσθαι (and παρατίθεσθαι)sup3⁷ even for παραγράφεσθαι some acceptations are widely attested in Late Antique and Byzantine Greek with reference to textual passages which involve no explicit reference or implicit allu-sion to the position on the page

32enspEg f 100v (end of Η) παράκειται τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα καὶ τὰ Διδύμου Περὶ τῆς Ἀρισταρχείου διορθώσεως τινὰ δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς Ἰλιακῆς προσῳδίας Ἡρωδιανοῦ καὶ Νικάνορος Περὶ στιγμῆς Beyond doubt the title τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα is brachylogic for Ἀριστονίκου περὶ τῶν σημείων namely for Aristonicusrsquo explanations of Aristarchusrsquo semeia see eg Lehrs 18823 2ndash3 at the beginning of a chapter entitled Aristonici liber de notis Aristarchi West 2001a 65 van Thiel 2014 122 Pagani this volume On the other hand Mazzucchi this volume quite oddly assumes though referring to the core of Lehrsrsquo opinion the meaning ldquosemeia of (ie apposed by) Aristonicusrdquo33enspF 43r (Clouds) κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται δὲ ἐκ τῶν Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν F 122v (Birds) παραγέγραπται ἐκ τῶν Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων σχολίων F 146v (Peace) κεκώλισται πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται ἐκ Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου34enspF 56r (Orestes) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα παραγέγραπται ἐκ τοῦ Διονυσίου ὑπομνήματος ὁλοσχερῶς καὶ τῶν μικτῶν (cf Marc gr 471 f 75r) F 129r (Medea) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα Διονυσίου ὁλοσχερὲς καί τινα τῶν Διδύμου35enspF 263v παράκειται τὰ σχόλια ἐκ τῶν Λουκίλλου Ταρραίου καὶ Σοφοκλείου καὶ Θέωνος The expression παράκειται τὰ σχόλια is perfectly analogous to the forms discussed in the first part of this article According to Haslam 1978 71 however here ldquoπαράκειται cannot refer to an inde-pendently existing hypomnema [as it was first stated by Carl Wendel] it must refer to marginal annotationrdquo36enspEg Hense 1870 13ndash14 ending with van Thiel 2014 12737enspAbove n 28

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

36emsp emspFausto Montana

In the scholia themselves belonging to the medieval tradition παραγράφειν is used in the meaning of  ldquo i m i t a t e rdquo ldquo d r a w o n rdquo ldquo a d a p t rdquo as a techni-cal verb to express the intertextual (language- or content-based) relation under-lying a literary passage s t a r t i n g f r o m or i n c o m p a r i s o n t o a given modelsup3⁸ The following examples are of interest

a) sch Soph Ai 731a Christodoulou λήγει δ᾽ ἔρις δραμοῦσα ἡ ἔρις εἰς πολὺ δραμοῦσα καὶ προκόψασα ἔστη τῇ συναντήσει τοῦ λόγου τῶν γερόντων ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως δὲ πρὸς Ἀγαμέμνονα μάχης παραγέγραπται καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ Νέστωρ ἐκεῖ (Il 1247  ff) διαλλάσσει οὕτως καὶ νῦν οἱ γέροντες κτλ LFONVGMRm

b) sch Ar Ach 540b Wilson ἐρεῖ τις οὐ χρῆν] καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Τηλέφου Εὐριπίδου (fr 708 Kannicht) παραγέγραπται EΓ3

c) sch Ar Pac 1012 Holwerda ἐκ Μηδείας Γ μήποτε ἐκ τῆς Εὐριπίδου Μηδείας (96ndash97) παραγράφει ἐκεῖνα ldquoὢ δύστηνος ἐγὼ μελέα τε πόνων lsaquohelliprsaquo πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμανrdquo RVΓ κτλ

d) sch ApRh 11026 Wendel σὺν δ᾽ ἔλασαν τὸ Ὁμηρικὸν παραγράφει (Il 4447) ldquoσύν ῥ᾽ ἔβαλον ῥινούς σὺν δ᾽ ἔγχεα καὶ μένε᾽ ἀνδρῶνrdquo LP

At least between the imperial age and the mid-Byzantine era the verb also came to admit the meaning of ldquo e x c e r p t i n g rdquo ldquo e x t r a c t i n g rdquo ldquo c i t i n g rdquo a text explicitly and extensively similarly to the case of appealing to an auctoritas in the framework of a linguistic or philosophical discussion or when excerpta of a work are transcribed within the body of another work For example

e) Harp Lex ο 25 Keaney sv ὀξυθύμια Δίδυμος ( Schmidt 1854 39) δὲ Αὐτοκλείδου (FGrHist 353 F 2) λέξιν παραγράψας ἐκ τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν φησιν ldquoὀξυθύμια τὰ καθάρματα λέγεται καὶ ἀπολύματαrdquo ταῦτα γὰρ ἀποφέρεσθαι εἰς τὰς τριόδους ὅταν τὰς οἰκίας καθαίρωσιν κτλ

f) Iul ad Them 5 ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος τὴν τύχην ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἐν τοῖς πρακτέοις κρατεῖν νενόμικα λέγοιμ᾽ ἂν ἤδη σοι τὰ τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἐκ τῶν θαυμασίων Νόμων εἰδότι μὲν καὶ διδάξαντί με ἀπόδειξιν δὲ ὥσπερ τοῦ μὴ ῥᾳθυμεῖν ποιούμενος παραγέγραφά σοι τὴν ῥῆσιν ὧδέ πως ἔχουσαν ldquoθεὸς μὲν πάντα καὶ μετὰ θεοῦ τύχη καὶ καιρὸς τὰ ἀνθρώπινα διακυβερνῶσι ξύμπαντα κτλ (Plat Leg 709b)rdquo

g) ibidem 10 τούτους δὲ αὐτὸς μὲν εἶναι φὴς τοὺς βασιλέας Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ (Pol 73 1325b) εἴρηκεν οὐδαμοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ προστεθεῖσαν λέξιν πλέον δὲ θάτερον ἐξ ὧν παραγέγραφας ἄν τις νοήσειε

38enspCf LSJ sv παραγράφειν I4 This acceptation can be ascribed to the comparative meaning of the preverb SchwyzerDebrunner 1950 493

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp37

h) Phot Bibl 273 (507b 18) ἀνεγνώσθη ἐκ τῶν τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοδωρήτου λόγων οὓς εἰς τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστομον συνετάξατο ὧν ἡμεῖς πέντε τέως εἴδομεν ἐξ ὧν καί τινας ἐκλογὰς τὰς ὑποτεταγμένας παρεγραψάμεθα

The passage by Photius is particularly significant for the semantic definition of παραγράφειν in the meaning of ldquo c o p y i n g o u t rdquo or ldquo t r a n s c r i b i n g f r o m (a model)rdquo as the verb is constructed with the object ἐκλογάς Also worthy of note is the construction of the predicate with ἐκ + genitive in much of the evi-dence cited (a c e g h) and likewise in the scholiastic subscriptions to indicate the source starting from which a text has been imitated or adapted or extractedsup3⁹

Finally from Harp Lex π 17 Keaney (~ Suda π 320 Adler) one can infer the semantic affinity of παραγράφειν and παρατίθεσθαι with medial value In explain-ing an idiosyncratic use by Isocrates of the term παραγραφή the lexicographer makes use of παραγράφειν with the meaning of ldquomarking with the paragraphos (or paragraphe)rdquo⁴⁰ a text in a roll in order to highlight it for the purpose of the citation This on the one hand documents the virtually synonymous acceptation of the two verbs and on the other it provides a possible and plausible explana-tion of the genesis of this semantic quasi-equivalence

39enspThe same consideration can be extended to the sentence κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου present in the subscriptions to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds and Peace (above n 33) Here starting with Hense 1870 12ndash16 frequently ldquothe poetic textrdquo is implied as a grammatical subject of κεκώλισται and this verbal form is interpreted in reference to the arrangement of the lyric kola of the Aristophanean text on the pages of the medieval manuscripts as a consequence the ex-pression πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου is assumed to take for granted the word ἀντίγραφα and refer to the Aristophanic colometry displayed by Heliodorus in his ekdosis of the comedies I would rather on the one hand argue that κεκώλισται should be understood in an absolute sense (no less than παραγέγραπται in the same contexts) namely as meaning ldquothe colometry is given described quotedrdquo and on the other hand agree with White 1912 384ndash395 who (after Thiemann 1869 116ndash123) stated that the whole sentence is referring to the metrical descriptions obtained from (ἐκ τῶν) or based on (πρὸς τά for the wording cf πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα in the Euripidean subscriptions mentioned above n 34) Heliodorusrsquo colometric commentaries and amalgamated with annotation of other types see Holwerda 1964 114 and 1967 256ndash258 To be sure it is not imputable to chance that the scholia to Clouds and Peace ndash whose subscriptions in ms Ven Marc gr 474 hand down the name of Heliodorus ndash are the richest in fragments drawn from his metrical commentaries Holwerda 1964 114 with n 4 Be that as it may even if one allows that κεκώλισται refers to the layout of the Aristophanean text adopted in the manuscripts this nei-ther contradicts the statement that παράκειται παραγέγραπται etc refer to nothing more than to the presence of exegetic excerpts resulting from compilation (independently of their position on the page) nor on the other hand does it increase our chance of establishing the chronology of (each of) the operations described in the subscriptions40enspCf Heph Poeumlm 1 κατὰ δύο παραγεγραμμένον ᾆσμα (LSJ sv παραγράφειν I5)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

38emsp emspFausto Montana

i) παραγραφή οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ καὶ γνωρίμου τίθεται παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἰδίως ᾽Ισοκράτης ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς ἀντιδόσεώς (1559) φησιν ldquoλέγε ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς παραγραφῆςrdquo ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τῆς γραμμῆς ἣν μέχρι νῦν παράγραφον καλοῦμεν καὶ ἔστι τὸ λεγόμενον ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρέγραψα τοῦτο δ᾽ ἂν εἴη ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρεθέμην κτλ

παραγραφή it is used not only according to the common acceptation well known in the writings of rhetors (ie ldquoprocedure of exceptionrdquo) but Isocrates in the Antidosis says as is typical of his manner ldquoread aloud starting from the παραγραφήrdquo ie from the line that we still call paragraphos even today the expression means ldquostarting from where I marked the paragraphosrdquo in other words ldquostarting from where I citedrdquo

These semantic observations are not devoid of relevance for interpretation of the subscriptions of the scholiastic corpora and their meaning in relation to the char-acteristics and origin of the scholiographic technique What has been regarded as universally established should be revised to the status of doubtful namely the concept that in exegetic and erudite contexts the preverb παρα- of the compounds παρακεῖσθαι παρατίθεσθαι and παραγράφεσθαι has something to do with where the explanatory excerpta were placed on the page Consequently these verb forms and the subscriptions that contain them should be awarded lesser importance in the quest to discover the times and modes of the origin of scholiography⁴sup1

41enspFor linguistic and paleographic arguments employed in the debate on the meaning and dat-ing of the subscriptions see most recently Montana 2011a 151ndash152 G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 58ndash60 and Lara Pagani this volume

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

28emsp emspFausto Montana

do not appear to have had either the right or the ambition to put their autho-rial signature on show or to ensure that the materials they assembled remained absolutely intactsup1sup2

Let us momentarily return to the passage from Eutocius to point out that here παρατιθέμενος unequivocally means ldquodrawing (from)rdquo ldquomentioningrdquo and there can be no doubt that the term is used in reference not to marginal paratext but to the critical constitution of Apolloniusrsquo textsup1sup3

2)enspAnonymous marginal note to Hippocrates Aphorisms 324 in PAnt 3183 (MP3 5433 VIth century) fr 2(a) (mg dx)

thinspthinspthinspthinspthinspthinsp σχό(λιον) thinsp τελέσας ὁ θlsaquoεrsaquoιότατο[ς thinsp Ἱπποκράτης τὸν π[ε ρὶ τῶν ὡρῶν καὶ κατασ[τά σεων λόγον ἄρχετα[ι τοῦπερ]ὶ τῶν ἡλικιῶν τ[μή ματος

The reading σχό(λιον) is by Isabella Andorlini who has recognized close to the uppermost rip in the fragment the sequence of letters ϹΧΟ with omicron written over chisup1⁴ The annotation occupies a small portion of what was the right-hand margin and fulfills a service function helpful for the readability of the main text it indicates the end of one content section and the beginning of another in Apho-risms 324

12enspAs mentioned exegetic (re)writing constituted the habitual mode of Late Antique theoretical reflection in the field of mathematics as also in other fields strongly characterized by profes-sional training and learning such as philosophy law medicine Holy Scripture and theology For philosophy see Hadot 1997 Hoffmann 2006 for theology see some examples from Maximus the Confessor and Anastasius of Sinai below in the text This should discourage from automati-cally assuming that objectives methods and tools employed by ancient readers exegetes and specialists in the different fields of culture were fully interchangeable Montana 2011a 112ndash115 and 131ndash132 For the opposite point of view see Acerbi 2012 139ndash14013enspOn this Acerbi 2012 162 with n 79 is in agreement cf Cameron 1990 117 who translates τὰ σαφέστερα παρατιθέμενος ἐν τῷ ῥητῷ ldquo(to) place the clearer version in the textrdquo On the con-trary Nagy 2009 26 renders ldquoto juxtapose in the text the clearer thingsrdquo (my emphasis)14enspAndorlini 2000 42ndash43 51 (Pl 6) Andorlini 2003 25ndash26 (Tav VI) A new commented edition of this annotation is being prepared by Daniela Manetti for the Commentaria et lexica Graeca in papyris reperta (CLGP)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp29

31)enspMaximus the Confessor Quaestions to Thalassius 91ndash2 LagaSteel (= 1081ndash3 Larchet) Prologue to the scholia inscriptio

Μαξίμου μοναχοῦ πρόλογος τῶν παρακειμένων ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις σχολίων

32)enspibidem 1163ndash1378 LagaSteel (= 11262ndash11476 Larchet)

τοῦτο καθάπερ ἔφην εἰδώς δεῖν ὠῄθην ἑτέραν τινὰ τῷ παρόντι λόγῳ τῆσδε τῆς συγγραφῆς δοῦναι βοήθειαν τὴν τῶν παρατεθέντων ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις σχολίων γραφήν hellip διὸ παρακαλῶ πάντας τοὺς ἐντευξομένους ἢ καὶ μεταγράψοντας καὶ τὴν τῶν σχολίων ἔξωθεν ἀναγνῶναι καὶ παραθέσθαι γραφὴν κατὰ τὴν ἑκάστου σημείωσιν hellip

After composing the Quaestions to Thalassius dated to the years 630ndash633 Maximus annotated his own worksup1⁵ with explanations (σχόλια) that he copied (παρακείμενα παρατεθέντα)sup1⁶ in the margins of the page (ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις ἔξωθεν)sup1⁷ He considered the σχόλια to be an integral part of his text and pre-cisely for this reason he expressly urged his readers and copyists not to neglect them but to utilize them and reproduce them (ἀναγνῶναι καὶ παραθέσθαι) in the subsequent copies of the work with due respect for their position on the page vis-agrave-vis the main text

15enspThe attribution to Maximus of the prologue to the scholia testified by the inscriptio and also of the greater part of the scholia themselves is generally held to be reliable LagaSteel 1980 XIIndashXIII J-C Larchet in LarchetVinel 2010 21ndash2216enspThe summary which in two manuscripts precedes the Quaestions likewise has the wording (33 LagaSteel = 1023 Larchet) πρόλογος εἰς τὰ παρατεθέντα σχόλια translated as ldquoprologue aux scholies ajouteacuteesrdquo by F Vinel in LarchetVinel 2010 10317enspThe translation by F Vinel in LarchetVinel 2010 109 and 113 ldquoscholies situeacutees disposeacutees dans les margesrdquo is fairly neutral The rendering of the two passages of Maximus in the Latin translation made before the year 866 by John Scotus Eriugena (81ndash2 LagaSteel de appositis in frontibus scholiis 1059ndash1260 LagaSteel additorum in frontibus scholiorum on the dating see LagaSteel 1980 XCVIII by the same token in the Latin translation of the Greek summary of the work 23 LagaSteel the wording is Prologus in apposita scholia) is the result of a misun-derstanding on the one hand Eriugena wrongly interprets the prologue to the scholia as the prologue to the Questions and takes the term σχόλια itself to refer to the individual biblical quaes-tions around which the work is constructed and which precede Maximusrsquo answers on the other he shows that he has in mind the acceptation of σχόλια indicating marginal biblical catenae Cf LagaSteel 1980 XCIXndashC and see Eriugenarsquos own scholium to Maximusrsquo prologue (121ndash4 LagaSteel) Scholia dicuntur que quasi extra librum in frontibus capitulorum ex sancta scriptura su-muntur quorum expositio interius continetur Proprie autem dicuntur scholia semnologia hoc est insignes sermones

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

30emsp emspFausto Montana

41) Anastasius of Sinai Guide along the right path 311ndash3 76 Uthemann

σχόλιον παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας τῇ βίβλῳ ἐκ παντὸς τρόπου ἀναγινώσκειν καὶ τὰ κατὰ τοὺς τόπους παρακείμενα σχόλια εἰ δὲ καί ὡς εἰκός καὶ βραχέα τινὰ σόλοικα ἔχει ἡ βίβλος συγγνώμην αἰτοῦμεν ὁ γὰρ αὐτοσχεδίως ἐκτιθέμενος πολλάκις ἔχων τὸν νοῦν αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς νοήμασι καὶ σπεύδων ταῦτα σημειοῦσθαι περιφρονεῖ τῶν σολοίκων καὶ τῆς στίξεως

42)enspibidem 24134ndash136 320 Uthemann (explicit of the work)

πρὸς τούτοις πᾶσι δυσωποῦμεν τὸν μεταγράφειν μέλλοντα παραθέσθαι καὶ τὰ σχόλια σημειώσασθαι δὲ ἐπιμελῶς καὶ τοὺς τόνους καὶ τὰς στιγμὰς καὶ ὑποστιγμὰς καὶ τὰ σόλοικα καὶ γὰρ ἄλλοτέ τινες ἰδιῶται μεταγράψαντες ἡμῶν δογματικὸν τόμον ἐξ ἀγνοίας βλασφημιῶν αὐτὸν ἐπλήρωσανsup1⁸

The monk Anastasius in very much the same manner as Maximus his elder contemporary was the author of the explanations ndash which he himself termed σχόλιαsup1⁹ ndash that abound in the margins of his dogmatic text in the medieval manu-scripts Anastasius intended these marginal jottings to serve the purpose of eluci-dating passages of the main text whose content or form he had penned unclearly and this also prompted him to certify that the σχόλια were an integral part of his work Moreover he clarified the nature of the meaning that should be attrib-uted to this term (2880 70ndash71 Uthemann in the section περὶ ἐτυμολογίας)sup2⁰ σχόλιον εἴρηται διὰ τὸ κατὰ σχολὴν παρατίθεσθαι πρὸς σαφεστέραν ἑρμηνείαν τῶν δυσνοήτων νοημάτων ἢ ῥημάτων (~ EtGud 51928 Sturz sv σχόλιον EtM 74115 Gaisford sv σχόλιον)

5)enspTheognostus Orthography can 581 2994 Cramer

οὕτως εὗρονsup2sup1 παρακείμενον σχόλιον εἰς τὰ Ἔργα Ἡσιόδου (cf sch Hes Op 115b Pertusi)

With these words Theognostus in his Περὶ ὀρθογραφίας (roughly 800 CE) makes a reference to a scholium to Hesiod concerning the graphic and lexical difference

18enspWilson 1984 108 adduces this passage as evidence that the origin of scholiography dates to before the VIIIthndashIXth century cf Glock 2001 20919enspOn the Anastasian authorship of the scholia see Uthemann 1981 CCXVIndashCCXVIII20enspDoubts have been cast on the genuineness of this part of the text but the most recent editor believes it to be authentic and in any case it is congruent with Anastasiusrsquo manner of proceed-ing21enspεὑροι ms Oxon Barocc 50 corr Cramer

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp31

that distinguishes θάλια from θάλεια The passage is quoted by Klaus Alpers in his monograph on Orusrsquo Lexicon in connection with the hypothetical dating of the compilation of the scholia to Cyrilrsquos Lexicon (between 550 and 900 roughly)sup2sup2 Alpers inclined towards an early time frame and tended to agree with claim that scholiography originated in Late Antiquity adducing the passage from Theog-nostus as evidence for this assumptionsup2sup3 By the same token in a later contri-bution Alpers concluded that the redactors of the Etymologicum Genuinum in which one finds the same expression εὗρον παρακείμενον σχόλιον or similar phrases drew on editions that featured ldquoRandscholienrdquo ldquoEs muszlig damit gerech-net werden daszlig viele der vom Etymologicum Genuinum benutzten Handschriften wie die Hesiodhandschrift Theognosts mit Randscholien ausgestattet waren und dem siebenten achten oder fruumlhen neunten Jahrhundert entstammenrdquosup2⁴

However one could legitimately wonder whether in Theognostusrsquo passage as well as in the parallel occurrences in the Genuinum ndash and not unlike other cases mentioned above ndash παρακείμενον does not mean ldquosituated next (to)rdquo but rather ldquo(being) excerptedrdquo ldquoextractedrdquo ldquocitedrdquo I would argue that this wording labels an isolated explanation (without implying per se how and where it has been found namely as a quotation by an author or in a lexicum or alternatively as a marginal note in a copy of the literary work) distinguished from explanations read in a continuous commentary (hypomnema) For the characterization relevant to this second type we have meaningful evidence thanks to the Etymologica EtGen α 117 LasserreLivadaras sv Ἀζεΐδαο (Il 2513) εὗρον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Βοιωτίας σχόλιον (= EtM α 345 LasserreLivadaras cf EtSym α 182 LasserreLivadaras where ἐν dagger ὑποθήσει should be corrected to ἐν ὑπομνήματι) would appear to imply that rather than being taken from the margin of an edition of the Iliadic text the explanation was drawn from a ὑπόμνημα The latter word as is known literally identifies a commentary contained in a book (namely in a codex at this stage of the tradi-tion more presumably than a volumen) that was independent of the literary textsup2⁵

22enspAlpers 1981 85 n 1223enspCf Wilson 1984 108 Alpers 1991 242ndash244 252ndash254 Irigoin 1994 79 Cufalo 2007 LXXXII Klaus Alpers offers a partial disavowal of this general point of view in his detailed monograph on John of Sardis in which he subscribes to the view that some scholiographic corpora conserved in the medieval manuscripts may have been composed in the mid-Byzantine age (VIIIthndashIXth cen-tury) by scholars who had copies of ancient hypomnemata at their disposal (an argument first put forward by Zuntz 1975 cf Maehler 1994 Montana 2006 2011a and 2013) Alpers 2013 eg 81ndash86 (Aristophanesrsquo scholia) and 97ndash99 (Thucydidesrsquo scholia)24enspAlpers 1991 243ndash24425enspWas it the commentary by ldquoApion-Heliodorusrdquo (or ldquoApion-Herodorusrdquo) See Erbse 1960 133 Ercoles and Pagani this volume for further bibliography

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

32emsp emspFausto Montana

Thus it is unlikely that in this case σχόλιον means ldquomarginal noterdquo The repetition of the expression in other entries of the Etymologicum Magnum (α 224 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀγών οὕτως εὗρον σχόλια ἐν ὑπομνήμασιν Ἰλιάδος α 589 LasserreLivadaras sv ἄϊδρις οὕτως εὗρον σχόλιον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Ἰλιάδος) leads to the sus-picion that the indication ἐν ὑπομνήματι μασιν may have been lost in some paral-lel occurrences of the Genuinum For this reason in EtGen α 273 sv ἄϊδρις the editors restore οὕτως εὗρον lsaquoσχόλιον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Ἰλιάδοςrsaquo on the basis of the Magnum cf EtSym α 337 LasserreLivadaras where as in α 182 ἐν dagger ὑποθήσει is rightly emended to ἐν ὑπομνήματι in the apparatus criticussup2⁶

Let us make a brief comparison among these pieces of evidence The note in PAnt 3183 ndash if the reading σχό(λιον) is to be accepted ndash and the first of the two pas-sages cited from Anastasius both document the signaling of an explanatory inter-vention by means of the word σχόλιον placed just before the intervention itself This circumstance makes it unlikely that the word embodies an intrinsic refer-ence to the position in the margin as this would result in a pleonastic and curi-ously meta-exegetic sense (ldquoMarginal note Since the most divine Hippocrates has terminated his speech helliprdquo) regardless of whether the term was utilized by the original annotator or whether it was introduced by someone who was copying the note from a model Therefore independently of their position on the page these attestations do not express a meaning that differs from the generic ldquonoterdquo ldquobrief explanationrdquo such a meaning characterizes the intervention as a paratext

26enspConcerning ἄϊδρις the Etymologica repeat the same grammatical observations also present in sch Il 3219b1 Erbse from Herodian But other entries in the Etymologica are more directly indebted to the scholiastic exegesis to Hesiodrsquos Works that has come down to us through the medieval manuscripts Here sometimes a first explanation introduced by σχόλιον is followed by a second one (and in some cases a third) preceded by ἄλλως eg EtSym α 396 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀκίνητον (cf Hes Op 750) EtGen α 434 ~ EtSym α 502 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀλεύω (cf Hes Op 760 ὑπαλεύω) EtGen α 604 LasserreLivadaras sv ἄμαξα (cf Hes Op 455 vd Reitzenstein 1897 19) These scholiastic excerpts are missing in the Gudianum and therefore must have been incorporated into an edition of the Genuinum that was later than the original (on which the compiler of the Gudianum drew as his source) ldquothe Hesiod excerpts hellip are a second-ary accretion to the Genuinum and the manuscript from which they were taken need not have been much older than A and B that is to say than the tenth centuryrdquo (West 1974 163 stemma at 183 siglum e cf West 1978 79 more cautious Alpers 1991 241 n 19 cf Ercoles this volume) Thus in these cases the term σχόλιον stands for an ldquoexplanationrdquo at times subdivided into two or more opinions separated by ἄλλως derived from an edition of the Works that was supplied with the same collection of scholia as those attested in the medieval Hesiodic manuscripts that have come down to us This conclusion is also reached by Martano 2006 with reference to the use of scholiastic tradition on [Hesiod]rsquos Shield by the compiler(s) of the Genuinum

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp33

and may conceivably have been intended to prevent the misunderstading of the intervention itself as an integration or correction of the main text To this should be added that the only thing the term in its respective contexts identifies with any certainty is a single explanatory annotation an individual intervention by a reader and not the fruit of a broad-ranging book production project or a redac-tional compilation

In the other cases invoked as evidence and again in the first passage from Anastasius the term σχόλιον is accompanied by determinations which seem to make explicit reference to the position of the note However I would argue that only the adverb ἔξωθεν (in Eutocius and in Maximus) and the words ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις (in Maximus twice) express the position in the margin whereas ndash on the basis of what was stated above ndash no such position is expressed either by the term σχόλιον in itself or by the verbal forms of παρατίθεσθαι and παρακεῖσθαι For if we were to interpret these two verbs in the sense of ldquobeing by the side ofrdquo in the two passages from Maximussup2⁷ where the participles are present together with ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις then the expression would sound awkwardly pleonastic Thus it is preferable to take the two verbs in the sense of  ldquob e i n g e x t r a c t e d p r o -d u c e d q u o t e d c i t e d rdquo a meaning that is incontrovertibly widespread in ancient eruditionsup2⁸

Accordingly in the attestations examined here syntagms as παρακείμενον σχόλιον appear not to embody a reference to the position in the margin (neither the noun nor the verb would support such an interpretation) rather they more plausibly highlight an e x p l a n a t i o n (σχόλιον) that has been e x t r a c t e d or a d d u c e d or q u o t e d (παρακείμενον) an e x p l a n a t o r y excerptum That they are placed in the margin is a contingent and accessory occurrence linked to the independent evolution of the book format and the standardization of the codex and undeniably favored and incentivized by these factors In effect as the codex became more widely used the free margins of the page not only continued to be available for extemporaneous clarifications or scholia in the ancient sense

27enspThus Leanza 1995 221ndash22228enspEg sch Ar Ve 1310a Koster ὁ δὲ ἄχυρος παρ᾽ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει ὅπου καὶ τὸ Πλάτωνος παράκειται ἐξ Ἀδώνιδος (VΓLhAld) List of ancient passages by Valckenaer 1809 303ndash306 (quot-ing among others Hemsterhuys 1744 244 ldquoverba et testimonia scriptorum ad probandum citata qui profert et in medium adducit dicitur illa Παρατίθεσθαιrdquo) cf Rutherford 1905 22 n 23 LSJ svv παράκειμαι II1 παρατίθημι B5 Lundon 1997 76 and 86 Dickey 2007 251 As underscored by Lara Pagani this volume Erbse 1969 XV translates παράκειται of the Iliadic subscriptions as com-posita esse in my opinion implicitly but intentionally excluding the locative acceptation of the Greek verb G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 60 appears to concede this semantic possibil-ity on the contrary Mazzucchi this volume dissents (though quite apodictically)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

34emsp emspFausto Montana

(for instance in the Hippocratic papyrus and in the first of Anastasiusrsquo passages) as was already possible and had genuinely been the case in many volumina but at the same time they also offered the opportunity for copying the whole of an authorrsquos commentary or hypomnema by the side of the main work (Eutocius)sup2⁹ Indeed they even prompted some writers to devise a project whereby the com-position as well as the editorial layout of the main text and its exegetic apparatus would be presented jointly as an organic whole (Maximus Anastasius) The dis-tinctive feature of this latter type of systematic annotation which differentiates it from scholiography resides in the fact that authors such as Maximus and Anasta-sius brought to bear the force of their own explicitly evoked personal identity and related authority in order to constrain readers and copyists to show respect not only for the texts but also for the respective paratexts At least as far as the cases examined here are concerned these precautionary measures were successful and preserved the exegetic products from the destiny of drastic pruning and thinning manipulation and jumbling that inexorably and massively befell the commentar-ies on literary works as a result of the heavy hand of the scholiasts

The solution adopted by Eutocius Maximus and Anastasius was it would seem the same as that elected by the Neoplatonic Proclus for putting forward his own opinions (παραγράφειν τὰ ἀρέσκοντα) concerning the commentary by Syrianus on the orphic hymns according to the testimony of Marinus Vita Procli 27sup3⁰ As is the case with the acceptation of παρακεῖσθαι in the exegetic and erudite context the meaning to be attributed to παραγράφειν the verb used by Marinus now calls for closer examinationsup3sup1

29enspA similar type of editorial operation seems to be reflected in the celebrated POxy 202258 the VIth century fragmentary codex of Callimachus containing densely written exegetic marginal annotations derived in all probability from a single hypomnema Porro 1985 208ndash215 especially 212 Montana 2011a 136ndash144 Porro 201130enspThe result of this editorial performance is characterized by Marinus as σχόλια καὶ ὑπομνήματα an expression in which ldquoi due termini o saranno sinonimi o rimanderanno a una differenza che non sia perograve quella della posizionerdquo or ldquonon si sono ancora specializzati in una diversificazione significativardquo (ldquothe two terms will either be synonymous or will pertain to a difference which however does not involve positionrdquo or else they ldquohave not yet become specialized as the outcome of a significant diversificationrdquo) according to Lundon 1997 7931enspAs in the case of the other compound verbs with παρα- the modern interpretation of the literal meaning of παραγράφειν in this passage has been generalized as ldquoannotating in the marginsrdquo moreover the assumption has been made that Syrianusrsquo manuscript annotated by Proclus can be seen as a formal antecedent of authentic scholiography eg Hoffmann 2000 625 SaffreySe-gonds 2001 150ndash151 Pontani 2005 99 Acerbi 2012 163 with n 85 But as insightfully suggested by Porro 1985 213ndash214 that manuscript may rather have represented the type of composite and stratified sources later excerpted by the medieval scholiasts for their compilations

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp35

2enspΠαραγράφεσθαιSome medieval manuscripts that are witnesses of Greek scholiastic corpora are as is known supplied with subscriptions that list the exegetic sources These colophons appear at the end of the scholia to the Iliad for almost all the books except Ρ and Ω in ms Ven Marc gr 454 of the Xth centurysup3sup2 after the scholia to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds Peace and Birds in ms Ven Marc gr 474 of the XIth centurysup3sup3 in the Euripidean witness Paris gr 2713 of the XIth century after the scholia to Orestes (the same subscriptio can also be read in Ven Marc gr 471 of the XIIth century) and to Medeasup3⁴ and finally at the end of the scholia to Apol-lonius of Rhodesrsquo Argonautics in ms Laur Plut 329 of the Xth centurysup3⁵ The verb forms παράκειται or παραγέγραπται run as a common denominator throughout these subscriptions to indicate the compilation from sources These are forms that scholars customarily have no qualms in taking to mean ldquostands by the side ofrdquo ldquois written in the marginsrdquo with reference to the positioning of the exegesis as a frame surrounding the poetic textsup3⁶ However as was pointed out long ago and documented for παρακεῖσθαι (and παρατίθεσθαι)sup3⁷ even for παραγράφεσθαι some acceptations are widely attested in Late Antique and Byzantine Greek with reference to textual passages which involve no explicit reference or implicit allu-sion to the position on the page

32enspEg f 100v (end of Η) παράκειται τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα καὶ τὰ Διδύμου Περὶ τῆς Ἀρισταρχείου διορθώσεως τινὰ δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς Ἰλιακῆς προσῳδίας Ἡρωδιανοῦ καὶ Νικάνορος Περὶ στιγμῆς Beyond doubt the title τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα is brachylogic for Ἀριστονίκου περὶ τῶν σημείων namely for Aristonicusrsquo explanations of Aristarchusrsquo semeia see eg Lehrs 18823 2ndash3 at the beginning of a chapter entitled Aristonici liber de notis Aristarchi West 2001a 65 van Thiel 2014 122 Pagani this volume On the other hand Mazzucchi this volume quite oddly assumes though referring to the core of Lehrsrsquo opinion the meaning ldquosemeia of (ie apposed by) Aristonicusrdquo33enspF 43r (Clouds) κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται δὲ ἐκ τῶν Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν F 122v (Birds) παραγέγραπται ἐκ τῶν Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων σχολίων F 146v (Peace) κεκώλισται πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται ἐκ Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου34enspF 56r (Orestes) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα παραγέγραπται ἐκ τοῦ Διονυσίου ὑπομνήματος ὁλοσχερῶς καὶ τῶν μικτῶν (cf Marc gr 471 f 75r) F 129r (Medea) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα Διονυσίου ὁλοσχερὲς καί τινα τῶν Διδύμου35enspF 263v παράκειται τὰ σχόλια ἐκ τῶν Λουκίλλου Ταρραίου καὶ Σοφοκλείου καὶ Θέωνος The expression παράκειται τὰ σχόλια is perfectly analogous to the forms discussed in the first part of this article According to Haslam 1978 71 however here ldquoπαράκειται cannot refer to an inde-pendently existing hypomnema [as it was first stated by Carl Wendel] it must refer to marginal annotationrdquo36enspEg Hense 1870 13ndash14 ending with van Thiel 2014 12737enspAbove n 28

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

36emsp emspFausto Montana

In the scholia themselves belonging to the medieval tradition παραγράφειν is used in the meaning of  ldquo i m i t a t e rdquo ldquo d r a w o n rdquo ldquo a d a p t rdquo as a techni-cal verb to express the intertextual (language- or content-based) relation under-lying a literary passage s t a r t i n g f r o m or i n c o m p a r i s o n t o a given modelsup3⁸ The following examples are of interest

a) sch Soph Ai 731a Christodoulou λήγει δ᾽ ἔρις δραμοῦσα ἡ ἔρις εἰς πολὺ δραμοῦσα καὶ προκόψασα ἔστη τῇ συναντήσει τοῦ λόγου τῶν γερόντων ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως δὲ πρὸς Ἀγαμέμνονα μάχης παραγέγραπται καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ Νέστωρ ἐκεῖ (Il 1247  ff) διαλλάσσει οὕτως καὶ νῦν οἱ γέροντες κτλ LFONVGMRm

b) sch Ar Ach 540b Wilson ἐρεῖ τις οὐ χρῆν] καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Τηλέφου Εὐριπίδου (fr 708 Kannicht) παραγέγραπται EΓ3

c) sch Ar Pac 1012 Holwerda ἐκ Μηδείας Γ μήποτε ἐκ τῆς Εὐριπίδου Μηδείας (96ndash97) παραγράφει ἐκεῖνα ldquoὢ δύστηνος ἐγὼ μελέα τε πόνων lsaquohelliprsaquo πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμανrdquo RVΓ κτλ

d) sch ApRh 11026 Wendel σὺν δ᾽ ἔλασαν τὸ Ὁμηρικὸν παραγράφει (Il 4447) ldquoσύν ῥ᾽ ἔβαλον ῥινούς σὺν δ᾽ ἔγχεα καὶ μένε᾽ ἀνδρῶνrdquo LP

At least between the imperial age and the mid-Byzantine era the verb also came to admit the meaning of ldquo e x c e r p t i n g rdquo ldquo e x t r a c t i n g rdquo ldquo c i t i n g rdquo a text explicitly and extensively similarly to the case of appealing to an auctoritas in the framework of a linguistic or philosophical discussion or when excerpta of a work are transcribed within the body of another work For example

e) Harp Lex ο 25 Keaney sv ὀξυθύμια Δίδυμος ( Schmidt 1854 39) δὲ Αὐτοκλείδου (FGrHist 353 F 2) λέξιν παραγράψας ἐκ τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν φησιν ldquoὀξυθύμια τὰ καθάρματα λέγεται καὶ ἀπολύματαrdquo ταῦτα γὰρ ἀποφέρεσθαι εἰς τὰς τριόδους ὅταν τὰς οἰκίας καθαίρωσιν κτλ

f) Iul ad Them 5 ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος τὴν τύχην ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἐν τοῖς πρακτέοις κρατεῖν νενόμικα λέγοιμ᾽ ἂν ἤδη σοι τὰ τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἐκ τῶν θαυμασίων Νόμων εἰδότι μὲν καὶ διδάξαντί με ἀπόδειξιν δὲ ὥσπερ τοῦ μὴ ῥᾳθυμεῖν ποιούμενος παραγέγραφά σοι τὴν ῥῆσιν ὧδέ πως ἔχουσαν ldquoθεὸς μὲν πάντα καὶ μετὰ θεοῦ τύχη καὶ καιρὸς τὰ ἀνθρώπινα διακυβερνῶσι ξύμπαντα κτλ (Plat Leg 709b)rdquo

g) ibidem 10 τούτους δὲ αὐτὸς μὲν εἶναι φὴς τοὺς βασιλέας Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ (Pol 73 1325b) εἴρηκεν οὐδαμοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ προστεθεῖσαν λέξιν πλέον δὲ θάτερον ἐξ ὧν παραγέγραφας ἄν τις νοήσειε

38enspCf LSJ sv παραγράφειν I4 This acceptation can be ascribed to the comparative meaning of the preverb SchwyzerDebrunner 1950 493

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp37

h) Phot Bibl 273 (507b 18) ἀνεγνώσθη ἐκ τῶν τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοδωρήτου λόγων οὓς εἰς τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστομον συνετάξατο ὧν ἡμεῖς πέντε τέως εἴδομεν ἐξ ὧν καί τινας ἐκλογὰς τὰς ὑποτεταγμένας παρεγραψάμεθα

The passage by Photius is particularly significant for the semantic definition of παραγράφειν in the meaning of ldquo c o p y i n g o u t rdquo or ldquo t r a n s c r i b i n g f r o m (a model)rdquo as the verb is constructed with the object ἐκλογάς Also worthy of note is the construction of the predicate with ἐκ + genitive in much of the evi-dence cited (a c e g h) and likewise in the scholiastic subscriptions to indicate the source starting from which a text has been imitated or adapted or extractedsup3⁹

Finally from Harp Lex π 17 Keaney (~ Suda π 320 Adler) one can infer the semantic affinity of παραγράφειν and παρατίθεσθαι with medial value In explain-ing an idiosyncratic use by Isocrates of the term παραγραφή the lexicographer makes use of παραγράφειν with the meaning of ldquomarking with the paragraphos (or paragraphe)rdquo⁴⁰ a text in a roll in order to highlight it for the purpose of the citation This on the one hand documents the virtually synonymous acceptation of the two verbs and on the other it provides a possible and plausible explana-tion of the genesis of this semantic quasi-equivalence

39enspThe same consideration can be extended to the sentence κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου present in the subscriptions to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds and Peace (above n 33) Here starting with Hense 1870 12ndash16 frequently ldquothe poetic textrdquo is implied as a grammatical subject of κεκώλισται and this verbal form is interpreted in reference to the arrangement of the lyric kola of the Aristophanean text on the pages of the medieval manuscripts as a consequence the ex-pression πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου is assumed to take for granted the word ἀντίγραφα and refer to the Aristophanic colometry displayed by Heliodorus in his ekdosis of the comedies I would rather on the one hand argue that κεκώλισται should be understood in an absolute sense (no less than παραγέγραπται in the same contexts) namely as meaning ldquothe colometry is given described quotedrdquo and on the other hand agree with White 1912 384ndash395 who (after Thiemann 1869 116ndash123) stated that the whole sentence is referring to the metrical descriptions obtained from (ἐκ τῶν) or based on (πρὸς τά for the wording cf πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα in the Euripidean subscriptions mentioned above n 34) Heliodorusrsquo colometric commentaries and amalgamated with annotation of other types see Holwerda 1964 114 and 1967 256ndash258 To be sure it is not imputable to chance that the scholia to Clouds and Peace ndash whose subscriptions in ms Ven Marc gr 474 hand down the name of Heliodorus ndash are the richest in fragments drawn from his metrical commentaries Holwerda 1964 114 with n 4 Be that as it may even if one allows that κεκώλισται refers to the layout of the Aristophanean text adopted in the manuscripts this nei-ther contradicts the statement that παράκειται παραγέγραπται etc refer to nothing more than to the presence of exegetic excerpts resulting from compilation (independently of their position on the page) nor on the other hand does it increase our chance of establishing the chronology of (each of) the operations described in the subscriptions40enspCf Heph Poeumlm 1 κατὰ δύο παραγεγραμμένον ᾆσμα (LSJ sv παραγράφειν I5)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

38emsp emspFausto Montana

i) παραγραφή οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ καὶ γνωρίμου τίθεται παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἰδίως ᾽Ισοκράτης ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς ἀντιδόσεώς (1559) φησιν ldquoλέγε ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς παραγραφῆςrdquo ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τῆς γραμμῆς ἣν μέχρι νῦν παράγραφον καλοῦμεν καὶ ἔστι τὸ λεγόμενον ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρέγραψα τοῦτο δ᾽ ἂν εἴη ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρεθέμην κτλ

παραγραφή it is used not only according to the common acceptation well known in the writings of rhetors (ie ldquoprocedure of exceptionrdquo) but Isocrates in the Antidosis says as is typical of his manner ldquoread aloud starting from the παραγραφήrdquo ie from the line that we still call paragraphos even today the expression means ldquostarting from where I marked the paragraphosrdquo in other words ldquostarting from where I citedrdquo

These semantic observations are not devoid of relevance for interpretation of the subscriptions of the scholiastic corpora and their meaning in relation to the char-acteristics and origin of the scholiographic technique What has been regarded as universally established should be revised to the status of doubtful namely the concept that in exegetic and erudite contexts the preverb παρα- of the compounds παρακεῖσθαι παρατίθεσθαι and παραγράφεσθαι has something to do with where the explanatory excerpta were placed on the page Consequently these verb forms and the subscriptions that contain them should be awarded lesser importance in the quest to discover the times and modes of the origin of scholiography⁴sup1

41enspFor linguistic and paleographic arguments employed in the debate on the meaning and dat-ing of the subscriptions see most recently Montana 2011a 151ndash152 G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 58ndash60 and Lara Pagani this volume

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp29

31)enspMaximus the Confessor Quaestions to Thalassius 91ndash2 LagaSteel (= 1081ndash3 Larchet) Prologue to the scholia inscriptio

Μαξίμου μοναχοῦ πρόλογος τῶν παρακειμένων ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις σχολίων

32)enspibidem 1163ndash1378 LagaSteel (= 11262ndash11476 Larchet)

τοῦτο καθάπερ ἔφην εἰδώς δεῖν ὠῄθην ἑτέραν τινὰ τῷ παρόντι λόγῳ τῆσδε τῆς συγγραφῆς δοῦναι βοήθειαν τὴν τῶν παρατεθέντων ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις σχολίων γραφήν hellip διὸ παρακαλῶ πάντας τοὺς ἐντευξομένους ἢ καὶ μεταγράψοντας καὶ τὴν τῶν σχολίων ἔξωθεν ἀναγνῶναι καὶ παραθέσθαι γραφὴν κατὰ τὴν ἑκάστου σημείωσιν hellip

After composing the Quaestions to Thalassius dated to the years 630ndash633 Maximus annotated his own worksup1⁵ with explanations (σχόλια) that he copied (παρακείμενα παρατεθέντα)sup1⁶ in the margins of the page (ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις ἔξωθεν)sup1⁷ He considered the σχόλια to be an integral part of his text and pre-cisely for this reason he expressly urged his readers and copyists not to neglect them but to utilize them and reproduce them (ἀναγνῶναι καὶ παραθέσθαι) in the subsequent copies of the work with due respect for their position on the page vis-agrave-vis the main text

15enspThe attribution to Maximus of the prologue to the scholia testified by the inscriptio and also of the greater part of the scholia themselves is generally held to be reliable LagaSteel 1980 XIIndashXIII J-C Larchet in LarchetVinel 2010 21ndash2216enspThe summary which in two manuscripts precedes the Quaestions likewise has the wording (33 LagaSteel = 1023 Larchet) πρόλογος εἰς τὰ παρατεθέντα σχόλια translated as ldquoprologue aux scholies ajouteacuteesrdquo by F Vinel in LarchetVinel 2010 10317enspThe translation by F Vinel in LarchetVinel 2010 109 and 113 ldquoscholies situeacutees disposeacutees dans les margesrdquo is fairly neutral The rendering of the two passages of Maximus in the Latin translation made before the year 866 by John Scotus Eriugena (81ndash2 LagaSteel de appositis in frontibus scholiis 1059ndash1260 LagaSteel additorum in frontibus scholiorum on the dating see LagaSteel 1980 XCVIII by the same token in the Latin translation of the Greek summary of the work 23 LagaSteel the wording is Prologus in apposita scholia) is the result of a misun-derstanding on the one hand Eriugena wrongly interprets the prologue to the scholia as the prologue to the Questions and takes the term σχόλια itself to refer to the individual biblical quaes-tions around which the work is constructed and which precede Maximusrsquo answers on the other he shows that he has in mind the acceptation of σχόλια indicating marginal biblical catenae Cf LagaSteel 1980 XCIXndashC and see Eriugenarsquos own scholium to Maximusrsquo prologue (121ndash4 LagaSteel) Scholia dicuntur que quasi extra librum in frontibus capitulorum ex sancta scriptura su-muntur quorum expositio interius continetur Proprie autem dicuntur scholia semnologia hoc est insignes sermones

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

30emsp emspFausto Montana

41) Anastasius of Sinai Guide along the right path 311ndash3 76 Uthemann

σχόλιον παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας τῇ βίβλῳ ἐκ παντὸς τρόπου ἀναγινώσκειν καὶ τὰ κατὰ τοὺς τόπους παρακείμενα σχόλια εἰ δὲ καί ὡς εἰκός καὶ βραχέα τινὰ σόλοικα ἔχει ἡ βίβλος συγγνώμην αἰτοῦμεν ὁ γὰρ αὐτοσχεδίως ἐκτιθέμενος πολλάκις ἔχων τὸν νοῦν αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς νοήμασι καὶ σπεύδων ταῦτα σημειοῦσθαι περιφρονεῖ τῶν σολοίκων καὶ τῆς στίξεως

42)enspibidem 24134ndash136 320 Uthemann (explicit of the work)

πρὸς τούτοις πᾶσι δυσωποῦμεν τὸν μεταγράφειν μέλλοντα παραθέσθαι καὶ τὰ σχόλια σημειώσασθαι δὲ ἐπιμελῶς καὶ τοὺς τόνους καὶ τὰς στιγμὰς καὶ ὑποστιγμὰς καὶ τὰ σόλοικα καὶ γὰρ ἄλλοτέ τινες ἰδιῶται μεταγράψαντες ἡμῶν δογματικὸν τόμον ἐξ ἀγνοίας βλασφημιῶν αὐτὸν ἐπλήρωσανsup1⁸

The monk Anastasius in very much the same manner as Maximus his elder contemporary was the author of the explanations ndash which he himself termed σχόλιαsup1⁹ ndash that abound in the margins of his dogmatic text in the medieval manu-scripts Anastasius intended these marginal jottings to serve the purpose of eluci-dating passages of the main text whose content or form he had penned unclearly and this also prompted him to certify that the σχόλια were an integral part of his work Moreover he clarified the nature of the meaning that should be attrib-uted to this term (2880 70ndash71 Uthemann in the section περὶ ἐτυμολογίας)sup2⁰ σχόλιον εἴρηται διὰ τὸ κατὰ σχολὴν παρατίθεσθαι πρὸς σαφεστέραν ἑρμηνείαν τῶν δυσνοήτων νοημάτων ἢ ῥημάτων (~ EtGud 51928 Sturz sv σχόλιον EtM 74115 Gaisford sv σχόλιον)

5)enspTheognostus Orthography can 581 2994 Cramer

οὕτως εὗρονsup2sup1 παρακείμενον σχόλιον εἰς τὰ Ἔργα Ἡσιόδου (cf sch Hes Op 115b Pertusi)

With these words Theognostus in his Περὶ ὀρθογραφίας (roughly 800 CE) makes a reference to a scholium to Hesiod concerning the graphic and lexical difference

18enspWilson 1984 108 adduces this passage as evidence that the origin of scholiography dates to before the VIIIthndashIXth century cf Glock 2001 20919enspOn the Anastasian authorship of the scholia see Uthemann 1981 CCXVIndashCCXVIII20enspDoubts have been cast on the genuineness of this part of the text but the most recent editor believes it to be authentic and in any case it is congruent with Anastasiusrsquo manner of proceed-ing21enspεὑροι ms Oxon Barocc 50 corr Cramer

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp31

that distinguishes θάλια from θάλεια The passage is quoted by Klaus Alpers in his monograph on Orusrsquo Lexicon in connection with the hypothetical dating of the compilation of the scholia to Cyrilrsquos Lexicon (between 550 and 900 roughly)sup2sup2 Alpers inclined towards an early time frame and tended to agree with claim that scholiography originated in Late Antiquity adducing the passage from Theog-nostus as evidence for this assumptionsup2sup3 By the same token in a later contri-bution Alpers concluded that the redactors of the Etymologicum Genuinum in which one finds the same expression εὗρον παρακείμενον σχόλιον or similar phrases drew on editions that featured ldquoRandscholienrdquo ldquoEs muszlig damit gerech-net werden daszlig viele der vom Etymologicum Genuinum benutzten Handschriften wie die Hesiodhandschrift Theognosts mit Randscholien ausgestattet waren und dem siebenten achten oder fruumlhen neunten Jahrhundert entstammenrdquosup2⁴

However one could legitimately wonder whether in Theognostusrsquo passage as well as in the parallel occurrences in the Genuinum ndash and not unlike other cases mentioned above ndash παρακείμενον does not mean ldquosituated next (to)rdquo but rather ldquo(being) excerptedrdquo ldquoextractedrdquo ldquocitedrdquo I would argue that this wording labels an isolated explanation (without implying per se how and where it has been found namely as a quotation by an author or in a lexicum or alternatively as a marginal note in a copy of the literary work) distinguished from explanations read in a continuous commentary (hypomnema) For the characterization relevant to this second type we have meaningful evidence thanks to the Etymologica EtGen α 117 LasserreLivadaras sv Ἀζεΐδαο (Il 2513) εὗρον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Βοιωτίας σχόλιον (= EtM α 345 LasserreLivadaras cf EtSym α 182 LasserreLivadaras where ἐν dagger ὑποθήσει should be corrected to ἐν ὑπομνήματι) would appear to imply that rather than being taken from the margin of an edition of the Iliadic text the explanation was drawn from a ὑπόμνημα The latter word as is known literally identifies a commentary contained in a book (namely in a codex at this stage of the tradi-tion more presumably than a volumen) that was independent of the literary textsup2⁵

22enspAlpers 1981 85 n 1223enspCf Wilson 1984 108 Alpers 1991 242ndash244 252ndash254 Irigoin 1994 79 Cufalo 2007 LXXXII Klaus Alpers offers a partial disavowal of this general point of view in his detailed monograph on John of Sardis in which he subscribes to the view that some scholiographic corpora conserved in the medieval manuscripts may have been composed in the mid-Byzantine age (VIIIthndashIXth cen-tury) by scholars who had copies of ancient hypomnemata at their disposal (an argument first put forward by Zuntz 1975 cf Maehler 1994 Montana 2006 2011a and 2013) Alpers 2013 eg 81ndash86 (Aristophanesrsquo scholia) and 97ndash99 (Thucydidesrsquo scholia)24enspAlpers 1991 243ndash24425enspWas it the commentary by ldquoApion-Heliodorusrdquo (or ldquoApion-Herodorusrdquo) See Erbse 1960 133 Ercoles and Pagani this volume for further bibliography

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

32emsp emspFausto Montana

Thus it is unlikely that in this case σχόλιον means ldquomarginal noterdquo The repetition of the expression in other entries of the Etymologicum Magnum (α 224 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀγών οὕτως εὗρον σχόλια ἐν ὑπομνήμασιν Ἰλιάδος α 589 LasserreLivadaras sv ἄϊδρις οὕτως εὗρον σχόλιον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Ἰλιάδος) leads to the sus-picion that the indication ἐν ὑπομνήματι μασιν may have been lost in some paral-lel occurrences of the Genuinum For this reason in EtGen α 273 sv ἄϊδρις the editors restore οὕτως εὗρον lsaquoσχόλιον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Ἰλιάδοςrsaquo on the basis of the Magnum cf EtSym α 337 LasserreLivadaras where as in α 182 ἐν dagger ὑποθήσει is rightly emended to ἐν ὑπομνήματι in the apparatus criticussup2⁶

Let us make a brief comparison among these pieces of evidence The note in PAnt 3183 ndash if the reading σχό(λιον) is to be accepted ndash and the first of the two pas-sages cited from Anastasius both document the signaling of an explanatory inter-vention by means of the word σχόλιον placed just before the intervention itself This circumstance makes it unlikely that the word embodies an intrinsic refer-ence to the position in the margin as this would result in a pleonastic and curi-ously meta-exegetic sense (ldquoMarginal note Since the most divine Hippocrates has terminated his speech helliprdquo) regardless of whether the term was utilized by the original annotator or whether it was introduced by someone who was copying the note from a model Therefore independently of their position on the page these attestations do not express a meaning that differs from the generic ldquonoterdquo ldquobrief explanationrdquo such a meaning characterizes the intervention as a paratext

26enspConcerning ἄϊδρις the Etymologica repeat the same grammatical observations also present in sch Il 3219b1 Erbse from Herodian But other entries in the Etymologica are more directly indebted to the scholiastic exegesis to Hesiodrsquos Works that has come down to us through the medieval manuscripts Here sometimes a first explanation introduced by σχόλιον is followed by a second one (and in some cases a third) preceded by ἄλλως eg EtSym α 396 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀκίνητον (cf Hes Op 750) EtGen α 434 ~ EtSym α 502 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀλεύω (cf Hes Op 760 ὑπαλεύω) EtGen α 604 LasserreLivadaras sv ἄμαξα (cf Hes Op 455 vd Reitzenstein 1897 19) These scholiastic excerpts are missing in the Gudianum and therefore must have been incorporated into an edition of the Genuinum that was later than the original (on which the compiler of the Gudianum drew as his source) ldquothe Hesiod excerpts hellip are a second-ary accretion to the Genuinum and the manuscript from which they were taken need not have been much older than A and B that is to say than the tenth centuryrdquo (West 1974 163 stemma at 183 siglum e cf West 1978 79 more cautious Alpers 1991 241 n 19 cf Ercoles this volume) Thus in these cases the term σχόλιον stands for an ldquoexplanationrdquo at times subdivided into two or more opinions separated by ἄλλως derived from an edition of the Works that was supplied with the same collection of scholia as those attested in the medieval Hesiodic manuscripts that have come down to us This conclusion is also reached by Martano 2006 with reference to the use of scholiastic tradition on [Hesiod]rsquos Shield by the compiler(s) of the Genuinum

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp33

and may conceivably have been intended to prevent the misunderstading of the intervention itself as an integration or correction of the main text To this should be added that the only thing the term in its respective contexts identifies with any certainty is a single explanatory annotation an individual intervention by a reader and not the fruit of a broad-ranging book production project or a redac-tional compilation

In the other cases invoked as evidence and again in the first passage from Anastasius the term σχόλιον is accompanied by determinations which seem to make explicit reference to the position of the note However I would argue that only the adverb ἔξωθεν (in Eutocius and in Maximus) and the words ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις (in Maximus twice) express the position in the margin whereas ndash on the basis of what was stated above ndash no such position is expressed either by the term σχόλιον in itself or by the verbal forms of παρατίθεσθαι and παρακεῖσθαι For if we were to interpret these two verbs in the sense of ldquobeing by the side ofrdquo in the two passages from Maximussup2⁷ where the participles are present together with ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις then the expression would sound awkwardly pleonastic Thus it is preferable to take the two verbs in the sense of  ldquob e i n g e x t r a c t e d p r o -d u c e d q u o t e d c i t e d rdquo a meaning that is incontrovertibly widespread in ancient eruditionsup2⁸

Accordingly in the attestations examined here syntagms as παρακείμενον σχόλιον appear not to embody a reference to the position in the margin (neither the noun nor the verb would support such an interpretation) rather they more plausibly highlight an e x p l a n a t i o n (σχόλιον) that has been e x t r a c t e d or a d d u c e d or q u o t e d (παρακείμενον) an e x p l a n a t o r y excerptum That they are placed in the margin is a contingent and accessory occurrence linked to the independent evolution of the book format and the standardization of the codex and undeniably favored and incentivized by these factors In effect as the codex became more widely used the free margins of the page not only continued to be available for extemporaneous clarifications or scholia in the ancient sense

27enspThus Leanza 1995 221ndash22228enspEg sch Ar Ve 1310a Koster ὁ δὲ ἄχυρος παρ᾽ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει ὅπου καὶ τὸ Πλάτωνος παράκειται ἐξ Ἀδώνιδος (VΓLhAld) List of ancient passages by Valckenaer 1809 303ndash306 (quot-ing among others Hemsterhuys 1744 244 ldquoverba et testimonia scriptorum ad probandum citata qui profert et in medium adducit dicitur illa Παρατίθεσθαιrdquo) cf Rutherford 1905 22 n 23 LSJ svv παράκειμαι II1 παρατίθημι B5 Lundon 1997 76 and 86 Dickey 2007 251 As underscored by Lara Pagani this volume Erbse 1969 XV translates παράκειται of the Iliadic subscriptions as com-posita esse in my opinion implicitly but intentionally excluding the locative acceptation of the Greek verb G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 60 appears to concede this semantic possibil-ity on the contrary Mazzucchi this volume dissents (though quite apodictically)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

34emsp emspFausto Montana

(for instance in the Hippocratic papyrus and in the first of Anastasiusrsquo passages) as was already possible and had genuinely been the case in many volumina but at the same time they also offered the opportunity for copying the whole of an authorrsquos commentary or hypomnema by the side of the main work (Eutocius)sup2⁹ Indeed they even prompted some writers to devise a project whereby the com-position as well as the editorial layout of the main text and its exegetic apparatus would be presented jointly as an organic whole (Maximus Anastasius) The dis-tinctive feature of this latter type of systematic annotation which differentiates it from scholiography resides in the fact that authors such as Maximus and Anasta-sius brought to bear the force of their own explicitly evoked personal identity and related authority in order to constrain readers and copyists to show respect not only for the texts but also for the respective paratexts At least as far as the cases examined here are concerned these precautionary measures were successful and preserved the exegetic products from the destiny of drastic pruning and thinning manipulation and jumbling that inexorably and massively befell the commentar-ies on literary works as a result of the heavy hand of the scholiasts

The solution adopted by Eutocius Maximus and Anastasius was it would seem the same as that elected by the Neoplatonic Proclus for putting forward his own opinions (παραγράφειν τὰ ἀρέσκοντα) concerning the commentary by Syrianus on the orphic hymns according to the testimony of Marinus Vita Procli 27sup3⁰ As is the case with the acceptation of παρακεῖσθαι in the exegetic and erudite context the meaning to be attributed to παραγράφειν the verb used by Marinus now calls for closer examinationsup3sup1

29enspA similar type of editorial operation seems to be reflected in the celebrated POxy 202258 the VIth century fragmentary codex of Callimachus containing densely written exegetic marginal annotations derived in all probability from a single hypomnema Porro 1985 208ndash215 especially 212 Montana 2011a 136ndash144 Porro 201130enspThe result of this editorial performance is characterized by Marinus as σχόλια καὶ ὑπομνήματα an expression in which ldquoi due termini o saranno sinonimi o rimanderanno a una differenza che non sia perograve quella della posizionerdquo or ldquonon si sono ancora specializzati in una diversificazione significativardquo (ldquothe two terms will either be synonymous or will pertain to a difference which however does not involve positionrdquo or else they ldquohave not yet become specialized as the outcome of a significant diversificationrdquo) according to Lundon 1997 7931enspAs in the case of the other compound verbs with παρα- the modern interpretation of the literal meaning of παραγράφειν in this passage has been generalized as ldquoannotating in the marginsrdquo moreover the assumption has been made that Syrianusrsquo manuscript annotated by Proclus can be seen as a formal antecedent of authentic scholiography eg Hoffmann 2000 625 SaffreySe-gonds 2001 150ndash151 Pontani 2005 99 Acerbi 2012 163 with n 85 But as insightfully suggested by Porro 1985 213ndash214 that manuscript may rather have represented the type of composite and stratified sources later excerpted by the medieval scholiasts for their compilations

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp35

2enspΠαραγράφεσθαιSome medieval manuscripts that are witnesses of Greek scholiastic corpora are as is known supplied with subscriptions that list the exegetic sources These colophons appear at the end of the scholia to the Iliad for almost all the books except Ρ and Ω in ms Ven Marc gr 454 of the Xth centurysup3sup2 after the scholia to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds Peace and Birds in ms Ven Marc gr 474 of the XIth centurysup3sup3 in the Euripidean witness Paris gr 2713 of the XIth century after the scholia to Orestes (the same subscriptio can also be read in Ven Marc gr 471 of the XIIth century) and to Medeasup3⁴ and finally at the end of the scholia to Apol-lonius of Rhodesrsquo Argonautics in ms Laur Plut 329 of the Xth centurysup3⁵ The verb forms παράκειται or παραγέγραπται run as a common denominator throughout these subscriptions to indicate the compilation from sources These are forms that scholars customarily have no qualms in taking to mean ldquostands by the side ofrdquo ldquois written in the marginsrdquo with reference to the positioning of the exegesis as a frame surrounding the poetic textsup3⁶ However as was pointed out long ago and documented for παρακεῖσθαι (and παρατίθεσθαι)sup3⁷ even for παραγράφεσθαι some acceptations are widely attested in Late Antique and Byzantine Greek with reference to textual passages which involve no explicit reference or implicit allu-sion to the position on the page

32enspEg f 100v (end of Η) παράκειται τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα καὶ τὰ Διδύμου Περὶ τῆς Ἀρισταρχείου διορθώσεως τινὰ δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς Ἰλιακῆς προσῳδίας Ἡρωδιανοῦ καὶ Νικάνορος Περὶ στιγμῆς Beyond doubt the title τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα is brachylogic for Ἀριστονίκου περὶ τῶν σημείων namely for Aristonicusrsquo explanations of Aristarchusrsquo semeia see eg Lehrs 18823 2ndash3 at the beginning of a chapter entitled Aristonici liber de notis Aristarchi West 2001a 65 van Thiel 2014 122 Pagani this volume On the other hand Mazzucchi this volume quite oddly assumes though referring to the core of Lehrsrsquo opinion the meaning ldquosemeia of (ie apposed by) Aristonicusrdquo33enspF 43r (Clouds) κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται δὲ ἐκ τῶν Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν F 122v (Birds) παραγέγραπται ἐκ τῶν Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων σχολίων F 146v (Peace) κεκώλισται πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται ἐκ Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου34enspF 56r (Orestes) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα παραγέγραπται ἐκ τοῦ Διονυσίου ὑπομνήματος ὁλοσχερῶς καὶ τῶν μικτῶν (cf Marc gr 471 f 75r) F 129r (Medea) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα Διονυσίου ὁλοσχερὲς καί τινα τῶν Διδύμου35enspF 263v παράκειται τὰ σχόλια ἐκ τῶν Λουκίλλου Ταρραίου καὶ Σοφοκλείου καὶ Θέωνος The expression παράκειται τὰ σχόλια is perfectly analogous to the forms discussed in the first part of this article According to Haslam 1978 71 however here ldquoπαράκειται cannot refer to an inde-pendently existing hypomnema [as it was first stated by Carl Wendel] it must refer to marginal annotationrdquo36enspEg Hense 1870 13ndash14 ending with van Thiel 2014 12737enspAbove n 28

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

36emsp emspFausto Montana

In the scholia themselves belonging to the medieval tradition παραγράφειν is used in the meaning of  ldquo i m i t a t e rdquo ldquo d r a w o n rdquo ldquo a d a p t rdquo as a techni-cal verb to express the intertextual (language- or content-based) relation under-lying a literary passage s t a r t i n g f r o m or i n c o m p a r i s o n t o a given modelsup3⁸ The following examples are of interest

a) sch Soph Ai 731a Christodoulou λήγει δ᾽ ἔρις δραμοῦσα ἡ ἔρις εἰς πολὺ δραμοῦσα καὶ προκόψασα ἔστη τῇ συναντήσει τοῦ λόγου τῶν γερόντων ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως δὲ πρὸς Ἀγαμέμνονα μάχης παραγέγραπται καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ Νέστωρ ἐκεῖ (Il 1247  ff) διαλλάσσει οὕτως καὶ νῦν οἱ γέροντες κτλ LFONVGMRm

b) sch Ar Ach 540b Wilson ἐρεῖ τις οὐ χρῆν] καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Τηλέφου Εὐριπίδου (fr 708 Kannicht) παραγέγραπται EΓ3

c) sch Ar Pac 1012 Holwerda ἐκ Μηδείας Γ μήποτε ἐκ τῆς Εὐριπίδου Μηδείας (96ndash97) παραγράφει ἐκεῖνα ldquoὢ δύστηνος ἐγὼ μελέα τε πόνων lsaquohelliprsaquo πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμανrdquo RVΓ κτλ

d) sch ApRh 11026 Wendel σὺν δ᾽ ἔλασαν τὸ Ὁμηρικὸν παραγράφει (Il 4447) ldquoσύν ῥ᾽ ἔβαλον ῥινούς σὺν δ᾽ ἔγχεα καὶ μένε᾽ ἀνδρῶνrdquo LP

At least between the imperial age and the mid-Byzantine era the verb also came to admit the meaning of ldquo e x c e r p t i n g rdquo ldquo e x t r a c t i n g rdquo ldquo c i t i n g rdquo a text explicitly and extensively similarly to the case of appealing to an auctoritas in the framework of a linguistic or philosophical discussion or when excerpta of a work are transcribed within the body of another work For example

e) Harp Lex ο 25 Keaney sv ὀξυθύμια Δίδυμος ( Schmidt 1854 39) δὲ Αὐτοκλείδου (FGrHist 353 F 2) λέξιν παραγράψας ἐκ τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν φησιν ldquoὀξυθύμια τὰ καθάρματα λέγεται καὶ ἀπολύματαrdquo ταῦτα γὰρ ἀποφέρεσθαι εἰς τὰς τριόδους ὅταν τὰς οἰκίας καθαίρωσιν κτλ

f) Iul ad Them 5 ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος τὴν τύχην ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἐν τοῖς πρακτέοις κρατεῖν νενόμικα λέγοιμ᾽ ἂν ἤδη σοι τὰ τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἐκ τῶν θαυμασίων Νόμων εἰδότι μὲν καὶ διδάξαντί με ἀπόδειξιν δὲ ὥσπερ τοῦ μὴ ῥᾳθυμεῖν ποιούμενος παραγέγραφά σοι τὴν ῥῆσιν ὧδέ πως ἔχουσαν ldquoθεὸς μὲν πάντα καὶ μετὰ θεοῦ τύχη καὶ καιρὸς τὰ ἀνθρώπινα διακυβερνῶσι ξύμπαντα κτλ (Plat Leg 709b)rdquo

g) ibidem 10 τούτους δὲ αὐτὸς μὲν εἶναι φὴς τοὺς βασιλέας Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ (Pol 73 1325b) εἴρηκεν οὐδαμοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ προστεθεῖσαν λέξιν πλέον δὲ θάτερον ἐξ ὧν παραγέγραφας ἄν τις νοήσειε

38enspCf LSJ sv παραγράφειν I4 This acceptation can be ascribed to the comparative meaning of the preverb SchwyzerDebrunner 1950 493

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp37

h) Phot Bibl 273 (507b 18) ἀνεγνώσθη ἐκ τῶν τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοδωρήτου λόγων οὓς εἰς τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστομον συνετάξατο ὧν ἡμεῖς πέντε τέως εἴδομεν ἐξ ὧν καί τινας ἐκλογὰς τὰς ὑποτεταγμένας παρεγραψάμεθα

The passage by Photius is particularly significant for the semantic definition of παραγράφειν in the meaning of ldquo c o p y i n g o u t rdquo or ldquo t r a n s c r i b i n g f r o m (a model)rdquo as the verb is constructed with the object ἐκλογάς Also worthy of note is the construction of the predicate with ἐκ + genitive in much of the evi-dence cited (a c e g h) and likewise in the scholiastic subscriptions to indicate the source starting from which a text has been imitated or adapted or extractedsup3⁹

Finally from Harp Lex π 17 Keaney (~ Suda π 320 Adler) one can infer the semantic affinity of παραγράφειν and παρατίθεσθαι with medial value In explain-ing an idiosyncratic use by Isocrates of the term παραγραφή the lexicographer makes use of παραγράφειν with the meaning of ldquomarking with the paragraphos (or paragraphe)rdquo⁴⁰ a text in a roll in order to highlight it for the purpose of the citation This on the one hand documents the virtually synonymous acceptation of the two verbs and on the other it provides a possible and plausible explana-tion of the genesis of this semantic quasi-equivalence

39enspThe same consideration can be extended to the sentence κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου present in the subscriptions to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds and Peace (above n 33) Here starting with Hense 1870 12ndash16 frequently ldquothe poetic textrdquo is implied as a grammatical subject of κεκώλισται and this verbal form is interpreted in reference to the arrangement of the lyric kola of the Aristophanean text on the pages of the medieval manuscripts as a consequence the ex-pression πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου is assumed to take for granted the word ἀντίγραφα and refer to the Aristophanic colometry displayed by Heliodorus in his ekdosis of the comedies I would rather on the one hand argue that κεκώλισται should be understood in an absolute sense (no less than παραγέγραπται in the same contexts) namely as meaning ldquothe colometry is given described quotedrdquo and on the other hand agree with White 1912 384ndash395 who (after Thiemann 1869 116ndash123) stated that the whole sentence is referring to the metrical descriptions obtained from (ἐκ τῶν) or based on (πρὸς τά for the wording cf πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα in the Euripidean subscriptions mentioned above n 34) Heliodorusrsquo colometric commentaries and amalgamated with annotation of other types see Holwerda 1964 114 and 1967 256ndash258 To be sure it is not imputable to chance that the scholia to Clouds and Peace ndash whose subscriptions in ms Ven Marc gr 474 hand down the name of Heliodorus ndash are the richest in fragments drawn from his metrical commentaries Holwerda 1964 114 with n 4 Be that as it may even if one allows that κεκώλισται refers to the layout of the Aristophanean text adopted in the manuscripts this nei-ther contradicts the statement that παράκειται παραγέγραπται etc refer to nothing more than to the presence of exegetic excerpts resulting from compilation (independently of their position on the page) nor on the other hand does it increase our chance of establishing the chronology of (each of) the operations described in the subscriptions40enspCf Heph Poeumlm 1 κατὰ δύο παραγεγραμμένον ᾆσμα (LSJ sv παραγράφειν I5)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

38emsp emspFausto Montana

i) παραγραφή οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ καὶ γνωρίμου τίθεται παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἰδίως ᾽Ισοκράτης ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς ἀντιδόσεώς (1559) φησιν ldquoλέγε ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς παραγραφῆςrdquo ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τῆς γραμμῆς ἣν μέχρι νῦν παράγραφον καλοῦμεν καὶ ἔστι τὸ λεγόμενον ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρέγραψα τοῦτο δ᾽ ἂν εἴη ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρεθέμην κτλ

παραγραφή it is used not only according to the common acceptation well known in the writings of rhetors (ie ldquoprocedure of exceptionrdquo) but Isocrates in the Antidosis says as is typical of his manner ldquoread aloud starting from the παραγραφήrdquo ie from the line that we still call paragraphos even today the expression means ldquostarting from where I marked the paragraphosrdquo in other words ldquostarting from where I citedrdquo

These semantic observations are not devoid of relevance for interpretation of the subscriptions of the scholiastic corpora and their meaning in relation to the char-acteristics and origin of the scholiographic technique What has been regarded as universally established should be revised to the status of doubtful namely the concept that in exegetic and erudite contexts the preverb παρα- of the compounds παρακεῖσθαι παρατίθεσθαι and παραγράφεσθαι has something to do with where the explanatory excerpta were placed on the page Consequently these verb forms and the subscriptions that contain them should be awarded lesser importance in the quest to discover the times and modes of the origin of scholiography⁴sup1

41enspFor linguistic and paleographic arguments employed in the debate on the meaning and dat-ing of the subscriptions see most recently Montana 2011a 151ndash152 G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 58ndash60 and Lara Pagani this volume

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

30emsp emspFausto Montana

41) Anastasius of Sinai Guide along the right path 311ndash3 76 Uthemann

σχόλιον παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας τῇ βίβλῳ ἐκ παντὸς τρόπου ἀναγινώσκειν καὶ τὰ κατὰ τοὺς τόπους παρακείμενα σχόλια εἰ δὲ καί ὡς εἰκός καὶ βραχέα τινὰ σόλοικα ἔχει ἡ βίβλος συγγνώμην αἰτοῦμεν ὁ γὰρ αὐτοσχεδίως ἐκτιθέμενος πολλάκις ἔχων τὸν νοῦν αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς νοήμασι καὶ σπεύδων ταῦτα σημειοῦσθαι περιφρονεῖ τῶν σολοίκων καὶ τῆς στίξεως

42)enspibidem 24134ndash136 320 Uthemann (explicit of the work)

πρὸς τούτοις πᾶσι δυσωποῦμεν τὸν μεταγράφειν μέλλοντα παραθέσθαι καὶ τὰ σχόλια σημειώσασθαι δὲ ἐπιμελῶς καὶ τοὺς τόνους καὶ τὰς στιγμὰς καὶ ὑποστιγμὰς καὶ τὰ σόλοικα καὶ γὰρ ἄλλοτέ τινες ἰδιῶται μεταγράψαντες ἡμῶν δογματικὸν τόμον ἐξ ἀγνοίας βλασφημιῶν αὐτὸν ἐπλήρωσανsup1⁸

The monk Anastasius in very much the same manner as Maximus his elder contemporary was the author of the explanations ndash which he himself termed σχόλιαsup1⁹ ndash that abound in the margins of his dogmatic text in the medieval manu-scripts Anastasius intended these marginal jottings to serve the purpose of eluci-dating passages of the main text whose content or form he had penned unclearly and this also prompted him to certify that the σχόλια were an integral part of his work Moreover he clarified the nature of the meaning that should be attrib-uted to this term (2880 70ndash71 Uthemann in the section περὶ ἐτυμολογίας)sup2⁰ σχόλιον εἴρηται διὰ τὸ κατὰ σχολὴν παρατίθεσθαι πρὸς σαφεστέραν ἑρμηνείαν τῶν δυσνοήτων νοημάτων ἢ ῥημάτων (~ EtGud 51928 Sturz sv σχόλιον EtM 74115 Gaisford sv σχόλιον)

5)enspTheognostus Orthography can 581 2994 Cramer

οὕτως εὗρονsup2sup1 παρακείμενον σχόλιον εἰς τὰ Ἔργα Ἡσιόδου (cf sch Hes Op 115b Pertusi)

With these words Theognostus in his Περὶ ὀρθογραφίας (roughly 800 CE) makes a reference to a scholium to Hesiod concerning the graphic and lexical difference

18enspWilson 1984 108 adduces this passage as evidence that the origin of scholiography dates to before the VIIIthndashIXth century cf Glock 2001 20919enspOn the Anastasian authorship of the scholia see Uthemann 1981 CCXVIndashCCXVIII20enspDoubts have been cast on the genuineness of this part of the text but the most recent editor believes it to be authentic and in any case it is congruent with Anastasiusrsquo manner of proceed-ing21enspεὑροι ms Oxon Barocc 50 corr Cramer

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp31

that distinguishes θάλια from θάλεια The passage is quoted by Klaus Alpers in his monograph on Orusrsquo Lexicon in connection with the hypothetical dating of the compilation of the scholia to Cyrilrsquos Lexicon (between 550 and 900 roughly)sup2sup2 Alpers inclined towards an early time frame and tended to agree with claim that scholiography originated in Late Antiquity adducing the passage from Theog-nostus as evidence for this assumptionsup2sup3 By the same token in a later contri-bution Alpers concluded that the redactors of the Etymologicum Genuinum in which one finds the same expression εὗρον παρακείμενον σχόλιον or similar phrases drew on editions that featured ldquoRandscholienrdquo ldquoEs muszlig damit gerech-net werden daszlig viele der vom Etymologicum Genuinum benutzten Handschriften wie die Hesiodhandschrift Theognosts mit Randscholien ausgestattet waren und dem siebenten achten oder fruumlhen neunten Jahrhundert entstammenrdquosup2⁴

However one could legitimately wonder whether in Theognostusrsquo passage as well as in the parallel occurrences in the Genuinum ndash and not unlike other cases mentioned above ndash παρακείμενον does not mean ldquosituated next (to)rdquo but rather ldquo(being) excerptedrdquo ldquoextractedrdquo ldquocitedrdquo I would argue that this wording labels an isolated explanation (without implying per se how and where it has been found namely as a quotation by an author or in a lexicum or alternatively as a marginal note in a copy of the literary work) distinguished from explanations read in a continuous commentary (hypomnema) For the characterization relevant to this second type we have meaningful evidence thanks to the Etymologica EtGen α 117 LasserreLivadaras sv Ἀζεΐδαο (Il 2513) εὗρον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Βοιωτίας σχόλιον (= EtM α 345 LasserreLivadaras cf EtSym α 182 LasserreLivadaras where ἐν dagger ὑποθήσει should be corrected to ἐν ὑπομνήματι) would appear to imply that rather than being taken from the margin of an edition of the Iliadic text the explanation was drawn from a ὑπόμνημα The latter word as is known literally identifies a commentary contained in a book (namely in a codex at this stage of the tradi-tion more presumably than a volumen) that was independent of the literary textsup2⁵

22enspAlpers 1981 85 n 1223enspCf Wilson 1984 108 Alpers 1991 242ndash244 252ndash254 Irigoin 1994 79 Cufalo 2007 LXXXII Klaus Alpers offers a partial disavowal of this general point of view in his detailed monograph on John of Sardis in which he subscribes to the view that some scholiographic corpora conserved in the medieval manuscripts may have been composed in the mid-Byzantine age (VIIIthndashIXth cen-tury) by scholars who had copies of ancient hypomnemata at their disposal (an argument first put forward by Zuntz 1975 cf Maehler 1994 Montana 2006 2011a and 2013) Alpers 2013 eg 81ndash86 (Aristophanesrsquo scholia) and 97ndash99 (Thucydidesrsquo scholia)24enspAlpers 1991 243ndash24425enspWas it the commentary by ldquoApion-Heliodorusrdquo (or ldquoApion-Herodorusrdquo) See Erbse 1960 133 Ercoles and Pagani this volume for further bibliography

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

32emsp emspFausto Montana

Thus it is unlikely that in this case σχόλιον means ldquomarginal noterdquo The repetition of the expression in other entries of the Etymologicum Magnum (α 224 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀγών οὕτως εὗρον σχόλια ἐν ὑπομνήμασιν Ἰλιάδος α 589 LasserreLivadaras sv ἄϊδρις οὕτως εὗρον σχόλιον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Ἰλιάδος) leads to the sus-picion that the indication ἐν ὑπομνήματι μασιν may have been lost in some paral-lel occurrences of the Genuinum For this reason in EtGen α 273 sv ἄϊδρις the editors restore οὕτως εὗρον lsaquoσχόλιον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Ἰλιάδοςrsaquo on the basis of the Magnum cf EtSym α 337 LasserreLivadaras where as in α 182 ἐν dagger ὑποθήσει is rightly emended to ἐν ὑπομνήματι in the apparatus criticussup2⁶

Let us make a brief comparison among these pieces of evidence The note in PAnt 3183 ndash if the reading σχό(λιον) is to be accepted ndash and the first of the two pas-sages cited from Anastasius both document the signaling of an explanatory inter-vention by means of the word σχόλιον placed just before the intervention itself This circumstance makes it unlikely that the word embodies an intrinsic refer-ence to the position in the margin as this would result in a pleonastic and curi-ously meta-exegetic sense (ldquoMarginal note Since the most divine Hippocrates has terminated his speech helliprdquo) regardless of whether the term was utilized by the original annotator or whether it was introduced by someone who was copying the note from a model Therefore independently of their position on the page these attestations do not express a meaning that differs from the generic ldquonoterdquo ldquobrief explanationrdquo such a meaning characterizes the intervention as a paratext

26enspConcerning ἄϊδρις the Etymologica repeat the same grammatical observations also present in sch Il 3219b1 Erbse from Herodian But other entries in the Etymologica are more directly indebted to the scholiastic exegesis to Hesiodrsquos Works that has come down to us through the medieval manuscripts Here sometimes a first explanation introduced by σχόλιον is followed by a second one (and in some cases a third) preceded by ἄλλως eg EtSym α 396 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀκίνητον (cf Hes Op 750) EtGen α 434 ~ EtSym α 502 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀλεύω (cf Hes Op 760 ὑπαλεύω) EtGen α 604 LasserreLivadaras sv ἄμαξα (cf Hes Op 455 vd Reitzenstein 1897 19) These scholiastic excerpts are missing in the Gudianum and therefore must have been incorporated into an edition of the Genuinum that was later than the original (on which the compiler of the Gudianum drew as his source) ldquothe Hesiod excerpts hellip are a second-ary accretion to the Genuinum and the manuscript from which they were taken need not have been much older than A and B that is to say than the tenth centuryrdquo (West 1974 163 stemma at 183 siglum e cf West 1978 79 more cautious Alpers 1991 241 n 19 cf Ercoles this volume) Thus in these cases the term σχόλιον stands for an ldquoexplanationrdquo at times subdivided into two or more opinions separated by ἄλλως derived from an edition of the Works that was supplied with the same collection of scholia as those attested in the medieval Hesiodic manuscripts that have come down to us This conclusion is also reached by Martano 2006 with reference to the use of scholiastic tradition on [Hesiod]rsquos Shield by the compiler(s) of the Genuinum

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp33

and may conceivably have been intended to prevent the misunderstading of the intervention itself as an integration or correction of the main text To this should be added that the only thing the term in its respective contexts identifies with any certainty is a single explanatory annotation an individual intervention by a reader and not the fruit of a broad-ranging book production project or a redac-tional compilation

In the other cases invoked as evidence and again in the first passage from Anastasius the term σχόλιον is accompanied by determinations which seem to make explicit reference to the position of the note However I would argue that only the adverb ἔξωθεν (in Eutocius and in Maximus) and the words ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις (in Maximus twice) express the position in the margin whereas ndash on the basis of what was stated above ndash no such position is expressed either by the term σχόλιον in itself or by the verbal forms of παρατίθεσθαι and παρακεῖσθαι For if we were to interpret these two verbs in the sense of ldquobeing by the side ofrdquo in the two passages from Maximussup2⁷ where the participles are present together with ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις then the expression would sound awkwardly pleonastic Thus it is preferable to take the two verbs in the sense of  ldquob e i n g e x t r a c t e d p r o -d u c e d q u o t e d c i t e d rdquo a meaning that is incontrovertibly widespread in ancient eruditionsup2⁸

Accordingly in the attestations examined here syntagms as παρακείμενον σχόλιον appear not to embody a reference to the position in the margin (neither the noun nor the verb would support such an interpretation) rather they more plausibly highlight an e x p l a n a t i o n (σχόλιον) that has been e x t r a c t e d or a d d u c e d or q u o t e d (παρακείμενον) an e x p l a n a t o r y excerptum That they are placed in the margin is a contingent and accessory occurrence linked to the independent evolution of the book format and the standardization of the codex and undeniably favored and incentivized by these factors In effect as the codex became more widely used the free margins of the page not only continued to be available for extemporaneous clarifications or scholia in the ancient sense

27enspThus Leanza 1995 221ndash22228enspEg sch Ar Ve 1310a Koster ὁ δὲ ἄχυρος παρ᾽ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει ὅπου καὶ τὸ Πλάτωνος παράκειται ἐξ Ἀδώνιδος (VΓLhAld) List of ancient passages by Valckenaer 1809 303ndash306 (quot-ing among others Hemsterhuys 1744 244 ldquoverba et testimonia scriptorum ad probandum citata qui profert et in medium adducit dicitur illa Παρατίθεσθαιrdquo) cf Rutherford 1905 22 n 23 LSJ svv παράκειμαι II1 παρατίθημι B5 Lundon 1997 76 and 86 Dickey 2007 251 As underscored by Lara Pagani this volume Erbse 1969 XV translates παράκειται of the Iliadic subscriptions as com-posita esse in my opinion implicitly but intentionally excluding the locative acceptation of the Greek verb G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 60 appears to concede this semantic possibil-ity on the contrary Mazzucchi this volume dissents (though quite apodictically)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

34emsp emspFausto Montana

(for instance in the Hippocratic papyrus and in the first of Anastasiusrsquo passages) as was already possible and had genuinely been the case in many volumina but at the same time they also offered the opportunity for copying the whole of an authorrsquos commentary or hypomnema by the side of the main work (Eutocius)sup2⁹ Indeed they even prompted some writers to devise a project whereby the com-position as well as the editorial layout of the main text and its exegetic apparatus would be presented jointly as an organic whole (Maximus Anastasius) The dis-tinctive feature of this latter type of systematic annotation which differentiates it from scholiography resides in the fact that authors such as Maximus and Anasta-sius brought to bear the force of their own explicitly evoked personal identity and related authority in order to constrain readers and copyists to show respect not only for the texts but also for the respective paratexts At least as far as the cases examined here are concerned these precautionary measures were successful and preserved the exegetic products from the destiny of drastic pruning and thinning manipulation and jumbling that inexorably and massively befell the commentar-ies on literary works as a result of the heavy hand of the scholiasts

The solution adopted by Eutocius Maximus and Anastasius was it would seem the same as that elected by the Neoplatonic Proclus for putting forward his own opinions (παραγράφειν τὰ ἀρέσκοντα) concerning the commentary by Syrianus on the orphic hymns according to the testimony of Marinus Vita Procli 27sup3⁰ As is the case with the acceptation of παρακεῖσθαι in the exegetic and erudite context the meaning to be attributed to παραγράφειν the verb used by Marinus now calls for closer examinationsup3sup1

29enspA similar type of editorial operation seems to be reflected in the celebrated POxy 202258 the VIth century fragmentary codex of Callimachus containing densely written exegetic marginal annotations derived in all probability from a single hypomnema Porro 1985 208ndash215 especially 212 Montana 2011a 136ndash144 Porro 201130enspThe result of this editorial performance is characterized by Marinus as σχόλια καὶ ὑπομνήματα an expression in which ldquoi due termini o saranno sinonimi o rimanderanno a una differenza che non sia perograve quella della posizionerdquo or ldquonon si sono ancora specializzati in una diversificazione significativardquo (ldquothe two terms will either be synonymous or will pertain to a difference which however does not involve positionrdquo or else they ldquohave not yet become specialized as the outcome of a significant diversificationrdquo) according to Lundon 1997 7931enspAs in the case of the other compound verbs with παρα- the modern interpretation of the literal meaning of παραγράφειν in this passage has been generalized as ldquoannotating in the marginsrdquo moreover the assumption has been made that Syrianusrsquo manuscript annotated by Proclus can be seen as a formal antecedent of authentic scholiography eg Hoffmann 2000 625 SaffreySe-gonds 2001 150ndash151 Pontani 2005 99 Acerbi 2012 163 with n 85 But as insightfully suggested by Porro 1985 213ndash214 that manuscript may rather have represented the type of composite and stratified sources later excerpted by the medieval scholiasts for their compilations

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp35

2enspΠαραγράφεσθαιSome medieval manuscripts that are witnesses of Greek scholiastic corpora are as is known supplied with subscriptions that list the exegetic sources These colophons appear at the end of the scholia to the Iliad for almost all the books except Ρ and Ω in ms Ven Marc gr 454 of the Xth centurysup3sup2 after the scholia to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds Peace and Birds in ms Ven Marc gr 474 of the XIth centurysup3sup3 in the Euripidean witness Paris gr 2713 of the XIth century after the scholia to Orestes (the same subscriptio can also be read in Ven Marc gr 471 of the XIIth century) and to Medeasup3⁴ and finally at the end of the scholia to Apol-lonius of Rhodesrsquo Argonautics in ms Laur Plut 329 of the Xth centurysup3⁵ The verb forms παράκειται or παραγέγραπται run as a common denominator throughout these subscriptions to indicate the compilation from sources These are forms that scholars customarily have no qualms in taking to mean ldquostands by the side ofrdquo ldquois written in the marginsrdquo with reference to the positioning of the exegesis as a frame surrounding the poetic textsup3⁶ However as was pointed out long ago and documented for παρακεῖσθαι (and παρατίθεσθαι)sup3⁷ even for παραγράφεσθαι some acceptations are widely attested in Late Antique and Byzantine Greek with reference to textual passages which involve no explicit reference or implicit allu-sion to the position on the page

32enspEg f 100v (end of Η) παράκειται τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα καὶ τὰ Διδύμου Περὶ τῆς Ἀρισταρχείου διορθώσεως τινὰ δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς Ἰλιακῆς προσῳδίας Ἡρωδιανοῦ καὶ Νικάνορος Περὶ στιγμῆς Beyond doubt the title τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα is brachylogic for Ἀριστονίκου περὶ τῶν σημείων namely for Aristonicusrsquo explanations of Aristarchusrsquo semeia see eg Lehrs 18823 2ndash3 at the beginning of a chapter entitled Aristonici liber de notis Aristarchi West 2001a 65 van Thiel 2014 122 Pagani this volume On the other hand Mazzucchi this volume quite oddly assumes though referring to the core of Lehrsrsquo opinion the meaning ldquosemeia of (ie apposed by) Aristonicusrdquo33enspF 43r (Clouds) κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται δὲ ἐκ τῶν Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν F 122v (Birds) παραγέγραπται ἐκ τῶν Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων σχολίων F 146v (Peace) κεκώλισται πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται ἐκ Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου34enspF 56r (Orestes) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα παραγέγραπται ἐκ τοῦ Διονυσίου ὑπομνήματος ὁλοσχερῶς καὶ τῶν μικτῶν (cf Marc gr 471 f 75r) F 129r (Medea) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα Διονυσίου ὁλοσχερὲς καί τινα τῶν Διδύμου35enspF 263v παράκειται τὰ σχόλια ἐκ τῶν Λουκίλλου Ταρραίου καὶ Σοφοκλείου καὶ Θέωνος The expression παράκειται τὰ σχόλια is perfectly analogous to the forms discussed in the first part of this article According to Haslam 1978 71 however here ldquoπαράκειται cannot refer to an inde-pendently existing hypomnema [as it was first stated by Carl Wendel] it must refer to marginal annotationrdquo36enspEg Hense 1870 13ndash14 ending with van Thiel 2014 12737enspAbove n 28

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

36emsp emspFausto Montana

In the scholia themselves belonging to the medieval tradition παραγράφειν is used in the meaning of  ldquo i m i t a t e rdquo ldquo d r a w o n rdquo ldquo a d a p t rdquo as a techni-cal verb to express the intertextual (language- or content-based) relation under-lying a literary passage s t a r t i n g f r o m or i n c o m p a r i s o n t o a given modelsup3⁸ The following examples are of interest

a) sch Soph Ai 731a Christodoulou λήγει δ᾽ ἔρις δραμοῦσα ἡ ἔρις εἰς πολὺ δραμοῦσα καὶ προκόψασα ἔστη τῇ συναντήσει τοῦ λόγου τῶν γερόντων ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως δὲ πρὸς Ἀγαμέμνονα μάχης παραγέγραπται καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ Νέστωρ ἐκεῖ (Il 1247  ff) διαλλάσσει οὕτως καὶ νῦν οἱ γέροντες κτλ LFONVGMRm

b) sch Ar Ach 540b Wilson ἐρεῖ τις οὐ χρῆν] καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Τηλέφου Εὐριπίδου (fr 708 Kannicht) παραγέγραπται EΓ3

c) sch Ar Pac 1012 Holwerda ἐκ Μηδείας Γ μήποτε ἐκ τῆς Εὐριπίδου Μηδείας (96ndash97) παραγράφει ἐκεῖνα ldquoὢ δύστηνος ἐγὼ μελέα τε πόνων lsaquohelliprsaquo πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμανrdquo RVΓ κτλ

d) sch ApRh 11026 Wendel σὺν δ᾽ ἔλασαν τὸ Ὁμηρικὸν παραγράφει (Il 4447) ldquoσύν ῥ᾽ ἔβαλον ῥινούς σὺν δ᾽ ἔγχεα καὶ μένε᾽ ἀνδρῶνrdquo LP

At least between the imperial age and the mid-Byzantine era the verb also came to admit the meaning of ldquo e x c e r p t i n g rdquo ldquo e x t r a c t i n g rdquo ldquo c i t i n g rdquo a text explicitly and extensively similarly to the case of appealing to an auctoritas in the framework of a linguistic or philosophical discussion or when excerpta of a work are transcribed within the body of another work For example

e) Harp Lex ο 25 Keaney sv ὀξυθύμια Δίδυμος ( Schmidt 1854 39) δὲ Αὐτοκλείδου (FGrHist 353 F 2) λέξιν παραγράψας ἐκ τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν φησιν ldquoὀξυθύμια τὰ καθάρματα λέγεται καὶ ἀπολύματαrdquo ταῦτα γὰρ ἀποφέρεσθαι εἰς τὰς τριόδους ὅταν τὰς οἰκίας καθαίρωσιν κτλ

f) Iul ad Them 5 ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος τὴν τύχην ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἐν τοῖς πρακτέοις κρατεῖν νενόμικα λέγοιμ᾽ ἂν ἤδη σοι τὰ τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἐκ τῶν θαυμασίων Νόμων εἰδότι μὲν καὶ διδάξαντί με ἀπόδειξιν δὲ ὥσπερ τοῦ μὴ ῥᾳθυμεῖν ποιούμενος παραγέγραφά σοι τὴν ῥῆσιν ὧδέ πως ἔχουσαν ldquoθεὸς μὲν πάντα καὶ μετὰ θεοῦ τύχη καὶ καιρὸς τὰ ἀνθρώπινα διακυβερνῶσι ξύμπαντα κτλ (Plat Leg 709b)rdquo

g) ibidem 10 τούτους δὲ αὐτὸς μὲν εἶναι φὴς τοὺς βασιλέας Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ (Pol 73 1325b) εἴρηκεν οὐδαμοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ προστεθεῖσαν λέξιν πλέον δὲ θάτερον ἐξ ὧν παραγέγραφας ἄν τις νοήσειε

38enspCf LSJ sv παραγράφειν I4 This acceptation can be ascribed to the comparative meaning of the preverb SchwyzerDebrunner 1950 493

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp37

h) Phot Bibl 273 (507b 18) ἀνεγνώσθη ἐκ τῶν τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοδωρήτου λόγων οὓς εἰς τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστομον συνετάξατο ὧν ἡμεῖς πέντε τέως εἴδομεν ἐξ ὧν καί τινας ἐκλογὰς τὰς ὑποτεταγμένας παρεγραψάμεθα

The passage by Photius is particularly significant for the semantic definition of παραγράφειν in the meaning of ldquo c o p y i n g o u t rdquo or ldquo t r a n s c r i b i n g f r o m (a model)rdquo as the verb is constructed with the object ἐκλογάς Also worthy of note is the construction of the predicate with ἐκ + genitive in much of the evi-dence cited (a c e g h) and likewise in the scholiastic subscriptions to indicate the source starting from which a text has been imitated or adapted or extractedsup3⁹

Finally from Harp Lex π 17 Keaney (~ Suda π 320 Adler) one can infer the semantic affinity of παραγράφειν and παρατίθεσθαι with medial value In explain-ing an idiosyncratic use by Isocrates of the term παραγραφή the lexicographer makes use of παραγράφειν with the meaning of ldquomarking with the paragraphos (or paragraphe)rdquo⁴⁰ a text in a roll in order to highlight it for the purpose of the citation This on the one hand documents the virtually synonymous acceptation of the two verbs and on the other it provides a possible and plausible explana-tion of the genesis of this semantic quasi-equivalence

39enspThe same consideration can be extended to the sentence κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου present in the subscriptions to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds and Peace (above n 33) Here starting with Hense 1870 12ndash16 frequently ldquothe poetic textrdquo is implied as a grammatical subject of κεκώλισται and this verbal form is interpreted in reference to the arrangement of the lyric kola of the Aristophanean text on the pages of the medieval manuscripts as a consequence the ex-pression πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου is assumed to take for granted the word ἀντίγραφα and refer to the Aristophanic colometry displayed by Heliodorus in his ekdosis of the comedies I would rather on the one hand argue that κεκώλισται should be understood in an absolute sense (no less than παραγέγραπται in the same contexts) namely as meaning ldquothe colometry is given described quotedrdquo and on the other hand agree with White 1912 384ndash395 who (after Thiemann 1869 116ndash123) stated that the whole sentence is referring to the metrical descriptions obtained from (ἐκ τῶν) or based on (πρὸς τά for the wording cf πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα in the Euripidean subscriptions mentioned above n 34) Heliodorusrsquo colometric commentaries and amalgamated with annotation of other types see Holwerda 1964 114 and 1967 256ndash258 To be sure it is not imputable to chance that the scholia to Clouds and Peace ndash whose subscriptions in ms Ven Marc gr 474 hand down the name of Heliodorus ndash are the richest in fragments drawn from his metrical commentaries Holwerda 1964 114 with n 4 Be that as it may even if one allows that κεκώλισται refers to the layout of the Aristophanean text adopted in the manuscripts this nei-ther contradicts the statement that παράκειται παραγέγραπται etc refer to nothing more than to the presence of exegetic excerpts resulting from compilation (independently of their position on the page) nor on the other hand does it increase our chance of establishing the chronology of (each of) the operations described in the subscriptions40enspCf Heph Poeumlm 1 κατὰ δύο παραγεγραμμένον ᾆσμα (LSJ sv παραγράφειν I5)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

38emsp emspFausto Montana

i) παραγραφή οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ καὶ γνωρίμου τίθεται παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἰδίως ᾽Ισοκράτης ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς ἀντιδόσεώς (1559) φησιν ldquoλέγε ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς παραγραφῆςrdquo ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τῆς γραμμῆς ἣν μέχρι νῦν παράγραφον καλοῦμεν καὶ ἔστι τὸ λεγόμενον ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρέγραψα τοῦτο δ᾽ ἂν εἴη ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρεθέμην κτλ

παραγραφή it is used not only according to the common acceptation well known in the writings of rhetors (ie ldquoprocedure of exceptionrdquo) but Isocrates in the Antidosis says as is typical of his manner ldquoread aloud starting from the παραγραφήrdquo ie from the line that we still call paragraphos even today the expression means ldquostarting from where I marked the paragraphosrdquo in other words ldquostarting from where I citedrdquo

These semantic observations are not devoid of relevance for interpretation of the subscriptions of the scholiastic corpora and their meaning in relation to the char-acteristics and origin of the scholiographic technique What has been regarded as universally established should be revised to the status of doubtful namely the concept that in exegetic and erudite contexts the preverb παρα- of the compounds παρακεῖσθαι παρατίθεσθαι and παραγράφεσθαι has something to do with where the explanatory excerpta were placed on the page Consequently these verb forms and the subscriptions that contain them should be awarded lesser importance in the quest to discover the times and modes of the origin of scholiography⁴sup1

41enspFor linguistic and paleographic arguments employed in the debate on the meaning and dat-ing of the subscriptions see most recently Montana 2011a 151ndash152 G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 58ndash60 and Lara Pagani this volume

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp31

that distinguishes θάλια from θάλεια The passage is quoted by Klaus Alpers in his monograph on Orusrsquo Lexicon in connection with the hypothetical dating of the compilation of the scholia to Cyrilrsquos Lexicon (between 550 and 900 roughly)sup2sup2 Alpers inclined towards an early time frame and tended to agree with claim that scholiography originated in Late Antiquity adducing the passage from Theog-nostus as evidence for this assumptionsup2sup3 By the same token in a later contri-bution Alpers concluded that the redactors of the Etymologicum Genuinum in which one finds the same expression εὗρον παρακείμενον σχόλιον or similar phrases drew on editions that featured ldquoRandscholienrdquo ldquoEs muszlig damit gerech-net werden daszlig viele der vom Etymologicum Genuinum benutzten Handschriften wie die Hesiodhandschrift Theognosts mit Randscholien ausgestattet waren und dem siebenten achten oder fruumlhen neunten Jahrhundert entstammenrdquosup2⁴

However one could legitimately wonder whether in Theognostusrsquo passage as well as in the parallel occurrences in the Genuinum ndash and not unlike other cases mentioned above ndash παρακείμενον does not mean ldquosituated next (to)rdquo but rather ldquo(being) excerptedrdquo ldquoextractedrdquo ldquocitedrdquo I would argue that this wording labels an isolated explanation (without implying per se how and where it has been found namely as a quotation by an author or in a lexicum or alternatively as a marginal note in a copy of the literary work) distinguished from explanations read in a continuous commentary (hypomnema) For the characterization relevant to this second type we have meaningful evidence thanks to the Etymologica EtGen α 117 LasserreLivadaras sv Ἀζεΐδαο (Il 2513) εὗρον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Βοιωτίας σχόλιον (= EtM α 345 LasserreLivadaras cf EtSym α 182 LasserreLivadaras where ἐν dagger ὑποθήσει should be corrected to ἐν ὑπομνήματι) would appear to imply that rather than being taken from the margin of an edition of the Iliadic text the explanation was drawn from a ὑπόμνημα The latter word as is known literally identifies a commentary contained in a book (namely in a codex at this stage of the tradi-tion more presumably than a volumen) that was independent of the literary textsup2⁵

22enspAlpers 1981 85 n 1223enspCf Wilson 1984 108 Alpers 1991 242ndash244 252ndash254 Irigoin 1994 79 Cufalo 2007 LXXXII Klaus Alpers offers a partial disavowal of this general point of view in his detailed monograph on John of Sardis in which he subscribes to the view that some scholiographic corpora conserved in the medieval manuscripts may have been composed in the mid-Byzantine age (VIIIthndashIXth cen-tury) by scholars who had copies of ancient hypomnemata at their disposal (an argument first put forward by Zuntz 1975 cf Maehler 1994 Montana 2006 2011a and 2013) Alpers 2013 eg 81ndash86 (Aristophanesrsquo scholia) and 97ndash99 (Thucydidesrsquo scholia)24enspAlpers 1991 243ndash24425enspWas it the commentary by ldquoApion-Heliodorusrdquo (or ldquoApion-Herodorusrdquo) See Erbse 1960 133 Ercoles and Pagani this volume for further bibliography

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

32emsp emspFausto Montana

Thus it is unlikely that in this case σχόλιον means ldquomarginal noterdquo The repetition of the expression in other entries of the Etymologicum Magnum (α 224 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀγών οὕτως εὗρον σχόλια ἐν ὑπομνήμασιν Ἰλιάδος α 589 LasserreLivadaras sv ἄϊδρις οὕτως εὗρον σχόλιον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Ἰλιάδος) leads to the sus-picion that the indication ἐν ὑπομνήματι μασιν may have been lost in some paral-lel occurrences of the Genuinum For this reason in EtGen α 273 sv ἄϊδρις the editors restore οὕτως εὗρον lsaquoσχόλιον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Ἰλιάδοςrsaquo on the basis of the Magnum cf EtSym α 337 LasserreLivadaras where as in α 182 ἐν dagger ὑποθήσει is rightly emended to ἐν ὑπομνήματι in the apparatus criticussup2⁶

Let us make a brief comparison among these pieces of evidence The note in PAnt 3183 ndash if the reading σχό(λιον) is to be accepted ndash and the first of the two pas-sages cited from Anastasius both document the signaling of an explanatory inter-vention by means of the word σχόλιον placed just before the intervention itself This circumstance makes it unlikely that the word embodies an intrinsic refer-ence to the position in the margin as this would result in a pleonastic and curi-ously meta-exegetic sense (ldquoMarginal note Since the most divine Hippocrates has terminated his speech helliprdquo) regardless of whether the term was utilized by the original annotator or whether it was introduced by someone who was copying the note from a model Therefore independently of their position on the page these attestations do not express a meaning that differs from the generic ldquonoterdquo ldquobrief explanationrdquo such a meaning characterizes the intervention as a paratext

26enspConcerning ἄϊδρις the Etymologica repeat the same grammatical observations also present in sch Il 3219b1 Erbse from Herodian But other entries in the Etymologica are more directly indebted to the scholiastic exegesis to Hesiodrsquos Works that has come down to us through the medieval manuscripts Here sometimes a first explanation introduced by σχόλιον is followed by a second one (and in some cases a third) preceded by ἄλλως eg EtSym α 396 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀκίνητον (cf Hes Op 750) EtGen α 434 ~ EtSym α 502 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀλεύω (cf Hes Op 760 ὑπαλεύω) EtGen α 604 LasserreLivadaras sv ἄμαξα (cf Hes Op 455 vd Reitzenstein 1897 19) These scholiastic excerpts are missing in the Gudianum and therefore must have been incorporated into an edition of the Genuinum that was later than the original (on which the compiler of the Gudianum drew as his source) ldquothe Hesiod excerpts hellip are a second-ary accretion to the Genuinum and the manuscript from which they were taken need not have been much older than A and B that is to say than the tenth centuryrdquo (West 1974 163 stemma at 183 siglum e cf West 1978 79 more cautious Alpers 1991 241 n 19 cf Ercoles this volume) Thus in these cases the term σχόλιον stands for an ldquoexplanationrdquo at times subdivided into two or more opinions separated by ἄλλως derived from an edition of the Works that was supplied with the same collection of scholia as those attested in the medieval Hesiodic manuscripts that have come down to us This conclusion is also reached by Martano 2006 with reference to the use of scholiastic tradition on [Hesiod]rsquos Shield by the compiler(s) of the Genuinum

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp33

and may conceivably have been intended to prevent the misunderstading of the intervention itself as an integration or correction of the main text To this should be added that the only thing the term in its respective contexts identifies with any certainty is a single explanatory annotation an individual intervention by a reader and not the fruit of a broad-ranging book production project or a redac-tional compilation

In the other cases invoked as evidence and again in the first passage from Anastasius the term σχόλιον is accompanied by determinations which seem to make explicit reference to the position of the note However I would argue that only the adverb ἔξωθεν (in Eutocius and in Maximus) and the words ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις (in Maximus twice) express the position in the margin whereas ndash on the basis of what was stated above ndash no such position is expressed either by the term σχόλιον in itself or by the verbal forms of παρατίθεσθαι and παρακεῖσθαι For if we were to interpret these two verbs in the sense of ldquobeing by the side ofrdquo in the two passages from Maximussup2⁷ where the participles are present together with ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις then the expression would sound awkwardly pleonastic Thus it is preferable to take the two verbs in the sense of  ldquob e i n g e x t r a c t e d p r o -d u c e d q u o t e d c i t e d rdquo a meaning that is incontrovertibly widespread in ancient eruditionsup2⁸

Accordingly in the attestations examined here syntagms as παρακείμενον σχόλιον appear not to embody a reference to the position in the margin (neither the noun nor the verb would support such an interpretation) rather they more plausibly highlight an e x p l a n a t i o n (σχόλιον) that has been e x t r a c t e d or a d d u c e d or q u o t e d (παρακείμενον) an e x p l a n a t o r y excerptum That they are placed in the margin is a contingent and accessory occurrence linked to the independent evolution of the book format and the standardization of the codex and undeniably favored and incentivized by these factors In effect as the codex became more widely used the free margins of the page not only continued to be available for extemporaneous clarifications or scholia in the ancient sense

27enspThus Leanza 1995 221ndash22228enspEg sch Ar Ve 1310a Koster ὁ δὲ ἄχυρος παρ᾽ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει ὅπου καὶ τὸ Πλάτωνος παράκειται ἐξ Ἀδώνιδος (VΓLhAld) List of ancient passages by Valckenaer 1809 303ndash306 (quot-ing among others Hemsterhuys 1744 244 ldquoverba et testimonia scriptorum ad probandum citata qui profert et in medium adducit dicitur illa Παρατίθεσθαιrdquo) cf Rutherford 1905 22 n 23 LSJ svv παράκειμαι II1 παρατίθημι B5 Lundon 1997 76 and 86 Dickey 2007 251 As underscored by Lara Pagani this volume Erbse 1969 XV translates παράκειται of the Iliadic subscriptions as com-posita esse in my opinion implicitly but intentionally excluding the locative acceptation of the Greek verb G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 60 appears to concede this semantic possibil-ity on the contrary Mazzucchi this volume dissents (though quite apodictically)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

34emsp emspFausto Montana

(for instance in the Hippocratic papyrus and in the first of Anastasiusrsquo passages) as was already possible and had genuinely been the case in many volumina but at the same time they also offered the opportunity for copying the whole of an authorrsquos commentary or hypomnema by the side of the main work (Eutocius)sup2⁹ Indeed they even prompted some writers to devise a project whereby the com-position as well as the editorial layout of the main text and its exegetic apparatus would be presented jointly as an organic whole (Maximus Anastasius) The dis-tinctive feature of this latter type of systematic annotation which differentiates it from scholiography resides in the fact that authors such as Maximus and Anasta-sius brought to bear the force of their own explicitly evoked personal identity and related authority in order to constrain readers and copyists to show respect not only for the texts but also for the respective paratexts At least as far as the cases examined here are concerned these precautionary measures were successful and preserved the exegetic products from the destiny of drastic pruning and thinning manipulation and jumbling that inexorably and massively befell the commentar-ies on literary works as a result of the heavy hand of the scholiasts

The solution adopted by Eutocius Maximus and Anastasius was it would seem the same as that elected by the Neoplatonic Proclus for putting forward his own opinions (παραγράφειν τὰ ἀρέσκοντα) concerning the commentary by Syrianus on the orphic hymns according to the testimony of Marinus Vita Procli 27sup3⁰ As is the case with the acceptation of παρακεῖσθαι in the exegetic and erudite context the meaning to be attributed to παραγράφειν the verb used by Marinus now calls for closer examinationsup3sup1

29enspA similar type of editorial operation seems to be reflected in the celebrated POxy 202258 the VIth century fragmentary codex of Callimachus containing densely written exegetic marginal annotations derived in all probability from a single hypomnema Porro 1985 208ndash215 especially 212 Montana 2011a 136ndash144 Porro 201130enspThe result of this editorial performance is characterized by Marinus as σχόλια καὶ ὑπομνήματα an expression in which ldquoi due termini o saranno sinonimi o rimanderanno a una differenza che non sia perograve quella della posizionerdquo or ldquonon si sono ancora specializzati in una diversificazione significativardquo (ldquothe two terms will either be synonymous or will pertain to a difference which however does not involve positionrdquo or else they ldquohave not yet become specialized as the outcome of a significant diversificationrdquo) according to Lundon 1997 7931enspAs in the case of the other compound verbs with παρα- the modern interpretation of the literal meaning of παραγράφειν in this passage has been generalized as ldquoannotating in the marginsrdquo moreover the assumption has been made that Syrianusrsquo manuscript annotated by Proclus can be seen as a formal antecedent of authentic scholiography eg Hoffmann 2000 625 SaffreySe-gonds 2001 150ndash151 Pontani 2005 99 Acerbi 2012 163 with n 85 But as insightfully suggested by Porro 1985 213ndash214 that manuscript may rather have represented the type of composite and stratified sources later excerpted by the medieval scholiasts for their compilations

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp35

2enspΠαραγράφεσθαιSome medieval manuscripts that are witnesses of Greek scholiastic corpora are as is known supplied with subscriptions that list the exegetic sources These colophons appear at the end of the scholia to the Iliad for almost all the books except Ρ and Ω in ms Ven Marc gr 454 of the Xth centurysup3sup2 after the scholia to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds Peace and Birds in ms Ven Marc gr 474 of the XIth centurysup3sup3 in the Euripidean witness Paris gr 2713 of the XIth century after the scholia to Orestes (the same subscriptio can also be read in Ven Marc gr 471 of the XIIth century) and to Medeasup3⁴ and finally at the end of the scholia to Apol-lonius of Rhodesrsquo Argonautics in ms Laur Plut 329 of the Xth centurysup3⁵ The verb forms παράκειται or παραγέγραπται run as a common denominator throughout these subscriptions to indicate the compilation from sources These are forms that scholars customarily have no qualms in taking to mean ldquostands by the side ofrdquo ldquois written in the marginsrdquo with reference to the positioning of the exegesis as a frame surrounding the poetic textsup3⁶ However as was pointed out long ago and documented for παρακεῖσθαι (and παρατίθεσθαι)sup3⁷ even for παραγράφεσθαι some acceptations are widely attested in Late Antique and Byzantine Greek with reference to textual passages which involve no explicit reference or implicit allu-sion to the position on the page

32enspEg f 100v (end of Η) παράκειται τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα καὶ τὰ Διδύμου Περὶ τῆς Ἀρισταρχείου διορθώσεως τινὰ δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς Ἰλιακῆς προσῳδίας Ἡρωδιανοῦ καὶ Νικάνορος Περὶ στιγμῆς Beyond doubt the title τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα is brachylogic for Ἀριστονίκου περὶ τῶν σημείων namely for Aristonicusrsquo explanations of Aristarchusrsquo semeia see eg Lehrs 18823 2ndash3 at the beginning of a chapter entitled Aristonici liber de notis Aristarchi West 2001a 65 van Thiel 2014 122 Pagani this volume On the other hand Mazzucchi this volume quite oddly assumes though referring to the core of Lehrsrsquo opinion the meaning ldquosemeia of (ie apposed by) Aristonicusrdquo33enspF 43r (Clouds) κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται δὲ ἐκ τῶν Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν F 122v (Birds) παραγέγραπται ἐκ τῶν Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων σχολίων F 146v (Peace) κεκώλισται πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται ἐκ Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου34enspF 56r (Orestes) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα παραγέγραπται ἐκ τοῦ Διονυσίου ὑπομνήματος ὁλοσχερῶς καὶ τῶν μικτῶν (cf Marc gr 471 f 75r) F 129r (Medea) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα Διονυσίου ὁλοσχερὲς καί τινα τῶν Διδύμου35enspF 263v παράκειται τὰ σχόλια ἐκ τῶν Λουκίλλου Ταρραίου καὶ Σοφοκλείου καὶ Θέωνος The expression παράκειται τὰ σχόλια is perfectly analogous to the forms discussed in the first part of this article According to Haslam 1978 71 however here ldquoπαράκειται cannot refer to an inde-pendently existing hypomnema [as it was first stated by Carl Wendel] it must refer to marginal annotationrdquo36enspEg Hense 1870 13ndash14 ending with van Thiel 2014 12737enspAbove n 28

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

36emsp emspFausto Montana

In the scholia themselves belonging to the medieval tradition παραγράφειν is used in the meaning of  ldquo i m i t a t e rdquo ldquo d r a w o n rdquo ldquo a d a p t rdquo as a techni-cal verb to express the intertextual (language- or content-based) relation under-lying a literary passage s t a r t i n g f r o m or i n c o m p a r i s o n t o a given modelsup3⁸ The following examples are of interest

a) sch Soph Ai 731a Christodoulou λήγει δ᾽ ἔρις δραμοῦσα ἡ ἔρις εἰς πολὺ δραμοῦσα καὶ προκόψασα ἔστη τῇ συναντήσει τοῦ λόγου τῶν γερόντων ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως δὲ πρὸς Ἀγαμέμνονα μάχης παραγέγραπται καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ Νέστωρ ἐκεῖ (Il 1247  ff) διαλλάσσει οὕτως καὶ νῦν οἱ γέροντες κτλ LFONVGMRm

b) sch Ar Ach 540b Wilson ἐρεῖ τις οὐ χρῆν] καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Τηλέφου Εὐριπίδου (fr 708 Kannicht) παραγέγραπται EΓ3

c) sch Ar Pac 1012 Holwerda ἐκ Μηδείας Γ μήποτε ἐκ τῆς Εὐριπίδου Μηδείας (96ndash97) παραγράφει ἐκεῖνα ldquoὢ δύστηνος ἐγὼ μελέα τε πόνων lsaquohelliprsaquo πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμανrdquo RVΓ κτλ

d) sch ApRh 11026 Wendel σὺν δ᾽ ἔλασαν τὸ Ὁμηρικὸν παραγράφει (Il 4447) ldquoσύν ῥ᾽ ἔβαλον ῥινούς σὺν δ᾽ ἔγχεα καὶ μένε᾽ ἀνδρῶνrdquo LP

At least between the imperial age and the mid-Byzantine era the verb also came to admit the meaning of ldquo e x c e r p t i n g rdquo ldquo e x t r a c t i n g rdquo ldquo c i t i n g rdquo a text explicitly and extensively similarly to the case of appealing to an auctoritas in the framework of a linguistic or philosophical discussion or when excerpta of a work are transcribed within the body of another work For example

e) Harp Lex ο 25 Keaney sv ὀξυθύμια Δίδυμος ( Schmidt 1854 39) δὲ Αὐτοκλείδου (FGrHist 353 F 2) λέξιν παραγράψας ἐκ τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν φησιν ldquoὀξυθύμια τὰ καθάρματα λέγεται καὶ ἀπολύματαrdquo ταῦτα γὰρ ἀποφέρεσθαι εἰς τὰς τριόδους ὅταν τὰς οἰκίας καθαίρωσιν κτλ

f) Iul ad Them 5 ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος τὴν τύχην ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἐν τοῖς πρακτέοις κρατεῖν νενόμικα λέγοιμ᾽ ἂν ἤδη σοι τὰ τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἐκ τῶν θαυμασίων Νόμων εἰδότι μὲν καὶ διδάξαντί με ἀπόδειξιν δὲ ὥσπερ τοῦ μὴ ῥᾳθυμεῖν ποιούμενος παραγέγραφά σοι τὴν ῥῆσιν ὧδέ πως ἔχουσαν ldquoθεὸς μὲν πάντα καὶ μετὰ θεοῦ τύχη καὶ καιρὸς τὰ ἀνθρώπινα διακυβερνῶσι ξύμπαντα κτλ (Plat Leg 709b)rdquo

g) ibidem 10 τούτους δὲ αὐτὸς μὲν εἶναι φὴς τοὺς βασιλέας Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ (Pol 73 1325b) εἴρηκεν οὐδαμοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ προστεθεῖσαν λέξιν πλέον δὲ θάτερον ἐξ ὧν παραγέγραφας ἄν τις νοήσειε

38enspCf LSJ sv παραγράφειν I4 This acceptation can be ascribed to the comparative meaning of the preverb SchwyzerDebrunner 1950 493

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp37

h) Phot Bibl 273 (507b 18) ἀνεγνώσθη ἐκ τῶν τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοδωρήτου λόγων οὓς εἰς τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστομον συνετάξατο ὧν ἡμεῖς πέντε τέως εἴδομεν ἐξ ὧν καί τινας ἐκλογὰς τὰς ὑποτεταγμένας παρεγραψάμεθα

The passage by Photius is particularly significant for the semantic definition of παραγράφειν in the meaning of ldquo c o p y i n g o u t rdquo or ldquo t r a n s c r i b i n g f r o m (a model)rdquo as the verb is constructed with the object ἐκλογάς Also worthy of note is the construction of the predicate with ἐκ + genitive in much of the evi-dence cited (a c e g h) and likewise in the scholiastic subscriptions to indicate the source starting from which a text has been imitated or adapted or extractedsup3⁹

Finally from Harp Lex π 17 Keaney (~ Suda π 320 Adler) one can infer the semantic affinity of παραγράφειν and παρατίθεσθαι with medial value In explain-ing an idiosyncratic use by Isocrates of the term παραγραφή the lexicographer makes use of παραγράφειν with the meaning of ldquomarking with the paragraphos (or paragraphe)rdquo⁴⁰ a text in a roll in order to highlight it for the purpose of the citation This on the one hand documents the virtually synonymous acceptation of the two verbs and on the other it provides a possible and plausible explana-tion of the genesis of this semantic quasi-equivalence

39enspThe same consideration can be extended to the sentence κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου present in the subscriptions to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds and Peace (above n 33) Here starting with Hense 1870 12ndash16 frequently ldquothe poetic textrdquo is implied as a grammatical subject of κεκώλισται and this verbal form is interpreted in reference to the arrangement of the lyric kola of the Aristophanean text on the pages of the medieval manuscripts as a consequence the ex-pression πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου is assumed to take for granted the word ἀντίγραφα and refer to the Aristophanic colometry displayed by Heliodorus in his ekdosis of the comedies I would rather on the one hand argue that κεκώλισται should be understood in an absolute sense (no less than παραγέγραπται in the same contexts) namely as meaning ldquothe colometry is given described quotedrdquo and on the other hand agree with White 1912 384ndash395 who (after Thiemann 1869 116ndash123) stated that the whole sentence is referring to the metrical descriptions obtained from (ἐκ τῶν) or based on (πρὸς τά for the wording cf πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα in the Euripidean subscriptions mentioned above n 34) Heliodorusrsquo colometric commentaries and amalgamated with annotation of other types see Holwerda 1964 114 and 1967 256ndash258 To be sure it is not imputable to chance that the scholia to Clouds and Peace ndash whose subscriptions in ms Ven Marc gr 474 hand down the name of Heliodorus ndash are the richest in fragments drawn from his metrical commentaries Holwerda 1964 114 with n 4 Be that as it may even if one allows that κεκώλισται refers to the layout of the Aristophanean text adopted in the manuscripts this nei-ther contradicts the statement that παράκειται παραγέγραπται etc refer to nothing more than to the presence of exegetic excerpts resulting from compilation (independently of their position on the page) nor on the other hand does it increase our chance of establishing the chronology of (each of) the operations described in the subscriptions40enspCf Heph Poeumlm 1 κατὰ δύο παραγεγραμμένον ᾆσμα (LSJ sv παραγράφειν I5)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

38emsp emspFausto Montana

i) παραγραφή οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ καὶ γνωρίμου τίθεται παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἰδίως ᾽Ισοκράτης ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς ἀντιδόσεώς (1559) φησιν ldquoλέγε ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς παραγραφῆςrdquo ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τῆς γραμμῆς ἣν μέχρι νῦν παράγραφον καλοῦμεν καὶ ἔστι τὸ λεγόμενον ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρέγραψα τοῦτο δ᾽ ἂν εἴη ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρεθέμην κτλ

παραγραφή it is used not only according to the common acceptation well known in the writings of rhetors (ie ldquoprocedure of exceptionrdquo) but Isocrates in the Antidosis says as is typical of his manner ldquoread aloud starting from the παραγραφήrdquo ie from the line that we still call paragraphos even today the expression means ldquostarting from where I marked the paragraphosrdquo in other words ldquostarting from where I citedrdquo

These semantic observations are not devoid of relevance for interpretation of the subscriptions of the scholiastic corpora and their meaning in relation to the char-acteristics and origin of the scholiographic technique What has been regarded as universally established should be revised to the status of doubtful namely the concept that in exegetic and erudite contexts the preverb παρα- of the compounds παρακεῖσθαι παρατίθεσθαι and παραγράφεσθαι has something to do with where the explanatory excerpta were placed on the page Consequently these verb forms and the subscriptions that contain them should be awarded lesser importance in the quest to discover the times and modes of the origin of scholiography⁴sup1

41enspFor linguistic and paleographic arguments employed in the debate on the meaning and dat-ing of the subscriptions see most recently Montana 2011a 151ndash152 G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 58ndash60 and Lara Pagani this volume

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

32emsp emspFausto Montana

Thus it is unlikely that in this case σχόλιον means ldquomarginal noterdquo The repetition of the expression in other entries of the Etymologicum Magnum (α 224 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀγών οὕτως εὗρον σχόλια ἐν ὑπομνήμασιν Ἰλιάδος α 589 LasserreLivadaras sv ἄϊδρις οὕτως εὗρον σχόλιον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Ἰλιάδος) leads to the sus-picion that the indication ἐν ὑπομνήματι μασιν may have been lost in some paral-lel occurrences of the Genuinum For this reason in EtGen α 273 sv ἄϊδρις the editors restore οὕτως εὗρον lsaquoσχόλιον ἐν ὑπομνήματι Ἰλιάδοςrsaquo on the basis of the Magnum cf EtSym α 337 LasserreLivadaras where as in α 182 ἐν dagger ὑποθήσει is rightly emended to ἐν ὑπομνήματι in the apparatus criticussup2⁶

Let us make a brief comparison among these pieces of evidence The note in PAnt 3183 ndash if the reading σχό(λιον) is to be accepted ndash and the first of the two pas-sages cited from Anastasius both document the signaling of an explanatory inter-vention by means of the word σχόλιον placed just before the intervention itself This circumstance makes it unlikely that the word embodies an intrinsic refer-ence to the position in the margin as this would result in a pleonastic and curi-ously meta-exegetic sense (ldquoMarginal note Since the most divine Hippocrates has terminated his speech helliprdquo) regardless of whether the term was utilized by the original annotator or whether it was introduced by someone who was copying the note from a model Therefore independently of their position on the page these attestations do not express a meaning that differs from the generic ldquonoterdquo ldquobrief explanationrdquo such a meaning characterizes the intervention as a paratext

26enspConcerning ἄϊδρις the Etymologica repeat the same grammatical observations also present in sch Il 3219b1 Erbse from Herodian But other entries in the Etymologica are more directly indebted to the scholiastic exegesis to Hesiodrsquos Works that has come down to us through the medieval manuscripts Here sometimes a first explanation introduced by σχόλιον is followed by a second one (and in some cases a third) preceded by ἄλλως eg EtSym α 396 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀκίνητον (cf Hes Op 750) EtGen α 434 ~ EtSym α 502 LasserreLivadaras sv ἀλεύω (cf Hes Op 760 ὑπαλεύω) EtGen α 604 LasserreLivadaras sv ἄμαξα (cf Hes Op 455 vd Reitzenstein 1897 19) These scholiastic excerpts are missing in the Gudianum and therefore must have been incorporated into an edition of the Genuinum that was later than the original (on which the compiler of the Gudianum drew as his source) ldquothe Hesiod excerpts hellip are a second-ary accretion to the Genuinum and the manuscript from which they were taken need not have been much older than A and B that is to say than the tenth centuryrdquo (West 1974 163 stemma at 183 siglum e cf West 1978 79 more cautious Alpers 1991 241 n 19 cf Ercoles this volume) Thus in these cases the term σχόλιον stands for an ldquoexplanationrdquo at times subdivided into two or more opinions separated by ἄλλως derived from an edition of the Works that was supplied with the same collection of scholia as those attested in the medieval Hesiodic manuscripts that have come down to us This conclusion is also reached by Martano 2006 with reference to the use of scholiastic tradition on [Hesiod]rsquos Shield by the compiler(s) of the Genuinum

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp33

and may conceivably have been intended to prevent the misunderstading of the intervention itself as an integration or correction of the main text To this should be added that the only thing the term in its respective contexts identifies with any certainty is a single explanatory annotation an individual intervention by a reader and not the fruit of a broad-ranging book production project or a redac-tional compilation

In the other cases invoked as evidence and again in the first passage from Anastasius the term σχόλιον is accompanied by determinations which seem to make explicit reference to the position of the note However I would argue that only the adverb ἔξωθεν (in Eutocius and in Maximus) and the words ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις (in Maximus twice) express the position in the margin whereas ndash on the basis of what was stated above ndash no such position is expressed either by the term σχόλιον in itself or by the verbal forms of παρατίθεσθαι and παρακεῖσθαι For if we were to interpret these two verbs in the sense of ldquobeing by the side ofrdquo in the two passages from Maximussup2⁷ where the participles are present together with ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις then the expression would sound awkwardly pleonastic Thus it is preferable to take the two verbs in the sense of  ldquob e i n g e x t r a c t e d p r o -d u c e d q u o t e d c i t e d rdquo a meaning that is incontrovertibly widespread in ancient eruditionsup2⁸

Accordingly in the attestations examined here syntagms as παρακείμενον σχόλιον appear not to embody a reference to the position in the margin (neither the noun nor the verb would support such an interpretation) rather they more plausibly highlight an e x p l a n a t i o n (σχόλιον) that has been e x t r a c t e d or a d d u c e d or q u o t e d (παρακείμενον) an e x p l a n a t o r y excerptum That they are placed in the margin is a contingent and accessory occurrence linked to the independent evolution of the book format and the standardization of the codex and undeniably favored and incentivized by these factors In effect as the codex became more widely used the free margins of the page not only continued to be available for extemporaneous clarifications or scholia in the ancient sense

27enspThus Leanza 1995 221ndash22228enspEg sch Ar Ve 1310a Koster ὁ δὲ ἄχυρος παρ᾽ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει ὅπου καὶ τὸ Πλάτωνος παράκειται ἐξ Ἀδώνιδος (VΓLhAld) List of ancient passages by Valckenaer 1809 303ndash306 (quot-ing among others Hemsterhuys 1744 244 ldquoverba et testimonia scriptorum ad probandum citata qui profert et in medium adducit dicitur illa Παρατίθεσθαιrdquo) cf Rutherford 1905 22 n 23 LSJ svv παράκειμαι II1 παρατίθημι B5 Lundon 1997 76 and 86 Dickey 2007 251 As underscored by Lara Pagani this volume Erbse 1969 XV translates παράκειται of the Iliadic subscriptions as com-posita esse in my opinion implicitly but intentionally excluding the locative acceptation of the Greek verb G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 60 appears to concede this semantic possibil-ity on the contrary Mazzucchi this volume dissents (though quite apodictically)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

34emsp emspFausto Montana

(for instance in the Hippocratic papyrus and in the first of Anastasiusrsquo passages) as was already possible and had genuinely been the case in many volumina but at the same time they also offered the opportunity for copying the whole of an authorrsquos commentary or hypomnema by the side of the main work (Eutocius)sup2⁹ Indeed they even prompted some writers to devise a project whereby the com-position as well as the editorial layout of the main text and its exegetic apparatus would be presented jointly as an organic whole (Maximus Anastasius) The dis-tinctive feature of this latter type of systematic annotation which differentiates it from scholiography resides in the fact that authors such as Maximus and Anasta-sius brought to bear the force of their own explicitly evoked personal identity and related authority in order to constrain readers and copyists to show respect not only for the texts but also for the respective paratexts At least as far as the cases examined here are concerned these precautionary measures were successful and preserved the exegetic products from the destiny of drastic pruning and thinning manipulation and jumbling that inexorably and massively befell the commentar-ies on literary works as a result of the heavy hand of the scholiasts

The solution adopted by Eutocius Maximus and Anastasius was it would seem the same as that elected by the Neoplatonic Proclus for putting forward his own opinions (παραγράφειν τὰ ἀρέσκοντα) concerning the commentary by Syrianus on the orphic hymns according to the testimony of Marinus Vita Procli 27sup3⁰ As is the case with the acceptation of παρακεῖσθαι in the exegetic and erudite context the meaning to be attributed to παραγράφειν the verb used by Marinus now calls for closer examinationsup3sup1

29enspA similar type of editorial operation seems to be reflected in the celebrated POxy 202258 the VIth century fragmentary codex of Callimachus containing densely written exegetic marginal annotations derived in all probability from a single hypomnema Porro 1985 208ndash215 especially 212 Montana 2011a 136ndash144 Porro 201130enspThe result of this editorial performance is characterized by Marinus as σχόλια καὶ ὑπομνήματα an expression in which ldquoi due termini o saranno sinonimi o rimanderanno a una differenza che non sia perograve quella della posizionerdquo or ldquonon si sono ancora specializzati in una diversificazione significativardquo (ldquothe two terms will either be synonymous or will pertain to a difference which however does not involve positionrdquo or else they ldquohave not yet become specialized as the outcome of a significant diversificationrdquo) according to Lundon 1997 7931enspAs in the case of the other compound verbs with παρα- the modern interpretation of the literal meaning of παραγράφειν in this passage has been generalized as ldquoannotating in the marginsrdquo moreover the assumption has been made that Syrianusrsquo manuscript annotated by Proclus can be seen as a formal antecedent of authentic scholiography eg Hoffmann 2000 625 SaffreySe-gonds 2001 150ndash151 Pontani 2005 99 Acerbi 2012 163 with n 85 But as insightfully suggested by Porro 1985 213ndash214 that manuscript may rather have represented the type of composite and stratified sources later excerpted by the medieval scholiasts for their compilations

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp35

2enspΠαραγράφεσθαιSome medieval manuscripts that are witnesses of Greek scholiastic corpora are as is known supplied with subscriptions that list the exegetic sources These colophons appear at the end of the scholia to the Iliad for almost all the books except Ρ and Ω in ms Ven Marc gr 454 of the Xth centurysup3sup2 after the scholia to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds Peace and Birds in ms Ven Marc gr 474 of the XIth centurysup3sup3 in the Euripidean witness Paris gr 2713 of the XIth century after the scholia to Orestes (the same subscriptio can also be read in Ven Marc gr 471 of the XIIth century) and to Medeasup3⁴ and finally at the end of the scholia to Apol-lonius of Rhodesrsquo Argonautics in ms Laur Plut 329 of the Xth centurysup3⁵ The verb forms παράκειται or παραγέγραπται run as a common denominator throughout these subscriptions to indicate the compilation from sources These are forms that scholars customarily have no qualms in taking to mean ldquostands by the side ofrdquo ldquois written in the marginsrdquo with reference to the positioning of the exegesis as a frame surrounding the poetic textsup3⁶ However as was pointed out long ago and documented for παρακεῖσθαι (and παρατίθεσθαι)sup3⁷ even for παραγράφεσθαι some acceptations are widely attested in Late Antique and Byzantine Greek with reference to textual passages which involve no explicit reference or implicit allu-sion to the position on the page

32enspEg f 100v (end of Η) παράκειται τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα καὶ τὰ Διδύμου Περὶ τῆς Ἀρισταρχείου διορθώσεως τινὰ δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς Ἰλιακῆς προσῳδίας Ἡρωδιανοῦ καὶ Νικάνορος Περὶ στιγμῆς Beyond doubt the title τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα is brachylogic for Ἀριστονίκου περὶ τῶν σημείων namely for Aristonicusrsquo explanations of Aristarchusrsquo semeia see eg Lehrs 18823 2ndash3 at the beginning of a chapter entitled Aristonici liber de notis Aristarchi West 2001a 65 van Thiel 2014 122 Pagani this volume On the other hand Mazzucchi this volume quite oddly assumes though referring to the core of Lehrsrsquo opinion the meaning ldquosemeia of (ie apposed by) Aristonicusrdquo33enspF 43r (Clouds) κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται δὲ ἐκ τῶν Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν F 122v (Birds) παραγέγραπται ἐκ τῶν Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων σχολίων F 146v (Peace) κεκώλισται πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται ἐκ Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου34enspF 56r (Orestes) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα παραγέγραπται ἐκ τοῦ Διονυσίου ὑπομνήματος ὁλοσχερῶς καὶ τῶν μικτῶν (cf Marc gr 471 f 75r) F 129r (Medea) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα Διονυσίου ὁλοσχερὲς καί τινα τῶν Διδύμου35enspF 263v παράκειται τὰ σχόλια ἐκ τῶν Λουκίλλου Ταρραίου καὶ Σοφοκλείου καὶ Θέωνος The expression παράκειται τὰ σχόλια is perfectly analogous to the forms discussed in the first part of this article According to Haslam 1978 71 however here ldquoπαράκειται cannot refer to an inde-pendently existing hypomnema [as it was first stated by Carl Wendel] it must refer to marginal annotationrdquo36enspEg Hense 1870 13ndash14 ending with van Thiel 2014 12737enspAbove n 28

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

36emsp emspFausto Montana

In the scholia themselves belonging to the medieval tradition παραγράφειν is used in the meaning of  ldquo i m i t a t e rdquo ldquo d r a w o n rdquo ldquo a d a p t rdquo as a techni-cal verb to express the intertextual (language- or content-based) relation under-lying a literary passage s t a r t i n g f r o m or i n c o m p a r i s o n t o a given modelsup3⁸ The following examples are of interest

a) sch Soph Ai 731a Christodoulou λήγει δ᾽ ἔρις δραμοῦσα ἡ ἔρις εἰς πολὺ δραμοῦσα καὶ προκόψασα ἔστη τῇ συναντήσει τοῦ λόγου τῶν γερόντων ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως δὲ πρὸς Ἀγαμέμνονα μάχης παραγέγραπται καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ Νέστωρ ἐκεῖ (Il 1247  ff) διαλλάσσει οὕτως καὶ νῦν οἱ γέροντες κτλ LFONVGMRm

b) sch Ar Ach 540b Wilson ἐρεῖ τις οὐ χρῆν] καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Τηλέφου Εὐριπίδου (fr 708 Kannicht) παραγέγραπται EΓ3

c) sch Ar Pac 1012 Holwerda ἐκ Μηδείας Γ μήποτε ἐκ τῆς Εὐριπίδου Μηδείας (96ndash97) παραγράφει ἐκεῖνα ldquoὢ δύστηνος ἐγὼ μελέα τε πόνων lsaquohelliprsaquo πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμανrdquo RVΓ κτλ

d) sch ApRh 11026 Wendel σὺν δ᾽ ἔλασαν τὸ Ὁμηρικὸν παραγράφει (Il 4447) ldquoσύν ῥ᾽ ἔβαλον ῥινούς σὺν δ᾽ ἔγχεα καὶ μένε᾽ ἀνδρῶνrdquo LP

At least between the imperial age and the mid-Byzantine era the verb also came to admit the meaning of ldquo e x c e r p t i n g rdquo ldquo e x t r a c t i n g rdquo ldquo c i t i n g rdquo a text explicitly and extensively similarly to the case of appealing to an auctoritas in the framework of a linguistic or philosophical discussion or when excerpta of a work are transcribed within the body of another work For example

e) Harp Lex ο 25 Keaney sv ὀξυθύμια Δίδυμος ( Schmidt 1854 39) δὲ Αὐτοκλείδου (FGrHist 353 F 2) λέξιν παραγράψας ἐκ τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν φησιν ldquoὀξυθύμια τὰ καθάρματα λέγεται καὶ ἀπολύματαrdquo ταῦτα γὰρ ἀποφέρεσθαι εἰς τὰς τριόδους ὅταν τὰς οἰκίας καθαίρωσιν κτλ

f) Iul ad Them 5 ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος τὴν τύχην ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἐν τοῖς πρακτέοις κρατεῖν νενόμικα λέγοιμ᾽ ἂν ἤδη σοι τὰ τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἐκ τῶν θαυμασίων Νόμων εἰδότι μὲν καὶ διδάξαντί με ἀπόδειξιν δὲ ὥσπερ τοῦ μὴ ῥᾳθυμεῖν ποιούμενος παραγέγραφά σοι τὴν ῥῆσιν ὧδέ πως ἔχουσαν ldquoθεὸς μὲν πάντα καὶ μετὰ θεοῦ τύχη καὶ καιρὸς τὰ ἀνθρώπινα διακυβερνῶσι ξύμπαντα κτλ (Plat Leg 709b)rdquo

g) ibidem 10 τούτους δὲ αὐτὸς μὲν εἶναι φὴς τοὺς βασιλέας Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ (Pol 73 1325b) εἴρηκεν οὐδαμοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ προστεθεῖσαν λέξιν πλέον δὲ θάτερον ἐξ ὧν παραγέγραφας ἄν τις νοήσειε

38enspCf LSJ sv παραγράφειν I4 This acceptation can be ascribed to the comparative meaning of the preverb SchwyzerDebrunner 1950 493

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp37

h) Phot Bibl 273 (507b 18) ἀνεγνώσθη ἐκ τῶν τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοδωρήτου λόγων οὓς εἰς τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστομον συνετάξατο ὧν ἡμεῖς πέντε τέως εἴδομεν ἐξ ὧν καί τινας ἐκλογὰς τὰς ὑποτεταγμένας παρεγραψάμεθα

The passage by Photius is particularly significant for the semantic definition of παραγράφειν in the meaning of ldquo c o p y i n g o u t rdquo or ldquo t r a n s c r i b i n g f r o m (a model)rdquo as the verb is constructed with the object ἐκλογάς Also worthy of note is the construction of the predicate with ἐκ + genitive in much of the evi-dence cited (a c e g h) and likewise in the scholiastic subscriptions to indicate the source starting from which a text has been imitated or adapted or extractedsup3⁹

Finally from Harp Lex π 17 Keaney (~ Suda π 320 Adler) one can infer the semantic affinity of παραγράφειν and παρατίθεσθαι with medial value In explain-ing an idiosyncratic use by Isocrates of the term παραγραφή the lexicographer makes use of παραγράφειν with the meaning of ldquomarking with the paragraphos (or paragraphe)rdquo⁴⁰ a text in a roll in order to highlight it for the purpose of the citation This on the one hand documents the virtually synonymous acceptation of the two verbs and on the other it provides a possible and plausible explana-tion of the genesis of this semantic quasi-equivalence

39enspThe same consideration can be extended to the sentence κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου present in the subscriptions to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds and Peace (above n 33) Here starting with Hense 1870 12ndash16 frequently ldquothe poetic textrdquo is implied as a grammatical subject of κεκώλισται and this verbal form is interpreted in reference to the arrangement of the lyric kola of the Aristophanean text on the pages of the medieval manuscripts as a consequence the ex-pression πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου is assumed to take for granted the word ἀντίγραφα and refer to the Aristophanic colometry displayed by Heliodorus in his ekdosis of the comedies I would rather on the one hand argue that κεκώλισται should be understood in an absolute sense (no less than παραγέγραπται in the same contexts) namely as meaning ldquothe colometry is given described quotedrdquo and on the other hand agree with White 1912 384ndash395 who (after Thiemann 1869 116ndash123) stated that the whole sentence is referring to the metrical descriptions obtained from (ἐκ τῶν) or based on (πρὸς τά for the wording cf πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα in the Euripidean subscriptions mentioned above n 34) Heliodorusrsquo colometric commentaries and amalgamated with annotation of other types see Holwerda 1964 114 and 1967 256ndash258 To be sure it is not imputable to chance that the scholia to Clouds and Peace ndash whose subscriptions in ms Ven Marc gr 474 hand down the name of Heliodorus ndash are the richest in fragments drawn from his metrical commentaries Holwerda 1964 114 with n 4 Be that as it may even if one allows that κεκώλισται refers to the layout of the Aristophanean text adopted in the manuscripts this nei-ther contradicts the statement that παράκειται παραγέγραπται etc refer to nothing more than to the presence of exegetic excerpts resulting from compilation (independently of their position on the page) nor on the other hand does it increase our chance of establishing the chronology of (each of) the operations described in the subscriptions40enspCf Heph Poeumlm 1 κατὰ δύο παραγεγραμμένον ᾆσμα (LSJ sv παραγράφειν I5)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

38emsp emspFausto Montana

i) παραγραφή οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ καὶ γνωρίμου τίθεται παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἰδίως ᾽Ισοκράτης ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς ἀντιδόσεώς (1559) φησιν ldquoλέγε ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς παραγραφῆςrdquo ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τῆς γραμμῆς ἣν μέχρι νῦν παράγραφον καλοῦμεν καὶ ἔστι τὸ λεγόμενον ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρέγραψα τοῦτο δ᾽ ἂν εἴη ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρεθέμην κτλ

παραγραφή it is used not only according to the common acceptation well known in the writings of rhetors (ie ldquoprocedure of exceptionrdquo) but Isocrates in the Antidosis says as is typical of his manner ldquoread aloud starting from the παραγραφήrdquo ie from the line that we still call paragraphos even today the expression means ldquostarting from where I marked the paragraphosrdquo in other words ldquostarting from where I citedrdquo

These semantic observations are not devoid of relevance for interpretation of the subscriptions of the scholiastic corpora and their meaning in relation to the char-acteristics and origin of the scholiographic technique What has been regarded as universally established should be revised to the status of doubtful namely the concept that in exegetic and erudite contexts the preverb παρα- of the compounds παρακεῖσθαι παρατίθεσθαι and παραγράφεσθαι has something to do with where the explanatory excerpta were placed on the page Consequently these verb forms and the subscriptions that contain them should be awarded lesser importance in the quest to discover the times and modes of the origin of scholiography⁴sup1

41enspFor linguistic and paleographic arguments employed in the debate on the meaning and dat-ing of the subscriptions see most recently Montana 2011a 151ndash152 G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 58ndash60 and Lara Pagani this volume

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp33

and may conceivably have been intended to prevent the misunderstading of the intervention itself as an integration or correction of the main text To this should be added that the only thing the term in its respective contexts identifies with any certainty is a single explanatory annotation an individual intervention by a reader and not the fruit of a broad-ranging book production project or a redac-tional compilation

In the other cases invoked as evidence and again in the first passage from Anastasius the term σχόλιον is accompanied by determinations which seem to make explicit reference to the position of the note However I would argue that only the adverb ἔξωθεν (in Eutocius and in Maximus) and the words ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις (in Maximus twice) express the position in the margin whereas ndash on the basis of what was stated above ndash no such position is expressed either by the term σχόλιον in itself or by the verbal forms of παρατίθεσθαι and παρακεῖσθαι For if we were to interpret these two verbs in the sense of ldquobeing by the side ofrdquo in the two passages from Maximussup2⁷ where the participles are present together with ἐν τοῖς μετωπίοις then the expression would sound awkwardly pleonastic Thus it is preferable to take the two verbs in the sense of  ldquob e i n g e x t r a c t e d p r o -d u c e d q u o t e d c i t e d rdquo a meaning that is incontrovertibly widespread in ancient eruditionsup2⁸

Accordingly in the attestations examined here syntagms as παρακείμενον σχόλιον appear not to embody a reference to the position in the margin (neither the noun nor the verb would support such an interpretation) rather they more plausibly highlight an e x p l a n a t i o n (σχόλιον) that has been e x t r a c t e d or a d d u c e d or q u o t e d (παρακείμενον) an e x p l a n a t o r y excerptum That they are placed in the margin is a contingent and accessory occurrence linked to the independent evolution of the book format and the standardization of the codex and undeniably favored and incentivized by these factors In effect as the codex became more widely used the free margins of the page not only continued to be available for extemporaneous clarifications or scholia in the ancient sense

27enspThus Leanza 1995 221ndash22228enspEg sch Ar Ve 1310a Koster ὁ δὲ ἄχυρος παρ᾽ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει ὅπου καὶ τὸ Πλάτωνος παράκειται ἐξ Ἀδώνιδος (VΓLhAld) List of ancient passages by Valckenaer 1809 303ndash306 (quot-ing among others Hemsterhuys 1744 244 ldquoverba et testimonia scriptorum ad probandum citata qui profert et in medium adducit dicitur illa Παρατίθεσθαιrdquo) cf Rutherford 1905 22 n 23 LSJ svv παράκειμαι II1 παρατίθημι B5 Lundon 1997 76 and 86 Dickey 2007 251 As underscored by Lara Pagani this volume Erbse 1969 XV translates παράκειται of the Iliadic subscriptions as com-posita esse in my opinion implicitly but intentionally excluding the locative acceptation of the Greek verb G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 60 appears to concede this semantic possibil-ity on the contrary Mazzucchi this volume dissents (though quite apodictically)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

34emsp emspFausto Montana

(for instance in the Hippocratic papyrus and in the first of Anastasiusrsquo passages) as was already possible and had genuinely been the case in many volumina but at the same time they also offered the opportunity for copying the whole of an authorrsquos commentary or hypomnema by the side of the main work (Eutocius)sup2⁹ Indeed they even prompted some writers to devise a project whereby the com-position as well as the editorial layout of the main text and its exegetic apparatus would be presented jointly as an organic whole (Maximus Anastasius) The dis-tinctive feature of this latter type of systematic annotation which differentiates it from scholiography resides in the fact that authors such as Maximus and Anasta-sius brought to bear the force of their own explicitly evoked personal identity and related authority in order to constrain readers and copyists to show respect not only for the texts but also for the respective paratexts At least as far as the cases examined here are concerned these precautionary measures were successful and preserved the exegetic products from the destiny of drastic pruning and thinning manipulation and jumbling that inexorably and massively befell the commentar-ies on literary works as a result of the heavy hand of the scholiasts

The solution adopted by Eutocius Maximus and Anastasius was it would seem the same as that elected by the Neoplatonic Proclus for putting forward his own opinions (παραγράφειν τὰ ἀρέσκοντα) concerning the commentary by Syrianus on the orphic hymns according to the testimony of Marinus Vita Procli 27sup3⁰ As is the case with the acceptation of παρακεῖσθαι in the exegetic and erudite context the meaning to be attributed to παραγράφειν the verb used by Marinus now calls for closer examinationsup3sup1

29enspA similar type of editorial operation seems to be reflected in the celebrated POxy 202258 the VIth century fragmentary codex of Callimachus containing densely written exegetic marginal annotations derived in all probability from a single hypomnema Porro 1985 208ndash215 especially 212 Montana 2011a 136ndash144 Porro 201130enspThe result of this editorial performance is characterized by Marinus as σχόλια καὶ ὑπομνήματα an expression in which ldquoi due termini o saranno sinonimi o rimanderanno a una differenza che non sia perograve quella della posizionerdquo or ldquonon si sono ancora specializzati in una diversificazione significativardquo (ldquothe two terms will either be synonymous or will pertain to a difference which however does not involve positionrdquo or else they ldquohave not yet become specialized as the outcome of a significant diversificationrdquo) according to Lundon 1997 7931enspAs in the case of the other compound verbs with παρα- the modern interpretation of the literal meaning of παραγράφειν in this passage has been generalized as ldquoannotating in the marginsrdquo moreover the assumption has been made that Syrianusrsquo manuscript annotated by Proclus can be seen as a formal antecedent of authentic scholiography eg Hoffmann 2000 625 SaffreySe-gonds 2001 150ndash151 Pontani 2005 99 Acerbi 2012 163 with n 85 But as insightfully suggested by Porro 1985 213ndash214 that manuscript may rather have represented the type of composite and stratified sources later excerpted by the medieval scholiasts for their compilations

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp35

2enspΠαραγράφεσθαιSome medieval manuscripts that are witnesses of Greek scholiastic corpora are as is known supplied with subscriptions that list the exegetic sources These colophons appear at the end of the scholia to the Iliad for almost all the books except Ρ and Ω in ms Ven Marc gr 454 of the Xth centurysup3sup2 after the scholia to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds Peace and Birds in ms Ven Marc gr 474 of the XIth centurysup3sup3 in the Euripidean witness Paris gr 2713 of the XIth century after the scholia to Orestes (the same subscriptio can also be read in Ven Marc gr 471 of the XIIth century) and to Medeasup3⁴ and finally at the end of the scholia to Apol-lonius of Rhodesrsquo Argonautics in ms Laur Plut 329 of the Xth centurysup3⁵ The verb forms παράκειται or παραγέγραπται run as a common denominator throughout these subscriptions to indicate the compilation from sources These are forms that scholars customarily have no qualms in taking to mean ldquostands by the side ofrdquo ldquois written in the marginsrdquo with reference to the positioning of the exegesis as a frame surrounding the poetic textsup3⁶ However as was pointed out long ago and documented for παρακεῖσθαι (and παρατίθεσθαι)sup3⁷ even for παραγράφεσθαι some acceptations are widely attested in Late Antique and Byzantine Greek with reference to textual passages which involve no explicit reference or implicit allu-sion to the position on the page

32enspEg f 100v (end of Η) παράκειται τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα καὶ τὰ Διδύμου Περὶ τῆς Ἀρισταρχείου διορθώσεως τινὰ δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς Ἰλιακῆς προσῳδίας Ἡρωδιανοῦ καὶ Νικάνορος Περὶ στιγμῆς Beyond doubt the title τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα is brachylogic for Ἀριστονίκου περὶ τῶν σημείων namely for Aristonicusrsquo explanations of Aristarchusrsquo semeia see eg Lehrs 18823 2ndash3 at the beginning of a chapter entitled Aristonici liber de notis Aristarchi West 2001a 65 van Thiel 2014 122 Pagani this volume On the other hand Mazzucchi this volume quite oddly assumes though referring to the core of Lehrsrsquo opinion the meaning ldquosemeia of (ie apposed by) Aristonicusrdquo33enspF 43r (Clouds) κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται δὲ ἐκ τῶν Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν F 122v (Birds) παραγέγραπται ἐκ τῶν Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων σχολίων F 146v (Peace) κεκώλισται πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται ἐκ Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου34enspF 56r (Orestes) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα παραγέγραπται ἐκ τοῦ Διονυσίου ὑπομνήματος ὁλοσχερῶς καὶ τῶν μικτῶν (cf Marc gr 471 f 75r) F 129r (Medea) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα Διονυσίου ὁλοσχερὲς καί τινα τῶν Διδύμου35enspF 263v παράκειται τὰ σχόλια ἐκ τῶν Λουκίλλου Ταρραίου καὶ Σοφοκλείου καὶ Θέωνος The expression παράκειται τὰ σχόλια is perfectly analogous to the forms discussed in the first part of this article According to Haslam 1978 71 however here ldquoπαράκειται cannot refer to an inde-pendently existing hypomnema [as it was first stated by Carl Wendel] it must refer to marginal annotationrdquo36enspEg Hense 1870 13ndash14 ending with van Thiel 2014 12737enspAbove n 28

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

36emsp emspFausto Montana

In the scholia themselves belonging to the medieval tradition παραγράφειν is used in the meaning of  ldquo i m i t a t e rdquo ldquo d r a w o n rdquo ldquo a d a p t rdquo as a techni-cal verb to express the intertextual (language- or content-based) relation under-lying a literary passage s t a r t i n g f r o m or i n c o m p a r i s o n t o a given modelsup3⁸ The following examples are of interest

a) sch Soph Ai 731a Christodoulou λήγει δ᾽ ἔρις δραμοῦσα ἡ ἔρις εἰς πολὺ δραμοῦσα καὶ προκόψασα ἔστη τῇ συναντήσει τοῦ λόγου τῶν γερόντων ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως δὲ πρὸς Ἀγαμέμνονα μάχης παραγέγραπται καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ Νέστωρ ἐκεῖ (Il 1247  ff) διαλλάσσει οὕτως καὶ νῦν οἱ γέροντες κτλ LFONVGMRm

b) sch Ar Ach 540b Wilson ἐρεῖ τις οὐ χρῆν] καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Τηλέφου Εὐριπίδου (fr 708 Kannicht) παραγέγραπται EΓ3

c) sch Ar Pac 1012 Holwerda ἐκ Μηδείας Γ μήποτε ἐκ τῆς Εὐριπίδου Μηδείας (96ndash97) παραγράφει ἐκεῖνα ldquoὢ δύστηνος ἐγὼ μελέα τε πόνων lsaquohelliprsaquo πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμανrdquo RVΓ κτλ

d) sch ApRh 11026 Wendel σὺν δ᾽ ἔλασαν τὸ Ὁμηρικὸν παραγράφει (Il 4447) ldquoσύν ῥ᾽ ἔβαλον ῥινούς σὺν δ᾽ ἔγχεα καὶ μένε᾽ ἀνδρῶνrdquo LP

At least between the imperial age and the mid-Byzantine era the verb also came to admit the meaning of ldquo e x c e r p t i n g rdquo ldquo e x t r a c t i n g rdquo ldquo c i t i n g rdquo a text explicitly and extensively similarly to the case of appealing to an auctoritas in the framework of a linguistic or philosophical discussion or when excerpta of a work are transcribed within the body of another work For example

e) Harp Lex ο 25 Keaney sv ὀξυθύμια Δίδυμος ( Schmidt 1854 39) δὲ Αὐτοκλείδου (FGrHist 353 F 2) λέξιν παραγράψας ἐκ τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν φησιν ldquoὀξυθύμια τὰ καθάρματα λέγεται καὶ ἀπολύματαrdquo ταῦτα γὰρ ἀποφέρεσθαι εἰς τὰς τριόδους ὅταν τὰς οἰκίας καθαίρωσιν κτλ

f) Iul ad Them 5 ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος τὴν τύχην ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἐν τοῖς πρακτέοις κρατεῖν νενόμικα λέγοιμ᾽ ἂν ἤδη σοι τὰ τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἐκ τῶν θαυμασίων Νόμων εἰδότι μὲν καὶ διδάξαντί με ἀπόδειξιν δὲ ὥσπερ τοῦ μὴ ῥᾳθυμεῖν ποιούμενος παραγέγραφά σοι τὴν ῥῆσιν ὧδέ πως ἔχουσαν ldquoθεὸς μὲν πάντα καὶ μετὰ θεοῦ τύχη καὶ καιρὸς τὰ ἀνθρώπινα διακυβερνῶσι ξύμπαντα κτλ (Plat Leg 709b)rdquo

g) ibidem 10 τούτους δὲ αὐτὸς μὲν εἶναι φὴς τοὺς βασιλέας Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ (Pol 73 1325b) εἴρηκεν οὐδαμοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ προστεθεῖσαν λέξιν πλέον δὲ θάτερον ἐξ ὧν παραγέγραφας ἄν τις νοήσειε

38enspCf LSJ sv παραγράφειν I4 This acceptation can be ascribed to the comparative meaning of the preverb SchwyzerDebrunner 1950 493

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp37

h) Phot Bibl 273 (507b 18) ἀνεγνώσθη ἐκ τῶν τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοδωρήτου λόγων οὓς εἰς τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστομον συνετάξατο ὧν ἡμεῖς πέντε τέως εἴδομεν ἐξ ὧν καί τινας ἐκλογὰς τὰς ὑποτεταγμένας παρεγραψάμεθα

The passage by Photius is particularly significant for the semantic definition of παραγράφειν in the meaning of ldquo c o p y i n g o u t rdquo or ldquo t r a n s c r i b i n g f r o m (a model)rdquo as the verb is constructed with the object ἐκλογάς Also worthy of note is the construction of the predicate with ἐκ + genitive in much of the evi-dence cited (a c e g h) and likewise in the scholiastic subscriptions to indicate the source starting from which a text has been imitated or adapted or extractedsup3⁹

Finally from Harp Lex π 17 Keaney (~ Suda π 320 Adler) one can infer the semantic affinity of παραγράφειν and παρατίθεσθαι with medial value In explain-ing an idiosyncratic use by Isocrates of the term παραγραφή the lexicographer makes use of παραγράφειν with the meaning of ldquomarking with the paragraphos (or paragraphe)rdquo⁴⁰ a text in a roll in order to highlight it for the purpose of the citation This on the one hand documents the virtually synonymous acceptation of the two verbs and on the other it provides a possible and plausible explana-tion of the genesis of this semantic quasi-equivalence

39enspThe same consideration can be extended to the sentence κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου present in the subscriptions to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds and Peace (above n 33) Here starting with Hense 1870 12ndash16 frequently ldquothe poetic textrdquo is implied as a grammatical subject of κεκώλισται and this verbal form is interpreted in reference to the arrangement of the lyric kola of the Aristophanean text on the pages of the medieval manuscripts as a consequence the ex-pression πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου is assumed to take for granted the word ἀντίγραφα and refer to the Aristophanic colometry displayed by Heliodorus in his ekdosis of the comedies I would rather on the one hand argue that κεκώλισται should be understood in an absolute sense (no less than παραγέγραπται in the same contexts) namely as meaning ldquothe colometry is given described quotedrdquo and on the other hand agree with White 1912 384ndash395 who (after Thiemann 1869 116ndash123) stated that the whole sentence is referring to the metrical descriptions obtained from (ἐκ τῶν) or based on (πρὸς τά for the wording cf πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα in the Euripidean subscriptions mentioned above n 34) Heliodorusrsquo colometric commentaries and amalgamated with annotation of other types see Holwerda 1964 114 and 1967 256ndash258 To be sure it is not imputable to chance that the scholia to Clouds and Peace ndash whose subscriptions in ms Ven Marc gr 474 hand down the name of Heliodorus ndash are the richest in fragments drawn from his metrical commentaries Holwerda 1964 114 with n 4 Be that as it may even if one allows that κεκώλισται refers to the layout of the Aristophanean text adopted in the manuscripts this nei-ther contradicts the statement that παράκειται παραγέγραπται etc refer to nothing more than to the presence of exegetic excerpts resulting from compilation (independently of their position on the page) nor on the other hand does it increase our chance of establishing the chronology of (each of) the operations described in the subscriptions40enspCf Heph Poeumlm 1 κατὰ δύο παραγεγραμμένον ᾆσμα (LSJ sv παραγράφειν I5)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

38emsp emspFausto Montana

i) παραγραφή οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ καὶ γνωρίμου τίθεται παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἰδίως ᾽Ισοκράτης ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς ἀντιδόσεώς (1559) φησιν ldquoλέγε ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς παραγραφῆςrdquo ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τῆς γραμμῆς ἣν μέχρι νῦν παράγραφον καλοῦμεν καὶ ἔστι τὸ λεγόμενον ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρέγραψα τοῦτο δ᾽ ἂν εἴη ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρεθέμην κτλ

παραγραφή it is used not only according to the common acceptation well known in the writings of rhetors (ie ldquoprocedure of exceptionrdquo) but Isocrates in the Antidosis says as is typical of his manner ldquoread aloud starting from the παραγραφήrdquo ie from the line that we still call paragraphos even today the expression means ldquostarting from where I marked the paragraphosrdquo in other words ldquostarting from where I citedrdquo

These semantic observations are not devoid of relevance for interpretation of the subscriptions of the scholiastic corpora and their meaning in relation to the char-acteristics and origin of the scholiographic technique What has been regarded as universally established should be revised to the status of doubtful namely the concept that in exegetic and erudite contexts the preverb παρα- of the compounds παρακεῖσθαι παρατίθεσθαι and παραγράφεσθαι has something to do with where the explanatory excerpta were placed on the page Consequently these verb forms and the subscriptions that contain them should be awarded lesser importance in the quest to discover the times and modes of the origin of scholiography⁴sup1

41enspFor linguistic and paleographic arguments employed in the debate on the meaning and dat-ing of the subscriptions see most recently Montana 2011a 151ndash152 G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 58ndash60 and Lara Pagani this volume

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

34emsp emspFausto Montana

(for instance in the Hippocratic papyrus and in the first of Anastasiusrsquo passages) as was already possible and had genuinely been the case in many volumina but at the same time they also offered the opportunity for copying the whole of an authorrsquos commentary or hypomnema by the side of the main work (Eutocius)sup2⁹ Indeed they even prompted some writers to devise a project whereby the com-position as well as the editorial layout of the main text and its exegetic apparatus would be presented jointly as an organic whole (Maximus Anastasius) The dis-tinctive feature of this latter type of systematic annotation which differentiates it from scholiography resides in the fact that authors such as Maximus and Anasta-sius brought to bear the force of their own explicitly evoked personal identity and related authority in order to constrain readers and copyists to show respect not only for the texts but also for the respective paratexts At least as far as the cases examined here are concerned these precautionary measures were successful and preserved the exegetic products from the destiny of drastic pruning and thinning manipulation and jumbling that inexorably and massively befell the commentar-ies on literary works as a result of the heavy hand of the scholiasts

The solution adopted by Eutocius Maximus and Anastasius was it would seem the same as that elected by the Neoplatonic Proclus for putting forward his own opinions (παραγράφειν τὰ ἀρέσκοντα) concerning the commentary by Syrianus on the orphic hymns according to the testimony of Marinus Vita Procli 27sup3⁰ As is the case with the acceptation of παρακεῖσθαι in the exegetic and erudite context the meaning to be attributed to παραγράφειν the verb used by Marinus now calls for closer examinationsup3sup1

29enspA similar type of editorial operation seems to be reflected in the celebrated POxy 202258 the VIth century fragmentary codex of Callimachus containing densely written exegetic marginal annotations derived in all probability from a single hypomnema Porro 1985 208ndash215 especially 212 Montana 2011a 136ndash144 Porro 201130enspThe result of this editorial performance is characterized by Marinus as σχόλια καὶ ὑπομνήματα an expression in which ldquoi due termini o saranno sinonimi o rimanderanno a una differenza che non sia perograve quella della posizionerdquo or ldquonon si sono ancora specializzati in una diversificazione significativardquo (ldquothe two terms will either be synonymous or will pertain to a difference which however does not involve positionrdquo or else they ldquohave not yet become specialized as the outcome of a significant diversificationrdquo) according to Lundon 1997 7931enspAs in the case of the other compound verbs with παρα- the modern interpretation of the literal meaning of παραγράφειν in this passage has been generalized as ldquoannotating in the marginsrdquo moreover the assumption has been made that Syrianusrsquo manuscript annotated by Proclus can be seen as a formal antecedent of authentic scholiography eg Hoffmann 2000 625 SaffreySe-gonds 2001 150ndash151 Pontani 2005 99 Acerbi 2012 163 with n 85 But as insightfully suggested by Porro 1985 213ndash214 that manuscript may rather have represented the type of composite and stratified sources later excerpted by the medieval scholiasts for their compilations

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp35

2enspΠαραγράφεσθαιSome medieval manuscripts that are witnesses of Greek scholiastic corpora are as is known supplied with subscriptions that list the exegetic sources These colophons appear at the end of the scholia to the Iliad for almost all the books except Ρ and Ω in ms Ven Marc gr 454 of the Xth centurysup3sup2 after the scholia to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds Peace and Birds in ms Ven Marc gr 474 of the XIth centurysup3sup3 in the Euripidean witness Paris gr 2713 of the XIth century after the scholia to Orestes (the same subscriptio can also be read in Ven Marc gr 471 of the XIIth century) and to Medeasup3⁴ and finally at the end of the scholia to Apol-lonius of Rhodesrsquo Argonautics in ms Laur Plut 329 of the Xth centurysup3⁵ The verb forms παράκειται or παραγέγραπται run as a common denominator throughout these subscriptions to indicate the compilation from sources These are forms that scholars customarily have no qualms in taking to mean ldquostands by the side ofrdquo ldquois written in the marginsrdquo with reference to the positioning of the exegesis as a frame surrounding the poetic textsup3⁶ However as was pointed out long ago and documented for παρακεῖσθαι (and παρατίθεσθαι)sup3⁷ even for παραγράφεσθαι some acceptations are widely attested in Late Antique and Byzantine Greek with reference to textual passages which involve no explicit reference or implicit allu-sion to the position on the page

32enspEg f 100v (end of Η) παράκειται τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα καὶ τὰ Διδύμου Περὶ τῆς Ἀρισταρχείου διορθώσεως τινὰ δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς Ἰλιακῆς προσῳδίας Ἡρωδιανοῦ καὶ Νικάνορος Περὶ στιγμῆς Beyond doubt the title τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα is brachylogic for Ἀριστονίκου περὶ τῶν σημείων namely for Aristonicusrsquo explanations of Aristarchusrsquo semeia see eg Lehrs 18823 2ndash3 at the beginning of a chapter entitled Aristonici liber de notis Aristarchi West 2001a 65 van Thiel 2014 122 Pagani this volume On the other hand Mazzucchi this volume quite oddly assumes though referring to the core of Lehrsrsquo opinion the meaning ldquosemeia of (ie apposed by) Aristonicusrdquo33enspF 43r (Clouds) κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται δὲ ἐκ τῶν Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν F 122v (Birds) παραγέγραπται ἐκ τῶν Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων σχολίων F 146v (Peace) κεκώλισται πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται ἐκ Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου34enspF 56r (Orestes) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα παραγέγραπται ἐκ τοῦ Διονυσίου ὑπομνήματος ὁλοσχερῶς καὶ τῶν μικτῶν (cf Marc gr 471 f 75r) F 129r (Medea) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα Διονυσίου ὁλοσχερὲς καί τινα τῶν Διδύμου35enspF 263v παράκειται τὰ σχόλια ἐκ τῶν Λουκίλλου Ταρραίου καὶ Σοφοκλείου καὶ Θέωνος The expression παράκειται τὰ σχόλια is perfectly analogous to the forms discussed in the first part of this article According to Haslam 1978 71 however here ldquoπαράκειται cannot refer to an inde-pendently existing hypomnema [as it was first stated by Carl Wendel] it must refer to marginal annotationrdquo36enspEg Hense 1870 13ndash14 ending with van Thiel 2014 12737enspAbove n 28

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

36emsp emspFausto Montana

In the scholia themselves belonging to the medieval tradition παραγράφειν is used in the meaning of  ldquo i m i t a t e rdquo ldquo d r a w o n rdquo ldquo a d a p t rdquo as a techni-cal verb to express the intertextual (language- or content-based) relation under-lying a literary passage s t a r t i n g f r o m or i n c o m p a r i s o n t o a given modelsup3⁸ The following examples are of interest

a) sch Soph Ai 731a Christodoulou λήγει δ᾽ ἔρις δραμοῦσα ἡ ἔρις εἰς πολὺ δραμοῦσα καὶ προκόψασα ἔστη τῇ συναντήσει τοῦ λόγου τῶν γερόντων ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως δὲ πρὸς Ἀγαμέμνονα μάχης παραγέγραπται καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ Νέστωρ ἐκεῖ (Il 1247  ff) διαλλάσσει οὕτως καὶ νῦν οἱ γέροντες κτλ LFONVGMRm

b) sch Ar Ach 540b Wilson ἐρεῖ τις οὐ χρῆν] καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Τηλέφου Εὐριπίδου (fr 708 Kannicht) παραγέγραπται EΓ3

c) sch Ar Pac 1012 Holwerda ἐκ Μηδείας Γ μήποτε ἐκ τῆς Εὐριπίδου Μηδείας (96ndash97) παραγράφει ἐκεῖνα ldquoὢ δύστηνος ἐγὼ μελέα τε πόνων lsaquohelliprsaquo πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμανrdquo RVΓ κτλ

d) sch ApRh 11026 Wendel σὺν δ᾽ ἔλασαν τὸ Ὁμηρικὸν παραγράφει (Il 4447) ldquoσύν ῥ᾽ ἔβαλον ῥινούς σὺν δ᾽ ἔγχεα καὶ μένε᾽ ἀνδρῶνrdquo LP

At least between the imperial age and the mid-Byzantine era the verb also came to admit the meaning of ldquo e x c e r p t i n g rdquo ldquo e x t r a c t i n g rdquo ldquo c i t i n g rdquo a text explicitly and extensively similarly to the case of appealing to an auctoritas in the framework of a linguistic or philosophical discussion or when excerpta of a work are transcribed within the body of another work For example

e) Harp Lex ο 25 Keaney sv ὀξυθύμια Δίδυμος ( Schmidt 1854 39) δὲ Αὐτοκλείδου (FGrHist 353 F 2) λέξιν παραγράψας ἐκ τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν φησιν ldquoὀξυθύμια τὰ καθάρματα λέγεται καὶ ἀπολύματαrdquo ταῦτα γὰρ ἀποφέρεσθαι εἰς τὰς τριόδους ὅταν τὰς οἰκίας καθαίρωσιν κτλ

f) Iul ad Them 5 ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος τὴν τύχην ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἐν τοῖς πρακτέοις κρατεῖν νενόμικα λέγοιμ᾽ ἂν ἤδη σοι τὰ τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἐκ τῶν θαυμασίων Νόμων εἰδότι μὲν καὶ διδάξαντί με ἀπόδειξιν δὲ ὥσπερ τοῦ μὴ ῥᾳθυμεῖν ποιούμενος παραγέγραφά σοι τὴν ῥῆσιν ὧδέ πως ἔχουσαν ldquoθεὸς μὲν πάντα καὶ μετὰ θεοῦ τύχη καὶ καιρὸς τὰ ἀνθρώπινα διακυβερνῶσι ξύμπαντα κτλ (Plat Leg 709b)rdquo

g) ibidem 10 τούτους δὲ αὐτὸς μὲν εἶναι φὴς τοὺς βασιλέας Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ (Pol 73 1325b) εἴρηκεν οὐδαμοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ προστεθεῖσαν λέξιν πλέον δὲ θάτερον ἐξ ὧν παραγέγραφας ἄν τις νοήσειε

38enspCf LSJ sv παραγράφειν I4 This acceptation can be ascribed to the comparative meaning of the preverb SchwyzerDebrunner 1950 493

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp37

h) Phot Bibl 273 (507b 18) ἀνεγνώσθη ἐκ τῶν τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοδωρήτου λόγων οὓς εἰς τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστομον συνετάξατο ὧν ἡμεῖς πέντε τέως εἴδομεν ἐξ ὧν καί τινας ἐκλογὰς τὰς ὑποτεταγμένας παρεγραψάμεθα

The passage by Photius is particularly significant for the semantic definition of παραγράφειν in the meaning of ldquo c o p y i n g o u t rdquo or ldquo t r a n s c r i b i n g f r o m (a model)rdquo as the verb is constructed with the object ἐκλογάς Also worthy of note is the construction of the predicate with ἐκ + genitive in much of the evi-dence cited (a c e g h) and likewise in the scholiastic subscriptions to indicate the source starting from which a text has been imitated or adapted or extractedsup3⁹

Finally from Harp Lex π 17 Keaney (~ Suda π 320 Adler) one can infer the semantic affinity of παραγράφειν and παρατίθεσθαι with medial value In explain-ing an idiosyncratic use by Isocrates of the term παραγραφή the lexicographer makes use of παραγράφειν with the meaning of ldquomarking with the paragraphos (or paragraphe)rdquo⁴⁰ a text in a roll in order to highlight it for the purpose of the citation This on the one hand documents the virtually synonymous acceptation of the two verbs and on the other it provides a possible and plausible explana-tion of the genesis of this semantic quasi-equivalence

39enspThe same consideration can be extended to the sentence κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου present in the subscriptions to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds and Peace (above n 33) Here starting with Hense 1870 12ndash16 frequently ldquothe poetic textrdquo is implied as a grammatical subject of κεκώλισται and this verbal form is interpreted in reference to the arrangement of the lyric kola of the Aristophanean text on the pages of the medieval manuscripts as a consequence the ex-pression πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου is assumed to take for granted the word ἀντίγραφα and refer to the Aristophanic colometry displayed by Heliodorus in his ekdosis of the comedies I would rather on the one hand argue that κεκώλισται should be understood in an absolute sense (no less than παραγέγραπται in the same contexts) namely as meaning ldquothe colometry is given described quotedrdquo and on the other hand agree with White 1912 384ndash395 who (after Thiemann 1869 116ndash123) stated that the whole sentence is referring to the metrical descriptions obtained from (ἐκ τῶν) or based on (πρὸς τά for the wording cf πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα in the Euripidean subscriptions mentioned above n 34) Heliodorusrsquo colometric commentaries and amalgamated with annotation of other types see Holwerda 1964 114 and 1967 256ndash258 To be sure it is not imputable to chance that the scholia to Clouds and Peace ndash whose subscriptions in ms Ven Marc gr 474 hand down the name of Heliodorus ndash are the richest in fragments drawn from his metrical commentaries Holwerda 1964 114 with n 4 Be that as it may even if one allows that κεκώλισται refers to the layout of the Aristophanean text adopted in the manuscripts this nei-ther contradicts the statement that παράκειται παραγέγραπται etc refer to nothing more than to the presence of exegetic excerpts resulting from compilation (independently of their position on the page) nor on the other hand does it increase our chance of establishing the chronology of (each of) the operations described in the subscriptions40enspCf Heph Poeumlm 1 κατὰ δύο παραγεγραμμένον ᾆσμα (LSJ sv παραγράφειν I5)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

38emsp emspFausto Montana

i) παραγραφή οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ καὶ γνωρίμου τίθεται παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἰδίως ᾽Ισοκράτης ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς ἀντιδόσεώς (1559) φησιν ldquoλέγε ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς παραγραφῆςrdquo ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τῆς γραμμῆς ἣν μέχρι νῦν παράγραφον καλοῦμεν καὶ ἔστι τὸ λεγόμενον ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρέγραψα τοῦτο δ᾽ ἂν εἴη ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρεθέμην κτλ

παραγραφή it is used not only according to the common acceptation well known in the writings of rhetors (ie ldquoprocedure of exceptionrdquo) but Isocrates in the Antidosis says as is typical of his manner ldquoread aloud starting from the παραγραφήrdquo ie from the line that we still call paragraphos even today the expression means ldquostarting from where I marked the paragraphosrdquo in other words ldquostarting from where I citedrdquo

These semantic observations are not devoid of relevance for interpretation of the subscriptions of the scholiastic corpora and their meaning in relation to the char-acteristics and origin of the scholiographic technique What has been regarded as universally established should be revised to the status of doubtful namely the concept that in exegetic and erudite contexts the preverb παρα- of the compounds παρακεῖσθαι παρατίθεσθαι and παραγράφεσθαι has something to do with where the explanatory excerpta were placed on the page Consequently these verb forms and the subscriptions that contain them should be awarded lesser importance in the quest to discover the times and modes of the origin of scholiography⁴sup1

41enspFor linguistic and paleographic arguments employed in the debate on the meaning and dat-ing of the subscriptions see most recently Montana 2011a 151ndash152 G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 58ndash60 and Lara Pagani this volume

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp35

2enspΠαραγράφεσθαιSome medieval manuscripts that are witnesses of Greek scholiastic corpora are as is known supplied with subscriptions that list the exegetic sources These colophons appear at the end of the scholia to the Iliad for almost all the books except Ρ and Ω in ms Ven Marc gr 454 of the Xth centurysup3sup2 after the scholia to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds Peace and Birds in ms Ven Marc gr 474 of the XIth centurysup3sup3 in the Euripidean witness Paris gr 2713 of the XIth century after the scholia to Orestes (the same subscriptio can also be read in Ven Marc gr 471 of the XIIth century) and to Medeasup3⁴ and finally at the end of the scholia to Apol-lonius of Rhodesrsquo Argonautics in ms Laur Plut 329 of the Xth centurysup3⁵ The verb forms παράκειται or παραγέγραπται run as a common denominator throughout these subscriptions to indicate the compilation from sources These are forms that scholars customarily have no qualms in taking to mean ldquostands by the side ofrdquo ldquois written in the marginsrdquo with reference to the positioning of the exegesis as a frame surrounding the poetic textsup3⁶ However as was pointed out long ago and documented for παρακεῖσθαι (and παρατίθεσθαι)sup3⁷ even for παραγράφεσθαι some acceptations are widely attested in Late Antique and Byzantine Greek with reference to textual passages which involve no explicit reference or implicit allu-sion to the position on the page

32enspEg f 100v (end of Η) παράκειται τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα καὶ τὰ Διδύμου Περὶ τῆς Ἀρισταρχείου διορθώσεως τινὰ δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς Ἰλιακῆς προσῳδίας Ἡρωδιανοῦ καὶ Νικάνορος Περὶ στιγμῆς Beyond doubt the title τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα is brachylogic for Ἀριστονίκου περὶ τῶν σημείων namely for Aristonicusrsquo explanations of Aristarchusrsquo semeia see eg Lehrs 18823 2ndash3 at the beginning of a chapter entitled Aristonici liber de notis Aristarchi West 2001a 65 van Thiel 2014 122 Pagani this volume On the other hand Mazzucchi this volume quite oddly assumes though referring to the core of Lehrsrsquo opinion the meaning ldquosemeia of (ie apposed by) Aristonicusrdquo33enspF 43r (Clouds) κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται δὲ ἐκ τῶν Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν F 122v (Birds) παραγέγραπται ἐκ τῶν Συμμάχου καὶ ἄλλων σχολίων F 146v (Peace) κεκώλισται πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου παραγέγραπται ἐκ Φαείνου καὶ Συμμάχου34enspF 56r (Orestes) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα παραγέγραπται ἐκ τοῦ Διονυσίου ὑπομνήματος ὁλοσχερῶς καὶ τῶν μικτῶν (cf Marc gr 471 f 75r) F 129r (Medea) πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα Διονυσίου ὁλοσχερὲς καί τινα τῶν Διδύμου35enspF 263v παράκειται τὰ σχόλια ἐκ τῶν Λουκίλλου Ταρραίου καὶ Σοφοκλείου καὶ Θέωνος The expression παράκειται τὰ σχόλια is perfectly analogous to the forms discussed in the first part of this article According to Haslam 1978 71 however here ldquoπαράκειται cannot refer to an inde-pendently existing hypomnema [as it was first stated by Carl Wendel] it must refer to marginal annotationrdquo36enspEg Hense 1870 13ndash14 ending with van Thiel 2014 12737enspAbove n 28

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

36emsp emspFausto Montana

In the scholia themselves belonging to the medieval tradition παραγράφειν is used in the meaning of  ldquo i m i t a t e rdquo ldquo d r a w o n rdquo ldquo a d a p t rdquo as a techni-cal verb to express the intertextual (language- or content-based) relation under-lying a literary passage s t a r t i n g f r o m or i n c o m p a r i s o n t o a given modelsup3⁸ The following examples are of interest

a) sch Soph Ai 731a Christodoulou λήγει δ᾽ ἔρις δραμοῦσα ἡ ἔρις εἰς πολὺ δραμοῦσα καὶ προκόψασα ἔστη τῇ συναντήσει τοῦ λόγου τῶν γερόντων ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως δὲ πρὸς Ἀγαμέμνονα μάχης παραγέγραπται καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ Νέστωρ ἐκεῖ (Il 1247  ff) διαλλάσσει οὕτως καὶ νῦν οἱ γέροντες κτλ LFONVGMRm

b) sch Ar Ach 540b Wilson ἐρεῖ τις οὐ χρῆν] καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Τηλέφου Εὐριπίδου (fr 708 Kannicht) παραγέγραπται EΓ3

c) sch Ar Pac 1012 Holwerda ἐκ Μηδείας Γ μήποτε ἐκ τῆς Εὐριπίδου Μηδείας (96ndash97) παραγράφει ἐκεῖνα ldquoὢ δύστηνος ἐγὼ μελέα τε πόνων lsaquohelliprsaquo πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμανrdquo RVΓ κτλ

d) sch ApRh 11026 Wendel σὺν δ᾽ ἔλασαν τὸ Ὁμηρικὸν παραγράφει (Il 4447) ldquoσύν ῥ᾽ ἔβαλον ῥινούς σὺν δ᾽ ἔγχεα καὶ μένε᾽ ἀνδρῶνrdquo LP

At least between the imperial age and the mid-Byzantine era the verb also came to admit the meaning of ldquo e x c e r p t i n g rdquo ldquo e x t r a c t i n g rdquo ldquo c i t i n g rdquo a text explicitly and extensively similarly to the case of appealing to an auctoritas in the framework of a linguistic or philosophical discussion or when excerpta of a work are transcribed within the body of another work For example

e) Harp Lex ο 25 Keaney sv ὀξυθύμια Δίδυμος ( Schmidt 1854 39) δὲ Αὐτοκλείδου (FGrHist 353 F 2) λέξιν παραγράψας ἐκ τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν φησιν ldquoὀξυθύμια τὰ καθάρματα λέγεται καὶ ἀπολύματαrdquo ταῦτα γὰρ ἀποφέρεσθαι εἰς τὰς τριόδους ὅταν τὰς οἰκίας καθαίρωσιν κτλ

f) Iul ad Them 5 ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος τὴν τύχην ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἐν τοῖς πρακτέοις κρατεῖν νενόμικα λέγοιμ᾽ ἂν ἤδη σοι τὰ τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἐκ τῶν θαυμασίων Νόμων εἰδότι μὲν καὶ διδάξαντί με ἀπόδειξιν δὲ ὥσπερ τοῦ μὴ ῥᾳθυμεῖν ποιούμενος παραγέγραφά σοι τὴν ῥῆσιν ὧδέ πως ἔχουσαν ldquoθεὸς μὲν πάντα καὶ μετὰ θεοῦ τύχη καὶ καιρὸς τὰ ἀνθρώπινα διακυβερνῶσι ξύμπαντα κτλ (Plat Leg 709b)rdquo

g) ibidem 10 τούτους δὲ αὐτὸς μὲν εἶναι φὴς τοὺς βασιλέας Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ (Pol 73 1325b) εἴρηκεν οὐδαμοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ προστεθεῖσαν λέξιν πλέον δὲ θάτερον ἐξ ὧν παραγέγραφας ἄν τις νοήσειε

38enspCf LSJ sv παραγράφειν I4 This acceptation can be ascribed to the comparative meaning of the preverb SchwyzerDebrunner 1950 493

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp37

h) Phot Bibl 273 (507b 18) ἀνεγνώσθη ἐκ τῶν τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοδωρήτου λόγων οὓς εἰς τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστομον συνετάξατο ὧν ἡμεῖς πέντε τέως εἴδομεν ἐξ ὧν καί τινας ἐκλογὰς τὰς ὑποτεταγμένας παρεγραψάμεθα

The passage by Photius is particularly significant for the semantic definition of παραγράφειν in the meaning of ldquo c o p y i n g o u t rdquo or ldquo t r a n s c r i b i n g f r o m (a model)rdquo as the verb is constructed with the object ἐκλογάς Also worthy of note is the construction of the predicate with ἐκ + genitive in much of the evi-dence cited (a c e g h) and likewise in the scholiastic subscriptions to indicate the source starting from which a text has been imitated or adapted or extractedsup3⁹

Finally from Harp Lex π 17 Keaney (~ Suda π 320 Adler) one can infer the semantic affinity of παραγράφειν and παρατίθεσθαι with medial value In explain-ing an idiosyncratic use by Isocrates of the term παραγραφή the lexicographer makes use of παραγράφειν with the meaning of ldquomarking with the paragraphos (or paragraphe)rdquo⁴⁰ a text in a roll in order to highlight it for the purpose of the citation This on the one hand documents the virtually synonymous acceptation of the two verbs and on the other it provides a possible and plausible explana-tion of the genesis of this semantic quasi-equivalence

39enspThe same consideration can be extended to the sentence κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου present in the subscriptions to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds and Peace (above n 33) Here starting with Hense 1870 12ndash16 frequently ldquothe poetic textrdquo is implied as a grammatical subject of κεκώλισται and this verbal form is interpreted in reference to the arrangement of the lyric kola of the Aristophanean text on the pages of the medieval manuscripts as a consequence the ex-pression πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου is assumed to take for granted the word ἀντίγραφα and refer to the Aristophanic colometry displayed by Heliodorus in his ekdosis of the comedies I would rather on the one hand argue that κεκώλισται should be understood in an absolute sense (no less than παραγέγραπται in the same contexts) namely as meaning ldquothe colometry is given described quotedrdquo and on the other hand agree with White 1912 384ndash395 who (after Thiemann 1869 116ndash123) stated that the whole sentence is referring to the metrical descriptions obtained from (ἐκ τῶν) or based on (πρὸς τά for the wording cf πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα in the Euripidean subscriptions mentioned above n 34) Heliodorusrsquo colometric commentaries and amalgamated with annotation of other types see Holwerda 1964 114 and 1967 256ndash258 To be sure it is not imputable to chance that the scholia to Clouds and Peace ndash whose subscriptions in ms Ven Marc gr 474 hand down the name of Heliodorus ndash are the richest in fragments drawn from his metrical commentaries Holwerda 1964 114 with n 4 Be that as it may even if one allows that κεκώλισται refers to the layout of the Aristophanean text adopted in the manuscripts this nei-ther contradicts the statement that παράκειται παραγέγραπται etc refer to nothing more than to the presence of exegetic excerpts resulting from compilation (independently of their position on the page) nor on the other hand does it increase our chance of establishing the chronology of (each of) the operations described in the subscriptions40enspCf Heph Poeumlm 1 κατὰ δύο παραγεγραμμένον ᾆσμα (LSJ sv παραγράφειν I5)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

38emsp emspFausto Montana

i) παραγραφή οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ καὶ γνωρίμου τίθεται παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἰδίως ᾽Ισοκράτης ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς ἀντιδόσεώς (1559) φησιν ldquoλέγε ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς παραγραφῆςrdquo ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τῆς γραμμῆς ἣν μέχρι νῦν παράγραφον καλοῦμεν καὶ ἔστι τὸ λεγόμενον ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρέγραψα τοῦτο δ᾽ ἂν εἴη ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρεθέμην κτλ

παραγραφή it is used not only according to the common acceptation well known in the writings of rhetors (ie ldquoprocedure of exceptionrdquo) but Isocrates in the Antidosis says as is typical of his manner ldquoread aloud starting from the παραγραφήrdquo ie from the line that we still call paragraphos even today the expression means ldquostarting from where I marked the paragraphosrdquo in other words ldquostarting from where I citedrdquo

These semantic observations are not devoid of relevance for interpretation of the subscriptions of the scholiastic corpora and their meaning in relation to the char-acteristics and origin of the scholiographic technique What has been regarded as universally established should be revised to the status of doubtful namely the concept that in exegetic and erudite contexts the preverb παρα- of the compounds παρακεῖσθαι παρατίθεσθαι and παραγράφεσθαι has something to do with where the explanatory excerpta were placed on the page Consequently these verb forms and the subscriptions that contain them should be awarded lesser importance in the quest to discover the times and modes of the origin of scholiography⁴sup1

41enspFor linguistic and paleographic arguments employed in the debate on the meaning and dat-ing of the subscriptions see most recently Montana 2011a 151ndash152 G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 58ndash60 and Lara Pagani this volume

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

36emsp emspFausto Montana

In the scholia themselves belonging to the medieval tradition παραγράφειν is used in the meaning of  ldquo i m i t a t e rdquo ldquo d r a w o n rdquo ldquo a d a p t rdquo as a techni-cal verb to express the intertextual (language- or content-based) relation under-lying a literary passage s t a r t i n g f r o m or i n c o m p a r i s o n t o a given modelsup3⁸ The following examples are of interest

a) sch Soph Ai 731a Christodoulou λήγει δ᾽ ἔρις δραμοῦσα ἡ ἔρις εἰς πολὺ δραμοῦσα καὶ προκόψασα ἔστη τῇ συναντήσει τοῦ λόγου τῶν γερόντων ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως δὲ πρὸς Ἀγαμέμνονα μάχης παραγέγραπται καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ Νέστωρ ἐκεῖ (Il 1247  ff) διαλλάσσει οὕτως καὶ νῦν οἱ γέροντες κτλ LFONVGMRm

b) sch Ar Ach 540b Wilson ἐρεῖ τις οὐ χρῆν] καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Τηλέφου Εὐριπίδου (fr 708 Kannicht) παραγέγραπται EΓ3

c) sch Ar Pac 1012 Holwerda ἐκ Μηδείας Γ μήποτε ἐκ τῆς Εὐριπίδου Μηδείας (96ndash97) παραγράφει ἐκεῖνα ldquoὢ δύστηνος ἐγὼ μελέα τε πόνων lsaquohelliprsaquo πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμανrdquo RVΓ κτλ

d) sch ApRh 11026 Wendel σὺν δ᾽ ἔλασαν τὸ Ὁμηρικὸν παραγράφει (Il 4447) ldquoσύν ῥ᾽ ἔβαλον ῥινούς σὺν δ᾽ ἔγχεα καὶ μένε᾽ ἀνδρῶνrdquo LP

At least between the imperial age and the mid-Byzantine era the verb also came to admit the meaning of ldquo e x c e r p t i n g rdquo ldquo e x t r a c t i n g rdquo ldquo c i t i n g rdquo a text explicitly and extensively similarly to the case of appealing to an auctoritas in the framework of a linguistic or philosophical discussion or when excerpta of a work are transcribed within the body of another work For example

e) Harp Lex ο 25 Keaney sv ὀξυθύμια Δίδυμος ( Schmidt 1854 39) δὲ Αὐτοκλείδου (FGrHist 353 F 2) λέξιν παραγράψας ἐκ τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν φησιν ldquoὀξυθύμια τὰ καθάρματα λέγεται καὶ ἀπολύματαrdquo ταῦτα γὰρ ἀποφέρεσθαι εἰς τὰς τριόδους ὅταν τὰς οἰκίας καθαίρωσιν κτλ

f) Iul ad Them 5 ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος τὴν τύχην ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἐν τοῖς πρακτέοις κρατεῖν νενόμικα λέγοιμ᾽ ἂν ἤδη σοι τὰ τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἐκ τῶν θαυμασίων Νόμων εἰδότι μὲν καὶ διδάξαντί με ἀπόδειξιν δὲ ὥσπερ τοῦ μὴ ῥᾳθυμεῖν ποιούμενος παραγέγραφά σοι τὴν ῥῆσιν ὧδέ πως ἔχουσαν ldquoθεὸς μὲν πάντα καὶ μετὰ θεοῦ τύχη καὶ καιρὸς τὰ ἀνθρώπινα διακυβερνῶσι ξύμπαντα κτλ (Plat Leg 709b)rdquo

g) ibidem 10 τούτους δὲ αὐτὸς μὲν εἶναι φὴς τοὺς βασιλέας Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ (Pol 73 1325b) εἴρηκεν οὐδαμοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ προστεθεῖσαν λέξιν πλέον δὲ θάτερον ἐξ ὧν παραγέγραφας ἄν τις νοήσειε

38enspCf LSJ sv παραγράφειν I4 This acceptation can be ascribed to the comparative meaning of the preverb SchwyzerDebrunner 1950 493

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp37

h) Phot Bibl 273 (507b 18) ἀνεγνώσθη ἐκ τῶν τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοδωρήτου λόγων οὓς εἰς τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστομον συνετάξατο ὧν ἡμεῖς πέντε τέως εἴδομεν ἐξ ὧν καί τινας ἐκλογὰς τὰς ὑποτεταγμένας παρεγραψάμεθα

The passage by Photius is particularly significant for the semantic definition of παραγράφειν in the meaning of ldquo c o p y i n g o u t rdquo or ldquo t r a n s c r i b i n g f r o m (a model)rdquo as the verb is constructed with the object ἐκλογάς Also worthy of note is the construction of the predicate with ἐκ + genitive in much of the evi-dence cited (a c e g h) and likewise in the scholiastic subscriptions to indicate the source starting from which a text has been imitated or adapted or extractedsup3⁹

Finally from Harp Lex π 17 Keaney (~ Suda π 320 Adler) one can infer the semantic affinity of παραγράφειν and παρατίθεσθαι with medial value In explain-ing an idiosyncratic use by Isocrates of the term παραγραφή the lexicographer makes use of παραγράφειν with the meaning of ldquomarking with the paragraphos (or paragraphe)rdquo⁴⁰ a text in a roll in order to highlight it for the purpose of the citation This on the one hand documents the virtually synonymous acceptation of the two verbs and on the other it provides a possible and plausible explana-tion of the genesis of this semantic quasi-equivalence

39enspThe same consideration can be extended to the sentence κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου present in the subscriptions to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds and Peace (above n 33) Here starting with Hense 1870 12ndash16 frequently ldquothe poetic textrdquo is implied as a grammatical subject of κεκώλισται and this verbal form is interpreted in reference to the arrangement of the lyric kola of the Aristophanean text on the pages of the medieval manuscripts as a consequence the ex-pression πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου is assumed to take for granted the word ἀντίγραφα and refer to the Aristophanic colometry displayed by Heliodorus in his ekdosis of the comedies I would rather on the one hand argue that κεκώλισται should be understood in an absolute sense (no less than παραγέγραπται in the same contexts) namely as meaning ldquothe colometry is given described quotedrdquo and on the other hand agree with White 1912 384ndash395 who (after Thiemann 1869 116ndash123) stated that the whole sentence is referring to the metrical descriptions obtained from (ἐκ τῶν) or based on (πρὸς τά for the wording cf πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα in the Euripidean subscriptions mentioned above n 34) Heliodorusrsquo colometric commentaries and amalgamated with annotation of other types see Holwerda 1964 114 and 1967 256ndash258 To be sure it is not imputable to chance that the scholia to Clouds and Peace ndash whose subscriptions in ms Ven Marc gr 474 hand down the name of Heliodorus ndash are the richest in fragments drawn from his metrical commentaries Holwerda 1964 114 with n 4 Be that as it may even if one allows that κεκώλισται refers to the layout of the Aristophanean text adopted in the manuscripts this nei-ther contradicts the statement that παράκειται παραγέγραπται etc refer to nothing more than to the presence of exegetic excerpts resulting from compilation (independently of their position on the page) nor on the other hand does it increase our chance of establishing the chronology of (each of) the operations described in the subscriptions40enspCf Heph Poeumlm 1 κατὰ δύο παραγεγραμμένον ᾆσμα (LSJ sv παραγράφειν I5)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

38emsp emspFausto Montana

i) παραγραφή οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ καὶ γνωρίμου τίθεται παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἰδίως ᾽Ισοκράτης ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς ἀντιδόσεώς (1559) φησιν ldquoλέγε ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς παραγραφῆςrdquo ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τῆς γραμμῆς ἣν μέχρι νῦν παράγραφον καλοῦμεν καὶ ἔστι τὸ λεγόμενον ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρέγραψα τοῦτο δ᾽ ἂν εἴη ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρεθέμην κτλ

παραγραφή it is used not only according to the common acceptation well known in the writings of rhetors (ie ldquoprocedure of exceptionrdquo) but Isocrates in the Antidosis says as is typical of his manner ldquoread aloud starting from the παραγραφήrdquo ie from the line that we still call paragraphos even today the expression means ldquostarting from where I marked the paragraphosrdquo in other words ldquostarting from where I citedrdquo

These semantic observations are not devoid of relevance for interpretation of the subscriptions of the scholiastic corpora and their meaning in relation to the char-acteristics and origin of the scholiographic technique What has been regarded as universally established should be revised to the status of doubtful namely the concept that in exegetic and erudite contexts the preverb παρα- of the compounds παρακεῖσθαι παρατίθεσθαι and παραγράφεσθαι has something to do with where the explanatory excerpta were placed on the page Consequently these verb forms and the subscriptions that contain them should be awarded lesser importance in the quest to discover the times and modes of the origin of scholiography⁴sup1

41enspFor linguistic and paleographic arguments employed in the debate on the meaning and dat-ing of the subscriptions see most recently Montana 2011a 151ndash152 G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 58ndash60 and Lara Pagani this volume

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

On παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαιemsp emsp37

h) Phot Bibl 273 (507b 18) ἀνεγνώσθη ἐκ τῶν τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοδωρήτου λόγων οὓς εἰς τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστομον συνετάξατο ὧν ἡμεῖς πέντε τέως εἴδομεν ἐξ ὧν καί τινας ἐκλογὰς τὰς ὑποτεταγμένας παρεγραψάμεθα

The passage by Photius is particularly significant for the semantic definition of παραγράφειν in the meaning of ldquo c o p y i n g o u t rdquo or ldquo t r a n s c r i b i n g f r o m (a model)rdquo as the verb is constructed with the object ἐκλογάς Also worthy of note is the construction of the predicate with ἐκ + genitive in much of the evi-dence cited (a c e g h) and likewise in the scholiastic subscriptions to indicate the source starting from which a text has been imitated or adapted or extractedsup3⁹

Finally from Harp Lex π 17 Keaney (~ Suda π 320 Adler) one can infer the semantic affinity of παραγράφειν and παρατίθεσθαι with medial value In explain-ing an idiosyncratic use by Isocrates of the term παραγραφή the lexicographer makes use of παραγράφειν with the meaning of ldquomarking with the paragraphos (or paragraphe)rdquo⁴⁰ a text in a roll in order to highlight it for the purpose of the citation This on the one hand documents the virtually synonymous acceptation of the two verbs and on the other it provides a possible and plausible explana-tion of the genesis of this semantic quasi-equivalence

39enspThe same consideration can be extended to the sentence κεκώλισται ἐκ τῶν πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου present in the subscriptions to Aristophanesrsquo Clouds and Peace (above n 33) Here starting with Hense 1870 12ndash16 frequently ldquothe poetic textrdquo is implied as a grammatical subject of κεκώλισται and this verbal form is interpreted in reference to the arrangement of the lyric kola of the Aristophanean text on the pages of the medieval manuscripts as a consequence the ex-pression πρὸς τὰ Ἡλιοδώρου is assumed to take for granted the word ἀντίγραφα and refer to the Aristophanic colometry displayed by Heliodorus in his ekdosis of the comedies I would rather on the one hand argue that κεκώλισται should be understood in an absolute sense (no less than παραγέγραπται in the same contexts) namely as meaning ldquothe colometry is given described quotedrdquo and on the other hand agree with White 1912 384ndash395 who (after Thiemann 1869 116ndash123) stated that the whole sentence is referring to the metrical descriptions obtained from (ἐκ τῶν) or based on (πρὸς τά for the wording cf πρὸς διάφορα ἀντίγραφα in the Euripidean subscriptions mentioned above n 34) Heliodorusrsquo colometric commentaries and amalgamated with annotation of other types see Holwerda 1964 114 and 1967 256ndash258 To be sure it is not imputable to chance that the scholia to Clouds and Peace ndash whose subscriptions in ms Ven Marc gr 474 hand down the name of Heliodorus ndash are the richest in fragments drawn from his metrical commentaries Holwerda 1964 114 with n 4 Be that as it may even if one allows that κεκώλισται refers to the layout of the Aristophanean text adopted in the manuscripts this nei-ther contradicts the statement that παράκειται παραγέγραπται etc refer to nothing more than to the presence of exegetic excerpts resulting from compilation (independently of their position on the page) nor on the other hand does it increase our chance of establishing the chronology of (each of) the operations described in the subscriptions40enspCf Heph Poeumlm 1 κατὰ δύο παραγεγραμμένον ᾆσμα (LSJ sv παραγράφειν I5)

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

38emsp emspFausto Montana

i) παραγραφή οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ καὶ γνωρίμου τίθεται παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἰδίως ᾽Ισοκράτης ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς ἀντιδόσεώς (1559) φησιν ldquoλέγε ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς παραγραφῆςrdquo ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τῆς γραμμῆς ἣν μέχρι νῦν παράγραφον καλοῦμεν καὶ ἔστι τὸ λεγόμενον ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρέγραψα τοῦτο δ᾽ ἂν εἴη ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρεθέμην κτλ

παραγραφή it is used not only according to the common acceptation well known in the writings of rhetors (ie ldquoprocedure of exceptionrdquo) but Isocrates in the Antidosis says as is typical of his manner ldquoread aloud starting from the παραγραφήrdquo ie from the line that we still call paragraphos even today the expression means ldquostarting from where I marked the paragraphosrdquo in other words ldquostarting from where I citedrdquo

These semantic observations are not devoid of relevance for interpretation of the subscriptions of the scholiastic corpora and their meaning in relation to the char-acteristics and origin of the scholiographic technique What has been regarded as universally established should be revised to the status of doubtful namely the concept that in exegetic and erudite contexts the preverb παρα- of the compounds παρακεῖσθαι παρατίθεσθαι and παραγράφεσθαι has something to do with where the explanatory excerpta were placed on the page Consequently these verb forms and the subscriptions that contain them should be awarded lesser importance in the quest to discover the times and modes of the origin of scholiography⁴sup1

41enspFor linguistic and paleographic arguments employed in the debate on the meaning and dat-ing of the subscriptions see most recently Montana 2011a 151ndash152 G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 58ndash60 and Lara Pagani this volume

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM

38emsp emspFausto Montana

i) παραγραφή οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ καὶ γνωρίμου τίθεται παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἰδίως ᾽Ισοκράτης ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς ἀντιδόσεώς (1559) φησιν ldquoλέγε ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς παραγραφῆςrdquo ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τῆς γραμμῆς ἣν μέχρι νῦν παράγραφον καλοῦμεν καὶ ἔστι τὸ λεγόμενον ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρέγραψα τοῦτο δ᾽ ἂν εἴη ἀφ᾽ οὗ παρεθέμην κτλ

παραγραφή it is used not only according to the common acceptation well known in the writings of rhetors (ie ldquoprocedure of exceptionrdquo) but Isocrates in the Antidosis says as is typical of his manner ldquoread aloud starting from the παραγραφήrdquo ie from the line that we still call paragraphos even today the expression means ldquostarting from where I marked the paragraphosrdquo in other words ldquostarting from where I citedrdquo

These semantic observations are not devoid of relevance for interpretation of the subscriptions of the scholiastic corpora and their meaning in relation to the char-acteristics and origin of the scholiographic technique What has been regarded as universally established should be revised to the status of doubtful namely the concept that in exegetic and erudite contexts the preverb παρα- of the compounds παρακεῖσθαι παρατίθεσθαι and παραγράφεσθαι has something to do with where the explanatory excerpta were placed on the page Consequently these verb forms and the subscriptions that contain them should be awarded lesser importance in the quest to discover the times and modes of the origin of scholiography⁴sup1

41enspFor linguistic and paleographic arguments employed in the debate on the meaning and dat-ing of the subscriptions see most recently Montana 2011a 151ndash152 G Cavallo in CavalloDel Corso 2012 58ndash60 and Lara Pagani this volume

Authenticated | faustomontanaunipvit authors copyDownload Date | 102014 414 PM