The Platonic Scholia

Author(s): William Chase Greene

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

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

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

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

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org
184 William Chase Greene [1937

XV.-The Platonic Scholia

WILLIAM CHASE GREENE
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

The purpose of this paper is to present succinctly what is now known

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

I
For somewhat less than a century and a half, portions of
the Platonic scholia have been available in printed form. The
earlier editors, Siebenkees,2 Ruhnken,3 Gaisford,4 and even
Bekker,5 were content to print certain scholia with little at-
tempt to designate precisely the manuscripts from which they
were severally drawn, to distinguish hands, or even to collate
them fully and accurately; nor was any attempt made to
examine the sources of the scholia. The edition of the scholia
which has been most widely used is that of C. F. Hermann,
contained in the sixth volume of his edition of Plato; 6 this is
chiefly a conflation of the work of his predecessors. Since this
edition appeared, Schanz distinguished the hands in the scholia
of the Bodleian Plato,7 and published the scholia in Venetus
T; 8 moreover the sources of the scholia were investigated by
1 Scholia Platonica, contulerunt atque investigaverunt Fredericus de Forest
Allen, Ioannes Burnet, Carolus Pomeroy Parker, omnia recognita, praefatione
indicibusque instructa, edidit Guilielmus Chase Greene. In lucem protulit
Societas Philologica Americana, Haverfordiae in Civitate Pennsylvaniae,
MDCCCCXXXVIII.
2 I. Ph. Siebenkees, Anecdota Graeca (Niirnberg, 1798).
3 D. Ruhnken, Scholia in Platonem (Leyden, 1800).
4 T. Gaisford, Catalogus sive Notitia Manuscriptorum Clarkianorum, pars
prior (Oxford, 1812); Lectiones Platonicae (Oxford, 1820).
5 I. Bekker, Commentaria Critica in Platonem (Berlin, 1823), II 311-473.
6 C. F. Hermann, Platonis Dialogi (Leipzig, 1853, and several times re-
printed), VI 223-396.
7 M. Schanz, Novae Commentationes Platonicae (Wiirzburg, 1871).
8 M. Schanz, Uber den Platocodex der Markusbibliothek in Venedig, Append.

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

 Vol. lxviii] The Platonic Scholia 185

Mettauer 9 and by Cohn 10and others. A fair picture of the

state of knowledge with regard to the Platonic scholia as it
was a generation ago was drawn by Alline in his excellent
work on the history of the Platonic text.1l
Meanwhile the foundation of a new edition of the scholia
had been laid by F. D. Allen, of Harvard, who in 1891-1892
collated with great accuracy the scholia in the Bodleian and
in the Paris manuscripts. Of his collations, J. Burnet, of
St. Andrews, who took over the responsibility for the edition
after his death, wrote as follows: "I do not suppose that any-
thing has ever been collated so minutely." Burnet himself
incorporated the scholia from Venetus T, as well as notes
on the sources of the scholia, based largely on the work of
Mettauer and Cohn. But since he could not find time to
collate the scholia in Vindobonensis W, the importance of
which he now appreciated, or of Vaticanus 0, which had just
been rediscovered by Rabe 12 and discussed by Immisch,l3 the
completion of the task was intrusted to C. P. Parker, of Har-
vard. The necessary collations were made under Parker's
supervision; but Parker himself died, in 1916, before he was
able to deal as he had hoped with this new material. Nearly
twenty years later I undertook to revise the material accumu-
lated by Allen, Burnet, and Parker, and to prepare the edition
for publication, adding a preface and indices.

II
The five Platonic manuscripts whose scholia are of impor-
tance are: Bodleianus (Clarkianus) B, Venetus (MarcianuS) T,
Vindobonensis W, Parisinus A, and Vaticanus 0.
From the subscription of B we know that the manuscript
was written in the year 895 by John the Calligrapher for the
9 T. Mettauer, De Platonis Scholiorum Fontibus (Zurich,
1880).
10L. Cohn, "Untersuchungen fiber die Quellen der Plato-Scholien," Jahrb.
f. cl. Philol., Suppb. 13 (1883), 773-864.
H. Alline, Histoire du Texte de Platon (Paris, 1915), 246-280.
12 H. Rabe, "Die Platon-Handschrift Q", Rhein. Mus. N.F.
63 (1908), 235-
238. 0 Bekker = O Burnet = Vaticanus graecus 1 (olim 796).
13 0. Immisch,
Philologische Studien zu Plato II (Leipzig, 1903), 48-54.
186 William Chase Greene [1937

use of Arethas, later Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia.

It seems probable that it was Arethas himself who corrected
the manuscript, added the titles and the subscription, and
wrote those scholia which are in uncials, as well as certain
scholia to the Gorgias in a slightly different and probably
slightly later hand which agree in general with the scholia
vetera to be found in T and W. All these, so far as B is
concerned, will be here referred to as "Arethas scholia." Four
later minuscule hands, of which the most important is of the
thirteenth century, added numerous further scholia vetera.
The first of the three scribal hands in T, of the twelfth
century or earlier, added in its portion of the manuscript the
scholia, in minuscules, mostly at the same time that it wrote
the text.
Similarly the two hands that wrote the Platonic text of W,
of the tenth and the twelfth or thirteenth centuries respec-
tively, added scholia in minuscules. The first of these scribes
seems to have gained access to scholia, or at least to have used
them, only when he began to copy the Philebus; but after
finishing the text and scholia from the Philebus to the Menexe-
nus he added the scholia also to the earlier part of his manu-
script. The second scribe seems to have added the scholia to
his portion of the manuscript.
The same scribe who in the ninth century wrote and cor-
rected the text of A added scholia and marginalia, partly in
uncials (A) and partly in minuscules (A2); two later scribes,
probably of the tenth or eleventh century (both for conven-
ience to be designated as A3), added marginal supplements and
variant readings which generally agree with those of the third
hand in O (03), but no scholia.
It is now generally recognized that Vaticanus 0, written in
the late ninth or early tenth century, once contained the whole
of the Platonic corpus that is not contained in Bodleianus B,
and that the two manuscripts together thus comprised the
whole Platonic text. It has been shown by L. A. Post 14 that
14L. A. Post, The Vatican Plato and its Relations, Philological Monograph
No. 4 of the A. P. A. (Middletown, Connecticut, 1934), 10-14.
Vol. lxviii] The Platonic Scholia 187

O was copied from A from Laws 746b on, but not in the earlier
portion. The third hand in O (which, with Post, I designate
as 03) in the tenth or eleventh century added scholia and
marginalia, and as far as Laws 746b the readings of the text
of A, as A3 added the readings of the text of 0; after Laws
746b it proves to be the same scribe (A303) who added mar-
ginal supplements in both manuscripts.14a Slightly later, but
still in the tenth or eleventh century, a learned scribe (04)
added many variant readings, mostly designated as coming
from "the book of the Patriarch," or as emendations con-
tained in it, or as coming from other sources; also some emen-
dations of his own, as well as a few scholia, mostly on gram-
matical and rhetorical points. It seems probable that "the
Patriarch" is no one else than the learned Photius himself.
At Laws 743b, moreover, 04 noted the "end of the recension
of the Philosopher Leo" (the pupil of Photius). Indications
of theological interests appear in his citations of Gregory of
Nazianzus and of Origen, and his use of a special sign (r6
?7\XaKOV) to mark scholia dealing with theological points, after
the manner of contemporary Christian commentators on
Christian authors; it should be added, however, that he, like
scribes dealing with pagan authors, elsewhere uses the sign
without any such significance. All this suggests that we have
here the traces of a recension of Plato, made by or for Photius,
which gives us access to an older text tradition than that
represented by A and 0. Most of these readings recorded by
04 have never before been published;15 some of them deserve
to be considered by future editors of the Platonic text.
III
How far the tradition of the Platonic scholia throws light
on the relationships of the extant Platonic manuscripts is a
14aFor examples of this identical hand see the supplements Kaic
ftpa6vkpovs,
Legg. 773c (A fol. 211 recto; 0 fol. 59 verso); roXXicv, Legg. 779e (A fol. 214
recto; O fol. 62 verso). It must be remembered that "A3" represents two
scribes, only one of whom, naturally, is to be identified with "03".
15Rabe published the scholia to Laws I and v only; Burnet, in the fifth
volume of his Oxford text of Plato, made some use of imperfect collations made
by Bekker and Bast.
188 William Chase Greene [1937

question of considerable interest, even though the answer must

be somewhat inconclusive. Immisch, to be sure, printed in
parallel columns the scholia and variant readings to the
Euthyphro, as a sample, and confidently asserted that the
common source of the whole tradition is to be detected in the
scholia as well as in the text.16 But a more careful scrutiny
of the scholia will show that some indeed are preserved in all
the manuscripts, while others appear only in some manu-
scripts, or are reported differently by the several manuscripts.
Certain scholia vetera, for example, appear in B (Arethas), T,
and W alike, all of which manuscripts even exhibit the same
lacuna in a scholium to Theaetetus 194e derived from Proclus.
BTW also agree in reporting the same three syllogisms at
Alcibiades I O10d,112e, and 115a, though Olympiodorus men-
tions ten such syllogisms. Elsewhere, however, they assert
their several individualities. Now it is T that reports a com-
plete scholium, while B retains but a single word of it, and W
nothing at all.17 Of scholia of the same sort, derived for
example from Diogenianus or Tarrhaeus or Timaeus, it is now
T, now W, that alone preserves the tradition, or that preserves
it the more fully. It is T that alone has a right reading,
"Protagoras," in one scholium 18 in which B and W agree in
reporting the impossible "Pythagoras"; and it is T that gives
the most faithful report of the scholia to the Gorgias; yet W
is sometimes alone in having the right reading.19 The scholia
vetera to BTW therefore neither in their agreements nor in
their discrepancies would warrant the conclusion that they all
passed from a single archetype into the several manuscripts
without contamination.
It was held by Burnet that the corrections made by Arethas
in the text of B so often correspond with the readings of W 20
16Immisch, Philol. Stud. II 97.
17Schol. on Ale. I 120a; cf. scholl. on Euthyd. 293d; Euthyphro 3a arexvECS.
18Schol. on Theaet. 159a.
19E.g. scholl. on Gorg. 494e; 496e.
20For a good example, cf. schol. Areth. on Euthyphro 3b bLafaXcv (sic)
BTw: L&afalXXwv B2.
Wt; ev a&XXyftaa&Xcwv
Vol. lxviii] The Platonic Scholia 189

that Arethas must have regarded the original of W as "in

some sense the standard text, and in that case W represents
for us an even older tradition than BT." 21 The original of
W, at any rate, was provided with scholia vetera and variant
readings and deserves to be called a recension. Burnet went
further still: "I should not be surprised, indeed, if W should
prove to be a direct copy of the Patriarch's book, nor even
if that should prove to have come from the Academy." 22
However gratifying such an hypothesis may be, an hypothesis
it must remain. If we confine our attention to the scholia in
W itself, we must note that although W's variant readings are
often good,23W sometimes in a marginal variant reading shares
the glaring error of manuscripts of other families, though its
own text is sound.24
Attempts have been made to show that in the eighth tetral-
ogy T was directly copied from A.25 Jordan in fact attempted
to explain the errors in certain T scholia as arising from the
forms of the letters in the corresponding A scholia. That T
and A are closely related, no one will deny. Some of Jordan's
examples, however, might as easily be explained if A and T
were both copied from a common ancestor.26 The same may
be said of a curious case, not cited by Jordan, at Republic 333e
ELTE TrVKTLKU. Here the scholium standing in A on folio 5 verso

refers the reader to a later scholium to be found "uera 4vXXa

&vo,"which indeed stands on folio 7 verso. The same phe-
nomenon is also found in T, except that at Republic 333e the
reader is quite incorrectly invited to look for his information
"'eurpooOev"; there is no scholium previous to this point on the
matter in question. On Republic 337a, however, there are
21 J. Burnet, "Vindiciae Platonicae I", Class. Quart. vIII (1914), 231; cf.
J. Burnet, Phaedo (Oxford, 1911), lviii.
22Burnet, "Vind. Plat. I," 232.
23E.g. scholl. on Theaet. 148e JeAXeLt(yp. W); Rep. 334b KcKa'OaL(W m.
altera).
24Theaet. 178a 10 #ueXXov W: ,taXXovBT and -yp. W; Symp. 213b 9 rovrl rT
jv TW Oxy.: roUT' eiTrevB, and yp. W.
25 Schanz, Platocodex
78; A. Jordan, Hermes xIII (1878), 480; Alline, 214-216.
26E.g. scholl. on Rep. 373c
avpwcrCv; 383b 7ratv' (sic A).
190 William Chase Greene [1937

two scholia, one of which T preserves (with W for the most

part agreeing), while A preserves the other, and is in close
agreement for the most part with Photius. What we seem to
have, therefore, is a case in which TW preserve the scholium
vetus, while in A it has been crowded out by a note drawn
from Photius. Moreover there are many cases in which T
(often with W agreeing) reports a scholium correctly, while
A reports it either erroneously or not at all.26a I conclude
that the evidence, of the scholia at least, is against T having
been copied from A.
It has been argued by F. Lenz that O not only is the com-
plement of B but, like B, was written by John the Calligrapher
for Arethas, who himself added scholia.27 But the hand of the
text in O is quite different from that of B; T. W. Allen goes so
far as to say: " No two hands in the world are so unlike as that
of John the writer of the Clarke Plato and the divided Aristides
and that of the unnamed writer of Vat. 1." 28 I may add
that the hand that wrote most of the true scholia in O (03)
is quite different from that which wrote the Arethas scholia
in B, and never ends its notes with the leaflike flourish with
which Arethas often ends his scholia; moreover that the true
scholia of the Vaticanus (03) regularly correspond to those
of the original scribe of the Parisinus (A and A2), and very
seldom have anything of the nature of the Bodleian Arethas
scholia, while its supplements and variant readings agree, as
I have said, with the later scribe or scribes in the Parisinus
(A3); furthermore that 03 has no scholia of his own, as Arethas
has; and finally that whereas 03 and A2 together, and 04 alone,
often copy words or phrases of the text in the margin, without
any scholium (as does T occasionally, and W practically
26a E.g. scholl. on Rep. 329e; 347a; 357b; 360e rTrv 6e Kpiav; 362d; 379d

fiovlSpwarLs.
27F. Lenz, "Der Vaticanus Gr. 1, eine Handschrift des Arethas", Nach-
richten von der k6niglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Philol.-
Hist. K1. (1933), 192-218b, + 4 plates; cf. F. Lenz, Philol. Wochenschrift LIII
(1933), coll. 1403-1408; Gnomon xII (1936), 128-134.
28 T. W. Allen, The Year's Work in Classical Studies (1934), 71.
Vol. Ixviii] The Platonic Scholia 191

never), this phenomenon is to be found only once in B, and

then in a unique hand.29 I conclude that 0 cannot possibly
have been written by John, and that its scholia owe nothing
to Arethas.
IV
The Platonic scholia are of many different kinds, from many
different sources, and they vary greatly in their value. For
the analysis and interpretation of the Platonic thought the
scholia vetera contribute much that is of considerable interest,
derived chiefly from the commentaries of Proclus, Olympio-
dorus, and other Neoplatonists. Terms are defined, argu-
ments are neatly schematized,30 and random comments throw
light on special points. However it cannot be maintained that
the Platonic scholia are as helpful in this respect as they should
be, or indeed that they are as important as are the commen-
taries and scholia on many other ancient authors, such as
Aristotle. Other Platonic scholia, dealing with lexicography,
are derived from ancient lexica, such as the Platonic lexicon
of the sophist Timaeus, the works of the Atticists Aelius
Dionysius and Pausanias, and the lexicon of Diogenianus, the
latter appearing sometimes in a fuller form in the scholia than
in Hesychius Alexandrinus and in the Byzantine lexica. All
this material was supposed by Mettauer to have been com-
piled by a single scholiast, though not subjected to thorough
recension, not long after the closing of the philosophic schools,
and to have been entered in the archetype of all our manu-
scripts, which he believed to have been written possibly as
late as 400.31 But Sauppe showed that certain scholia vetera
had found their way into even earlier manuscripts.32 More-
over the numerous paroemiographical scholia probably come
from the complete work of Lucillus Tarrhaeus, of the first
century, rather than from such second-century epitomators as
29 Schol.on Parm. 141d 6 X6yosaLpel.
30 The schemata, representing logical relationships and family trees of per-
sons, are now published in full for the first time.
31Mettauer. 113.
32 H. Sauppe, Gottingischegelehrte
Anzeigen II (1881), 1626-1632.
192 William Chase Greene [1937

Zenobius and Diogenianus, and thus may have found their

way into Platonic manuscripts as early as the first century.33
Some of the biographical scholia represent Hesychius Milesius
in a fuller version than does Suidas; others come from earlier
writers. On the other hand, Cohn proved that most of the
scholia on grammatical points were compiled not earlier than
the Byzantine renaissance in the ninth century; quite possibly
these were the work of a single scholiast, who used materials
which were later utilized also by the compilers of the extant
Byzantine lexica.34 Some, at least, of the geographical scholia
also seem to have received their present form in the Byzantine
age, even if they are derived from much earlier sources.35
The scholia vetera therefore are a mosaic in which pieces
of various ages were gathered at different times. Most of the
scholia culled from ancient commentaries, lexica, and authors,
were probably gathered by the sixth century; they were ampli-
fied in the eighth or ninth century, possibly under the influence
of Photius, by the addition of matter derived from Byzantine
lexicographical, historical, and geographical works. But there
are some scholia whose sources remain unknown, and some
which may have been composed at any time between the
second and the ninth century. Still later additions were made
by Arethas, a few by the learned scribe in the Vaticanus (04),
and a negligible number by even later scribes.
Though the scholia of Arethas are not of great importance
for the Platonist, except as they draw, like the scholia vetera,
from ancient commentaries, they reveal the mind and the
interests of a well-read archbishop of the early tenth century.
As in annotating other authors, so in dealing with Plato
Arethas has a way of mingling his own comments with mate-
rial from other sources. From time to time he quotes authors
whom he has read: Strabo, Pollux, Suetonius, Callimachus.
His citations from the comic poets may prove that he read
them, or they may have been in the archetype of his manu-
33Cohn, 836-852.
34Cohn, 774-781; 813-836.
35Alline, 273-276.
Vol. lxviii] The Platonic Scholia 193

script. His grammatical comments are partly borrowed and

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

V
The Platonic scholia are of further value as they provide
testimonia for the text of authors other than Plato. A few
examples must suffice here; scholars with special interests
will be able to cull much more. Interesting traces are to
be found of really old Platonic commentaries which throw
light on lexicography, music, mythology, and even philosophic
thought.38 Frequently the scholia preserve traces of lost
commentaries, or of lost portions of extant commentaries, of
Proclus and Olympiodorus;39 sometimes they condense the
extant comment of these authors.40 Often the scholia pre-
serve lost portions of ancient lexica, such as those of Didymus,41
the Atticists,42 Diogenianus (preserved less fully, if at all, by
Hesychius Alexandrinus),43 Boethus,44 or unknown lexicogra-
35a Schol. Areth. on Symp. 172a.
36Schol. Areth. on Cratyl. 413a.
37 Schol. Areth. on Theaet. 172c.
38E.g. scholl. on Apol. 19b avTcopuoalav;27c ev rT avrLypaq^; Alc. II 147c
b0OovepoD; Rep. 388d elrtrXjretev; 392b OVKODVkad KTX.; 440b rod roLTOroV;443d
vearrs re KaZL 6 'A5pao'rLav; 453d 8EXcrva; Twva; 487b
vTrarrs7;451a 7rpocaKvWvp
rp6s luev 7aOra; 498a rod 'HpaKXetreiOv ovo; 509c 'yeXolws (1).
39Scholl. on Theaet. 155b; Rep. 546a (two scholl.); 546b; 587d; Soph., at
beginning; Legg. 629a Tbpratov;630a eoyYOPv.
40E.g. schol. on Phaed. 61d, on Philolaus.
41 Schol. on Euthyd. 303a 7rv?r7r&.
42Scholl. on Parm. 127a IIavaOrOvaLa;127b 7raL&Ka.
43Scholl. on Symp. 190d a&KWXLa&oaovres;191d cOrraL; 213e tVKTripa; Charm.
153c T-tLLKC,; Phileb. 66d ro rptrov rT owriTpt (cf. on Rep. 583b).
44 Scholl. on Polit. 307c /XacKL&a; Phileb. 56e revraCobvrcv.
194 William Chase Greene [1937

phers; 45of the paroemiographical work of Tarrhaeus; 46 of the

biographical work of Hesychius Milesius (unless some of these
come from other sources); 47and of unknown writers on myth-
ology, among them the source of pseudo-Apollodorus.48 The
scholia not infrequently furnish testimonia for the epic cycle 49
and for the lyric poets,50 for tragedy 5 and comedy,52 and,
rarely, for other authors, such as Aristotle,53 Theophrastus,54
45Schol. on Euthyphro 5a avroaxE&&taovTa.
46Scholl. on Phileb. 45e /u77v &yav; 48c -yjpOt aavT6v; Cratyl. 384b aXeora Tar
KaXa;Phaed. 99c (also Polit. 300c and Phileb. 19c) bebrepov7rXov; Phaed. 108d
Texv); Phaedr. 260c 7repL
rXaLKovu ovov aKLas;Charm. 165a ^7yyyl,7r&pa5' air1;
Rep. 337a aapa&vLov.
47Scholl. on Phaedr. 244b Zl3vXXav (1), a long and interesting scholium;
Ale. I 118e TCrIIepK\Xivs e6; Menex. 235e 'Aaraoarav; Rep. 599d AvKOVpyov;
599e Xapcv5oav; 599e 26Xova; 600a OaXeco; 600a 'AvaxAp-ios; 600b Hveay6pas;
600b KpecovXos; 600c IIpcrayopas; 600c Ip6rKos; Epist. 320a Aicovl 2paKoaTo;
scholl. Areth. on Euthyphro lic Aat&hXov;Apol. 18b 'AvuroV; 19c 'Ap&froaivovs;
20e XaLpe4c&va; 23e M(X7ros.
Rep. 399e 7rpbMapabov; 590a 'EptcXb; 611d rTv aXaTrrLOv
48 Scholl. on

rXavKov; Tim. 23e ris re Kai 'Halo-rTov;24e Ebpc&r7v;Min. 315c 'AO&jtavros.

49 Stasinus, Cypria, fr. xxiii Allen; but see Burnet's emendation of the text
in his Oxford text of Plato, and in the new edition of the scholia. (Schol. on
Euthyphro 12b.)
50Tyrtaeus 4, 3 Diehl (schol. on Legg. 629a; cf. on Alc. I 122d); Alcaeus 66
Diehl (schol. on Symp. 217e oivos); Solon 21 Diehl (schol. on IIepi AtKalov374a);
Carm. Pop. 17 Diehl (schol. on Legg. 633a); Riddle of Clearchus (?), Diehl I
264 (schol. on Rep. 479c); Attic Scolia 7 Diehl (schol. on Gorg.451e); Anth. Pal.
ix 366 (schol. on Protag. 343a); ix 358 (Phaedo, before text); Orphic Hymn
(O. Kern, OrphicorumFragmenta, p. 91; schol. on Legg. 715e).
51Sophocles, frag. 330 Pearson (schol. on Charm. 154b); frag. 425 Pearson
(schol. on Phileb. 66d; cf. on Rep. 583b); Ion, frag. 55 T.G.F. (schol. on Alc. i
129a bohce7ravros elvac); Euripides, frag. 183 T.G.F. (schol. on Gorg. 484e
XajuArpbPre).
52Cratinus, 231 Kock (schol. on Apol. 22a v7 rTbvKbVVa); Eupolis, Autolycus
49 Kock (schol. on Critias 116c; cf. on Rep. 461a; Legg. 879c); Maricas 180
Kock (schol. on Phaed. 60b arorov); Aristophanes, Babyl. 77 Kock (schol. on
Phaed. 101d); Alexis, 268 Kock (schol. on Menex. 242e); Menander, 724 Kock
(schol. on Cratyl. 384b). There is also a line from Xenophon Comicus, whom
the editors ignore (scholion on Phaedrus 240c).
53Aristotle, 'AO.IIoX., frag. 3 Kenyon (schol. on Ax. 371d; cf. on Phileb. 30e;
Legg. 878d).
54For Theophrastus, cf. schol. on Legg. 631c ob rvuXo6s. The matter is not
in Wimmer's edition.
Vol. lxviii] The Platonic Scholia 195

and Plotinus.55 Sometimes the scholia actually furnish the

sole testimonium for a given text, or for identifying it.

VI
The Platonic scholia may still be consulted with profit and
often with pleasure for the information that they give on a
very wide range of subjects, quite apart from their bearing on
Plato. The student of Greek religion will wish, for example,
to consider the evidence of the scholium, apparently from a
lost commentary of Proclus, on the Greater and the Lesser
Mysteries of Eleusis,56 or those on the cults of Hestia 57 and
Artemis Orthosia,58 and on the various divinities worshipped
with the epithet Evo6tos.58a He may be interested in the oracu-
lar distichs from Delphi on the involuntary homicide and on
the man who would not die for his friend.59 The historian of
Greek literature will find something worth reading in the
scholia (again possibly from Proclus) on dithyramb, tragedy,
and comedy; 60 the note, from an Attic lexicon, on the use at
Athens of drinking songs or scolia; 61 the definition of irony; 62
or the remark about the term ,iopAuoXvKetov as applied to an
actor's mask.63 The historian will welcome the biographical
information that the scholia seem to have borrowed from
Hesychius Milesius.64 Our knowledge of Greek mythology is
here and there enriched by scholia derived from sources not
elsewhere preserved; for example, with regard to the myth of
the children of Athamas and the naming of the Hellespont,65
65For Plotinus, cf. schol. on Rep. 498b jLELpaKLWSrl
raL6elav.
66Schol. on Gorg. 497c.
67Scholl. on Euthyphro 3a; Cratyl. 401d.
S8 Schol. on Legg. 633b.
68aSchol, on Legg. 914b.
69Schol. on Legg. 865b.
60Two scholl. on Rep. 394c.
61 Schol. on Gorg. 451e oKoXL6v.
62Schol. on Rep. 337a.
63Schol. on Ax. 364b.
64 See above, pp. 193f, notes 35a and 47.
66Schol. on Menex.
243a; cf. on Min. 315c.
196 William Chase Greene [1937

or as to Scylla and Charybdis,66 or as to the lore of the hal-

cyon.67 Our knowledge of Greek games is enlarged by a
scholium on TrerTrLa; 68 of some interest are the verses on the
four great athletic festivals of Greece, the patrons, and the
prizes; 69 and there is an interesting note on the Spartan
Kpv7rrela and the training of Spartan boys.70
These varied examples I have noted in the course of casual
browsing in the Platonic scholia; with the help of the new
indices and the notes on sources it will be easy for specialists
to find what they wish, and to determine how far the scholia
throw new light on their special interests, and how far they
are the gossip of irresponsible pedants. But perhaps I have
cited enough to warrant the suggestion that among the minor
uses of the Platonic scholia is the possibility of their being
actually read. Possibly they deserve a place near the Noctes
Atticae as a bedside book.
66 Schol.on Epist. 345e.
67The long schol. preceding the Halcyon.
68Schol. on Legg. 820c.
69Schol. on Legg. 950e.
70Schol. on Legg. 633b.