The origin of the Aristophanic glossary notes

In the literature on the Vienna manuscript,³⁴² it is only István Kapitánffy, who touches upon³⁴³ the question of the origin and textual tradition of the

342 For an overview of the literature dealing with the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 see pages 16-20.

343 See Kapitánffy 1995: 355-356.

Aristophanic glossary notes, more precisely that of the glossary notes quoting scholia to the play Nubes.³⁴⁴ Using the textual editions of the scholia vetera³⁴⁵ and scholia recentiora³⁴⁶ to Nubes, he finds out that the majority of the marginalia quoting scholia to Nubes are taken from Demetrius Triclinius’s second redac-tion of the scholia or are closely related to it at least. He also recognizes that some of these marginalia are quoted from the group called “anonyma recenti-ora” by Koster in his 1974 edition. From these observations Kapitánffy reaches the conclusion that the person who added these marginalia to the Greek-Latin dictionary must have used a codex containing the two Aristophanic plays, i.e.

Nubes and Plutus together with the scholia, and the scholia in this hypotheti-cal codex must have been taken from the second Triclinian edition, although some of the scholia must have had another origin there.

I have attempted to collect and identify all the marginal notes quoting Aristophanic scholia in the Greek-Latin dictionary: these marginal notes can be found in the appendix section.³⁴⁷ I also collated these glossary notes with the textual editions of the relevant Aristophanic scholia (Koster 1974 and Holwerda 1977 for Nubes; Chantry 1994 and 1996 for Plutus): the matching scholia are indicated in brackets after each Aristophanic glossary note in the related ap-pendices. In several instances, however, differences can be detected between the marginalia and the related scholia: in these cases the abbreviation cf. (= compare) is used in front of the indication of the scholia in parentheses, which means that the marginal note does not agree with the indicated scholion precisely, but seems to be closely related to it. At the same time, it is important to bear in mind that at times precise collation of the marginal notes and the Aristophanic scholia is not possible, since the glosses do not always reproduce the scholia in direct quotation: this case can be well illustrated with the phenomenon when the Greek scholia appear partly or completely in Latin translation.³⁴⁸

344 Kapitánffy excluded the marginalia quoting scholia to Plutus from his examination of the textual traditon of the Aristophanic scholia since when he prepared his paper published in 1995 the modern editions of the scholia vetera and scholia recentiora to Plutus were still not available to him, cf. Kapitánffy 1995: 355. The edition of the scholia vetera to Plutus was published with the date 1994, while the scholia recentiora were published two years later, in 1996 – both textual editions were edited by Marcel Chantry.

345 Holwerda 1977.

346 Koster 1974.

347 Appendices IV Glossary Notes Quoting Scholia to Nubes and V Glossary Notes Quoting Scholia to Plutus on pp. 215-262.

348 The question of glossary notes containing Aristophanic scholia in partial or complete Latin translation is discussed on p. 112.

On the basis of the collation of the marginalia and the scholia to Nubes, it can be stated that on the whole István Kapitánffy was right in claiming that the majority of these glossary notes take their origin or are at least closely related to the scholia of the second Triclinian edition, while some of them rather originate from a group of scholia called “anonyma recentiora” by their editor, Koster. The results gained from the thorough collation, might, however, make Kapitánffy’s result based on the collation of scholia chosen at random more precise. Approximately 73% of the glossary notes take their origin from the second Triclinian redaction³⁴⁹ of the Nubes scholia. While the second Triclinian edition shows agreement either with the first and/or second Thoman versions³⁵⁰ of the Nubes scholia or with the first Triclinian version³⁵¹ several times, a third of these 73% agrees exclusively with the second Triclinian version, which suggests that the second Triclinian redac-tion is to be regarded as the ultimate source of these glossary notes within the Thoman-Triclinian corpus of scholia to Nubes. Approximately 22% of the glossary notes quoting scholia to Nubes can be traced back to the group iden-tified as “anonyma recentiora” in Koster’s textual edition.³⁵² The marginalia within this group in about half of the cases show remarkable agreement with a single manuscript, cod. Parisinus Gr. 2827, indicated as Par³⁵³ in the textual edition. Finally, a few of these marginal notes seem to go back to the scholia

349 In Koster’s 1974 textual edition the second Triclinian redaction (TR²) was edited on the basis of the following manuscripts: cod. Vaticanus Gr. 1294 (14^th c.), cod. Oxoniensis Bodleyanus Holkhamensis Gr. 88 (15^th c.), codicis compositi Cantabrigiensis Bibl. Publ. Nn. 3, 15 alter codex (15^th c.), cod. Vindobonensis Phil. Gr. 163 (14^th c.), cod. Laurentiano-Vaticanus (Laur.

31, 22 partim et Vat. Gr. 61 partim; 14^th c.), cod. Ambrosianus L 41 sup. (15^th c.), cod. Parisinus Coislinianus 192 (14^th c.); cf. Koster 1974: XXV-XXXVII (details) and CXXVI (overview).

350 In the 1974 textual edition by Koster the first Thoman version of the Nubes scholia was edi-ted on the basis of the following codex: codicis compositi Cantabrigiensis Bibl. Publ. Nn. 3, 15 prioris codicis pars vetus (14^th c.), while for the second Thoman redaction the following codices were used: cod. Venetus Marcianus 472 (14^th c.), cod. Cremonensis 171 (14^th c.), cod.

Parisinus 2820 (14^th c.), cod. Vaticanus 57 (14^th c.); cf. Koster 1974: V-XX (details) and CXXVI (overview).

351 In Koster’s 1974 textual edition the first Triclinian redaction is based on the cod. Parisinus Suppl. Gr. 463 (14^th c.); cf. Koster 1974: XX-XXV (details) and CXXVI (overview).

352 The scholia edited as “anonyma recentiora” were based on various groups of codices that are listed under the headings “Mixti et contaminati” and “Scholia Leidensia” in the section Codicum conspectus, cf. Koster 1974: CXXVI-CXXVII. For details on these manuscripts see Koster 1974: XLVIII-XCII.

353 For a description of the manuscript see Koster 1974: LXIII-LXV.

vetera to Nubes (appr. 2.5%),³⁵⁴ while some other marginalia take their origin from the scholia written by Joannes Tzetzes (appr. 2%).³⁵⁵

The majority (approximately 71%) of the glossary notes quoting scholia to Plutus can be found in the edition of scholia recentiora to Aristophanes’s Plutus by M. Chantry:³⁵⁶ these marginalia either show stricter textual agreement or are closely related to the scholia published there. Usually these glossary notes tend to agree with the Thoman-Triclinian corpus,³⁵⁷ although in several cases they are rather related to the versions found in other groups of codices containing the scholia: in the so-called “codices mixti,”³⁵⁸ or in the codices already used for the edition of the scholia vetera (“codices iam ad scholia vetera edenda adhibiti”)³⁵⁹ or in the codices of the so-called scholia Leidensia.³⁶⁰ There are only a few instances (glossary notes added to 34v 9; 89v 18 and 134r 20) where the glossary notes show agreement exclusively with the versions of the second Triclinian recension. Although the proportion of these glossary notes is much lower than in the case of the glossary notes quoting scholia to Nubes, one might assume on the basis of the analogy of the Aristophanic glossary notes that the marginalia quoting Plutus scholia should also be ulti-mately traced back to the second Triclinian recension in the same way as the marginalia quoting Nubes scholia. A significant part (approximately 20%) of the glossary notes quoting Plutus scholia cannot be found among the scholia recentiora edited by Chantry, but are present among the scholia edited earlier by Dübner.³⁶¹ Finally, in a few cases, the marginalia seem to show agreement either with the scholia vetera edited by Chantry³⁶² or with Joannes Tzetzes’s

354 For a list and description of the codices used for the textual edition of the scholia vetera to Nubes see Holwerda 1977: III-X.

355 The scholia to Nubes by Joannes Tzetzes were edited by Holwerda 1960.

356 Chantry 1996.

357 The list of codices of the Thoman and Triclinian recensions can be found in Chantry 1996:

XI; for details on these manuscripts see Chantry 1996: XIII-XIX.

358 The so-called “codices mixti” are listed in Chantry 1996: XI; for details on these manuscripts see Chantry 1996: XIX-XXIII.

359 These manuscripts are listed in Chantry 1996: XI-XII; for details see Chantry 1996: XXIII-XXIV.

360 These codices are listed in Chantry 1996: XII; for details see Chantry 1996: XXIV-XXV.

361 See Dübner 1883: 323-387.

362 For the list of the codices used for the critical edition of the scholia vetera see Chantry 1994:

X; for details on the codices see Chantry 1994: XI-XIX. A new edition of the scholia vetera to Plutus is also available in Chantry 2009 together with French translation and commentary.

scholia edited by Massa Positano³⁶³ – the proportion is less than 5% regarding the scholia vetera and the Tzetzes scholia respectively.